Abstract
Agency-structure debate has become one of the central issues in modern organizational sociology and the most problematic theoretical area in institutional analysis. Since then researchers in new institutional sociology have focused on bringing agency and interests back in the theory that views rationality and motives as historically and culturally embedded and constructed by their institutional environments. To date, the most prospective theory is fashion perspective that sees interests and beliefs to be socially constructed and shaped by institutional forces. Accordingly, diffusion and adoption of administrative innovations is nothing but a result of these beliefs generated by institutional effects. Therefore the object of research is the essentiality of fashion management theory taking into account its ontological and epistemological characteristics. One of the most problematic areas is understanding the way institutions and fashions can be conceptualized upon the same mechanisms of emergence, reproduction and development. This paper attempts to clarify and resolve these two streams of literature by attending social construction perspective and revisiting its central tenets. Specifically, the present study put forward arguments that it is not homogeneity or symbolic pragmatic conformity should be the main units of analysis but the meanings that individuals attach to technical structures and elements; not the trajectories and waves of popularity of ideas and structures but the way subjective judgments and interpretations acquire objective status and eclipse former technical foundations. Based on logical generalization and morphological analysis, it is offered to reduce the conceptualization of institutions and organizations back from agency-centered depiction and strategic-perspective towards over-socialized picture with adequately addresses the prevalence of macro-level forces over micro-level individuals. It is concluded that neither former institutional theory nor its modern alternatives should focus exclusively on the trajectory and logic of diffusion of institutional templates.
Highlights
It is widely recognized that institutional theory constitutes the dominant perspective on organizational behavior and structure [1,2,3,4]
Being developed as alternative to economic perspectives that viewed organizations as rational systems that pursue their goals in most efficient ways, over time new institutionalism acquired a status of the main theory of organizations
Despite the multiplicity of explanations, it is argued in this paper that management fashion theory, not formerly designed for change explanations, captures the essence of agency vs. structure quarrel better special institutional change theories
Summary
It is widely recognized that institutional theory constitutes the dominant perspective on organizational behavior and structure [1,2,3,4]. Institutional theory is well equipped to explain organizational actions and behaviors as acts of conformity under institutional pressures that push organizations to adopt similar structures and follows the same norms, rules and beliefs. Institutional arguments appeared to be unable to explain how change inside mature fields occur and how actors may recognize their needs and interests if latest are institutionally defined [5,6,7,8,9]. This paper attempts to clarify and resolve these two streams of literature by attending social construction perspective and revisiting its central tenets
Sign-in/Register to view highlights & summary Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
Free) 
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a call
