The relevance of neo-institutionalism for organizational change

Abstract This essay reviews the literature and discusses the utility of neo-institutionalism for organizational change in public administration. Neo-institutionalism theory has been characterized as focusing on the similarities of organizations (isomorphism) and the stability of organizational arrangements in a field of organizations. However, in the past two decades, greater attention has been paid to how neo-institutional theory contributes to an understanding of change. This has been done by examining the following: the types of change considered; drivers of organizational change; and reasons for investigating public organizations and the reasons they help gain insight; and research results, including the types of methods used. Neo-institutionalism presents an effective framework to conduct public organization research on organizational change and for public administration practice for several reasons.


Introduction
The traditional view of institutional theory as primarily concerned with the stability and isomorphism of organizational arrangements within a given field has been challenged by recent scholarship.A growing body of literature has focused on the role of institutional theory in understanding organizational change, particularly in the public sector (Greenwood et al., 2011).This perspective emphasizes the dynamic interplay between institutional pressures and organizational responses, highlighting the potential for institutional change to drive shifts in organizational behavior and practices.
Despite these recent developments, some scholars continue to question the relevance of institutional theory to organizational change.For instance, Buchko (1994) has argued that institutional pressures can act as a barrier to transformative change, implying that institutional theory may not be well-suited to explaining major shifts in organizational practices or structures.
Nevertheless, more recent research has suggested that institutional theory can offer valuable insights into the complex dynamics of organizational change.For example, some scholars have emphasized the importance of endogenous forces, such as shifts in organizational culture and norms, in driving institutional change (Calvert, 2017).Others have highlighted the role of exogenous forces, such as changes in political power or shifts in the broader institutional environment, in prompting organizational change (Greenwood et al., 2011).
Overall, while there may be differing views on the relevance of institutional theory to organizational change, it is clear that the theory has much to offer in terms of understanding the complex interplay between institutions and organizations.By examining the relationships between institutional pressures and organizational change in greater depth, scholars can continue to build on this important area of research and contribute to a more nuanced understanding of the processes and mechanisms that drive change within organizations.
Contrary to earlier perspectives, neo-institutional theory has increasingly been recognized as an important framework for understanding organizational change in the public sector.A growing body of research has explored the relationships between institutional pressures and change in public organizations, shedding light on how institutional change occurs in response to both internal and external pressures (Greenwood et al., 2011).For example, institutional change can occur in response to exogenous forces such as changes in political power, as well as endogenous forces such as shifts in organizational norms and values (Calvert, 2017).
Moreover, neo-institutional theory has also been influential in understanding the role of isomorphism and stability in shaping organizational behavior.Isomorphism refers to the tendency for organizations to adopt similar structures and practices in order to conform to institutional pressures and achieve legitimacy (DiMaggio & Powell, 1983).In this way, institutional pressures can reinforce stability and promote homogeneity within a given population or field of organizations.However, neo-institutional theory also recognizes the potential for institutional change to disrupt stability and foster heterogeneity, as organizations seek to adapt and respond to changing environmental conditions (Scott, 2014).
Therefore, there is a need for further research to better understand the role of neo-institutional theory in explaining change in public organizations.By examining the relationships between institutional pressures and change in public organizations, this essay aims to contribute to the literature on organizational change and provide insights from the neo-institutional perspective.

Methods
In conducting a literature review for this study, a systematic and comprehensive approach will be used.Specifically, a systematic review of relevant academic articles, book chapters, and reports will be conducted, using a set of predetermined search terms and inclusion criteria to identify relevant studies.This approach will enable a rigorous and transparent assessment of the existing literature on the relationships between institutional pressures and organizational change in public organizations.
There are several different approaches to conducting literature reviews in this field, each with its own strengths and limitations.Some scholars have advocated for a narrative review approach, which involves summarizing and synthesizing the existing literature on a particular topic using a qualitative approach (Greenhalgh et al., 2018).This approach is useful for identifying key themes and trends in the literature, but may be less effective in identifying relevant studies that fall outside of the scope of the review.Other scholars have suggested that systematic reviews offer a more rigorous and transparent approach to reviewing the literature.Systematic reviews involve a rigorous search and selection process, and often include a meta-analysis of the results of relevant studies.This approach is well-suited to identifying all relevant studies on a particular topic, and can help to minimize bias and improve the reliability of the review findings.
Several recent literature reviews in this field have identified key gaps in the existing literature on institutional pressures and organizational change in public organizations.For example, a systematic review by Bovaird and Löffler (2015) identified a lack of research on the role of institutional pressures in driving change in public service delivery, as well as a need for more empirical studies examining the mechanisms through which institutional pressures influence organizational change.Similarly, a narrative review by Doh et al. (2017) highlighted the need for more research on the role of power and politics in shaping institutional change in public organizations.
By conducting a systematic review of the literature on institutional pressures and organizational change in public organizations, this study aims to fill some of these gaps in the existing literature.Specifically, the review will provide a comprehensive and rigorous assessment of the existing literature on this topic, with a focus on identifying the narratives in the literature.By doing so, the review will help to provide a clearer understanding of the complex relationships between institutional pressures and organizational change, and identify areas where further research is needed.

Institutional theory and organizational stability
Institutional theory, as a framework for understanding organizations, emphasizes the importance of institutions, which comprise regulative, normative, and cultural-cognitive elements.These elements, in conjunction with associated activities and resources, provide stability and meaning to social life (Scott, 1998).Institutions play a dual role by offering guidelines and resources to enable specific actions while also imposing constraints to prohibit others (Scott, 2008).They are essentially the rules of the game in society, shaping human interactions in political, social, and economic contexts.

Historical evolution of institutional theory
The evolution of institutional theory can be divided into two major perspectives: traditional (old) institutionalism and neo-institutionalism.Old institutionalism, rooted in concepts like rationality, system, discipline, coherence, and vitality, primarily focused on the stability and persistence of institutions.This perspective assumed that institutions were rational, coherent, and purposeful, emphasizing the importance of rules and routines in shaping behavior (Scott, 2014).In contrast, neo-institutionalism, which gained prominence in the 1980s, introduced a new perspective.Neoinstitutionalism recognizes the role of power and conflict in shaping institutions and emphasizes the potential for change within them.Unlike traditional institutionalism, neo-institutionalism highlights incoherence in institutional arrangements, acknowledging that institutions are not always rational or coherent and that there may be competing norms and values influencing behavior.Furthermore, neo-institutionalism places a stronger emphasis on the role of agency, acknowledging that actors within institutions can actively shape and transform them (Lawrence & Suddaby, 2006).

Isomorphism, stability, and conformity
One central concept in institutional theory is isomorphism, which refers to the tendency for organizations to adopt similar structures and practices to conform to institutional pressures and gain legitimacy (DiMaggio and Powell, 1983).Traditional institutional theory mainly focused on isomorphism, emphasizing the constraining and homogenizing effects of institutional pressures, leading to stability and uniformity within organizational fields.

Critiques and challenges
Critics of institutional theory have raised concerns about its focus on homogeneity and persistence, arguing that it sometimes neglects the role of interest and agency in shaping organizational action (DiMaggio, 1988).While early institutional theory portrayed organizations as passive entities influenced by institutional pressures, more recent research acknowledges that organizations can also actively influence these pressures.
Recent studies and applications of institutional theory have demonstrated its relevance in understanding organizational change, innovation, and development across various fields.Scholars have explored how institutional factors, such as regulatory frameworks and cultural norms, shape industries like reproductive tourism and tourism and hospitality (Earl and Hall, 2021).These studies underline the impact of institutions on organizational behavior and strategies for coping with institutional pressures.
Additionally, contemporary researchers have emphasized the concept of "social fitness" of organizations, highlighting the importance of acquiring a legitimate form within a given institutional environment (Scott, 2008).This perspective reinforces the idea that institutional isomorphism can lead organizations to become more similar without necessarily becoming more efficient.
In short, institutional theory has evolved over time, from a focus on stability and isomorphism to a more nuanced understanding of institutions' incoherence and the role of agency in shaping them (Hwang, 2015).While it has faced critiques regarding its emphasis on conformity, institutional theory remains a valuable framework for understanding the dynamics of organizations and institutions across diverse fields.

Types of organizational change
Institutional change can be defined as "the abandonment of old institutionalized practices, structures, and goals and the adoption of institutionally contradictory practices, structures and goals by an individual organization or field of organizations" (Kraatz & Moore, 2002).
Public organizations face numerous types of institutional pressure (Hwang, 2019).However, they are not passive entities that merely accommodate the demands of the environment in which they are immersed; rather, their choices between alternative responses can be strategic in character and reflect search for competitive advantage (Fernandez-Alles & Llamas-Sanchez, 2008).Conformity in the face of social expectation is not a public organization's only option, for they may choose from a wide range of possible responses.Organizational change may be divided into a diverse range of types.Here, I focus on two criteria: ways and strategies.
First, there is a distinction between the two different ways in which change occur, that is, gradual change and radical change.Gradual or convergent change occurs within the parameters of an existing archetype.In contrast, radical change emerges when an organization moves from the model currently in use to another, causing a distinct break (Greenwood & Hinings, 1996).
Second, we can divide the types of organizational change according to strategies.Lawrence notes the ability demonstrated by organizations to wield strategic influence over their political, legal, social, and other contexts.They define "institutional strategy" as "patterns of action that are concerned with managing the institutional structures within which firms compete for resource" (Lawrence, 1999).Oliver proposes the specific strategies in response to institutional pressures: acquiescence, compromise, manipulation, avoidance, and defiance (Oliver, 1991).
Acquiescence assumed alternative forms, such as habituation, imitation, and compliance.Habituation refers to unconscious or blind adherence to preconscious or taken-for-granted rules or values.Imitation is either conscious or unconscious mimicry of institutional models, including that of successful organizations.Compliance is defined as conscious obedience to values, norms, or institutional requirements (Oliver, 1991).
Under some circumstances, where organizations face inconsistencies between institutional expectations and internal organizational objectives, organizations may attempt to balance, pacify, or bargain with external constituents, which together may be classified as compromising tactics.Balancing refers to the accommodation of multiple constituent demands in response to institutional pressures and expectations.Pacifying constitutes partial conformity with the expectations of one or more constituents.Bargaining is a more active form of compromise than pacifying that involves organizational efforts to exact concessions from an external constituent in its demands or expectations (Oliver, 1991).Some institutional and resource dependence theorists have acknowledged the importance of avoidance as a response to institutional pressures (Pfeffer & Salancik, 1978;Thompson, 1967).Avoidance is defined as the organizational attempt to preclude the necessity of conformity and comprises concealment, buffering, and escaping as tactics.Concealment implies disguising nonconformity behind a façade of acquiescence.Buffering refers to an organization's attempt to minimize the extent to which it is externally inspected or scrutinized by partially detaching or decoupling its technical activities from external contact (Scott, 1987).Escaping, a more dramatic tactic, refers to the possibility of an organization exiting the domain that exerts pressure on it (Hirschman, 1970).
Defiance is a more active form of resistance to institutional processes; it comprises dismissing, challenge, and attack tactics.Dismissing is a strategic option that organizations are more likely to exercise when the potential for external enforcement of institutional rules is perceived to be low.Challenge is a more active departure from rules, norms, or expectations than dismissal.Attacking organizations strive to assault or denounce institutionalized values and the external constituents that express them.
Manipulation is defined as the purposeful and opportunistic attempt to co-opt, influence, or control institutional pressures.An organization may choose to co-opt the source of the pressure, while influence may be more generally directed toward institutionalized values and beliefs.Control includes specific efforts to establish power and dominance over the external constituents that exert pressure on the organization (Oliver, 1991).
The impact of changes in an organization, whether they occur gradually or radically and are based on the choice of strategy, plays a crucial role in determining the organization's overall health and well-being.Gradual changes often facilitate smoother transitions, with employees more easily adapting to alterations that do not significantly deviate from current practices.These changes tend to promote stability and continuity, valuable in maintaining core functions and legitimacy.In contrast, radical changes, while disruptive and potentially met with resistance, may be necessary in response to crises or ineffective practices.They have the potential to drive innovation and redefine an organization's mission and goals.
The choice of strategy, be it acquiescence, compromise, manipulation, avoidance, or defiance, also shapes the organizational response to institutional pressures.Strategies that involve adaptation and conformity, like acquiescence and compromise, can help maintain legitimacy but may not necessarily result in significant improvements in the organization's health.Avoidance and defiance strategies, on the other hand, carry greater risks and rewards.Avoidance can free the organization from certain pressures but requires skillful maintenance of operations and reputation.Defiance can challenge the status quo and drive innovation but may damage the organization's relationships and reputation.
Ultimately, the impact on an organization's health depends on various factors, including the context in which it operates and the alignment of chosen strategies with its unique circumstances and long-term objectives.A "good and healthy" organization effectively navigates change, adapts to its evolving environment, maintains employee well-being, and fulfills its mission.The success of organizational change strategies lies in their careful execution and their ability to harmonize with the organization's specific needs and goals.Oliver (1992) identified three main sources of pressure that lead to the deinstitutionalization of norms and practices: functional, political, and social.Functional pressures arise from perceived problems in performance levels or the utility associated with institutionalized practices.This may be linked to broad environmental changes, such as intensified competition for resources, that challenge the effectiveness of existing institutional arrangements.Scott (2008) emphasized the importance of deinstitutionalization, observing that the weakening and disappearance of one set of beliefs and practices are likely to be associated with the arrival of new beliefs and practices.

Deinstitutionalization
Political pressures, on the other hand, result from shifts in the interests and underlying power distributions that support and legitimize existing institutional arrangements.Changes in laws or social expectations, such as affirmative action, can also hinder the continuation of a practice.In response to performance crises or environmental changes, organizations may question the legitimacy of a given practice (Dacin et al., 2002).Social pressures also influence deinstitutionalization and institutional change.The existence of heterogeneous, divergent, or discordant beliefs and practices, as well as increasing workforce diversity, can lead to the differentiation of groups.
In terms of the core and essential state structures, such as the legislative, executive, judiciary, and military institutions for maintaining law and order, the process of deinstitutionalization may be more complex.Deinstitutionalization in these institutions may require significant shifts in power and may be more challenging to achieve.The process would need to be carefully planned and implemented in a way that ensures stability and continuity while also enabling change.
Therefore, the question of how deinstitutionalization makes possible organizational change is closely tied to the specific context of the organization or institution in question.The process of deinstitutionalization for the core and essential state structures would need to be approached with caution, with a focus on maintaining stability while enabling change.The process would require careful planning and execution, as well as consideration of the interests and power dynamics involved.

The predictors of organizational change
Oliver identifies predictors of organizational change, analysis of which can help explain the possibility of change in organizations, in terms of the different factors that affect how public institutions deal with various types of institutional pressure.These factors, referred to as the "five Cs," explain an organization's response to institutional pressure: cause, constituents, contents, control, and context (Oliver, 1991).
Cause concerns the reasons the organization is pressured to conform to institutional rules or expectations.These include rational motives, such as efficiency or economic benefits, as well as motives, such as legitimacy or social convenience of conforming to institutional rules (Fernandez-Alles & Llamas-Sanchez, 2008).
The constituents refer to the gamut of actors that exert institutional pressures on the organization.These are the stakeholders and include the state.For example, these stakeholders comprise relevant professional, occupational, and other interest groups, users of services, the media, and the public.Public organizations are often responsible for exerting regulatory institutional pressures, but they also have to tackle pressures to gain external support from multiple and divergent stakeholders to achieve legitimacy (Frumkin & Galaskiewicz, 2004).In most cases, any particular public organization will have several well-defined stakeholders, and the organizations will exert a higher degree of dependence on these stakeholders because of the legitimacy they grant (Feldman, 2005).
The contents refer to the nature of the rules or requirements derived from institutional pressures.The institutional pressures of contents can be classified as regulatory, normative, and mimetic (Meyer & Rowan, 1991).
The control factor refers to the means and mechanisms through which pressure is exercised.In most public services, pressures primarily include regulation, whose influence it is difficult to avoid.However, public institutions are also subject to pressures from various other stakeholders besides those with governmental or legal authority (Fernandez-Alles & Llamas-Sanchez, 2008).
The context refers to the environmental context within which institutional pressures are exerted.The environment changes and institutions may either respond, endure, and flourish or be weakened and give way to new ones, creating a process of deinstitutionalization (Oliver, 1992).Caemmerer and Marck (2009) examines the impact of isomorphic pressures on the development of organizational service orientation in public services, using neo-institutionalism as a theoretical framework.The authors argue that public organizations face pressure to conform to institutionalized norms and practices, leading to isomorphic behavior, and that these pressures influence the development of organizational service orientation.Overall, the paper highlights the utility of neoinstitutionalism for understanding the factors that shape organizational change in public services.The framework provides a lens for analyzing the institutional pressures that organizations face, and how these pressures influence their behavior and decision-making.Additionally, the authors' findings suggest that isomorphic pressures can hinder the development of organizational service orientation in public services, highlighting the importance of recognizing and addressing institutional pressures in promoting organizational change.Brint and Karabel (1991) argue that the study of institutional elements is applicable to change in public organizations, stating that "Although institutional elements are found in all organizations, the non-profit and social services are the institutional sphere par excellence."Additionally, Scott (1998) states, "typologically, public organization is a sector that is subject to strong institutional requirements."Studying public organizations may be appropriate to acquire insight into institutional change for several reasons.First, public organizations conduct activities associated with a high degree of risk (Zucker, 1983).This increases their visibility, further exposing them to regulations and intervention by stakeholders.That public organizations participate more actively in the social sphere prompts them to provide frequent explanations for their activities and compels certain management practices, such as a fully open recruiting process (Scott, 1998).

The reasons behind changes in public organizations must be studied
Second, managers lack comprehensive information on input-output relationships, the connections between resources and goals and between technologies and the types of production standards to be followed.Although it is true that employing ratios helps managers and stakeholders to evaluate performance against recognized institutional criteria, change is complex and difficult to calibrate (Frumkin & Galaskiewicz, 2004).Scott and Mayer (1991) state that public service organizations operate in strong institutional and weak technical environments because they face greater demands for legitimacy than for efficiency and efficacy.It is essential for the entity to be seen as legitimate, even more than to be seen as fulfilling the technical and economic efficiency criteria stipulated in its environment (Meyer & Rowan, 1991).The quest for a good social fit is prioritized over the efficiency criterion (Hinings & Greenwood, 1988).Public institutions depend on public opinion for their legitimacy and resources and are subject to evaluation based on their use of up-to-date procedures and structures because they cannot be judged based on profitability (Dobbin et al., 1993).The success of non-market organizations rests on their ability to satisfy external, socially determined criteria of performance.Non-market organizations thus seek to make themselves and their outputs legitimate through conformity with institutionalized practices (Casile & Davis-Blake, 2002).

Research on organizational change
Much research has been done on change in public organizations based on neo-institutional theory, which can be divided into theoretical and empirical research.However, research has primarily focused on theoretical methods to explain organizational change with regard to neo-institutional theory.Boin and Christensen (2008) studied the role of active leadership in public organizations in the process of institutionalization. Fernandez-Alles and Llamas-Sanchez ( 2008) identified predictors and strategies of changes in public organizations.Lawrence (1999) examined institutional strategies, such as membership strategies and standardization strategies.Oliver (1991Oliver ( , 1992) ) described strategic responses to institutional processes and the process of deinstitutionalization.Greenwood and Hinings (1996) described organizational templates in an institutionalized environment.Dacin et al. (2002) summarized institutional theory and institutional change, while Scott (2008) summarized the influence of institutional theories.North (1990) examined institutional change in terms of increased return and positive feedback from an economic perspective.Moe (2015, p. 297) argued that "in today's pursuit of institutional theory, the study of change is where the action is."Alvesson and Spicer (2019) argue that institutional theorists should prune old theoretical concepts and focus on fewer theoretical outcomes.In fact, Powell et al. (2017) contends that many of the institutional concepts and processes developed in the 1970s and 1980s are outdated in light of how contemporary organizations compete and interact with their environments.
Although some research has applied empirical tests to examine organizational change in terms of institutional pressure (Alvesson & Spicer, 2019), much of this research has adopted a theoretical approach.
The provided literature review offers a comprehensive overview of the theoretical foundations and key concepts related to organizational change, particularly within the context of public organizations, from the perspective of neo-institutionalism.While much research has focused on theoretical approaches to organizational change, the added value of this literature review lies in its synthesis of these concepts and the establishment of a research framework that provides a structured guide for the analysis of organizational change within public organizations.
Here's a synthesized research framework that encapsulates the key components of the literature review (see Table 1): The research framework outlined in this literature review synthesizes key theoretical concepts and provides a structured approach to analyzing organizational change within public organizations.Researchers and practitioners can use this framework to guide their empirical studies, offering a comprehensive understanding of the factors that shape change processes in public institutions.It combines the theoretical foundations with practical relevance, making it a valuable resource for future research and analysis in this field.

Neo-institutionalism's applicability to organizational change
Neo-institutionalism is a theoretical perspective in sociology and organizational theory that focuses on the influence of institutions (e.g., laws, norms, and regulations) on shaping the behavior and structure of organizations.It has been influential in understanding how organizations function and adapt within their broader societal context.However, the success of applying neo-institutionalism in practice varies depending on several factors, and it may not be equally applicable to all organizations.Here are some key considerations: Organizational Type, Environmental Factors, Organizational Culture, Leadership and Management, Organizational Goals, and Geographic and Cultural Context.
The applicability of neo-institutionalism depends on the type of organization.It is particularly relevant for organizations operating in highly regulated industries, such as healthcare, finance, and education, where institutional pressures strongly shape their behavior and practices.In these cases, neo-institutionalism can be very useful for understanding compliance and conformity.The Highlighting the diverse strategies organizations employ when facing institutional pressures, providing insight into their decision-making processes.

Deinstitutionalization
Sources of Pressure (Functional, Political, Social) Identifying the factors that lead to the deinstitutionalization of norms and practices, offering a comprehensive understanding of the causes behind change.

Complexities in Core and Essential State Structures
Acknowledging the unique challenges and complexities in deinstitutionalizing practices within core state structures.

Predictors of Organizational Change
The "Five Cs" (Cause, Constituents, Offering a structured approach to analyzing an organization's response to institutional pressure, including the reasons for change, the stakeholders involved, the nature of pressure, the means of control, and the environmental context.

The Influence of Isomorphic Pressures on Organizational Service Orientation
Demonstrating how isomorphic pressures can hinder the development of organizational service orientation in public services, highlighting the relevance of recognizing and addressing institutional pressures.

Reasons Behind Changes in Public Organizations
Public Organizations as Risk-Takers Recognizing the elevated risk associated with public organizations due to their visibility, leading to regulatory and stakeholder intervention.

Challenges in Calibrating Change
Acknowledging the complexity and challenges in measuring and calibrating change within the public sector.

Emphasis on Legitimacy over Efficiency
Highlighting the importance of public organizations being perceived as legitimate and socially responsible, often prioritizing this over efficiency criteria.
extent to which neo-institutionalism is applicable also depends on the environmental factors an organization faces.Organizations operating in more stable and institutionalized environments are likely to conform to institutional norms and practices more closely.In contrast, those in dynamic and uncertain environments may have more flexibility in their adherence to institutional pressures.The existing organizational culture and leadership play a significant role in determining how well neo-institutionalism can be applied.Some organizations may resist institutional pressures and maintain their unique identity and practices, while others may conform more readily.The effectiveness of applying neo-institutionalism also depends on the knowledge, skills, and commitment of an organization's leadership and management in navigating institutional pressures.Neoinstitutionalism assumes that organizations primarily seek legitimacy by conforming to institutional pressures.If an organization's primary goals diverge from this perspective, it may not find neo-institutionalism very useful in practice.The relevance of neo-institutionalism can vary based on the geographic and cultural context.What constitutes an institution and the degree of institutional pressures can differ significantly between countries and regions.
In sum, the success of applying neo-institutionalism in the practice of an organization varies based on the organization's context, its goals, and its adaptability to institutional pressures.While it can provide valuable insights into how organizations respond to external pressures, it may not be equally applicable to all organizations and should be considered within the broader framework of organizational theory and practice.

Theoretical implications
This essay discusses the usefulness of neo-institutionalism in understanding organizational change.It presents an effective framework to conduct public organization research on organizational change and for public administration practice for several reasons.First, this framework can explain organizational change in the public sector.Particularly by emphasizing the factor of legitimacy, this framework increases the explanatory strength of theory.As demonstrated above, public organizations are different from private ones.The ambiguity of inputs and outputs makes it challenging for other theories, such as formal theory, to explain the reasons and timing of change in public organizations.To gain legitimacy for survival, public organizations accept or reject environmental elements or pressures.When organizations face institutional pressures, they become isomorphic, responding and adapting to the environment; they converge with the environment in search of legitimacy (Fernandez-Alles & Llamas-Sanchez, 2008).
Second, this framework can grant people and organizations an active role in organizational change by helping them escape persistence and stability.It is reasonable for institutions to affect and constraint individual organizations.However, if institutionalists persist with the stability of institutions, they may lose much explanatory power because most public organizations have changed in reality.In other words, while institutions provide stability and order (e.g., Accountability system, Hwang, 2023;Hwang & Han, 2020), they undergo transition, both incremental and revolutionary.This framework thus does not limit the ability of organizations and people in the public sector.Organizations do not necessarily conform to social expectations, but rather respond to institutional pressures.Moreover, organizations and people can exert pressure on institutions.As Boin and Christensen (2008) argued, effective leadership can design and facilitate effective practices and monitor institutionalization in public organizations.This is consistent with the definition of institutional change posited by North, such that institutional change stems from the entrepreneurs' belief in political and economic organizations regarding their ability to alter the existing institutional framework by some margin (North, 1990).Similarly, regarding organizational change, Oliver argued for the active role of organizations in the face of institutional pressures as well as the ways they can strategically respond to such pressures (Oliver, 1992).Furthermore, he argued that organizations needed to be considered as active entities that make strategic choices (Oliver, 1991), which is consistent with Zucker's argument that organizations can accept or reject institutional rules as they relate to their own interests (Zucker, 1983).
Finally, this framework can reveal the dynamics of change in public organizations through the process of deinstitutionalization.Because the old framework only concerned the institutionalization process, it faced difficulties in explaining the change of organizations.However, because this new framework emphasizes deinstitutionalization, it can explain the processes behind such changes as response and adaptation to environmental pressures more clearly.According to Tolbert and Zucker (1983), institutions are regarded not only as a "property" or state of an existing social order, but also as "processes," including those of institutionalization and deinstitutionalization.Thus, neo-institutionalism has benefited from valuable contributions that have led it to be applied more frequently in the analysis of organizations and to secure acceptance as a valid theory of change and competitiveness (Greenwood & Hinings, 1996;Kraatz & Zajac, 1996).
In the context of public administration, neo-institutionalism has been used to study the impact of institutional factors on organizational change, such as the role of the state in shaping organizational behavior.As Evans et al. (1985) argued, the state is not just a neutral actor but also an organizational structure that can affect the behavior of other organizations.The authors argue that the state is not just a passive instrument of the ruling class, but an autonomous entity that has its own interests and power to shape society.They argue that states are shaped by institutional factors, such as legal systems, administrative structures, and cultural norms, which affect their behavior and decisions.Furthermore, the authors suggest that institutional approaches, such as neo-institutionalism, can be useful for understanding the role of the state in organizational change.By examining how institutions shape the behavior of state actors and how states interact with other organizations and actors, scholars can gain a better understanding of how state policies and practices are shaped and how they evolve over time.I'd like to highlight positive as well as negative cases, however, when adopting a "neoinstitutionalism" lens to study organizational change.Adoption of e-governance could be a positive case.Its inclusive of transparent rules appears to have improved the functioning of certain government institutions.Intensified digital communication, closer connectivity between organizations, and the broad availability of information render large-scale mobilization efforts more feasible to upset institutional arrangements within organizational fields (Powell et al., 2017).The literature on regulatory capture appears to suggest that certain public institutions got undermined by pressure from "neo-institutionalism", which could be understood as a negative case.We have seen an increased role for markets, more consultative businessgovernment relations, and the loosening of state controls these days.
While, previously, individuals were seen within organizations, I see individuals with organizations.In an institutional perspective, organizations, which include individuals, resemble other institutions as they adapt or survive (or in terms of legitimacy).This leads to tension due to the characteristics of continuity.However, when we divide individuals from organizations, they have room to change.This relates to what we see as a new institutionalism, largely identified with a rejection of rationality as an explanation of organizational structure (Thornton & Ocasio, 2008, p. 100).I argue that we need to conceptually separate the individual from the organization to resolve the tension and then practice more wisely to adapt to the flexibility and rapid responses.
The debate between the "logic of appropriateness" and the "logic of consequentiality" has significant implications for organizational sustainability and change.According to the logic of appropriateness, actions are taken based on what is considered appropriate in a given context, with a focus on upholding institutional norms and values (March & Olsen, 1998).On the other hand, the logic of consequentiality prioritizes decision-making based on the anticipated outcomes and consequences (March & Olsen, 1998).In the context of organizational change, the logic of appropriateness may be more effective in maintaining institutional stability and continuity (Brunsson, 2008).However, in situations where significant change is required, the logic of consequentiality may be more appropriate (Brunsson, 2008).This approach can help organizations break away from rigid institutional structures and adapt to changing external conditions.
To ensure successful organizational change, a balance must be struck between the logic of appropriateness and the logic of consequentiality (Brunsson, 2008).This can be achieved by utilizing a combination of both approaches, taking into account the institutional norms and values, as well as the potential outcomes and consequences of a particular action.Moreover, the role of leadership is crucial in balancing these two approaches and driving effective organizational change (Dutton et al., 2010).Leaders can act as change agents, promoting a culture of innovation and adapting the organization to the changing environment, while also ensuring that institutional norms and values are maintained.In summary, to ensure organizational sustainability and effective change, a balance between the logic of appropriateness and the logic of consequentiality is necessary.This can be achieved through a combination of both approaches, with a focus on leadership and a culture of innovation and adaptation.

Practical implications
Neo-institutionalism offers valuable insights into understanding organizational change, particularly within the complex landscape of public organizations.This framework's strengths lie in its ability to explain change within the public sector, with a focus on the pivotal concept of legitimacy, which enhances its explanatory power.Neo-institutionalism recognizes that public organizations operate under unique circumstances, where ambiguity surrounds inputs and outputs, making it challenging for alternative theories to explain changes effectively.By emphasizing how organizations adapt to institutional pressures in the pursuit of legitimacy, this framework offers a nuanced view of organizational transformation.
A key advantage of neo-institutionalism is that it doesn't limit change to external pressures but acknowledges the agency of organizations and individuals.It allows organizations to strategically respond to these pressures and even exert their own influence on institutions.Effective leadership, for instance, can shape and monitor institutionalization within public organizations.This perspective aligns with the idea that change is a result of actors' beliefs in their capacity to alter existing institutional frameworks, providing a dynamic lens through which to view organizational change.
Moreover, neo-institutionalism's emphasis on deinstitutionalization illuminates the processes of change more comprehensively, explaining how organizations move away from established norms and practices in response to external pressures.This framework has secured acceptance as a valid theory of change and competitiveness, making it an invaluable tool for practitioners, especially within the realm of public administration.
However, practitioners should also be aware of the potential limitations of neoinstitutionalism.It has historically focused on stability and conformity, which might not fully account for situations demanding radical or innovative changes.An overemphasis on conforming to institutional norms can sometimes foster resistance to change and inhibit innovation.Additionally, neo-institutionalism's relevance may vary in different contexts, and its application beyond the public sector may not fully capture the dynamics of change in private sector organizations or non-governmental entities.
To strike a balance, practitioners can blend neo-institutionalism with other change theories to gain a more comprehensive understanding.Effective leadership plays a crucial role in balancing the logic of appropriateness and the logic of consequentiality, enabling innovation while respecting institutional norms.Contextual analysis and flexibility are also essential, allowing for the tailored application of neo-institutionalism in varying organizational contexts.In summary, while neo-institutionalism is a valuable tool for understanding organizational change, it should be used judiciously, in conjunction with other theories, to offer a wellrounded perspective on organizational dynamics.