This paper concerns about the emergence problem of new organizational forms. Reviewing the primary literature in last 50 years, it intends to strengthen the dialogue and synthesis among various research strands, promoting future research. Understanding of the concept of organizational form in extant literature can be classified into three types, namely patterns presented by organizational activities, organizational templates shaped by institutional logics, and collective identities endowed by social audiences to organization populations. These three types of understanding denote three perspectives for exploring the emergence problem of new organizational forms. The emergence process of new organizational forms involves two different inner phases, that is to say " generation” and " establishment”. As for a new organizational form, generation is the initial phase of coming into its social field, and establishment is the stabilization phase of becoming an explicate category of the social and cultural classification system. The two progresses in overlapping, and are mutually permeated. In consistency with the three kinds of organizational form conception, the three perspectives have their own different interpretations about these two phases. The pattern perspective concerns about the material face of a form, explaining generation by figuring out changes in resource spaces and social structure, or sources of new practice and regarding establishment as diffusion or permeation of new practice. The template perspective emphasizes the cultural face of a form, viewing generation as institutional entrepreneurship that actors pick out and take in various elements of different templates knitting into a new template, and expounding establishment by presenting the conflicts and balance of multiple institutional logics. The identity perspective focuses on the social face of a form, ascribing generation to initiative identity construction activities of actors, and depicting establishment by revealing the generalization and identification process of social audiences and rhetoric strategies of organizational actors. However, there is a basic consensus among these three perspectives, that is, the crucial thing in the generation phase is to combine multiple organizational elements, and the one in the establishment phase is to acquire legitimacy. We integrate the three perspectives, arguing that pattern, template, and identity are three coexisting faces of organizational forms and three diachronic states through new organizational forms emergence, and stand out as major image in turn during the term from generation to establishment; institutional logics are the common foundations of three faces and the constitutive forces penetrating three states. Looking into the longitudinal course of new organizational forms emergence, a form arises as a pattern at the first moment, and is a new set of technical solutions of organizational issues. It appears as a template in the intermediate state, diffusing and becoming institutional frames and standards to guide other organizations into structurization with its growing legitimacy. At the end, it turns into the identity label of an organizational population which is regarded as a social category, indicating that it is established as an identifiable organizational form. During this process, institutional logics equip actors with cognitive frames to select materials of new forms, shaping the configuration of elements combination, and provide scripts for actors to construct legitimacy, deciding the probability of the new forms legitimization as criteria for legitimacy evaluation. No matter as patterns, templates or identities, organizational forms are undergirded by some institutional logics and shaped by the organizing principles deriving from those logics, presenting some predominate cultural values with some appearance. Furthermore, we propose that bricolage can provide a new perspective, blending the existing three perspectives, and expecting to deepen and advance current study. Bricolage is to create something new with old things. Repertoire(old things), elements selection, and elements synthesis(the outcome is new thing) are key points of bricolage. Bricolage is a cognitive process, also social and political, and involves contingency at the same time. The key points and main attributes of bricolage are highly consistent with the courses of new organizational forms emergence. It is hopeful to unveil the inner complex dynamics of new organizational forms emergence with bricolage as a new perspective. This paper has strengthened the communication among various theoretical schools to some extent and has laid the foundation of future empirical research.
/ Journals / Foreign Economics & Management
Foreign Economics & Management
LiZengquan, Editor-in-Chief
ZhengChunrong, Vice Executive Editor-in-Chief
YinHuifang HeXiaogang LiuJianguo, Vice Editor-in-Chief
How Do New Organizational Forms Emerge? A Review and Integration of 50-year Research
Foreign Economics & Management Vol. 40, Issue 03, pp. 34 - 53 (2018) DOI:10.16538/j.cnki.fem.2018.03.003
Summary
References
Summary
Keywords
[1] Abatecola G. Research in organizational evolution. What comes next? [J] European Management Journal, 2014,32(3), 434–443.
[2] Alexy O, George G. Category Divergence, Straddling, and Currency: Open Innovation and the Legitimation of Illegitimate Categories[J]. Journal of Management Studies, 2013,50(2), 173–203.
[3] Altglas V. “Bricolage”: reclaiming a conceptual tool[J]. Culture and Religion, 2014,15(4), 474–493.
[4] Astley W G. The Two Ecologies: Population and Community Perspectives on Organizational Evolution[J]. Administrative Science Quarterly, 1985,30(2), 224-241.
[5] Baker T, Nelson R E. Creating Something from Nothing: Resource Construction through Entrepreneurial Bricolage[J]. Administrative Science Quarterly, 2005,50(3), 329–366.
[6] Battilana J, Dorado S. Building Sustainable Hybrid Organizations: The Case of Commercial Microfinance Organizations[J]. Academy of Management Journal, 2010,53(6), 1419–1440.
[7] Battilana J, Lee M. Advancing Research on Hybrid Organizing – Insights from the Study of Social Enterprises[J]. The Academy of Management Annals, 2014,8(1), 397–441.
[8] Bogaert S, Boone C, Carroll G R. Organizational form emergence and competing professional schemata of Dutch accounting[A], 1884–1939. In G. Hsu, G. Negro (Eds.), Categories in Markets Origins and Evolution[C], Emerald Group Publishing Limited.2010: 115–150.
[9] Greenwood R, Hinings C R. Understanding Strategic Change: The Contribution of Archetypes[J]. Academy of Management Journal, 1993,36(5), 1052–1081
[10] Greenwood R, Hinings C R. Understanding Radical Organizational Change: Bringing together the Old and the New Institutionalism[J]. The Academy of Management Review, 1993:21(4), 1022–1054.
[11] Greenwood R, Suddaby R. Institutional entrepreneurship in mature fields: The big five accounting firms[J]. Academy of Management Journal, 2006,49(1), 27–48.
[12] Greif A. Family Structure, Institutions, and Growth: The Origins and Implications of Western Corporations[J]. American Economic Review, 2006,96(2), 308–312.
[13] Jha H K, Beckman C M. (2017). A Patchwork of Identities: Emergence of Charter Schools as a New Organizational Form[A]. In M.-D. L. Seidel, H. R. Greve (Eds.), Emergence (Research in the Sociology of Organizations) [C] Emerald Publishing Limited.2017:69–107.
[14] Kieser A. Organizational, Institutional, and Societal Evolution: Medieval Craft Guilds and the Genesis of Formal Organizations[J]. Administrative Science Quarterly, 1989,34(4), 540–564.
[15] Lee K, Pennings J M. Mimicry and the Market: Adoption of A New Organizational Form[J]. Academy of Management Journal, 2002,45(1), 144–162.
[16] McKelvey B, Aldrich H. Populations, Natural Selection, and Applied Organizational Science[J]. Administrative Science Quarterly, 1983,28(1), 101–128.
[17] McKendrick D G, Jaffee J, Carroll G R, Khessina O M. In the Bud? Disk Array Producers as a (Possibly) Emergent Organizational Form[J]. Administrative Science Quarterly, 2003,48(1), 60–93.
[18] Navis C, Glynn M A. How New Market Categories Emerge: Temporal Dynamics of Legitimacy, Identity, and Entrepreneurship in Satellite Radio, 1990–2005[J]. Administrative Science Quarterly, 2010,55(3), 439–471.
[19] Ocasio W, Mauskapf M, Steele C W J. History, Society, and Institutions: The Role of Collective Memory in the Emergence and Evolution of Societal Logics[J]. Academy of Management Review,2016, 41(4), 676–699.
[20] Pache A C, Santos F. Inside the Hybrid Organization: Selective Coupling as a Response to Competing Institutional Logics[J]. Academy of Management Journal, 2013,56(4), 972–1001.
[21] Perkmann M, Spicer A. How Emerging Organizations Take Form: The Role of Imprinting and Values in Organizational Bricolage[J]. Organization Science, 2014,25(6), 1785–1806.
[22] Puranam P, Alexy O, Reitzig M. What's ‘New’ About New Forms of Organizing?[J] Academy of Management Review, 2014,39(2), 162–180.
[23] Rao H, Monin P, Durand R. Border Crossing: Bricolage and the Erosion of Categorical Boundaries in French Gastronomy[J]. American Sociological Review, 2005,70(6), 968–991.
[24] Sato I, Haga M, Yamada M. Lost and Gained in Translation: The Role of the “American Model” in the Institution-Building of a Japanese University Press[J]. Cultural Sociology, 2015,9(3), 347–363.
[25] Weber M. S., Fulk J., Monge P. The Emergence and Evolution of Social Networking Sites as an Organizational Form[J]. Management Communication Quarterly, 2016,30(3), 305–332.
[26] Yu K H. Institutionalization in the Context of Institutional Pluralism: Politics as a Generative Process[J]. Organization Studies, 2013,34(1), 105–131.
Cite this article
She Xueqiong, Wang Liping. How Do New Organizational Forms Emerge? A Review and Integration of 50-year Research[J]. Foreign Economics & Management, 2018, 40(3): 34-53.
Export Citations as:
For
ISSUE COVER
RELATED ARTICLES