Q Academy of Management Review 2016, Vol. 41, No. 4, 676–699. http://dx.doi.org/10.5465/amr.2014.0183

HISTORY, SOCIETY, AND INSTITUTIONS: THE ROLE OF COLLECTIVE MEMORY IN THE EMERGENCE AND EVOLUTION OF SOCIETAL LOGICS

WILLIAM OCASIO MICHAEL MAUSKAPF Northwestern University

CHRISTOPHER W. J. STEELE University of Alberta

We examine the role of history in organization studies by theorizing how collective memory shapes societal institutions and the logics that govern them. We propose that, rather than transhistorical ideal types, societal logics are historically constituted cultural structures generated through the collective memory of historical events. We then develop a theoretical model to explain how the representation, storage, and retrieval of collective memory lead to the emergence of societal logics. In turn, societal logics shape memory making and the reproduction and reconstruction of history itself. To illustrate our theory, we discuss the rise of the corporate logic in the United States. We identify two sources of discontinuity that can disrupt this memory-making process and create notable disjunctures in the evolution of societal logics. We conclude by discussing how changes in collective memory and the historical trajectory of societal logics shape organizational forms and practices.

History plays a critically important but often Is there any hope of bridging these worlds to underspecified role in the lives of institutions, or- provide a dynamic integration of structural and ganizations, and their members. Since at least the historical accounts of organizational life? 1990s, scholars have advocated that theories of or- Our answer to this question is an unequivocal yes. ganization take history more seriously (Clark & Although many organizational theories are implic- Rowlinson, 2004; Keiser, 1994; Zald, 1993). Yet a the- itly ahistorical or reduce history to a temporal vari- oretical and methodological divide persists be- able, some contain the raw materials to acquire an tween those who study organizations and those explicitly historical lens (Kipping & Usdiken,¨ 2014; who study history. According to historian and po- Rowlinson, Hassard, & Decker, 2014). Institutional litical scientist William Sewell, Jr.’s Logics of His- theory seems particularly well suited to this task tory, there is a logical explanation for this condition: (Suddaby, Foster, & Mills, 2014). Yet while research across the social sciences may recognize that his- While historians do not think of themselves as theorists, they know something social scientists do tory operates through institutions to constitute the not: how to think about the temporalities of social social world (Mahoney & Thelen, 2007; Thelen, 1999), life. On the other hand, while social scientists’ the details of this argument and its consequences treatments of temporality are usually clumsy, their remain underdeveloped (Kipping & Usdiken,¨ 2014). theoretical sophistication and penchant for struc- We further the integration of history and orga- tural accounts of social life could offer much to historians (Sewell, 2005: back cover). nization studies by theorizing how the process of collective memory making shapes our un- derstanding of historical events and societal All authors contributed equally to this article. We thank Michael Rowlinson and two anonymous reviewers, whose institutions. To accomplish this, we employ detailed comments and suggestions made the paper better. and extend the institutional logics perspective We also thank Royston Greenwood and the participants of the (Friedland & Alford, 1991; Thornton, Ocasio, & 2014 EGOS track on “Rethinking Responses to Institutional Lounsbury, 2012), which contends that organiza- ” Complexity for their constructive feedback on an earlier ver- tions and their activities are embedded in histor- sion of the manuscript. Finally, we thank the editorial team of the Special Topic Forum on History and Organization Studies ically situated webs of meaning and significance. for their leadership and advocacy of an organizational science These webs are structured by institutional logics— that takes history seriously. sets of organizing principles that provide actors

676 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 holder’s express written permission. Users may print, download, or email articles for individual use only. 2016 Ocasio, Mauskapf, and Steele 677 with vocabularies of motive and practice. Al- occurrences. Then we examine how these as- though scholars have explored the historical sorted documents are arranged and stored within contingencies of field-level logics and their archives. Patterns in the retrieval of documents implications for organizational practices and from these archives give rise to historical forms (Haveman & Rao, 1997; Scott, Ruef, Mendel, & events—episodes of societal significance that are Caronna, 2000; Thornton & Ocasio, 1999), they have similarly identified, if differently interpreted, by largely ignored the historicity of societal logics. the dispersed actors in society. As the memory of While the historical provenance of societal logics historical events develops and is reinforced (or is widely acknowledged, they are mostly theorized reinterpreted), metanarratives emerge to help as Weberian ideal types—that is, transhistorical impose order on the past and present. When these generalizations of abstract principles (Thornton metanarratives converge and stabilize, they et al., 2012). For example, when institutional generate societal logics, which, in turn, shape the scholars study the overarching principles that memory-making process. structure our understanding of “the market” or Second, we provide an illustration of our model “the corporation,” they rarely explore how these with reference to the emergence and evolution of societal logics emerge or change over time (cf. the corporate logic in the United States, shaped Lipartito & Sicilia, 2004; Polanyi, 1944). Here we by the collective memory making of historical acknowledge not only that societal logics have events. In the process, we contrast our historically “specific historical limits” (Friedland & Alford, embedded explanation of the corporate logic with 1991: 249) but that they also provide a new theory the prevailing ideal-typical approach. detailing history’s role in the generation, re- Third, we propose and discuss several sources production, and transformation of societal logics. of historical discontinuity in collective memory In contrast to the ideal-typical approach, we making. We highlight two sources of discontinu- propose that societal logics are historically con- ity in particular: (1) the confluence of events across stituted cultural structures generated through institutional fields (e.g., series of events that come collective memory making. Field-level logics tend to be seen as watershed moments or as phase to emerge from the shared experiences of inter- transitions in the evolution of society) and (2) connected groups of actors, but the origin of so- changes in the communicative infrastructure cietal logics has not been adequately theorized. In (e.g., the complex of technologies and practices large, complex societies, individuals are often too through which collective memory making takes widely dispersed, and their local contexts too place). We conclude the article by discussing how disparate, to share universal experiences (Durkheim, our model might inspire a more historically in- 1964). Absent the common ground of shared expe- formed approach to institutional logics and pro- rience, we propose that collective memory supplies posing implications for the study of organizations individuals and organizations with the informa- and organizational theory more broadly. tion and schemas required to effectively navigate society and social life. Collective memory, as a HISTORY, INSTITUTIONAL LOGICS, AND system of values, identities, and practices shaping COLLECTIVE MEMORY the commemoration and (re)interpretation of his- torical events (Schwartz, 2005; Schwartz & Kim, History, which for our purposes refers both to 2002), serves a constitutive role in the emergence the accumulation of past events and to the docu- and evolution of societal logics. In turn, societal ments, narratives, and memories attached to logics provide a historical lens through which them, has enjoyed a renaissance in organiza- memory and history are recursively shaped, tional studies since the linguistic and cultural reproduced, and reconstructed. turns of the 1970s and 1980s. Nevertheless, most of After unpacking this argument and situating it our discipline’s theories remain relatively ahis- within existing research on institutional logics torical (Kipping & Usdiken,¨ 2014). This state of af- and collective memory, we divide the remainder fairs reflects a more general epistemological of the article into three parts. First, we develop divide between social science and history a new process model that posits societal logics (Rowlinson et al., 2014). In the words of Hayden as emerging from collective memory making of White (2010: 192), historians “deal in ‘concrete’ historical events. We begin by discussing the reality rather than ‘abstractions’; their interest representation and documentation of localized is in discovering the true story behind the events 678 Academy of Management Review October reported in the documents and telling that story for particular institutional fields, such as higher well,” rather than in generating universal claims. education publishing (Thornton & Ocasio, 1999), White (1973) nonetheless argued that maintaining French cuisine (Rao et al., 2003), and the a strict separation between the “factual” sciences U.S. pharmaceutical industry (Goodrick & Reay, and interpretive history is unnecessary and ulti- 2011). Shifts in field-level logics can lead to out- mately unproductive. A flurry of recent research in comes at other levels of analysis as well, in- organization theory has begun to take White’s cluding the evolution of organizational forms credo seriously (Booth & Rowlinson, 2006; Bucheli & (Haveman & Rao, 1997) and the possibility of Wadhwani, 2014; Greenwood & Bernardi, 2014; intraorganizational conflict (Dunn & Jones, 2010; Rowlinson et al., 2014), and we follow in this tra- Murray, 2010). This work has tended to view his- dition as we develop a more historical account of tory primarily as a scope condition or forcing institutional logics and their consequences. variable, rendering local institutions and orga- The institutional logics perspective maintains nizations historically contingent (Thornton & that social life is organized into distinctive arenas Ocasio, 1999). We suggest that a more complete or domains of activity that are characterized integration of history and the logics perspective by particular logics or principles of organization requires engagement with the historicity of logics, (Friedland & Alford, 1991). Logics provide actors particularly the far-reaching societal logics with a more or less cohesive set of assumptions, within which field logics are nested. Historicizing rules, and beliefs to help them make sense of the these logics and their configurations across in- world, orient themselves toward others, and ac- stitutional orders can enhance our ability to study count for their behavior. Logics may sometimes be and understand the historical trajectory of institu- followed automatically but are frequently subject tions and their organizational- and individual- to mindful reflection and mobilization (Thornton level effects (Hatch & Zilber, 2012; Schwartz & et al., 2012). They provide people with cultural Kim, 2002). resources that can be used to shape collective As already discussed, societal logics serve as identities and practices (Pouthier, Steele, & the organizing principles for distinct domains of Ocasio, 2013; Rao, Monin, & Durand, 2003), to es- social activity. In extant theoretical and empirical tablish and legitimate organizational cultures research, scholars have identified seven distinct (Battilana & Dorado, 2010; Kraatz, 2009), and to societal logics, although there may be others. pursue or resist organizational change (Gawer & These include (Thornton et al., 2012) the family Phillips, 2013; Lok, 2010). Indeed, individuals may (defined by unconditional loyalty to blood re- have different relationships with available logics, lations and other family members), religion (the identifying with some and making use of them to sacredness and profanity of certain activities, signal affiliations or solve problems while actively things, and actors), the state (democratic partici- resisting others (Creed, DeJordy, & Lok, 2010; pation), the market (pursuit of profit and share Kellogg, 2011; Lok, 2010). Similarly, at the organiza- price), professions (personal and certified exper- tional level, logics provide resources for shared tise), community (trust and reciprocity), and the sensemaking, symbolic management, and the corporation (rationalized bureaucracy and the crafting of identity (Glynn, 2000; Greenwood, pursuit of market power). Raynard, Kodeih, Micelotta, & Lounsbury, 2011; Each of these societal logics is often conceptu- Suddaby & Greenwood, 2005). Dominant logics alized as a transhistorical ideal type that appears constrain the organizational forms that are con- fixed over time. We argue instead that these sidered legitimate within a given domain (Haveman logics are historically constituted through collec- & Rao, 1997), while other available logics provide tive memory. Whereas field-level logics may be alternative templates that can be used to develop grounded in the shared experiences and histories and legitimate new forms and innovations (Tracey, of local actors, societal logics address a broader Phillips, & Jarvis, 2011), ultimately shaping organi- and more dispersed set of individuals who zational ecologies. are unlikely to share many experiences. This has two key implications. First, we argue that the power of societal logics rests on the creation of Societal Logics As Historical Formations experiences that can be shared by nonparticipants. Much of the research on logics focuses on tempo- Collective memory supplies people with the medi- ral shifts in dominant logics and their consequences ated “experience” needed to navigate different 2016 Ocasio, Mauskapf, and Steele 679 institutional orders and the logics that organize retrieval and reinterpretation. For the sake of them. clarity, we refer to the production, arrangement, Second, societal logics operate differently than and consumption of such traces as collective mem- field-level logics as a result of their unique form ory making, a process that produces the content and content. Like field-level logics, societal logics of collective memory and shapes the configura- shape cognition, behavior, and organization tion of societal logics. within a specific jurisdiction (e.g., within “the Of course, the means by which collective family”). In addition, however, we propose that memories are made is also a topic of debate in societal logics provide foundational principles history, sociology, and management. For most that can be used in the creation, maintenance, scholars collective memory refers to group com- and disruption of more situated field-level logics. memorations of the past, but others use the term They allow reflective actors to evaluate more lo- interchangeably (with collected memory) to refer calized logics through the invocation of broad, to the aggregation of individual memories (Olick, well-recognized principles that cut across fields 1999). While it may be true that only individuals and permeate society. Thus, societal logics influ- possess the capacity to contemplate the past ence organizational and individual cognition and (Gedi & Elam, 1996), this does not mean that action across a wide range of fields. Moreover, beliefs originate in the individual or can be they provide widely understood principles that explained on the basis of personal or immediately can be used to guide and justify behavior when- shared experiences alone. Much of what we re- ever field-level logics break down. The influence member reflects our indirect experience as mem- of societal logics on organizations and in- bers of particular groups, institutions, or “mnemonic dividuals is often filtered through field-level communities” (Halbwachs, 1992; Zerubavel, 1996). logics; however, societal logics also have a di- Thus, collective memory making is not just a cog- rect effect in times of reflection and disruption. In nitive process but a social one, generated through both respects, their impact cuts across fields and communication and dynamic patterns of interac- influences broad swaths of social life at any given tion (Casey & Olivera, 2011; Cuc, Ozuru, Manier, & time. Thus, understanding how societal logics are Hirst, 2006) and stored in material artifacts and constituted through collective memory aids our un- collective consciousness (Fine & Beim, 2007). derstanding of how individual-, organizational-, Rather than a purely cognitive model, our version and field-level phenomena vary across histor- of collective memory is embodied in symbolic and ical periods. material documents (e.g., language and linguistic categories). These documents are then catalogued, stored, and sometimes retrieved to reconstruct Collective Memory the past and situate the present. Indebted to the work of Emile´ Durkheim and his Almost inevitably, collective memory is rooted student Maurice Halbwachs, contemporary col- not only in the desire to document past events but lective memory research is at once rich in con- also in the desire to make sense of the present ceptual depth and inconsistent in definitional through the interpretation and commemoration of clarity (Olick, Vinitzky-Seroussi, & Levy, 2011). the past (Casey & Olivera, 2011; Schwartz, 1996, Most sociologists frame collective memory as 2000), both of which are critical aspects of “his- a process that is defined through the act of re- tory.” Although collective memories may refer membrance or commemoration (Boje, 2008), but to real events—and be attached to real ob- others entertain the possibility that memory is jects that serve as important touchstones for a thing that can be stored, retrieved, and forgotten remembrance and (re)interpretation—they are (Fine & Beim, 2007; Walsh & Ungson, 1991). Here multiple, dynamic, and under continuous re- we follow sociologist and memory scholar Jeffrey vision (Boje, 2008). Different interpretations of Olick, who defines collective memory as “both the the past vie for attention to enter and poten- medium and the outcome of social configura- tially alter prevailing collective memories, and tions” (2007: 118). While memory may be activated the outcome of such meaning tournaments through the act of commemoration, we suggest has concrete social and organizational conse- that certain sociomaterial traces of memory quences (e.g., Anteby & Molnar,´ 2012; Nissley & (e.g., documents) remain stored in archives, where Casey, 2002). Research by psychologist Barry they serve as important touchstones for future Schwartz and others highlights this point: the 680 Academy of Management Review October past is continually reinterpreted to fit the changing acquired from the external environment, retained landscape of the present and, we would add, to across several retention facilities (e.g., including shape the social construction of the future (Cook, the minds of individuals; the culture, structure, 2007). Collective memory’s dual identity as a rep- practices, and ecology of the organization; and resentation of the past and a tool for the remaking external archives), and then retrieved (auto- (or forgetting) of the past implies a contradiction matically or consciously) to aid organizational of sorts, arising from its deeply reflexive and members in the learning process. Although this historical roots. Schwartz addresses this paradox conception fails to account for the experiential and vis-a-vis` collective memory’s role as a model of historically specific nature of collective memory and for society: (Rowlinson, Booth, Clark, Delahaye, & Procter, 2010), it provides a helpful set of tools for anal- As a model of society, collective memory reflects past events in terms of the needs, interests, fears, ysis, much like the work on the manifestation and aspirations of the present. As a model for so- and interpretation of organizational culture ciety, collective memory performs two functions: it (Hatch, 1993). embodies a template that organizes and animates behavior and a frame within which people locate and find meaning for the present experience. Col- A FRAMEWORK FOR UNDERSTANDING lective memory affects social reality by reflecting, COLLECTIVE MEMORY MAKING shaping, and framing it. . . . The distinction between memory as a model of and a model for social reality In this section we develop a model to show how is an analytic, not an empirical, one: both aspects societal logics emerge and evolve through the col- are realized in every act of remembrance (2000: 301). lective memory-making process. We present our Just as society shapes our attention toward cer- framework in the form of a recursive process model, tain memories in the present, it also constrains depicted in Figure 1. For ease of understanding, our ability to reach into the past (Zerubavel, 1996) we summarize definitions of key concepts and and imagine the future (Cook, 2007). mechanisms in Table 1 and Table 2. Our primary Our treatment of collective memory making as objective here is to explain (1) how the historical a social phenomenon involving the representation, accumulation of occurrences, events, and their storage, and retrieval of documents is informed by affiliated documents constitute societal logics work on organizational memory as well. Walsh and and (2) the means by which these logics shape Ungson’s (1991) foundational article in this journal the memory-making process. This approach is presents organizational memory as a three-part consistent with the “historical institutionalist” sequential process. In their model, information is perspective in political science and sociology,

FIGURE 1 Collective Memory Making and the Historical Evolution of Societal Logics

Key: moderating relationship

Archives

Storage Meta - narration Retrieval

Societal logics

Historical Occurrences Documents events Representation Representation 2016 Ocasio, Mauskapf, and Steele 681

TABLE 1 Core Concepts in the Historical Formation of Societal Logics

Concept Definition

Occurrences The everyday lived experience of an individual or group. Occurrences are scale free in terms of participation and duration (i.e., they may involve few or many actors and last moments or years). Documents Durable or replicable artifacts that serve as sociomaterial representations of past occurrences. These may include texts, account sheets, historical treatises, memorized oral histories, or memorabilia of various sizes and significance. Archives Collections of documents ordered according to a cultural system of classification, as materialized through specific technologies and practices. Archives categorize and catalogue documents, distribute them across various repositories, and shape the conditions of their retrieval. Historical events Episodes of societal significance that are constructed through the repeated retrieval of available documents. These represent more or less shared and stable understandings of the periodization of the past, but not necessarily its meaning or implication. Societal logics Sets of organizing principles that explain how a given domain of social life works and why. Societal logics emerge from and justify the categorizations imposed in field-level archives. A societal logic solidifies when these categorization schemes begin to converge across domains of social activity.

where institutions are viewed as “outcomes of past vary widely in their interpretation and deploy- events and interpretations of those events” (Suddaby ment, both over time and across peoples. Despite et al., 2014: 111) that endogenously emerge from these challenges, however, we believe it is useful and gain meaning through a series of complex to present our argument in the form of a cyclical historical processes (Mahoney & Thelen; 2007; process model. Developing constructs with dis- Schneiberg, 2007; Thelen, 1999). Furthermore, crete interrelationships can be an effective heu- while our model focuses on the societal level, it ristic to build and test theory in institutional also highlights the nested and cross-level nature analysis. We address how historical disconti- of collective memory making, noting the critical nuities and crisis can disrupt the evolutionary roles of microlevel occurrences and localized process suggested by our model toward the end structures in this process, as well the conse- of the article, but we begin by describing each quences of collective memory for changes in step in this process. organizational behavior and culture (Schultz, 2012; Zilber, 2012). Occurrences We acknowledge that analytical models of this sort often necessitate simplifications of dynamic We propose that the documents and stories phenomena. History is messy and nonlinear in from which history is constructed, reproduced, a way that is difficult to capture within the con- and challenged are generated through mundane fines of such a model, not least because memories occurrences or lived experiences. During the

TABLE 2 Core Processes in the Historical Formation of Societal Logics

Mechanism Definition

Representation Any attempt to capture some details of an occurrence in a manner that can “re-present” it in the future—for example, via texts, narrative accounts, or other sociomaterial artifacts. Storage The process by which documents are (1) granted relevance or significance, (2) catalogued as being of one kind or another, and (3) archived and made (more or less) available for future retrieval. Retrieval The use of documents to make sense of the past or to defend or attack existing interpretations or histories. This may involve the physical retrieval of documents or mere reference to documents that are believed to exist. Metanarration Accounts of social life that attempt to impose order on the past and its documentation. This involves (1) explaining the organization of archives by projecting cultural categories and domains onto the world “out there” and (2) explaining how events fit together by positing organizing principles for those domains. Convergence in metanarrations (re)produces societal logics. 682 Academy of Management Review October course of everyday life, individuals, groups, in some durable or replicable manner. The pro- and organizations notice and bracket particular cess of representation refers to the manifestation aspects of experience (whether their own or those (Hatch, 1993) and transcription of contemporary of others), forging them into distinguishable epi- occurrences into documents of one sort or an- sodes that can be attended to and analyzed sep- other. It is often during this process that stories arately (Weick, Sutcliffe, & Obstfeld, 2005). It is begin to emerge (Boje, 2008). Individuals work this bracketing and bounding that defines an oc- to connect occurrences, introduce causal con- currence, rather than the phenomenon itself: thus, nections and themes, and define actors and a meal can be an occurrence, but so too can plots, helping them make sense of their pasts a strike, an election, a battle, or even a war. Once and orient themselves toward the future (Tsoukas, they have been cognitively bounded and labeled, 2005; Weick et al., 2005). People may engage occurrences provide “the common currency for in this process alone, but representation is communicational exchanges” (Chia, 2000: 517), generally a collective endeavor whereby in- making it possible for individuals and organiza- dividuals propose tentative accounts to one tions to communicate and make sense of their another so that they can be confirmed, chal- experiences. lenged, or elaborated (Weick et al., 2005; Zilber, Consider a juridical meeting. In isolation, 2007). Indeed, there is often a preemptive and such a meeting is not distinct from the flow of editorial element to representation, with au- individual experience; sensations of sound, thors guided toward representations that heat, comfort, and discomfort continue, and ev- are likely to be well-received and easily un- eryday life goes on. Because individuals at- derstood. Thus, the process of representation is tend to and bracket particular aspects of the forward looking, even as it concerns itself with meeting—for example, the fact and the content of the past. conversation—the meeting takes on a coherence of Some representation processes are largely its own and becomes a shared experience. More- routine affairs whereby occurrences are over, this experience can be referenced and dis- documented as part of the work at hand, as in cussed by people who did not participate in the the case of administrative documents (Garfinkel, meeting at all but who share some common un- 1967; Wenger, 1998) or diaries. Other occur- derstanding of the episode’s boundaries and sig- rences, however, are represented because they nificance. Organizations play an important role captured the attention of outside audiences here, both by structuring occurrences and by (Hilgartner & Bosk, 1988; Hoffman & Ocasio, shaping individuals’ attention and interpretations 2001). There are various reasons why an oc- (Daft & Weick, 1984; Ocasio, 1997; Weick & Roberts, currence might attract widespread attention. 1993). Prior research suggests that an occurrence is Note that occurrences exist outside of the col- more likely to be extensively represented and lective memory “loop” represented in Figure 1. stored if it is promoted by a dominant narrator In our model occurrences are an input to the or editor, if it appears to connect with central collective memory-making process, since they societal strains or tensions, or if it can be easily are not subject to reinterpretation at the level linked to an existing category of comparable of society, except insofar as they are later events (Cuc et al., 2006; Fine, 1997, 2007). Al- transformed into historical events. Only oc- ternatively, an occurrence might attract atten- currences that are so transformed have suffi- tion because it resonates with a large audience of cient significance to be commemorated and nonparticipants or because it seems unexpected reinterpreted widely (Schwartz, 2005). In this or strange, demanding some response or reaction sense occurrences influence collective memory from those who hear about it (Hoffman & Ocasio, making by serving as the essential raw material 2001; Schudson, 1989). for documents and the definition of historical events. Documents In our model the concept of documents is Representation intended to capture the primary role of collective To effectively enter collective memory, occur- objects in the memory-making process (Fine & rences must first be meaningfully represented Beim, 2007). Following research in documentary 2016 Ocasio, Mauskapf, and Steele 683 and information sciences (Buckland, 1991; Lund, They may be lost, forgotten, or even destroyed, 2009; Olsen, Lund, Ellingsen, & Hartvigsen, 2012), especially if they are not obviously connected to we define a document as “any concrete or sym- matters of practical or cultural significance. The bolic indication, preserved or recorded, for dynamics of storage are contingent on a variety of reconstructing or proving a phenomenon,” such factors, including the influence of professional as a past occurrence (Briet, 2006/1951, as trans- gatekeepers (such as archivists and historians), lated by Buckland, 1991: 354). This definition en- prevailing interests (Wry, Cobb, & Aldrich, 2013), compasses a broad array of artifacts, including ideologies (Lukes, 2005) and logics (Thornton texts, audio and video recordings, formal oral et al., 2012), and the rhetorical appeal of the rep- accounts, memorabilia, and memorials, among resentations in question (Schudson, 1989). These others. Across these forms, multiple documents dynamics are the domain of the archives. will often provide conflicting accounts of the past, thus providing a critical space and resource for Archives collective memory making (and remaking). Note that documents are generated not only through In essence, archives are collections of docu- the representation of contemporary occurrences ments that have been organized according to but also through the representation (and re- some system of classification—a system that interpretation) of historical events. Both processes need not be explicit or particularly precise. Be- produce new documents that enter collective yond this point, definitions of archives vary memory, shaping our understandings of the past, widely (Manoff, 2004; Zeitlyn, 2012). Some defini- present, and future. tions focus on discrete collections of texts, with definite physical locations, whereas others are more abstract. For example, Foucault envisaged Storage a general societal archive responsible for classi- While some scholars have emphasized the fying and contextualizing all the statements role of remembrance and commemoration in made by its members. Rather than any one spe- the constitution of collective memory (Schwartz, cific, concrete collection of documents, Foucault’s 2000, 2005), others have argued that storage archive is a system of principles and technolo- plays an important role in its conservation gies, carving out distinct domains of discourse and reproduction (Fine & Beim, 2007; Walsh & with their own criteria for relevance, significance, Ungson, 1991). From our perspective, memories and truth (Foucault, 2002). may be activated through individual acts of We integrate these perspectives to define ar- remembrance, but documents shape, legitimate, chives as collections of documents ordered and even trigger this process. Not all documents according to some cultural system of classifica- remain available for collective memory mak- tion. The classification structure of an archive (1) ing, however; they must first be effectively determines which documents are to be included stored. in a given collection, (2) organizes them, (3) con- The process of storage is threefold. First, stor- textualizes them by relating them to each other, (4) age involves retaining certain documents for fu- stores them in one or more related repositories, ture reference, thereby transforming localized and (5) permits and constrains their retrieval. representations into enduring resources for Each of these interrelated processes is shaped by shared memory making. This may involve a pro- organizational practices, information technolo- cess of formal publication or recognition, or it gies, and the politics enveloping archivists and may be more informal, perhaps requiring only the their audiences (see, for example, Bowker, 2008; click of a button depending on the technological Saxer, 2010; Trace, 2002). This definition encom- and social context (e.g., the communicative in- passes a variety of collection types, including frastructure). Second, storage encompasses the public libraries and museums, private research cataloguing of documents—their assignment to collections, business archives, and Wikipedia’s some repository, their indexing, and their orga- digital database. It also suggests that archives nization according to period or theme. Finally, can exist at very different levels of analysis. We storage entails the maintenance of documents can observe organizational archives (Trace, 2002), with some degree of retrievability, although not city archives (De Vivo, 2010), archives of colonial all stored documents remain easily retrievable. administrations (Stoler, 2002), and even national 684 Academy of Management Review October or international archives (Caswell, 2010). For ex- become archived within collective memory. Nev- ample, the archive of civil law in the United States ertheless, we know that memories become con- is distributed across a large number of organiza- sequential through acts of remembrance (what tions. Taken as a whole, this archive determines others have called “re-presentation”), which shape which types of documents are relevant for estab- individuals’ post hoc understandings of occur- lishing legal precedent and which are not, which rences and influence future actions (e.g., Schwartz & documents should be taken into account in legal Kim, 2002). We argue that this begins with the re- argumentation and which should not, which legal trieval process, which encompasses the discovery, documents are relevant to specific questions of recollection, and reinterpretation of archived doc- law and which are not, and, ultimately, which uments, along with the ideas and claims they documents are to be incorporated into our legal represent. memory and in what manner. Retrieval is an everyday activity, often drawing Our definition is consistent with recent work in on analogies and recollections of the past to make anthropology (Zeitlyn, 2012), the history of science sense of the present (Weick, 1995). Much of the (Bowker, 2008), and the archival sciences, where retrieval process is automatic and noncontrover- the political and cultural qualities of archives are sial, but some of it is not. Initial, reevaluative, or receiving increasing attention (De Vivo, 2010; iconoclastic retrieval efforts are likely to face Schwartz & Cook, 2002; Stoler, 2002). Critically, it challenges to their legitimacy from competing also foregrounds the cultural and political dynamics or entrenched interpretations. As basic under- by which documents are contextualized and in- standings of historical “facts” become accepted terrelated, emphasizing that archives are not more broadly, the retrieval process is likely to neutral repositories for storage. Operating as become less conscious and more routine driven, a whole, archives influence collective memory drawing on habit, intuition, and individual mem- making by shaping the dynamics of storage, cat- ory, rather than the details of specific documents egorization, and retrieval. In terms of storage, ar- (Kahneman, 2011). “Fact” and “fiction” become chives influence the production of collective separated out (Berger & Luckmann, 1967), giving memory by determining which documents serve prevailing understandings of historical docu- as the raw materials for memory making. As ments a substantial advantage in future legiti- professional archivists, historians, and other macy contests. gatekeepers decide which documents are of suf- We should stress that the emergence of legiti- ficient importance to store, they create the condi- mate, taken-for-granted understandings of these tions for both collective remembering and documents—what we call historical events—does forgetting (Bowker, 2008; Schwartz & Cook, 2002). not entail interpretative closure. The sheer sig- Archives also determine where and how selected nificance of the set of documents and stories re- documents are stored. This affects not only the trieved ensures that this process remains open to relative durability and security of documents but the possibility of political contestation. As we also the possibilities for their retrieval, making have already suggested, individuals, groups, and certain documents available to the general public organizations may seek to reevaluate and re- and others available only to carefully vetted pro- interpret history to justify current states of affairs fessional historians or state officials. Finally, or future plans (Anteby & Molnar,´ 2012; Cook, archives structure the process of retrieval by cre- 2007). Frequently, competition continues to define ating new relationships of relevance or irrele- not only the nature and consequences of historical vance (or agreement and disagreement) between narratives but also their periodization, and even documents. The very organization of the archive, the recollection of their existence. It is through this in other words, provides an interpretative context process of re-remembering that collective mem- for those intending to retrieve a given document ory is transformed and the past reconstituted as and remember an occurrence or event (Schwartz & history. Cook, 2002). Historical Events Retrieval As individuals or organizations seek to change Thus far, we have explained how historical oc- institutions, they often attempt to propagate currences and the documents that represent them certain stories and narratives—and publicize 2016 Ocasio, Mauskapf, and Steele 685 particular interpretations of past occurrences—to may change our understanding of the past. New legitimate their cause (Maguire & Hardy, 2009; documents are produced, vetted, and stored in the Zilber, 2007). Conscious efforts at influencing the archive, only to be retrieved once again so that retrieval process can create discontinuities in new interpretations of historical events them- retrieval—moments in which the purposeful dis- selves become history (or are called into question mantling of existing narratives drives certain or forgotten; see Boje, 2008). documents and stories into the shadows and brings others into the light (Lawrence, Suddaby, & Leca, 2009; Tsoukas, 2005). Metanarration As new patterns in retrieval emerge and stabi- Having discussed the general process by lize, they generate historical events or episodes of which collective memory is constructed and societal significance that are projected onto the deployed to make sense of history, we now turn past. In the process, collective perceptions about to the emergence and influence of societal logics. these events—their boundaries, their general As shown in Figure 1, societal logics emerge from features, and sometimes even their evaluation the archives through a process of metanarration— and import—begin to emerge and gain legiti- the telling of stories about representations macy. Not all retrieval efforts yield fully coherent and their documents by individuals, groups, or historical events, but the more often a nascent organizations. event is retrieved and referenced in everyday life, In our model metanarration plays a critical role the more cognitively accessible it tends to be- in constituting societal logics and their domains come. Increasingly recognizable and legitimate of jurisdiction. As discussed above, categoriza- references and interpretations generate histori- tion systems, or modes of relating documents to — cal events shared understandings that define one another, are central to the archives (Bowker, particular occurrences or sets of occurrences as 2008). When these categorizations are multiple recognizable and significant moments in the and varied, archivists and their apologists are evolution of society (although the reasons given likely to legitimate their particular systems of for this significance may vary greatly). Over time, classification and organization. Metanarratives, these events become embedded in collective which articulate commonalities across historical memory. events, offer a means of pinning these categori- In prior research on collective memory, scholars zation systems to features of “the world out there” have made an important distinction between or to the requirements of a particular field. They “objective” history and the retrieval, commemo- provide legitimating accounts for categorization ration, and/or reinterpretation of the past (Schwartz, systems of occurrences and events by signifying 2000). While not wholly objective in nature, recorded occurrences serve the role of “objec- their necessity or by explaining how they could not tive” history in our model, whereas historical practically be otherwise. events are constituted by the recollection Nevertheless, multiple and even contradictory and reinterpretation of the past. Put another metanarratives do coexist. Incumbent meta- way, occurrences and their documents are the narratives often, if not always, have challengers, raw material for the generation of historical each with their own adherents and detractors. events—understandings of past occurrences that Some metanarratives are likely to gain traction can either be reproduced or disrupted through across multiple archives, whereas others remain the retrieval process. In this sense historical more focused, or become increasingly marginal- events are social constructions—memories— ized, disparaged, or replaced. We do not have that interpret some occurrence or series of occur- space here to fully unpack the competitive rences through the lens of collective memory. dynamics of metanarratives, but their ecology Memories do not go uncontested; different in- may be influenced by a number of different se- terpretations of historical events vie for public lection mechanisms, including their symbolic or attention and acceptance as individual and or- cognitive resonance with extant societal logics ganizational actors attempt to alter prevailing (Schudson, 1989), their utility for addressing salient collective memories (e.g., Casey, 1997). Historians social problems (Thornton et al., 2012) or supporting often play a critical role in this process, leverag- the purposes of those in power (Kitchener, 2002), ing research to generate new interpretations that their relative distinctiveness among already 686 Academy of Management Review October established metanarratives (Brewer, 1991), and memory of historical events, rather than shared confluences of events, which we discuss below. experience. While an individual may have a great Over time, metanarratives are likely to con- deal of experience dealing with a particular state verge and reify the categories they describe agency, his or her own family, or a specific pro- and account for—transforming legal history, for fessional context, the stories and events that are example, from a means of categorization into generally used to articulate how life works within a domain of practice, which becomes taken for “the state,”“the family,” or “the professions” may granted and is projected back onto the phenome- be far removed from the individual’s own expe- non (Berger & Luckmann, 1967). Successful meta- riences and background. Thus, the documents narratives carve out and differentiate distinct and events accumulated within archives and genres of history (Foucault, 2002). Ultimately, it not arranged and abstracted through metanarration only becomes legitimate to treat these genres as serve as the lifeblood of societal logics. In con- though their constituent historical events shared trast to more localized logics, societal logics are particular types of relationship and features, or not directly inferred from personal histories or took place in the same general field, but in- experiences; rather, the documents stored in conceivable (for a period at least) not to recognize various archives, and the historical events con- their coherence as distinct domains of social life. stituted through those documents, form their Moreover, as historians and other actors seek to primary material. explain and justify entire domains of activity, Second, we propose that as a result of this his- rather than specific historical events, they draw torical process, societal logics are not fixed but on documentary evidence to infer the principles are instead contingent on the accumulation of by which these domains operate. As the resulting stories and documents within and across ar- metanarratives converge and settle on certain chives. In prior research scholars have tended to core principles, categories, and vocabularies, characterize societal logics in terms of the seven a distinct and dynamic societal logic emerges, ideal types mentioned above. The existence and defining the actors, objects, goals, principles, and content of these logics have been treated implic- identities that operate within a given institutional itly as transhistorical. In contrast, we propose that order (Loewenstein, Ocasio, & Jones, 2012). both the constitution and configuration of societal logics are contingent on the historical processes outlined in our model such that the accumulation SOCIETAL LOGICS AND THEIR IMPACT ON and metanarration of historical events can give COLLECTIVE MEMORY MAKING rise to new societal logics while erasing others. A set of associated metanarratives becomes So far we have discussed how the dynamics of a societal logic when it achieves a certain degree collective memory give rise to distinctive societal of convergence, resilience, and relevance across logics. In this section we turn to theorizing about institutional fields. At this point the meta- how societal logics recursively influence the pro- narratives cease to appear as “narratives” at duction and consumption in collective memory, all, instead taking on the character of obvious and the historical trajectory of society itself. We inferences—commonsense descriptions of a theorize four main pathways through which specific, recognizable sector within society and this occurs: (1) the moderation of storage, (2) the a matter of common knowledge that must be moderation of retrieval, (3) the moderation of taken into account by any competent actor. In representation (for both historical events and previous research within the institutional logics contemporary occurrences), and (4) the shaping of perspective, scholars have identified seven so- future occurrences. cietal logics, each containing a set of cultural The set of societal logics present at any one time principles that govern their respective jurisdic- plays an important role in guiding the storage tions, and a set of exemplars and theories that process and, thus, the ongoing constitution of the illustrate and communicate those principles archives. Societal logics provide a set of ready- (Thornton et al., 2012). We supplement this for- made categorizations against which the catego- mulation in two ways. rizations of the archives and their constituent First, we propose that societal logics are dis- organizations may be evaluated. They also provide tinct from organizational- and field-level logics a critical set of resources for justifying the content insomuch as they are grounded in the collective of archives. Through this process societal logics 2016 Ocasio, Mauskapf, and Steele 687 enter into the practices and politics of the very resource for reflective and strategic actors to archives through which they are constituted, af- challenge and change organizational- and field- fecting the exclusion of some documents from level arrangements. storage, the organization of documents relative to one another, and the prioritization of certain in- AN ILLUSTRATION: THE CORPORATE LOGIC IN terpretations over others. THE UNITED STATES, 1860–1920 Aside from their influence over the organiza- tion of archives, societal logics also guide the To bring our model of collective memory mak- retrieval efforts of individuals and organiza- ing to life, we now examine the historical devel- tions. Logics affect which themes and phenom- opment of a corporate logic in the United States ena appear salient to individuals, priming them and its crystallization as a distinct and ascendant to focus attention on certain actors, objects, and societal logic in the late nineteenth and early practices. Likewise, professional historians have twentieth centuries. For our analysis we rely on in mind certain questions as they engage in their secondary sources (e.g., Porter, 2006; Sklar, 1988; work—questions that likely reflect their un- Trachtenberg, 1982), generating a historical ac- derstandings of how social and cultural life can be count that is inevitably limited in scope but well- meaningfully divided and, ultimately, of the logics grounded in prior scholarship. Our intention is not that bind these worlds together. Similarly, by to provide a comprehensive history but, rather, to shaping individual efforts at retrieval, societal illustrate how our theory might be applied in fu- logics help determine which aspects and episodes ture empirical research. of the past are invoked in the formation of organi- Historical analysis suggests that the corporate zational identities, cultures, and strategies, and logic emerged in the context of a broader histori- which are not. In each case logics play a role, al- cal reordering of society, reducing the centrality though not necessarily a determinative one, in of local communities and small-town life in favor shaping which documents are retrieved and how of newly formed bureaucratic organizations and they are interpreted. industrial rationalization (Wiebe, 1967). In our Finally, societal logics influence the repre- model’s terms, an ongoing accumulation of his- sentation of historical events and occurrences, torical events began to configure a new, societal- as well as the unwinding of future occurrences in level corporate logic. The effects of these events everyday life. By providing individuals and or- were not typically felt contemporaneously with ganizations with vocabularies of identification, their occurrence but, rather, through changes in motivation, and action (Loewenstein et al., 2012), collective memory prompted by the ongoing rep- logics shape which categories of subjects, ob- resentation, storage, and retrieval of historical jects, and practices can reasonably be taken into events and their associated documents from var- account and how their implications might best be ious archives. understood. We have shown that societal logics Given space limitations, we focus our attention differ from field- and organizational-level logics on five sets of events that occurred between 1860 in that they are decoupled from direct or shared and 1920 and shaped the emergence of the cor- experience. In the case of the family logic, for porate logic in the United States, along with a host example, behavior and cognition are likely to of related changes in the way organizations were reflect the interaction histories of individual structured during this time. families more than the direct influence of socie- tal logics. Nonetheless, such interaction histories The Civil War are inevitably affected by public expectations as- sociated with changes in societal logics, such Collective memories of the Civil War played as changing understandings of marriage over an important role in the emergence of the cor- the centuries. Similarly, field-level logics may porate logic. Beyond the role of the war in the shape everyday organizational activity, but growth of many emblematic corporations, which these logics are, in turn, justified by and con- emerged as suppliers to the Union armies, structed from societal logics. Furthermore, so- memories of the war had a powerful effect on cietal logics are likely to influence individual cultural evaluations of business and its place in and organizational activity directly whenever society (Smith, 2006). As people looked back on field-level logics break down, providing a the events of the war, they sought to make sense 688 Academy of Management Review October of the outcome through metanarration. The 1982) provide strong evidence for the emergence superiority of Union industry, transportation, and of a distinct field-level logic in the railroad in- business were often cited as contributing factors dustry by the 1870s. Because of the visibility and to the defeat of the Confederacy. As a result, in- success of the railroads, organizations from other dustrial management, or big business, began to fields began to draw on this logic to organize and gain traction as a legitimate topic of discussion inform their own metanarrations surrounding (Hendrick, 1919). Several companies served as “the corporation.” Thus, the railroad’scorporate exemplars of the emergent corporate form. Procter logic became an effective prototype for logics in & Gamble; the Pennsylvania Railroad; Andrews, other fields, including manufacturing, commu- Clark & Company (precursor to Standard Oil of nications, agribusiness, and retail. As meta- Ohio); and Plankinton, Armour & Co. (precursor to narrations across fields converged, a distinct Armour & Company) came to public attention societal logic that transcended any particular because of their contributions to the Union war field or set of fields began to emerge. This de- effort—as did several prominent business ty- velopment was reinforcedbytheimpactofthe coons, such as J. P. Morgan and Andrew Carne- railroads on public perception. Represented in gie. These exemplars, in turn, provided salient the newspapers and journals of the day, the anchors for ongoing efforts at metanarration, introduction of the transcontinental railroads such as Moody’s (1919) account of the railroads had a transformative effect on the popular imagi- and Hendrick’s (1919) treatise on the rise of nation (Cronon, 1992), generating and strengthen- big business more generally. The continued re- ing metanarratives regarding corporate efficiency trieval of memory concerning Union business and power. In this respect the press served as during and after the Civil War contributed to a critical archive, with its arrangements of favorable evaluations of the value and promise periodicals, books, and journals providing of business organizations in the early twentieth the raw materials for an emerging vision of century. the corporate form and function (cf. Anderson, 1983).

The Transcontinental Railroads Legal Cases The symbolic power exercised by the trans- continental railroads over collective memory Changes in legal interpretations of the law and making also played a key role in the emergence the Constitution were also instrumental in the of a corporate logic of society. In the words of formation of a societal-level corporate logic (cf. Trachtenberg: Sklar, 1988). The landmark Santa Clara County v. Southern Pacific Railroad Supreme Court case of It is not difficult to account for the prominence of the 1886 provides a particularly clear indication of the ’ railroad as the age s symbol of mechanization and role of legal archives in this process. The official of economic and political change. . . . Not only did the railroad system make the modern technology record of the case by the court reporter indicated visible, intruding as a physical presence in daily that the Supreme Court, for the first time, held that life, but it also offered means of exercising un- the Fourteenth Amendment’s equal protection exampled ruthlessness of economic power . . . clause granted constitutional protections to cor- At the same time the railroad system provided the porations as natural persons. Although this was age with fundamental lessons in physical and not reflected in the official opinion of the court, economic coordination. ...Initscorporate organi- which did not explicitly reference the constitutional zation the system stressed coordination and in- amendment in the court’s decision, the court record terdependence, the railroad companies being the itself continued to influence a series of decisions first to rationalize their business offices into cen- tral- and regional-sales, freight, passenger, and through the 1890s, which endowed corporations legal divisions. . . . They emerged by the 1870s as with the rights and privileges of contractual liberty competing private structures employing hundreds normally ascribed to individuals (Sklar, 1988: 49). of thousands. . . . Models of a new corporate world, The aftermath of the representation, storage, and they seemed the epitome of the modern machine retrieval of events within the legal archive was an (1982: 57–58). increasingly widespread vision of corporations as This and other historical analyses (Chandler, actors with their own interests and characters 1977; Taylor, 2015; Taylor & Neu, 1956; Trachtenberg, (Coleman, 1992). 2016 Ocasio, Mauskapf, and Steele 689

World’s Fairs and Expositions Over time, coherent and convergent metanar- rations emerged to organize and theorize these The principles and promise of the corporation events into a distinct and meaningful vision of were celebrated in two key historical events: the large-scale industrial organization. Our reading Philadelphia Exposition of 1876 and the World’s of contemporaneous historical sources indicates Columbian Exposition of 1893–1894, held in Chi- that with the reelection of McKinley in 1900 and cago (Trachtenberg, 1982). Prominent corporate the creation of the U.S. Steel Corporation in 1901 exhibitors highlighting their products, technolo- (the largest corporation in American history at gies, and significance to society included General the time), a distinct corporate logic became in- Electric, Kraft Foods, Quaker Oats, Western Elec- stitutionalized (albeit not uncontested). Following tric, Westinghouse, and Wrigley. With over thirty the great merger wave of 1893–1903, American million attendees, the Columbian Exposition was businesses became larger and more influential particularly significant for the evolution of collec- than ever, further reinforcing the new logic. By the tive memory. Both World’s Fairs not only were early twentieth century, the collective focus was historical events with their own cultural and in- on centralization of control through corporations, stitutional significance but also constituted tem- rather than extensive managerial hierarchies porary archives full of historical documents and (Roy, 1997). The holding company emerged as the artifacts celebrating corporate activities and oc- dominant organizational structure of the time. currences. These documents and artifacts were Moreover, the legitimacy of the corporation rested subsequently transferred to other organizations, on its promise of industrial progress, rather than including the Chicago Field Museum, the Chicago the market position of the firm. Museum of Science and Industry, and the Smith- Based on our reading of secondary historical sonian Institution, allowing them to maintain their accounts, in Table 3 we summarize the corporate influence through this more distributed archive. logic as constituted through collective memory. By 1920 the history of big business had entered into collective memory (Hendrick, 1919; Moody, Political Events 1919), shaping contemporary understanding of Finally, we note the role of political events in the corporation and its organizing principles. Our the rise of the corporate logic. The dramatic characterization of the corporate logic differs from growth in power of big business in the United the transhistorical ideal type derived in prior States did not go uncontested but, rather, was theoretical work (Thornton, 2004), reinforcing our subject to ongoing political and legal struggles contention that a historical perspective on socie- (Roy, 1997; Sklar, 1988). The Populist movement tal logics reveals variation that would otherwise presented a major alternative, reflected in the remain hidden. The historical sources we draw on presidential candidacies of Democrat William do not, of course, explicitly discuss the rise of the Jennings Bryan in 1896, 1900, and 1908. Bryan corporate logic and its principal dimensions. adopted the rhetoric of the Populist movement Additional historical research is needed to pro- and directed his orations against railroads, vide empirical validation and refinement of banks, insurance companies, and big business in our claims. Nevertheless, viewing societal logics general. In contrast, Republican candidate Wil- through the lens of history and collective memory liam McKinley cast big business and industry as does provide a substantially different perspective the means to widespread economic prosperity. than does a focus on transhistorical ideal types The 1896 election was closely contested, but (cf. Thornton et al., 2012). McKinley won, with 51 percent of the vote to Our example also illustrates the importance of Bryan’s 47 percent. Despite the close margin, po- archives in the formation of societal logics. In- litical scientists and historians consider the elec- deed, diverse sets of fields and archives were tion of 1896 a realignment election, signaling critical to the emergence of the corporate logic, a transformation from an economy of producer including those housing court documents and capitalism to one of industrial, corporate capi- case law, as well as influential fairs, expositions, talism (Sklar, 1988). For contemporary observer and public museums. The public press consti- Henry Adams (1931/1917), the election played tuted yet another source of documents that a pivotal role in sealing the triumph of big busi- shaped the prevailing collective memory of the ness over populism. corporation. Financial archives played a key role 690 Academy of Management Review October

TABLE 3 Comparison of Ideal-Typical and Historically Derived Models of the Corporate Logic

Corporate Logic

Ideal Type (Thornton, Ocasio, & Collective Memory, United Attributes Lounsbury, 2012) States, 1900–1920

Root metaphor Corporation as hierarchy Corporation as big business Sources of legitimacy Market position of firm Industrial progress Sources of authority • Board of directors • President • Top management • Board of directors Sources of identity Bureaucratic roles Industry and market position Basis of norms Employment by the firm Procedural rationality Base of attention Status in market Corporate size Basis of strategy Increased size and diversification Market growth and consolidation Informal control system Organizational culture Loyalty to business leaders Economic system Managerial capitalism Corporate capitalism

as this process unfolded and ultimately emerged societal logics (Mahoney & Thelen, 2007). Such as an industry in its own right starting in the 1860s, ruptures inevitably alter the processes described leading to the formation of public accounting in our model, and we therefore theorize about standards and the documentation of market val- them with reference to our empirical illustration. uations of large U.S. corporations. Together, such As highlighted by business historian Glenn archives filtered, related, and propagated the Porter, “The late nineteenth century’s rapid cen- historical events that ultimately defined and tralization of capitalist institutions was an earth- promoted the corporate logic and its eponymous quake that shook the ground on which nearly all organizations. In this sense our perspective de- Americans stood” (2006: 2, citing social historian parts from the more functionalist efficiency view Stuart Blumin, 2000). But this transformation dif- of the corporation associated with Chandler (1977, fered from an earthquake insofar as it unfolded 1990), highlighting instead the importance of in- over decades (Porter, 2006; Trachtenberg, 1982; stitutions, culture, and politics in the corporati- Wiebe, 1967). In accounting for this, we propose zation of society (Lipartito & Sicilia, 2004). a theory of change distinct from models of punc- tuated equilibrium, which emphasize long pe- riods of institutional stability interrupted by DISCONTINUITIES IN THE EVOLUTION OF crisis-induced change (Krasner, 1984; Tushman & SOCIETAL LOGICS Romanelli, 1985), in that we highlight the ongoing Thus far we have outlined a model for analyzing accumulation of historical events and their col- collective memory making and its role in the lective memory as mechanisms for societal emergence and evolution of societal logics, il- transformation. This difference yields four im- lustrating our argument with the example of the portant insights. corporate logic in the United States. We have First, dramatic institutional change can occur sought to incorporate history into a theory of so- without an exogenous shock or crisis, since small- cietal logics, moving beyond treatments of these scale occurrences contribute to the gradual logics as ideal types toward a framework that reconfiguration of collective memory and societal redefines them as historical configurations. The logics. Second, major and transformative events cyclical nature of our model might suggest a con- may often take the form of opportunities rather tinuous, uninterrupted evolution of collective than crises, and even crises may be widely per- memory (Lippmann & Aldrich, 2014); however, ceived as opportunities. The status of an event as historical discontinuities can and do disrupt this an opportunity or crisis, both at the time and in the process (Suddaby et al., 2014). Most discontinu- future, depends on the trajectory of collective ities have little consequence, but over time they memory making. Third, crises should be un- can accumulate to incite more dramatic crises derstood more broadly than in much current the- and transformations in collective memory and ory as including some events that are not of 2016 Ocasio, Mauskapf, and Steele 691 immediate import. Of course, some major events, shift.” Prior theory has highlighted event se- both opportunities and crises, do generate almost quences as important drivers of change in field- contemporaneous societal shifts (such as the level logics (Thornton & Ocasio, 2008); however, Panic of 1893 or the completion of the Trans- these sequences require a direct connection be- continental Railroad). However, we posit that tween historical events. By emphasizing the con- many crises emerge primarily through ongoing fluence of events, we extend this view to include collective memory making, as emerging meta- events that may not be directly connected to one narratives position certain events as signs of so- another and that may occur across seemingly cial upheaval. This may take the form of a single unrelated field and societal sectors. event that is slowly “revealed” as a watershed We posit that a confluence of events will tend to moment, or it may occur when a number of dif- generate historical discontinuities in existing ferent events are understood as signaling the metanarratives whenever these events are not same underlying problem or need for change (a readily represented by means of existing societal confluence of events). In each case a disjuncture logics. Historical discontinuities, in the form of between past and present (and future) is rhe- substantial ruptures in societal logics and their torically and symbolically effected—and a cri- configurations, are generated through collective sis is created. Fourth, the impact of a crisis may memory making, as old cultural distinctions not be contemporaneous; rather, a crisis may are either challenged or disregarded on the basis be influential long after its constituent events of this confluence and new understandings are past. are proposed and contested (see Glaeser, 2011). This approach parallels the historical institu- Through this process, previous understandings of tionalism in political science, which combines historical events and documents can be radically discontinuous causal chains with threshold ef- altered. Old documents may be transformed into fects and the accumulation of evolutionary change anthropological material, providing insight into to explain complex historical transformations esoteric beliefs or errors of understanding rather (Pierson, 2004: Schneiberg, 2007). However, our fo- than any “real” insight into the events in question cus on collective memory departs from this per- (Glaeser, 2011; Zeitlyn, 2012). New documents and spective by granting greater import to the role of metanarratives may situate old events within cultural change in historical transformation novel plots, featuring different actors and themes (Lipartito & Sicilia, 2004; Rowlinson & Hassard, (Schwartz, 2005). Ultimately, cumulative changes 2014). Changes in the collective memory of his- in metanarration will likely influence future oc- torical events and of society more broadly gener- currences, embedding significant and epochal ate historical discontinuities in contemporary transformations in societal logics. cultural structures, including societal logics. While In the case of the corporate logic, the confluence an exhaustive examination of these discontinuities of events that led to its transformation was built is beyond the scope of this article, we identify and on a loosely interconnected set of events that un- discuss two distinct forms: the confluence of events folded across the political, legal, financial, and across institutional fields and changes to the com- community spheres. These events included the municative infrastructure. Sherman Antitrust Act of 1890, the Panic of 1893, the World’s Columbian Exposition of 1893–1894, the election of William McKinley in 1896 (and Confluence of Events reelection in 1900), and the creation of the U.S. One mechanism explaining historical changes Steel Corporation in 1901. Over time, diverse in- in societal logics and their configuration is the terpretations of events in these various fields be- confluence of historical events across fields and gan to converge, leading to a perceived confluence institutional orders, or a perceived shift in “what of events and a recognizable discontinuity in so- is happening” within a given society. As noted ciety. In turn, this led to a more general change in above, retrieval processes can lead to variations metanarratives concerning the corporation and its in ongoing interpretations of historical events role in the economy, politics, and society at large. and documents, while maintaining the guiding The societal logic of the U.S. corporation, with the principles of societal logics. For these logics to opportunities and threats it highlighted, emerged change, events and their metanarratives must from and later reinforced the prevailing collective transcend individual fields in an apparent “phase memory, as well as the metanarratives within 692 Academy of Management Review October which these events were situated. This logic then transformation of societal logics, whether the shift became a common framework for interpretation in infrastructure takes the form of administrative and action across multiple organizations and in- reform (Bowker & Star, 2000; Espeland & Stevens, stitutional fields. 2008; Scott, 1998), managerial innovations (Chandler, 1977; Yates, 1989), or technological innovations (Assmann, 2008; Bowker, 2008; Bowker, Baker, Changes in the Communicative Infrastructure Millerand, & Ribes, 2009). Every aspect of our model is also dependent on Bowker (2008) indicated that changes in com- the communicative infrastructure characterizing municative infrastructure create distinct epochs a particular society (cf. Bowker, 2008). By commu- of memory wherein different forms of archives nicative infrastructure we mean the configuration predominate (although he used different termi- of communication technologies, systems, net- nology). Different epochs of memory are shaped works, and practices that characterize a particular by different forms of archiving, including oral historical period—the general sociotechnological transmission, written transmission, the forma- system through which individuals connect and tion of formal libraries and monastery collec- communicate with each other. The presentation, tions in the late Middle Ages, the printing press, storage, and retrieval of occurrences and historical file cards, mechanical writing, electronic se- events all depend on the circuits of communication quencing, and most recently the internet. While in which individuals and groups are situated. In Bowker explored the impact of these changes on turn, these circuits of communication are enabled memory in the sciences, shifts in archival prac- and shaped by sociomaterial technologies, such tices also lead to discontinuities in the evolution as books, pamphlets, telegraphs, telephones, mail of societal logics. For example, Beniger (1986) systems, road and railroad systems, filing sys- explored how changes in communicative tech- tems, computers, and the internet (Bowker, 2008; nologies between 1840 and 1920 encouraged the Chandler, 1977; Yates, 1989). emergence of an information society, which pro- When considered collectively, communicative duced a number of new organizations devoted to infrastructures serve as sources of historical communication technology and reconfigured the discontinuities in logics and historical shifts in roles of certain societal logics in a manner similar the process of collective memory making itself to contemporary transformations in information (Bowker, 2008). The communicative infrastructure technology (Castells, 2000). furnishes the pathways by which representation and documentation occur, as well as shapes the DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS number, nature, and effectiveness of the gate- keepers who seek to mold these processes. Thus, To summarize, we have developed a new this infrastructure helps determine which occur- framework to explain the historical constitution of rences emerge as noteworthy, which historical societal logics. These logics define the funda- events are most frequently retrieved, and how the mental forms of life that characterize a society, metanarration of events shapes collective mem- providing the basic organizing principles for re- ory (Olick, 1999). It also creates opportunities for ligious or family life or for market transactions individuals to make sense of and represent his- (for example). In prior work on societal logics, torical events, and influences the extent to which scholars have treated them primarily as ideal potential representations and documents are types—transhistorical generalizations of abstract subsequently tested and elaborated through en- principles that may apply across distinct socie- gagement with particular audiences. Commu- ties and histories. Here we have developed an nicative infrastructure affects storage as well, alternative approach, one that makes history and providing the technological and social design of memory making central to the development and repositories and the possibilities for more or less reproduction of societal logics. We have done so detailed classification and cataloguing within by positing collective memory as a critical, multi- the archives. Finally, it affects retrieval by shap- staged process through which logics emerge ing the social and material ease of access to ar- and evolve. By this means we seek both to chives and the documents stored therein. Major make the institutional logics perspective more transformations in the communicative infrastruc- historically cognizant (Kipping & Usdiken,¨ 2014) ture unavoidably influence the reproduction and and to increase its worth as a tool for analytically 2016 Ocasio, Mauskapf, and Steele 693 structured histories in organization studies and formations, shaped by lower-level occurrences beyond (Rowlinson et al., 2014). and archives. Archives serve as a prism through According to our theory, collective memory re- which to view not only societal logics but also fers to both process and content: a process of field-level institutions and organizations. Field- representing, storing, and retrieving memories of level variations in vocabularies and associated occurrences and historical events and a specific archiving practices can generate changes in in- set of memories documented and stored in ar- stitutional logics at the field level, as well as chives. We posit that collective memory, rather interfield differentiation (Loewenstein et al., 2012; than an aggregation of individual memories or Ocasio, Loewenstein, & Nigam, 2015). Critically, a shared consensus (cf. Olick & Robbins, 1998), however, this process is complemented by changes operates through material documents, which are in the direct experiences of a field (Purdy & Gray, stored in archives and shape the contours of his- 2009; Seo & Creed, 2002). This stands in contrast with torical events. Societal logics emerge and are the formation of societal logics, where immediately reproduced through archives as metanarratives shared experiences are likely to be few and far converge across fields and impose coherence on between. Societal logics cannot be explained a wide range of documents and the occurrences through the aggregation of organizational- and and historical events they represent. Although field-level activities alone; instead, “shared” ex- convergent metanarratives do generate enduring periences are provided by historical events and cultural structures, our framework also accounts metanarratives. More so than field logics, societal for the recursive reinterpretation of events logics are crafted from history itself. through the retrieval process, as well as the po- Third, we build theory on discontinuities in so- tentially disruptive role of historical discontinu- cietal logics and the interinstitutional systems ities in collective memory making, which can they constitute. The configuration and content of radically change both the content and configura- societal logics, and the degree of institutional tion of societal logics. complexity experienced by individuals and or- ganizations within that society, are dependent on the contemporary communicative infrastructure, Historicizing the Institutional Logics Perspective as well as confluences of historical events. The We make three main contributions to the in- market, corporate, professional, community, state, stitutional logics perspective. First, we move and even family logics are all susceptible to away from a static conceptualization of societal transformation via historical discontinuities in logics. Rather than relying on transhistorical communicative infrastructure. Similarly, they are ideal types, we propose that societal logics susceptible to the creation of historical disjunc- should be understood as historically situated. tures or epochal shifts through collective memory Configurations of societal logics, along with the making and the confluence of events. Our theory is set of social domains they distinguish and their thus not only a theoretical model of societal history relative jurisdictions, reflect the dynamics of col- but also a model cognizant of historical epochs and lective memory making. Thus, the status of the discontinuities (Kipping & Usdiken,¨ 2014). market or corporate logics as societal logics is not given but instead reflects a particular historical Contributions to the Study of Collective Memory moment (and the histories told at that time). Fur- thermore, the principles and practices of any Beyond introducing and developing the concept given societal logic are not fixed. Rather, these of collective memory to the study of societal logics are subject to reconfiguration as the col- logics, our theoretical framework highlights the lective memory of historical events creates shifts role of archives in storing and organizing the in patterns of metanarration. Our model thus content of collective memory and in constructing shows how societal logics emerge in their histor- history. As semistructured repositories of knowl- ical specificity. edge concerning ongoing occurrences and his- Second, our theory contributes to the under- torical events, archives provide the means by standing of cross-level perspectives on institu- which collective memories can transcend indi- tional logics and the distinction between societal vidual minds. Participants do not need to rely on and field-level institutional logics. In particular, their own experience of society and its in- it reveals societal logics as thoroughly historical stitutional orders but instead can draw on the 694 Academy of Management Review October documented experiences of others, past and organizations and to reshape extant organiza- present. Collective memory is not simply stored in tional cultures and practices. Our theory also these archives to remain inert and collect dust. points to the importance of collective memory in Rather, these memories and their material repre- mediating the influence of societal logics. These sentations are retrieved to reinforce or contest logics shape the ease with which different his- existing interpretations of historical documents torical events and exemplars can be retrieved as and events, thereby enabling the cultural trans- relevant guides for individuals and organizations, mission of memories from one historical period to thus influencing the framing contests through another. which strategy making is achieved (Kaplan, 2008), The archives, embodied in collections of docu- as well as the formation of organizational cul- ments and structured by a cultural system of ture and identity (Gioia, Patvardhan, Hamilton, classification, generate a complex history of so- & Corley, 2013). In everyday circumstances this cietal events. Our theory posits that archives help may well be the primary mechanism of influ- generate durable cultural structures, binding ence for societal logics. historical events together through metanarration. Societal logics also shape opportunities for Metanarratives are emergent accomplishments entrepreneurship. Collective memories provide of the archives, the historical development of sources of inspiration for individual entrepreneurs, which shapes the emergence and evolution of just as memories of the U.S. Civil War encouraged societal logics. One process that shapes the ar- entrepreneurial investment in corporations and chives’ development is theorization, a phenome- large-scale industry. These memories provide non that has been highlighted previously in the sources of variation in organizational behavior, context of field-level logics (Lok, 2010; Rao et al., and drawing on collective memories can also 2003). We argue that theorization also operates at serve as a resource as entrepreneurs attempt to the level of society, with historians—both popular make their innovations acceptable and legitimate and professional—playing a key role in con- (see Lounsbury & Glynn, 2001). structing theories of societies. Metanarratives Historical shifts in societal logics also influence may also be generated through more inductive field-level changes, shaping the organizational processes—for example, via analogies and com- forms and practices considered legitimate within parisons between stories of distinct historical particular fields or industries and, thus, the evo- events (Connor, 2012). lution of organizational and professional ecolo- gies. For example, as the societal logic of the corporation has shifted, so, too, has the role Implications for Organizations and Practice andnature of corporate governance. The early- Our focus on the historicity and contingency of twentieth-century corporation had significant societal logics provides us with a distinct lens to concentration of ownership, with boards of di- understand and study organizations and their rectors and financial owners still having sub- practices. Here we highlight three implications stantial power. After the 1920s, the corporate logic in particular for the study of (1) organizational began to change, with separation of ownership culture and strategy, (2) entrepreneurship, and and control being increasingly emphasized and (3) the evolution of fields and organizational managerial power waxing relative to that of ecologies. owners (Berle & Means, 1967). By the 1980s, a sig- Consistent with prior theory and research, we nificant countermovement was under way as view societal logics as providing general prin- the rhetoric and practices of shareholder value ciples that reflective actors can use to create, gained substantial influence within corporations maintain, or disrupt organizational- and field- (Fligstein, 2002). The collective memory of the level arrangements, or to guide action when local corporation in the late twentieth and early twenty- logics fail. When the collective memory making first century is no longer dominated by stories that constitutes societal logics shifts, so, too, do emphasizing steep managerial hierarchies; the the principles and values that underlie organi- focus instead is on responsiveness to financial zational cultures and strategies. Our model thus markets (Davis, 2009). In each period societal points to the importance of historical disjunctures norms of appropriate corporate form and behavior in collective memory making, which are likely have shaped organizational activities across both to influence the shaping of subsequent a variety of industries and fields. 2016 Ocasio, Mauskapf, and Steele 695

These historical shifts have a concrete influ- changes in the collective memory of past events ence on a variety of key empirical relationships may serve as a critical indicator of shifting and variables in organizational analysis. Shifts in metanarratives and, by proxy, the emergence, the relative influence of logics shape the dynam- transformation, or reconfiguration of institutional ics of corporate governance at both the field logics. Similarly, our approach suggests that and organizational levels, including the relative when examining representations and documen- power of owners and executives (Joseph, Ocasio, tations of current societal events, focusing on the & McDonnell, 2014). Historical discontinuities also selective retrieval of analogies from the past may shift the selection environments of organizations help us understand and measure how societal such that organizations that are more congruent logics evolve. Future research might employ our with shifting societal logics will be more likely to model to study variations in patterns of retrieval persist, whereas those that remain tied to old- and sensemaking over time. form logics will be less likely to survive and Finally, our historical approach to the formation flourish. Thus, historical shifts in societal logics of societal logics and institutions provides a new not only drive shifts in organizational strategy perspective on the study of history itself. We ar- making and patterns of entrepreneurship but also gue that as logics change, histories of past events influence rates of organizational survival. change as well, reflecting new configurations of societal logics that shape understandings of the past, present, and future. Historians and social Concluding Remarks scientists alike can build on these insights to de- Understanding historical changes to institu- velop new measures and strategies to study his- tional logics through collective memory making tory, empowering them to systematically track has important implications for empirical research how the emergence and interpretation of events as well as theory, both in the social sciences and relate to the evolution and transformation of in- in history. Textual and other forms of content stitutions, logics, and archives. analysis now constitute a well-established set of methods for studying institutional logics and their REFERENCES effects. Although extant research focuses on field- level logics (Jones, Maoret, Massa, & Svegenova, Adams, H. 1931. (First published in 1917.) The education of Henry Adams. New York: Modern Library. 2012; Weber, Patel, & Heinze, 2013), our theory suggests that archival documents can also serve Anderson, B. 1983. Imagined communities: Reflections on the origin and spread of nationalism. New York: Verso. as an important source for examining societal logics and their effects, and that archives are an Anteby, M., & Molnar,´ V. 2012. Collective memory meets or- ganizational identity: Remembering to forget in a firm’s important site for research into their ongoing rhetorical history. Academy of Management Journal, 55: constitution. In addition to encouraging the en- 515–540. gagement of the logics perspective with history Assmann, A. 2008. Canon and archive. In A. Erll & A. Nunning¨ and the analysis of collective memory, our theory (Eds.), Cultural memory studies: An international and in- points to the importance of communicative in- terdisciplinary handbook:97–108. Berlin: Walter de frastructures. We have suggested that changes to Gruyter. these infrastructures have redefined the boundaries Battilana, J., & Dorado, S. 2010. Building sustainable hybrid of societal institutions, and our understandings of organizations: The case of commercial microfinance those institutions, by increasing the openness of organizations. Academy of Management Journal, 53: 1419–1440. collective memory making and the accessibility of collective memory. Organizational scholars Beniger, J. R. 1986. The control revolution. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. should continue to take advantage of these new sources of data to study this shift in infrastructure Berger, P., & Luckmann, T. 1967. The social construction of re- ality: A treatise in the sociology of knowledge. London: and its consequences for societal logics and their Penguin. (re)configurations. Berle, A. A., & Means, G. C. 1967. The modern corporation and Our emphasis on collective memory further private property (2nd ed.). New York: Harcourt, Brace and suggests the importance of empirically examin- World. ing not only the storage of current events in ar- Blumin, S. M. 2000. The social implications of U.S. economic chives but also changes in the interpretation of development. In S. L. Engerman & R. E. Gallman (Eds.), historical events (Schwartz, 1996, 2000). Widespread The Cambridge economic history of the United States. 696 Academy of Management Review October

Volume 2: The long nineteenth century: 813–864. Cam- F. X. Blouin, Jr., & W. G. Rosenberg (Eds.), Archives, doc- bridge: Cambridge University Press. umentation, and institutions of social memory: Essays – Boje, D. M. 2008. Storytelling organizations. Thousand Oaks, from the Sawyer Seminar 2007: 169 181. Ann Arbor: Uni- CA: Sage. versity of Michigan Press. Booth, C., & Rowlinson, M. 2006. Management and organiza- Creed, W. E. D., DeJordy, R., & Lok, J. 2010. Being the change: tional history: Prospects. Management & Organizational Resolving institutional contradiction through identity – History, 1: 5–30. work. Academy of Management Journal, 53: 1336 1364. ’ Bowker, G. C. 2008. Memory practices in the sciences. Cam- Cronon, W. 1992. Nature s metropolis: Chicago and the Great bridge, MA: MIT Press. West. New York: Norton. Bowker, G. C., Baker, K., Millerand, F., & Ribes, D. 2009. To- Cuc, A., Ozuru, Y., Manier, D., & Hirst, W. 2006. On the for- ward information infrastructure studies: Ways of know- mation of collective memories: The role of a dominant – ing in a networked environment. In J. Hunsinger, narrator. Memory & Cognition, 34: 752 762. L. Klastrup, & M. Allen (Eds.), International handbook of Daft, R., & Weick, K. 1984. Toward a model of organizations as internet research:97–117. London: Springer. interpretation systems. Academy of Management Re- – Bowker, G. C., & Star, S. L. 2000. Sorting things out: Classifi- view, 9: 284 295. cation and its consequences. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. Davis, G. F. 2009. Managed by the markets: How finance Brewer, M. B. 1991. The social self: On being the same and reshaped America. Oxford: Oxford University Press. different at the same time. Personality and Social Psy- De Vivo, F. 2010. Ordering the archive in early modern Venice chology Bulletin, 17: 475–482. (1400–1650). Archival Science, 10: 231–248. Briet, S. 2006. (First published in 1951.) What is documentation? Dunn, M. B., & Jones, C. 2010. Institutional logics and institu- English translation of the classic French text. (Translated tional pluralism: The contestation of care and science and edited by R. E. Day & L. Martinet, with H. G. B. logics in medical education, 1967–2005. Administrative Anghelescu.) Lanham, MD: Scarecrow Press. Science Quarterly, 55: 114–149. Bucheli, M., & Wadhwani, R. D. 2014. Organizations in time: Durkheim, E. 1964. The division of labor in society. New York: History, theory, methods. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Free Press. Buckland, M. K. 1991. Information as thing. Journal of the Espeland, W. N., & Stevens, M. L. 2008. A sociology of quanti- American Society for Information Science, 42: 351–360. fication. European Journal of Sociology, 49: 401–436. Casey, A. 1997. Collective memory in organizations. Organi- Fine, G. A. 1997. Scandal, social conditions, and the creation of zational Learning and Strategic Management: Advances public attention: Fatty Arbuckle and the “Problem of in Strategic Management, 14: 111–151. Hollywood.” Social Problems, 44: 297–323. Casey, A. J., & Olivera, F. 2011. Reflections on organizational Fine, G. A. 2007. The construction of historical equivalence: memory and forgetting. Journal of Management Inquiry, Weighing the Red and Brown Scares. Symbolic Interac- 20: 305–310. tion, 30: 27–39. Castells, M. 2000. The rise of the network society: The in- Fine, G. A., & Beim, A. 2007. Introduction: Interactionist ap- formation age: Economy, society, and culture, Volume 1. proaches to collective memory. Symbolic Interaction, 30: 1–5. Malden, MA: Wiley-Blackwell. Fligstein, N. 2002. The architecture of markets: An economic Caswell, M. 2010. Khmer Rouge archives: Accountability, truth, sociology of twenty-first-century capitalist societies. – and memory in Cambodia. Archival Science, 10: 25 44. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press. Chandler, A. D., Jr. 1977. The visible hand: The managerial Foucault, M. 2002. The archeology of knowledge. London: revolution in American business. Cambridge, MA: Bel- Routledge Classics. knap Press of Harvard University Press. Friedland, R., & Alford, R. R. 1991. Bringing society back in: Chandler, A. D., Jr. 1990. Scale and scope: The dynamics of Symbols, practices and institutional contradictions. In industrial capitalism. Cambridge, MA: Belknap Press of W. W. Powell & P. J. DiMaggio (Eds.), The new institu- Harvard University Press. tionalism in organizational analysis: 232–263. Chicago: Chia, R. 2000. Discourse analysis as organizational analysis. University of Chicago Press. – Organization, 7: 513 518. Garfinkel, H. 1967. Studies in ethnomethodology. Cambridge: Clark, P., & Rowlinson, M. 2004. The treatment of history in Polity Press. “ ” organisation studies: Towards an historic turn ? Busi- Gawer, A., & Phillips, N. 2013. Institutional work as logics – ness History, 46: 331 352. shift: The case of Intel’s transformation to platform leader. Coleman, J. S. 1992. The assymmetric society. Syracuse, NY: Organization Studies, 34: 1035–1071. Syracuse University Press. Gedi, N., & Elam, Y. 1996. Collective memory—What is it? Connor, B. T. 2012. From analogy to metanarrative: Meanings History & Memory, 8: 30–50. – of 9/11 in civil society. Cultural Sociology, 6: 3 25. Gioia, D. A., Patvardhan, S. D., Hamilton, A. L., & Corley, K. G. Cook, T. 2007. Remembering the future: Appraisal of records 2013. Organizational identity formation and change. and the role of archives in constructing social memory. In Academy of Management Annals, 7: 123–192. 2016 Ocasio, Mauskapf, and Steele 697

Glaeser, A. 2011. Political epistemics: The secret police, the Kitchener, M. 2002. Mobilizing the logic of managerialism in opposition, and the end of East German socialism. Chi- professional fields: The case of academic health centre cago: University of Chicago Press. mergers. Organization Studies, 23: 391–420. Glynn, M. A. 2000. When cymbals become symbols: Conflict Kraatz, M. S. 2009. Leadership as institutional work: A bridge over organizational identity within a symphony orches- to the other side. In T. B. Lawrence, R. Suddaby, & B. Leca tra. Organization Science, 11: 285–298. (Eds.), Institutional work: Actors and agency in institu- – Goodrick, E., & Reay, T. 2011. Constellations of institutional tional studies of organizations:5991. Cambridge: Cam- logics: Changes in the professional work of pharmacists. bridge University Press. Work and Occupations, 38: 372–416. Krasner, S. D. 1984. Approaches to the state: Alternative con- Greenwood, A., & Bernardi, A. 2014. Understanding the rift, the ceptions and historical dynamics. Comparative Politics, – (still) uneasy bedfellows of history and organization 16: 223 246. studies. Organization, 21: 907–932. Lawrence, T. B., Suddaby, R., & Leca, B. (Eds.). 2009. In- Greenwood, R., Raynard, M., Kodeih, F., Micelotta, E. R., & stitutional work: Actors and agency in institutional stud- Lounsbury, M. 2011. Institutional complexity and organi- ies of organizations. Cambridge: Cambridge University zational responses. Academy of Management Annals, 5: Press. 317–371. Lipartito, K., & Sicilia, D. B. (Eds.). 2004. Constructing corporate Halbwachs, M. 1992. On collective memory. (Edited by L. A. America: History, politics, culture. New York: Oxford Coser.) Chicago: University of Chicago Press. University Press. Hatch, M. J. 1993. The dynamics of organizational culture. Lippmann, S., & Aldrich, H. E. 2014. History and evolutionary Academy of Management Review, 18: 657–693. theory. In M. Bucheli & R. D. Wadhwani (Eds.), Organi- zations in time: History, theory, methods: 124–146. Oxford: Hatch, M. J., & Zilber, T. 2012. Conversation at the border be- Oxford University Press. tween organizational culture theory and institutional theory. Journal of Management Inquiry, 21: 94–97. Loewenstein, J., Ocasio, W., & Jones, C. 2012. Vocabularies and vocabulary structure: A new approach to linking cate- Haveman, H., & Rao, H. 1997. Structuring a theory of moral gories, practices, and onstitutions. Academy of Manage- sentiments: Institutional and organizational coevolution ment Annals, 6: 41–86. in the early thrift industry. American Journal of Sociology, 102: 1606–1651. Lok, J. 2010. Institutional logics as identity projects. Academy of Management Journal, 53: 1305–1335. Hendrick, B. J. 1919. The age of big business. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press. Lounsbury, M., & Glynn, M. A. 2001. Cultural entrepreneur- ship: Stories, legitimacy, and the acquisition of resources. Hilgartner, S., & Bosk, C. L. 1988. The rise and fall of social Strategic Management Journal, 22: 545–564. problems: A public arenas model. American Journal of Sociology, 94: 53–78. Lukes, S. 2005. Power: A radical view (2nd ed.). New York: Palgrave Macmillan. Hoffman, A. J., & Ocasio, W. 2001. Not all events are attended to equally: Toward a middle-range theory of industry atten- Lund, N. W. 2009. Document theory. Annual Review of In- tion to external events. Organization Science, 12: 414–434. formation Science and Technology, 43: 1–55. Jones, C., Maoret, M., Massa, F. G., & Svegenova, S. 2012. Maguire, S., & Hardy, C. 2009. Discourse and deinstitutional- Rebels with a cause: Formation, contestation, and ex- ization: The decline of DDT. Academy of Management pansion of the de novo category “modern architecture,” Journal, 52: 148–178. – – 1870 1975. Organization Science, 23: 1523 1545. Mahoney, J., & Thelen, K. (Eds.). 2007. Explaining institutional Joseph, J., Ocasio, W., & McDonnell, M.-H. 2014. The structural change: Ambiguity, agency, and power. Cambridge: elaboration of board independence: Executive power, Cambridge University Press. institutional logics, and the adoption of CEO-only board Manoff, M. 2004. Theories of the archive from across the dis- structures in U.S. corporate governance. Academy of ciplines. Libraries and the Academy, 4: 9–25. Management Journal, 57: 1834–1858. Moody, J. 1919. The railroad builders: A chronicle of the Kahneman, D. 2011. Thinking, fast and slow. New York: Farrar, welding of the states. New Haven, CT: Yale University Straus and Giroux. Press. Kaplan, S. 2008. Framing contests: Strategy making under Murray, F. 2010. The oncomouse that roared: Hybrid exchange – uncertainty. Organization Science, 19: 729 752. strategies as a source of distinction at the boundary of Keiser, A. 1994. Crossroads: Why organization theory needs overlapping institutions. American Journal of Sociology, historical analysis, and how this should be performed. 116: 341–388. – Organization Science, 5: 608 620. Nissley, N., & Casey, A. 2002. The politics of the exhibition: Kellogg, K. C. 2011. Challenging operations: Medical reform and Viewing corporate museums through the paradigmatic resistance in surgery. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. lens of organizational memory. British Journal of Man- agement, 13(S2): 35–45. Kipping, M., & Usdiken,¨ B. 2014. History in organization and management theory: More than meets the eye. Academy Ocasio, W. 1997. Towards an attention-based view of the firm. of Management Annals, 8: 535–588. Strategic Management Journal, 18(S1): 187–206. 698 Academy of Management Review October

Ocasio, W., Loewenstein, J., & Nigam, A. 2015. How streams of Schudson, M. 1989. How culture works: Perspectives from communication reproduce and change institutional media studies on the efficacy of symbols. Theory and logics: The role of categories. Academy of Management Society, 18: 153–180. – Review, 40: 28 48. Schultz, M. 2012. Relationships between institutional logics Olick, J. K. 1999. Collective memory: The two cultures. Socio- and organizational culture. Journal of Management In- logical Theory, 17: 333–348. quiry, 21: 102–106. Olick, J. K. 2007. The politics of regret: On collective memory Schwartz, B. 1996. Memory as a cultural system: Abraham and historical responsibility. London: Routledge. Lincoln in World War II. American Sociological Review, – Olick, J. K., & Robbins, J. 1998. Social memory studies: From 61: 908 927. “collective memory” to the historical sociology of mne- Schwartz, B. 2000. Abraham Lincoln and the forge of American monic practices. Annual Review of Sociology, 24: 105–140. memory. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Olick, J. K., Vinitzky-Seroussi, V., & Levy, D. (Eds.). 2011. The Schwartz, B. 2005. The New Gettysburg Address: Fusing his- collective memory reader. New York: Oxford University tory and memory. Poetics, 33: 63–79. Press. Schwartz, B., & Kim, M. 2002. Honor, dignity and collective Olsen, B. I., Lund, N. W., Ellingsen, G., & Hartvigsen, G. 2012. memory. In K. Cerulo (Ed.), Culture in mind: 209–226. Document theory for the design of socio-technical sys- London: Routledge. tems: A document model as ontology of human expres- Schwartz, J. M., & Cook, T. 2002. Archives, records, and power: – sion. Journal of Documentation, 68: 100 126. The making of modern memory. Archival Science, 2: 1–19. Pierson, P. 2004. Politics in time: History, institutions, and so- Scott, J. C. 1998. Seeing like a state: How certain schemes to cial analysis. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press. improve the human condition have failed. New Haven, Polanyi, K. 1944. The great transformation: Economic and po- CT: Yale University Press. litical origins of our time. New York: Rinehart. Scott, W. R., Ruef, M., Mendel, P. J., & Caronna, C. A. 2000. Porter, G. 2006. The rise of big business, 1860–1920 (3rd ed.). Institutional change and healthcare organizations: From Hoboken, NJ: Wiley-Blackwell. professional dominance to managed care. Chicago: Uni- versity of Chicago Press. Pouthier, V., Steele, C. W. J., & Ocasio, W. 2013. From agents to principles: The relationship between hospitalist identity Seo, M.-G., & Creed, D. W. 2002. Instutional contradicitions, and logics of healthcare. Institutional Logics in Action: praxis, and institutional change: A dialectical perspec- Research in the Sociology of Organizations, 39: 203–241. tive. Academy of Management Review, 27: 222–247. Purdy, J. M., & Gray, B. 2009. Conflicting logics, mechanisms of Sewell, W., Jr. 2005. Logics of history: Social theory and social diffusion, and multilevel dynamics in emerging fields. transformation. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. – Academy of Management Journal, 52: 355 380. Sklar, M. J. 1988. The corporate reconstruction of American Rao, H., Monin, P., & Durand, R. 2003. Institutional change in capitalism, 1890–1916: The market, the law, and politics. Toque Ville: Nouvelle cuisine as an identity movement in Cambridge, MA: Cambridge University Press. French gastronomy. American Journal of Sociology, 108: Smith, T. B. 2006. The untold story of Shiloh: The battle and the – 795 843. battlefield. Knoxville: University of Tennessee Press. Rowlinson, M., Booth, C., Clark, P., Delahaye, A., & Procter, S. Stoler, A. L. 2002. Colonial archives and the arts of gover- 2010. Social remembering and organizational memory. nance. Archival Science, 2: 87–109. Organization Studies, 31: 69–87. Suddaby, R., Foster, W. M., & Mills, A. J. 2014. Historical Rowlinson, M., & Hassard, J. 2014. History and the cultural turn institutionalism. In M. Bucheli, & R. D. Wadhwani (Eds.), in organization studies. In M. Bucheli & R. D. Wadhwani Organizations in time: History, theory, methods: 100–123. (Eds.), Organizations in time: History, theory, methods: Oxford: Oxford University Press. 147–165. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Suddaby, R., & Greenwood, R. 2005. Rhetorical strategies of Rowlinson, M., Hassard, J., & Decker, S. 2014. Research strat- legitimacy. Administrative Science Quarterly, 50: 35–67. egies for organizational history: A dialogue between – historical theory and organization theory. Academy of Taylor, G. R. 2015. The transportation revolution, 1815 1860. Management Review, 39: 250–274. London: Routledge. Roy, W. G. 1997. Socializing capital: The rise of the large in- Taylor, G. R., & Neu, I. D. 1956. The American railroad network, – dustrial corporation in America. Princeton, NJ: Princeton 1861 1890. Champaign-Urbana: University of Illinois University Press. Press. Saxer, D. 2010. Archival objects in motion: Historians’ appro- Thelen, K. 1999. Historical institutionalism in comparative – priation of sources in nineteenth-century Austria and politics. Annual Review of Political Science, 2: 369 404. Switzerland. Archival Science, 10: 315–331. Thornton, P. H. 2004. Markets from culture: Institutional logics Schneiberg, M. 2007. What’s on the path? Path dependence, and organizational decisions in higher education pub- organizational diversity and the problem of institutional lishing. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press. change in the U.S. economy, 1900–1950. Socio-Economic Thornton, P. H., & Ocasio, W. 1999. Institutional logics and Review, 5: 47–80. the historical contingency of power in organizations: 2016 Ocasio, Mauskapf, and Steele 699

Executive succession in the higher education publishing Weick, K. E., Sutcliffe, K. M., & Obstfeld, D. 2005. Organizing industry, 1958–1990. American Journal of Sociology, 105: and the process of sensemaking. Organization Science, 801–843. 16: 409–421. Thornton, P. H., & Ocasio, W. 2008. Institutional logics. In R. Wenger, E. 1998. Communities of practice: Learning, meaning, Greenwood, C. Oliver, & R. Suddaby (Eds.), Handbook of and identity. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. organizational institutionalism:99–128. Thousand Oaks, White, H. 1973. Metahistory: The historical imagination in CA: Sage. nineteenth-century Europe. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins Thornton, P. H., Ocasio, W., & Lounsbury, M. 2012. The in- University Press. stitutional logics perspective: A new approach to culture, White, H. 2010. The fiction of narrative: Essays on history, lit- structure, and process. New York: Oxford University Press. erature, and theory, 1957–2007. (Edited by R. Doran.) Bal- Trace, C. B. 2002. What is recorded is never simply “what timore: John Hopkins University Press. happened”: Record keeping in modern organizational Wiebe, R. H. 1967. The search for order, 1877–1920. New York: – culture. Archival Science, 2: 137 159. Hill and Wang. Tracey, P., Phillips, N., & Jarvis, O. 2011. Bridging institutional Wry, T., Cobb, J. A., & Aldrich, H. E. 2013. More than a metaphor: entrepreneurship and the creation of new organizational Assessing the historical legacy of resource dependence and forms: A multilevel model. Organization Science, 22: its contemporary promise as a theory of environmental 60–80. complexity. Academy of Management Annals, 7: 439–486. Trachtenberg, A. 1982. The incorporation of America: Culture Yates, J. 1989. Control through communication: The rise of and society in the Gilded Age. New York: Hill and Wang. system in American firms. Baltimore: John Hopkins Uni- Tsoukas, H. 2005. Complex knowledge: Studies in organiza- versity Press. tional epistemology. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Zald, M. N. 1993. Organization studies as a scientific and hu- Tushman, M. L., & Romanelli, E. 1985. Organizational evolu- manistic enterprise: Toward a reconceptualization of the tion: Interactions between external and emergent pro- foundations of the field. Organization Science, 4: 513–528. cesses and strategic choice. Research in Organizational Zeitlyn, D. 2012. Anthropology in and of the archives: Possi- – Behavior, 8: 171 222. ble futures and contingent pasts. Archives as anthropo- Walsh, J., & Ungson, G. R. 1991. Organizational memory. logical surrogates. Annual Review of Anthropology, 41: Academy of Management Review, 16: 57–91. 461–480. Weber, K., Patel, H., & Heinze, K. L. 2013. From cultural reper- Zerubavel, E. 1996. Social memories: Steps towards a sociol- toires to institutional logics: A content-analytic method. ogy of the past. Qualitative Sociology, 19: 283–299. Institutional Logics in Action: Research in the Sociology of Zilber, T. B. 2007. Stories and the discursive dynamics of in- – Organizations, 39: 351 382. stitutional entrepreneurship: The case of Israeli high-tech Weick, K. 1995. Sensemaking in organizations. London: Sage. after the bubble. Organization Studies, 28: 1035–1054. Weick, K. E., & Roberts, K. 1993. Collective mind in organiza- Zilber, T. B. 2012. The relevance of institutional theory for the tions: Heedful interrelating on flight decks. Administra- study of organizational culture. Journal of Management tive Science Quarterly, 38: 357–381. Inquiry, 21: 88–93.

William Ocasio ([email protected]) is the John L. and Helen Kellogg Professor of Management and Organizations at the Kellogg School of Management, Northwestern University. He received his Ph.D. from Stanford University. His current re- search interests include institutional logics, managerial and organizational attention, power in organizations, and the role of vocabularies in organizations and institutions. Michael Mauskapf ([email protected]) is a doctoral candidate in management and organizations at Northwestern University, and holds a Ph.D. in musi- cology from the University of Michigan. His research interests include innovation in cultural markets, institutional complexity in the nonprofit sector, and the nexus between history and organizational change. Christopher W. J. Steele ([email protected]) is assistant professor of strategic man- agement and organization at the University of Alberta and did his doctoral work at the Kellogg School of Management, Northwestern University. His research interests include the dynamics of institutions and practices, the formation of collective intentionality and identity, and the processes of knowledge production and consumption.