Sub-theme 22:

Institutional Work: Understanding How Actors Create, Maintain and Disrupt Institutions

Convenors
Welcome and general presentation

Ignasi Marti
Making democracy more participative: Lessons from Patagonia
Discussant: Yvette Taminiau

Yvette Taminiau, Dirk Oegema, Rosanlide Klein Woolthuis and Lian Schouten
Institutional pressures as dynamite: Handle with care
Discussant: Ignasi Marti
 

Namrata Malhotra, Tim Morris and Michael Smets
Institutional cntinuity and change: Promotion and career practices in law firms
Discussants: Marie-Laure Djelic and Paul Lagneau-Ymonet

Marie-Laure Djelic and Paul Lagneau-Ymonet
From the playground of Baron Nucingen to global financial operator: Institutional work and the profound reinvention of the Paris Stock Exchange
Discussants: Bob Hinings and Trish Reay

C.R. (Bob) Hinings and Trish Reay
The role of actors in the evolutions of an institutional field
Discussants: Namrata Malhotra, Tim Morris and Michael Smets
 

Stephanie Bertels and Thomas B. Lawrence
Contested institutions and institutional incorporation: Enacting discourse around Aboriginal education
Discussants: Elodie Brulé and Luc Audebrand

Elodie Brulé and Luc Audebrand
The debate over genetically modified organisms: Exploring processes of institutional work from a discursive perspective
Discussants: Rick Vogel and Jetta Frost

Rick Vogel and Jetta Frost
Framing the NPM move in Germany: How a think tank creates an institution
Discussants: Stephanie Bertels and Thomas B. Lawrence
 

Stephen Lippman and Philip H. Kim
Forms, frames, and fields: A multilevel perspective on institutional entrepreneurship in the precommercial radio industry
Discussants: Giuseppe Delmestri and Stefano Basaglia

Giuseppe Delmestri and Stefano Basaglia
Determinants of real and rhetoric change
Discussants: Achim Oberg and Peter Walgenbach

Achim Oberg and Peter Walgenbach
Modern talking
Discussants: Stephen Lippman and Philip H. Kim
 

Lianne M. Lefsrud
Maintenance workers: Professionals adapting routines to manage outsourcing
Discussants: Gerardo Patriotta, Friederike Schultz and Jean Pascal Gond

Gerardo Patriotta, Friederike Schultz and Jean Pascal Gond
The institutional work of justification: How actors make sense of disruptive events
Discussants: Evelyn Micelotta and Marvin Washington

Evelyn Micelotta and Marvin Washington
Defending your institution? The case of Italian lawyers
Discussants: Lianne M. Lefsrud
 

Michel Ehrenhard, Dennis Muntslag and Celeste Wilderom
Top management bricolage in institutionalizing a new organizational template: Disrupting
Discussants: Kelly Patterson and David Strang

Kelly Patterson and David Strang
Social structure and the spread of contested practices
Discussants: Alistair Mutch

Alistair Mutch
Creating new practices by inter-field transfer: A return to Weber and church governance
Discussants: Michel Ehrenhard, Dennis Muntslag and Celeste Wilderom
 

Patrizia Zanoni and Maddy Janseens
Contesting institutions across borders: The case of diversity management in a European branch of a U.S. multinational
Discussants: Yiannis (Ionnis) Kyrastis and Rifat Atun

Yiannis (Ionnis) Kyrastis and Rifat Atun
Disruption and decomposition of an organizational field: The diffusion of family medicine-centred healthcare reforms in four European transition countries
Discussants: Patrizia Zanoni and Maddy Janseens

General Discussion and Wrap Up

Notices and Remarks

Aims
Our aim in this sub-theme is to discuss research and theory that focuses on institutions and institutional change as the practical accomplishment of individual and organizational actors. Building on insights gained from research on institutional entrepreneurship and deinstitutionalization, this sub-theme is intended to facilitate the exploration of 'institutional work' – purposive action of individuals and organizations aimed at creating, maintaining and disrupting institutions (Lawrence and Suddaby, 2006).

Format
The format for sessions will focus on providing a chance for conversation among participants and feedback to authors, rather than on hearing authors discuss their own work. To that end, each paper will be allotted a 30 minute time slot, divided as follows:
1. Discussant's comments – 7 minutes
2. Author's pleas for help – 6 minutes
3. Discussion – 17 minutes

Role of discussants
The role of discussants in these sessions is to give the gift of considered feedback to the authors. Feedback as a gift does not mean it is 'nice', but simply that it is focused on the needs of the recipient (to improve their paper, and to not feel like quitting the profession after hearing it), rather than the provider (to feel clever). Consequently, feedback as a gift has three main characteristics:
1. It is understandable (specific, concrete, focused).
2. It is acceptable (balanced, descriptive)
3. It is useful (focused on changeable elements, highlighting 1–2 major points rather than a litany of
    problems).

Role of authors
Unlike many conferences, the expectation at EGOS, and certainly in this sub-theme is that all participants will have read all of the papers prior to their discussion. Consequently, there is no need for authors to 'present' their papers. Instead, we ask that authors focus on 'asking for help' – jumpstarting the general discussion by briefly discussing the 1–2 issues on which they would hope the conversation might focus.

Role of participants
Read the papers. Discuss the research and ideas. Be generative, kind and encouraging. Be critical. Have fun!

Role of convenors
Arrange the chairs. Make sure we start and end on time. Fetch water.