Tekst on autorite poolt ResearchGates kättesaadavaks tehtud ja sestap pikka kommentaari ei vaja.
Siiski, tegemist on huvitava tekstiga juba põhjusel, et tegeleb küsimustega, millele mõtlemine võiks paljudele kasuks tulla. Pole kahtlust, et inimesed väljendavad enda eelistusi ja tõekspidamisi mõnigi kord üsna veidralt või kummaliselt ning kaugeltki mitte nende tõekspidamistega kooskõlas olevalt. Kuidas sedalaadi käitumissegadustes teiseneb institutsionaalne keskkond, on üsna keerukas ennustada, kuid selle üle oleks väga kasulik mõelda.

Kontekstist:

Institutional orders embed latent tensions between stability and change (Farjoun, 2010) because interaction practices, i.e., the routine activities that are largely unconscious and automatic (Swidler, 2001b), ‘hold in place’ institutional orders (Goffman, 1983), even as the people performing these roles change (Barley and Tolbert, 1997; Dacin et al., 2010; McPherson and Sauder, 2013).

Uurimisküsimus:

How can social interactions aimed at reproducing an institutional order instead lead to unintentional institutional change?

Mina kujunemisest:

As people learn to think, feel, and act as competent participants in the social interactions that constitute an institutional order, they develop institution specific sense of self (Toubiana, 2020; Voronov and Weber, 2016).

Kuidas toimuvad institutsionaalsed muutused:

Our theory of institutional drift offers a processual explanation of how institutional change can result from tolerable practice deviations between institutional actors. There are two interrelated mechanisms that are drivers: 1) initially, practice deviation, by a person acting in a manner that is inconsistent with the expectations of their institutional actor role, and 2) then, tolerance of the practice deviation by the local interaction partner(s).

Järgnev on mõeldud lugemishuvi süvendamiseks:

Our theorizing acknowledges the inherent indeterminacy of institutional orders, originating from the fantasmic yet inherently moral fundamental institutional ideals, or ethos (Voronov and Weber, 2020) that are only partly and imperfectly translated into concrete institutional arrangements by people inhabiting them.

Voronov, M., Ann Glynn, M., & Weber, K. (2021). Under the radar: institutional drift and non‐strategic institutional change. Journal of Management Studies.