Beruflich Dokumente
Kultur Dokumente
Copyright of the Academy of Management, all rights reserved. Contents may not be copied, emailed, posted to a listserv, or otherwise transmitted without the copyright holders express
written permission. Users may print, download, or email articles for individual use only.
2013
fields center to its periphery can shape institutional change through their struggles (Schneiberg,
2006). Combining these two lenses permits a rich
account of the dynamics by which change processes play out across levels and different groups of
actors through time. To this end, we examine how
different groups of actors influence the interplay
between society-level ideology and organizationlevel action in the process of institutional change in
a mature organizational field. Specifically, we ask:
What roles do different groups of organizational
actors play at different levels in this multilevel
institutional change process over time?
We investigate this question empirically by analyzing the field of First-Class County Cricket
(County Cricket). Cricket developed in England as a
game involving a ball, a bat carved from willow,
and two opposing teams of 11 players. From the
1850s, the field of First-Class County Cricket matured into a specific competition produced by
member-owned County Cricket clubs employing
cricketers as labor resources (Bowen, 1970). In contrast to U.S. major league sports, County Cricket
defined itself not as a mass market entertainment
business but as art for the middle and upper classes
(Wright, 2009a). Two rules were important in this
field definition. Classification rules separated
cricketers into the categories of amateur and professional. Amateurs, who belonged to the social
elite, wielded the willow of their bats in a style
esthetically superior to that of the working-class
professionals (Birley, 2000). Qualification rules
governed which cricketers a County could and
could not employ. These rules were changed after
World War II (WWII) as outcomes of an institutional change process in which the field shifted
from its narrow definition of cricket-as-art to incorporate cricket-as-business.
Our findings make an important contribution to
a process-based understanding of institutional
change by integrating bottom-up and top-down
processual mechanisms to show how actors play
different roles in the change process in mature organizational fields. Combining vertical and horizontal lenses, our findings illuminate how the
mechanisms that interact across levels in an institutional change process are triggered by the actions
and reactions of different groups of organizational
actors located at and between the field center and
periphery. When deviant organization-level actions
by the periphery and shifts in society-level ideology create bottom-up and top-down pressure for
institutional change, we find that middle-status actors will seek to protect the core values of the field
by mobilizing the center and periphery around a
change that brings the societal, field, and organiza-
309
THEORETICAL BACKGROUND
Multilevel Processual Change Mechanisms
Barley and Tolberts (1997) conceptual model offers a starting point for considering how institutional change plays out as a bottom-up process
between the organizational level, where rules play
out in human action, and the field level, where
rules are established. Later authors extended this
model by elaborating a top-down process of institutional change created by discursive activity connecting the societal and field levels (Phillips, Lawrence, & Hardy, 2004). However, the mutual
interaction between the societal and organizational
levels, and the impact this might have on the field
level, has rarely been discussed.
Society-level ideology and field-level logics. Institutional scholars have proposed a key role for
discourse in connecting the societal and field levels
(Phillips et al., 2004). Society-level ideology is
drawn down into fields through discursive activity
and in the form of institutional logics (Friedland &
Alford, 1991). We use ideology to refer to general
values, beliefs, and assumptions existing at the
level of society (Wilson, 1973) and logics to refer to
specific organizing principles at the level of the
field (Friedland & Alford, 1991; Thornton, 2002).
Our use of the term logics is consistent with
Greenwood and Suddabys definition: Institutional logics are taken-for-granted, resilient social
prescriptions, sometimes encoded in laws, specifying the boundaries of a field, its rules of membership, and the role identities and appropriate organizational forms of its constituent communities
(2006: 28).
Shifts in societal ideology, such as those following wars (Baron, Dobbin, & Jennings, 1986) or those
concerning awareness of the natural environment
(Maguire & Hardy, 2009), create mechanisms for
changing field-level logics when they stimulate a
particular type of discursive activity described as
theorization. Theorization entails specifying a
problem and expressing and formalizing explicit
justifications for change as the solution (Greenwood, Suddaby, & Hinings, 2002). Societal shifts
310
provide an opportunity for theorization that promotes ideological justifications for changing field
logics. It follows that theorization provides a mechanism for connecting society-level ideologies with
field-level logics for organizing.
Field-level logics, rules, and scripts. Barley and
Tolbert (1997) suggested that field-level logics are
carried throughout a field by rules. Rules are important carriers of logics because of the way they
constitute the reality of a field by defining different
categories of actors, their interests, and their capacity for action (Berger & Luckmann, 1967; Scott,
2008). Rules encode institutional expectations
about behavior that are consistent with the fields
logic in the form of scripts. Barley and Tolbert
(1997: 100) defined scripts as observable, recurrent activities and patterns of interaction characteristic of a particular setting that mediate between
the level of the field and the level of action. Core
elements of scripts that encode rules as carriers of
logics include roles for generic categories of actors
and plots connecting typified acts, interactions,
and/or events (Barley, 1986). When field participants perform a script by playing their roles in a
plot, their behavior elicits reciprocal scripted behavior from others, and this pattern of interaction
confirms the field logic. Following Barley and Tolbert (1997), we suggest that institutionalization occurs at the intermediary level between field and
organization through the mechanism of encoding
rules, as carriers of logics, into scripts.
Organization-level action. Although scripts encode what is expected of field participants, conformity at the organizational level of action is not
assured. This is because institutions both constrain
and enable human action (Giddens, 1984). As
scripts spread throughout a field, actors translate
February
TABLE 1
Summary of Processual Mechanisms
Processual
Mechanism
(a) Theorization
(b) Encoding
(c) Translating
(d) Revision
(e) Institutionalization
Description
The rendering of societal ideologies into field-level
logics by specifying problems and justifying
solutions
The creation of scripts as observable recurrent
activities and patterns of interactions that
conform to rules that carry logics
The interpretation and reinterpretation of scripts,
which encode rules as carriers of logics, through
human/organizational action
Patterns of behavior and interactions that deviate
from institutional expectations and create new
scripts
The formalization of a new rule to reflect a change
in the field logic and scripts for action
Conceptual Linkages
Levels
Ideology Logic
Societal Field
Field
Script Action
Field Organizational
Action Script
Organizational Field
Field
2013
311
Nonconformity damages the social ranking of middle-status actors, whereas high-status actors have
minimal risk of losing legitimacy, and low-status
actors face inconsequential penalties versus potential reward. However, no research has examined
whether and how interactions between these
groups shapes an institutional change process over
time in a mature organizational field.
In this section, we outlined a theoretical background to our research question: What role do different groups of organizational actors play at different levels in a multilevel institutional change
process over time? To ground our answer, we derived from the extant literature on institutional
change a set of mechanisms connecting societylevel ideology with field-level logics, rules, and
scripts and organization-level action. We then distinguished the field locations of center, periphery,
and in-between and considered the incentives for
actors positioned at each location to take actions to
reproduce or change the field logic. We turn now to
the methods we used to investigate our research
question.
METHODS
Case Selection
First-Class County Cricket (hereafter, County
Cricket) offered a compelling case for investigating
our research question. Unlike U.S. major league
sports, which have a history of profit-seeking team
owners satisfying mass market demand for spectator sports, First-Class County Cricket clubs (hereafter, Counties) produced County Championship
matches for the aesthetic pleasure of socially elite
club members (Cardus, 1952). A field logic of
cricket-as-art emerged in Victorian England and
was carried by rules for employing cricketers as
labor resources. A classification rule distinguished
between amateur and professional cricketers, and a
qualification rule defined that cricketers could be
employed only by their geographic county of birth
or long-term residence. These rules were changed
in 1962 and 1967 through movement toward a
cricket-as-business logic.
In County Cricket, rules are the product of collaborative governance. From 1787 to 1969, a London-based private members club, the Marylebone
Cricket Club (MCC), governed English cricket. In
1904, the MCC established the Advisory County
Cricket Committee (ACCC) to administer the
County game. The ACCC comprised representatives from MCC and each of the 17 first-class Counties. The MCC Cricket Sub-Committee, which met
fortnightly, and the MCC secretariat carried out the
312
February
2013
313
TABLE 2
Oppositions between Logics of Cricket-as-Art and Cricket-as-Business
Dimensions
Field structure
Capital prioritized (Bourdieu, 1993)
Emphasis on cricket as a cultural
product
Most valued consumers
Criteria for decision making (March
& Olsen, 1984)
Primary source of legitimacy
(Suchman, 1995)
Structures for interorganizational
relationships
Archetypes for sporting
competition
Archetypes for organizational
structures
Logic of Cricket-as-Art
Logic of Cricket-as-Business
County members
Appropriateness
Moral
Pragmatic
Hierarchy
Historically specified
Traditional Championship
Long battles (three-day matches)
Traditional county boundaries
Member-owned and financed clubs
Decision-making power vested with
committees
Cartel of employers
Market
Individually controlled
Modern cups and leagues
Short contests (limits on each teams innings)
Customer segments
Structures appropriate for maximizing returns
Decision-making power vested with owners of
resources
Labor as free agents
the MCC archivist-historian and with a cricket expert who assists authors with historical fact checking. Table 3 summarizes our classifications of the
field positions of Counties.
We labeled the six Counties that were classified
as closest to the fields central value system and
authority structures as central elites. As shown in
Table 3, central elites comprised the founding
Championship competitors, with Kent and Surrey
playing their first match in 1840. They enjoyed a
large and loyal membership with traditional values
and, as home to four of the six Test grounds, gained
status from staging international matches. A central
elite won the Championship on all but three occasions from 1890 to 1935.
Disciples of the cricket-as-art logic and traditional guardians of the field, central elites gained
power through their relationships with MCC. Key
amateurs and administrators of all Counties were
members of MCC, but central elites were more
likely to hold positions on the MCC Cricket SubCommittee and/or be MCC office bearers. Middlesex, Surrey, and Hampshire dominated the number
of representatives and office bearers. With the exception of the two northern Counties, central elites
were located in close proximity to London, which
facilitated committee representation by reducing
the burden of traveling to meetings. There was a
high level of informal interaction between central
elites and MCC (for example, we found letters inviting central elites to meet at private homes to
Category
Central elite
Central elite
Central elite
Central elite
Central elite
Central elite
Peripheral elite
Peripheral elite
Peripheral elite
Peripheral elite
Peripheral elite
Peripheral elite
Marginal player
Marginal player
Marginal player
Marginal player
Marginal player
County Club
Surrey
Yorkshire
Middlesex
Kent
Hampshire
Lancashire
Sussex
Nottinghamshire
Gloucestershire
Somerset
Warwickshire
Essex
Derbyshire
Leicestershire
Worcestershire
Northamptonshire
Glamorgan
1864
1864
1864
1864
1864
1865
1864
1864
1870
1891
1895
1895
1895
1895
1899
1905
1921
First Year in
Championship
London
North
London
South-East
South
North
South-East
Midlands
West
South-West
North-West
South-East
North
Midlands
North-West
Midlands
Wales
Location
(Relative to London)
X
X
X
Test
Ground
7
18
3
4
0
7
0
2
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
First:
18901935
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
1
5
6
3
Last:
192135
Championship
Performance
TABLE 3
Descriptive Data on Individual County Clubs
5%
3%
8%
2%
13%
4%
8%
27%
44%
52%
8%
18%
46%
19%
27%
84%
56%
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
Supporters
Club
8
11
2
0
1
1
0
0
0
0
1
0
1
0
2
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
6
2
4
0
1
1
6
0
5
0
Last:
193667
Championship
Performance
First:
193667
Performance 193667
2013
discuss cricket matters2 and private correspondence about actions of marginal players (see below)
undermining central elites).3
We labeled the six Counties that had a medium
level of closeness to the fields central value system
and authority structures as peripheral elites. As
shown in Table 3, this group included both founding Championship competitors and later entrants.
Although their memberships were loyal and relatively sizable, and two peripheral elites hosted Test
grounds, membership in these Counties lacked the
social status of membership in a central elite club.
Peripheral elites had solid representation on the
MCC Committee and some representation on the
MCC Cricket Sub-Committee, with Sussex a strong
voice. Clustering around the south, west and lower
north of England, they found London relatively
accessible for meetings.
Finally, we labeled the five Counties that had the
lowest level of closeness to the fields value system
and authority structure as marginal players. We
borrow the term from Scott to represent actors
who are at the periphery of a field (2008: 102).
This group joined the Championship after the MCC
officially consecrated it as first class in 1894.
Marginal players had small memberships and limited representation on the committees of MCC.
They were geographically and culturally distant
from London; Glamorgan, located in Wales, was
especially so (the archives contained correspondence indicating travel to meetings posed a time
and financial burden).4 No marginal players staged
Test matches, and a marginal player always finished in last place and never won a Championship
during our classification period.
Having classified the field location of each
County at the end of 1935, when the field had
formed and matured, we analyzed the change process involving the classification rule from 1936 to
1962 (see Wright, 2009b). Reading iteratively
within and between the documents, we traced (1)
chains of arguments used to challenge or defend
the status quo by different committee members,
acting as representatives of individual County interests, and by different committees, acting as representatives of collective field interests (theorizations); (2) actions taken by individual Counties to
acquire financial and human resources, such as
applications to register cricketers, payments to
cricketers, and establishment of new sources of finance (translations); and formal passage of new
rules (institutionalization). As segments of text
were hand-coded for mechanisms and levels, patterns emerged that refined our coding and revealed
315
316
February
2013
317
duction of County Cricket was the field of largescale cultural production of league cricket clubs,
emerging in the industrial areas of Northern England in the 1880s. Leagues produced Saturday
matches, placing time limits on each batting team,
to satisfy working class demand for spectator sports
of short duration. The County Cricket field of restricted cultural production saw itself as a cult
and a philosophy inexplicable to the profanum vulgus . . . and the merchant minded22 represented by
the field of large-scale cultural production.
Stage 2: Changing the Classification
Rule, 193662
After forming as a field of restricted cultural production of cricket-as-art, Counties faced declining
revenue as crowds fell during the Great Depression
and, because fewer cricketers could afford to play
as amateurs, rising labor costs for professionals.
Counties avoided bankruptcy through donations
from benefactors and a share of profits from Test
cricket. Conformity to the cricket-as-art logic undermined the viability of marginal players, who
faced the dual problems of low membership and an
inadequate stock of naturalized cricketers. At the
end of 1935, MCC appointed a commission to examine the County game. Affirming the need to preserve the art and character of the game,23 the
commissions (1937) report concluded the presence
of amateurs was desirable for obvious reasons.23
To reduce delay in qualifying amateurs, the commission recommended special registration for exceptional cases23 of cricketers not naturalized
through birth or residence. Introduced in 1939, this
rule assisted Counties to get going again24 in
1946 after WWII depleted stocks of healthy
cricketers.
Translating and scripting at the organizational
level. Postwar commitment to cricket-as-art at the
field level intensified pressures on marginal players for financial and human resources. They responded to the contradiction between field legitimacy and organizational efficiency by translating
the field logic in three ways. First, marginal players
raised funds by imitating an organizational form
visible in football and league cricket, known as
supporters clubs (Table 3). Generating income
from lotteries and gambling pools, supporters
clubs officially had no ties25 to a cricket club and
stuck to the old formula to help and not hinder.25
By decoupling, marginal players showed symbolic
conformity to the field of restricted cultural production logic while achieving efficiency by subsidizing cricket production through a cricket-as-business organizational form. Peripheral elites followed
318
February
2013
319
eter to batting50 was unattractive, lacking positive fight between bat and ball.51
Societal progression toward egalitarianism also
eroded the consuming aspect of crickets field of
restricted cultural production by shrinking the base
of cultivated consumers who valued the artistry of
the Championship. For gate spectators, a threeday cricket match is a long drawn-out affair, which,
in the modern world, lacks the element of excitement which so many competitive activities provide.51 Although central elites believed members
remained the true cricket enthusiast52 and
should always constitute the basis of a Countys
economy,53 vulnerable marginal players and peripheral elites introduced supporters clubs. This
raised criticism from the MCC and central elites
stating that it was wrong for County cricket to be
kept alive by artificial means54 and spawned field
inquiries in 1957 and 1960 61 to consider how to
grow interest and active support55 for cricket.
The latter inquiry reported that after excluding
non-normal56 income from supporters clubs,
only about six clubs could hope to break even57
(see Table 3).
The ACCC devised a solution to appeal to the
modern public who wanted entertainment
value,58 rather than aesthetic edification, from
watching cricket. In 1963 they introduced a KnockOut Cup with matches completed in a single day.
The Cup was an outcome of an institutional change
process that moved the field of restricted cultural
productions anchor in response to societal and
organizational pressures. It did not represent art
being usurped by business as the core logic for the
field (Wright & Zammuto, 2013). Rather, the central
elites objective in agreeing to a cup, decoupled
from the proper57 contest of the three-day Championship, was to ensure survival of the field of
restricted cultural production by increasing spectator appeal49 without causing a set-back in
prestige.56
The impact of Englands growing egalitarianism
on the producing and consuming aspects of the
cricket field of restricted cultural production was
eventually carried through to a change in the classification rule. The shift from hierarchical to egalitarian ideologies of social class was drawn down
into the field by peripheral elites and marginal
players who questioned the snob value of amateur
status58 and the insulting and derogatory comment on modern professionals59 implied an oppositional classification. This theorization coming
down from the societal level aligned with the genuine amateur script coming up from organizational
action. Theorization that in this democratic age a
true amateur should not require the benefits of
320
February
2013
with the Knock-Out Cup innovation, signaling central elite acceptance of the necessity of adopting
some practices underpinned by a cricket-as-business logic to preserve the cricket-as-art logic at the
core of the weakened field of restricted cultural
production.
Central elites contested the appropriateness of
further crowd-pulling business practices. On each
occasion in 1962, 1963, and 1964 when peripheral
elites proposed instantly qualified overseas players, central elites responded by using control of the
MCC Cricket Sub-Committee and Registration
Committee to circulate antichange memorandums
to all Counties. Change, they predicted, would lead
to auctions in which overseas stars, who had
no loyalty to an adopted County, agreed to play for
the highest bidder.63, 64, 65 The implication was
the rule would only be of advantage to the wealthy
Counties64 able to afford the worlds best cricketers by siphoning funds from supporters clubs. By
1960, two marginal players were earning more income from their supporters clubs than two central
elites were earning from their entire cricket operations.66 Concerned they would lose their dominant
field position, for three years central elites prescribed boundaries around how far the cricket-asbusiness logic could penetrate the field of restricted
cultural production by banning nonnaturalized
overseas stars. Central elites construed their entry
as creating an artificial Championship devoid of
natural67 rivalry grounded in traditional
belonging.
Central elites initially gained support from marginal players in opposing a rule change. Because
Counties with a small population were at a disadvantage so far as obtaining first class cricketers,68
some marginal players and peripheral elites had
translated the existing qualification rule into action
by adopting a policy of recruiting talent wherever
in the world it can be found69 and pursued cricketers from countries such as the West Indies, Australia, and India willing to qualify by residence. As
shown in Table 3, this resulted in marginal players
outperforming peripheral elites in the Championships. Marginal players finished last in the Championship only 5 times from 1950 to 1967, compared
to 13 last placings for peripheral elites and zero for
central elites.70 Thus, those marginal players who
had improved their performance by importing
cricketers under the existing rule had little incentive to vote to change it. As with their response to
the classification rule, marginal players support of
retaining naturalization was symbolic rather than
substantive, for their active importing strategy
they conceded their teams resembled a Cricket
321
League of Nations69was inconsistent with traditional belonging within the cricket-as-art logic.
Commitment to naturalization was weakened
from the mid 1960s. After oppositional classification was removed, English cricketers abandoned
the genuine amateur script for a professional script
in which field participants generally noted these
cricketers performed cricket not as art but as work:
The ultra professional approach, where efficiency
and a misguided belief that negative tactics pay,
has produced a stereotyped pattern which is deadly
to watch and which gives the appearance of being
boring to play.71 In contrast to this dull, drab72
style, overseas players performed with color, character and accomplishment.73 These new patterns
of behavior displaced the genuine amateur script.
The overseas player was scripted into the role of
genuine amateur because the field observed the
excellent craftsmen74 who learned their cricket
outside of the U.K. performed the plot of wielding
the willow with character and artistry. They adopted an enterprising manner . . . a really dynamic
attitude75 and brought added life and colour76
to the game. Performance of the amateur plot was
especially observable in West Indian players:
Cricket is a game for enjoyment and the West
Indies certainly convey the impression they enjoy
playing.77 The new script displaced the amateur
role while preserving the amateur plot: overseas
players (role) play in the aesthetic and exuberant
style of the amateur (plot).
Script displacement produced bottom-up pressure on central elites to adopt a less restrictive
approach to qualification rules to preserve the artistry of Championship cricket in the field of restricted cultural production. This was supported by
top-down pressure from societal progression toward egalitarianism. The press argued the field had
a moral duty78 to open the labor market and that
it was negligent79 to exclude cricketers on the
basis of an elitist qualification rule of naturalization. Surveys of the public and County members
affirmed that Englands modern egalitarian society
did not understand the exclusion of overseas stars
who could provide entertaining cricket or protection of the employment of English cricketers who
did not. The surveys were conducted by an inquiry
committee set up by MCC.71 Comprising representatives from each group of Counties, the inquiry
committee proposed the ACCC reduce the qualification period for overseas cricketers in 1966. Most
peripheral elite and marginal players were in support. However, a two-third majority was unattainable when central elites preferred to appeal to
County captains to produce cricket more consistent
with the genuine amateur script.80
322
February
2013
323
FIGURE 1
Processes of Institutional Change in English County Cricketa
SOCIETAL
LEVEL
Class-Based Hierarchy
Egalitarianism
a
Cricket Logic
Art
Cricket Logic
Business
ORGANIZATIONAL
LEVEL
TIME
Cricket Logic
Business
Art
FIELD LEVEL
Art
Art
Action
Action
Action
Informal production of
cricket matches.
Payment of amateurs.
Misuse of registration.
Supporters clubs.
Purposeful recruitment
of overseas players.
Political campaigning.
RULE ESTABLISHMENT
RULE CHANGE
1873/1894
1962
Business
Business
RULE CHANGE
1967
a
Codes for arrows: a theorization; b endoding; c translating; d revision/displacement; e institutionalization (see
Table 1). In the Cricket Logic boxes, bullets indicate the shift between the cricket-as-art and cricket-as-business logics over time.
324
February
2013
325
REFERENCES
Altham, H. S. 1962. A history of cricket, vol. 1. London:
Allen & Unwin.
Barley, S. R. 1986. Technology as an occasion for structuring: Evidence from observations of CT scanners
and the social order of radiology departments. Administrative Science Quarterly, 31: 78 108.
Barley, S. R., & Tolbert, P. S. 1997. Institutionalization
and structuration: Studying the links between action
and institution. Organization Studies, 18: 93117.
Baron, J. N., Dobbin, F. R., & Jennings, P. D. 1986. War
and peace: The evolution of modern personnel administration in U.S. industry. American Journal of
Sociology, 92: 350 383.
Batchelor, D. 1951. C. B. Fry. London: Phoenix House.
Battilana, J., & Dorado, S. 2010. Building sustainable
hybrid organizations: The case of commercial microfinance organizations. Academy of Management
Journal, 53: 1419 1440.
Berger, P. L., & Luckmann, T. 1967. The social construction of reality. New York: Penguin Books.
Birley, D. 2000. The willow wand: Some cricket myths
explored. London: Aurum Press.
Bourdieu, P. 1989. Social space and symbolic power.
Sociological Theory, 7: 14 25.
Bourdieu, P. 1993. The field of cultural production.
Cambridge, U.K.: Polity Press.
Bowen, R. 1970. Cricket: A history of its growth and
development throughout the world. London: Eyre &
Spottiswoode.
Brint, S., & Karabel, J. 1991. Institutional origins and
transformations: The case of American community
colleges. In W. W. Powell & P. J. DiMaggio (Eds.),
The new institutionalism in organizational analysis: 337360. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Cardus, N. 1922. A cricketers book. London: Grant
Richards.
Cardus, N. 1952. A call for culture. In N. Preston (Ed.),
326
February
2013
March, J. G., & Olsen, J. P. 1984. The new institutionalism: Organizational factors in political life. American Political Science Review, 78: 734 749.
Marqusee, M. 2005. Anyone but England (3rd ed.). London: Aurum.
Miles, M. B., & Huberman, A. M. 1994. Qualitative data
analysis: An expanded sourcebook. London: Sage.
Newbolt, H. Vitalampada (first published in 1912). In
S. J. Looker (Ed.), Cricket: A little book for lovers of
the game: Page nos. London: Simpkin, Marshall,
Hamilton, Kent & Co.
Oakes, L. S., Townley, B., & Cooper, D. J. 1998. Business
planning as pedagogy: Language and control in a
changing institutional field. Administrative Science
Quarterly, 43: 257292.
Pardon, S. H. (Ed.). 1911. Wisden cricketers almanack.
London: John Wisden.
Phillips, D., & Zuckerman, E. W. 2001. Middle status
conformity: Theoretical restatement and evidence
from two markets. American Journal of Sociology,
107: 379 429.
Phillips, N., Lawrence, T. B., & Hardy, C. 2004. Discourse
and institutions. Academy of Management Review,
29: 635 652.
Purdy, J. M., & Gray, B. 2009. Conflicting logics, mechanisms of diffusion, and multilevel dynamics in
emerging institutional fields. Academy of Management Journal, 52: 355380.
Rao, H., Monin, P., & Durand, R. 2003. Institutional
change in Toque Ville: Nouvelle cuisine as an identity movement in French gastronomy. American
Journal of Sociology, 108: 795 843.
Reay, T., & Hinings, C. R. 2005. The recomposition of an
organizational field: Health care in Alberta. Organization Studies, 26: 351384.
Reay, T., & Hinings, C. R. 2009. Managing the rivalry of
competing logics. Organization Studies, 30: 629
652.
Rojas, F. 2010. Power through institutional work: Acquiring academic authority in the 1968 Third World
Strike. Academy of Management Journal, 53:
12631280.
Schneiberg, M. 2006. Whats on the path? Path dependence, organizational diversity and the problem of
institutional change in the US economy, 1900 1950.
Socio-Economic Review, 5: 47 80.
327
Seo, M.-G., & Creed, W. E. D. 2002. Institutional contradictions, praxis, and institutional change: A dialectical perspective. Academy of Management Review, 27: 222247.
Sherer, P. D., & Lee, K. 2002. Institutional change in large
law firms: A resource dependency and institutional
perspective. Academy of Management Journal, 45:
102119.
Shils, E. 1961. Centre and periphery. The logic of personal knowledge: Essays presented to Michael Polanyi: 117130. London: Routledge & Kegan Paul.
Suchman, M. C. 1995. Managing legitimacy: Strategic
and institutional approaches. Academy of Management Review, 20: 571 610.
Suddaby, R., & Greenwood, R. 2005. Rhetorical strategies
of legitimacy. Administrative Science Quarterly,
50: 35 67.
Thornton, P. H. 2002. The rise of the corporation in a
craft industry: Conflict and conformity in institutional logics. Academy of Management Journal, 45:
81101.
Wilson, J. 1973. An introduction to social movements.
New York: Basic Books.
Wisden cricketers almanack. 1964. London: John Wisden.
Wright, A. L. 2009a. Domination in organizational fields:
Its just not cricket. Organization, 16: 855 885.
Wright, A. L. 2009b. Watch what I do, not what I say:
New questions for documents in IB case research. In
R. Piekkari & C. Welch (Eds.), Rethinking the case
study in international business research: 361382.
London: Edward Elgar.
Wright, A. L., & Zammuto, R. F. 2013. Creating opportunities for institutional entrepreneurship: The colonel
and the Cup in English County Cricket. Journal of
Business Venturing, 28: 51 68.
Zilber, T. B. 2006. The work of the symbolic in institutional processes: Translations of rational myths in
Israeli high tech. Academy of Management Journal,
49: 281303.
328
uses organization theory as a framework to study organizational culture, adaptation, and institutional change.
9.
APPENDIX
Archival Sources
1. Committee governance procedures, as explained in
this section, were sourced from minutes of the meeting of the ACCC, March 14, 1962, and minutes of the
meeting of the MCC Cricket Sub-Committee, March
18, 1957.
2. For example, correspondence dated December 11,
1953, states: As I regard you as one of the few who
understands Laws and Rules, I think you had better
come over to my house . . . it will be quite impossible
to arrive at the correct decision at a big Committee
meeting and so I feel that some of us must make the
decision beforehand, after going very thoroughly into
the two cases and we must persuade the Committee
to agree with our decision.
3. For example, correspondence dated March 18, 1958,
from Lancashire to the MCC secretary, states: The
odd thing is that we are yielding income to Counties
who really do not need it at all. I am referring to
Counties like Glamorgan, Derbyshire and Worcestershire and many others who have such a considerable
income from sources not connected with cricket that
this will be a mere drop in the ocean. They may, of
course, say and I suppose quite rightly that we could
have a supporters club if we wished. Whilst this is
true of Surrey, Yorkshire and Lancashire it is, I imagine, not the case with MCC. The MCC secretary
replied on March 20, 1958, that I agree with you that
we are yielding income to many Counties who really
do not want it.
4. For example, correspondence dated March 23, 1961,
from the Glamorgan secretary to the MCC secretary
states: I have no desire to come up and attend the
Meeting. It seems to me quite unnecessary to add
another 10 on to the cricketing expenses to do so.
The minutes of the ACCC meeting dated March 17,
1965, also note the inconvenience of travel experienced by marginal players.
5. Opening lines of An Heroic Poem by John Love,
first published in 1744, reprinted in S. J. Looker,
1925, Cricket: A Little Book for Lovers of the Game
(London: Simpkin, Marshall, Hamilton, Kent).
6. The history of cricket from the mid 1700s to mid
1800s is recorded in a 15-volume work (Scores and
Biographies, Fred Lillywhite, 1862). It records Kent
vs. Surrey as the first inter-County match in 1773.
The Laws of Cricket were first codified in 1744 and
subsequently revised in 1774.
7. England v Australia (19111912 Tour), by Sir Pelham
Warner (1912, MCC). Warner was a first-class cricketer for Oxford University, Middlesex, and England
from 1895 to 1920, later becoming MCC president.
8. The Guide to Cricketeers, Lillywhite (1849) (pub-
10.
11.
12.
13.
14.
15.
16.
17.
18.
19.
20.
21.
22.
23.
24.
25.
26.
27.
28.
29.
February
2013
30.
31.
32.
33.
34.
35.
36.
37.
38.
39.
40.
41.
42.
329
330
72.
73.
74.
76.
77.
79.
80.
81.
82.
83.
84.
85.
86.
February