Recent critiques by Alvesson, Hallett, and Spicer have characterized neo-institutional theory (NIT) specifically as confronting a mid-life crisis and institutional theory (IT) more generally as uninhibited. While offering valid points, these critiques lack a fundamental understanding of how organizational institutionalism (OI) has become distinct from NIT. In contrast to NIT’s master hypothesis of isomorphism and focus on structural determinism, OI has made remarkable progress in explaining institutional variation and change. Notably, like organization theory more generally, OI is not a coherent theory, but rather a big tent community with its own set of internal differences, and at times confusing concepts. Rather than abandoning the concept of institutions, we suggest continued progress in OI requires greater clarification. Institutions are everywhere, but not everything, so it is important for researchers to specify which institutions are being studied, distinguish between institutions and culture, and ascertain the relationship between institutions and organizations.

中文翻译：

---

机构：无处不在，但并非一切

Alvesson、Hallett 和 Spicer 最近的批评将新制度理论 (NIT) 特别描述为面对中年危机，而制度理论 (IT) 更普遍地认为是不受约束的。虽然提供了有效的观点，但这些批评缺乏对组织制度主义 (OI) 如何与 NIT 不同的基本理解。与 NIT 的同构主假设和对结构决定论的关注不同，OI 在解释制度变异和变化方面取得了显着进展。值得注意的是，与更普遍的组织理论一样，OI 不是一个连贯的理论，而是一个具有自己内部差异的大帐篷社区，有时会混淆概念。与其放弃制度的概念，我们建议 OI 的持续进步需要更多的澄清。