Knowledge that Transforms

We argue that our understanding of practice adoption has been limited by the prevailing view that variations in adoption stem from consciously made decisions.We counter this position by arguing that a key-and neglected-aspect of the adoption process concerns the level of conscious engagement of those involved.In so doing, we theorize that there are two distinct institutional dimensions necessary for understanding how practice adoption takes place: acceptance and implementation.We develop these dimensions to provide a framework showing that different within-organization responses will be associated with differing levels of acceptance of the need to adopt a practice-the acceptance dimension-and differing levels of conscious reflection during implementation of the practice-the implementation dimension.We then unpack this framework to explain how variations in discourse play a determining role in how practice adoption unfolds.This reveals an interesting institutional paradox: the discursive characteristics that make a practice more easily accepted also reduce the conscious engagement needed for its implementation.We spend the balance of the article developing the implications of our theorizing for understanding the process of practice adoption.Institutional theorists have long documented the manner in which field-level pressures shape organizational action (e.g., Hinings & Greenwood, 1988;Meyer, Scott, & Strang, 1987;Selznick, 1949;Tolbert & Zucker, 1983).However, while such pressures are certainly highly salient in determining organizational outcomes, most scholars agree that they are not fully deterministic (DiMaggio, 1988; Hirsch & Lounsbury, 1997;Oliver, 1991).In other words, even as legitimate practices-those behaviors, strategies, ideas, technologies, or structures (Strang & Soule, 1998) that have obtained a "'social fact' quality [that] renders them as the only conceivable, 'obvious,' or 'natural' way to conduct an organizational activity" (Oliver, 1991: 148)-

International audience

Although subgroups are a widely studied component of work teams, much of the literature on subgroups has remained loosely connected and key questions remain unanswered. We integrate research on faultlines, diversity, and intergroup processes to develop a theory composed of a typology of subgroups and a depiction of the formation, processes, and outcomes associated with subgroups. The key insight from our theory is that subgroups are characterized by three underlying factors: identity, resources, and knowledge.