Relational institutional work and relative power positions

One of the structural bases of relational institutional work is relative power positions. Individual actors are enabled or constrained by their relatively dominant or subordinate positions with differential power within the institution to form a particular relationship with other actors. This relationship, in return, gives a particular form to the resulting institutional work.

First, the literature on relative power positions implies that the actors’ relationships with other actors can give institutional work a creative character (Creed, Reference Creed2003; Kraatz, Reference Kraatz2009; Ritvala & Granqvist, Reference Ritvala and Granqvist2009; Creed, Dejordy, & Lok, Reference Creed, Dejordy and Lok2010; Daudigeos, Reference Daudigeos2013). For example, in the case of a leader and followers, leaders are in a control relationship with followers and, thus, can act autonomously to create new institutional norms (Kraatz, Reference Kraatz2009). They can develop consensual relationships as well with other powerful actors with different interests. With the support of those powerful actors as well as followers, they give coherence to new institutions (Kraatz, Reference Kraatz2009). Similarly, gay, lesbian, bisexual, and transgender (GLBT) ministers engage in a relationship of resistance with individual church authorities owing to their homosexual orientation (Creed, Reference Creed2003; Creed, Dejordy, & Lok, Reference Creed, Dejordy and Lok2010). They also relate to the authorities through the common religious tradition of inclusion. These relationships between the subordinate and dominant actors of the church, then, make possible the creation of a more inclusive understanding as to who is a legitimate minister. Moreover, the actors with a bridging yet subordinate position within an institutional network like individual scientists (Ritvala & Granqvist, Reference Ritvala and Granqvist2009) and occupational safety and health professionals (Daudigeos, Reference Daudigeos2013) try to form strong ties with different powerful actors in the field to embark on a change project. They try to build legitimacy for new local norms and practices through those connections to established actors in the scientific, professional, and political communities. The legitimacy based on the relationships with different established actors helps them even challenge some other powerful actors and construct new norms and practices as dominant in the field.

Second, the literature suggests that the relationships can give institutional work a reproductive shape (Kraatz, Reference Kraatz2009; Currie et al., Reference Currie, Lockett, Finn, Martin and Waring2012; Grafstrom & Windell, Reference Grafstrom and Windell2012). Specialist doctors with established elite positions, for example, engage in a relationship of control with new actors in the medical field to maintain the status quo; they delegate routine tasks to the new actors and socialize those actors on the basis of their formal knowledge and occupational socialization (Currie et al., Reference Currie, Lockett, Finn, Martin and Waring2012). They also cooperate with other nonelite professionals for the continuation of the status quo. Hence, their position is useful to maintain their professional status to the extent that it allows developing different types of relationships with the new and existing actors. A similar dependency relationship emerges between dominant actors and bloggers in the media (Grafstrom & Windell, Reference Grafstrom and Windell2012). The dependence of bloggers on dominant media actors and channels to reach more readers facilitates the formation of institutional work of maintenance. Bloggers have to cooperate with established actors and use mainstream channels to realize their goals and interests within the constraints of dominant media practices, unavoidably reproducing dominant institutions as well as existing dependency relationships (Grafstrom & Windell, Reference Grafstrom and Windell2012).

Third, the literature indicates that the relationships can also give institutional work a disruptive form (Creed, Reference Creed2003; Symon et al., Reference Symon, Buehring, Johnson and Cassell2008; Creed, Dejordy, & Lok, Reference Creed, Dejordy and Lok2010). Qualitative management researchers, for example, develop a research community through common norms and practices, on which they relate to and cooperate with one another (Symon et al., Reference Symon, Buehring, Johnson and Cassell2008). Through ongoing in-group relationships, individual qualitative researchers construct and reproduce a quantitative–qualitative divide, depicting the latter as morally and intellectually superior. Their reproductive relationships become a basis to rhetorically disrupt and delegitimize quantitative research, which is criticized as being output – more than quality-oriented, political more than scientific, and based on dominant institutions more than individual efforts. Like qualitative researchers, individual GLBT ministers form a group of common problems and norms originated from a disadvantaged position (Creed, Reference Creed2003; Creed, Dejordy, & Lok, Reference Creed, Dejordy and Lok2010). Their in-group relationships are then turned into a relationship of resistance against the church authorities. Within those relationships, the ministers radically disrupt the heterosexuality of the church, resisting the pressures of the authorities and trying to legitimize homosexuality within the church based on the religious tradition of inclusion.

Relational institutional work and relative meaning frameworks

Another structural basis of relational institutional work is relative meaning frameworks. Individual actors develop relationships with other actors based on their relatively similar or different meanings of institutional norms and practices. The nature of those relationships affects the nature of institutional work.

First, the studies on relative meaning frameworks suggest that relationships between the actors can give institutional work a creative form (Creed, Reference Creed2003; George, Chattopadhyay, Sitkin, & Barden, Reference George, Chattopadhyay, Sitkin and Barden2006; Bjerregaard, Reference Bjerregaard2011; Tracey, Phillips, & Jarvis, Reference Tracey, Phillips and Jarvis2011; Van Dijk et al., Reference Van Dijk, Berends, Jelinek, Romme and Weggeman2011; Smets, Morris, & Greenwood, Reference Smets, Morris and Greenwood2012; Smets & Jarzabkowski, Reference Smets and Jarzabkowski2013). For example, in an institutional field of multiple frameworks composed of groups of individuals with different norms and interests, individual actors develop relationships with other actors on the basis of common meanings and interests to ensure support for their change projects (Van Dijk et al., Reference Van Dijk, Berends, Jelinek, Romme and Weggeman2011). Those relationships simultaneously put the actors in a relationship of conflict with some other individual actors with opposite meanings and interests. Hence, creative institutional work emerges within a relationship complex of cooperation and conflict. In general, subordinate actors need to communicate their change projects to and develop constructive relationships with especially the powerful members of the field, for example, in the politics and media (Tracey, Phillips, & Jarvis, Reference Tracey, Phillips and Jarvis2011). Constructive relationships, which bring elements from the frameworks of different subordinate and dominant actors together, can help form a new hybrid meaning framework. Under the conditions of institutional multiplicity, creation work is, thus, possible only when individual actors are able to relate to other supportive, influential actors. Moreover, creative novel solutions to daily problems, generally embedded in contradictory institutional meanings, are possible when subordinate actors experiencing those problems interact with referent actors in the field (Smets, Morris, & Greenwood, Reference Smets, Morris and Greenwood2012; Smets & Jarzabkowski, Reference Smets and Jarzabkowski2013). Through their interactions, subordinate actors highlight common meanings with the referent actors to seek their approval for those novel solutions. The solutions are institutionalized only after this approval is obtained and, thus, the interaction between the referent and subordinate actors is characterized more by cooperation than by information exchange.

Second, the studies indicate that the actors’ relationships can give institutional work a reproductive shape (Zilber, Reference Zilber2002, Reference Zilber2009; George et al., Reference George, Chattopadhyay, Sitkin and Barden2006; Lefsrud & Meyer, Reference Lefsrud and Meyer2012; Heaphy, Reference Heaphy2013; McCann et al., Reference McCann, Granter, Hyde and Hassard2013; Raviola & Norback, Reference Raviola and Norback2013). In a rape crisis center, for example, there is a relationship of conflict between feminist volunteers, who have a political meaning framework, and therapeutic volunteers, who have a professional framework (Zilber, Reference Zilber2002). Yet, there is also a relationship of mutual dependence between the volunteers as the center’s operations necessitate both political mobilization and therapeutic support. Thus, those relationships of conflict and dependence lead to a fragile balance between the two frameworks, which continue to coexist or be maintained within the general framework of the center. An institutional framework is also reproduced within individual actors’ consensual relationships and routines, which refer continuously to a common framework as in the case of individual paramedics in the United Kingdom (McCann et al., Reference McCann, Granter, Hyde and Hassard2013). Against the professionalization of their work, the paramedics maintain their established, daily practices as they continue to relate to other individual paramedics and actors in the healthcare field through those practices. In fact, they are able to cope with target pressures and poor working conditions through their daily local practices and relationships shaped by those conditions and related problems. Similarly, dominant meaning frameworks and narratives are maintained only when subordinate actors reinterpret and modify those frameworks to fit their daily conditions and local relationships (Zilber, Reference Zilber2009; Raviola & Norback, Reference Raviola and Norback2013). Hence, dominant frameworks continue to exist as a locally adaptable and still institutionally coherent template as they enable individual actors to develop relationships with other actors in a way to address local situations and problems. In other words, the actors’ everyday relationships embody specific interpretations of the same institutional framework, essentially reproducing the framework. Furthermore, those daily relationships can be facilitated by explicit institutional rules, which reflect particular meaning frameworks (Heaphy, Reference Heaphy2013). This is the case, for example, when individual patient advocates develop and sustain relationships with patients, families, and staff in hospitals on the basis of formal rules to repair perceived breaches in role assumptions and expectations. Through those relationships facilitated by the rules, common institutional meanings are reconstructed and, thus, maintained for those actors experiencing the breaches yet not equipped with the full knowledge of the rules to reinterpret and repair those breaches.

Third, the studies imply that the relationships can also give institutional work a disruptive character (Zilber, Reference Zilber2002; Heaphy, Reference Heaphy2013; Malsch & Gendron, Reference Malsch and Gendron2013; McCann et al., Reference McCann, Granter, Hyde and Hassard2013). For example, disruption occurs when individual patient advocates and some doctors fail to develop a consensus-based relationship owing to their different interpretations of the rules (Heaphy, Reference Heaphy2013). The advocates’ attempts to repair role breaches are blocked by some, relatively powerful, doctors whose main concern is to preserve medical authority rather than provide patients with medical resources. This concern, which points to two diverging frameworks, puts individual advocates and those doctors in a relationship of conflict as well as power, which disrupts the patient-oriented framework in hospitals. Different frameworks also result in a conflicting and disruptive relationship between traditional accounting experts and new professionals with expertise in other areas such as law and strategy (Malsch & Gendron, Reference Malsch and Gendron2013). Embedded in different meanings, one in a professional accounting orientation and the other in a commercial consulting perspective, the actors are in a relationship of struggle with the individual members of the other framework to promote their own meanings, whereas disrupting the other. Facilitated by the specialized expert knowledge of the actors as well as by social and professional exchanges between the members of the same framework, this disruptive relationship eventually leads to the erosion of the traditional accounting practice, transforming the field toward a more commercial understanding. In-group relationships, similarly, facilitate a disruptive relationship with the members of an outer group holding a different framework as in the rape crisis center staffed by political and professional volunteers (Zilber, Reference Zilber2002). Socialized within their group norms and interactions, political and professional volunteers try to dominate the center’s practices and preserve their status. Thus, they constantly undermine one another’s meanings and practices, despite their interdependence.

Research questions

The literature review shows that relationships between individual actors are often implicit in the discussion of the studies emphasizing the actors’ relative power positions and meaning frameworks, and that different relationships shape institutional work in different ways. One question is, how those relationships emerge to give institutional work a particular form? The literature points out that relative power positions and meaning frameworks are both a structural factor for the relationships to emerge as a constituent of institutional work. In fact, the actors are enabled, constrained, and guided by their dominant or subordinate positions and their similar or different frameworks relative to those of other actors to form relationships with those other actors and the resulting relationships shape whether it is a work of creation, maintenance, or disruption.

Yet, in the literature, the link between the positions and relationships as well as between the frameworks and relationships is generally unexplored. With the emphasis on the positions and frameworks, individual actors guided by those positions and frameworks seem to be isolated from their relationships with other actors. Thus, the actors’ relationships as a constituent of work are obscured; the actors’ positions and frameworks are reified as independent structural sources that directly determine the course of their actions and the nature of institutional work (Barley & Tolbert, Reference Barley and Tolbert1997). A second related question is, then, how relative power positions and meaning frameworks lead to relationships between individual actors, which shape associated institutional work in return? Therefore, this study looks into the question of how the dominant or subordinate power positions and similar or different meaning frameworks of the actors in relation to other actors help them to form different types of relationships with those other actors, which ultimately become a basis of different types of institutional work. The study explicitly analyzes the link between the positions, frameworks, and relationships, and develops a relational model, which identifies different relationships and associated work of creation, maintenance, or disruption.

Relationships between two dominant actors with diverging meanings

In a relationship in which only dominant individual actors with diverging or conflicting meanings are involved and, thus, the relative power of the actors is emphasized, all three types of institutional work are possible. Diverging meaning frameworks are likely to coexist, together with associated positions and conflicting relationships, when they are equally important for the productive existence of institutional practices (Zilber, Reference Zilber2002; Malsch & Gendron, Reference Malsch and Gendron2013). This is the case, for example, in the public accounting field where the actors with meanings grounded in professionalism and commercialism claim and struggle with each other for dominance (Malsch & Gendron, Reference Malsch and Gendron2013), or in a rape crisis center whose effectiveness is ensured by a fragile balance between feminist and therapeutic meanings and practices, which leads to an ongoing conflict between feminist and therapeutic volunteers (Zilber, Reference Zilber2002). This is a situation of endless struggle between the actors, with conflicting frameworks as the dominance of one framework might be the end of the both (Malsch & Gendron, Reference Malsch and Gendron2013). Thus, conflicting frameworks coexist to ensure operational productivity, based on the power and embeddedness of the actors representing them and competing with the representatives of other frameworks, and the status quo is maintained.

Yet, continuous struggle means continuous disruption as the grounds of the coexistence, diverging frameworks, are continuously under attack from the actors of other frameworks who have the power to do so. An ongoing problem of productivity, together with solution attempts, emerges (Van Dijk et al., Reference Van Dijk, Berends, Jelinek, Romme and Weggeman2011). The balance might gradually break down owing to the actors’ continuous disruption attempts, which might succeed when one of the frameworks proves to be more associated with operational productivity or utility and becomes less dependent on other frameworks (Malsch & Gendron, Reference Malsch and Gendron2013). This gradual increase in the autonomy and dominance of an institutional meaning framework can further be facilitated if the framework is codified into the specialized knowledge or expertise of professionals (Lefsrud & Meyer, Reference Lefsrud and Meyer2012; Empson, Cleaver, & Allen, Reference Empson, Cleaver and Allen2013; Malsch & Gendron, Reference Malsch and Gendron2013). The codification increases the framework’s practical utility for proponents and against opponents. It eases the adoption and application by the actors, and diffusion of the framework. Then, owing to the increased autonomy and power of the actors representing the now dominant framework, a new possibly hybrid institution can emerge, integrating other frameworks as subordinate. This at the same time signals the emergence of a common understanding between dominant actors now with similar or converging frameworks and likely to engage in a consensual relationship and, thus, institutional work of maintenance.

NASA’s space shuttle programs and oscillation between the frameworks of observing flight schedules and ensuring safety can also be used to exemplify this first type (and other types) of relationship and associated implications in terms of institutional work (Magnuson, Branegan, & Hannifin, Reference Magnuson, Branegan and Hannifin1986; McConnell, Reference McConnell1987; Columbia Accident Investigation Board, 2003; Covault, Reference Covault2003). After the Challenger disaster, the members of the presidential commission investigating the disaster tried to establish safety as a dominant framework in NASA, whereas the NASA’s senior managers’ priority was to be on schedule. In fact, the disaster showed that both frameworks were needed for the operational success of the space shuttle programs and ongoing financial support of the government. Thus, the two frameworks coexisted and were maintained within NASA for a while, both as a response to the disaster and as a result of the power of the commission members representing the government and the NASA managers. However, the relationship between these two groups of actors was also disruptive because the frameworks were in conflict; trying to meet the safety standards would cause delays in the flights, whereas trying to meet the deadlines would cause safety problems. Eventually, schedule concerns, combined with cost concerns, dominated safety concerns in NASA. As a result, the success was identified with no delay in the flights, which also decreased the costs. Hence, the schedule framework was recreated as the dominant framework with some, ineffective, safety procedures and short-term cost-cutting measures, despite the disastrous experience of the Challenger. The result was another disaster, the space shuttle Columbia’s explosion during its reentry into the earth atmosphere.

Relationships between two subordinate actors with diverging meanings

In a relationship in which only subordinate individual actors with diverging or conflicting meanings are involved and, thus, the relative power of the actors is emphasized, institutional work is most likely of disruption. For example, subordinate actors’ attempts to address local conditions and daily operational problems through conflicting frameworks create an ongoing problem of instability in routines and inefficiency in operations (Smets, Morris, & Greenwood, Reference Smets, Morris and Greenwood2012; McCann et al., Reference McCann, Granter, Hyde and Hassard2013). This conflict-based relationship between subordinate actors blocks formation and stabilization of productive routines in the daily experience of the actors and subjects an already or potentially dominant institutional framework to the ongoing disruptive effects of alternative frameworks. A dominant framework cannot be conclusively established at the everyday level even when adopted by most subordinate actors, as some other actors deviate from that framework in their relationships (McCann et al., Reference McCann, Granter, Hyde and Hassard2013). When an alternative framework promises increasing productivity, disruption still occurs unless the productive deviation is integrated into the dominant framework; without integration, the deviation continues to exist as a strong alternative whose potential is ignored and undermine the basis of the dominant framework by contributing to the existing incoherence in institutional meanings and relationships and by exposing the relative unproductivity of the framework at the subordinate level (Smets, Morris, & Greenwood, Reference Smets, Morris and Greenwood2012).

Subordinate actors are less likely to have the resources to settle the conflict in favor of a particular framework. They need to involve the dominant actors who support their meanings in their relationships with other subordinate actors and to develop a common framework with those powerful actors (Tracey, Phillips, & Jarvis, Reference Tracey, Phillips and Jarvis2011; Van Dijk et al., Reference Van Dijk, Berends, Jelinek, Romme and Weggeman2011; Smets, Morris, & Greenwood, Reference Smets, Morris and Greenwood2012; Daudigeos, Reference Daudigeos2013). With this involvement, the dominant framework can be maintained or alternative meanings can be integrated. Without it, disruptive relationships between subordinate actors are reproduced.

NASA officially attempted to decentralize its safety programs to encourage especially the engineers and technical experts at subordinate levels to be critical in safety issues. This would ensure independent control over NASA operations and was a response to the critics after the Challenger disaster. Yet, following a brief period of safety orientation, the schedule framework was reestablished together with a cost-cutting attitude, reviving many of the predisaster practices at operational, line levels. At those lower levels, the engineers concerned about flight safety were in conflict with those trying to meet the deadlines. As the success was identified with meeting the deadlines with the minimum cost, this professional conflict of opinions intensified when the programs were behind their schedules. It was actually a disruption for the smooth progression and timely completion of the programs. Thus, this line-level conflict was also reflected in higher, managerial, levels and generally dissolved in favor of the schedules with managerial intervention.

Relationships between a dominant and a subordinate actor with diverging meanings

In a relationship in which dominant and subordinate individual actors with diverging or conflicting meanings are involved and, thus, the relative power of the actors is emphasized, institutional work is likely to be of either maintenance or disruption. Dominant actors’ attempts of control over subordinate actors in favor of the existing status quo and subordinate actors’ resistance shape the nature of institutional work. When the dominant framework and actors represent operational productivity, this control/resistance relationship helps form maintenance work. This is the case when leaders try to keep the disruptive attempts of subordinates within institutional limits (Kraatz, Reference Kraatz2009), when mainstream media actors protect their power against bloggers by providing the latter with access to established channels and, thus, a larger audience (Grafstrom & Windell, Reference Grafstrom and Windell2012), or when elite health professionals attempt to control novel actors with new meanings and roles on the basis of medical effectiveness until those actors’ integration into the professional framework (Currie et al., Reference Currie, Lockett, Finn, Martin and Waring2012). Health professionals, for example, initially develop a control relationship with new actors by delegating routine controllable tasks as well as controlling service delivery (Currie et al., Reference Currie, Lockett, Finn, Martin and Waring2012). They justify this relationship with their formal education and occupational socialization claimed to help better mediate medical risks. Health specialists, thus, are able to keep new actors and roles within the limits of the current framework and roles, which ensure medical effectiveness, and block the transformation of their dominant roles. Once new actors are integrated into the current framework through education, maintenance work continues on the basis of now common meanings and associated consensual relationships.

When subordinate actors’ framework has the potential to improve productivity, yet, is denied integration, disruption work is likely. This refers to a case in which subordinate actors’ new productive meanings are contained by dominant actors. The containment of new researchers’ scientific findings by established researchers (Ritvala & Granqvist, Reference Ritvala and Granqvist2009), exclusion of GLBT ministers by the church authorities with a heterosexual understanding (Creed, Reference Creed2003; Creed, Dejordy, & Lok, Reference Creed, Dejordy and Lok2010), and prevention of the care-oriented attempts of patient advocates by the doctors (Heaphy, Reference Heaphy2013) are some examples. When the religious authorities deny GLBT ministers occupational roles, for instance, it is disruption because this denial is contrary to the established religious tradition of inclusion; in fact, the resulting conflict between the authorities and ministers prevents the expansion of the institutional religious realm (bringing homosexuals as well as heterosexuals under the control of the authorities). Similarly, when some doctors block patient advocates’ repair of role breaches to emphasize their medical authority, disruption occurs because this is a block to better patient care. As a result of the conflicting relationship between the doctors and advocates and less effective care, fewer patients will subject themselves to the control of those doctors. In this case, the disruptive relationship is facilitated by explicitly codified rules (Heaphy, Reference Heaphy2013). Owing to their specialized position, patient advocates have the full knowledge of formal rules regarding patient care. The rules become their primary tool to address role breaches and inevitably put them in a relationship of conflict with the doctors concerned mainly with medical authority. The disruptive relationship, in both cases, can later be a source of integration and making creation work possible when the ministers develop a common understanding with the authorities based on the framework of inclusion to overcome the heterosexual orthodoxy (Creed, Dejordy, & Lok, Reference Creed, Dejordy and Lok2010), and when the doctors reciprocate the advocates with a focus on patient care rather than medical authority (Heaphy, Reference Heaphy2013).

In NASA, the relationship between safety-oriented engineers and schedule-oriented managers can be analyzed as both reproductive and disruptive. In the short term, it was reproductive, maintaining the schedule framework. The success was to meet the deadlines. The managers used their power over the engineers to refuse time-consuming safety measures and prevent delays in the schedules. This generated short-term returns including rather timely flights and cost savings. In the long term, though, the relationship was disruptive because the safety framework held by the engineers represented a disaster-free success, yet, was denied integration. NASA managers tried to suppress this alternative framework and the engineers with critical views were cut from the communication channels through cultural and organizational barriers. Consequently, the disruption resulted in two disasters, which actually revealed that the safety framework would be productive in the long term and prevent those disasters.

Relationships between two dominant actors with converging meanings

In a relationship in which only dominant individual actors with converging or consensual meanings are involved and, thus, the common meanings of the actors are emphasized, institutional work of maintenance is most likely. Maintenance is actually expected in the case of consensus-based relationships, which are characterized by social stability and reproduction (Berger & Luckmann, Reference Berger and Luckmann1966). It is also facilitated when a group of dominant actors face the threat of an alternative framework and engage in defensive work (Zilber, Reference Zilber2002; Currie et al., Reference Currie, Lockett, Finn, Martin and Waring2012; Grafstrom & Windell, Reference Grafstrom and Windell2012). For example, there is a consensual relationship between specialist doctors who defend their established positions and occupational framework against new roles and actors (Currie et al., Reference Currie, Lockett, Finn, Martin and Waring2012). Owing to their common education and socialization, which help develop a shared meaning framework, the doctors are able to act in coordination when they delegate routine tasks to the new actors to coopt them into the established relationships. The doctors act as a collective unit on the basis of shared meanings to neutralize the threat of new frameworks and roles, and preserve the established social stability and ‘normal’ way of life within their group. This is also the preservation of their already dominant positions as well as relationships with subordinate actors. To the extent that the cooptation is successful, a mutual understanding is also developed with subordinate actors, together with social stability being reproduced.

Similarly, the existence of blogs and bloggers as an alternative to mainstream channels triggers the defensive maintenance work of established media actors (Grafstrom & Windell, Reference Grafstrom and Windell2012). There seems to be a consensus within the group of dominant media actors as to what represents mainstream media and how to integrate alternatives. This consensus is based not only on common meanings but also on the risk of losing privileged positions embedded in the same meanings; thus, the consensus-based in-group relationships generate similar actions against bloggers in different settings. The established actors integrate bloggers into the mainstream media as subordinate actors, making conventional channels available for bloggers while developing controls on their articles. Blogs and bloggers as a potentially strong basis of ‘new media’ are partially neutralized with this defensive move grounded in the dominant group members’ common meanings and relationships oriented to maintain their positions of control over access to most readers. Social stability in the media field is also maintained against the disruptive effects of ‘new media’ as the institutional relationships are still regulated in line with the established framework. Besides, as the integration becomes gradually successful, a common understanding emerges between dominant and subordinate media actors and social stability is reinforced.

At the time of the Challenger disaster, NASA had a matrix organization whose stability depended on the coordination between the headquarters in Washington, DC, mission control in Texas, engineering operations in Alabama, and assembly and launch center in Florida. Although tensions and contentions occurred between these centers, there was also a general agreement on how to carry out the space shuttle programs. This was the case especially between the senior managers at the headquarters, who were under the pressure of the government for cutting costs, and the managers at the engineering operations, who had an achievement culture with little tolerance for delays. Thus, the similar frameworks of these two groups of managers helped maintain the NASA’s general framework of being on schedule. The senior managers observed the schedules with cost concerns, whereas the engineering managers suppressed critical views to protect the center’s image of achievement and opposed any delays in the schedules. A stable operational environment based in the schedules continued to exist.

Relationships between two subordinate actors with converging meanings

In a relationship in which only subordinate individual actors with converging or consensual meanings are involved and, thus, the common meanings of the actors are emphasized, institutional work of maintenance or disruption is likely to be observed. When subordinate actors’ common meanings and associated relationships are embedded within an institutional framework similar to or shaped by the dominant framework, the associated institutional work is naturally characterized by reproduction and maintenance (Berger & Luckmann, Reference Berger and Luckmann1966; Zilber, Reference Zilber2009; Heaphy, Reference Heaphy2013; McCann et al., Reference McCann, Granter, Hyde and Hassard2013). Individual paramedics in the United Kingdom, for example, develop a common framework based in similar daily experiences and problems, and reproduce associated meanings through ongoing in-group relationships (McCann et al., Reference McCann, Granter, Hyde and Hassard2013). Hence, they maintain the dominant institutional framework as well, which creates and sustains the conditions of their daily work, despite the professionalization option. For the paramedics, the dominant framework and their local framework as its byproduct remain to be the only option that addresses routine problems and, thus, promises stability in the workplace relationships even though this option also reproduces an institutionally subordinate position. Hence, the new project of professionalization is not supported by the paramedics who continue to relate to one another as well as to established powerful actors in the healthcare field through the same institutional meanings and positions.

Subordinate actors’ consensus-based relationships and thus maintenance work can be facilitated by explicit rules, which concretize the common framework (Heaphy, Reference Heaphy2013). The rules speed convergence toward common meanings, making those meanings more understandable and practicable. Patient advocates’ use of rules in their relationships with patients, families, and hospital staff, for example, facilitates understanding between the advocates and those actors and helps restore established assumptions and relationships. Hence, perceived role breaches can be addressed before they lead to legitimacy problems, and institutional stability is reproduced.

Subordinate actors’ shared meanings and relationships might also be embedded within a framework diverging from the dominant framework; institutional work is then likely to be characterized by disruption (Symon et al., Reference Symon, Buehring, Johnson and Cassell2008; Creed, Dejordy, & Lok, Reference Creed, Dejordy and Lok2010). Qualitative researchers, for example, are in a relationship of consensus grounded in their common research practices (Symon et al., Reference Symon, Buehring, Johnson and Cassell2008). Their in-group consensus is reflected in their common rhetorical work of disruption, which tries to undermine the legitimacy of quantitative research practices. Qualitative researchers together construct and maintain a quantitative–qualitative divide, resisting integration into the dominant practice. Thus, they pose a continuous threat to the dominant framework with their disruptive attempts. The disruptive existence of an alternative paradigm reproduced through the in-group consensual relationships of individual qualitative researchers creates an ongoing instability in the field and paradigm wars, this divide might be concluded by the integration of qualitative into quantitative research or formation of a new balance between the two.

At subordinate, operational levels in NASA, there were two alternative paradigms or frameworks. One group of engineers reproduced the dominant framework through their ongoing schedule-oriented practices. This group acted in coordination with the managers, approving or contributing to the approval of unsafe flights. As a group, they shared the managers’ optimism based mostly on deadline and cost concerns. With the daily in-group engagements of these engineers, the schedules continued to serve as the basis of social stability in NASA. In contrast, a second group of engineers oriented to safety tried to voice their related concerns. Although different, especially critical, opinions were stifled, these critical engineers reproduced an alternative framework through their in-group relationships. They managed to identify and highlight safety-related issues; yet, those issues were not much reflected at managerial levels and considered as marginal. In this sense, safety remained as a disruptive framework, partly damaging the established, schedule based, stability of NASA as an institution.

Relationships between a dominant and a subordinate actor with converging meanings

In a relationship in which dominant and subordinate individual actors with converging or consensual meanings are involved and, thus, the common meanings of the actors are emphasized, maintenance and creation works are likely. In general, consensus-based relationships often characterized by reproduction catalyze maintenance with no or only minor modifications in existing meanings and positions (Berger & Luckmann, Reference Berger and Luckmann1966; Kraatz, Reference Kraatz2009; Zilber, Reference Zilber2009; Dacin, Munir, & Tracey, Reference Dacin, Munir and Tracey2010; Currie et al., Reference Currie, Lockett, Finn, Martin and Waring2012; Grafstrom & Windell, Reference Grafstrom and Windell2012). The basis of social stability is more or less preserved as new roles and relationships are interpreted within the existing limits of the dominant framework and relationships. For example, following a relationship of control, a relationship of consensus is developed between specialist doctors and new actors through education and cooperation (Currie et al., Reference Currie, Lockett, Finn, Martin and Waring2012). The new roles performed by new actors are integrated into the dominant framework, they are normalized and stabilized within the same framework, whereas the roles of the doctors remain intact. Hence, social stability grounded in the doctors’ dominant position is more or less reproduced, with a minor modification, within the relationship between the doctors and new actors. Similarly, bloggers develop a cooperative relationship and common framework with dominant media actors to access mainstream channels and more readers (Grafstrom & Windell, Reference Grafstrom and Windell2012). They are thus integrated into the mainstream media as new subordinate actors with access to the field resources under the control of dominant actors. As a result, social stability, together with established media framework, embedded within the existing unequal relationships between dominant and subordinate media actors, is maintained through the same relationships, which assimilate new actors and survive the integration.

Reproductive relationships and associated work of maintenance can be facilitated by the dominant framework’s adaptability (Zilber, Reference Zilber2009). The framework needs to be translated into local circumstances while still institutionally coherent. If the framework is adaptable enough to address subordinate actors’ local contingencies and daily problems, consensual relationships between dominant and subordinate actors and, thus, the framework itself can be maintained. Otherwise, subordinate actors need to radically deviate from the framework to solve their problems, ending up with a conflicting relationship with dominant actors and disruptive work.

The work enabled by consensual relationships between dominant and subordinate actors can be characterized as creation when there are major changes in or additions to dominant meanings and positions, which are still achieved through some connections to those meanings and positions (Creed, Reference Creed2003; Ritvala & Granqvist, Reference Ritvala and Granqvist2009; Creed, Dejordy, & Lok, Reference Creed, Dejordy and Lok2010; Tracey, Phillips, & Jarvis, Reference Tracey, Phillips and Jarvis2011; Smets, Morris, & Greenwood, Reference Smets, Morris and Greenwood2012; Daudigeos, Reference Daudigeos2013). With creation, the basis of social stability is expanded as new roles and relationships with new meanings are added to and transform the existing dominant framework. In fact, this refers to a new social stability with newly normalized and stabilized relationships. GLBT ministers, for example, need to create solutions, which can be accepted by individual church authorities, to overcome the problems associated with their marginalized positions (Creed, Dejordy, & Lok, Reference Creed, Dejordy and Lok2010). Hence, they develop a common understanding and consensual relationship with the authorities based on the traditional framework of inclusion. This understanding with associated relationship helps legitimate homosexuality within denominations, partially transforming the heterosexual character of the church. Social stability between the actors is reestablished on an enlarged ground, with both heterosexuality and homosexuality normalized and stabilized within the new dominant framework. Hence, the common reference to the inclusion framework helps partially transform another dominant framework, heterosexuality, by changing relationships between the dominant and subordinate actors from conflict to consensus.

The existence of different dominant meanings, then, creates an opportunity for creation work as new meanings can be justified and integrated with reference to some, supportive, dominant meanings (Ritvala & Granqvist, Reference Ritvala and Granqvist2009; Tracey, Phillips, & Jarvis, Reference Tracey, Phillips and Jarvis2011; Empson, Cleaver, & Allen, Reference Empson, Cleaver and Allen2013). Subordinate actors are less embedded within dominant meanings but more situated within local circumstances and problems and, thus, more likely to develop creative contextual solutions. They can exploit the existence of multiple frameworks to relate their solutions to the meanings of some dominant actors and build supportive relationships with those actors (Tracey, Phillips, & Jarvis, Reference Tracey, Phillips and Jarvis2011; Smets, Morris, & Greenwood, Reference Smets, Morris and Greenwood2012). Subordinate actors can also be enabled by their bridging positions to engage in relationships with different powerful actors in favor of their own, institutionally new, meanings (Ritvala & Granqvist, Reference Ritvala and Granqvist2009; Daudigeos, Reference Daudigeos2013). This is the case when local individual scientists reframe their findings in terms of those of some established researchers in different areas to be accepted as scientific (Ritvala & Granqvist, Reference Ritvala and Granqvist2009) and when occupational safety and health professionals form connections with different powerful actors in the construction field to legitimate new practices (Daudigeos, Reference Daudigeos2013). Hence, the multiplicity of dominant frameworks facilitates the emergence of a creative relationship between different dominant actors and subordinate actors who are already enabled by exposure to local contingencies and by bridging positions and who relate new situated, local meanings to the meanings of those dominant actors.

To a certain extent, NASA had a multiplicity of frameworks even though schedule orientation dominated in general. Safety orientation could become a strong alternative only in the wake of the disasters. In fact, there was more or less agreement between, as well as among, the managers and nonmanagerial employees including engineers and other technical staff as to the importance of meeting the deadlines. The past success of NASA fed and helped maintain the cultural traits and practices emphasizing future achievements and deadlines with groundless optimism. Hence, a common, stable culture of complacency across different hierarchical levels emerged and created deference to authority on the part of engineers and technical staff when the deadlines were highlighted. This culture often led to ignorance of safety issues, accumulating problems to the point of disasters. In contrast to this relationship of maintenance, a creative relationship between the dominant and subordinate groups of actors also emerged, following the disasters. In NASA, there were also engineers and other operational staff with safety-oriented perspectives and critical professional views. This staff was denied a voice within formal organizational channels. The presidential commission set up after the Challenger disaster gave an opportunity to these staff to raise their concerns, communicate critical views, and connect directly to the government actors, another dominant group in the field, on the basis of the common safety framework. With the involvement of this powerful group of government actors supporting the same framework, safety could become an equally important focus like flight schedules at least for a while. A new hybrid framework and stability based on both safety and flight schedules was created after the disaster, although it could not survive long enough to prevent the second disaster.