Introduction: Into the FourthDecade

Abstract

The first edition of this Handbook appeared in 2008. 1 Its contents and introductory chapter covered the evolution of institutional thinking from 1977 up to that date. In the introductory chapter of the second edition, we will not repeat nor reinterpret these three decades, but rather expand on what we see as important directions and developments in institutional theory since then and suggest what we regard as the most promising future research avenues. Most of the themes identified in the first edition continued to be elaborated into the fourth decade, and the foundational concepts, notably legitimacy (see Deephouse, Bundy, Tost, & Suchman, Chapter 1) and organizational field (see Wooten & Hoffman, Chapter 2), remained core components of conceptual and empirical work. Both these chapters show the continuing elaboration and centrality of these concepts. However, in mapping the developments of this fourth decade, we find two overarching yet interrelated themes (which form Parts II and III) to have become particularly central during the post-2008 era: first, a renewed interest in the complexity of relationships between organizations and their institutional context; and, second, a focus on processes and practices through which institutions are created, enacted, or altered, or through which they erode and are eventually deinstitutionalized. Running through both themes are conversations around the concepts of institutional logics and institutional work and related theorizing on the nature of agency within institutional theorizing. In addition, this fourth decade saw the emergence of several new conversations that elaborated and deepened institutional theorizing. Much is going on in the big 'institutional tent'! However, if there is one area that distinguishes research over the last decade from earlier trends and that promises to redirect institutional scholarship, it is the attention being given to outcomes and consequences of institutions. Whereas earlier work 2008: 1025). FCEs are not an entirely new idea -they are found in earlier studies -but Lampel and Meyer correctly suggest that giving more focus to FCEs should enhance our understanding of field dynamics because they are integral to 'the growth and evolution of institutional, organizational, and professional fields' (2008: 1025). As Hinings et al. (Chapter 6) point out, the need to understand the nature and outcomes of FCEs for field structuration has, over the past few years, become more fully appreciated and various forms of FCEs have been studied (e.g., Garud, 2008; Hardy & Maguire, 2010; Moeran & Pedersen, 2011). They are recognized as important vehicles of field-level institutional governance that can profoundly shape how fields emerge, evolve, are displaced or sustained. They are also fundamental to how interests and privileges are asserted and concealed (Amis, Munir, & Mair, Chapter 27; Palmer, Chapter 28). Nonetheless, questions remain. Schssler, Rling and Wittneben (2014), for example, argue that the role of FCEs in field structuration varies according to the relative maturity of the field. At the early moments of field evolution, these authors suggest, FCEs provide the basis for trust and openness and hence can assist change. As fields mature, FCEs become less open because powerful actors enter the discourseand thus FCEs prevent change. We also have much to learn about less obvious FCEs.