Exportar Publicação

Pimentel, L. & Major, M. (2021). Institutional entrepreneurship and change: The relevance of collective action . In 35th EBES Conference - Program and Abstract Book. (pp. 529-570). Rome: EBES.

L. P. Pimentel and M. J. Major,  "Institutional entrepreneurship and change: The relevance of collective action ", in 35th EBES Conf. - Program and Abstract Book, Rome, EBES, 2021, pp. 529-570

@inproceedings{pimentel2021_1732197768879,
	author = "Pimentel, L. and Major, M.",
	title = "Institutional entrepreneurship and change: The relevance of collective action ",
	booktitle = "35th EBES Conference - Program and Abstract Book",
	year = "2021",
	editor = "",
	volume = "",
	number = "",
	series = "",
	pages = "529-570",
	publisher = "EBES",
	address = "Rome",
	organization = "EBES",
	url = "https://ebesweb.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/04/35th-EBES-Conference-Program-Final-1.pdf"
}

TY  - CPAPER
TI  - Institutional entrepreneurship and change: The relevance of collective action 
T2  - 35th EBES Conference - Program and Abstract Book
AU  - Pimentel, L.
AU  - Major, M.
PY  - 2021
SP  - 529-570
CY  - Rome
UR  - https://ebesweb.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/04/35th-EBES-Conference-Program-Final-1.pdf
AB  - Objectives: Drawing on the theoretical model of the process of entrepreneurship proposed by Battilana, 
Leca and Boxenbaum (2009), and on collective involvement/action literature, this paper aims to 
investigate how and why divergent institutional change was initiated by an individual institutional 
entrepreneur in a Portuguese government agency, where a new management model and new 
management control and accounting frameworks were implemented. Data and Methods: An in-depth 
and longitudinal explanatory study was carried out between January 2010 and March 2013. To this end, 
fifty-seven interviews were conducted and extensive documentation was analysed for the organization. 
Results: The investigation evidenced how an institutional entrepreneur could implement innovative 
management accounting frameworks. Findings also demonstrated that divergent change would not be 
possible without the back support of collective action. Moreover, evidence was found highlighting the 
relevance of factors such as actor’s organizational and structural capabilities, communication, 
cooperation, and motivation, not visualized in Battilana et al.’s (2009) model. Conclusions: The empirical 
study findings implied that a refined model of the process of entrepreneurship is proposed, highlighting 
collective action and other crucial additional factors and characteristics of the actors for the change 
process success. These are important contributions of the study. Originality/Contributions: The 33
originality and value of the research is seen in the proposition of a refined model of the process of 
entrepreneurship, highlighting the relevance of collective action to assure effectiveness in an institutional 
entrepreneurship process. The model of the process of institutional entrepreneurship and the role of 
collective action were empirically tested, implying that the model can be very useful to practitioners
Keywords: Institutional Entrepreneurship, Institutional Change, Collective Action, Collective 
Institutional Entrepreneurship, Public Services
ER  -