Page 204 - The Resilient Organization

190 Part Four: Step 3. Rehearsing a Culture of Resilience

difficulty because the “underlying rules of the game” failed to support
strategic thinking and innovation effectively summarizes key aspects of why
AT&T could not innovate. Other definitions could be used—for example,
Oliver’s (1997) definition: actions that “tend to be enduring, socially
accepted, resistant to change, and not directly reliant on rewards or
monitoring.” However, while ODD was struggling with institutionalized
activities as Oliver defines the term, to focus on the fact that strategy
processes in AT&T were “enduring” and “socially accepted” seems to take
us a step away from the issues important to practitioners.
Thus “the underlying rules of the game” is our definition of institution.
But since differing definitions capture different aspects of the underlying
reality, we will assume that the “underlying rules of the game” in human
systems also normally tend to meet Oliver’s definition. (They are “enduring,
socially accepted, and resistant to change.”) We also hypothesize that they
fulfill Berger and Luckmann’s (1966) definition (“reciprocal typification of
habitualized actions by types of actors”) and others.
Scott also makes another point central to drawing useful conclusions.
He notes that institutions are the same phenomenon at many levels of
society (2001: 55–60). Thus with appropriate caution we can use data and
theory from different levels when examining any institutional phenomenon.

AT&T’s Problems and ODD’s Struggle for Institutional Change

The rules-of-the-game definition makes clear that ODD had to pursue
institutional change. As discussed above, the prevalent rules of the game in
AT&T blocked it from realizing the potential of its resources. Positioning
its work as a crusade, ODD was inevitably pushing to change the
institutions.
Despite a clear understanding of the basics of the problem, however,
ODD lacked a comprehensive way to think about solving it. The members
did not know how to think clearly about changing institutions. ODD was
happy to be “odd”—to remain outside the power structures. To succeed in
the activist’s task, however, it needed more—the kind of social skill that
brings new institutional forms into existence. Clear understanding of insti-
tutionalized rules and how they can be deliberately changed could have
helped ODD and could help other practitioners as well.