![Sample our Humanities journals, sign in here to start your FREE access for 14 days]({"type":"image" , "src" : "/sda/5939/TOC-Subject-Sample-2021-Humanities.jpg"})
Abstract
Extant research presents a conflicting picture of change dynamics during institutional discontinuities. Some studies propose or depict formal rules as changing first. Others argue that norms need to change before formal rules can be revisited, let alone change. An examination of the literature suggests a contingency theory. In mature organisational fields with institutionalised informal rules, norms need to be questioned and changed before any change in formal rules can take place. On the other hand, in emergent organisational fields – where no particular rules of the game have been institutionalised ‒ change in higher-level institutions begins with a change in formal rules. The article also presents two historical cases of major institutional change in professional American baseball that illustrate the theory proposed.
Notes
An earlier version of this paper appeared in the Academy of Management Proceedings.
1. Waylen, “Informal Institutions.”
2. Haveman and Rao, “Moral Sentiments”; Thornton and Ocasio, “Institutional Logics”; Greenwood and Suddaby, “Institutional Entrepreneurship”; Ramirez, “Quality Control.”
3. Oliver, “Antecedents”; Nee and Opper, Capitalism from Below; Vaccaro and Palazzo, “Institutional Change.”
4. Chacar and Celo, “Anthropological Approach”; Chacar and Hesterly, “Innovation, Value Creation.”
5. Holmes et al., “Interrelationships.”
6. Bowles and Naidu, “Persistent Institutions.”
7. Suddaby, “Challenges”; Suddaby et al., “Historical Institutionalism,” 100.
8. Atherton and Newman, “Emergence”; Barley and Tolbert, “Institutionalization”; Butzbach, “Thrifts”; Chacar and Hesterly, “Institutional Settings”; Suddaby et al., “Historical Institutionalism.”
9. Scott, “The Adolescence”; Rowlinson, Organisations and Institutions.
10. North, Institutions, 3; Rowlinson, Organisations and Institutions, 83; Williamson, “New Institutional Economics,” 598.
11. Hodgson, “What are Institutions”; Rowlinson, Organisations and Institutions; North, Institutions; Scott, Institutions and Organizations Theory.
12. Jepperson, “Institutions, Institutional Effects,” 149.
13. Meyer and Rowan, ‘Institutionalized Organizations,” 343.
14. Scott, “The Adolescence,” 497; Meyer and Rowan, ‘Institutionalized Organizations,” 344.
15. North, Institutions; Oliver, “Competitive Advantage.”
16. North, Institutions, 83.
17. Berger and Luckman, Social Construction of Reality; Zucker, “Institutionalization.”
18. Smets et al., “Practice-driven Institutional Change”; Waylen, “Informal Institutions”, Scott, Institutions and Organizations: Ideas.
19. Grzymala-Busse, “Best Laid Plans”; North, Institutions; Roland, “Institutional Change.”
20. E.g. Rao et al., “Institutional Change.”
21. Edelman, “Legal Ambiguity.”
22. Garud et al., “Institutional Entrepreneurship.”
23. Butzbach, “Thrifts.”
24. Seo and Creed, “Institutional Contradictions.”
25. Greenwood and Suddaby, “Institutional Entrepreneurship.”
26. Maguire et al., “Institutional Entrepreneurship.”
27. Dobbin, “Origins”; Sahlin and Wedlin, “Circulating Ideas”; Smets et al., “Practice-driven Institutional Change.”
28. Waylen, “Informal Institutions,” 217.
29. Ramirez, “Quality Control.”
30. Vaccaro and Palazzo, “Institutional Change.”
31. E.g. Lounsbury et al., “Social Movements”; North, Institutions; Ramirez, “Quality Control.”
32. Haveman and Rao, “Moral Sentiments.”
33. Thornton and Ocasio, “Institutional Logics.”
34. Lounsbury et al., “Social Movements.”
35. Waylen, “Informal Institutions.”
36. Larson, Rise of Professionalism; Muzio et al., “Professions and Institutional Change.”
37. North, Institutions, 6.
38. Tsai, “Adaptive Informal Institutions,” 128.
39. Vaccaro and Palazzo, “Institutional Change.”
40. Zucker, “Institutional Theories of Organization.”
41. Musselin and Paradeise, “Incremental Transitions”; Roland, “Institutional Change”; Vaccaro and Palazzo, “Institutional Change.”
42. Davis and Thompson, “Social Movement Perspective.”
43. Soule, “Diffusion of an Unsuccessful Innovation.”
44. Oliver, “Antecedents.”
45. Nayak and Maclean, “Co-evolution.”
46. Wright and Zammuto, “Institutional Change.”
47. Vaccaro and Palazzo, “Institutional Change.”
48. Holmes et al., “Interrelationships.”
49. Holst, “Commodifying Institutions.”
50. North, Institutions; Williamson, “New Institutional Economics.”
51. North, Institutions, 40.
52. Williamson, “New Institutional Economics,” 597.
53. Fiori, “Alternative Visions”; Suddaby, “Challenges”; Suddaby et al., “Historical Institutionalism.”
54. DiMaggio and Powell, “Institutional Isomorphism,” 148–9.
55. Maguire et al., “Institutional Entrepreneurship”; Scott, “Conceptualizing Organizational Fields.”
56. DiMaggio and Powell, “Institutional Isomorphism”; Greenwood and Suddaby, “Institutional Entrepreneurship”; Greenwood et al., ‘Professional Associations.”
57. DiMaggio and Powell, “Institutional Isomorphism.”
58. Maguire et al., “Institutional Entrepreneurship.”
59. Gray, “Conditions Facilitating Interorganizational Collaboration,” 912.
60. Lawrence et al., “Interorganizational Collaboration.”
61. Hardy, “Under-organized Interorganizational Domains.”
62. Zucker, “Institutionalization”; Trist, “Referent Organizations.”
63. Jepperson, “Institutions, Institutional Effects.”
64. Wright and Zammuto, “Institutional Change.”
65. Tsai, “Adaptive Informal Institutions.”
66. Grzymala-Busse, “Best Laid Plans.”
67. Chacar and Celo, “Anthropological Approach.”
68. Greenwood and Suddaby, “Institutional Entrepreneurship.”
69. Azari and Smith, “Informal Institutions.”
70. Battilana et al., “Theory of Institutional Entrepreneurship.”
71. Berkowitz et al., “The Transplant Effect”; Tsai, “Adaptive Informal Institutions.”
72. Lounsbury et al., “Social Movements.” The authors discuss the emergence of the US recycling industry and the role a formal change (Resource Conservation and Recovery Act of 1976) played in the de-institutionalisation of the old waste-to-energy framing. Such formal change was introduced within a context characterised by the discussion of a broad array of possible complements to landfilling and also comparisons of non-profit voluntary recycling efforts with for-profit recycling models.
73. Azari and Smith, “Informal Institutions.”
74. Tsai, “Adaptive Informal Institutions.”
75. Lounsbury et al., “Social Movements.”
76. DiMaggio and Powell, “Institutional Isomorphism”; Phillips et al., “Inter-organizational Collaboration.”
77. Maclean et al., “Conceptualizing Historical Organization Studies.”
78. Barley and Tolbert, “Institutionalization and Structuration”; Dacin et al., “Institutional Theory”; Suddaby and Greenwood, “Methodological Issues.”
79. Decker et al., “New Business Histories,” 35.
80. Rowlinson et al., “Research Strategies,” 258; Decker et al., “New Business Histories,” 32; Yates, “Understanding Historical Methods,” 274.
81. Recorded detailed accounts of baseball games started to appear in letters and newspapers in the first half of the nineteenth century, as well as details of clubs’ business meetings and eventually events happening at leagues’ meetings (“Baseball History: Nineteenth Century Baseball: The Game.” Retrieved January 15, 2017. http://www.19cbaseball.com/game.html). By the second half of the century, detailed accounts of teams were available, including their names, their members and board composition in every season, the games they played, their dates and opponents (e.g. Peverelly, The Book of American Pastimes). Many team-specific books were also published starting from that period (e.g. Wright, Record of the Boston Base Ball Club).
82. E.g. Langley, “Strategies Theorizing Process Data”; Pentland, “Building Process Theory”; Rao et al., “Institutional Change.”
83. Seymour, Baseball: The Early Years, 109.
84. Ward, “Base-Ball Player a Chattel?”; The Baseball Blue Book.
85. Chacar and Celo, “Anthropological Approach”; Chacar and Hesterly, “Innovation”; Chacar and Hesterly, “Institutional Settings.”
86. Federal Baseball Club v. National League 259 U.S. 200 (1922).
87. Rowlinson et al., “Research Strategies,” 255.
88. Kipping et al., “Analyzing and Interpreting,” 313.
89. Lipartito, “Historical Sources and Data,” 289.
90. Kipping et al., “Analyzing and Interpreting,” 314.
91. Kipping et al., “Analyzing and Interpreting,” 313; Lipartito, “Historical Sources and Data,” 289.
93. https://www.loc.gov/.
101. Meyer and Rowan, “Institutionalized Organizations.”
102. DiMaggio and Powell, “Institutional Isomorphism.”
103. Chacar and Celo, “Anthropological Approach.”
105. Burk, Never Just a Game, 12; Peverelly, The Book of American Pastimes, 338, Ward, Base-ball, 15.
106. See for example Bowen, History of the Thirty-seventh Regiment, 260.
107. Peverelly, The Book of American Pastimes, 338.
108. Peverelly, The Book of American Pastimes, 357.
109. Peverelly, The Book of American Pastimes, 365.
110. Peverelly, The Book of American Pastimes, 378.
111. Baughman, “Baseball: Segregation.”
112. Spalding’s Official Baseball Guide 1881, 9–10.
113. Voigt, American Baseball, Vol. I, 36–7.
114. Voigt, America through Baseball
115. Seymour, Baseball: The Early Years, 60–71, 75.
116. Voigt, American Baseball, Vol. I.
117. Rader, Baseball, 47–8.
118. Seymour, Baseball: The Early Years, 77, 80.
119. “Constitution 1878,” 19.
120. Spalding’s Official Baseball Guide 1884, 41.
121. Spalding’s Official Baseball Guide 1884, 42.
122. New York Times, August 11, 1878.
123. Seymour, Baseball: The Early Years, 108.
124. Spalding’s Official Baseball Guide 1884, 42–3.
125. Cincinnati Enquirer, August 12, 1880; Seymour, Baseball: The Early Years, 112.
126. Ward, “Base-ball Player a Chattel?,” 313.
127. Seymour, Baseball: The Early Years.
128. Voigt, American Baseball, Vol. I; Stayton, “Baseball Jurisprudence.”
129. Chadwick, Baseball Guide 1896, 114; White, Creating the National Pastime.
130. Spalding, America’s National Game, 213.
131. Chadwick, Baseball Guide 1896, 9.
132. Ward, Base-ball, 30.
133. Ward, “Base-ball Player a Chattel?,” 314.
134. Spalding’s Official Baseball Guide 1884, 28.
135. Voigt, American Baseball, Vol. I.
136. Seymour, Baseball: The Golden Age, 10.
137. Voigt, American Baseball, Vol. I.
138. Burk, Never Just a Game, 58.
139. Metropolitan Exhibition Co. v. Ewing, 42 F. 198 (S.D.N.Y. 1890).
140. Stayton, “Baseball Jurisprudence.”
141. Federal Baseball Club v. National League 259 U.S. 200 (1922).
142. 15 U.S.C. §§ 1–7 (1890).
143. Federal Baseball Club v. National League 259 U.S. 200 (1922).
144. Chacar and Hesterly, “Institutional Settings”; Rottenberg, “The Baseball Players’ Labor Market.”
145. Chacar and Hesterly, “Institutional settings.”
146. The Players League formed in 1890 by the players was one such attempt by players to organise but failed within a year. The Brotherhood of Professional Base Ball Player followed, founded a group of players in 1885. The Protective Association founded in 1900, met with strong resistance from team owners and folded once the new league or American League teamed up with the National League in 1903. The Fraternity of Professional Baseball Players of America, which was organised in 1912, had even more modest goals and accomplishments and was also short-lived; and finally there was the American Baseball Guild in 1946 (http://www.mlbplayers.com/ViewArticle.dbml?DB_OEM_ID=34000&ATCLID=211042995; http://www.baseball-reference.com/bullpen/Brotherhood_of_Professional_Baseball_Players), whose main accomplishment perhaps was to sow the seeds for the Major League Baseball Players Association (MLBPA) formed in 1954 (Dworkin, Owners versus Players, 28).
147. Miller, A Whole Different Ballgame, 6.
148. Dworkin, Owners versus Players, 32; Lewis Smart Ball.
149. Miller, A Whole Different Ballgame, 52; Heylar, Lords of the Realm, 28.
150. Helyar, Lords of the Realm, 29.
151. Helyar, Lords of the Realm.
152. New York Times, January 16, 1968, 31.
153. New York Times, January 21, 1968, S3; March 19, 1968, 57; December 18, 1968, 58.
154. Burk, Much More Than a Game, 155.
155. Korr, “From Judge Cannon to Marvin Miller.”
156. Thorn, Total Baseball.
157. New York Times, December 21, 1968, 50; August 2, 1967, 28.
158. New York Times, December 7, 1968, 66.
159. New York Times, July 9, 1968, 43.
160. Voigt, American Baseball, Vol. II, 303; Dworkin, Owners versus Players, 32.
161. Helyar, Lords of the Realm, 36.
162. New York Times, December 2, 1966, 66.
163. Miller, A Whole Different Ballgame, 101.
164. Helyar, Lords of the Realm.
165. Flood v. Kuhn, 316 F. Supp. 271 (S.D.N.Y 1970).
166. See Article XVII-Reserve System, Section B, Free Agency, Paragraph 1, Player Contracts Executed Prior to August 9, 1976, reprinted in Dworkin, Owners versus Players, 105.
167. Curt Flood Act, 15 U.S.C. § 27 (1998).
168. Edmonds, “Curt Flood Act 1998,” 342; Seabury, “The Development and Role.”
169. Haveman and Rao, “Moral Sentiments”; Thornton and Ocasio, “Institutional Logics”; Lounsbury et al., “Social Movements”; Greenwood and Suddaby, “Institutional Entrepreneurship”; Lawrence et al., “Interorganizational Collaboration”; Muzio et al., “Professions and Institutional Change”; Ramirez, “Quality Control.”
170. North, Institutions; Williamson, “New Institutional Economics.”
171. Hirsh, “From Ambushes to Golden Parachutes.”
172. Kelly and Dobbin, “Affirmative Action.”
173. Ingram and Clay, “The Choice-within-Constraints.”
174. Chacar and Hesterly, “Institutional Settings”; Jepperson, “Institutions, Institutional Effects”; Wright and Zammuto, “Institutional Change.”
175. North, Institutions, 6.
176. Oliver, “Antecedents”; Nee and Opper, Capitalism from Below; Vaccaro and Palazzo, “Institutional Change.”
177. We thank our editor for this suggestion.
178. Sanderson and Siegfried, “The Case for Paying.”
179. Sanderson and Siegfried, “The Case for Paying.”
180. Branch, “The Shame of College Sports.”
181. Hoffman and Ventresca, “The Institutional Framing”; Hirsh, “Sociology”; Poppo and Zenger, “Formal Contracts.”