Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-gxg78 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-25T15:08:23.708Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Coping with Multiple Institutional Logics: Temporal Process of Institutional Work during the Emergence of the One Foundation in China

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  24 June 2016

Yuhuan Liu ,
Chenjian Zhang  and
Runtian Jing
Yuhuan Liu
Affiliation:
Southwest Jiaotong University, China
Chenjian Zhang*
Affiliation:
University of Bath, UK
Runtian Jing
Affiliation:
Shanghai Jiao Tong University, China
*
Corresponding author: Chenjian Zhang ([email protected])
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

An increasing body of research has applied an institutional perspective to understand actors’ responses to conflicting institutional logics and the creation process of new organizational forms. Although China provides a natural, real-time laboratory to study this topic, scant empirical research has been done. Moreover, we find it is insufficient to apply current frameworks, which have been mainly driven by studies conducted in Western contexts, to study actors’ responses to institutional multiplicity in China, especially in its emerging non-profit sector. This article fills research gaps by providing an in-depth case analysis of the creation and legitimation process of the One Foundation – the first independent charity foundation established by civic individuals in China. Our study shows that the coexisting and competing relationship among state, civil society, social mission, and market logics provides impetus for organizational change and innovation. This article theorizes a temporal model by showing that actors seek provisional solutions in different organizational stages and gradually develop capabilities to progress institutional work from individual to organizational and to societal level to achieve their goals. By showing how a charity foundation plays a role as a change agent, this article also sheds light on the condition and process that drive innovation in China's non-profit sector.

摘要:

摘要:

目前有许多研究运用制度视角来理解行动者如何应对多元制度逻辑并创造新的组织类型。尽管中国提供了一个自然的研究基地, 但是目前的理论框架不能有效解释在中国背景下, 新兴的非营利部门行动者如何应对制度的多元性。通过分析壹基金的成立和合法化的过程, 本文探讨了国家、市民社会、社会使命以及市场这四种制度逻辑的共存与冲突如何推动了组织变革与创新。我们提供了一个理论模型来解释行动者如何通过临时性的解决方案来积累资源与开拓能力, 并逐步实现其组织目标的过程。本文还解释了当前中国非营利机构推动组织创新的条件与过程

Keywords

institutional logicsinstitutional worknon-profit sectorsocial entrepreneurshiptemporal process
Type
Articles
Information
Management and Organization Review , Volume 12 , Issue 2 , June 2016 , pp. 387 - 416
Copyright
Copyright © The International Association for Chinese Management Research 2016 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

REFERENCES

Battilana, J., & Dorado, S. 2010. Building sustainable hybrid organizations: The case of commercial microfinance organizations. Academy of Management Journal, 53 (6): 1419–1440.Google Scholar
Benner, M. J., & Tushman, M. L. 2003. Exploitation, exploration, and process management: The productivity dilemma revisited. Academy of Management Review, 28 (2): 238–256.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Coule, T., & Patmore, B. 2013. Institutional logics, institutional work, and public service innovation in non-profit organizations. Public Administration, 91 (4): 980–997.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dacin, M. T., Dacin, P. A., & Tracey, P. 2011. Social entrepreneurship: A critique and future directions. Organization Science, 22 (5): 1203–1213.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dacin, P. A., Dacin, M. T., & Matear, M. 2010. Social entrepreneurship: Why we don't need a new theory and how we move forward from here. Academy of Management Perspectives, 24 (3): 37–57.Google Scholar
Dart, R. 2004. The legitimacy of social enterprise. Nonprofit Management and Leadership, 14 (4): 411–424.Google Scholar
Dimaggio, P. J. 1988. Interest and agency in institutional theory. Institutional patterns and organizations: Culture and environment, 1: 3–22.Google Scholar
Dobbin, F., & Dowd, T. J. 1997. How policy shapes competition: Early railroad foundings in Massachusetts. Administrative Science Quarterly, 42 (3): 501–529.Google Scholar
Eisenhardt, K. M. 1989. Building theories from case study research. Academy of Management Review, 14 (4): 532–550.Google Scholar
Fligstein, N. 1997. Social skill and institutional theory. American Behavioral Scientist, 40 (4): 397–405.Google Scholar
Friedland, R., & Alford, R. R. 1991. Bringing society back in: Symbols, practices and institutional contradictions. In Powell, W. & Dimaggio, P. (Eds.) The new institutionalism in organizational analysis: 232–263. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Gaglio, C. M. 2004. The role of mental simulations and counterfactual thinking in the opportunity identification process. Entrepreneurship: Theory and Practice, 28 (6): 533–552.Google Scholar
Galaskiewicz, J., & Barringer, S. N. 2012. Social enterprises and social categories. In Gidron, B. & Hasenfeld, Y. (Eds.) Social enterprises: An organizational perspective: 47–70. New York: Palgrave/Macmillan.Google Scholar
Gersick, C. J. G. 1994. Pacing strategic change – The case of a new venture. Academy of Management Journal, 37 (1): 9–45.Google Scholar
Gibson, C. B., & Birkinshaw, J. 2004. The antecedents, consequences, and mediating role of organizational ambidexterity. Academy of Management Journal, 47 (2): 209–226.Google Scholar
Goodrick, E., & Reay, T. 2011. Constellations of institutional logics: Changes in the professional work of pharmacists. Work and Occupations, 38 (3): 372–416.Google Scholar
Goodrick, E., & Salancik, G. R. 1996. Organizational discretion in responding to institutional practices: Hospitals and cesarean births. Administrative Science Quarterly, 41 (1): 1–28.Google Scholar
Greenwood, R., Diaz, A. M., Li, S. X., & Lorente, J. C. 2010. The multiplicity of institutional logics and the heterogeneity of organizational responses. Organization Science, 21 (2): 521–539.Google Scholar
Greenwood, R., Raynard, M., Kodeih, F., Micelotta, E. R., & Lounsbury, M. 2011. Institutional complexity and organizational responses. Academy of Management Annals, 5 (1): 317–371.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Greenwood, R., Suddaby, R., & Hinings, C. R. 2002. Theorizing change: The role of professional associations in the transformation of institutionalized fields. Academy of Management Journal, 45 (1): 58–80.Google Scholar
Hardy, C., Palmer, I., & Phillips, N. 2000. Discourse as a strategic resource. Human Relations, 53 (9): 1227–1248.Google Scholar
Hoffman, A. J. 1999. Institutional evolution and change: Environmentalism and the US chemical industry. Academy of Management Journal, 42: 351–371.Google Scholar
Huang, X. 2010. The institutional dynamics of China's transformation: What have we learnt? In Huang, X. (Ed.) The institutional dynamics of China's great transformation: 219–227. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
Huang, Y. (黄英男). 2011. Seeking transformation for anonymity(为自主权谋求转型). Beijing Times (京华时报), January 17. Available from URL: http://www.jinghua.cn. (In Chinese.)Google Scholar
Jay, J. 2013. Navigating paradox as a mechanism of change and innovation in hybrid organizations. Academy of Management Journal, 56 (1): 137–159.Google Scholar
Jones, M. B. 2007. The multiple sources of mission drift. Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 36 (2): 299–307.Google Scholar
Kojima, K., Choe, J. Y., Ohtomo, T., & Tsujinaka, Y. 2012. The corporatist system and social organizations in China. Management and Organization Review, 8 (3): 609–628.Google Scholar
Lan, G. Z., & Galaskiewicz, J. 2012. Innovations in public and non-profit sector organizations in China. Management and Organization Review, 8 (3): 491–506.Google Scholar
Langley, A. 1999. Strategies for theorizing from process data. Academy of Management Review, 4: 691–710.Google Scholar
Lawrence, T. B., & Phillips, N. 2004. From Moby Dick to Free Willy: Macro-cultural discourse and institutional entrepreneurship in emerging institutional fields. Organization, 11 (5): 689–711.Google Scholar
Lawrence, T. B., & Suddaby, R. 2006. Institutions and institutional work. In Clegg, S., Hardy, C., Lawrence, T. B., & Nord, W. R. (Eds.) Handbook of organization studies: 215–254. 2nd ed. London: Sage.Google Scholar
Leblebici, H., Salancik, G. R., Copay, A., & King, T. 1991. Institutional change and the transformation of interorganizational fields – An organizational history of the United States radio broadcasting industry. Administrative Science Quarterly, 36 (3): 333–363.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lei, X. Y. (雷晓宇). 2010. Jet Li and his friends in enterprises (李连杰和他的企业家朋友们). Chinese Entrepreneurs (中国企业家), 7: 1–7. (in Chinese.)Google Scholar
Li, H.(李卉), & Zeng, W. L. (曾雯璐). 2008. Interviews with Jet Li−‘philanthropy with competition’ (专访 李连杰-做慈善也要竞争’). The Bund(外滩画报), July 17. (In Chinese.)Google Scholar
Li, P. (李攀), Sun, H. Y. (孙海燕), Huang, P.  J. (黄锫坚), & Chen, J. (陈俊). 2008. Social entrepreneur−Jet Li. Eastern Entrepreneurs (东方企业家), [Last accessed January 12 2014.] Available from URL: http://finance.sina.com.cn/leadership/sxyrw/20080708/19085069108.shtml. July. (in Chinese.)Google Scholar
Lounsbury, M., & Crumley, E. T. 2007. New practice creation: An institutional perspective on innovation. Organization Studies, 28 (7): 993–1012.Google Scholar
Luo, Y (罗影). 2008. Weiyan Zhou–The practices of the heart (周惟彦–心的修行). Talents Magazine(英才), September 3. Available from URL: http://www.talentsmag.com/article.aspx/1756. (In Chinese.)Google Scholar
Ma, Q. 2002. The governance of NGOs in China since 1978: How much autonomy? Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 31 (3): 305–328.Google Scholar
Maguire, S., & Hardy, C. 2006. The emergence of new global institutions: A discursive perspective. Organization Studies, 27 (1): 7–29.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Martí, I., & Mair, J. 2009. Bringing change into the lives of the poor: Entrepreneurship outside traditional boundaries. In Lawrence, T. B., Suddaby, R., & Leca, B. (Eds.) Institutional work: Actors and agency in institutional studies of organizations: 92–119. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Nicholls, A. 2009. ‘We do good things, don't we?’: ‘Blended value accounting’ in social entrepreneurship. Accounting Organizations and Society, 34 (6-7): 755–769.Google Scholar
Pache, A. C., & Chowdhury, I. 2012. Social entrepreneurs as institutionally embedded entrepreneurs: Toward a new model of social entrepreneurship education. Academy of Management Learning & Education, 11 (3): 494–510.Google Scholar
Pache, A. C., & Santos, F. 2013. Inside the hybrid organization: Selective coupling as a response to conflicting institutional logics. Academy of Management Journal, 56 (4): 972–1001.Google Scholar
Ping, Y. (平一). 2010. The misunderstanding of transformation: the story of the interruption of One Foundation (李连杰中断壹基金背后: 被误读的转型). Chinese Enterprise (中国企业家), September 14. Available from URL: http://www.iceo.com.cn/renwu/34/2010/0914/200066.shtml. (In Chinese.)Google Scholar
Qu, M. L. (翟明磊). 2008. One Foundation: 1 Yuan to Spread the Disease of LOVE (一元钱启动爱的传染病). [Last accessed 12 January 2014.] Available from URL: http://www.new1bao.org/?s=. (in Chinese.)Google Scholar
Rojas, F. 2010. Power through institutional work: Acquiring academic authority in the 1968 third world strike. Academy of Management Journal, 53 (6): 1263–1280.Google Scholar
Saich, T. 2000. Negotiating the state: The development of social organizations in China. China Quarterly, 161: 124–141.Google Scholar
Santos, F. M. 2012. A positive theory of social entrepreneurship. Journal of Business Ethics, 111 (3): 335–351.Google Scholar
Simon, K. W. 2008. Regulation of civil society in China: Necessary changes after the olympic games and the Sichuan earthquake. Fordham International Law Journal, 32 (3): 943–987.Google Scholar
Strauss, A. L., & Corbin, J. M. 1998. Basics of qualitative research: Techniques and procedures for developing grounded theory. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.Google Scholar
Suddaby, R., & Greenwood, R. 2005. Rhetorical strategies of legitimacy. Administrative Science Quarterly, 50 (1): 35–67.Google Scholar
Thornton, P. H. 2002. The rise of the corporation in a craft industry: Conflict and conformity in institutional logics. Academy of Management Journal, 45 (1): 81–101.Google Scholar
Thornton, P. H., & Ocasio, W. 1999. Institutional logics and the historical contingency of power in organizations: Executive succession in the higher education publishing industry, 1958–1990. American Journal of Sociology, 105 (3): 801–843.Google Scholar
Tracey, P., Phillips, N., & Jarvis, O. 2011. Bridging institutional entrepreneurship and the creation of new organizational forms: A multilevel model. Organization Science, 22 (1): 60–80.Google Scholar
Wang, F., Yin, H., & Zhou, Z. 2012. The adoption of bottom-up governance in China's homeowner associations. Management and Organization Review, 8 (3): 559–583.Google Scholar
Yu, K.-H. 2013. Institutionalization in the context of institutional pluralism: Politics as a generative process. Organization Studies, 34 (1): 105–131.Google Scholar
Zhang, C., Tan, J., & Tan., D. Forthcoming. Fit by adaptation or fit by founding? A comparative study of existing and new entrepreneurial cohorts in China. Strategic Management Journal.Google Scholar
Zhao, M. 2012. The social enterprise emerges in China. Stanford Social Innovation Review, 10 (2): 30–35.Google Scholar
Zhou, X. G. 2010. The institutional logic of collusion among local governments in China. Modern China, 36 (1): 47–78.Google Scholar