The role of institutional entrepreneurs in reforming healthcare
Introduction
Healthcare reforms are difficult to enact. The change envisaged by policy-makers is often elusive, or at best protracted, because of the influence of institutionalised working practices. In this paper we explore institutional change in healthcare delivery drawing on the concept of institutional entrepreneurship. The literature on institutional entrepreneurship, building on DiMaggio’s (1988) seminal paper, seeks to explain how individuals, groups and organizations shape (change or maintain) existing institutions so that they promote their particular ‘interests’. Resistance to change in healthcare is well documented, for example, in the way medical professionals strategically respond to reforms in ways that maintain or extend their influence over emerging service areas (Currie et al., 2008, Currie et al., 2010, Currie et al., 2009a, Martin et al., 2009). In this paper we focus on the activities of “institutional entrepreneurs” as agents of change, who are endogenous actors with an interest in changing or transforming existing or emerging institutional configurations (DiMaggio, 1988, Fligstein, 1997, Rao et al., 2000).
We contribute to the literature on institutional entrepreneurship by examining the issue of embedded agency in a healthcare context. Specifically, we address the question as to why and how actors are more likely than others to see and act on opportunities for enacting institutional change. In doing so we, first, heed the call by Battilana, Leca, and Boxenbaum (2009) for future studies of institutional entrepreneurship to be comparative, focusing on success and failure; developed within mature settings and focusing on the individual, rather than organizational level of analysis. Second, we examine the relationship between the subject position of an institutional entrepreneur (IE) and their ability to enact institutional change, focusing on the reform of healthcare services, specifically cancer services within the UK National Health Services (NHS). Third, in examining the enactment of institutional entrepreneurship we highlight the importance of language and rhetoric as mechanisms for constructing legitimacy to promote institutional change. To develop these contributions we examine four comparative cases of healthcare reform for the provision of cancer genetics services.
Section snippets
Institutional theory
Institutional theory examines how deeply embedded beliefs, roles and patterns of interaction structure social practice and compel organizations into forms of conformity (DiMaggio and Powell, 1983, Meyer and Rowan, 1977). Institutions are resilient social structures, sometimes enshrined in law, that specify field rules, membership and the appropriate behaviour of its constituents (Friedland & Alford, 1991). The more developed a field, the more likely institutions will have become entrenched with
The institutional problem of cancer genetics services
The NHS Cancer Plan (DH, 2000) highlighted that cancer and genetics service as individual service priorities, but found that inconsistencies in policy and institutions have restricted the development of integrated cancer genetics services. For instance, The Harper Report (DH, 1996) recommended that primary care should be the principal focus for cancer genetics services; with primary care nurses and doctors referring cases to specialist cancer centres in tertiary care. The problem facing the NHS
Study methods
We embarked on a two stage research process between 2005 and 2008, for which we were granted full ethical approval (05/MRE04/58). In stage 1 we conducted 21 interviews with a small representative sample of clinical leads and service providers across all seven cases to focus on the subject positions of the different IEs. Following Eisenhardt (1989) we then employed purposive sampling to select four cases for in-depth investigation. Each was selected to examine how differences in the subject
Subject position and institutional change
For each case we elaborate their sources of SL and NL to engender institutional change and outline the corresponding nature of the institutional change enacted (Table 3). The Kenilworth Model, as outlined earlier, aimed at restructuring field relations and challenging of taken-for-granted assumptions as to who should deliver cancer genetics services. Where successful, the institutional arrangements for the delivery of cancer genetics services will be funded by commissioners, following the end
Discussion
Drawing on the lead of DiMaggio (1988) our study highlights how IEs work to engender different forms of institutional change that promote interests they value highly. By examining SL and NL we cast new light on the paradox of agency within institutional entrepreneurship, which has traditionally focused on SL only (Greenwood & Suddaby, 2006). The major contribution of our research is to examine how the relationship between IE’s subject position shapes their capacity to envision and enact
Acknowledgements
We would like to thank the Senior Editor and reviewers for the time and energy put into the review of our manuscript. The comments and queries raised have helped us to develop our conceptual and empirical argumentation, and feel that by in doing so, the quality of the paper has been enhanced.
References (47)
Institutional strategy
Journal of Management
(1999)- et al.
Reconfiguring or reproducing intra-professional boundaries? Specialist expertise, generalist knowledge and the ’modernization’ of the medical workforce"
Social Science and Medicine
(2009) Organization contra organizations: professions and organizational change in the United Kingdom
Organization Studies
(1996)- et al.
How actors change institutions: towards a theory of institutional entrepreneurship
The Academy of Management Annals
(2009) Agency, entrepreneurs, and institutional change. The role of strategic choice and institutionalized practices in organizations
Organization Studies
(1999)- et al.
Hospital sector organizational restructuring: Evidence of its futility
- et al.
Accounting for the ‘dark side’ of new organizational forms: the case of healthcare professionals
Human Relations
(2008) - et al.
Role transition and the interaction of relational and social identity: new nursing roles in the NHS
Organization Studies
(2010) - et al.
Professional competition and modernizing the clinical workforce in the NHS: possibilities and limits to the development of the specialist generalist in primary care
Work, Employment & Society
(2009) - et al.
The impact of institutional forces upon knowledge sharing in the UK NHS: the triumph of professional power and the inconsistency of policy
Public Administration
(2006)
Institutional theory and institutional change: introduction to the special research forum
Academy of Management Journal
The role of institutional and market forces in divergent organizational change
Administrative Science Quarterly
Interest and agency in institutional theory
The iron cage revisited: institutional isomorphism and collective rationality in organizational fields
American Sociological Review
Our inheritance, our future: Realising the potential of genetics in the NHS
Advisory committee on cancer genetics services
Delivering cancer genetics services – new ways of working
Familial Cancer
Building theories from case study research
Academy of Management Review
Knowledge, consensus and rhetorical theory
Social skill and institutional theory
American Behavioral Scientist
Bringing society back in: symbols, practices and institutional contradictions
Institutional entrepreneurship in the sponsorship of common technological standards: the case of Sun Mircosystems and Java
Academy of Management Journal
Cited by (63)
Persistent institutional breaches: Technology use in healthcare work
2021, Social Science and MedicineCitation Excerpt :Drawing from this emerging literature stream, this paper explores how healthcare professionals respond to institutionally disruptive new technology, particularly non-clinical technology that is used in a clinical setting and as part of professional work. This inter-disciplinary literature draws attention to the importance of institutional dynamics in producing and regulating stable healthcare work (Currie et al., 2012b; Lockett et al., 2012), to keep at bay disruptive challenges, and ensure that a completely legitimate healthcare “organisation would be one about which no questions could be raised” (Tost, 2011: 688). In this study, we use “institution” in the way that Barley (2008: 495) defines it: “as social forms or templates composed of clusters of conventions that script behavior to varying degrees in given contexts”.
Exploring collective consumer innovation in health care: Cases and formal modeling
2021, Research PolicyParliament in action: Drug withdrawals and policy changes in the U.K.
2020, Health PolicyCitation Excerpt :They mobilize resources and seize opportunities to realize their interests by creating visions for change and mobilizing their allies [23,24]. In the health sector, actors’ subject positions affect their engagement in institutional entrepreneurship, as demonstrated in relation to the U.K. National Health Service [25–27] or in the study of community organizations advocating new practices in HIV/AIDS advocacy in Canada [21]. Institutional entrepreneurs use varied discourses and interactive processes to convey ideas and facilitate policy changes [28,29], cultivate strategic relationship with key stakeholders, increase visibility [30], and represent different logics in the field of medical education [31].
Private management and governance styles in a Japanese public hospital: A story of west meets east
2020, Social Science and MedicineIntroducing strategic measures in public facilities management organizations: external and internal institutional work
2024, Public Management Review