Traditions as Institutionalized Practice: Implications for ... Dacin...Traditions as...

Traditions as InstitutionalizedPractice: Implications for

Deinstitutionalization

M. Tina Dacin and Peter A. Dacin

Institutional theory provides a powerful lensfor explaining individual and collectiveaction. Recently, increased efforts towardsunderstanding how institutions are createdhave led to a systematic development ofideas on institutional entrepreneurship andattention to processes and mechanisms ofinstitutional construction. Despite this growing rise of interest in how institutionsare created, we still know relatively littleabout the process of deinstitutionalization.Many questions remain concerning howinstitutions wax and wane or diminish inpotency over time and the processes thatshape the erosion and extinction of institu-tionalized practices.

While a few studies examine institutionaldecline within the framework or boundariesof studying institutional change (Dacin,Goodstein, & Scott, 2002), efforts to unpackthe strategies and dynamics associated withextinction are lacking. Scott defines deinsti-tutionalization as the ‘process by which insti-tutions weaken and disappear’ (2001: 182).Important theorizing on deinstitutionali-zation was put forth by Oliver (1992).Oliver’s framework was the first to pay explicit attention to the erosion andextinction of institutionalized practices.

The framework proposed that the dissipationor rejection of an institutionalized practicewas a result of a set of political, functional,and social pressures. The dissipation or rejec-tion then leads to deinstitutionalization,which, in turn, leads to erosion and/or extinc-tion. For Oliver, deinstitutionalization is ‘theprocess by which the legitimacy of an estab-lished or institutionalized organizationalpractice erodes or discontinues’ (1992: 564).

A number of studies examine processes ofdecline and erosion, including erosion viareplacement as in the case of classic Frenchcuisine (Rao, Monin, & Durand, 2003); strat-egy abandonment in radio formats (Greve,1995), ideological and political obsolescenceof CEOs with finance backgrounds (Ocasio& Kim, 1999), impact of downsizing in dein-stitutionalizing permanent employment prac-tices in Japan (Ahmadjian & Robinson,2001), and the shedding and shunning of theconglomerate form (Davis, Diekmann, &Tinsley, 1994). An interesting observationfrom these studies, however, is that institu-tionalized practices are rarely ever com-pletely extinguished. The practice continuesalbeit weaker in scope (extent of diffusion) orpotency. These studies also suggest that vari-ous features or elements of institutionalized

12

9781412931236-Ch12 5/19/08 4:13 PM Page 327

behaviors continue and serve as either areminder of prior strategies and/or as rawmaterial for the construction of new ones. We take these findings as a starting point forour chapter to understand the nature of tradi-tions and how traditions erode and becomeextinguished. As we discuss below, we focuson traditions because, while they share commonalities with institutionalized prac-tice, they also have some unique qualitiesthat make them relevant for understandingdeinstitutionalization.

In order to understand the process bywhich traditions erode, we summarize arecent illustration of a single tradition in anorganizational setting and its evolution overtime. We consider traditions to be institution-alized practices or collections of such prac-tices and subsequently focus on developingimplications for understanding the process ofdeinstitutionalization. We do this through anapplication and extension of Oliver’s frame-work of deinstitutionalization in the contextof examining the life history of a single tra-dition over time. Before presenting our casestudy, we want to clarify what we mean bytraditions and how they erode. Towards theend of our chapter, we demonstrate how ourstory reveals important insights for under-standing the erosion and extinction of institu-tionalized practices.

The tradition we examine in this chapter isTexas A&M University’s ‘Aggie Bonfire,’ atradition that existed for a period of 90 years.As we later explain, we chose this traditionbecause it is a rich tradition that underwent aprocess of deinstitutionalization and fits wellwithin the context of Oliver’s (1992) deinsti-tutionalization framework. The case of theAggie Bonfire is especially rich in helping usto unpack the nature of organizational tradi-tions and implications for the study ofchange in institutionalized practices. It hasbeen studied by scholars in management(Beyer & Nino, 2000) as well as culturalgeography (Smith, 2004) and described inrich detail by journalist Irwin Tang (2000).

The insights we gain from our understand-ing of the deinstitutionalization of Bonfire

will also allow us to offer several contributionstowards a fuller and richer understanding ofdeinstitutionalization. First, in order tounderstand the processes that contributed tothe decline of tradition and institutionalizedpractices of Bonfire, we bring together liter-ature from work on culture, social move-ments, and institutions.

Second, we are able to extend Oliver’s(1992) framework in important ways by highlighting the roles played by custo-dians (Soares, 1997), collective memory(Hawlbachs, 1950; Zerubavel, 1997), collec-tive identity and ritual in preserving institu-tionalized practices as well as distinguishbetween core and ancillary institutionaldimensions and the role they play in the ero-sion of an institutionalized practice. We fur-ther suggest that this erosion leaves behindan institutional ‘remnant’1 which forms theraw material for the emergence of new insti-tutional practices or re-emergence of oldinstitutional practices. As long as there existremnants, an institutionalized practice isnever extinguished or completely deinstitu-tionalized. Finally, we suggest several direc-tions for future work in this area with aparticular focus on the strategic managementof traditions.

We begin by summarizing existing viewson the nature of traditions and relate these views to institutionalized practices.Following this, we briefly review Oliver’s(1992) framework for deinstitutionalizationand then apply this framework in the histori-cally rich case of the Aggie Bonfire, a casethat demonstrates the evolution and erosionof a single tradition over time. We then illus-trate how the understanding we gain throughthis case study allows us to offer both anapplication and extension of Oliver’s (1992)framework of deinstitutionalization.

THE NATURE OF TRADITIONS

Traditions are important across many con-texts. Think of military and religious tradi-tions or the tradition of Christmas and

328 THE SAGE HANDBOOK OF ORGANIZATIONAL INSTITUTIONALISM

9781412931236-Ch12 5/19/08 4:13 PM Page 328

Thanksgiving. There are scientific traditions(see Kuhn, 1962, for example) and oral tradi-tions as well as industry orthodoxies or tradi-tional ways of doing business. Traditionshave been widely studied in sociology,anthropology, cultural geography, politicalscience and marketing.

A brief summary of more recent work ontraditions can be found in Soares (1997). ForSoares, there exist several themes or viewsthat define much of the work on the nature oftraditions. Drawing on ideas by Freud andMarx, traditions are conceived as restraintsor the constraining hand from the past thatdefines and limits current action. A secondview of tradition is tradition as taken forgranted or unreflective habit as found in thewritings of Weber. However, Soares (1997:10) notes that Weber’s position on traditionhas a tendency to equate tradition and cus-toms. Soares views the two constructs asquite distinct in that while customs involveunreflective habit, traditions, on the otherhand, possess a collective memory and a setof custodians aware of the past.

A third view is provided by Shils (1981)who has written the most extensive treatmenton the subject of understanding tradition. ForShils, the study of tradition was largelyignored by mainstream sociology. Shils’sview of traditions is to think of them as asource of continuity with the past or as cultural ‘inheritance.’ The notion is quitebroad and could mean anything that is passeddown or inherited to the present. For Shils,traditions incorporate a variety of beliefs,objects, memories, imagery, practices andinstitutions (1981: 12). Shils introduces tra-dition as something that has exemplars orcustodians, not so much because of its priorexistence but possibly also because it has a‘quality of pastness’ that appeals to currentpractitioners (1981: 13). Therefore, in orderfor traditions to be successfully transmittedand repeated, it is likely necessary that theyalso need to be authentic or genuine (Sapir,1949)2 in order to be accepted or taken forgranted as appropriate and legitimate. WhileShils (1981) acknowledges the introduction

of variation in traditions over time, he alsoregards traditions as having an invariant coreand as being intergenerational. He also sug-gests that a practice has to survive at leastthree generations in order for it to be consid-ered a tradition. In Shils’s view, as traditionsevolve the accumulation or removal of newelements leave other aspects relativelyunchanged. Take, for example, the traditionof convocation. Convocation is a traditionwith multiple elements, some core and someancillary. Convocation involves a number ofelements such as having one’s name calledout, receiving a diploma as well as the pro-cession, granting of an honorary doctorate,and various material and symbolic elementssuch as the adornment of a convocation gownand the various colors observed in convoca-tion hoods and caps. Some of these elementstake on greater or lesser meaning (potency)and evolve into core elements in a particularcontext based on region, profession, or pastpractice. However, there are also some elements widely shared or core across allconvocations (scope).

Elements of a given tradition are passeddown to successive generations. The invari-ant core of a tradition provides impetus andresources for future generations to accept andenact a tradition. The transmitted materialcan take the form of a combination of coreand ancillary elements in the form of ‘rem-nants’ – a limited amount of raw material thatcan form the basis for reinventing existingtraditions or constructing new ones.3 Thiscore or essence can take the form of anumber of elements, including but not lim-ited to a name, an identity, location, activityor imagery. A sense of identity with the pastevolves and a sense of community or collec-tive identity with the present emerges (Shils,1981: 14). There are important normativeimplications of traditions as they provide notonly continuity between the past and presentbut define what is deemed appropriate in thepresent. An irony of traditions, as studiedfrom Shils’s view, is that while traditionsplace limits or constraints on what can bechanged or how things change, traditions

TRADITIONS AS INSTITUTIONALIZED PRACTICE 329

9781412931236-Ch12 5/19/08 4:13 PM 29

themselves are continuously evolving andchanging.

Hobsbawm (1983) provides a fourth viewof understanding tradition by regarding themas invented. Hobsbawm builds on the idea ofcontinuity but provides a different rationalefor the construction of traditions in that theyare created by elites that construct them toassert and reify their power. Hobsbawm alsoexamines the process of how traditions are‘invented’ as well as how they change.Innovations and redesign of traditions comeabout as a result of a change in practicesfueled by the interests of those in power. For Hobsbawm, traditions are an invariant,repetitive set of symbolic activities rooted inthe past:

a set of practices, normally governed by overtly or tacitly accepted rules and of a ritual or symbolicnature, which seek to inculcate certain values and norms of behaviour by repetition, which automatically implies continuity with the past.(Hobsbawm, 1984: 1)

Soares raises an important critique regardingHobsbawm’s work, in that his defini-tion makes it difficult to distinguish thenotion of tradition from ritual. According toSoares, Hobsbawm’s contribution was toallow for a clearer delineation between traditions and customs in that traditions aremore stable structures, whereas customsevolve to fulfill more pragmatic needs(Soares, 1997: 11).

Soares (1997) builds on this earlier workand provides a valuable extension for understanding the nature of tradition morebroadly. Soares provides the following definition:

a living social tradition requires a distinct socialgroup with a common identity derived from aninterpretation of its past, whose collective memo-ries have some objective expression in the materialenvironment, and whose activities are guided by aspirit of continuity. (1997: 16)

Especially relevant for our discussion is that both Shils (1981) and Soares (1997) give explicit attention to the role of custodi-ans in preserving and enhancing traditions.4

Custodians are exemplars or practitioners of a

given tradition linked by collective memories.Custodians value their inheritance and ‘feel asense of custodianship for the tradition’spresent and future prospects’ (Soares, 1997:14). Soares views traditions as ‘a resourcewarehouse for the living’ (1997: 15) and isthe most dynamic approach to understandingthe nature of traditions. In his view, the pastprovides values and solutions that can bemobilized to deal with today’s problems.

TRADITIONS AS INSTITUTIONALIZEDPRACTICES

We conceive of traditions as a constructresiding at the intersection of institutionaltheory, as well as scholarly work on cultureand social movements, in that they draw upon values, the normative implications and mobilization of such values and value-laden structures, and are oftentimes muchmore stable and enduring than customs orconventions. In this chapter, our focus ismore on, as Soares put it, ‘living social’ tra-ditions and traditions that are organizationalin nature.

It is relatively easy from a review of themore extensive treatments of tradition in theliterature (Hobsbawm & Ranger, 1984; Shils,1981) to identify a number of characteristicsthat define organizational traditions. Theyare infused with value and meaning and areoftentimes associated with myths or narra-tives about their creation or continued exis-tence. They are repositories of collectivememories and identities, building socialcohesion via symbols and/or ritual as well asshared experiences or imagined communities(Andersen, 1991). They involve resourcemobilization and utilization and are pro-tected and enhanced by custodians.Traditions imply continuity and thus arequite stable, enduring, and repetitive.Traditions can be broad or narrow in scope(global versus more local or regional tradi-tions) in terms of their diffusion and con-sumption, as well as vary in potency over


9781412931236-Ch12 5/19/08 4:13 PM Page 330

time and place. Finally, traditions also have atemporal dimension (Zerubavel, 1997).

Given this broad range of dimensions,characteristics and components, we believe it is useful to think of traditions and considertheir evolution in three important ways. First,we regard traditions as institutionalized orga-nizational behaviors or practices. Accordingto Oliver (1992), ‘institutionalized organiza-tional behaviors’ are ‘stable, repetitive andenduring activities’ º ‘infused with value,’repetitive and resistant to change.5 However,we relax the assumption that institutionalizedpractices are ‘taken-for-granted’ as thismakes traditions more akin to customs orconventions. Given our earlier summary ofwork on traditions, we concur that traditionsare much more than unreflective habit and infact are created and managed by mindful custodians.

Second, we agree that traditions changefrequently in that they adapt to suit the needs of ‘the living’ or the needs of the present (Hobsbawm, 1984; Shils, 1981;Soares, 1997). Consequently, we also relax the assumption that institutionalized prac-tices are highly resistant to change. Weaddress the issue of institutional stability andendurance by distinguishing between coreand ancillary elements of traditions. At thefield level, DiMaggio (1988) notes the pres-ence of core and subsidiary institutions.Following Shils (1981), we think of tradi-tions as collections and/or containers of coreand ancillary micro-institutions and culturalelements that may include symbols, materialobjects, myths, custodians, rituals, temporalqualities as well as collective identities andmemories.

By making the distinction between coreand ancillary elements we are able to theo-rize about core and enduring qualities of tra-ditions versus those that are more malleableyet in some ways relatively ancillary. Thisdistinction allows us to consider both erosionand persistence of institutionalized practicesas well as consider changes in scope andpotency of institutionalized practices overtime. For us, the core elements of traditions

consist of an interconnected pattern of mean-ings, custodians, collective memories, andsome but not all ritualized activities.

In this chapter we are interested in expand-ing our understanding of how institutional-ized practices erode and extinguish. Webelieve that understanding the evolution oftraditions will further our understanding ofinstitutional change and deinstitutionaliza-tion. We next examine how traditionsbecome extinguished.

ENHANCING, ERODING ANDEXTINGUISHING TRADITIONS:THEORETICAL FOUNDATIONS

In this chapter we pay special attention toprocesses associated with change and its outcome on the evolution of traditions as insti-tutionalized practices. We contend that adap-tation or change in institutionalized practicesmay result in either erosion or enhancement.As we demonstrate in our case study below,the tradition of the Aggie Bonfire changed frequently but those changes served manypurposes, including both the erosion andenhancement of its potency over time.

One theoretical starting point for examin-ing outcomes that result from changes in tra-ditions is deinstitutionalization, or ‘theprocess by which institutions weaken anddisappear’ (Scott, 2001: 1982). Oliver (1992)applied deinstitutionalization to specificactivities or practices that appear institution-alized in organizations. Her framework forthe deinstitutionalization of institutionalizedpractices suggests that dissipation or rejec-tion of institutionalized practices is driven bypolitical, functional, and/or social pressuresthat lead to deinstitutionalization (Figure12.1). If these pressures lead to a gradualdeterioration in the acceptance and use of aninstitutionalized practice, Oliver terms thisprocess to be dissipation. The decline infreemasonry or volunteerism would be anexample of dissipation of an institutionalizedpractice (Putnam, 2000).


9781412931236-Ch12 5/19/08 4:13 PM Page 331

Both entropy pressures and inertial pres-sures moderate the rate of dissipation.Entropy consists of pressures that acceleratethe process of deinstitutionalization whileinertia consists of pressures that impede it.On the other hand, if the validity of the insti-tutionalized practice is directly challengedwe could have rejection rather than dissipa-tion of the practice. As a result of dissipationor rejection the practice could become dein-stitutionalized, which then leads to its erosionor discontinuity.

With respect to the three antecedents,Oliver (1992) suggests that political pres-sures occur as a result of the utility or legiti-macy of the practice being called intoquestion. This tends to occur under condi-tions of mounting performance crises, thegrowth in the criticality or representation oforganizational members whose interest orbeliefs conflict with the status quo, increasedpressures on the organization to adopt innovative practices, and/or the reduction inthe dependence on the institutional con-stituents that have encouraged or enforcedcontinuing procedural conformity with theirexpectations.

The second antecedent, functional pres-sure, exists when changes to the perceivedutility or technical instrumentality of a practice occur, or when there is redistributionin organizational power. Oliver (1992) iden-tifies this antecedent as having an effectunder a variety of conditions, including wheninstitutional constituents in the environment

withdraw the rewards associated with sus-taining an institutionalized organizationalactivity, when social and economic criteria of organizational success begin toconflict significantly with one another,and/or when the organization experiences anincrease in its technical specificity or goalclarity.

The third antecedent, social pressures, rep-resents a condition under which an organiza-tion is neither a proactive agent ofdeinstitutionalization nor centrally intent onabandoning or rejecting particular institu-tional traditions. According to Oliver (1992),social pressures include increasing normativefragmentation within an organization as abyproduct of other organizational changes,disruptions to the organization’s historicalcontinuity, changes in state laws for societalexpectations that prohibit or discourage theperpetuation of an institutional practice,and/or lower structural changes to the organ-ization or the environment within which theorganization resides that disaggregate collec-tive norms and values.

In addition to the work in the deinstitution-alization literature, the literature on traditionsprovides additional insights into variousresponses to these pressures that may occur.For example, as Oliver (1992) notes, institu-tional practices can cease to have value orutility for either their custodians or practi-tioners, as a result of political, functional orsocial pressures. When this occurs in the con-text of a tradition, Shils (1981) suggests that


Deinstitution-alizaton

Politicalpressure

Functionalpressure

Socialpressure

Dissipationand rejection

Entropy

Inertia

Erosion ordiscontinuity

Figure 12.1 A deinstitutionalization framework – Oliver (1992)

9781412931236-Ch12 5/19/08 4:13 PM Page 332

custodians and practitioners may react byloosening their acceptance of or adherence tothe tradition.

Traditions can deteriorate in the sense of losingtheir adherents because their possessors cease topresent them or because those who once receivedand reenacted and extended them now preferother lines of conduct or because new generationsto which they were presented find other traditionsof belief or some relatively new beliefs moreacceptable. (1981: 15)

The literature on traditions suggests that asecond type of response to political, func-tional and social pressures may be one ofovercorrection as custodians and practition-ers attempt to reframe or revise elements thathave become problematic or inconsistentover time (Shils, 1981). Changes in tradi-tions, however, could also lead to increasingcomplexity, making transmission of the tra-dition increasingly difficult and imperfect.Another type of reaction to changes in regu-lative, normative, and cognitive dimensionsof the tradition is one of significant decou-pling between the symbol and substanceand/or performance of traditions. In the con-text of strategic responses to institutionalpressure, Oliver (1991) describes thisresponse as avoidance. Finally, reactions tothese pressures may also lead to the emer-gence of countervailing social movements tomobilize resources and momentum eitheragainst or for the tradition. An interestingand more recent example of this would beefforts mobilizing worldwide support andadvocacy for the promotion of slow food(Rao & Giorgi, 2006) or the decline of foisgras (DeSoucey, 2006). The popular press inMarketing is rife with attention on the rise of‘counter-culture’ movements against tradi-tion. Integrating the tradition’s literature into our understanding of the enhancement,erosion and extinction of institution-alized practices allows us to extend Oliver’s(1992) framework to include some additionalinsight as to the various responses that mayoccur as a result of political, functional and social pressures. We also believe thatinsights on traditions help us to unpack the

process of dissipation. In particular, thereexist several mechanisms through which dis-sipation can occur. These mechanismsinclude assimilation, dilution, disembedding,competition and erasure.

Assimilation involves being absorbed intoa new tradition. Shils (1981) describes howRoman religion ceases to exist yet some ofits elements have been synthesized or incor-porated into modern Christianity (p. 25).Dilution involves adding or importing newelements into a given tradition or expansionof the core elements till it is difficult, com-plex, or involves changes in value for custo-dians or practitioners (declining for somewhile increasing for others) of the tradition.Cherlin (2004) describes the weakening ofsocial norms defining the idea and practice ofmarriage. Recent debates over the definitionof marriage in North America point to thepotential dilution of the meaning of the prac-tice but also shed light on the changing valueof this practice for various custodians orpractitioners of the tradition.

Disembedding involves disconnecting ordismantling core elements from each otherinsomuch as there is no longer a definable or‘interconnected’ pattern of tradition or insti-tutionalized practice (Jepperson, 1991).Competition involves the presence of othertraditions that vie for the attention and sup-port of key constituents. These competingalternatives present conflicting claims andare referred to by Shils (1981) as ‘alien’ innature. The potential for institutional colli-sions as a result of competing traditions isexacerbated when the potency of custodian-ship is weak, collective memory is scarce,and multiple identities prevent solidarity ofpractice. Erasure, while rare, involvesremoval or replacement of core elementssuch as core rituals or collective memories.Examples would include attempts by mediaor historians to revise history.

By integrating several approaches and the-ories about institutionalized practices andtraditions, we are able to extend Oliver’s(1992) framework in several ways. Thisallows us to clarify different responses to the


9781412931236-Ch12 5/19/08 4:13 PM Page 333

various antecedent pressures for deinstitu-tionalization. From a strategic perspective,doing this also provides some insights forexamining how these different responses, inturn, affect dissipation or rejection. Ourextension also allows us to unpack the notionof dissipation, thus providing some insight asto the various underlying mechanismsthrough which dissipation of traditions andother institutionalized practices occur.Finally, the integration allows us to introducethe notion of an ‘institutional remnant’ thatsuggests that, even after a tradition or institu-tionalized practice appears to have eroded,there may be sufficient remnants of the original tradition to lead to a new tradition, or a re-invention or even re-emergence of the original tradition or institutionalizedpractice.

TEXAS A&M UNIVERSITY:A CASE STUDY

Texas A&M University is a public institutionfounded in 1876 in College Station, Texas. Inthe early days, the University had an undefinedmission and was ‘all-male and all-military’(Jacobs, 2002: 13). It wasn’t until after 1891that the University President declared militarytraining as part of its central mission (Jacobs,2002). The students, known as Aggies, areknown for their spirit and camaraderie.

It is currently one of the largest academicinstitutions in the United States with a cur-rent enrollment of over 46,000 students andan endowment valued at over 4 billion USdollars (www.tamu.edu). As a consequenceof early state politics and fights over fundingand mandate (Jacobs, 2002; Smith, 2004;Tang, 2000), the University developed a culture that distrusted outsiders. Due to state politics and football, Texas A&M has developed a fierce rivalry with theUniversity of Texas at Austin over time.While the University of Texas at Austin hada broader mandate that included a broad,arts- and science-based curriculum, Texas

A&M, in contrast, had an agricultural and amechanical engineering focus.

Traditions play a central role at theUniversity. In fact, Tang (2000: 7) notes that‘Traditions, and the value of Tradition, dictateTexas A&M culture.’6 The University has sev-eral traditions based around remembrance,symbols, team spirit, and building community,Corps of Cadets, and various class councils(http://aggietraditions.tamu.edu/). Some ofthese traditions are relatively more recentwhile others have been in existence for over100 years. For example, Big Event, a largestudent service project, was started in 1982while Muster, a remembrance to those whohave passed, began in 1883.

From its inception, Texas A&M sought toestablish itself as a distinctive institution bypriding itself that it offered its students whatcame to be known as the ‘other’ education.As a result of its military heritage or the needto establish its distinctiveness from theUniversity of Texas at Austin, A&M prideditself on its ability to provide opportunitiesfor its students to build character and acquireleadership skills. One of these opportunitieswas the Aggie Bonfire, regarded by many asthe largest student organized project in theUnited States.

THE TRADITION OF AGGIE BONFIRE

The case of the Aggie Bonfire is especiallyrich in helping us to unpack the nature oforganizational traditions and implications forthe study of change in institutionalized prac-tices. The evolution of the Bonfire tradition isa story occurring over a period of 90 yearsfrom its emergence in 1909 to its significantdeinstitutionalization in 2002. Our historicaldescription and analyses are based on anextensive review of public documents andarchival news sources7. We synthesized his-torical data and key insights into an extensiveset of notes, timelines and tables in order tomake sense of and validate the informationcollected.


9781412931236-Ch12 5/19/08 4:13 PM Page 334

Many university campuses light bonfiresbut the Aggie Bonfire is distinctive because itwas the largest and most complex student-run project in the United States (Tang, 2000).It is said that the construction of the Bonfirestructure involves more than 125,000 hoursof student time with about 70,000 individualsturning out to observe the final ritual of Burn(Jacobs, 2002).

Bonfire can be regarded as a ritualized tra-dition (Smith, 2004) consisting of myth andmeaning systems, custodians, central andperipheral rituals, as well as collective mem-ories shared among custodians and key con-stituents. At Texas A&M University, atradition of Bonfire is inextricably linked tofootball. The Aggie Bonfire grew to be morethan a mere fire. Of all the traditions at TexasA&M University, the Bonfire was regardedas the most central and important (Tang,2000). Bonfire’s purpose was to maintain andinstill loyalty as well as provide a symbolrepresentative of the rivalry with theUniversity of Texas at Austin. Bonfire wasregarded as being representative of the‘Aggie Spirit’ and for the first 50 or so yearswent largely unquestioned.

Bonfire fulfilled numerous needs of thestudent body. It allowed students to forgefriendships, vent aggression, and demon-strate courage. In other words, it provided agood training ground for the other educationthat A&M deemed shaped its unique charac-ter. While numbers vary, it is estimated thatmore than 6000–8000 trees are cut each yearto build Bonfire (Jacobs, 2002). Thousandsof spectators (students, former students andmembers of the local community) turn out towatch the fire burn. There was no writtenconstruction plan or blueprint nor was thereany professional supervision. There was,however, an elaborate, hierarchical organiza-tion that guided the practice of the Bonfiretradition each year. This structure was largelypatriarchal (consisting of men in leadershiproles) and intergenerational. At the top of theBonfire hierarchy were a group of senior students known as Red Pots. These Red Pots would pass along knowledge to other

members of the Bonfire hierarchy. A fresh-man entering the university would grab theattention of someone more senior in theBonfire organization by doing somethingrisky or brazen during the rituals associatedwith Cut or Stack. Once noticed, this studentwould be selected to take on increasingresponsibility in future years.

Over the years, three rituals had becomecentral to Bonfire – Cut, Stack, and Burn.Each of these rituals contained its own set ofactivities, thus each served as a meta-ritual.Cut involved gathering the necessary logsstarting in early October. The ritual known asStack involved assembling the logs into whatwill become the Bonfire. Push was part ofStack and occurred for the two weeks prior toBurn. The push is to finish with studentsworking round the clock in shifts to ensurethe Bonfire is built on time. The ritual ofBurn occurs on the night preceding theannual football game with the University ofTexas.

As mentioned, within each of the core rit-uals of Cut, Stack, and Burn, there were sev-eral activities or ancillary elementsassociated with the tradition. For example,‘groding’ involved being thrown in mud atthe construction site with food and/or feceswhile others went unshaven or unwashed forweeks as a means of demonstrating one’sloyalty or devotion to the tradition and to theAggie spirit (Smith, 2004: 42). On the nightof Burn, the Aggie Band, Yell Leaders, andRed Pots paraded around the Bonfire, in turn.The Red Pots, the last to circle Bonfire,would carry the torches that would set fire to the structure. The fire, helped along by 700 gallons of diesel fuel soaked into thelogs was visible for quite a distance.

In the remainder of this case study, webreak down our examination of the evolutionof the Aggie Bonfire over four distinct peri-ods. By doing so, we are able to track theevolution of this tradition on a variety ofimportant dimensions and relate our insightsdirectly to Oliver’s (1992) framework fordeinstitutionalization. We pay particularattention to the essence, custodians, rituals,


9781412931236-Ch12 5/19/08 4:13 PM Page 335

myths/stories, symbols and physical artifacts,as well as changes in place and temporality.We also provide insight into the changingnature of the organization in which the tradi-tion was embedded by summarizing the char-acter of the organization, its key constituents,key success factors, and strategic arenas.With respect to Oliver’s framework, we willdemonstrate how these dimensions relate tothe antecedent pressures, entropy and inertiathat comprise the framework.

Period 1: the tradition emerges(1909–1942)

According to several sources (Dethloff,1976; Jacobs, 2002; and especially Tang,2000) the Aggie Bonfire began in 1909 as aprank to arouse interest and excitement in anupcoming Texas A&M – University of Texasat Austin football game. The tradition aroseout of humble beginnings. The first Bonfirecomprised a pile of scrap wood and trashboxes gathered from all over campus, anddeposited in a central gathering place. At this time, A&M was a military college, so theparade ground served as a symbolic center-piece for events.

The participants were primarily studentsand events around Bonfire were primarily apep rally. In these early years, the bonfirewas relatively small in nature (about 10–12feet high) and bore resemblance to a pile oftrash. In 1915, the Aggies beat UT-Austin ina legendary game and a bonfire of trash anddry good boxes was spontaneously con-structed and burned after the game but thistime in the streets of Bryan, a nearby town.The intensity of the fire exploded the pave-ment beneath the bonfire, but the communityfelt that it was really nothing and could easilybe remedied. This was the first time the com-munity had any involvement in Bonfire. Thiswas also the only time Bonfire was built afterthe game and not held on the A&M campus.

For the next 25 or so Bonfires, studentsand community members were asked tosupply boards and boxes. By the 1930s this

appeal for burning material expanded toinvolve the state and the railroad companieswho helped to bring in wood and boxes fromall over the state.

In 1933, following a complaint from afarmer that students had dismantled and car-ried off his log barn, an order was issued in1936 that ‘no one would be allowed to collectBonfire materials or place them on Bonfireother than authorized personnel’ and that thebuilding of Bonfire would be under the direc-tion of the Commandant. It was also in thisyear that A&M received permission toremove dead trees from a nearby field inwhich an airport had been built. For the nextsix years Bonfire continued to take on manyforms under the direction of theCommandant, but it remained primarily a‘trash pile.’

In these early years, the Bonfire traditionwas tightly coupled with the university’sgoals and identity. In these early years, theUniversity’s focus of attention was largelydirected inward towards the preservation ofits distinctive character and goals. Bonfireepitomized this distinctiveness and grew inimportance within the University. The tradi-tions at Texas A&M, and the tradition ofBonfire in particular, produced importantoutcomes. Bonfire provided an importantvehicle for the early custodians, the Corps ofCadets, to establish their power and legiti-macy on the campus and in the community.As keepers of the tradition, the Corps couldbe regarded as the key custodians of thisimportant tradition. These custodians workedto promote and preserve the role of traditionsat the University. As noted by Jacobs’s recenthistory of the Corps at Texas A&M:

The Cadets began to bond and, in turn, to fostertraditions – some born out of boredom and bullssessions, but most derived from respect, loyalty,and values that came with a conservative, militarylifestyle. (Jacobs, 2002: 14)

The power of the Corps of Cadets at theUniversity is critical in understanding theevolution of Bonfire as well as other tradi-tions that define the campus and serve to dis-tinguish it from other organizations. In fact,


9781412931236-Ch12 5/19/08 4:13 PM Page 336

as recently as 1993 and according to the BlueRibbon Committee on the Corps, they had aprominent and central role on the Universitycampus:

The Corps of Cadets remains a vital and relevantpart of the overall University community today,both as the ‘keeper’ of many of the University’scherished traditions and as a repository and cham-pion of values that make Aggies and Texas A&Mtruly unique. (Adams, 2001: 264)

During this period, except for minor inci-dents, Bonfire faced few if any pressures. Infact, the community was willing to accept theminor incidents and contributed by helpingin the gathering of items for Bonfire. Duringthis period, the activities around Bonfire con-tinued to evolve, the core elements began totake shape and the ancillary elements werefocused on establishing the core elements.The reactions to the various incidents allserved to further entrench the Corps and itsCommandant as the custodians of Bonfirewith the community and, by the end of theperiod, the State, reinforcing and legitimiz-ing this role. In essence, any pressuresincluding entropy were quickly counteredthrough the Commandant’s garnering morecontrol over Bonfire and thus establishing apoint of responsibility so that it was nolonger just a ‘prank’ by students, but becamea legitimized organized practice that hadbecome institutionalized.

While recent ideas on institutional entre-preneurship have tended to focus on the pres-ence of purposeful action in constructinginstitutions we observe that they can alsoemerge from humble beginnings or out ofserendipity.

Period 2: entrenchment (1942–1963)

By 1942 it was clear that Bonfire had under-gone a distinct transformation to a very military-like activity which began a long his-tory of building bigger and better Bonfires.The addition of a center pole (a log stuck intothe ground supporting other logs stackedagainst it) allowed the height to reach 50 feet

by 1946. Local filling stations donated hun-dreds of gallons of oil to saturate the logs and assist in their lighting. As the Commandantwas now securely in charge, flow charts and instructions as to who was in charge andthe chain of command became the norm. To prevent early lighting or vandalism by University of Texas students theCommandant ordered eighteen 24-hourguards posted, organized in several ringswith orders that no one be allowed into theinnermost rings without clearance. By 1954the Bonfire reached 73 feet tall.

In 1955 the first Bonfire-associated deathoccurred when a Cadet at a guard postpushed another student out of the way of anoncoming truck, was hit himself and laterdied of his injuries. By this time, the numberof individuals involved in Bonfire was quitelarge and the military traditions aroundBonfire were evolving, including the postingof guards as well as the first ‘war hero’ who‘died in action.’

Soggy ground in 1956, as a result ofsteady rain, saw the Bonfire stack collapseafter the center pole started leaning. But withmilitary precision Bonfire was rebuilt withstudents hauling logs by hand for as much ashalf a mile since trucks could not get throughthe mud.

As the entrenchment of the tradition grew,it was not unusual to allow Cadets to beexcused from a day of class in order to workon Bonfire. By 1958, time being taken awayfrom academic work due to Bonfire wasbecoming an issue. To counter this issue, in1958 the university decreed that Bonfire hadto be built in three days (instead of the usualten days) and students worked all day andnight non-stop, having food brought to themat the work site. Over time this three-daytime limit was relaxed to the point where itbecame two months in recent years.

To summarize, this was a critical period in Bonfire’s evolution. Given the all-male nature of the University during thisperiod, Bonfire took on ‘additional meaningas symbol and proof of Aggie masculinity’(Smith, 2004). During this period, the Corps


9781412931236-Ch12 5/19/08 4:13 PM Page 337

also entrenched themselves as the keepers ofthis tradition and the Bonfire was a symbolictriumph of the University’s core values andsource of distinctiveness. Traditions at A&Mand their primary custodians, the Corps ofCadets, provided enormous strategic benefitsfor the University. The ‘spirit of Aggieland’was its ‘longtime intangible’ (Jacobs, 2002:14). As this spirit grew the University wasable to make unique claims about the experi-ences it offered to its student community,while at the same time benefiting enor-mously from the cohesion and collectiveidentity its traditions conveyed for otherpowerful constituents such as the FormerStudents and local community.

Throughout this period, the Corps of Cadetswere the central custodians of the Bonfire andthrough this and other traditions the Corpsworked hard to find ways to preserve andenhance their power and position on campus.They did so by making claims that they pro-vided much-needed links to the past as well asthe provision of character and leadershipdevelopment. While the Corps saw decliningnumbers during World War II, they saw areturn to dominance on the campus by the1950s. The Corps and the University began togain increasing notoriety for their prowess inbuilding bigger Bonfires. In fact, by the mid-1960s, Bonfire was regarded as a key distinc-tive feature of the University (Smith, 2004).The University endorsed these traditions andstudent recruiting films and campus orienta-tion films often gave prominence to traditions,especially to Bonfire.

Even in the midst of safety concerns raisedby the Assistant to the Commandant, the1960 Bonfire stood over 100 feet tall. In1963, the death of John F. Kennedy resultedin the first cancelled Bonfire.8

Continuing from the first period, it wasclear that this period was the one in whichthe Corps were firmly entrenched as the cus-todians of Bonfire. Integrating Bonfire withmilitary myths and traditions only served toreinforce this and the University continued tolegitimize the tradition to the point wherethey proudly displayed this as a distinguishing

feature of the University. In other words, thetradition was now being used as part of theUniversity’s identity. The communityincreased its participation, but only at theperiphery, and the Bonfire (i.e., the identityof the University) became sacred ground forthe Corps to defend as they would do inbattle. Through the protection of sacredground, the core elements for Bonfire beganto become more and more entrenched. As theidentity of the University began to alsoinclude Bonfire in its definitions, the ele-ments associated with Bonfire were alsobecoming part of the University’s identity.

As in the previous period, there were veryfew pressures brought against Bonfire, butwhen any arose, such as safety concerns, thecustodians of Bonfire took it on themselvesto take care of the issues. When issues aroseabout how Bonfire might be affecting aca-demic standards, the reaction by theUniversity was not to question the utility ofBonfire, but simply to shorten the timeframeduring which Bonfire was to be built. Whilethere might have been a very slight emergentconcern about the quality of academics inthis period, the reaction offered by theUniversity suggests that traditions were stillvery important, as the solution (shorteningthe build by a week) probably did nothing toenhance academics, but it was a way toacknowledge the concern about missingclasses by allowing students the time toattend classes. This provided further legiti-macy to Bonfire as it demonstrated that theUniversity, although not the custodian ofBonfire, wanted it to continue to exist andwhile the ancillary elements had to change toaccommodate the change in timeframe, thesechanges only reinforced the importance ofthe core elements. This is also seen when thestudents hauled the logs by hand – that is, theancillary rituals changed but they werechanged so that the core rituals of the Cut,Stack and Burn could be maintained.

As all this was happening, it was clear thatthe myths and rituals of Bonfire were becom-ing more and more entrenched, not only withthe Bonfire tradition, but also at the level of


9781412931236-Ch12 5/19/08 4:13 PM Page 338

the University’s identity. If there was anyquestion whatsoever in the previous period, it was now absolutely clear in this period that Bonfire had become an institutionalizedpractice. Interestingly, while Bonfire startedout as closely coupled to football games,during this period one could see a decou-pling from football games and a strongercoupling of the traditions and the University;in essence, it was becoming a stand-alonetradition that really did not need the footballgame but did become part of the University’sidentity.9

Period 3: changes, challenges andinertia (1963–1999)

The 1960s brought a lot of changes to theUniversity. Mandatory participation in theCorps of Cadets was eliminated in 1965.Around that time, women and minoritieswere also permitted to enroll in theUniversity. The size of the student body andfaculty also increased dramatically. Whilethe Corps of Cadets continued to be the cus-todians of the traditions, many studentsenrolled in the University were now able toparticipate in the traditions while othersrejected the importance and practices associ-ated with traditions.

In 1967, the center pole was extended to105 feet and cranes were brought in to helpwith the stacking. 1968 saw one civilianallowed to serve in a leadership role in theBonfire organization but the civilian had towear a red helmet to distinguish him from the other Cadets. In addition, there weresome organizational structure changes thatsaw a ‘Head Stack’ assume the top position,and eight juniors were assigned to do most ofthe planning and logistical work. The moveto shared custodianship was an importantconcession by the Corps as enrollment in the Corps program was no longer mandatory,and interest and support for Bonfire wasbecoming increasingly divided.

In 1969, the largest Bonfire ever (109 feettall) was built (Jacobs, 2002) and it was the

first year in which all Aggies were involved.Non-military Aggies were organized by anon-military student. Female students werealso encouraged to help by serving in thefirst-aid tent. In 1970, a professor raised aproposal to Student Senate to abolish Bonfireon environmental grounds. The battlebetween pro-Bonfire and anti-Bonfire groupscontinued for several years. Through thistime, it was clear that the majority of studentsfavored Bonfire and thanks to a media blitzrelated to the environment and supported bythe administration, the students eventuallywon out as the call for abolishment eventu-ally was overwhelmed. In 1973, women werebanned from working on Bonfire and in 1974the height was limited to 74 feet.

In 1976, women were back working onBonfire, some serving on guard duty along-side the males. The first female coordinatorof Bonfire appeared in 1979. Her role was tobe in charge of the women making lunchesfor the men working on Bonfire as well asthose working at the Bonfire concessionstands. Although some female Cadetsattended tree-cutting classes that year, theywere not issued necessary credentials to takepart in the cutting. After a female filed a dis-crimination lawsuit, an open debate occurredand policy was changed. The most vehementopponents to allowing women to participatewere the senior male Cadets involved in theorganization of Bonfire. Following the policychange, women were allowed to participatein the Cut but they were set up in a separatearea and were under constant supervision.

In 1981, faced with a shortage of volun-teers (only Cadets could be forced to work onBonfire), a female member of ‘Off-CampusAggies’ and former Cadet was put in chargeof recruiting civilian women to work onBonfire, including the Cut (this broughtabout much derision from senior Corpsmembers). Also in this year, the secondBonfire death occurred when a student wasthrown from sitting on the fender of a tractorand was crushed by the tractor, leading to achange in policy regarding riding on tractorsand flatbed trucks.


9781412931236-Ch12 5/19/08 4:13 PM Page 339

By 1983 Bonfire decreased to only 54 feettall. 1998 again saw some male–female problems as a female was dragged frombeing too near the stack to outside theperimeter. Although there was no policyagainst females working the stack, theCadets enforced their own policy. Although alawsuit ensued and the Cadets pleaded guilty,the judge did not find them guilty and tookthe offenses off their records. There weremore male–female incidents in 1987 with alively exchange on the issue in the schoolnewspaper, The Battalion (Tang, 2000: 142).In 1988, after a visit from the President’sOffice’s Sexual Harassment Committee,women were let on the stack. There were alsoseveral other issues that began to emerge. In1987 police started patrolling the stack on theeve of Bonfire for alcohol and issued manycitations and arrested six individuals. In 1988the number of citations increased and therewere nine arrests.

In 1988, an anti-Bonfire organization,‘Aggies Against Bonfire’ was founded by a student and at the same time FacultySenate formed a committee to explore alternatives to Bonfire. The debate betweenthose who pushed for alternatives and those who wanted to keep the tradition centered around alcohol use and, over several years, the debate continued as well as media campaigns to reduce the associationof alcohol and Bonfire. Environmentalissues also continued to be a focus and law-suits were brought against Bonfire on thisground.

In response to criticism, ‘replant’ was ini-tiated in 1991. Replant saw hundreds ofAggies planting 10,000 seedlings on landthat was previously cleared. Others partici-pating in this initiative included the TexasEnvironmental Action Coalition and theA&M Forestry Club. The EnvironmentalIssues Chair stated that the replant, notBonfire, has ‘come to represent our burningdesire to beat the hell out of TU.’ Theseresponses were an important way of divertingattention away from a focus on Bonfire whileat the same time serving to co-opt Bonfire

critics as they could not be against the idea ofreplant (Tang, 2002).

There were very few major safety inci-dents that happened during the remainingyears of this period. The most notable wasthe leaning of the stack in 1994, againbecause of excessive rain. There was anotherdeath when students were thrown from theback of a flatbed truck that lost control athighway speed and there were still sexist andracial incidents related to Bonfire organizersand workers.

It was clear that, towards the end of thisperiod, there were many political, functionaland social pressures being brought to bear onBonfire, including a shift in both the custodi-ans and key constituents. The first majorchange had to do with the declining presenceof the Corps on campus. Enrollment in theCorps was no longer compulsory and womenand minorities were given access to theUniversity, resulting in the composition ofthe student body becoming increasinglydiverse. There was an increased focus on academics and the introduction of new schol-arly traditions such as a focus on graduateeducation (Jacobs, 2002: 21). Changes incurriculum and the University’s desire tobecome one of the nation’s premier universi-ties brought important changes to it. TheUniversity launched an initiative calledVision 2020 with its goal to become one ofthe top 10 public universities by the year2020. The traditions were no longer effectivein binding together the student body and, to alarge extent, were consumed more by aminority on campus and widely consumed byanother key constituent and emerging custo-dian, the Association of Former Students oralumni of the University.

Thus, important changes in the University’sinternal and external environment led to polit-ical and social pressures that eventuallychanged the character, composition and structure of Bonfire. However, critics ofBonfire and Aggie traditions were alwaysactively managed by the custodians of theUniversity. For example, a strategy to managecritics included an elaborate replant program


9781412931236-Ch12 5/19/08 4:13 PM Page 340

to overcome increasing challenges from environmentalists. The challenges and con-tests around the legitimacy of Bonfire and its value and appropriateness as a traditionbegan to surface on a more visible and globalscale, as opposed to the more limited challenges that previously occurred both interms of visibility and frequency. Theseincluded the increasing size and diversifica-tion of the student body, as well as changinggoals and aspirations of the University moregenerally.

To summarize, during this period we canclearly identify aspects of Bonfire that fitonto its various antecedents and constructs inour extended framework of deinstitutional-ization. In terms of political pressures, wesee a reduction in the dependence on theinstitutional constituents that have encour-aged or enforced continuing procedural con-formity with their expectations. Over theyears, the University started to depend moreon different stakeholders. Initially, the focuswas on the students and former students.While there was a continuous focus on thestudent body, the intensity of this focusbegan to diminish relative to the focus on theacademic and research goals of theUniversity. Vision 2020 and other initiativesclearly demonstrated the shift towardsbecoming a more research-intensive, world-class institution. Furthermore, there was agrowth in the criticality of organizationalstakeholders whose beliefs may not havebeen consistent with the status quo as a resultof the shift from a local focus on students tomore global focus on institutional impact. Asresult of the buildup in these pressures, thelegitimacy of institutionalized practices suchas Bonfire was being called into question.

With respect to functional pressures,Vision 2020 and its goal to make Texas A&MUniversity a world-class research institutionbrought about a change in the criteria for suc-cess. The benefits of the new criteria, nowprimarily dependent on outside constituents,were neither fully understood nor widelyshared by the student constituency, who pre-viously relied on more social criteria (i.e.,

quality of student life, sacredness of tradi-tions such as Bonfire, etc.) as a basis for eval-uating the success of the institution.Consequently, the perceived utility of institu-tionalized practices such as Bonfire wasslowly being subsumed by the perceived util-ity of other practices more closely associatedwith achieving the goal of becoming a world-class research institution.

There were also social pressures that wereacting on the deinstitutionalization ofBonfire. The new goals of the institution as aresult of vision 2020 represented a disruptionto the institution’s historical continuity. As aresult of these proposed institutional changesthere was increasing fragmentation withinthe institution. One way in which this frag-mentation manifested itself was through thesplitting of identities among stakeholders andthe conflicts that took place within the manylayers of these nested identities (Ashforth &Johnson, 2001).

From the simple analysis above, it is clearthat several of the antecedent pressures forthe deinstitutionalization of Bonfire werealready in play during this period previous tothe time of the collapse. In addition to theseantecedent pressures, we find several entropypressures that were also pushing for the dein-stitutionalization of Bonfire. These includedgroups opposed to Bonfire on the basis of theenvironmental damage associated with thecutting of the trees used in Bonfire, as well asinstitutional concerns about safety associatedwith the size and height of Bonfire.

Also affecting the deinstitutionalization ofBonfire were inertial pressures associatedwith the long-standing institutional culturethat embodied a resistance to change and thecentral role of traditions in maintaining theculture.

While all of these pressures were mount-ing, it became more and more clear as towhat role the custodians of Bonfire had incounteracting the political, functional andsocial pressures as well as the entropy pres-sures. Through their reactions, the custodianswere able to manage the entropy pressuresand tip the balance in favor of the status quo.


9781412931236-Ch12 5/19/08 4:13 PM Page 341

When the Corps was the sole custodian ofBonfire, these rituals and their associatedactivities were carried out like a militaryoperation. As the nature of participantsevolved from the Corps of Cadets to incorpo-rate of a greater number on non-Corps partic-ipants, Bonfire took on a more casual andlaissez-faire atmosphere. In fact, towards theend of this period, while Bonfire continued tobe an embodiment of the Aggie Spirit, theprocesses and decision-making were morelike a party. This dilution of a core element ofBonfire contributed to its eventual dissipa-tion. Furthermore, the challenge faced by theUniversity during this period was to findways to simultaneously continue the momen-tum towards strengthening its academic pro-grams without compromising its traditionsand school spirit (Jacobs, 2002: 200).Thepresence of competing traditions served tochallenge the adherence to the tradition aswell as the University’s resolve to considerthem as a defining feature of the University.

Period 4: erosion, the fall andbeyond (1999–present)

A tradition is in trouble: twelve Aggies are dead,the campus is still in mourning, and experts arequestioning whether the Bonfire collapse was justa freak accident. Now A&M officials must decidewhether keeping an Aggie icon is worth the risks.(Burka, 2000: 117)

In the early morning hours of November18, 1999, the Bonfire stack collapsed withapproximately 70 students aboard – 12 Aggiesdied and 27 more were injured (Tang, 2000).As students and other members of theUniversity and local community struggled tomake sense of this event, the Bonfire tragedydrew national attention. There was a strongcall for action – How could this happen? Whowas to blame? Why was there no oversight?Several narratives began to emerge, rangingfrom calling the tradition into question to pro-viding support for the tradition and its contin-uation. In fact, according to a student injuredin the collapse, continuation of Bonfire would

be a way to honor those who died (Tedesco,2000) while others noted that they would bewilling to accept small changes as concessionsas long they could keep Bonfire.

Some news stories pointed to the mysti-cism of the accident and the students as‘fallen heroes’ who gave their lives for thetradition (Tang, 2000). The discourse turnedfrom tragedy to celebrating and memorializingthe dead.

In the days following the Bonfire, theUniversity distanced itself from the event byclaiming that Bonfire was a student-runevent. However, under enormous pressuresthe University launched its own internalinvestigation. Until this catastrophe theUniversity was ‘unable’ to publicly challengeor penetrate the myth as well as the bound-aries of the tradition. However, a catastropheinvokes the need for action, sense-makingand reflection.

The collapse was investigated by a SpecialCommission requested by the University. TheSpecial Commission on the 1999 Texas A&MBonfire concluded that the collapse was afunction of a combination of physical andorganizational factors. The physical factorsincluded structural stress caused by problemswith log placement and inadequate contain-ment and binding strength. However, theCommission squarely put the blame for thephysical deficiencies upon the organizationalfactors that caused them. Cited as key organi-zational problems were the cultural bias, theabsence of a plan, and the lack of proactiveapproaches towards the management of risk(Special Commission on the 1999 TexasA&M Bonfire Final Report, 2000).

The University President at the time, RayBowen, made a number of key decisions sixweeks after receiving the final Commissionreport. First, he placed the Bonfire on hold fortwo years. This led to several reactions and anoutcry from current and former students.

Concerned that a hallowed tradition will turn intoa hollow gesture, a group of students is circulatinga petition urging Texas A&M University administra-tors to reconsider the limitations placed on futureAggie Bonfires. (Garcia, 2000)


9781412931236-Ch12 5/19/08 4:13 PM Page 342

Second, he set up a task force known asBonfire 2002 to assess the fate of Bonfire.Bowen claimed that future Bonfire was nolonger the defining activity for the future ofthe University.

On March 5, 2001, the Committee forBonfire 2002 posted a document out-lining some myths and facts about the futureand past of the Bonfire tradition (source:Bonfire 2002 Committee Homepage). TheCommittee proposed key changes that sub-stantively altered the nature of any futureBonfire held on the Texas A&M campus.Leadership positions were now to be selectedbased on a process outlined by the recom-mendations of a Student Leadership andParticipation Task Force committee. FutureBonfires, while student constructed wouldnow have to be administered by and followplans prepared by licensed professional engineers. Previously, the Cut and Stackphase lasted over two months. Now, the core ritual of Cut was eliminated from allfuture Bonfires with a recommendation thatlogs would now be cut and delivered by aprofessional firm.

Further, the construction core ritual ofStack was to be limited to a total of twoweeks. The site would now be fenced in andmonitored by video cameras (Brown, 2000).Bonfire participants would now have toundergo training certification in preparationwith any roles associated with planning andconstruction. Interestingly, one of the notionsthe Committee sought to dispel was the myththat Bonfire as a tradition had remainedinvariant over time. The Committee providedkey facts about the extent to which there was variation in ancillary elements such asthe structure and length of time involved inconstruction.

In 2002, Bowen announced that therewould no longer be a Bonfire burned on the Texas A&M campus. In order not to challenge the essence of Bonfire, theUniversity proposed a new tradition, aBonfire Memorial and went to great lengthsto promote and develop this project of re-invention. The fallen would now be honored

with an everlasting memorial flame andBonfire is still listed as a core tradition of theUniversity on its website. So, while severalcore and ancillary elements were removedthe University successfully reinvented thetradition.

The remnants in terms of collective mem-ories drove the re-emergence of the traditionin a new place. The tradition migrated offcampus and former students became evenmore fervent custodians providing resources,land, and cash to support its re-emergence.Groups such as the ‘Bonfire Coalition’ and‘KTBF – Keep the Fire Burning’ emerged torevive, protect and preserve the tradition. Asrecently as 2004, Bonfire burned off-campusand it was claimed that over 10,000 individ-uals turned out to watch it burn (Nauman,2004). Thus, the tradition took on a life of itsown and was no longer embedded in the con-text or place in which it was once created.

Our analysis of the previous period ofBonfire through the lens of the extendeddeinstitutionalization framework clearly sug-gests that several antecedent and direct pres-sures for dissipation existed prior to the fall.However, these pressures were being strate-gically kept in balance by the custodiansthrough various types of reactions that wereaimed at preserving and further entrenchingthe tradition of Bonfire.

The events of 1999 were horrific, yet theydid not serve to distract the custodians (thosewho worked on the stack) from their goal ofmaintaining the tradition. Their reactionswere consistent with previous periods andthey fought hard to counterbalance the grow-ing political, functional and social pressuresas well as the pressure for entropy. Inessence, their actions were aimed at main-taining the dominance of inertia over entropythat they managed over the previous years ofBonfire. However, in this case, it was clearthat entropy gained the upper hand. As aresult of the crisis, the reactions of theUniversity were able to overcome theentropy. The University reacted in a numberof ways. They disembedded and dismantledthe core elements of the tradition by no


9781412931236-Ch12 5/19/08 4:13 PM Page 343

longer allowing for Cut (the logs being delivered), and the Bonfire was now to besupervised and monitored, eliminatingopportunities for ‘groding’ and other formsof hazing. The University recommended afurther dilution of custodianship in that theywould now run and largely control the tradi-tion. In sum, the University’s decisions sig-nificantly altered the value of the ‘inheritedresource’ for the custodians of the traditionwhile not directly challenging the myth ofBonfire. Bonfire was now to be over-engineered, costly, over-monitored and unin-teresting. It was now diluted to the point thatit ceased to have value for its custodians.

In 2002, when Bowen announced thatBonfire would no longer be held on campus,he erased the core element of place for therituals of Stack and Burn and this directlyaffected dissipation and erosion of the tradi-tion. The crisis allowed the University topenetrate the boundaries of the tradition.Bonfire was no longer needed to tell the newnarrative about the University. This raisesinteresting future questions about the role ofplace and migration in the process of deinsti-tutionalization as well as the assimilation ofan older element into a newly re-invented tra-dition. Our observations regarding thisperiod also raise a number of questionsregarding the interplay of challenges andmechanisms for dissipation. All at once, anumber of mechanisms (assimilation, dilu-tion, disembedding, competition, and era-sure) were simultaneously in play, making itincreasingly difficult for the custodians tocounter forces for entropy impacting dissipa-tion. Thus, the custodians could not deal witheverything at once – if challenges or threatsto core elements are sequenced or separatedover time, then custodians have time to for-mulate strategies to combat entropy.

We summarize our discussion above inTable 12.1.

Table 12.1 charts the evolution of Bonfireover the four periods described above andprovides a summary of changes over time. Ittracks the essence, custodians, rituals andphysical artifacts, as well as changes in placeand temporality. Table 12.1 also provides

insights into the changing nature of theorganization in which the tradition wasembedded by summarizing the character ofthe organization, its key constituents, keysuccess factors, and strategic arenas.

FROM EROSION OF TRADITION TO UNDERSTANDING DEINSTITUTIONALIZATION

As Shils notes, ‘there is a great need in theworld for a better understanding of thenature of tradition and for a better apprecia-tion of its value’ (1981: vii). We examine thepotential contributions of the findings of ourcase study for the study of traditions and illu-minate a number of insights for understand-ing deinstitutionalization. We do this throughmapping case insights onto our extendedframework based on Oliver’s (1992) frame-work for deinstitutionalization and proposeseveral extensions of her process model ofdeinstitutionalization.

Given Oliver’s framework, we can clearlyidentify aspects of Bonfire that map onto its various antecedents and constructs. Interms of political pressures, we see a reduction in the dependence on the institu-tional constituents that have encouraged or enforced continuing procedural conform-ity with their expectations. Over the years,the University started to depend more on different stakeholders. Initially, the focuswas on the students and former students.While there was a continuous focus on the student body, the intensity of thisfocus began to diminish relative to the focus on the academic and research goals of the University. Vision 2020 and other initiatives clearly demonstrated the shifttowards becoming a more research-intensive,world-class institution. Furthermore, therewas a growth in the criticality of organiza-tional stakeholders, whose beliefs may nothave been consistent with the status quo as a result of the shift from a local focus onstudents to a more global focus on institu-tional impact. As a result of the buildup in


9781412931236-Ch12 5/19/08 4:13 PM Page 344


these pressures, the legitimacy of institution-alized practices such as Bonfire was beingcalled into question.

With respect to functional pressures,Vision 2020 and its goal to make Texas A&MUniversity a world-class research institutionbrought about a change in the criteria for success. The benefits of the new criteria, nowprimarily dependent on outside constituents,were neither fully understood nor widelyshared by the student constituency who previously relied on more social criteria (i.e., quality of student life, sacredness of traditions such as Bonfire, etc.) as a basis for evaluating the success of the institution.

Consequently, the perceived utility of institu-tionalized practices such as Bonfire wasslowly being subsumed by the perceived util-ity of other practices more closely associatedwith achieving the goal of becoming a world-class research institution.

There were also social pressures that were acting on the deinstitutionalization ofBonfire. The new goals of the institution as aresult of Vision 2020 represented a disruptionto the continuity of the institution’s historicalidentity. As a result of these proposed institu-tional changes and refocus on academicexcellence as a research institution, there was increasing fragmentation among the

Table 12.1 The evolution of bonfire: 1909–presentDimension 1909–42 1942–65 1965–99 Post-Fall

University focus Total Institution Inward Inward/Outward OutwardMore academic Mainstream

Vision 2020

Culture and Military Focus Stronger military Sub-cultures present Old Culture is liabilitycore beliefs ‘Hazing’ common focus promoted Multiple identities New culture focused

differences exist on academics and Emphasis on the Focus on academics becoming a top

‘Other’ and research public universityEducation

Organization – Tightly coupled Tradition is the Last 20 years saw Tradition is: Questioned,Tradition Link values Institution shift to somewhat unwanted

decoupling yet tightly coupled

Physical Trash and wood Logs (donated) Logs (fresh cut) Two year hold on campuscomposition Stolen materials Tepee style design Layered cake design Flame on campus

Disorganized pile 45-100 ft 110 ft Off-campus:design 20 ft Logs (fresh cut)

Layered cake design

Custodians Cadets Corps Shared custodianship: UniversityCommandant Cadets plus non- Former students

cadets Non-cadetsCadets

Rituals Play Cut, Stack, Burn Cut, Stack, Burn Memorial serviceCut, Stack, Burn (Offsite)

Place On campus On campus On campus Off campusRe-invented on campus

Time Before ‘big game’ Before ‘big game’ Before ‘big game’ Cancelled on campusOnce burned after Off-campus: Before

‘big game’

Arenas and State Politics Football rivalry Public funding Survivalcontests Funding Enrollments Relative status

Key success Football Football Increasing enrollment World-class rankingfactors Traditions

Audience and State, Local Students, Local National, Public Globalconstituents

9781412931236-Ch12 5/19/08 4:13 PM Page 345

institution’s stakeholders. This fragmentationmanifested itself through the splitting ofidentities among stakeholders and the con-flicts that took place within the many layersof institutional identity

From the analysis above, several of theantecedent pressures for the deinstitutional-ization of Bonfire were already in play at thetime of the collapse in addition to the pres-ence of several pressures for entropy pushingfor the deinstitutionalization of Bonfire.These included groups opposed to Bonfire onthe basis of the environmental concerns aswell as institutional concerns about safetyassociated with the size and height ofBonfire.

Also affecting the deinstitutionalization ofBonfire were pressures to maintain statusquo associated with a culture that resistedchange and nurtured the central role of tradi-tions in maintaining the culture.

Our observations about Bonfire also helpus to illustrate how the elements we intro-duced into the extended deinstitutionaliza-tion framework provide additional insightand allow us to capture other importantdynamics that appear to be involved in deinstitutionalization. It was our belief,based on our integration of several streams ofresearch, that whether deinstitutionalizationrepresents dissipation or outright rejection isa function of whether the core or ancillaryelements of an institution are affected by sev-eral mechanisms. In this chapter, we havedescribed those mechanisms and used thecase of Bonfire to consider the multiplemechanisms by which dissipation occurs.Focusing on the mechanism of competitionhas allowed us to better understand thenature of institutional collisions as compet-ing traditions lead to greater pressures todemonstrate legitimacy as well as functionalutility.

These mechanisms or strategies include,among others, dilution, disembedding, andbuffering or decoupling. By dilution, wemean that the organization ensures there are new institutionalized practices added into the mix or that multiple institutionalized

practices are invented in the beginning sothat the reliance on any one of these practicesis minimal. Another strategy is one in whichthe institutionalized practice is disembeddedfrom either ancillary institutions that exist orfrom other interconnected elements of theorganization. Buffering or decoupling refersto the distancing of the organization and theinstitutionalized practice either cognitivelyor in its narratives by telling a different story about the meaning of the institutional-ized practice. Distancing could also occur inthe sense of abdicating responsibility for thetradition.

Beyond our initial extensions to the dein-stitutionalization framework based on ourintegration of several literature streams, ouranalysis of the Texas A&M Aggie Bonfirecase suggests further important extensions.First, the analysis leads us to believe that it isimportant to extend the framework to explic-itly recognize the role of custodians of insti-tutionalized practices. In our examples basedon Bonfire, we demonstrate that custodiansof institutionalized practices can serve as acritical counterforce to entropy. In essence,custodians balance the pressures for entropyand sustain institutionalized practices. TheCorps of Cadets or ‘Keepers of the Spirit’(Adams, 2001) did much to take a traditionborne out of humble beginnings and make itthe center-piece of the traditions at theUniversity. As the tradition faced detractors,the Corps sought to protect the tradition andguard against potential dissipation. They didthis by limiting access to and knowledgeabout the construction of Bonfire. The infor-mal hierarchy of Bonfire kept participation inthe core rituals small and elite while partici-pation in the performance aspects of the tra-dition was much broader. The custodians alsocountered forces for entropy by providinginnovative solutions to critics (such as theresponse of ‘replant’ to environmental criti-cisms) versus going on strike as they did inPeriod 2 as well as calling on former custodi-ans and other key constituents for support asneeded (former students, parents, membersof the University Administration).


9781412931236-Ch12 5/19/08 4:13 PM Page 346

Second, through our analysis of Bonfire,we suggest that the framework should explic-itly recognize the role of crises which allowfor permeability in the boundary and providefor windows of opportunity to extinguish lia-bilities and overcome inertial tendencies.Until the fall of the stack in 1999, changes tothe core elements of Bonfire were alwaysresisted; critics were managed and when thenumbers and power of the Corps began todecline in the third period, concessions weremade to share custodianship so as to keep thecore rituals, collective memories and othercore elements intact.

Third, from our Bonfire analysis, we alsobelieve that whether deinstitutionalizationrepresents dissipation or outright rejection isa function of whether the core or ancillaryelements of an institution are affected by sev-eral strategies that directly impact dissipa-tion. From our analysis we observe that coreelements of a tradition also evolve over timebut, once in place, they tend to be more orless stable and enduring than peripheral orancillary elements. Consequently, this sug-gests that there are both ancillary and coreelements that may experience dissipation as aresult of political, functional and social pres-sures. While our case study does not allow usto establish the relative effectiveness and out-come of bringing political, functional andsocial pressures to bear on the core and ancil-lary elements, it may be that the core aremore resistant to these pressures, requiringcrises as a way of breaking down the resist-ance, and that pressures on specific ancillaryelements may lead to the erosion of thosespecific elements but may not erode, and in fact may serve to strengthen, the core elements.

Fourth, the case of Bonfire clearly illus-trates that a tradition or institutionalizedpractice can be re-invented or reconstructed,just as Bonfire migrated off-campus. So, itwas re-invented in its original location in theform of a memorial flame and re-incarnatedin a new location.

By unveiling and focusing on the processof re-invention we highlight the importance

of institutional remnants. Mohr (2006) refersto these ‘bits’ of institutions as institutionallitter. Remnants can be useful for construct-ing new traditions, re-inventing old traditions(Hobsbawm & Ranger, 1984; Shils, 1981) orfor the re-emergence of institutionalizedpractices experiencing dormancy (Mohr,2006; Tucker, 2006; Zerubavel, 1995).Remnants can take the form of stories, phys-ical objects, rituals, temporal connections orlinkages to place as well as take the form ofsentiments and memories. We propose that tothe extent remnants of institutionalized prac-tices remain in place, they are also able toprevent extinction. Therefore, it is rare for usto observe the complete extinction or eradi-cation of deep-rooted traditions or institu-tionalized practices.

Finally, in this chapter, we demonstratethat traditions do not always arise as a resultof institutionalization projects or purposefulaction. Rather, they can emerge from humblebeginnings or arise out of serendipity.However, we also demonstrate that theprocesses of re-invention, re-incarnation orre-emergence may potentially require thefocused attention of custodians or institu-tional entrepreneurs (current and/or future).

In summary, the key extensions to Oliver’s(1992) framework introduced in this chapterinclude the clarification of various reactionsto the political, functional and social pres-sures, the unpacking of dissipation, the mod-erating roles of custodians and crises onentropy and inertia respectively, and thenotion of institutional remnants. Theextended framework for deinstitutionaliza-tion appears in Figure 12.2.

DIRECTIONS FOR FUTURE RESEARCH

Oliver’s (1992) framework for deinstitution-alization brought clarification to an impor-tant concept that has entered the everydayparlance of the institutional theorist throughnumerous journal articles, book chapters and everyday discussions. However, as


9781412931236-Ch12 5/19/08 4:13 PM Page 347

we note, institutionalized practices are com-monly slow to become extinguished.Elements of these practices also often con-tinue in residual forms that serve asreminders of prior strategies and/or as rawmaterial for the construction of new ones.Through our integration of various theoreti-cal approaches, we believe our extendedframework explicates important aspects thathelp us further understand the deinstitution-alization process in the context of a long-standing tradition.

We also believe that our extended frame-work provides a basis for continuing theimportant discourse about deinstitutionaliza-tion that has emerged since Oliver’s seminalwork on the topic almost fifteen years ago.Continuation of this discourse is importantbecause many aspects of the deinstitutional-ization process have yet to be understood.Following, we present several areas forresearch that emerge out of the work pre-sented in this chapter. We encourageresearchers to pursue any of these futuredirections.

One promising area for future researchwould be to examine other key mechanismsleading to dissipation. In this chapter wefocus on some of the key mechanisms(assimilation, competition, dilution, disem-bedding, and erasure) but it is likely that

there are other mechanisms worthy ofinquiry. Two mechanisms that might beinvestigated further in future research includedisplacement and migration. Displacementoccurs when exogenous forces such aschanges in technology or the emergence ofnew knowledge or circumstances result in thetradition being discarded or rejected (Shils,1981: 258). Migration, according to Shils(1981), occurs when a tradition is transportedto a new context where it may have a new ordifferent meaning or become completelyirrelevant. An example of this would be winetasting in a culture where it is forbidden toconsume alcohol. In this case, the adherenceto the tradition and associated rituals of winetasting would be largely determined by thereceptivity of the recipients. DiMaggio(1988) also discusses institutional migrationand local modifications that result from vari-ation in interests and power.

In addition to investigating mechanismsthat promote dissipation, it would also be worthwhile to consider various mecha-nisms that serve to prevent dissipation andeventual deinstitutionalization. This wouldprovide further insights into the strategicmanagement of institutionalized practices. In this chapter we only highlighted a few such mechanisms that became apparentto us through our case study of Bonfire


Deinstitution- alizaton

Politicalpressure

Functionalpressure

Social pressure

Erosion orextinction

Institutional remnants Construction of NewInstitution

Re-inventionRe-emergence

Dissipation or rejection

AssimilationCompetitionDilutionDisembeddingErasure

Entropy

Custodians

Inertia

Crisis

ReactionsCorrection

Decoupling

Mobilization

Figure 12.2 An extended deinstitutionalization framework

9781412931236-Ch12 5/19/08 4:13 PM Page 348

but we encourage researchers to introduceother mechanisms of this type to the literature.

Our analysis of Bonfire led us to identify adistinction between core and ancillary ele-ments (for example, rituals) of a tradition.While this distinction provided importantinsights related to the erosion of institution-alized practices such as traditions, we believethat further investigation into a related areafor future research is one that focuses on thedimensionality of institutions and the extentto which erosion of one or more core ele-ments results in variable intensity of erosionin terms of both scope and potency. Issues toexamine when pursuing this research includewhether there are thresholds at which declineis more rapid or slow, and whether there arespecific patterns or configurations of coreand ancillary elements that once combinedincrease or decrease the propensity ofdecline. At a field level, DiMaggio distin-guishes between core and subsidiary institu-tions and states ‘under many conditions, theinterests of these legitimated, partiallyautonomous, subsidiary institutions divergefrom those of the governors of the core insti-tutional form’ (1988: 16). Adopting this to our work, the issue becomes one of under-standing how taking over or controllingancillary elements but not the core elementsallows one to launch delegitimating attackson the core or demand changes in the core. We suggest that much more work needsto be done to fully understand the nature,dynamics, and interaction of core and ancil-lary elements.

The notion of an ‘institutional remnant’is an important one in the extended frame-work. We argue that extinction is an ultimateyet relatively rare event in deinstitutionaliza-tion and that the remnants of traditions often become instrumental in the construc-tion of new institutional practices or the re-invention or re-emergence of what mayhave been considered an eroded or extinctinstitutional practice. In this light, an area forfuture research would be to examine the role of collective memories more fully in

constructing as well as eradicating institu-tionalized practices. In our case, the traditionof Bonfire took place in an intergenerationalorganization. By placing the Bonfire on holdfor two years the University essentially pre-vented the core elements of the traditionfrom being experienced or shared byFreshmen who entered the year of the Fall.Thus, these newcomers did not have sharedexperiences with which to create ‘communi-tas’ (Turner, 1969) or new collective memo-ries, yet the institutional remnants of Bonfireled to its re-emergence as an off-campusevent. Future research could examinewhether patterns of enhancement and erasureare similar in other contexts. For example,intergenerational organizations such as themilitary or the field of consulting might alsoattempt to construct or eradicate institutionalpractices.

With respect to core and ancillary ele-ments associated with a tradition, a fruitfularea for future research would be to investi-gate the relative role of these elements in thedeinstitutionalization process. We speculatedthat core and ancillary elements differ intheir relative resistance to erosion but,because we present only a single case study,we could not further investigate this insight.One way of pursuing this phenomenonwould be to consider whether there is a hierarchy of core and ancillary elements. For example, with respect to core elements,one could examine whether there is a hierarchy or ordering of core elements orwhether the core elements are themselvesinterconnected in some meaningful way suchthat interactions among these elements serveto produce interactions, and crowd out or dis-place one another. Following this line ofthought, interesting questions include:whether one can remove one core elementbut still have the institutionalized practicesurvive; or the extent to which core elementswould have to be removed to erode the institution.

Finally, while our focus in the currentchapter is on institutionalized practices, itwould also be important to understand how


9781412931236-Ch12 5/19/08 4:13 PM Page 349

institutions change. Institutional theoristsnote the permanence or stability of institu-tions but it could be that our belief aboutinvariance is merely an illusion that issocially constructed. In other words, do wemake sense of institutional effects by fittingthem into the expectations of what we ‘want’to experience, or do we consider them invari-ant because once in place, both violationsand sanctions are rare, unobservable, orinconsequential? These are questions thatneed to be addressed by scholars interested infurthering their understanding of processesof institutional emergence, change, andextinction.

ACKNOWLEDGMENT

We acknowledge the support of the SocialSciences and Humanities Research Councilof Canada. Special thanks to N. Anand, TerryBeckman, Robert David, Jim Denford, RudyDurand, Renate Meyer, Willie Ocasio andHayagreeva Rao for their helpful commentsand encouragement in the developmentalstages of this work. Thanks also to workshopparticipants at the 3rd annual DavisConference for Qualitative Research, as wellas seminar participants at Bocconi, HEC,Erasmus, Insead, Northwestern, LondonBusiness School, McGill, Queen’s and YorkUniversities.

Figure 12.1 reprinted from C. Oliver, 1992‘The antecedents of deinstitutionalization’,Organization Studies, 13, 563–588, with permission from the author and Sage.

NOTES

1 A remnant is a ‘small remaining quantity’ and/ora ‘surviving trace/vestige’ of something that onceexisted (Oxford University Dictionary).

2 Sapir (1949) makes a distinction between culturethat is genuine versus spurious. Spurious culture isoften devoid of meaning and is externally con-structed and controlled. On the other hand, genuineculture is internally generated, harmonious andauthentic.

3 The remnants transmitted across generationsmay be large enough so that no significant change inthe tradition is perceived by its adherents.

4 While we draw upon and further develop theidea of custodians from Soares (1997), DeJordy andJones (2006) have recently used the term ‘institu-tional guardians’ in their work on the changingmeaning of marriage.

5 In several passages, Shils (1981) uses the termstraditions and institutions synonymously.

6 The web page of the University provides greatdetail about the nature of Texas A&M University traditions.

7 In particular, we draw upon the rich andthoughtful historical case study of Bonfire by journalist Irwin Tang, 2000.

8 In 1966, as an acknowledgement to the war inVietnam, thousands of gallons of Napalm werepoured on Bonfire to assist in its lighting.

9 Texas A&M had declining football performancefor much of Period 2 and the early part of Period 3.

REFERENCES

Adams, J.A. 2001. Keepers of the Spirit: TheCorps of Cadets at Texas A&M University,1876–2001. College Station: Texas A&MUniversity Press.

Ahmadjian, C.L. and Robinson, P. 2001. Safetyin numbers: Downsizing and the deinstitu-tionalization of permanent employment inJapan. Administrative Science Quarterly,46(4), 622–654.

Andersen, B. 1991. Imagined Communities.New York: Verso.

Ashforth, B.E. and Johnson, S.A. 2001. Whichhat to wear? The relative salience of multipleidentities in organizational contexts. In M.Hogg and D. Terry (eds.), Social IdentityProcesses in Organizational Contexts. Hove,UK: Psychology Press.

Beyer, J. M. and Nino, D. 2000. Culture as asource, expression, and reinforcer of emo-tions in organizations. In R.L. Payne and C.L.Cooper (eds.), Emotions at Work: Theory,Research, and Applications in Management.New York: John Wiley.

Brown, K. 2000. Bonfire suspended until 2002.The Bryan-College Station Eagle.OnlineArchive.

Dacin, M. 1997. Isomorphism in context: Thepower and prescription of institutionalnorms. Academy of Management Journal,40(1), 46–81.


9781412931236-Ch12 5/19/08 4:13 PM Page 350

Davis, G.F., Diekman, K. & Tinsley, C. 1994. Thedecline and fall of the conglomerate firm inthe 1980s: The deinstitutionalization of anorganizational form. American SociologicalReview, 59(4), 547–570.

DeJordy, R. & Jones, C. 2006. The resiliency andevolution of Institutional Theory: Process,content, & boundary conditions. Presentedat the University of Alberta conference onThe Future of Institutional Theory, Edmonton.

Dethloff, H.C. 1976. A centennial history ofTexas A&M University, 1876–1976. CollegeStation: Texas A&M University Press.

DiMaggio, P.J. 1988. Interest and agency ininstitutional theory. In L.G. Zucker, (ed.),Institutional Patterns and Organizations,3–22. Cambridge, MA: Ballinger.

Garcia, R. 2000. Texas A&M students beginpetition to alter Bonfire’s future. TheBattalion, 10(11).

Greve, H.R. 1995. Jumping ship: The diffusionof strategy abandonment. AdministrativeScience Quarterly, 40(September), 444–473.

Hawlbachs, M. 1950. The Collective Memory,trans. F.J. Ditter, Jr. and V. Yazdi. New York:Harper

Hobsbawm, E. and Ranger, T. (eds.) 1984. The invention of tradition. Cambridge:Cambridge University Press.

Jacobs, H. 2002. The Pride of Aggieland. New York: NY: Silver Lining Books.

Jepperson, R. L. 1991. Institutions, institutionaleffects, and institutionalism. Pp. 143-63 inW. W. Powell and P. J. DiMaggio (Eds.), TheNew Institutionalism in Organizational Analy-sis, Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

Kuhn, T.S. 1962. The Structure of ScientificRevolutions. Chicago: University of ChicagoPress.

Nauman, B. 2004. Bonfire burns despite rain,muck at site. The Bryan-College StationEagle.Online Archive.

Ocasio, W. and Kim, H. 1999. The Circulationof Corporate Control: Selection of FunctionalBackgrounds of New CEOs in Large U.S. Manufacturing Firms, 1981–1992.Administrative Science Quarterly, 44(3),532–563.

Oliver, C. 1992. The antecedents of deinstitu-tionalization. Organization Studies, 13,563–588.

Putnam, R.D. 2000. Bowling Alone: TheCollapse and Revival of American Commu-nity. New York: Simon and Schuster.

Sapir, E. 1949. Culture, genuine and spurious.In D. Mandelbaum (ed.), Selected Writings ofEdward Sapir on Language, Culture andPersonality. Berkeley: University of CaliforniaPress (orig. publication 1924). AmericanJournal of Sociology.)

Schneiberg, M. 2005. What’s on the path?Organizational form and the problem ofinstititutional change in the US economy,1900–1950. Working paper, Reed College.

Scott, R.W. 2001. Institutions and Organizations,2nd edn. Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications.

Shils, E.C. 1981. Tradition. Chicago: TheUniversity of Chicago Press.

Smith, J.M. 2004. The Texas Aggie Bonfire:Place, ritual, symbolism, and identity.Working paper, Texas A & M University.

Soares, J.A. 1997. A reformulation of the con-cept of tradition. International Journal ofSociology and Social Policy, 17(6), 6–21.

Special Commission on the 1999 Texas A&MBonfire Final Report, 2000, Texas A&MUniversity.

Tang, I.A. 2000. The Texas Aggie Bonfire:Tradition and tragedy at Texas A&M. Austin:It Works Press.

Tedesco, J. 2000 Aggies continue to backBonfire. KENS 5 and San Antonio ExpressNews <http://www.mySA.com>.

Thompson, J.D., & McEwen, W.J. (1958).Organizational goals and environment: Goal-setting as an interaction process. AmericanSociological Review, 23(1), 23–31.

Tucker, S. 2006. Cyclical institutions: The caseof midwifery care in Ontario, 1800–2005.Working paper. Queen’s U.

Turner, V. 1969. The Ritual Process: Structureand Anti-Structure. Aldine Transaction.

Zerubavel, Y. 1995. Recovered Roots: CollectiveMemory and the Making of Israeli NationalTradition. Chicago: University of ChicagoPress.


9781412931236-Ch12 5/19/08 4:13 PM Page 351

Traditions as Institutionalized Practice: Implications for ... Dacin...Traditions as...

Documents

Transcript of Traditions as Institutionalized Practice: Implications for ... Dacin...Traditions as...