As the COVID-19 pandemic swept around the world in early 2020, countries with strong healthcare systems, norms of communal behavior, and respect for law appeared to be coming out ahead. Institutions were holding strong. It was not long, however, before COVID-19 was revealing the failures of long-trusted institutions to care for citizens equitably, or to maintain public trust. Institutions were revealed to be inadequate or in decay. These included institutions such as government, public health, education, democracy, religion, and science. In some cases, these institutions appear fractured and weak and in other contexts we see them appear stronger as market logics retreat and state logics expand. Newly emergent celebrities such as Dr. Fauci flood the airwaves joined by a plethora of epidemiologists and infectious disease specialists ready and willing to share their insights.

In this commentary, we examine the cracks COVID-19 has exposed in institutions; specifically, the vulnerability, entropy, neglect, and decay of institutions long-thought to be powerful and stable. In the harsh light of the pandemic, this has meant witnessing growing income inequality, inequitable access to public services (water, electricity) and to basic necessities of life (healthcare, housing, education, food), as well as intersecting racial and gender injustices and the impacts of environmental destruction. We argue that the effects of COVID-19, have played out in two key ways. First, increased scrutiny on institutions has shown that many long-accepted as strong, are not. Years of neglect has weakened institutional structures, many with their very foundations built on ideas of broad and equitable access. Second, this unveiling has shown us that some institutions we took for granted may not be socially desirable and, worse, may be the very causes of these unsustainable and unjust systems.

In light of these exposed fault lines, we posit that COVID-19 has shown us the necessity for research that goes well beyond understanding institutions and how they function, to instead look more deeply at their impacts and outcomes. As researchers and citizens, COVID-19 shows us that we must take this rare opportunity to look ‘under the hood’ or ‘behind the emerald curtain’ to scrutinize what was hidden from view, and to critically examine whether institutions are serving society. In doing so, researchers can unpack how to either renew and reenergize valued institutions, or to dismantle those that undergird systemic social and environmental injustices. We call for a renewed institutional research agenda focused on how to both build back institutions that matter to society, as well as build better institutions.

Build Back Institutions that Matter

Institutions have long been the foundation of society and, as such, the study of institutions has been the basis for much of our current understanding of management and organizations. As COVID-19 laid bare the underlying inequities and injustices of modern socioeconomic systems (Munir, 2021), so too did it lay bare the frailty of our theoretical assumptions about institutions themselves. While research had begun to question the assumption that institutions were stable long before COVID-19, the stresses of the pandemic have brought increased scrutiny to even the most apparently enduring of institutions. What COVID-19 has exposed and exacerbated is that even many of those institutions thought to be based on equitable access, such as essential public services, have been heavily eroded after decades of institutional decay. As market forces (Davis and Kim, 2015) has chipped away at the foundations of healthcare, education, and utilities, as well as at community-based media and funding for science, these weakened institutions also now suffer from a lack of trust. This further limits the likelihood that they will obtain the ‘ongoing energy and resources’ (Scott, 2015, p. 470) required for institutional renewal (Montgomery and Dacin, 2020).

As we begin to understand the fragility and decay of institutions exposed by COVID-19, we must also reflect deeply on how some institutions remained resilient. Here, extensive research is required to better understand the macro and micro-level factors that explain both survival and fragility. At the micro-level, for example, with healthcare workers fighting on the front lines around the world, grocery clerks holding up failing food systems, and Black poll workers defending the votes of vulnerable populations against anti-democratic mobs, COVID-19 has highlighted the underappreciated role of institutional custodians. These micro-level actors who undertake the ongoing work of institutional maintenance and renewal (Dacin and Dacin, 2008; Dacin et al., 2019) have been shown to be more essential than ever in light of COVID-19. The limited research on custodians to date has tended to focus on institutionally embedded actors (e.g., Lok and De Rond, 2013). Only recently has the lens shifted to a diverse set of heterogenous insiders and outsiders, both elites and marginalized populations, that may be required for institutional survival (Montgomery and Dacin, 2020).

COVID-19 highlights our need to understand much more deeply how and when collaboration across diverse actors and communities occurs (Hampel et al., 2017), as well as how ‘intersections across custodians, including the vulnerable, can be a source of institutional renewal and power’ (Montgomery and Dacin, 2020, p. 1480). To do so it is imperative that we expand our understanding of who is doing institutional work to shine a light on the oft overlooked communities who are a driving force behind custodianship. For example, studies show that BIPOC communities are more aware of and likely to vote on societal issues such as climate change (Ballew et al., 2020). This, combined with the exposure of vulnerable communities to the decay of institutions that promised equitable access – or, conversely, to the revival of unjust institutions – underlines that marginalized communities are essential custodians to explore more deeply in future research. Such research could attend to issues of power and agency in these communities as they mobilize to address fractures in existing ‘institutions that matter’ (Hampel et al., 2017). In answering these questions, we can build back the institutions that help create a more just and equitable society.

Build Better Institutions

It is well recognized that institutions may have a dark side, and be a cause of inequality (e.g., Amis et al., 2017). COVID-19 has further revealed and underlined the myriad of potential negative impacts of taken-for-granted beliefs and long-standing norms, and of the ways in which intuitional work and custodians can act in ways that may harm rather than help society. For example, as rioters at the USA’s Capitol Hill paraded notorious symbols of white supremacy through the halls, any student of institutions could not help but note how well they had taken on the lessons of institutional scholars. With micro-level community support and shared narratives, artifacts, and symbols, leaders of the Proud Boys and QAnon have renewed and reenergized an institution that once appeared to be in decline: white supremacy.

Similarly, COVID-19 and other zoonotic diseases are in no small part the product of an economic system that has ravaged ecosystems in the name of growth (Vidal, 2020). The inability of neo-liberal systems to tackle public goods failures has led to increasing calls for a rethinking of the institution of capitalism. From the ‘corporate purpose’ bandwagon, to attempts to ‘reimagine’ capitalism in a kinder and gentler form (Henderson, 2020), to outright calls to ‘burn down’ systems of oppression, there is no doubt that capitalism is no longer as taken-for-granted as it once was. With this institution, like white supremacy, we can expect custodians with vested interests in capitalism’s survival in its current state (e.g., fossil fuel companies, unregulated tech companies) to fight to maintain its current norms and legitimacy. In doing so, they will clash with movements such as Black Lives Matter, #MeToo, and the environmental movement seeking to challenge, change, expose the limits of, or deinstitutionalize institutions seen as causing harm.

Research that understands that institutions are not inert and certainly not always benign, will engender research questions that critically examine both the impacts and outcomes of institutions. Such research will allow us to better understand how institutions and their custodians work to inculcate and maintain systems of injustice such as racial, class, and gender biases. At the same time, we can ask how institutional custodians might work at micro-levels to dismantle institutions that no longer benefit society. Such research might ask what are the intersections between movements and institutions? Where are the leverage points for change? And what happens when institutions collide or reach their limits?

In doing so, future research must consider a way back to the tenets of the ‘old’ institutionalism and deeply consider how values play a crucial role in highlighting and shaping the moral foundation of institutions (Kraatz et al., 2020). Research on the weaknesses and leverage points of institutions will help us both in the efforts to support institutions society deems necessary, and to better break down and remove the legitimacy, deeply held norms, and taken-for-grantedness of those that are not seen as desirable. As management and organizations scholars, we might also turn this lens on ourselves, questioning how institutions impact the norms that undergird our research approaches and questions, including such ingrained notions as the necessity for growth, the benefits of competition, and the focus on financial measures of success. We might also ask if some of these institutionalized ideas have also outlived their usefulness?

In conclusion, we see COVID-19 and the events it has engendered as a siren call for researchers to seek to fully understand the institutions around us, the frailty of some we took for granted, and the deleterious consequences of others. First, it is imperative that we better understand how we can inclusively renew and rebuild the institutions we as a society value and wish to maintain: equitable and accessible healthcare, education, and democracy likely among them. Second, and equally as important, we must take a deep look at how day-to-day actions and inactions – including our own as academics and as individuals – are maintaining and renewing the very institutions that perpetuate inequality, injustice, and environmental devastation. In doing so, let us not simply ‘take for granted’ the norms and structures around us as we return to accepted norms, but build back better, more just, and more sustainable institutions. And, perhaps, ‘burn down’ a few.

中文翻译：

---

烧毁房屋：COVID-19 和机构

随着 2020 年初 COVID-19 大流行席卷全球，拥有强大医疗保健系统、公共行为规范和尊重法律的国家似乎正在走在前面。机构表现强劲。然而，不久之后，COVID-19 揭露了长期受信任的机构在公平照顾公民或维持公众信任方面的失败。制度被揭露不足或衰败。其中包括政府、公共卫生、教育、民主、宗教和科学等机构。在某些情况下，这些机构显得支离破碎和虚弱，而在其他情况下，随着市场逻辑的消退和国家逻辑的扩张，我们看到它们显得更加强大。新出现的名人，如博士。

在这篇评论中，我们研究了 COVID-19 在机构中暴露的漏洞；具体而言，长期以来被认为是强大和稳定的机构的脆弱性、熵、忽视和衰败。在大流行的严酷环境下，这意味着收入不平等加剧，获得公共服务（水、电）和基本生活必需品（医疗、住房、教育、食品）的机会不平等，以及相互交织的种族和性别不公正以及环境破坏的影响。我们认为 COVID-19 的影响以两个关键方式发挥了作用。首先，对机构日益严格的审查表明，许多长期以来被认为是强大的机构，实际上并非如此。多年的忽视削弱了制度结构，其中许多制度的基础建立在广泛和公平获取的理念之上。第二，

鉴于这些暴露的断层线，我们认为 COVID-19 向我们展示了研究的必要性，远远超出了解机构及其运作方式，而是更深入地研究其影响和结果。作为研究人员和公民，COVID-19 向我们表明，我们必须利用这个难得的机会深入了解“幕后”或“翡翠幕后”，仔细检查隐藏的内容，并批判性地检查机构是否在为社会服务。这样做，研究人员可以解开如何更新和重新激发有价值的机构，或拆除那些支持系统性社会和环境不公正的机构。我们呼吁重新制定机构研究议程，重点关注如何重建对社会至关重要的机构，以及建立更好的机构。

重建重要的机构

制度长期以来一直是社会的基础，因此，对制度的研究一直是我们目前对管理和组织的大部分理解的基础。由于 COVID-19 暴露了现代社会经济系统的潜在不平等和不公正（Munir，2021)，它也暴露了我们对制度本身的理论假设的脆弱性。虽然研究已经开始质疑机构在 COVID-19 之前很稳定的假设，但大流行的压力甚至对最明显持久的机构也带来了更多的审查。COVID-19 暴露和加剧的是，即使是许多被认为是基于公平获取的机构，例如基本公共服务，在数十年的机构衰败之后也遭到严重侵蚀。作为市场力量（Davis 和 Kim，2015) 已经削弱了医疗保健、教育和公用事业的基础，以及基于社区的媒体和科学资助，这些被削弱的机构现在也缺乏信任。这进一步限制了他们获得机构更新所需的“持续能源和资源”（Scott，2015 年，第 470 页）的可能性（Montgomery 和 Dacin，2020 年）。

当我们开始了解 COVID-19 暴露的机构的脆弱性和衰败性时，我们还必须深入反思一些机构如何保持弹性。在这里，需要进行广泛的研究，以更好地了解解释生存和脆弱性的宏观和微观因素。例如，在微观层面上，医护人员在世界各地奋战在前线，杂货店店员阻止失败的食品系统，黑人民意调查人员捍卫弱势群体的选票反对反民主暴徒，COVID-19 强调了机构保管人的作用被低估。这些承担着制度维护和更新工作的微观行为者（Dacin and Dacin, 2008 ; Dacin et al., 2019) 已被证明在 COVID-19 的情况下比以往任何时候都更加重要。迄今为止，对托管人的有限研究倾向于关注制度嵌入的参与者（例如，Lok 和 De Rond，2013 年）。直到最近，镜头才转向机构生存可能需要的各种不同的内部人员和外部人员，包括精英和边缘人群（Montgomery 和 Dacin，2020 年）。

COVID-19 凸显了我们需要更深入地了解不同参与者和社区之间的合作如何以及何时发生（Hampel 等人，2017 年），以及“包括弱势群体在内的监护人之间的交叉点如何成为制度更新的源泉”和权力”（蒙哥马利和达辛，2020 年，第 1480 页）。为此，我们必须扩大对谁在从事机构工作的理解，以揭示经常被忽视的社区，而这些社区是监管背后的推动力。例如，研究表明，BIPOC 社区更了解气候变化等社会问题，也更有可能投票（Ballew 等，2020）。这一点，再加上脆弱社区面临承诺公平获取的机构的衰败——或者相反，不公正机构的复兴——强调边缘化社区是在未来研究中进行更深入探索的重要监护人。此类研究可以解决这些社区的权力和代理问题，因为他们动员起来解决现有“重要机构”的断裂问题（Hampel 等，2017 年）。在回答这些问题时，我们可以重建有助于创造一个更加公正和公平的社会的机构。

建立更好的机构

众所周知，制度可能有阴暗面，是造成不平等的原因（例如，Amis 等，2017 年）。COVID-19 进一步揭示并强调了理所当然的信念和长期存在的规范的无数潜在负面影响，以及直觉工作和监护人可能以可能伤害而不是帮助社会的方式行事的方式。例如，当美国国会山的暴徒在大厅里炫耀臭名昭著的白人至上的象征时，任何机构的学生都会不禁注意到他们对机构学者的课程的接受程度。凭借微观社区的支持和共享的叙事、人工制品和符号，骄傲男孩和 QAnon 的领导人重新振兴了一个曾经似乎正在衰落的机构：白人至上。

同样，COVID-19 和其他人畜共患病在很大程度上是经济系统以增长的名义破坏生态系统的产物（Vidal，2020 年）。新自由主义体系无法解决公共产品失败的问题，导致人们越来越多地呼吁重新思考资本主义制度。从“企业目标”的潮流，到试图以更友善、更温和的形式“重新构想”资本主义（Henderson，2020 年）)，对于“烧毁”压迫制度的直接呼吁，毫无疑问，资本主义不再像以前那样想当然了。有了这个制度，就像白人至上一样，我们可以期待在当前状态下对资本主义的生存拥有既得利益的托管人（例如，化石燃料公司、不受监管的科技公司）争取维持其当前的规范和合法性。在这样做时，他们将与 Black Lives Matter、#MeToo 等运动以及寻求挑战、改变、揭露被视为造成伤害的机构的局限性或去机构化的环境运动发生冲突。

了解制度不是惰性的，当然也不总是良性的研究，将产生批判性地考察制度的影响和结果的研究问题。此类研究将使我们能够更好地了解机构及其监护人如何灌输和维护诸如种族、阶级和性别偏见等不公正制度。同时，我们可以问，机构托管人如何在微观层面上工作，以拆除不再有益于社会的机构。这样的研究可能会问运动和制度之间的交叉点是什么？变革的杠杆点在哪里？当机构发生冲突或达到极限时会发生什么？

为此，未来的研究必须考虑回归“旧”制度主义的原则，并深入考虑价值观如何在突出和塑造制度的道德基础方面发挥关键作用（Kraatz 等，2020）。研究制度的弱点和杠杆点将有助于我们努力支持社会认为必要的制度，并更好地分解和消除合法性、根深蒂固的规范以及那些不被视为理所当然的制度。可取。作为管理和组织学者，我们也可能把这个镜头转向自己，质疑制度如何影响支撑我们研究方法和问题的规范，包括诸如增长的必要性、竞争的好处和对财务措施的关注等根深蒂固的观念的成功。我们可能还会问，这些制度化的想法是否也已经不再有用？

总之，我们认为 COVID-19 及其引发的事件是研究人员寻求充分了解我们周围机构、我们认为理所当然的一些机构的脆弱性以及其他机构的有害后果的警笛号召。首先，我们必须更好地了解我们如何能够包容性地更新和重建我们作为一个社会重视并希望维护的机构：其中可能包括公平和可及的医疗保健、教育和民主。其次，同样重要的是，我们必须深入审视日常的作为和不作为——包括我们作为学者和个人的作为——如何维持和更新使不平等、不公正和环境破坏长期存在的制度。在这样做的过程中，让我们不要在回归公认的规范时简单地将我们周围的规范和结构“视为理所当然”，但要重建更好、更公正、更可持续的机构。并且，也许，“烧毁”一些。