@phdthesis{Bombart2020,
  author    = {Bombart, Diane},
  title     = {The geometry of a complex institution},
  doi       = {10.25932/publishup-48872},
  url       = {http://nbn-resolving.de/urn:nbn:de:kobv:517-opus4-488724},
  school      = {Universit{\"a}t Potsdam},
  pages     = {181},
  year      = {2020},
  abstract  = {Organizations incorporate the institutional demands from their environment in order to be deemed legitimate and survive. Yet, complexifying societies promulgate multiple and sometimes inconsistent institutional prescriptions. When these prescriptions collide, organizations are said to face "institutional complexity". How does an organization then incorporate incompatible demands? What are the consequences of institutional complexity for an organization? The literature provides contradictory conceptual and empirical insights on the matter. A central assumption, however, remains that internal incompatibilities generate tensions that, under certain conditions, can escalate into intractable conflicts, resulting in dysfunctionality and loss of legitimacy. The present research is an inquiry into what happens inside an organization when it incorporates complex institutional demands. To answer this question, I focus on how individuals inside an organization interpret a complex institutional prescription. I examine how members of the French Development Agency interpret 'results-based management', a central but complex concept of organizing in the field of development aid. I use an inductive mixed methods design to systematically explore how different interpretations of results-based management relate to one another and to the organizational context in which they are embedded. The results reveal that results-based management is a contested concept in the French Development Agency. I find multiple interpretations of the concept, which are attached to partly incompatible rationales about "who we are" and "what we do as an organization". These rationales nevertheless coexist as balanced forces, without escalating into open conflict. The analysis points to four reasons for this peaceful coexistence of diverging rationales inside one and the same organization: 1) individuals' capacity to manipulate different interpretations of a complex institutional demand, 2) the nature of interpretations, which makes them more or less prone to conflict, 3) the balanced distribution of rationales across the organizational sub-contexts and 4) the shared rules of interpretation provided by the larger socio-cultural context. This research shows that an organization that incorporates institutional complexity comes to represent different, partly incompatible things to its members without being at war with itself. In doing so, it contributes to our knowledge of institutional complexity and organizational hybridity. It also advances our understanding of internal organizational legitimacy and of the translation of managerial concepts in organizations.},
  language  = {en}
}