An institution is often considered to be a stable, taken-for-granted ‘being’. The consequence is that agency is primarily associated with the rather exceptional creation or disruption of a relatively stable structure. In this article, we suggest an alternative ontology for understanding an institution as something unstable and always ‘becoming’. This opens a range of new and distinct opportunities for theorizing and researching institutional work involved in the everyday practice of managing institutional complexity. It allows us, in this study, to contribute with a new form of agency in terms of the continuous, active work of managing novel contradictions. Further, it induces us to take a more fine-grained look at the accompanying dynamics of work, in addition to work itself, whereby we provide a novel way of accounting for whether work effort is amplifying or subsiding, and whether it is likely to result in greater or lesser volatility within – on the surface – an otherwise seemingly stable institution. The argumentation is supported by an ethnographic field study of the work of managing novel contradictions within a single South Korean credit card company in the aftermath of the Asian economic crisis in 1997.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Bjerregaard et al. (2014) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: