Institutional Pressures and Symbolic Displays in a GAO Context

Two key organizational properties have long been studied: (1) the manner in which instrumental work processes are performed, and (2) the symbolic display of rational practice in response to institutional pressures. However, the relationship between these properties has proven to be contentious. For example, at different times, the sociology of professions, institutional theory and loose coupling perspectives have proposed that they should be decoupled and then loosely coupled with one another. Extending beyond these contending propositions, it has also been reasoned that a duality inheres in many elements of organizational structure such that they may be simultaneously instrumental and symbolic in character. To evaluate the relationship among institutional pressures, instrumental work processes and coordination practices, we administered a questionnaire to audit teams in the US General Accounting Office (GAO). Statistical results, augmented with field interviews, suggest that instrumental work processes are loosely coupled with, rather than decoupled from, institutional pressures and their attendant symbolic displays of rational practice. Extending beyond the loose coupling concept, we also found that institutional pressures incite the symbolic facets of instrumental tasks and coordination practices, while GAO professional activities both embody and incite the instrumental facets of institutional pressures. Implications for future research in alternative organizational contexts are explored.

[1]  Mark C. Suchman Managing Legitimacy: Strategic and Institutional Approaches , 1995 .

[2]  S. Mezias An Institutional Model of Organizational Practice: Financial Reporting at the Fortune 200 , 1990 .

[3]  W. Powell,et al.  The iron cage revisited institutional isomorphism and collective rationality in organizational fields , 1983 .

[4]  Mark W. Dirsmith,et al.  Structure and agency in an institutionalized setting: The application and social transformation of control in the Big Six☆ , 1997 .

[5]  G. R. Ferris,et al.  Human Resource Department Power and Influence Through Symbolic Action , 1997 .

[6]  Charles J. Fombrun,et al.  Structural Dynamics Within and Between Organizations. , 1986 .

[7]  W. Scott The Adolescence of Institutional Theory. , 1987 .

[8]  Mark W. Dirsmith,et al.  The Calculated and the Avowed: Techniques of Discipline and Struggles over Identity in Big Six Public Accounting Firms , 1998 .

[9]  Ehsan H. Feroz,et al.  GAAP as a Symbol of Legitimacy: New York State’s Decision to Adopt Generally Accepted Accounting Principles , 1992 .

[10]  John W. Meyer,et al.  World Society and the Nation‐State , 1997, American Journal of Sociology.

[11]  A. Strauss,et al.  Professions in Process , 1961, American Journal of Sociology.

[12]  C. Oliver STRATEGIC RESPONSES TO INSTITUTIONAL PROCESSES , 1991 .

[13]  John W. Slocum,et al.  Technology, Structure, and Workgroup Effectiveness: A Test of a Contingency Model , 1984 .

[14]  K. Weick Educational organizations as loosely coupled systems , 1976, Gestión y Estrategia.

[15]  Andrew Abbott,et al.  Status and Status Strain in the Professions , 1981, American Journal of Sociology.

[16]  T. Fogarty The imagery and reality of peer review in the U.S.: Insights from institutional theory , 1996 .

[17]  K. Weick,et al.  Loosely Coupled Systems: A Reconceptualization , 1990 .

[18]  William E. Bealing,et al.  Early regulatory actions by the SEC: An institutional theory perspective on the dramaturgy of political exchanges , 1996 .

[19]  Walter W. Powell,et al.  The Institutionalization of Rational Organization@@@Organizational Environments: Ritual and Rationality. , 1985 .

[20]  A. V. D. Ven,et al.  Determinants of Coordination Modes within Organizations , 1976 .

[21]  M. J. Fischer,et al.  "Real-izing" the benefits of new technologies as a source of audit evidence: An interpretive field study , 1996 .

[22]  M. Dirsmith,et al.  Coordination and Control in a Government Agency: Contingency and Institutional Theory Perspectives on GAO Audits , 1994 .