Capacidades institucionais que dotam a agência individual e coletiva para a mudança institucional (Revisitando Selznick)
| Autor | Ana Carolina Simões Braga, Walter Bataglia |
| Cargo | Universidade Presbiteriana Mackenzie/Universidade Presbiteriana Mackenzie |
| Páginas | 46-64 |
Ana Carolina Simões Braga • Walter Bataglia
R C A
Esta obra está sob uma Licença Creative Commons Atribuição-Uso.
3
RESUMO
A corrente sociológica do neoinstitucionalismo organizacional
incorporou diversas abordagens de análise para compreender
as instituições, que apresentam perspectivas tanto macrosso-
ciológicas quanto microssociológicas. Na perpectiva macro,
a ação dos atores sociais é denida pelas instituições e, na
perspectiva miro, há uma ênfase na ação dos atores sociais
na dinamica institucional. Esse estudo conduz uma revisão
crítica da literatura do velho institucionalismo organizacional,
focando o constructo capacidade institucional proposto por
Selznick e, desenvolve uma analise comparativa entre essas
capacidades e as identicadas no neoinstitucionalismo orga-
nizacional e suas derivações teóricas. A partir dessa análise
é possível sintetizar uma alternativa para o estudo da mu-
dança institucional, i.e., re-institucionalização, com base nas
capacidades institucionais, as quais se conguram nos níveis
individual e coletivo, e dotam o agência do ator social para a
mudança institucional.
Palavras-Chave: Capacidades Institucionais; Agência Indivi-
dual; Agência Coletiva; Mudança Institucional.
ABSTRACT
The sociological stream of organisational neoinstitutionalism
incorporated diverse analytic approaches for understanding
institutions that present both macro- and micro-sociological
perspectives. In the macro perspective, the action of social ac-
tors is dened by the institutions; and, in the micro perspective,
there is an emphasis on the action of the social actors in the
institutional dynamic. This study conducts a critical review of
the literature on the old organisational institutionalism, focu-
sing on the construct of institutional capability proposed by
Selznick, and develops a comparative analysis between these
capabilities and those of organisational neoinstitutionalism,
as well as approaches derived from it. From this analysis is
possible to synthesise an alternative for studying institutional
change (i.e., re-institutionalisation) based upon institutional
organisational capabilities, which are congured at the indivi-
dual and collective levels, and endow the social-actor agency
for institutional change.
Key-words: Institutional Capabilities; Individual Agency;
Collective Agency; Institutional Change.
Capacidades institucionais que dotam a
agência individual e coletiva para a mudança
institucional (Revisitando Selznick)
Institutional capabilities that endow the individual and collective
agency for institutional change (Revisiting Selznick)
Ana Carolina Simões Braga
Universidade Presbiteriana Mackenzie
email: carol_macke@hotmail.com
https://orcid.org.0000-0002-5470-7074
Walter Bataglia
Universidade Presbiteriana Mackenzie
email: batagliaw@gmail.com
https://orcid.org.0000-0003-4233-9988
DOI: https://doi.org/10.5007/2175-8077.2022.e67096
Submetido: 16/08/2019
Aceito: 08/02/2022
Revista de Ciências da Administração • v. 24, n. 62, p. 46-64, jan.-abr. 2022 47
R C A
Capacidades institucionais que dotam a agência individual e coletiva para a mudança institucional (Revisitando Selznick)
1 INTRODUÇÃO
Two streams are predominant in institutional
theory: economic and sociological. In the former, the
institutions play a key role in the economic develop-
ment of countries and regions (NORTH, 2016; 2018),
whereas in the latter the institutions are responsible by
establishing the conduct (i.e., action) of the social ac-
tors (BERGER; LUCKMANN, 2017). e theoretical
framework for present study centres on the sociolog-
ical stream, and the theory is reviewed, starting with
the work of Philip Selznick (1953; 1996; 2011; 2014)
and the social construction of the reality by Berger
and Luckmann (2017), passing through organisation-
al institutionalism (DiMAGGIO; POWELL, 1991),
institutional logics (FRIEDLAND; ALFORD, 1991;
HAVEMAN; GUALTIERE, 2017; PACHE; THORN-
TON, 2020), institutional entrepreneurs (HARDY;
MAGUIRE, 2017) and ending with institutional work
(LAWRENCE; SUDDABY; LECA, 2011; BEUNEN;
PATTERSON, 2019).
In all those analytical approaches to sociological
institutionalism, the focus of attention is on the actor
and social agent in an institutional dynamic. Accord-
ing to Alexander (1992) the social actor performs
an action in accordance with the social structure,
whereas the social agent performs an action through
the freedom he or she holds. e constructs actor
and social agent reect a dichotomy present in social
theories, and have their roots in various sociological
approaches, presenting two dominant perspectives
– objectivism and subjectivism – for understanding
social phenomena (PARKER, 2000).
e sociological approach appeared in the 1940s,
with Philip Selznick being one of its initial proponents,
and it later became better known as old organisational
institutionalism. According to this approach, the in-
stitution is dened as a social system constituted by
objectives and procedures, which tend to have values
included in their practices for inuencing behaviour
(SELZNICK, 1953, 2011). In other terms, institutions
limit action both human and organisational.
Aer 20 years, neoinstitutionalism emerged in
the works of Berger and Luckmann (2017). From
this perspective, institutions are understood as sets
of beliefs, habits and values coming from a social
construction. This socially constructed reality is
dependent on social actors belonging to a social
group; that belonging comes from social actors who
internalise the meaning systems of their respective
contexts through social interaction and, conse-
quently, determine their actions in terms of those
meaning systems. e neoinstitutionalism began to
be worked into organisational studies from the 1970s
(DiMAGGIO; POWELL, 1991), as institutions were
understood as sets of rules, scripts and classications.
e continuity of organisations has become to earned
through the ceremonial adoption of elements that
constitute institutional context and that determine
the action (POPADIUK; RIVERA; BATAGLIA, 2014).
It later became better known as new organisational
institutionalism.
Simultaneously, the analytical approach to insti-
tutional logics developed (FRIEDLAND; ALFORD,
1991; HAVEMAN; GUALTIERE, 2017; PACHE;
THORNTON, 2020) and was dened as the organ-
ising principles that shape the behaviour of the social
actors – that is, actions. e central purpose of this
approach is to explain institutional change; however,
change appears to come from a combination of ex-
isting logics, and studies explaining how new institu-
tional rationalities are created are lacking.
ese analytical approaches provide evidence
for a deterministic perspective for understanding
the phenomenon of the institution. Here, there is a
predominance of i nstitutional force before t he action
of the social actors, who are mere epiphenomena of
the social structures; social actors at the individual
or collective levels are thus understood to be those
who carry out their action in line with the insti-
tutions. e central criticism to the deterministic
perspective is grounded in idea that the social actors
not only perform their actions in conformity with
the institutionalised elements, but that, in fact, the
social actors do more than simply follow institutional
standards (DORADO, 2005). From this critique,
new agency-centred approaches in organisational
institutionalism emerged, such as the ‘institutional
entrepreneur’ (DiMAGGIO, 1988; MUTCH, 2007;
HARDY; MAGUIRE, 2017) and ‘institutional work’
approaches (LAWRENCE; SUDDABY; LECA, 2011;
BEUNEN; PATTERSON, 2019). This movement
is referred to as the ‘agentic turn’ (ABDELNOUR;
HASSELBRADH; KALLINIKOS, 2017).
Para continuar a ler
PEÇA SUA AVALIAÇÃO
COPYRIGHT Universidade Federal de Santa Catarina
