Presented at the 20th Voluntary Sector and Volunteering Research Conference, 10-11 September 2014.
http://www.ncvo.org.uk/training-and-events/research-conference
Presented at the 20th Voluntary Sector and Volunteering Research Conference, 10-11 September 2014.
http://www.ncvo.org.uk/training-and-events/research-conference
Presented at the 20th Voluntary Sector and Volunteering Research Conference, 10-11 September 2014.
http://www.ncvo.org.uk/training-and-events/research-conference
of legitimacy narratives Voluntary Sector and Volunteering Research Conference 2014
Dawn Elliott, Sheffield Hallam University
For more information on this paper or if you wish to quote the paper, please email dawn.elliott@shu.ac.uk as there may be a more up to date version of the paper available. 1 Introduction The institutional environment in which local infrastructure organisations (LIOs) operate is currently shifting from an old narrative towards a new narrative, driven both by the post- recession climate and the introduction of the coalition government in 2010. The old institutional environment, favoured principles including centralised funding of LIOs, an assumed value of support services, and consistent provision of local infrastructure services across the UK. Shifts towards a new environment are more critical in approach: the value of local infrastructure services must be proven rather than assumed; efficiency and effectiveness of services are given prominence; and it is understood that some LIOs might fail (Rochester, 2012). A shift towards chargeable support services is visible here, driven by market forces of demand and supply. This paper uses institutional theory (Meyer and Rowan, 1977; DiMaggio and Powell, 1983) to explore how actors seek to legitimise or prevent shifts into new institutional environments. Data captured from a multi-sited ethnography is used as the basis for presenting a typology of actors and their respective legitimacy narratives, within a changing institutional environment. The model also presents the ways in which each group of actors uses rhetorical strategies to promotes their legitimacy world-view, and the dominant value set underpinning those narratives. The aforementioned model is the culmination of a multi-sited ethnography (Marcus, 1995), undertaken at four different LIO sites during a six month period, with six weeks spent working full time at each site, on a project relating to chargeable support services. Despite the original focus of the ethnography on chargeable support services, the inductive approach to the data highlighted more broadly applicable findings: the model relates to ways in which groups of actors operating within an established institutional environment respond to distinct shifts in said environment; how their dominant value set frames their worldview regarding the legitimacy of changes; and rhetorical strategies they use to promote their world- view surrounding the legitimacy of said changes. Whilst these findings are applicable to LIO moves into chargeable support services, they can be applied more broadly within the voluntary sector during a time of hyperactive policy change and shifting institutional boundaries. 2 Legitimacy at the actor level Much attention has been given in the institutional literature to the notion of legitimacy (Parsons, 1960; Maurer, 1971; Weber, 1978; Meyer and Scott, 1983a) as a concept that anchors the normative and cognitive forces that constrain, construct, and empower organizational actors (Suchman, 1995, p571). The definition adopted within this study builds on Maurers (1971, p361) definition:
the process whereby an organization justifies to a peer or superordinate system its right to exist. This study highlights that legitimacy can extend beyond the justification of the existence of an organisation, into justification of actions, direction or strategy. Consequently the author builds on Maurer by defining legitimacy as: the process whereby an organisation justifies to a peer or superordinate system its right to exist, act, or follow a particular strategic direction. The focus on legitimacy frequently occurs at a macro level, with limited attention currently directed towards the micro level at which actors contribute to the understandings and enactment of institutional narratives. Calls for a micro-level focus on legitimacy have been made, with particular consideration of ideas surrounding how institutional change occurs, and actor processes underpinning those changes. The assumption here is that groups of actors collectively can become institutions. Powell and Colyvas (2008, p276-277) argue that: We need a richer understanding of how individuals sustain or locate themselves in social relations and interpret their context. How do organisational participants maintain or transform the institutions that guide their daily practice? ...The development of micro- level explanations will give more depth to accounts of macro-level events and relationships. Battilana et al. (2009, p66) take a similar stance, commenting that: The demand for institutional change is increasing among organization members and citizens the world over. Efforts to change them, however, face institutions strong power of inertia. Recognizing that institutional change is a complex process involving different types of forces and agents, we argue that it is our responsibility as scholars to explain not only how institutions influence actors behaviour, but also how these actors might, in turn, influence, and possibly change, institutions. Attempts have been made to address this problem: Lok (2010) uses the idea of institutional logics (Friedland and Alford, 1991) as applied to identity projects, linking systems of thinking and institutional values with groups of actors and their identities. Heinsz and Zelner (2005) address the socialisation of actors as a key factor in emerging institutions, and Geels (2004) argues for the distinction between institutions, their systems, and the actors within them, whilst Philips et al. (2004) consider actor identity within institutions by highlighting conflicting discourses within institutions. Suddaby and Greenwood (2005) propose a model of rhetorical strategies which actors use to promote their preferred world-view within institutions. These five rhetorical strategies are namely an ontological strategy, addressing existential questions of what can and cannot exist; a historical strategy, focusing on institutional history and tradition; a teleological strategy, related to divine purpose or final cause; a cosmological strategy, emphasising forces beyond the actors directly concerned, and finally a value-based strategy which focuses on beliefs and principles. The
model proposed by the author builds on Suddaby and Greenwoods idea of rhetorical strategies, but goes further by applying rhetorical strategies specifically to groupings of actors and their respective narratives, along with their legitimacy worldviews.
3 Methodology An ethnographic approach was taken, to secure similar benefits to those highlighted by Fine, Morrill and Surianarain (2009): 1. The elaboration of informal relations; 2. View of organisations as systems of meaning; 3. Understanding of organisations and their environments; 4. A focus on the drivers of organisational change; 5. An insight into power, politics and control. Two initial scoping interviews were undertaken with national stakeholders, which highlighted a complex and multi-faceted research problem. Given the potential complexities of research into chargeable support services, an ethnographic approach offered the most depth in capturing complex debates such as competition versus collaboration. The ethnography was multi-sited (Marcus, 1995), which allowed the author to follow the story across organisations within a single institutional environment. Taking place at four sites over a six month period, six weeks were spent by the researcher at each LIO, working full time in order to fully become immersed into the LIOs daily routines. Sites were selected from a list of potential LIOs compiled using internet-based research, mapping all LIOs operating within areas easily accessible to the researcher. Forty one LIOs were contacted, five responded and four were taken up the fifth not progressing due to changes in its structure meaning it had become so small it would be difficult to study ethnographically. Contacts made were using a letter sent both to the chair of trustees and to the chief officer, offering six weeks of voluntary time to work on a project for the LIO. These projects varied between LIOs, but were all tied to charging: for example, one LIO chose a scoping project to examine whether charging for services would be possible; another which had already started charging sought an evaluation of what could be improved. The data captured included interview transcripts; records of meetings; photographs; email records; formal documents such as strategic plans and funding bids, and the authors daily research diaries. These were analysed inductively, using NVivo10 as the data management package, and template analysis (Kent, 2000; King et al., 2003) as the analytical approach. Participants were given a research participation information sheet a month prior to commencement, explaining the study and highlighting the possibility of opting out. This information was re-circulated at the commencement on each site, to give each participant further reassurance that they could opt out at any time. Additionally, all data was anonymised at
source to protect sensitivities surrounding both actors and sites. The anonymised LIOs have been named Parsley CVS; Sage CVS; Rosemary CVS and Thyme CVS. 4 Towards a model of actor legitimacy The resulting model is presented in Table 1, and elaborated upon in the text that follows. The first two columns label each particular type of actor or group of actors and identify their dominant value set. The third likely to say column demonstrates these dominant value sets in practice, and is taken from typical phrases arising in the data for each actor type. Their legitimacy frames follow directly from this: each actor type uses their dominant value set to frame their considerations of whether choices, behaviours or actions are indeed legitimate. As demonstrated when progressing across the model below, each actor grouping uses their specific legitimacy world-view to promote their own narrative or negate dissenting narratives. In the coming together of the differing rhetorical strategies that narratives from groups of actors conflict, and the dominant narratives go on to legitimise or de-legitimise specific actions, behaviours or directions; in this case, charging for support services. The final column therefore applies the ideas of dominant value sets, legitimacy type and rhetorical strategies back to LIOs chargeable services debates from which the model originated, by exemplifying the attitudes of each actor type towards charging for support services.
Table 1: A typology of actor legitimacy narratives Actor typology Dominant value set Likely to say Type of legitimacy Rhetorical strategy Typical approach to charging The authoritarian Internal norms and routines Weve always done it this way Historical, internal culture and values Authority; security Doesnt want to charge; extremely vocal about the threat of change that charging poses. The resistor Strong moral values I dont think this is fair or right Moral Historical; shared values Doesnt want to charge and tries to find ways to avoid doing so. If pushed, would choose charging at a low level and not making any profit. The contentious objector Legal frameworks and commitments Check the contract before we do anything Regulative Legal threat Will charge, but doesnt want to charge for membership due to constitutional issues with doing so; would prefer charges for additional services such as writing
funding bids The quiet dissenter Perceived authority Well, Im not really sure, but if you say so Political Shared values Goes along with charging but whispers about their worries that it wont work. Favours charging models that arent radical e.g. small membership charge The strategist Sticking to a plan; strategic frameworks and documents This is / isnt in the strategic plan, so we can / cant do it Strategic Historical; authority Approach to charging determined by whatever is written in strategic plan charging preference is in line with whatever is documented The submissive Moves away from conflicting logics; harmony Lets work this out together Unanimity Shared values Doesnt have much of an opinion on charging, just wants to get on with it The pragmatist Things being seen to run smoothly We need to make sure we have the right systems and skills in place before we commit to anything Technical Readiness Charging approach based on what is realistic and achievable often this is through a combination model of membership charges plus additional charges where possible The team player Preserving relationships within institutional environment Lets check with our partners what they think before committing Stakeholder Shared values Favours charging but only based on consent from external partners; charging preference is highly influenced by partners and is therefore variable depending on the type of partners involved The reputation conscious External institutional perceptions of organisation We cant be seen to be doing that Normative Resources Charging approach based on being consistent with reputation actors in LIOs viewed as more business-like might be more inclined to take a consultancy approach, while actors in LIOs that are rooted in community development might take a membership fees approach
The survivor Fight for survival We have no other option Survival-based Time; security Will justify any level of charging based on need for survival. As such, advocates for high earning charging programmes such as consultancy. The opportunist Taking new opportunities as they arise; filling gaps; gradual change Were in the right place at the right time we should take advantage Opportunistic Time Favours charging but takes opportunities as they present themselves for example, would charge for a funding application if someone was willing to pay; would move into a new market if they spotted a gap The leader Leading the sector / industry We want to be the first to move, so that we can lead the sector Pioneering Outside forces; resources Favoured charging model is based on leading the way before other organisations; therefore favours more radical charging schemes such as accreditation standards The progressive Progress; advancing practice Change brings opportunities Innovative Knowledge development, resources Favours income generation by entering new markets or working with new audiences in favour of major change
4.1 The authoritarian The authoritarian was evidenced in actors such as Doreen, the CEO of Parsley CVS, and Kirk, the deputy CEO of Parsley CVS. Evidence from the study shows this actor type typically occupying senior management or high profile board roles. The authoritarians value set is strongly rooted in internal culture and organisational history: deviations for an organisational value set that has evolved over time are perceived as illegitimate. The authoritarian uses this shared history to frame considerations of legitimacy but uses their power and influence to exert authority over any change, often with direct references to job security, or through close management of dissenters. This is exemplified below:
Id been here about six months, [and we had] lots of partners all sitting round the table and there was a... strategy about where to go if youve got debt problems, and I thought yeah we could do that, itd be a 20,000 project and we could earn say 5,000, we could pay everybody for the bits that they did, and everyone would be a winner. Doreen was on holiday and... you have to act or its too late. I took some initiative and I put a bid together, and when she came back she hit the roof, absolutely hit the roof. I was lucky to stay in my job. She said that we shouldnt have been taking on a leadership role in the sector and that I had no right to make those types of decisions about how the organisation should go because the organisation had values and these werent it... I was then on report for six months and I had to copy every single email to Doreen because she did not trust me to do anything. Karl, Marketing Manager, Parsley CVS 4.2 The resistor The resistor has a worldview which is vehemently opposed to change and as such, opposed to charging. This opposition is crafted through a dominant value set based on morality. Both Oliver, CEO of Rosemary CVS, and Christopher, funding advisor at Parsley CVS, demonstrated this actor type strongly: their strong moral compass guided their views on legitimacy. This group are likely to refer to rose-tinted ideas surrounding the way things used to be as a historical reference point for negating shifts towards new environments that they deem illegitimate; whilst coupling this historical aspect with value-based rhetorical strategies. Here, the ideologically driven character of the resistor is illustrated, along with a reference to history: Its important to remember that, that in amongst all of this protecting our own backs, are the groups that really need our help. We cant forget about them, we cant go all out there charging in looking for profit, because its not right. I know that times have changed and I know we live in this capitalist world now where the voluntary sector deliver public services, and where were expected to be professional, but I got into this sector in the late seventies or maybe early eighties, and it was so different then, you did it because you cared about the people... We cant forget them in amongst all of this selfish drive for self- preservation, just to keep the cash rolling in. We cant forget our principles. Oliver, CEO, Rosemary CVS
4.3 The contentious objector The contentious objector is best demonstrated by Faye, the funding advisor at Rosemary CVS, who in the midst of discussions about charging for services would frequently refer back to the constitution, question whether decisions should be run by members at the AGM, and consider any legal implications. Legislative compliance dominates the value set for this actor, and in turn frames legitimacy considerations. It follows that this actor uses the threat associated with non- compliance as a way of negating differing narratives. This is demonstrated below: Most of these people are members and if theyre members we cant give them a bill, because we need to take it to the AGM and ask for their agreement, but because its a membership organisation they wont agree. Faye, funding advisor, Rosemary CVS 4.4 The quiet dissenter The quiet dissenter does not agree with the institutional change, but accepts authority and hence will go along with change if necessary: the acceptance of authority drives their dominant value set. Legitimacy is therefore framed in political terms: if an action keeps the internal political balance in check, it is legitimate. Whilst the quiet dissenter may not publicly disagree with an authority figure, their rhetorical strategy will express dissatisfaction in quiet corners through gossip and undermining. This is exemplified by Debbie, the development worker at Sage CVS: I dont like any of this, this charging business. But what can you do? You cant really change it. Roberta thinks its important, Kelly thinks its important, as if theyre going to sit up and listen when I say thanks but no thanks... You just put up and shut up. Debbie, development worker, Sage CVS 4.5 The strategist The strategist is more neutral in their approach to institutional change than the aforementioned actor types. Their dominant value set is strategic, and hence their specific position is dependent
upon what is outlined in any strategic plan: legitimacy is therefore viewed in terms of congruence with pre-agreed strategy. Their preferred rhetorical strategy is based on the need to not revisit historical discussions, whereby if something has been discussed the decision should be adhered to. The strategist often occupies senior management roles and therefore combines this historically focused rhetoric with authoritarian rhetoric. The role of the strategist is best exemplified by Neville, the Chair of the Thyme CVS: Lets be frank. Charging isnt in the strategic plan. And if it isnt in the strategic plan then we dont do it.... So I suppose then I ask, what are the circumstances under which we would charge? And there are already two circumstances under which the organisation will be directly involved with charging, but both of those are in the strategic plan. Neville, Chair of Board, Thyme CVS 4.6 The submissive The submissive, much like the strategist, is value neutral, but with that approach being derived from a different dominant value set: the submissive becomes value neutral resulting from their desire to neutralise conflict. Their view of legitimate action is based upon the action which gains unanimous support, and this is promoted through rhetorical strategies highlighting shared values, as emphasised by Roz of Thyme CVS: I dont want us to make things difficult but I dont think theres much value in considering taking this step right now given how difficult theyve made partnership working on it... We need to do this in unison or not at all. Roz, Administrator, Thyme CVS 4.7 The pragmatist The pragmatist has a dominant value set that prioritises systems, structures, and capabilities. Opinions on charging are often framed in terms of readiness to change, as opposed to debates surrounding the appropriateness of the change. This leads to a legitimacy framing based on
technical issues, and rhetorical strategies that play out based on readiness. Denise, the administrator at Parsley CVS exemplifies this: I dont really care about charging one way or the other to be honest with you. Im not paid enough to care about it! But I do want to make sure things go smoothly with it, and at the moment thats not happening. Its not happening because we started doing things before we were ready, so we have this...system and we paid about seven grand for it or something... but despite having all these fancy systems in place, people are coming in and saying to me, can you invoice me, and I cant invoice them because none of us know how to use the system. Denise, Administrator, Parsley CVS 4.8 The team player The team player places a high value on stakeholders and partnerships, and preserving relationships as such. Their dominant value set is therefore a stakeholder-driven one, and is likely to take a consultative approach, as highlighted by Kelly, the CEO of Sage CVS: I think the best thing for you to do is to go out and talk with some of the people this is going to affect most. We know we want to do it but how would it be received? We need to talk to funders, our partners, the councillors, groups... We cant really move until weve consulted with them, as its the community were here for. Kelly, CEO, Sage CVS This consultative approach provides a basis for a rhetorical strategy based on shared values, but with those shared values coming from the institutional environment as much as from within the organisation. 4.9 The reputation conscious The reputation conscious actor is exemplified by both Tania, a development worker at Thyme CVS, and Elaine, a development worker at Parsley CVS. The dominant drivers in this actors value
set are pressures placed by external perceptions. These normative pressures often led to ideas of what was and was not acceptable to be seen to do, hence using a normative frame to legitimacy considerations. In turn, rhetorical strategies employed focus on the denial of resources if seen not to comply with expectations: And here I am, peddling a leaflet thats asking people to pay me for funding advice, but its a leaflet created in Microsoft b***** paint or something, so how will anyone take us seriously? People wont buy our services, and funders will think were being unprofessional so theyll deny us funding too, which is why we shouldnt be doing this. Elaine, Development worker, Parsley CVS 4.10 The survivor Survival at all costs is what drives this actor group, and frames their dominant value set: in turn, their considerations surrounding legitimacy is that action is justified if it will guarantee survival. Teresa, the development worker at Parsley CVS is typical of the survivor, along with Cora, the chair of Rosemary CVS. In the example below, Cora uses typical rhetorical strategies of both time and job security to frame her arguments promoting survival-based legitimacy: Its about asking what do we want? We want to survive as a CVS. We want to sustain the employment of key people... I dont know what we can do about it, the worlds changing around us and were being forced to change with it to survive. Cora, Chair of trustees, Rosemary CVS 4.11 The opportunist The opportunist holds a dominant value set that endorses taking opportunities as they arise, and filling gaps where they present themselves. This is perhaps best illustrated by Konnie, the deputy CEO of Thyme CVS, whose pursuit of chargeable services saw her pioneering moves to charge public sector agents such as police and crime commissioners, who sought information on the voluntary sector from Thyme CVS. In this role, actors frame legitimacy through time-limited opportunities, and perceive that taking any new opportunity is legitimate in its own right. As such, rhetorical strategies framing these arguments include highlighting the time-sensitive element of each opportunity:
Why do I want to charge [public sector bodies] for [information]? Because if they dont pay us for it then theyll have to find it themselves. And once theyve learned how to do it themselves, theyll do it again. So we need to show them we can give them that service before the window of opportunity closes and we lose out on potential income. Konnie, Deputy CEO, Thyme CVS 4.12 The leader This actor grouping is underpinned by a dominant value set of leading a sector or industry, typified by the comments below from Bill, the development manager at Sage CVS: So, the thing about going first is, we should do the segmentation. We should pick two or three key segments, which we know are going to be big growers and we should target those, specifically to increase our membership... And effectively what you are doing is replacing your Council funding with your three big segments. That will... send out the right message, because the other problem with not going first is that the first movers, who can spot the right part of the market and get in there first, will dominate the market. And everyone else will get Theyve got no chance. Bill, Development manager, Sage CVS The values inherent in wanting to lead the sector into something new result in a legitimacy frame that views pioneering activity as legitimate in its own right. This is backed by a rhetorical strategy that highlights the impact on resources of not leading the change, along with the impact externally within the institutional environment. 4.13 The progressive The progressive is highly innovative and driven to move forward. Progress is central to their dominant value set, underpinned by a view of innovative legitimacy which views innovation and entrepreneurship as legitimate actions. Karl, the marketing manager at Parsley CVS, was perhaps the strongest innovator within the study. His comments below highlight a rhetorical strategy that highlights the furthering of knowledge as a justification for change.
But we need a new brand if were going to do something. If youre going to do something differently, make it new, make it different, make it sound different, look different. Were coming at it from no great detail, weve not thought about it, and its probably not going to work. But whats happening is really interesting. But you cant just sit back, theres a certain sort of cynicism saying its not going to work you can only win if you go and try and make things happen, and even if it doesnt happen youll have learned something. Karl, Marketing manager, Parsley CVS 5 Conclusions This paper presents a brief overview of a typology of actor narratives with respect to legitimacy in a shifting institutional environment, with the dominant value sets underpinning these legitimacy frameworks and the rhetorical strategies employed by actors to promote their worldview of legitimacy. The model identifies thirteen different actor types, accounting for those actors vehemently opposed to conforming to the expectations of a shifting institutional environment, and those in strongly in favour of institutional change. Further research may include identifying the extent to which these actor types exist in static institutional environments as opposed to shifting environments, and also may involve identifying the processes by which these conflicting narratives permeate into institutions, and into action: in particular, how one or two of these narratives become the dominant narratives within an organisation would prove useful in further research.
References Battilana, J., Leca, B. And Boxenbaum, E. (2009) How Actors Change Institutions: Towards a Theory of Institutional Entrepreneurship The Academy of Management Annals 3(1) pp 65-107 DiMaggio, P. J. & Powell, W. W. (1983) The iron cage revisited: Institutional isomorphism and collective rationality in organizational fields. American Sociological Review, 48 pp147160. Geels, F. (2004) From sectoral systems of innovation to socio-technical systems: insights about dynamics and change from sociology and institutional theory Research policy 33 pp897-920 Fine, A., Morrill, C., AND Surianarain, S. (2009) Ethnography in organisational settings. In Buchanan, D. And Bryman, A. Eds (2009) The SAGE Handbook of Organizational Research Methods. London, UK: Sage Publications Ltd Friedland, R., & Alford, R. R. 1991. Bringing society back in: Symbols, practice, and institutional contradiction. In W. W. Powell & P. J. DiMaggio (Eds.), The new institutionalism in organizational analysis: 232267. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Heinsz, W. And Zelner, B. (2005) Legitimacy, interest group pressures, and change in emergent institutions: the case of foreign investors and host country governments. Academy of management review 30(2) pp361-382 Kent, G. (2000) Understanding the experiences of people with disfigurements: An integration of four models of social and psychological functioning. Psychology, Health & Medicine, 5(2) pp117-129. King, N., Bell, D., Martin, N. and Farrell, S. (2003) Gold Standards Framework, Phase 2: Qualitative Case Study Evaluation Final Report. Huddersfield, UK: Primary Care Research Group, School of Human and Health Sciences University of Huddersfield Lok, J. (2010) Institutional logics as identity projects Academy of management review 53(6) pp1305-1335 Marcus, G. (1995) Ethnography in/of the world system: the emergence of multi-sited ethnography. Annual review of anthropology 24 pp95-117 Maurer, J. G. (1971) Readings in organizational theory: Open system approaches. New York: Random House. Meyer, J.W. and Rowan, B. (1977) Institutional organizations: formal structure as myth and ceremony. American Journal of Sociology 83 pp340363. Meyer, J. W., & Scott, W. R. (Eds.). 1983a. Organizational environments: Ritual and rationality. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage. Parsons, T. (1960) Structure and process in modern societies. Glencoe, IL: Free Press.
Philips, NO, Lawrence, T and Hardy, C. (2004) Discourse and institutions The Academy of Management Review 29(4) pp634-652 Powell, W. And Colyvas, J. (2008) Microfoundations of institutional theory in Greenwood, R., Oliver, C. Suddaby, R. And Sahlin, K (Eds.) The Sage Handbook of Organisational Institutionalism. London: Sage Publications ROCHESTER, C. (2012) Councils for Voluntary Service: End of a long road? Voluntary Sector Review 3(1) pp103-110 Suchman, M. (1995) Managing legitimacy: strategic and institutional approaches Academy of management review 20(3) pp571-610 Suddaby, R., & Greenwood, R. 2005. Rhetorical strategies of legitimacy. Administrative Science Quarterly, 50 pp3567. Weber. M. (1978) Economy and society. Berkeley: University of California Press.