Upload
augustus-dorsey
View
218
Download
0
Tags:
Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
INTO ACTION: THE ROLE OF IDENTITY AND STRUCTURE WHEN NAVIGATING STANDARDIZATION
Jason CordierDepartment of Management, Solbridge International School of Business, Daejeon, South Korea Alejandra MarinDepartment of Management, Solbridge International School of Business, Daejeon, South Korea Tahir HameedDepartment of Management Science, Solbridge International School of Business, Daejeon, South Korea
EGOS 2015: INSTITUTIONS AND IDENTITIES
GREECE, ATHENS
MOTIVATIONS
Individuals’ praxis while implementin
g a standard?
Standard Implementatio
nsRules
Strategy as PracticePraxis
EmergenceKnowledge Intensive
OrganizationsIndividuals
Knowledge Intensive Organizations: University and Business School
Standard: AOL: Assurance of Learning
Education sector, a rich context to study tensions between different professions (Beck & Young, 2005; Bernstein, 2000).
“Goldilocks Zone” Case!
Context
2 years pre-accreditation
1 year post- accreditation
Our study
A GAPStandard
Implementation/Strategy as Practice
(e.g., Brunsson et al., 2012, Jarzabkowski et al., 2012;
Sandholtz’ 2012)
Identity Work(e.g., Sveningsson & Alvesson,
2003: 1165).In general
(e.g., Alvesson, Lee Ashcraft, & Thomas, 2008; Ashforth,
Rogers, & Corley, 2011; Brown, 2001)
Knowledge Intensive firms
(e.g., Alvesson, 1995, 2000; Brown & Lewis, 2011;
Starbuck, 1992)
?
RESEARCH QUESTION
Drawing from identity work (e.g., Sveningsson & Alvesson, 2003) and strategy as practice (e.g., Jarzabkowski, 2005) as frameworks of reference, we search to answer the following question:
How do individuals' professional identities affect the implementation of standardized practices and praxis in the work place of a KIF?
DATA COLLECTION & ANALYSIS
Utilized Close-with relationships (Johnson, Balogun, & Beech, 2010).
Semi-Structured Interviews lasted between 30 & 50 minutes each
Informal interactions
Iterative
A total of 33 interviews were conducted across 22 individuals
Secondary data (meetings minutes, reports, and PowerPoint presentations)
Inductive qualitative approach (Ambrosini, Bowman, & Burton-Taylor, 2007; Eisenhardt, 1989; Orlikowski, 2002).
Internalized
Prescribed
2 years pre-accreditation
1 year post- accreditation
A
B
D
FC
DIFFERENT PRAXIS
Internalized
Prescribed
2 years pre-accreditation
1 year post- accreditation
A
B
D
FC
DIFFERENT PRAXIS
At first g
lance, a tra
ditional story of ti
ght couplin
g and
decoupling with
in the varie
d implementatio
ns of AOL?
Internalized
Prescribed
2 years pre-accreditation
1 year post- accreditation
A
B
D
FC
DIFFERENT PRAXIS
At first g
lance, a tra
ditional story of ti
ght couplin
g and
decoupling with
in the varie
d implementatio
ns of AOL?However, there is more to it (Sandholtz, 2012)
Structure
AOL
Dep. A: cohesive, intense communication, physical structure, autonomy, rubrics, perceptions of being different
The rest: Fragmentation, questions no changes, more formal structure
Structure Sense of Purpose
AOL
Dep. A: cohesive, intense communication, physical structure, autonomy, rubrics, perceptions of being different
The rest: Fragmentation, questions no changes, more formal structure
Both: confusion ostensive/performative (Feldman & Pentland, 2003)
Dep. A: made sense as a group
The rest: individual perceptions with no clear collective knowledge
Structure
Identity concerns
Sense of Purpose
AOL
Dep. A: cohesive, intense communication, physical structure, autonomy, rubrics, perceptions of being different
The rest: Fragmentation, questions no changes, more formal structure
Both: confusion ostensive/performative (Feldman & Pentland, 2003)
Dep. A: made sense as a group
The rest: individual perceptions with no clear collective knowledge
Both: standard and self-evaluation processes
The rest: individual concerns about classes’ outcomes.
Dep. A: less individual ascriptions
Structure
Identity concernsLeadership
Sense of Purpose
AOL
Dep. A: cohesive, intense communication, physical structure, autonomy, rubrics, perceptions of being different
The rest: Fragmentation, questions no changes, more formal structure
Both: confusion ostensive/performative (Feldman & Pentland, 2003)
Dep. A: made sense as a group
The rest: individual perceptions with no clear collective knowledge
Both: standard and self-evaluation processes
The rest: individual concerns about classes’ outcomes.
Dep. A: less individual ascriptions
Both: different leadership figures, tensions between managers and academics
The rest: Managerial supervision AOL as a “control” mechanisms to benchmark practices
Dep. A: Strong leadership figure AOL as an improvement tool to guide their activities
DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS
structure and identity Practices and connections are key (Feldman & Rafaeli, 2002).
But connections do not emerge by themselves. Connections were forged or inhibited by aspects outside the standard itself.
Rich structural aspects: structure “principles that generate or inhibit actions” (Giddens, 1979; Sewell, 1992)
Structure and liability of newness (Stinchcombe, 1965)
Identity work in front of others:
Different status perceptions between faculty and instructors.
Lack of common structure among the rest of the department.
Standards are powerful social rules that determine what is of worth in the social systems where they are implemented (Bowker & Star, 1999; Timmermans & Epstein, 2010)
ActionsStructure
Identity
concerns
Weaknesses/Future Work
1. Multiple case study of AACSB schools?
2. Future studies: effects of the identity work, types
3. Any suggestions/comments or questions warmly received!
MOTIVATIONS
Standards: economic (e.g., Beck & Walgenbach, 2005, Naveh & Marcus, 2005) or normative logics (e.g., Brunsson & Jacobsson, 2002; Brunsson, Rasche, & Seidl, 2012; McNulty & Ferlie, 2004).
Individual actors do not indeed change their practices to accommodate the standard (Sandholtz, 2012; Timmermans & Epstein, 2010).
Traditional institutional theory coming from ceremonial behaviour and decoupling insights (Fiss & Zajac, 2006; Meyer & Rowan, 1977).
Need for a fine-grained qualitative approach enabling a better understanding of how individuals cope with challenges when implementing standards (e.g., Barley, 2008; Boiral, 2003; MacLean & Behnam, 2010; Sandholtz, 2012)
MOTIVATIONS
Recent research hints that professional groups and identification might affect the implementation of standards in different ways (Boiral, 2003; Sandholtz, 2012).
Standard implementations can be represented as a wide range of actions, tinted with different meanings ranging from support and enthusiasm to cynicism and frustration (MacLean & Behnam, 2010; Sandholtz, 2012).
We emphasize on standardization efforts in knowledge intensive organizations (KIF) (e.g., Alvesson, 2000; 2001; Brown & Lewis, 2011; Karreman & Alvesson, 2004; Swart & Kinnie, 2003).
A mixture of autonomy, independence in the workplace but at the same time control and discipline
A constant and intense identity work (Alvesson 2001)
Our focus is on the actions and activities individuals do when facing the implementation of standardized routines and demands at the work place in a KIF
RELATED LITERATURE: STANDARDS
Standards: rule-like mechanisms aimed at the achievement of an optimum degree of order in a given context Brunsson et al., 2012)
An economic and rational perspective: efficiency gains, economic activities, and competitiveness (Beck & Walgenbach, 2005; Naveh & Marcus, 2005; Tassey, 2000).
A normative approach: institutional pressures, conformity, and power contention among actors (e.g., Brunsson and Jacobsson 2002; Brunsson et al. 2012; McNulty and Ferlie 2004).
Standards ~ organizational routines / practices:
Practices, praxis, and practitioners
Ostensive and performative meanings (Feldman & Pentland, 2003)
There are suggestions of dissatisfaction about certain demands that standardization practices impose (Lampland & Star, 2009; Sandholtz, 2012)
Less research on how identity concerns of practitioners might affect standardization implementation
Some initial studies are Jarzabkowski, Lê, & Feldman’s study(2012) and Sandholtz’s study (2012)
RELATED LITERATURE: Identity construction in knowledge-intensive organizations
A lot of attention to the concept of Identity (Alvesson, Lee Ashcraft, & Thomas, 2008; Ashforth, Rogers, & Corley, 2011; Brown, 2001)
Identity work: "forming, repairing, maintaining, strengthening or revising the constructions that are productive of a sense of coherence and distinctiveness" (Sveningsson & Alvesson, 2003: 1165).
Professional identity: those self-defining activities circumscribed by the esoteric-based knowledge characteristic of a group of individuals (e.g., Dent & Whitehead, 2002; Pratt, Rockmann, & Kaufmann, 2006).
KIF: refers to those where most work is said to be of an intellectual nature and where well-educated, qualified employees form the major part of the workforce (e.g., Alvesson, 1995, 2000; Starbuck, 1992).
KIF has high levels of ambiguity -> high levels of identity work (Alvesson, 2000)
Brown and Lewis (2011) studied the connections among participants' identity claims, organizational routines, and control mechanisms.
Less work has been done on the interactions between identity work and the implementation of standardized routines in KIF.
CASE CONTEXT
University and Business School going through an accreditation process
Inductive within parameters of AoL activity (praxis).
Education sector, a rich context to study tensions between different professions (Beck & Young, 2005; Bernstein, 2000).
Three-year window: Two years pre accreditation and 1 year post.
Inductive within parameters of AoL activity (praxis).
Contested practices (Kilpatrick, Dean, & Kilpatrick, 2008)
Structural force
Department A Origins were specific
Department chair
Common offices
History of working together
Conscious perceptions about being different from the rest
Higher level of autonomy
A lot of communication and interactions
Rubrics were used in a different way: high levels of appropriation
The rest of departments
More fragmented
Questioning about different aspects, but no actual change
Interaction was done through formal departmental meetings, vice deans, associate dean, AOL coordinator, curriculum committee, institutional researcher)
SENSE OF PURPUSE
A general confusion about theoretical (ostensive) and more practical (performative) aspects of the standard.
Different sources of information with different content of the standard.
Individual mixed feelings about the validity of the system, even in positions such as curriculum committees and vicedeans.
Department A could make sense together, the rest of departments had eclectic views of the standard.
IDENTITY CLAIMS
Implementation of the standard was tightly connected to self-evaluation aspects.
Connections between their work as educators and the outcome of students.
For the rest of the departments this connection was clear and more individualistic (i.e., one course, one professor’s name)
The results of the students were discussed in public meetings in which individual names were brought up.
Instructors showed signs of concerns about their classes being perceived as low by the others.
Tendencies to adjust achievement levels (subjectivity of knowledge (Alvesson, 2001)
Members of the department A had different perceptions. The results were less attached to individual performances and more to the overall organization. The members were able to discuss these perceptions as a team.