Beyond Constraint: How Institutions Enable Identities

Introduction

In this chapter, I take a perspective on institutional theory that moves beyond constraint. I look at how institutions enable organizational identity construction by supplying a set of possible legitimate identity elements with which to construct, give meaning to, and legitimize identities and identity symbols. Institutionalism offers a process model of transformational mechanisms that explicates how macro-level, interorganizational influences situate and shape organizational identities. It can account for the regularity or patterning of identity markers (or symbols) across organizations within an organizational field. As well, it offers a dynamic framework on organizational identity construction which explains how organizations may adapt their identities so as to align with sanctioned norms and practices so as to secure legitimacy. I explore how institutionalism expands the current theorization of identity by deepening our understanding of the essence of identity, offering a reconceputalization of organizational identity as a form of institutional bricolage, and by ex-planing how the logic of identity motivates and governs organizational performance. Finally, implications for future research are offered.

Identity is a construct that has long been central to institutional theorizing. A half-century ago, Selznick (1957) postulated that institutionalization - the infusion of value in organizations - ‘produces a distinct identity for the organization’ (p. 40) and, moreover, that ‘maintaining this distinctive identity is integral to institutional survival’ (p. 63). Institutional approaches that focus on the cognitive-normative context of organizations (DiMaggio & Powell, 1991; Zucker, 1983) have emphasized the importance of social identities (Scott, 1995: 44) as well as their vitality. And yet, in spite of this acknowledged relationship, the link between institutional theorizing and organizational identity remains relatively unexplored. The gap is surprising, for the two theories have much in common. Both institutionalism and identity have meaning at their core; as well, both theories offer accounts of the creation and role of meaning in the constitution and practices of organizations. How then can two theories so similar in their focus be so different in their trajectories?

In the current literature, there is little integration of the two perspectives; worse, they are often depicted as almost antithetical. For instance, institutional theory appears to privilege sameness and isomorphism, while organizational identity theory advantages distinctiveness and polymorphism; and, while institutional theory focuses on the inter-organizational level of organizational fields or industries, identity theory tends to be grounded in the organizational level (Pedersen & Dobbin, 2006).

And yet, in spite of these obvious differences, there are subtle points of connection that offer opportune sites where institutional-ism can broaden theories of organizational identity. For instance, institutionalism offers a process model of transformational mechanisms that explicate how macro-level, inter-organizational influences situate and shape organizational identities. Moreover, through transformational processes of isomorphic conformity and mimesis, institutionalism offers an account for the regularity or patterning of identity markers (or symbols) across organizations within an organizational field. And, institutionalism offers a dynamic framework on organizational identity construction which explains how organizations may adapt their identities so as to align with sanctioned norms and practices in order to secure legitimacy.

...