Abstracts
Abstract
In most organizational fields, multiple and sometimes conflicting institutional logics coexist, a phenomenon termed institutional complexity. Its behavioral implications have only recently been studied. This study analyzes how sustained institutional complexity through organizational design influences individual dysfunctional behavior. It is posited that organizations sustaining institutional complexity through their organizational designs provide structural assurance that may legitimize behavior that deviates from norms. These claims are tested through a field study in the accounting industry across three countries. It reveals that the perceived presence of institutional complexity can stimulate perceived dysfunctional behaviors. By considering the interplay of institutional complexity and individual dysfunctional behavior, the research unveils unintended consequences of sustained institutional complexity, offering a fresh perspective on sustained institutional complexity.
Keywords:
- Institutional complexity,
- dysfunctional behavior,
- professional service firms
Résumé
Dans divers domaines organisationnels mondiaux, la coexistence de multiples logiques institutionnelles, parfois conflictuelles, est observée, connue sous le nom de complexité institutionnelle. Si traditionnellement considérée comme problématique, la recherche institutionnelle récente en reconnaît plusieurs avantages. Les implications comportementales de cette complexité sont peu étudiées. Cette recherche avance des hypothèses sur l’influence des conceptions organisationnelles soutenant la complexité institutionnelle sur les comportements individuels dysfonctionnels. Elle suggère que ces organisations légitiment les comportements déviants en offrant une assurance structurelle. Ces hypothèses sont testées dans l’industrie comptable de trois pays, où les comportements dysfonctionnels peuvent avoir des répercussions mondiales. L’étude montre que la perception de cette complexité peut stimuler la perception de comportements dysfonctionnels, offrant une perspective sur les conséquences comportementales non intentionnelles.
Mots-clés :
- Complexité institutionnelle,
- comportement dysfonctionnel,
- entreprises de services professionnels
Resumen
En diversos ámbitos organizacionales globales se observa la coexistencia de múltiples lógicas institucionales, a veces contradictorias, lo que se conoce como complejidad institucional. Aunque tradicionalmente se ha considerado problemático, esta investigación le reconoce varias ventajas. Las implicaciones conductuales de esta complejidad están poco estudiadas. Esta investigación avanza hipótesis sobre la influencia de los diseños organizacionales que apoyan la complejidad institucional en los comportamientos individuales disfuncionales. Se postula que las organizaciones que mantienen esta complejidad proporcionan una garantía estructural, legitimando comportamientos desviados. Estas hipótesis se prueban en la industria contable de tres países, donde los comportamientos disfuncionales pueden tener consecuencias globales. La investigación sugiere que la percepción de esta complejidad puede estimular la percepción de comportamientos disfuncionales, ofreciendo una perspectiva sobre sus consecuencias.
Palabras clave:
- Complejidad institucional,
- comportamiento disfuncional,
- empresas de servicios profesionales
Appendices
Bibliography
- Agoglia, C. P., Kida, T., & Hanno, D. M. (2003). The effects of alternative justification memos on the judgments of audit reviewees and reviewers. Journal of Accounting Research, 41(1), 33–46, https://doi.org/10.1111/1475-679X.00094.
- Anderson-Gough, F., Grey, C., & Robson, K. (2001). Tests of time: Organizational time-reckoning and the making of accountants in two multi-national accounting firms. Accounting, Organizations and Society, 26(2), 99–122, https://doi.org/10.1016/S0361-3682(00)00019-2.
- Andersson, T., & Liff, R. (2018). Co-optation as a response to competing institutional logics: Professionals and managers in healthcare. Journal of Professions and Organization, 5(2), 71–87, https://doi.org/10.1093/jpo/joy001.
- Audit Analytics. (2019). Trends in the European Audit Market. Available at: https://www.auditanalytics.com
- Ayers, S., & Kaplan, S. E. (2003). Review partners’ reactions to contact partner risk judgments of prospective clients. Auditing: A Journal of Practice & Theory, 22(1), 29–45, https://doi.org/10.2308/aud.2003.22.1.29.
- Barnier, M. (2010). Green paper. audit policy: Lessons from the crisis. European Commission. Available at https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX%3A52010DC0561.
- Battilana, J., & Dorado, S. (2010). Building sustainable hybrid organizations: The case of commercial microfinance organizations. Academy of Management Journal, 53(6), 1419–1440, https://doi.org/10.5465/amj.2010.57318391.
- Ben Romdhane, R., & Ben Slimane, K. (2018). Le rôle de l’individu dans la réponse à la complexité institutionnelle. Management international/International, 22(4), 75-91, https://doi.org/10.7202/1060839arCopiedAn error has occurred.
- Besharov, M. L., & Smith, W. K. (2014). Multiple institutional logics in organizations: Explaining their varied nature and implications. Academy of Management Review, 39(3), 364–381, https://doi.org/10.5465/amr.2011.0431.
- Bévort, F., & Suddaby, R. (2016). Scripting professional identities: How individuals make sense of contradictory institutional logics. Journal of Professions and Organization, 3(1), 17–38, https://doi.org/10.1093/jpo/jov007.
- Binder, A. (2007). For love and money: Organizations’ creative responses to multiple environmental logics. Theory and Society, 36(6), 547–571, https://doi.org/10.1007/s11186-007-9045-x.
- Brazel, J. F., Agoglia, C. P., & Hatfield, R. C. (2004). Electronic versus face-to-face review: The effects of alternative forms of review on auditors’ performance. The Accounting Review, 79(4), 949–966, https://doi.org/10.2308/accr.2004.79.4.949.
- Carcello, J. V., Hermanson, D. R., & Huss, H. F. (1996). Inappropriate audit partner behavior: Views of partners and senior managers. Behavioral Research in Accounting, 8(1), 245–268.
- Cooper, D. J., Hinings, B., Greenwood, R., & Brown, J. L. (1996). Sedimentation and transformation in organizational change: The case of Canadian law firms. Organization Studies, 17(4), 623–647, https://doi.org/10.1177/0170840696017004.
- Coram, P. J., & Robinson, M. J. (2017). Professionalism and performance incentives in accounting firms. Accounting Horizons, 31(1), 103–123, https://doi.org/10.2308/acch-51636.
- Covaleski, M. A., Dirsmith, M. W., & Rittenberg, L. (2003). Jurisdictional disputes over professional work: the institutionalization of the global knowledge expert. Accounting, Organizations and Society, 28(4), 323–355, https://doi.org/10.1016/S0361-3682(02)00029-6.
- Dunn, M. B., & Jones, C. (2010). Institutional logics and institutional pluralism: The contestation of care and science logics in medical education, 1967–2005. Administrative Science Quarterly, 55(1), 114–149, https://doi.org/10.2189/asqu.2010.55.1.1.
- Empson, L., Cleaver, I., & Allen, J. (2013). Managing partners and management professionals: Institutional work dyads in professional partnerships. Journal of Management Studies, 50(5), 808–844, https://doi.org/10.1111/joms.12025.
- Epps, K. K., & Messier Jr, W. F. (2007). Engagement quality reviews: A comparison of audit firm practices. Auditing: A Journal of Practice & Theory, 26(2), 167–181, https://doi.org/10.2308/aud.2007.26.2.167.
- Faulconbridge, J., & Muzio, D. (2016). Global Professional Service Firms and the Challenge of Institutional Complexity:‘Field Relocation’as a Response Strategy. Journal of Management Studies, 53(1), 89–124, https://doi.org/10.1111/joms.12122.
- Fiolleau, K., Libby, T. & Thorne L. (2018). Dysfunctional behavior in organizations: insights from the management control literature. Auditing: A Journal of Practice &Theory, 37(4), 117–141, https://doi.org/10.2308/ajpt-51914.
- Friedland, R., & Alford, R. (1991) Bringing society back in: Symbols, practices, and institutional contradictions. Walter W.Powell and PaulJ.DiMaggio (Eds.), the New Institutionalism in Organizational Analysis, 232–263.
- Gabbioneta, C., Greenwood, R., Mazzola, P., & Minoja, M. (2013). The influence of the institutional context on corporate illegality. Accounting, Organizations and Society, 38(6), 484–504, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.aos.2012.09.002.
- Gabbioneta, C., Prakash, R., & Greenwood, R. (2014). Sustained corporate corruption and processes of institutional ascription within professional networks. Journal of Professions and Organization, 1(1), 16–32, https://doi.org/10.1093/jpo/jot002.
- Gibbins, M., & Trotman, K. T. (2002). Audit review: Managers’ interpersonal expectations and conduct of the review. Contemporary Accounting Research, 19(3), 411–444, https://doi.org/10.1506/J519-5LVU-JTMQ-YYJ7.
- Greenwood, R., Díaz, 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, https://doi.org/10.1287/orsc.1090.0453.
- Greenwood, R., & Empson, L. (2003). The professional partnership: Relic or exemplary form of governance? Organization Studies, 24(6), 909–933, https://doi.org/10.1177/0170840603024006005.
- Greenwood, R., & Hinings, C. R. (1996). Understanding radical organizational change: Bringing together the old and the new institutionalism. Academy of Management Review, 21(4), 1022–1054, https://doi.org/10.5465/amr.1996.9704071862.
- Greenwood, R., Hinings, C., & Whetten, D. (2014). Rethinking institutions and organizations. Journal of Management Studies, 51(7), 1206–1220, https://doi.org/10.1111/joms.12070.
- Greenwood, R., Li, S. X., Prakash, R., & Deephouse, D. L. (2005). Reputation, diversification, and organizational explanations of performance in professional service firms. Organization Science, 16(6), 661–673, https://doi.org/10.1287/orsc.1050.0159.
- Greenwood, R., & Miller, D. (2010). Tackling design anew: Getting back to the heart of organizational theory. The Academy of Management Perspectives, 24(4), 78–88, https://doi.org/10.5465/amp.2010.24.4.3655970.a.
- Greenwood, R., Raynard, M., Kodeih, F., Micelotta, E. R., & Lounsbury, M. (2011). Institutional complexity and organizational responses. The Academy of Management Annals, 5(1), 317–371, https://doi.org/10.5465/19416520.2011.590299.
- Grey, C. (2003). The real world of Enron’s auditors. Organization, 10(3), 572–576, https://doi.org/10.1177/13505084030103015.
- Hinkin, T. T. R. (1998). A brief tutorial on the development of measures for use in survey questionnaires. Organizational Research Methods, 1(1), 104–121, https://doi.org/10.1177/109442819800100106.
- Hitt, M. A., Bierman, L., Uhlenbruck, K., & Shimizu, K. (2006). The importance of resources in the internationalization of professional service firms: The good, the bad, and the ugly. Academy of Management Journal, 49(6), 1137–1157, https://doi.org/10.5465/amj.2006.23478217.
- Høiland, G. C. L., & Klemsdal, L. (2022). Organizing professional work and services through institutional complexity–how institutional logics and differences in organizational roles matter. Human Relations, 75(2), 240–272, https://doi.org/10.1177/001872672097027.
- Ishaque, M. (2021). Managing conflict of interests in professional accounting firms: a research synthesis. Journal of Business Ethics, 169(3), 537–555, https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-019-04284-8.
- Jarzabkowski, P., Smets, M., Bednarek, R., Burke, G., & Spee, P. (2013). Institutional ambidexterity: Leveraging institutional complexity in practice. Research in the Sociology of Organizations, 39, 37–61, https://doi.org/10.1108/S0733-558X(2013)0039AB015.
- Jay, J. (2013). Navigating paradox as a mechanism of change and innovation in hybrid organizations. Academy of Management Journal, 56(1), 137–159, https://doi.org/10.5465/amj.2010.0772.
- Kaptein, M. (2008). Developing and testing a measure for the ethical culture of organizations: The corporate ethical virtues model. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 29(7), 923–947, https://doi.org/10.1002/job.52.
- Kaptein, M. (2011). From inaction to external whistleblowing: The influence of the ethical culture of organizations on employee responses to observed wrongdoing. Journal of Business Ethics, 98(3), 513–530, https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-010-0591-1.
- Knechel, W. R., Niemi, L., & Zerni, M. (2013). Empirical evidence on the implicit determinants of compensation in big 4 audit partnerships. Journal of Accounting Research, 51(2), 349–387, https://doi.org/10.1111/1475-679X.12009.
- Kornberger, M., Justesen, L., & Mouritsen, J. (2011). “When you make manager, we put a big mountain in front of you”: An ethnography of managers in a big 4 accounting firm. Accounting, Organizations and Society, 36(8), 514–533, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.aos.2011.07.007.
- Kraatz, M. S., & Block, E. S. (2008). Organizational implications of institutional pluralism. The Sage Handbook of Organizational Institutionalism, 840 -862.
- Little, T. D., Cunningham, W. A., Shahar, G., & Widaman, K. F. (2002). To parcel or not to parcel: Exploring the question, weighing the merits. Structural Equation Modeling, 9(2), 151–173, https://doi.org/10.1207/S15328007SEM0902_1.
- Lounsbury, M. (2007). A tale of two cities: Competing logics and practice variation in the professionalizing of mutual funds. Academy of Management Journal, 50(2), 289–307, https://doi.org/10.5465/amj.2007.24634436.
- Lounsbury, M. (2008). Institutional rationality and practice variation: New directions in the institutional analysis of practice. Accounting, Organizations and Society, 33(4), 349–361, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.aos.2007.04.001.
- Mair, J., Mayer, J., & Lutz, E. (2015). Navigating institutional plurality: Organizational governance in hybrid organizations. Organization Studies, 36(6), 713–739, https://doi.org/10.1177/ 0170840615580007.
- Mair, J., & Hehenberger, L. (2014). Front-stage and backstage convening: The transition from opposition to mutualistic coexistence in organizational philanthropy. Academy of Management Journal, 57(4), 1174–1200, https://doi.org/10.1177/0170840615580007.
- Malsch, B., & Gendron, Y. (2013). Re‐Theorizing change: Institutional experimentation and the struggle for domination in the field of public accounting. Journal of Management Studies, 50(5), 870–899, https://doi.org/10.1111/joms.12006.
- Marquis, C., & Lounsbury, M. (2007). Vive la résistance : Competing logics and the consolidation of US community banking. Academy of Management Journal, 50(4),799–820, https://doi.org/10.5465/amj.2007.26279172.
- Meyer, J. W., & Rowan, B. (1977). Institutionalized organizations: Formal structure as myth and ceremony. American journal of sociology, 83(2), 340–363.
- McPherson, C. M., & Sauder, M. (2013). Logics in action managing institutional complexity in a drug court. Administrative Science Quarterly, 58(2), 165–196, https://doi.org/10.1177/0001839213486447.
- Morris, T., & Pinnington, A. (1998). Promotion to partner in professional service firms. Human Relations, 51(1), 3–24, https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1016997715842.
- Muzio, D., Faulconbridge, J., Gabbioneta, C., & Greenwood, R. (2016). Bad apples, bad barrels, bad cellars: a ‘boundaries’ perspective on professional misconduct. Organizational Wrongdoing: Key Perspectives and New Directions, Cambridge University Press.
- Pache, A., & Santos, F. (2013). Inside the hybrid organization: Selective coupling as a response to conflicting institutional logics. Academy of Management Journal, 56(4), 972-1001, https://doi.org/10.5465/amj.2011.0405.
- Perkmann, M., Phillips, N., & Greenwood, R. (2022). Institutional Arbitrage: How Actors Exploit Institutional Difference. Organization Theory, 3(2), 1–20, https://doi.org/10.1177/26317877221090313.
- Podsakoff, P. M., MacKenzie, S. B., Lee, J., & Podsakoff, N. P. (2003). Common method biases in behavioral research: A critical review of the literature and recommended remedies. Journal of Applied Psychology, 88(5), 879–903, https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.88.5.879.
- Quirke, L. (2013). Rogue resistance: Sidestepping isomorphic pressures in a patchy institutional field. Organization Studies, 34(11), 1675–1699, https://doi.org/10.1177/0170840613483815.
- Reay, T., & Hinings, C. R. (2009). Managing the rivalry of competing institutional logics. Organization Studies, 30(6), 629–652, https://doi.org/10.1177/0170840609104803.
- Reay, T., & Hinings, C. B. (2005). The recomposition of an organizational field: Health care in alberta. Organization Studies, 26(3), 351–384, https://doi.org/10.1177/0170840605050872.
- Shafer, W. E. (2002). Ethical pressure, organizational-professional conflict, and related work outcomes among management accountants. Journal of Business Ethics, 38(3), 261–273, https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1015876809254.
- Smets, M., Jarzabkowski, P., Burke, G. T., & Spee, P. (2015). Reinsurance trading in Lloyd’s of London: Balancing conflicting-yet-complementary logics in practice. Academy of Management Journal, 58(3), 932–970, https://doi.org/10.5465/amj.2012.0638.
- Smets, M., Morris, T. I. M., & Greenwood, R. (2012). From practice to field: A multilevel model of practice-driven institutional change. Academy of Management Journal, 55(4), 877–904, https://doi.org/10.5465/amj.2010.0013.
- Sorensen, J. E., & Sorensen, T. L. (1972). Comparison of 1965 and 1970 organizational and professional profiles and migration plans of large-firm CPAs. Behavioral Experiments in Accounting, 3–38.
- Suddaby, R., Cooper, D. J., & Greenwood, R. (2007). Transnational regulation of professional services: Governance dynamics of field level organizational change. Accounting, Organizations and Society, 32(4), 333–362, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.aos.2006.08.002.
- Suddaby, R., Gendron, Y., & Lam, H. (2009). The organizational context of professionalism in accounting. Accounting, Organizations and Society, 34(3), 409–427, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.aos.2009.01.007.
- Svenningsen-Berthélem, V., Boxenbaum, E., & Ravasi, D. (2018). Individual responses to multiple logics in hybrid organizing: The role of structural position. M@n@gement, 21(4), 1306–1328, https://doi.org/10.3917/mana.214.1306.
- 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, https://doi.org/10.5465/3069286.
- Thornton, P. H. (2004). Markets from culture: Institutional logics and organizational decisions in higher education publishing, Stanford University Press, Stanford, California.
- 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.
- Thornton, P. H., Ocasio, W., & Lounsbury, M. (2012). The institutional logics perspective: A new approach to culture, structure, and process, Oxford University Press.
- 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, https://doi.org/10.1287/orsc.1090.0522.
- Vandenhaute, M. L., Hardies, K., & Breesch, D. (2020). Professional and commercial incentives in audit firms: Evidence on partner compensation. European Accounting Review, 29(3), 521–554, https://doi.org/10.1080/09638180.2019.1642223.
- Voronov, M., & Yorks, L. (2015). “Did You Notice That?” Theorizing Differences in the Capacity to Apprehend Institutional Contradictions. Academy of Management Review, 40(4), 563–586, https://doi.org/10.5465/amr.2013.0152.
- Westphal, J. D., & Zajac, E. J. (2001). Decoupling policy from practice: The case of stock repurchase programs. Administrative Science Quarterly, 46(2), 202–228, https://doi.org/10.2307/266708.
- Wyatt, A. R. (2004). Accounting professionalism-they just don’t get it! Accounting Horizons, 18(1), 45–53, https://doi.org/10.2308/acch.2004.18.1.45.