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

Standard Implementatio

nsRules

MOTIVATIONS

Standard Implementatio

nsRules

Strategy as PracticePraxis

Emergence

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).

FINDINGS

DIFFERENT PRAXIS

Internalized

Prescribed

2 years pre-accreditation

A

B D

FC

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

Structure

Identity concernsLeadership

Sense of Purpose

AOL

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!

Thank you for your time!

Questions, observations and comments warmly welcomed

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.