-
Title
-
Framing Work in Metacompetition
-
Author
-
Barnett, William P.
-
Research Area
-
Social Institutions
-
Topic
-
Complex Organizations and Bureaucracies
-
Abstract
-
Existing research studies competition among organizations, but normally takes as a given the formal and informal “rules of the game” governing competitions. Yet, these “rules” are often determined through a prior, higher‐level competition over the game to be played. Such “metacompetitions” determine who can compete, what kinds of competitive moves can be made, what criteria will be used to evaluate competitors, and what will be the payoffs to competitions. By prevailing in metacompetitions, organizations gain the advantage of competing in a game for which they are well suited, and the disadvantage of rivals who find themselves playing the wrong game. This essay notes that organizations engage in framing work to influence the outcome of metacompetitions, and argues that this behavior shapes the distribution of strategies that we observe among organizations in competition.
-
Related Essays
-
Mental Models (Psychology), Ruth M. J. Byrne
-
Authenticity: Attribution, Value, and Meaning (Sociology), Glenn R. Carroll
-
Culture and Cognition (Sociology), Karen A. Cerulo
-
Misinformation and How to Correct It (Psychology), John Cook et al.
-
Stability and Change in Corporate Governance (Sociology), Gerald F. Davis and Johan S. G. Chu
-
Micro‐Cultures (Sociology), Gary Alan Fine
-
Architecture of Markets (Sociology), Neil Fligstein and Ryan Calder
-
Organizational Populations and Fields (Sociology), Heather A. Haveman and Daniel N. Kluttz
-
The Reorganization of Work (Sociology), Charles Heckscher
-
Organizations and the Production of Systemic Risk (Sociology), Charles Perrow
-
Economics and Culture (Economics), Gérard Roland
-
Introduction to the Corporate Governance of Religion (Sociology), Katja Rost
-
News Framing Effects and Emotions (Political Science), Andreas R. T. Schuck and Alina Feinholdt
-
The Institutional Logics Perspective (Sociology), Patricia H. Thornton et al.
-
Identifier
-
etrds0422
-
extracted text
-
Framing Work in Metacompetition
WILLIAM P. BARNETT
Abstract
Existing research studies competition among organizations, but normally takes as a
given the formal and informal “rules of the game” governing competitions. Yet, these
“rules” are often determined through a prior, higher-level competition over the game
to be played. Such “metacompetitions” determine who can compete, what kinds of
competitive moves can be made, what criteria will be used to evaluate competitors,
and what will be the payoffs to competitions. By prevailing in metacompetitions,
organizations gain the advantage of competing in a game for which they are well
suited, and the disadvantage of rivals who find themselves playing the wrong game.
This essay notes that organizations engage in framing work to influence the outcome of metacompetitions, and argues that this behavior shapes the distribution of
strategies that we observe among organizations in competition.
Research in the sociology of organizations and economic sociology often
features models of organizations in competition. While this work looks at
competition from various theoretical perspectives, ranging from ecological
models of organizations to network research to models of organizational
learning, in general researchers portray competition as favoring some organizations over others according to one or another logic. For instance, ecological
models of scale-based competition predict distinct forms of advantage for
large and small organizations (Carroll, Dobrev, & Swaminathan, 2002), while
social structural models predict advantage for organizations in key network
positions (Stark & Vedres, 2012). But regardless of perspective, researchers
typically take as a given the underlying logic governing competition.
Yet, the underlying logic governing competition is a key question that,
itself, is often decided through a prior competition. In this sense, competition occurs at two levels. Most apparently, we see competition among
organizations trying to outperform each other in any given context: bank
versus bank, university versus university, political party versus political
party. But all such competitions are premised on the outcome of a higher
level metacompetition: a competition over the game to be played (Barnett,
Emerging Trends in the Social and Behavioral Sciences.
Robert Scott and Marlis Buchmann (General Editors) with Stephen Kosslyn (Consulting Editor).
© 2017 John Wiley & Sons, Inc. ISBN 978-1-118-90077-2.
1
2
EMERGING TRENDS IN THE SOCIAL AND BEHAVIORAL SCIENCES
2008, p. 28; 2017). Who is allowed to call themselves a “bank,” and then
play in the game? On what criteria are universities competing (teaching,
research, job placements … )? Is the political contest to be winner takes all,
or can smaller parties reap a proportionate reward? Answers to questions
of this sort establish the game to be played, and so determine in large part
who will and who will not stand a chance of winning. Metacompetition over
these questions is therefore crucial, as summed up in the aphorism often
attributed to nineteenth century American politician William “Boss” Tweed:
“I don’t care who does the electing, so long as I get to do the nominating.”
In this essay, I outline how we can go about advancing research into
metacompetition, focusing especially on the importance of “framing work”
by organizations. Since Goffman (1974) introduced frame analysis as a systematic approach to understanding how social actors portray and interpret
aspects of life, the idea can be seen in theories of sense-making throughout
social psychology and sociology. Especially relevant here is research on
framing work that attempts to shape and align understandings among and
within organizations (Snow, Rochford, Worden, & Benford, 1986). I argue
here that by considering the role of framing work in metacompetition, we can
better understand the resulting distribution of strategies and organizations
in a particular context.
Specifically, when alternative logics of competition vie for prominence, various actors are likely to attempt to influence this metacompetition. Such contestation among logics involves framing work, as actors attempt to strategically shape perceptions of what constitutes appropriate action. Attempts to
frame meaning during metacompetition play a central role in determining
the logics that prevail as markets evolve. Interestingly, while competition
and its outcomes are often studied in the social sciences, far less attention
is paid to metacompetitions and the framing work behind them. Yet, metacompetitions are what ultimately determine the rules of the game, and so are
likely the most important step in the competitive process. Research on framing work in metacompetition thus promises to uncover the root cause of the
patterns of success and failure that we see unfolding in the organizational
world.
METACOMPETITION
In 2005, Steve Jobs, then CEO of Apple, declared that “Nobody wants to
rent their music.” (Schifrin & Barnett, 2016). The issue for Jobs was that the
new business of legal music downloading was just taking shape. His company was trying to compete in that business using “iTunes,” a service that
at the time allowed consumers to legally purchase, download, manage, and
listen to music. But his company was facing competition from a new startup,
Framing Work in Metacompetition
3
Napster 2.0, which gave consumers legal and unlimited music streaming (but
not “ownership”) for a monthly subscription.1 The showdown between these
two companies was, in fact, a metacompetition between two very different
logics: the logic of music ownership, where companies gained an advantage
as consumers’ music collections grew; and the logic of music subscription,
where companies gave access to all music immediately and then competed
over convenience and price.
The threat to Apple of subscription-based streaming was extreme. Apple
clearly had leadership within the legal ownership logic at the time because it
was building a lead in the size of users’ libraries. But this lead would last only
so long as the business remained based on the logic of music ownership. If
consumers were to switch to a subscription-based model, the installed base
of already-purchased iTunes songs would suddenly lose its value. So it was
that Jobs engaged in framing work in an attempt to sway the metacompetition between these two logics. Notably, his efforts seemed at the time to have
succeeded. Napster 2.0 would fail, and pundits would declare (in 2005) that
Jobs was right. Yet within just a few years, the appearance of smartphones
(ironically introduced by Apple) and increased wireless network bandwidth
allowed subscription services to reappear and succeed—ultimately forcing
Apple to also offer such a service. And so as of 2017, especially among the
young (who forget the days of limited bandwidth), the logic of music subscription is thought to have prevailed.
The showdown between music ownership and music subscription is just
one example of metacompetition: competition over the game to be played.
Metacompetitions occur around us constantly, and in virtually all industries:
when alternative certification systems vie to establish priorities among
producers; when alternative performance criteria vie to determine rankings
among organizations; or when alternative standards vie to determine which
technologies will be able to effectively compete in an industry. In all these
cases, an organization could be the very best at what it does, and yet it could
lose in the metacompetition over what criteria will matter. Alternatively,
by winning in metacompetition, an organization could succeed by effectively being protected from fierce rivals who find themselves playing the
wrong game.
More generally, understanding metacompetition requires first that we specify what we mean by a “logic of competition,” which I define as “ … a system
of principles in a given context that determines who can compete, how they
compete, on what criteria they succeed or fail, and what are the consequences
1. Napster 2.0 was a for-profit company created after purchasing the rights to the name “Napster,”
which had been a pioneer in the free music file sharing movement of the 1990s. That service had been
shut down owing to copyright violations. The free music file sharing movement continues to this day,
however. See Barnett (2017).
4
EMERGING TRENDS IN THE SOCIAL AND BEHAVIORAL SCIENCES
of success or failure.” (Barnett, 2008, p. 14). Logics of competition are a type
of “institutional logic,” and therefore may be formal or informal in form
and will likely include material practices as well as symbolic constructions
(Friedland & Alford, 1991). A change in any of these four elements changes
the logic of competition. When banking deregulation changed who could
compete in that industry, this change effectively changed the logic of competition. Or, when the appearance of the internet changed how retailers could
gain access to customers, the logic of competition in retailing changed. By
establishing measurable specifications for what constitutes “organic” food,
different organic certification systems change in different ways the criteria
on which agricultural producers compete. And as for the consequences of
competition, bankruptcy laws and the appearance of public capital markets
are examples of institutions that determine the consequences of winning and
losing in business competitions. By defining logics of competition according
to these four dimensions, one can then observe operationally when alternative logics are involved in metacompetition.
HOW FRAMING WORK SHAPES THE GAME TO BE PLAYED
As in the Steve Jobs example, leaders of organizations routinely attempt to
portray and interpret alternative approaches to competition in a way that
benefits their own organization. Although the systematic study of such framing work is typically traced to Goffman (1974), in the study of organizations it
first appeared in Snow et al’s study of the alignment of interpretations within
and among social movements (Snow et al., 1986). But although the literature
on framing work in social movements has made great progress, we have yet
to explicitly link this work to the phenomenon of metacompetition. This link,
I argue, can yield useful insights about observed distributions of organizations and their strategies.
When organizations are involved in a metacompetition over the game to
be played, social actors are likely to engage in framing work in an attempt to
shape the outcome. Much of this framing work will be observed in the narratives and counter-narratives appearing in social discourse. The more heated
the metacompetition among alternative logics, the more such narratives and
counter-narratives are likely to appear in social discourse among interested
actors. Again looking at the digital music example, the online forum pho
was created in the 1990s to facilitate discourse among those interested in
the newly forming digital music world. Metacompetition heightened in that
industry over the following decade—first between paid and free-sharing
sites and then between paid ownership and paid subscription sites as well.
Narratives and counter-narratives on all sides increased apace, and the pho
forum saw its traffic escalate dramatically. Entries portrayed file sharing
Framing Work in Metacompetition
5
services as being for the people—or as pirates. Others portrayed paid
services as sell-outs benefitting the record labels, or as the legal alternative to
music stealing. Still others contrasted subscription and ownership models,
as illustrated in the Steve Jobs quote depicting subscription as “renting”
music. Taken together, these narratives and counter-narratives can be seen
as legitimacy claims attempting to shape the logic of competition in that
context.
Beyond narratives, the concrete reality of organizational action also plays a
crucial role in framing work. Goffman’s “portrayals” describe actions taken
by players as they make identity claims. Among organizations, identity
claims are signaled by the actions and characteristics of organizations and
their strategies (Hannan, Pólos, & Carroll, 2007). During metacompetition,
organizational actions are meaningful not only as a way of accomplishing objectives but also as framing work. For example, Apple could have
immediately responded to music subscription services by offering such a
service itself. The technical requirements to pursue that strategy certainly
were within reach of the company, even back in 2005. But the company’s
leadership was framing the business as being about music ownership in
contrast to subscription, and so the company restricted its tactics to remain
consistent with that logic. In this way, framing work among organizations
involved in metacompetition is likely to increase the observed differences
between the alternative logics we observe. Framing work thus has strategic
implications for organizations, as summarized in this hypothesis:
Strategic Framing Hypothesis: In contexts characterized by metacompetition among alternative logics of competition, organizations will tend to pursue extreme strategies—avoiding hybrid forms.
The strategic framing hypothesis offers an alternative explanation for the
pattern of increasing differentiation often observed in studies of organizations. Hybrid strategies normally are thought to be “stuck in the middle,”
unable to compete well against “pure form” strategies in the market. Economic analyses typically describe this result as being due to technical suboptimization by hybrid strategies (Porter, 1980). Sociological theories point
to normative constraints, such that boundary spanners suffer from a legitimacy discount (Zuckerman, 1999). The strategic framing hypothesis points
to a third alternative: Leaders of organizations choose pure-form strategies
in an attempt to shape which strategies will be regarded as appropriate in
that context.
The strategic framing hypothesis is testable in the following way. In a context where a single logic of competition prevails, we will be more likely to see
organizations taking actions that violate that logic than we will in contexts
with multiple, contending logics. This prediction could be tested either using
data on a particular context over time, or by comparing multiple contexts.
6
EMERGING TRENDS IN THE SOCIAL AND BEHAVIORAL SCIENCES
Ideally, one would attempt to identify the predicted effects by studying a
context where an exogenous shock has triggered metacompetition between
alternative logics of competition.
CONCLUSION
By studying the role played by framing work in metacompetition, we can
come to see how social actors strategically shape which competitions take
place among organizations. Research on this topic may also benefit from
drawing on advances made recently in cultural sociology, notably the work of
Goldberg and his colleagues that identifies contestation among "construals"
as distinct from position-taking within any given construal (Baldassarri and
Goldberg, 2014; Goldberg and DiMaggio, 2015). When alternative construals
of cultural and political issues vie for prominance, there effectively unfolds a
metacompetition that will determine how competitions among social actors
will be resolved.
More generally, our understanding of organizations in competition has
developed considerably over the past few decades. Various distinct theoretical perspectives each have argued for the importance of one or another
logic thought to determine the actions taken by organizations, as well as the
success and failure of organizations in competition. Yet most studies take
as a given the logic driving competition within any setting. In this way, we
have neglected studying the process through which alternative logics vie
for prominence in any particular context. Such metacompetitions are well
worth studying, since they ultimately determine who can compete, how
actors are allowed to compete, what criteria will determine winning and
losing, as well as the payoffs to competition. By studying the role played
by framing work in metacompetition, we can come to see how social actors
strategically shape which competitions take place among organizations.
REFERENCES
Baldassarri, D., & Goldberg, A. (2014). Neither ideologues nor agnostics: Alternative
voters’ belief system in an age of partisan politics. American Journal of Sociology,
120, 45–95.
Barnett, W. P. (2008). Logics of competition (Chapter 2). In The red queen among organizations: How competitiveness evolves (pp. 14–45). Princeton, NJ: Princeton University
Press.
Barnett, W.P. (2017). Metacompetition: Competing over the game to be played. Working
paper, Stanford Graduate School of Business.
Carroll, G. R., Dobrev, S. D., & Swaminathan, A. (2002). Organizational processes of
resource partitioning. Research in Organizational Behavior, 24, 1–40.
Framing Work in Metacompetition
7
Friedland, R., & Alford, R. R. (1991). Bringing society back in: Symbols, practices,
and institutional contradictions. In W. W. Powell & P. J. DiMaggio (Eds.), The new
institutionalism in organizational analysis (pp. 232–266). Chicago, IL: University of
Chicago Press.
Goffman, E. (1974). Frame analysis: An essay on the organization of experience. New York,
NY: Harper and Row.
Goldberg, A., & DiMaggio, P. (2015). Searching for homo economicus: Institutional boundaries and Americans’ construals of and attitudes toward markets. Working paper.
Hannan, M. T., Pólos, L., & Carroll, G. R. (2007). Logics of organization theory: Audiences,
codes, and ecologies. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
Porter, M. E. (1980). Competitive Strategy. New York, NY: Free Press.
Schifrin, D., & Barnett, W.P. (2016). The rise of apple. Stanford Graduate School of Business case study SM-260.
Snow, D. A., Rochford, E. B., Jr.,, Worden, S. K., & Benford, R. D. (1986). Frame
alignment processes, micromobilization, and movement participation. American
Sociological Review, 51, 464–481.
Stark, D., & Vedres, B. (2012). Political holes in the economy: The business network
of partisan firms in Hungary. American Sociological Review, 77, 700–722.
Zuckerman, E. W. (1999). The categorical imperative: Securities analysts and the
legitimacy discount. American Journal of Sociology, 104(5), 1398–1497.
WILLIAM BARNETT SHORT BIOGRAPHY
William Barnett is the Thomas M. Siebel Professor of Business Leadership,
Strategy, and Organizations at the Graduate School of Business, Stanford
University. After receiving his PhD in Business Administration from the University of California, Berkeley, in 1988, Barnett was an assistant professor at
the University of Wisconsin, Madison School of Business. In 1991, Barnett
came to the Stanford Business School as an assistant professor. He became
an associate professor in 1994 and received tenure in 1996, and has been a
full professor since 2001. Barnett has also twice been a Fellow at the Center
for Advanced Study in the Behavioral Sciences, and is an affiliated faculty
member of the Woods Institute for the Environment at Stanford University.
Barnett serves as a senior or associate editor for several academic journals.
RELATED ESSAYS
Mental Models (Psychology), Ruth M. J. Byrne
Authenticity: Attribution, Value, and Meaning (Sociology), Glenn R. Carroll
Culture and Cognition (Sociology), Karen A. Cerulo
Misinformation and How to Correct It (Psychology), John Cook et al.
Stability and Change in Corporate Governance (Sociology), Gerald F. Davis
and Johan S. G. Chu
8
EMERGING TRENDS IN THE SOCIAL AND BEHAVIORAL SCIENCES
Micro-Cultures (Sociology), Gary Alan Fine
Architecture of Markets (Sociology), Neil Fligstein and Ryan Calder
Organizational Populations and Fields (Sociology), Heather A. Haveman and
Daniel N. Kluttz
The Reorganization of Work (Sociology), Charles Heckscher
Organizations and the Production of Systemic Risk (Sociology), Charles
Perrow
Economics and Culture (Economics), Gérard Roland
Introduction to the Corporate Governance of Religion (Sociology), Katja Rost
News Framing Effects and Emotions (Political Science), Andreas R. T. Schuck
and Alina Feinholdt
The Institutional Logics Perspective (Sociology), Patricia H. Thornton et al.
-
Framing Work in Metacompetition
WILLIAM P. BARNETT
Abstract
Existing research studies competition among organizations, but normally takes as a
given the formal and informal “rules of the game” governing competitions. Yet, these
“rules” are often determined through a prior, higher-level competition over the game
to be played. Such “metacompetitions” determine who can compete, what kinds of
competitive moves can be made, what criteria will be used to evaluate competitors,
and what will be the payoffs to competitions. By prevailing in metacompetitions,
organizations gain the advantage of competing in a game for which they are well
suited, and the disadvantage of rivals who find themselves playing the wrong game.
This essay notes that organizations engage in framing work to influence the outcome of metacompetitions, and argues that this behavior shapes the distribution of
strategies that we observe among organizations in competition.
Research in the sociology of organizations and economic sociology often
features models of organizations in competition. While this work looks at
competition from various theoretical perspectives, ranging from ecological
models of organizations to network research to models of organizational
learning, in general researchers portray competition as favoring some organizations over others according to one or another logic. For instance, ecological
models of scale-based competition predict distinct forms of advantage for
large and small organizations (Carroll, Dobrev, & Swaminathan, 2002), while
social structural models predict advantage for organizations in key network
positions (Stark & Vedres, 2012). But regardless of perspective, researchers
typically take as a given the underlying logic governing competition.
Yet, the underlying logic governing competition is a key question that,
itself, is often decided through a prior competition. In this sense, competition occurs at two levels. Most apparently, we see competition among
organizations trying to outperform each other in any given context: bank
versus bank, university versus university, political party versus political
party. But all such competitions are premised on the outcome of a higher
level metacompetition: a competition over the game to be played (Barnett,
Emerging Trends in the Social and Behavioral Sciences.
Robert Scott and Marlis Buchmann (General Editors) with Stephen Kosslyn (Consulting Editor).
© 2017 John Wiley & Sons, Inc. ISBN 978-1-118-90077-2.
1
2
EMERGING TRENDS IN THE SOCIAL AND BEHAVIORAL SCIENCES
2008, p. 28; 2017). Who is allowed to call themselves a “bank,” and then
play in the game? On what criteria are universities competing (teaching,
research, job placements … )? Is the political contest to be winner takes all,
or can smaller parties reap a proportionate reward? Answers to questions
of this sort establish the game to be played, and so determine in large part
who will and who will not stand a chance of winning. Metacompetition over
these questions is therefore crucial, as summed up in the aphorism often
attributed to nineteenth century American politician William “Boss” Tweed:
“I don’t care who does the electing, so long as I get to do the nominating.”
In this essay, I outline how we can go about advancing research into
metacompetition, focusing especially on the importance of “framing work”
by organizations. Since Goffman (1974) introduced frame analysis as a systematic approach to understanding how social actors portray and interpret
aspects of life, the idea can be seen in theories of sense-making throughout
social psychology and sociology. Especially relevant here is research on
framing work that attempts to shape and align understandings among and
within organizations (Snow, Rochford, Worden, & Benford, 1986). I argue
here that by considering the role of framing work in metacompetition, we can
better understand the resulting distribution of strategies and organizations
in a particular context.
Specifically, when alternative logics of competition vie for prominence, various actors are likely to attempt to influence this metacompetition. Such contestation among logics involves framing work, as actors attempt to strategically shape perceptions of what constitutes appropriate action. Attempts to
frame meaning during metacompetition play a central role in determining
the logics that prevail as markets evolve. Interestingly, while competition
and its outcomes are often studied in the social sciences, far less attention
is paid to metacompetitions and the framing work behind them. Yet, metacompetitions are what ultimately determine the rules of the game, and so are
likely the most important step in the competitive process. Research on framing work in metacompetition thus promises to uncover the root cause of the
patterns of success and failure that we see unfolding in the organizational
world.
METACOMPETITION
In 2005, Steve Jobs, then CEO of Apple, declared that “Nobody wants to
rent their music.” (Schifrin & Barnett, 2016). The issue for Jobs was that the
new business of legal music downloading was just taking shape. His company was trying to compete in that business using “iTunes,” a service that
at the time allowed consumers to legally purchase, download, manage, and
listen to music. But his company was facing competition from a new startup,
Framing Work in Metacompetition
3
Napster 2.0, which gave consumers legal and unlimited music streaming (but
not “ownership”) for a monthly subscription.1 The showdown between these
two companies was, in fact, a metacompetition between two very different
logics: the logic of music ownership, where companies gained an advantage
as consumers’ music collections grew; and the logic of music subscription,
where companies gave access to all music immediately and then competed
over convenience and price.
The threat to Apple of subscription-based streaming was extreme. Apple
clearly had leadership within the legal ownership logic at the time because it
was building a lead in the size of users’ libraries. But this lead would last only
so long as the business remained based on the logic of music ownership. If
consumers were to switch to a subscription-based model, the installed base
of already-purchased iTunes songs would suddenly lose its value. So it was
that Jobs engaged in framing work in an attempt to sway the metacompetition between these two logics. Notably, his efforts seemed at the time to have
succeeded. Napster 2.0 would fail, and pundits would declare (in 2005) that
Jobs was right. Yet within just a few years, the appearance of smartphones
(ironically introduced by Apple) and increased wireless network bandwidth
allowed subscription services to reappear and succeed—ultimately forcing
Apple to also offer such a service. And so as of 2017, especially among the
young (who forget the days of limited bandwidth), the logic of music subscription is thought to have prevailed.
The showdown between music ownership and music subscription is just
one example of metacompetition: competition over the game to be played.
Metacompetitions occur around us constantly, and in virtually all industries:
when alternative certification systems vie to establish priorities among
producers; when alternative performance criteria vie to determine rankings
among organizations; or when alternative standards vie to determine which
technologies will be able to effectively compete in an industry. In all these
cases, an organization could be the very best at what it does, and yet it could
lose in the metacompetition over what criteria will matter. Alternatively,
by winning in metacompetition, an organization could succeed by effectively being protected from fierce rivals who find themselves playing the
wrong game.
More generally, understanding metacompetition requires first that we specify what we mean by a “logic of competition,” which I define as “ … a system
of principles in a given context that determines who can compete, how they
compete, on what criteria they succeed or fail, and what are the consequences
1. Napster 2.0 was a for-profit company created after purchasing the rights to the name “Napster,”
which had been a pioneer in the free music file sharing movement of the 1990s. That service had been
shut down owing to copyright violations. The free music file sharing movement continues to this day,
however. See Barnett (2017).
4
EMERGING TRENDS IN THE SOCIAL AND BEHAVIORAL SCIENCES
of success or failure.” (Barnett, 2008, p. 14). Logics of competition are a type
of “institutional logic,” and therefore may be formal or informal in form
and will likely include material practices as well as symbolic constructions
(Friedland & Alford, 1991). A change in any of these four elements changes
the logic of competition. When banking deregulation changed who could
compete in that industry, this change effectively changed the logic of competition. Or, when the appearance of the internet changed how retailers could
gain access to customers, the logic of competition in retailing changed. By
establishing measurable specifications for what constitutes “organic” food,
different organic certification systems change in different ways the criteria
on which agricultural producers compete. And as for the consequences of
competition, bankruptcy laws and the appearance of public capital markets
are examples of institutions that determine the consequences of winning and
losing in business competitions. By defining logics of competition according
to these four dimensions, one can then observe operationally when alternative logics are involved in metacompetition.
HOW FRAMING WORK SHAPES THE GAME TO BE PLAYED
As in the Steve Jobs example, leaders of organizations routinely attempt to
portray and interpret alternative approaches to competition in a way that
benefits their own organization. Although the systematic study of such framing work is typically traced to Goffman (1974), in the study of organizations it
first appeared in Snow et al’s study of the alignment of interpretations within
and among social movements (Snow et al., 1986). But although the literature
on framing work in social movements has made great progress, we have yet
to explicitly link this work to the phenomenon of metacompetition. This link,
I argue, can yield useful insights about observed distributions of organizations and their strategies.
When organizations are involved in a metacompetition over the game to
be played, social actors are likely to engage in framing work in an attempt to
shape the outcome. Much of this framing work will be observed in the narratives and counter-narratives appearing in social discourse. The more heated
the metacompetition among alternative logics, the more such narratives and
counter-narratives are likely to appear in social discourse among interested
actors. Again looking at the digital music example, the online forum pho
was created in the 1990s to facilitate discourse among those interested in
the newly forming digital music world. Metacompetition heightened in that
industry over the following decade—first between paid and free-sharing
sites and then between paid ownership and paid subscription sites as well.
Narratives and counter-narratives on all sides increased apace, and the pho
forum saw its traffic escalate dramatically. Entries portrayed file sharing
Framing Work in Metacompetition
5
services as being for the people—or as pirates. Others portrayed paid
services as sell-outs benefitting the record labels, or as the legal alternative to
music stealing. Still others contrasted subscription and ownership models,
as illustrated in the Steve Jobs quote depicting subscription as “renting”
music. Taken together, these narratives and counter-narratives can be seen
as legitimacy claims attempting to shape the logic of competition in that
context.
Beyond narratives, the concrete reality of organizational action also plays a
crucial role in framing work. Goffman’s “portrayals” describe actions taken
by players as they make identity claims. Among organizations, identity
claims are signaled by the actions and characteristics of organizations and
their strategies (Hannan, Pólos, & Carroll, 2007). During metacompetition,
organizational actions are meaningful not only as a way of accomplishing objectives but also as framing work. For example, Apple could have
immediately responded to music subscription services by offering such a
service itself. The technical requirements to pursue that strategy certainly
were within reach of the company, even back in 2005. But the company’s
leadership was framing the business as being about music ownership in
contrast to subscription, and so the company restricted its tactics to remain
consistent with that logic. In this way, framing work among organizations
involved in metacompetition is likely to increase the observed differences
between the alternative logics we observe. Framing work thus has strategic
implications for organizations, as summarized in this hypothesis:
Strategic Framing Hypothesis: In contexts characterized by metacompetition among alternative logics of competition, organizations will tend to pursue extreme strategies—avoiding hybrid forms.
The strategic framing hypothesis offers an alternative explanation for the
pattern of increasing differentiation often observed in studies of organizations. Hybrid strategies normally are thought to be “stuck in the middle,”
unable to compete well against “pure form” strategies in the market. Economic analyses typically describe this result as being due to technical suboptimization by hybrid strategies (Porter, 1980). Sociological theories point
to normative constraints, such that boundary spanners suffer from a legitimacy discount (Zuckerman, 1999). The strategic framing hypothesis points
to a third alternative: Leaders of organizations choose pure-form strategies
in an attempt to shape which strategies will be regarded as appropriate in
that context.
The strategic framing hypothesis is testable in the following way. In a context where a single logic of competition prevails, we will be more likely to see
organizations taking actions that violate that logic than we will in contexts
with multiple, contending logics. This prediction could be tested either using
data on a particular context over time, or by comparing multiple contexts.
6
EMERGING TRENDS IN THE SOCIAL AND BEHAVIORAL SCIENCES
Ideally, one would attempt to identify the predicted effects by studying a
context where an exogenous shock has triggered metacompetition between
alternative logics of competition.
CONCLUSION
By studying the role played by framing work in metacompetition, we can
come to see how social actors strategically shape which competitions take
place among organizations. Research on this topic may also benefit from
drawing on advances made recently in cultural sociology, notably the work of
Goldberg and his colleagues that identifies contestation among "construals"
as distinct from position-taking within any given construal (Baldassarri and
Goldberg, 2014; Goldberg and DiMaggio, 2015). When alternative construals
of cultural and political issues vie for prominance, there effectively unfolds a
metacompetition that will determine how competitions among social actors
will be resolved.
More generally, our understanding of organizations in competition has
developed considerably over the past few decades. Various distinct theoretical perspectives each have argued for the importance of one or another
logic thought to determine the actions taken by organizations, as well as the
success and failure of organizations in competition. Yet most studies take
as a given the logic driving competition within any setting. In this way, we
have neglected studying the process through which alternative logics vie
for prominence in any particular context. Such metacompetitions are well
worth studying, since they ultimately determine who can compete, how
actors are allowed to compete, what criteria will determine winning and
losing, as well as the payoffs to competition. By studying the role played
by framing work in metacompetition, we can come to see how social actors
strategically shape which competitions take place among organizations.
REFERENCES
Baldassarri, D., & Goldberg, A. (2014). Neither ideologues nor agnostics: Alternative
voters’ belief system in an age of partisan politics. American Journal of Sociology,
120, 45–95.
Barnett, W. P. (2008). Logics of competition (Chapter 2). In The red queen among organizations: How competitiveness evolves (pp. 14–45). Princeton, NJ: Princeton University
Press.
Barnett, W.P. (2017). Metacompetition: Competing over the game to be played. Working
paper, Stanford Graduate School of Business.
Carroll, G. R., Dobrev, S. D., & Swaminathan, A. (2002). Organizational processes of
resource partitioning. Research in Organizational Behavior, 24, 1–40.
Framing Work in Metacompetition
7
Friedland, R., & Alford, R. R. (1991). Bringing society back in: Symbols, practices,
and institutional contradictions. In W. W. Powell & P. J. DiMaggio (Eds.), The new
institutionalism in organizational analysis (pp. 232–266). Chicago, IL: University of
Chicago Press.
Goffman, E. (1974). Frame analysis: An essay on the organization of experience. New York,
NY: Harper and Row.
Goldberg, A., & DiMaggio, P. (2015). Searching for homo economicus: Institutional boundaries and Americans’ construals of and attitudes toward markets. Working paper.
Hannan, M. T., Pólos, L., & Carroll, G. R. (2007). Logics of organization theory: Audiences,
codes, and ecologies. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
Porter, M. E. (1980). Competitive Strategy. New York, NY: Free Press.
Schifrin, D., & Barnett, W.P. (2016). The rise of apple. Stanford Graduate School of Business case study SM-260.
Snow, D. A., Rochford, E. B., Jr.,, Worden, S. K., & Benford, R. D. (1986). Frame
alignment processes, micromobilization, and movement participation. American
Sociological Review, 51, 464–481.
Stark, D., & Vedres, B. (2012). Political holes in the economy: The business network
of partisan firms in Hungary. American Sociological Review, 77, 700–722.
Zuckerman, E. W. (1999). The categorical imperative: Securities analysts and the
legitimacy discount. American Journal of Sociology, 104(5), 1398–1497.
WILLIAM BARNETT SHORT BIOGRAPHY
William Barnett is the Thomas M. Siebel Professor of Business Leadership,
Strategy, and Organizations at the Graduate School of Business, Stanford
University. After receiving his PhD in Business Administration from the University of California, Berkeley, in 1988, Barnett was an assistant professor at
the University of Wisconsin, Madison School of Business. In 1991, Barnett
came to the Stanford Business School as an assistant professor. He became
an associate professor in 1994 and received tenure in 1996, and has been a
full professor since 2001. Barnett has also twice been a Fellow at the Center
for Advanced Study in the Behavioral Sciences, and is an affiliated faculty
member of the Woods Institute for the Environment at Stanford University.
Barnett serves as a senior or associate editor for several academic journals.
RELATED ESSAYS
Mental Models (Psychology), Ruth M. J. Byrne
Authenticity: Attribution, Value, and Meaning (Sociology), Glenn R. Carroll
Culture and Cognition (Sociology), Karen A. Cerulo
Misinformation and How to Correct It (Psychology), John Cook et al.
Stability and Change in Corporate Governance (Sociology), Gerald F. Davis
and Johan S. G. Chu
8
EMERGING TRENDS IN THE SOCIAL AND BEHAVIORAL SCIENCES
Micro-Cultures (Sociology), Gary Alan Fine
Architecture of Markets (Sociology), Neil Fligstein and Ryan Calder
Organizational Populations and Fields (Sociology), Heather A. Haveman and
Daniel N. Kluttz
The Reorganization of Work (Sociology), Charles Heckscher
Organizations and the Production of Systemic Risk (Sociology), Charles
Perrow
Economics and Culture (Economics), Gérard Roland
Introduction to the Corporate Governance of Religion (Sociology), Katja Rost
News Framing Effects and Emotions (Political Science), Andreas R. T. Schuck
and Alina Feinholdt
The Institutional Logics Perspective (Sociology), Patricia H. Thornton et al.
Framing Work in Metacompetition
WILLIAM P. BARNETT
Abstract
Existing research studies competition among organizations, but normally takes as a
given the formal and informal “rules of the game” governing competitions. Yet, these
“rules” are often determined through a prior, higher-level competition over the game
to be played. Such “metacompetitions” determine who can compete, what kinds of
competitive moves can be made, what criteria will be used to evaluate competitors,
and what will be the payoffs to competitions. By prevailing in metacompetitions,
organizations gain the advantage of competing in a game for which they are well
suited, and the disadvantage of rivals who find themselves playing the wrong game.
This essay notes that organizations engage in framing work to influence the outcome of metacompetitions, and argues that this behavior shapes the distribution of
strategies that we observe among organizations in competition.
Research in the sociology of organizations and economic sociology often
features models of organizations in competition. While this work looks at
competition from various theoretical perspectives, ranging from ecological
models of organizations to network research to models of organizational
learning, in general researchers portray competition as favoring some organizations over others according to one or another logic. For instance, ecological
models of scale-based competition predict distinct forms of advantage for
large and small organizations (Carroll, Dobrev, & Swaminathan, 2002), while
social structural models predict advantage for organizations in key network
positions (Stark & Vedres, 2012). But regardless of perspective, researchers
typically take as a given the underlying logic governing competition.
Yet, the underlying logic governing competition is a key question that,
itself, is often decided through a prior competition. In this sense, competition occurs at two levels. Most apparently, we see competition among
organizations trying to outperform each other in any given context: bank
versus bank, university versus university, political party versus political
party. But all such competitions are premised on the outcome of a higher
level metacompetition: a competition over the game to be played (Barnett,
Emerging Trends in the Social and Behavioral Sciences.
Robert Scott and Marlis Buchmann (General Editors) with Stephen Kosslyn (Consulting Editor).
© 2017 John Wiley & Sons, Inc. ISBN 978-1-118-90077-2.
1
2
EMERGING TRENDS IN THE SOCIAL AND BEHAVIORAL SCIENCES
2008, p. 28; 2017). Who is allowed to call themselves a “bank,” and then
play in the game? On what criteria are universities competing (teaching,
research, job placements … )? Is the political contest to be winner takes all,
or can smaller parties reap a proportionate reward? Answers to questions
of this sort establish the game to be played, and so determine in large part
who will and who will not stand a chance of winning. Metacompetition over
these questions is therefore crucial, as summed up in the aphorism often
attributed to nineteenth century American politician William “Boss” Tweed:
“I don’t care who does the electing, so long as I get to do the nominating.”
In this essay, I outline how we can go about advancing research into
metacompetition, focusing especially on the importance of “framing work”
by organizations. Since Goffman (1974) introduced frame analysis as a systematic approach to understanding how social actors portray and interpret
aspects of life, the idea can be seen in theories of sense-making throughout
social psychology and sociology. Especially relevant here is research on
framing work that attempts to shape and align understandings among and
within organizations (Snow, Rochford, Worden, & Benford, 1986). I argue
here that by considering the role of framing work in metacompetition, we can
better understand the resulting distribution of strategies and organizations
in a particular context.
Specifically, when alternative logics of competition vie for prominence, various actors are likely to attempt to influence this metacompetition. Such contestation among logics involves framing work, as actors attempt to strategically shape perceptions of what constitutes appropriate action. Attempts to
frame meaning during metacompetition play a central role in determining
the logics that prevail as markets evolve. Interestingly, while competition
and its outcomes are often studied in the social sciences, far less attention
is paid to metacompetitions and the framing work behind them. Yet, metacompetitions are what ultimately determine the rules of the game, and so are
likely the most important step in the competitive process. Research on framing work in metacompetition thus promises to uncover the root cause of the
patterns of success and failure that we see unfolding in the organizational
world.
METACOMPETITION
In 2005, Steve Jobs, then CEO of Apple, declared that “Nobody wants to
rent their music.” (Schifrin & Barnett, 2016). The issue for Jobs was that the
new business of legal music downloading was just taking shape. His company was trying to compete in that business using “iTunes,” a service that
at the time allowed consumers to legally purchase, download, manage, and
listen to music. But his company was facing competition from a new startup,
Framing Work in Metacompetition
3
Napster 2.0, which gave consumers legal and unlimited music streaming (but
not “ownership”) for a monthly subscription.1 The showdown between these
two companies was, in fact, a metacompetition between two very different
logics: the logic of music ownership, where companies gained an advantage
as consumers’ music collections grew; and the logic of music subscription,
where companies gave access to all music immediately and then competed
over convenience and price.
The threat to Apple of subscription-based streaming was extreme. Apple
clearly had leadership within the legal ownership logic at the time because it
was building a lead in the size of users’ libraries. But this lead would last only
so long as the business remained based on the logic of music ownership. If
consumers were to switch to a subscription-based model, the installed base
of already-purchased iTunes songs would suddenly lose its value. So it was
that Jobs engaged in framing work in an attempt to sway the metacompetition between these two logics. Notably, his efforts seemed at the time to have
succeeded. Napster 2.0 would fail, and pundits would declare (in 2005) that
Jobs was right. Yet within just a few years, the appearance of smartphones
(ironically introduced by Apple) and increased wireless network bandwidth
allowed subscription services to reappear and succeed—ultimately forcing
Apple to also offer such a service. And so as of 2017, especially among the
young (who forget the days of limited bandwidth), the logic of music subscription is thought to have prevailed.
The showdown between music ownership and music subscription is just
one example of metacompetition: competition over the game to be played.
Metacompetitions occur around us constantly, and in virtually all industries:
when alternative certification systems vie to establish priorities among
producers; when alternative performance criteria vie to determine rankings
among organizations; or when alternative standards vie to determine which
technologies will be able to effectively compete in an industry. In all these
cases, an organization could be the very best at what it does, and yet it could
lose in the metacompetition over what criteria will matter. Alternatively,
by winning in metacompetition, an organization could succeed by effectively being protected from fierce rivals who find themselves playing the
wrong game.
More generally, understanding metacompetition requires first that we specify what we mean by a “logic of competition,” which I define as “ … a system
of principles in a given context that determines who can compete, how they
compete, on what criteria they succeed or fail, and what are the consequences
1. Napster 2.0 was a for-profit company created after purchasing the rights to the name “Napster,”
which had been a pioneer in the free music file sharing movement of the 1990s. That service had been
shut down owing to copyright violations. The free music file sharing movement continues to this day,
however. See Barnett (2017).
4
EMERGING TRENDS IN THE SOCIAL AND BEHAVIORAL SCIENCES
of success or failure.” (Barnett, 2008, p. 14). Logics of competition are a type
of “institutional logic,” and therefore may be formal or informal in form
and will likely include material practices as well as symbolic constructions
(Friedland & Alford, 1991). A change in any of these four elements changes
the logic of competition. When banking deregulation changed who could
compete in that industry, this change effectively changed the logic of competition. Or, when the appearance of the internet changed how retailers could
gain access to customers, the logic of competition in retailing changed. By
establishing measurable specifications for what constitutes “organic” food,
different organic certification systems change in different ways the criteria
on which agricultural producers compete. And as for the consequences of
competition, bankruptcy laws and the appearance of public capital markets
are examples of institutions that determine the consequences of winning and
losing in business competitions. By defining logics of competition according
to these four dimensions, one can then observe operationally when alternative logics are involved in metacompetition.
HOW FRAMING WORK SHAPES THE GAME TO BE PLAYED
As in the Steve Jobs example, leaders of organizations routinely attempt to
portray and interpret alternative approaches to competition in a way that
benefits their own organization. Although the systematic study of such framing work is typically traced to Goffman (1974), in the study of organizations it
first appeared in Snow et al’s study of the alignment of interpretations within
and among social movements (Snow et al., 1986). But although the literature
on framing work in social movements has made great progress, we have yet
to explicitly link this work to the phenomenon of metacompetition. This link,
I argue, can yield useful insights about observed distributions of organizations and their strategies.
When organizations are involved in a metacompetition over the game to
be played, social actors are likely to engage in framing work in an attempt to
shape the outcome. Much of this framing work will be observed in the narratives and counter-narratives appearing in social discourse. The more heated
the metacompetition among alternative logics, the more such narratives and
counter-narratives are likely to appear in social discourse among interested
actors. Again looking at the digital music example, the online forum pho
was created in the 1990s to facilitate discourse among those interested in
the newly forming digital music world. Metacompetition heightened in that
industry over the following decade—first between paid and free-sharing
sites and then between paid ownership and paid subscription sites as well.
Narratives and counter-narratives on all sides increased apace, and the pho
forum saw its traffic escalate dramatically. Entries portrayed file sharing
Framing Work in Metacompetition
5
services as being for the people—or as pirates. Others portrayed paid
services as sell-outs benefitting the record labels, or as the legal alternative to
music stealing. Still others contrasted subscription and ownership models,
as illustrated in the Steve Jobs quote depicting subscription as “renting”
music. Taken together, these narratives and counter-narratives can be seen
as legitimacy claims attempting to shape the logic of competition in that
context.
Beyond narratives, the concrete reality of organizational action also plays a
crucial role in framing work. Goffman’s “portrayals” describe actions taken
by players as they make identity claims. Among organizations, identity
claims are signaled by the actions and characteristics of organizations and
their strategies (Hannan, Pólos, & Carroll, 2007). During metacompetition,
organizational actions are meaningful not only as a way of accomplishing objectives but also as framing work. For example, Apple could have
immediately responded to music subscription services by offering such a
service itself. The technical requirements to pursue that strategy certainly
were within reach of the company, even back in 2005. But the company’s
leadership was framing the business as being about music ownership in
contrast to subscription, and so the company restricted its tactics to remain
consistent with that logic. In this way, framing work among organizations
involved in metacompetition is likely to increase the observed differences
between the alternative logics we observe. Framing work thus has strategic
implications for organizations, as summarized in this hypothesis:
Strategic Framing Hypothesis: In contexts characterized by metacompetition among alternative logics of competition, organizations will tend to pursue extreme strategies—avoiding hybrid forms.
The strategic framing hypothesis offers an alternative explanation for the
pattern of increasing differentiation often observed in studies of organizations. Hybrid strategies normally are thought to be “stuck in the middle,”
unable to compete well against “pure form” strategies in the market. Economic analyses typically describe this result as being due to technical suboptimization by hybrid strategies (Porter, 1980). Sociological theories point
to normative constraints, such that boundary spanners suffer from a legitimacy discount (Zuckerman, 1999). The strategic framing hypothesis points
to a third alternative: Leaders of organizations choose pure-form strategies
in an attempt to shape which strategies will be regarded as appropriate in
that context.
The strategic framing hypothesis is testable in the following way. In a context where a single logic of competition prevails, we will be more likely to see
organizations taking actions that violate that logic than we will in contexts
with multiple, contending logics. This prediction could be tested either using
data on a particular context over time, or by comparing multiple contexts.
6
EMERGING TRENDS IN THE SOCIAL AND BEHAVIORAL SCIENCES
Ideally, one would attempt to identify the predicted effects by studying a
context where an exogenous shock has triggered metacompetition between
alternative logics of competition.
CONCLUSION
By studying the role played by framing work in metacompetition, we can
come to see how social actors strategically shape which competitions take
place among organizations. Research on this topic may also benefit from
drawing on advances made recently in cultural sociology, notably the work of
Goldberg and his colleagues that identifies contestation among "construals"
as distinct from position-taking within any given construal (Baldassarri and
Goldberg, 2014; Goldberg and DiMaggio, 2015). When alternative construals
of cultural and political issues vie for prominance, there effectively unfolds a
metacompetition that will determine how competitions among social actors
will be resolved.
More generally, our understanding of organizations in competition has
developed considerably over the past few decades. Various distinct theoretical perspectives each have argued for the importance of one or another
logic thought to determine the actions taken by organizations, as well as the
success and failure of organizations in competition. Yet most studies take
as a given the logic driving competition within any setting. In this way, we
have neglected studying the process through which alternative logics vie
for prominence in any particular context. Such metacompetitions are well
worth studying, since they ultimately determine who can compete, how
actors are allowed to compete, what criteria will determine winning and
losing, as well as the payoffs to competition. By studying the role played
by framing work in metacompetition, we can come to see how social actors
strategically shape which competitions take place among organizations.
REFERENCES
Baldassarri, D., & Goldberg, A. (2014). Neither ideologues nor agnostics: Alternative
voters’ belief system in an age of partisan politics. American Journal of Sociology,
120, 45–95.
Barnett, W. P. (2008). Logics of competition (Chapter 2). In The red queen among organizations: How competitiveness evolves (pp. 14–45). Princeton, NJ: Princeton University
Press.
Barnett, W.P. (2017). Metacompetition: Competing over the game to be played. Working
paper, Stanford Graduate School of Business.
Carroll, G. R., Dobrev, S. D., & Swaminathan, A. (2002). Organizational processes of
resource partitioning. Research in Organizational Behavior, 24, 1–40.
Framing Work in Metacompetition
7
Friedland, R., & Alford, R. R. (1991). Bringing society back in: Symbols, practices,
and institutional contradictions. In W. W. Powell & P. J. DiMaggio (Eds.), The new
institutionalism in organizational analysis (pp. 232–266). Chicago, IL: University of
Chicago Press.
Goffman, E. (1974). Frame analysis: An essay on the organization of experience. New York,
NY: Harper and Row.
Goldberg, A., & DiMaggio, P. (2015). Searching for homo economicus: Institutional boundaries and Americans’ construals of and attitudes toward markets. Working paper.
Hannan, M. T., Pólos, L., & Carroll, G. R. (2007). Logics of organization theory: Audiences,
codes, and ecologies. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
Porter, M. E. (1980). Competitive Strategy. New York, NY: Free Press.
Schifrin, D., & Barnett, W.P. (2016). The rise of apple. Stanford Graduate School of Business case study SM-260.
Snow, D. A., Rochford, E. B., Jr.,, Worden, S. K., & Benford, R. D. (1986). Frame
alignment processes, micromobilization, and movement participation. American
Sociological Review, 51, 464–481.
Stark, D., & Vedres, B. (2012). Political holes in the economy: The business network
of partisan firms in Hungary. American Sociological Review, 77, 700–722.
Zuckerman, E. W. (1999). The categorical imperative: Securities analysts and the
legitimacy discount. American Journal of Sociology, 104(5), 1398–1497.
WILLIAM BARNETT SHORT BIOGRAPHY
William Barnett is the Thomas M. Siebel Professor of Business Leadership,
Strategy, and Organizations at the Graduate School of Business, Stanford
University. After receiving his PhD in Business Administration from the University of California, Berkeley, in 1988, Barnett was an assistant professor at
the University of Wisconsin, Madison School of Business. In 1991, Barnett
came to the Stanford Business School as an assistant professor. He became
an associate professor in 1994 and received tenure in 1996, and has been a
full professor since 2001. Barnett has also twice been a Fellow at the Center
for Advanced Study in the Behavioral Sciences, and is an affiliated faculty
member of the Woods Institute for the Environment at Stanford University.
Barnett serves as a senior or associate editor for several academic journals.
RELATED ESSAYS
Mental Models (Psychology), Ruth M. J. Byrne
Authenticity: Attribution, Value, and Meaning (Sociology), Glenn R. Carroll
Culture and Cognition (Sociology), Karen A. Cerulo
Misinformation and How to Correct It (Psychology), John Cook et al.
Stability and Change in Corporate Governance (Sociology), Gerald F. Davis
and Johan S. G. Chu
8
EMERGING TRENDS IN THE SOCIAL AND BEHAVIORAL SCIENCES
Micro-Cultures (Sociology), Gary Alan Fine
Architecture of Markets (Sociology), Neil Fligstein and Ryan Calder
Organizational Populations and Fields (Sociology), Heather A. Haveman and
Daniel N. Kluttz
The Reorganization of Work (Sociology), Charles Heckscher
Organizations and the Production of Systemic Risk (Sociology), Charles
Perrow
Economics and Culture (Economics), Gérard Roland
Introduction to the Corporate Governance of Religion (Sociology), Katja Rost
News Framing Effects and Emotions (Political Science), Andreas R. T. Schuck
and Alina Feinholdt
The Institutional Logics Perspective (Sociology), Patricia H. Thornton et al.
