The DOI matches its Crossref record; 6 of the 6 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Reconstructing institutional complexity in practice: A relational model of institutional work and complexity
Open accessAbstract
This article develops a relational model of institutional work and complexity. This model advances current institutional debates on institutional complexity and institutional work in three ways. First, it provides a relational and dynamic perspective on institutional complexity by explaining how constellations of logics − and their degree of internal contradiction − are constructed rather than given. Second, it refines our current understanding of agency, intentionality and effort in institutional work by demonstrating how different dimensions of agency interact dynamically in the institutional work of reconstructing institutional complexity. Third, it situates institutional work in the everyday practice of individuals coping with the institutional complexities of their work. In doing so, it reconnects the construction of institutionally complex settings to the actions and interactions of the individuals who inhabit them.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cites
Strategic Responses to Institutional Processes
Oliver, C. (1991) · The Academy of Management Review · doi:10.5465/amr.1991.4279002 · Cited by 8,950
Strategies for Theorizing from Process Data
Langley, A. (1999) · The Academy of Management Review · doi:10.5465/amr.1999.2553248 · Cited by 7,008
Emirbayer, M., & Mische, A. (1998) · American Journal of Sociology · doi:10.1086/231294 · Cited by 6,165
Developmental sequence in small groups.
Tuckman, B. W. (1965) · Psychological Bulletin · doi:10.1037/h0022100 · Cited by 5,778
The Adolescence of Institutional Theory
Scott, W. R. (1987) · Administrative Science Quarterly · doi:10.2307/2392880 · Cited by 3,699
Managing the Rivalry of Competing Institutional Logics
Reay, T., & Hinings, C. R. (2009) · Organization Studies · doi:10.1177/0170840609104803 · Cited by 1,821
Cited by
Dahlmann, F., & Grosvold, J. (2017) · Business Ethics Quarterly · doi:10.1017/beq.2016.65 · Cited by 122
How Professionals Adapt to Artificial Intelligence: The Role of Intertwined Boundary Work
Faulconbridge, J., Sarwar, A., & Spring, M. (2025) · Journal of Management Studies · doi:10.1111/joms.12936 · Cited by 118
Diab, A. (2021) · Journal of Accounting in Emerging Economies · doi:10.1108/jaee-06-2020-0126 · Cited by 13
Metadata
- Authors
- Smets, M., & Jarzabkowski, P.
- Venue
- Human Relations
- Publisher
- SAGE Publications
- Published
- 2013-03-19
- Volume
- 66
- Issue
- 10
- Pages
- 1279-1309
- ISSN
- 0018-7267 (ISSN-L)
- 1741-282X
- OpenAlex
- W2111546195
- Cited by
- 380
- References
- 6
- FWCI
- 51.00
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- green
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Reconstructing institutional complexity in practice: A relational model of institutional work and complexity. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1177/0018726712471407
- The paper
- Smets, M., & Jarzabkowski, P. (2013). Reconstructing institutional complexity in practice: A relational model of institutional work and complexity. Human Relations. https://doi.org/10.1177/0018726712471407
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.
