Análisis comparativo entre las dos especies de lenguado

As discussed earlier, the recursive institutionalization process moves in a recursively cascading manner, through three levels of socio-historical relationships. The economic and political factors are translated into organizational field criteria. At the same time, the organizational field practices and criteria provide the context for action at the organizational level. Institutional practices considered legitimate at the organizational field level are a function of organizational field criteria (isomorphism criteria), and provide the legitimating and regulative base for actions at the organizational level. In this regard, Klein et al. (1999) argue that multilevel assumptions begin to link the micro-macro parts, integrating the micro realm focus on individuals and groups with the macro realm focus on organizations, environment and strategy. The outcome of this process is a deeper, richer representation of organizational life (Klein et al. 1999).

At the organizational level, working practices within a competitive context are faced with legitimizing structures requiring the implementation of formal rationality in understanding

126

technical, administrative and contextual relationships. Rather, within the institutional context, subjective understanding based on norms and values of social relationships and internal dynamics is obligatory to navigate the operational context (Dillard et al. 2004). Thus, the organizational configuration cannot be continued without the MAS and reporting and, in turn, the organizational structure is granted legitimacy for the accounting system and reporting. Additionally, the organizational structure could not be legitimized without the authorized position of working and doing things (ibid.). Zucker (1987) argues that organizational practices are influenced by isomorphism pressures, sometimes arising from within the organization itself. Under some conditions, these pressures cause the organization to be led by legitimated elements, from standard working procedures to professional qualifications and state requirements, which mostly have the effect of directing attention away from task performance. Adoption of these legitimated elements, leading to homogeneity with the institutional environment, increases the likelihood of survival (Zucker 1987).

At the organizational level, some organizations respond to external pressures rapidly; others change only after a long period of resistance (DiMaggio and Powell 1983). Organizations in the institutional theory and diffusion literature are generally characterized as innovators or late adopters. Innovators (early adopters) are those organizations developing new organizational practices, while late adopters are those organizations that adopt the practices of the innovator organizations. The practices of the late adopters are legitimated by both the success of the innovator‟s practices and the organizational field practices and criteria (Dillard

et al. 2004). In this way, late adopters may either integrate (loosely coupling) the innovator practices into their organizational processes, or use the innovator practices but decoupling (separating) them from the processes actually used in managing and operating the organization. This decoupling has led to a variation in the imposed practice (Cruz et al. 2009). In any organizational setting, the accounting system is loosely coupled when its components are distinct (independent or with some degree of independence) from, yet responding (are connected or linked) to, others (Lukka 2007; Cruz et al. 2009).

Within an organization, there could be many settings and individual actors who carry out tasks continually. Under these conditions, the social definition of tasks within the organization often transforms them gradually from performances into "routines" (Nelson and Winter 1982). However, some routines will be simple habits, easily changed when enhanced techniques become known, whereas others will be taken-for-granted aspects that resist

127

change. Generally, organizational routines enhance institutionalization within a given organization as a function (Zucker 1987) of the following: (a) the degree of overt codification in the form of work rules, formal promotion hierarchies, and other types of formalization of the specific routine; (b) the length of the history of the structure/task; and (c) the degree of embeddedness in a network of structures/tasks (ibid.). Any change in one part will make inevitable changes in other structures/tasks on which it is mutually dependent (ibid.). These processes are more likely in the event of some diffusion from the task or system; however, internal organizational processes dominate because of extensive buffering of outside consequences (Thompson 1967) and because of the lack of ability to imitate (Nelson and Winter 1982). Hence the role of managers in establishing and maintaining the more institutionalized of these routines is significant (Pfeffer 1981; Zucker 1987).

Dillard et al. (2004) identify the possibility of institutions emerging and being modified through actions of individuals and/or groups. However, implied in its formulation, there is a hierarchy of institutional influence where the economic and political level provides the foundations for organizational field-level institutions, and the organizational field grants the context for the institutions confronted by and rooted in organizations. It should also be emphasized that different actor sets may be in a more influential position at different levels. Governmental officials, regulators and legislators may be the key actors at the economic and political levels. Industry leaders, labor unions and external consultants (as isomorphism drivers) may have significant influence at the organizational field level, and the managers and employees may be the key actors at the organizational level. The general conception of agency is maintained; however, the ability of any actor to contribute to the institutionalization process is dependent upon a myriad of factors (Dillard et al. 2004). Those factors are interacting between the duality of structure and agency through the process of institutionalization.

In view of this, Zucker (1977) and Meyer and Rowan (1977: 346) primarily drew on the work of Berger and Luckmann (1967) to discuss whether institutions are socially constructed patterns for action, produced and sustained through on-going interactions (Barley and Tolbert 1997). In this light, actors produce institutions through a history of negotiations that guide „shared typifications‟ or generalized expectations and interpretations of behavior (ibid.). The patterned relations and actions that emerge from this process gradually gain the moral and ontological position of taken-for-granted realities which, in turn, shape future interactions and

128

negotiations (ibid.). On the one hand, Meyer and his colleagues have focused on examining institutions largely as exogenous to organizational action (Meyer and Scott 1983; Scott and Meyer 1983; Scott and Meyer 1984; Meyer and Scott 1991; Scott and Meyer 1994; Sutton et al. 1994). Their recent work connects institutional pressures with the demands of centralized authorities or regulatory agencies and, only secondarily, with common beliefs, practices, and norms. As a result, their research has focused on the sources and outcomes of conformity and on the manner in which the environment „interpenetrates the organization‟ (Meyer and Rowan 1977; Barley and Tolbert 1997).

On the other hand, Zucker and her colleagues have focused on emphasizing the role of normative and taken-for-granted assumptions in their analyzes of organizations, but have given comparatively little attention to the process by which such assumptions take place and are changed (Zucker 1977; Tolbert and Zucker 1983; Zucker 1983; Tolbert 1985; Zucker 1986; Zucker 1991; Zucker et al. 1995; Tolbert and Zucker 1996). This type of work has intended to elaborate, theoretically and empirically, the claim that organizational systems reflect institutional understandings instead of rational calculations of efficiency. However, these studies seldom determine institutionalization directly and only briefly address how particular organizational systems emerge or why their scope (diffusion) is certainly limited. To explain such questions, one needs to examine how actions influence institutions (Barley and Tolbert 1997).

DiMaggio and Powell (1991:8) identify that institutions at the organizational level are conceptualized as „independent variables‟ that coalesce within the organizational field. Barley and Tolbert (1997:97) define that institutions can be affected by “individuals, groups, organizations or even higher collectives”, and argue that the human actors establish the institutions through routine behavior. Hence these institutions can be changed by the behavior of the actors at either the organizational level or the organizational field level. In this regard, it should be emphasized that Barley and Tolbert (1997) have combined institutional theory and ST to develop a model of institutionalization as a structuration process, and suggest methodological guidelines for examining the process empirically. Barley and Tolbert (1997) argue the similarities between the two theories and develop the discussion on why a fusion of the two could enable institutional theory to essentially advance. Both theories assert that institutions and actions are inextricably linked and that institutionalization is best understood as a dynamic, on-going process. However, the previous perspectives are still defining the

129

institutions from macro-level angles. In other words, their formulation includes a more inclusive social context, more in line with the sociology-based institutional theory used.

At the organizational level, Dillard et al‟s (2004) framework has some similarities with Burns and Scapens‟ (2000) framework. Like Barley and Tolbert (1997), Burns and Scapens (2000) combine, at least implicitly, ST with OIE theory in developing their framework of MAC at the organizational level. Unlike Barley and Tolbert (1997), Burns and Scapens (2000) focus explicitly on the organization level, and they view institutions as micro, routine practices brought into existence by the actions of organizational actors. In the same way, Lawrence (1999) develops the notion of „institutional strategy‟ to explain patterns of organizational action that are directed toward managing the institutional structures within which organizations struggle for resources, either through the reproduction or change of those structures.

Zucker (1977) has defined institutionalization as a variable, with different levels of institutionalization. In other words, Zucker (1987) shows that change in the institutionalization process for a specific organization can variously take place from the institutional environment, inter-organizational relations, and other organizations, as well as from within an organization. Thus, the relational dynamics sketched in Dillard et al‟s framework provide insights at one level into how these pressures can be brought to bear on an organization. Barley and Tolbert (1997) contend that, for institutional theory to realize its promise for organizational change studies, researchers must develop dynamic models of institutions (see Whittington 1992) and develop methodologies for examining how actions and institutions are recursively related. In extending Dillard et al‟s framework, the framework provided by Burns and Scapens (2000) that inspired OIE theory will be adopted in explaining the micro processes taking place. By doing so, this study seeks headway on both fronts by focusing on their common neglect of the relations between actions and institutions (see Barley and Tolbert 1997). The proposed framework in this study explains how institutions emerge and are reproduced and changed through the interaction of action and structure. Hence it suggests guidelines and procedures for explaining how institutions influence, and are influenced by, action.

Consequently, NIS shows how different extra-organizational pressures, both economic and institutional, can influence the way in which organizations are structured and managed. NIS

130

can help us to understand the nature of the external pressures on organizations; but not all organizations will conform to these pressures and some could be more susceptible to certain pressures rather than to others. In addition to extra-organizational pressures, there are intra- organizational pressures which influence the processes of MAC. Accordingly, if we want to explain the MAPs and systems of individual organizations, we have to look inside these organizations without ignoring the external factors. To do so, the OIE approach can help us to explain the internal factors and constraints that shape MAPs within the organization. Whereas NIS institutions explain and assume that pressure is applied from outside the organization, OIE enables us to look more closely at institutions within the organization (ibid.). The following sections discuss this in more detail.