Oxford Handbook of Human Resource Management

appropriate domain in which the organization should operate, beliefs and values
about the principles of organizing, and deWned performance criteria to assess
success.
The extent to which an organization can be decoupled from the institutional
context depends on its internal dynamics, which include the kind and degree of
commitment to change, the power structures and coalitions favoring or opposing
organizational change, and the capacity to implement change. Greenwood and
Hinings ( 1996 )deWne this capacity as the ability to manage the transition process
from one template to another.
Oliver ( 1991 ) complements this dynamic perspective and makes it possible to
account for change in the institutional framework by showing how organizations
can respond to institutional processes. Organizations use diVerent strategies
(options) to respond to institutional processes, ranging from acquiescence to
manipulation. Oliver’s ( 1991 ) framework is shown in Table 9. 1.
A problem with this framework is that the responses are formulated either in a
conforming way (‘acquiesce’ and ‘compromise’) or in a negative way (‘avoid,’ ‘defy,’
‘manipulate’). If Oliver had also formulated positive and more constructive
strategic responses such as ‘lead,’ ‘initiate,’ ‘develop,’ the scheme would provide a
more complete overview of strategic responses (Paauwe 2004 : 45 ).
Oliver ( 1992 : 564 ) went on to introduce the idea of deinstitutionalization and
deWned it as the process by which the legitimacy of an established or institutionalized

Table 9.1 Strategic responses to institutional processes

Strategies Tactics Examples

Habit Following invisible, taken-for-granted norms

Acquiesce Imitate Mimicking institutional models

Comply Obeying rules and accepting norms

Balance Balancing the expectations of multiple constituents

Compromise Pacify Placating and accommodating institutional elements

Bargain Negotiating with institutional stakeholders

Conceal Disguising nonconformity

Avoid Buffer Loosening institutional attachments

Escape Changing goals, activities, or domains

Dismiss Ignoring explicit norms and values

Defy Challenge Contesting rules and requirements

Attack Assaulting the sources of institutional pressure

Co-opt Importing influential constituents

Manipulate Influence Shaping values and criteria

Control Dominating institutional constituents and process

Source: Oliver 1991.

176 jaap paauwe and paul boselie