WRIGHT & ZAMMUTO 2013 - Wielding the Willow - Processes of Institutional Change in English County Cricket

娀 Academy of Management Journal2013, Vol. 56, No. 1, 308–330. http://dx.doi.org/10.5465/amj.2010.0656 WIELDING THE WILLOW: PROCESSES OF INSTITUTIONAL CHANGE IN ENGLISH COUNTY CRICKET APRIL L. WRIGHT RAYMOND F. ZAMMUTO The University of Queensland We examine institutional change processes through a longitudinal archival study of First-Class County Cricket in England. We find that institutional change occurs in mature organizational fields when organizations located at the field center, periphery, and in between trigger different multilevel processes. Our results show that when society-level evolutionary change created organization-level resource pressures that undermined the central values of a mature field, the group of actors between the field center and periphery served as intermediaries in the institutional change process bringing the societal, field, and organizational levels back into alignment. Our process model was supported over two cycles of change. with respect to the field’s central value system and rules (Shils, 1961). Actors positioned at the field center have the most commitment to and respect for the field’s central values and rules, and actors located at the field periphery have the least commitment and respect for values and rules. This literature is silent on the actions of the group of organizational actors located between center and periphery, which sociologists label middle-status actors (Phillips & Zuckerman, 2001). In contrast, the second approach expands the level of analysis to explore how other levels in the institutional system influence field change. Underpinning this approach is an assumption that institutions are a nested system of society, field, organizational, and individual levels (Friedland & Alford, 1991; Thornton, 2002). Although scholars agree conceptually that change is the outcome of dynamics between these multiple levels (Barley & Tolbert, 1997), few empirical studies have examined the interplay between more than two levels (an exception is Purdy and Gray [2009]). Attention has tended to focus either on how shifts in societylevel ideology affect a field (e.g., Haveman & Rao, 1997; Zilber, 2006) or on how organization-level action shapes field formation or change (Kraatz & Zajac, 1996; Lounsbury, 2007). In this study, we seek to deepen scholarly understanding of institutional change processes by combining these two approaches. Using a vertical lens to focus on the interaction between levels reveals the processes by which field change may occur through pressures from above and from below (Schneiberg, 2006). Using a horizontal lens to look within a field illuminates the processes by which organizational actors located at positions from a Scholars have focused increasing attention on the process of institutional change in mature organizational fields for the past two decades. Organizational fields are defined as “those organizations that, in the aggregate, constitute a recognized area of institutional life” (DiMaggio & Powell, 1983: 148). In mature fields, structures of domination and coalition among groups of organizational actors are well established, and field participants maintain mutual awareness, interaction, and information exchange (DiMaggio & Powell, 1983). A mature field is stabilized by a system of values and meanings that defines the rules by which participants interact (Scott, 2008). Changing these fields is a difficult and complex process because the forces of routine reproduction must be broken down (Jepperson, 1991). The recent literature on institutional change in mature fields can be divided into two broad approaches for unpacking change processes. The first approach focuses at the level of the field, paying particular attention to how groups of organizational actors located at a field’s center and periphery struggle against each other to protect and challenge the status quo (e.g., Greenwood & Suddaby, 2006; Hensmans, 2003; Leblebici, Salancik, Copay, & King, 1991; Rao, Monin, & Durand, 2003). The terms “center” and “periphery” reflect location We appreciate the comments of Royston Greenwood, Michael Lounsbury, Stephen Barley, Pamela Tolbert, Cynthia Hardy, Bob Hinings, Alan Meyer, David Merrett, Paul Brewer, Mark Dodgson, and Peter Liesch on drafts. We thank the staff of the Marylebone Cricket Club for their assistance with data collection. We also thank our editor, Ann Langley, and two anonymous reviewers for their thoughtful advice in shaping this article. 308 Copyright of the Academy of Management, all rights reserved. Contents may not be copied, emailed, posted to a listserv, or otherwise transmitted without the copyright holder’s express written permission. Users may print, download, or email articles for individual use only. 2013 Wright and Zammuto field’s center to its periphery can shape institutional change through their struggles (Schneiberg, 2006). Combining these two lenses permits a rich account of the dynamics by which change processes play out across levels and different groups of actors through time. To this end, we examine how different groups of actors influence the interplay between society-level ideology and organizationlevel action in the process of institutional change in a mature organizational field. Specifically, we ask: What roles do different groups of organizational actors play at different levels in this multilevel institutional change process over time? We investigate this question empirically by analyzing the field of First-Class County Cricket (County Cricket). Cricket developed in England as a game involving a ball, a bat carved from willow, and two opposing teams of 11 players. From the 1850s, the field of First-Class County Cricket matured into a specific competition produced by member-owned County Cricket clubs employing cricketers as labor resources (Bowen, 1970). In contrast to U.S. major league sports, County Cricket defined itself not as a mass market entertainment business but as art for the middle and upper classes (Wright, 2009a). Two rules were important in this field definition. Classification rules separated cricketers into the categories of amateur and professional. Amateurs, who belonged to the social elite, “wielded the willow” of their bats in a style esthetically superior to that of the working-class professionals (Birley, 2000). Qualification rules governed which cricketers a County could and could not employ. These rules were changed after World War II (WWII) as outcomes of an institutional change process in which the field shifted from its narrow definition of cricket-as-art to incorporate cricket-as-business. Our findings make an important contribution to a process-based understanding of institutional change by integrating bottom-up and top-down processual mechanisms to show how actors play different roles in the change process in mature organizational fields. Combining vertical and horizontal lenses, our findings illuminate how the mechanisms that interact across levels in an institutional change process are triggered by the actions and reactions of different groups of organizational actors located at and between the field center and periphery. When deviant organization-level actions by the periphery and shifts in society-level ideology create bottom-up and top-down pressure for institutional change, we find that middle-status actors will seek to protect the core values of the field by mobilizing the center and periphery around a change that brings the societal, field, and organiza- 309 tional levels back into alignment. Our focus on the dynamics of interaction among different groups of organizational actors across different levels over time therefore contributes to a distinctive processbased understanding of institutional change. Our findings show how and why microlevel institutional shifts occur, manifested in the very concrete actions of certain field participants and the ongoing mobilization of discourses by others. THEORETICAL BACKGROUND Multilevel Processual Change Mechanisms Barley and Tolbert’s (1997) conceptual model offers a starting point for considering how institutional change plays out as a bottom-up process between the organizational level, where rules play out in human action, and the field level, where rules are established. Later authors extended this model by elaborating a top-down process of institutional change created by discursive activity connecting the societal and field levels (Phillips, Lawrence, & Hardy, 2004). However, the mutual interaction between the societal and organizational levels, and the impact this might have on the field level, has rarely been discussed. Society-level ideology and field-level logics. Institutional scholars have proposed a key role for discourse in connecting the societal and field levels (Phillips et al., 2004). Society-level ideology is drawn down into fields through discursive activity and in the form of institutional logics (Friedland & Alford, 1991). We use ideology to refer to general values, beliefs, and assumptions existing at the level of society (Wilson, 1973) and logics to refer to specific organizing principles at the level of the field (Friedland & Alford, 1991; Thornton, 2002). Our use of the term “logics” is consistent with Greenwood and Suddaby’s definition: “Institutional logics are taken-for-granted, resilient social prescriptions, sometimes encoded in laws, specifying the boundaries of a field, its rules of membership, and the role identities and appropriate organizational forms of its constituent communities” (2006: 28). Shifts in societal ideology, such as those following wars (Baron, Dobbin, & Jennings, 1986) or those concerning awareness of the natural environment (Maguire & Hardy, 2009), create mechanisms for changing field-level logics when they stimulate a particular type of discursive activity described as theorization. Theorization entails specifying a problem and expressing and formalizing explicit justifications for change as the solution (Greenwood, Suddaby, & Hinings, 2002). Societal shifts interactions. Although scripts encode what is expected of field participants. This results in new patterns of human action that. rules. through human/organizational action Patterns of behavior and interactions that deviate from institutional expectations and create new scripts The formalization of a new rule to reflect a change in the field logic and scripts for action Conceptual Linkages Levels Ideology ¡ Logic Societal ¡ Field Logic ¡ Rules ¡ Script Field Script ¡ Action Field ¡ Organizational Action ¡ Script Organizational ¡ Field Script ¡ Logic ¡ Rule Field . Thus. 2008). 1984). their behavior elicits reciprocal scripted behavior from others. Translation is the mechanism through which scripts are replicated or reinterpreted in human action at the organizational level. When field participants perform a script by playing their roles in a plot. 1967. 1986). As scripts spread throughout a field. At the societal level.310 Academy of Management Journal provide an opportunity for theorization that promotes ideological justifications for changing field logics. Although the literature suggests the possibility of top-down theorization and bottom-up revision of scripts in institutional change. Over time. At the organizational level. translation undermines scripts at the field level if they are not being reproduced in action. 1996). conformity at the organizational level of action is not assured. Rules are important carriers of logics because of the way they constitute the reality of a field by defining different categories of actors. Following Barley and Tolbert (1997). and their capacity for action (Berger & Luckmann. Organization-level action. actors make and remake the connections between scripts. and scripts. as carriers of logics. revise the original script and may lead to new rules institutionalized at the field level. Rather than passively following the scripts. rules. 2008). into scripts. Scott. Rules encode institutional expectations about behavior that are consistent with the field’s logic in the form of scripts. It follows that theorization provides a mechanism for connecting society-level ideologies with field-level logics for organizing. Our discussion suggests that changes in mature fields may be driven by pressures originating from different levels of an institutional system. we suggest that institutionalization occurs at the intermediary level between field and organization through the mechanism of encoding rules. their interests. Core elements of scripts that encode rules as carriers of logics include roles for generic categories of actors and plots connecting typified acts. it has not considered how their mutual interaction and impact at the field level might be TABLE 1 Summary of Processual Mechanisms Processual Mechanism (a) Theorization (b) Encoding (c) Translating (d) Revision (e) Institutionalization Description The rendering of societal ideologies into field-level logics by specifying problems and justifying solutions The creation of scripts as observable recurrent activities and patterns of interactions that conform to rules that carry logics The interpretation and reinterpretation of scripts. recurrent activities and patterns of interaction characteristic of a particular setting” that mediate between the level of the field and the level of action. pressure for change arises from theorization about shifting ideologies and their implications for field-level logics. and this pattern of interaction confirms the field logic. translation is different from theorization because it relies on what people actually do to cope with rules and not on the arguments they develop concerning why the rules might legitimately be changed. pressure for institutional change arises as organizations translate scripts into action inconsistent with the rule. which are carried by rules and encode scripts for patterning human behavior. Field-level logics. and/or events (Barley. Barley and Tolbert (1997: 100) defined scripts as “observable. actors translate February them into action by interpreting and reinterpreting the abstract logics they encode (Czarniawska & Joerges. over time. A change in rules is an observable indicator of an institutional change process involving a shift in field logics (Scott. Barley and Tolbert (1997) suggested that field-level logics are carried throughout a field by rules. which encode rules as carriers of logics. Processual mechanisms for institutional change. Table 1 summarizes the mechanisms in the change process. This is because institutions both constrain and enable human action (Giddens. and logics as they flow down from higher levels. fields have been conceptualized as political arenas (Brint & Karabel. We then distinguished the field locations of center. Alternatively. elite actors located at field center are highly embedded and are the most advantaged by the prevailing logic. Sherer & Lee. 2001). Rao et al.and low-status actors (Phillips & Zuckerman. In this section. and scripts and organization-level action. which have a history of profit-seeking team owners satisfying mass market demand for spectator sports. the center and the periphery. researcher attention has focused on two locations only. Yet although this literature offers some insight into how different groups of organizational actors play a role in the change process. A classification rule distinguished between amateur and professional cricketers. Conformity to institutional rules and scripts has been shown to be higher for middle-status actors than for high. whereas high-status actors have minimal risk of losing legitimacy. Extant literature in sociology. and the MCC secretariat carried out the . 1989). Struggles for power and privilege occur between actors located at a field’s center and its periphery. rules. In other research. 2003. Missing from the explanation is consideration of if and how actors located between the center and periphery take actions that influence field change. These rules were changed in 1962 and 1967 through movement toward a cricket-as-business logic. 311 Nonconformity damages the social ranking of middle-status actors. the Marylebone Cricket Club (MCC). which met fortnightly. In 1904. Peripheral actors who associate their disadvantaged position with the prevailing field logic have an incentive to take actions that draw down an alternative logic from the societal level (Hensmans. a London-based private members club. The MCC Cricket Sub-Committee. 1961).S. 2002). defined as middle-status actors (Phillips & Zuckerman. suggests that the group of actors located between the center and periphery of a field may play an important role in reproducing field logic. they nevertheless possess sufficient resources and power to initiate changes intended to sustain or improve their advantage (Greenwood & Suddaby. Counties) produced County Championship matches for the aesthetic pleasure of socially elite club members (Cardus. A field logic of cricket-as-art emerged in Victorian England and was carried by rules for employing cricketers as labor resources. 2003.2013 Wright and Zammuto triggered by different groups of organizational actors. and the Change Process The multilevel processual mechanisms just discussed point to how forces above and below a field create pressure for institutional change. Field Positions. 1991). governed English cricket. and low-status actors face inconsequential penalties versus potential reward. periphery. We turn now to the methods we used to investigate our research question. reflect location with respect to a central value system and its embodiment in rules and authority. 2006. no research has examined whether and how interactions between these groups shapes an institutional change process over time in a mature organizational field. METHODS Case Selection First-Class County Cricket (hereafter. This literature distinguishes among actors with high status.. From 1787 to 1969. Although their interests are vested in preserving the status quo. we derived from the extant literature on institutional change a set of mechanisms connecting societylevel ideology with field-level logics. and in-between and considered the incentives for actors positioned at each location to take actions to reproduce or change the field logic. In County Cricket. we outlined a theoretical background to our research question: What role do different groups of organizational actors play at different levels in a multilevel institutional change process over time? To ground our answer. and a qualification rule defined that cricketers could be employed only by their geographic county of birth or long-term residence. Organizational Actors.. the MCC established the Advisory County Cricket Committee (ACCC) to administer the County game. 1952). and actors in between. Institutional scholars have argued that actors located at the periphery of a field are the least committed to the field’s logic and are the most disadvantaged by that logic. He argued that commitment to central values and respect for the authority of rules and rule makers weakens with movement from center to periphery (Shils. The ACCC comprised representatives from MCC and each of the 17 first-class Counties. County Cricket) offered a compelling case for investigating our research question. actors with low status. 1991) involving structured systems of social positions (Bourdieu. 2001). Unlike U. Shils (1961) noted center and periphery are not geographical terms but rather. major league sports. First-Class County Cricket clubs (hereafter. However. rules are the product of collaborative governance. which has not been considered previously in explanations of institutional change. Leblebici et al. a chronology of key events involving institutional formation and change was reconstructed from books written by cricket historians. (3) when? (what point in time?). a total of 949 documents were identified as relevant to the institutional change process: minutes of 354 meetings. Other sources included the Cricketer. script. Text segments were then hand-coded according to (1) what? (logic. typed in an electronic file. Analysis began by classifying Counties according to their location at the field’s center. In keeping with other institutional studies (Greenwood et al. designation as a cricket ground able to host international Test matches. we assembled a data set from the archival sources for this period by writing summary notes and extracting quotes relevant to British ideology at the societal level.1 which link to entries in the Appendix.. Data Collection The MCC gave access to its private library and archives to the first author. and historical Champion- . ACCC meetings were chaired by the president of MCC. County proposals for rule changes. and scripts at the field level of County Cricket. rules. (2) the period 1936 – 62. and 9 other documents such as speeches. which we define as the end of 1935. a magazine published annually since 1921. For the period 1919 – 67. As coding progressed following procedures recommended for qualitative researchers (Eisenhardt. In the discussion that follows. Collaborative governance aided our data collection because a formal procedure existed for documenting interactions between the organizational and field levels. or organizational level). it emerged that the “what” at the societal level was social class ideology and the “what” at the field level was a cricket-as-art logic. An amateur script assigning a particular style of performance (plot) to a particular type of cricketer (role) also emerged in this period. Field location classification was based on two summary measures derived from Shils (1961): relative closeness to the field’s central value system—in our case. the Wisden Almanack. The data set comprised 267 single-spaced pages of text. Table 2 summarizes the major oppositions. The MCC archivisthistorian assisted with identification of relevant archival data.312 Academy of Management Journal work of cricket administration on behalf of the Counties. 1994). when the MCC appointed its first commission to examine the field. in which classification and qualification rules were established as carriers of a logic of cricket-as- February art. 56 player and administrator biographies and anthologies of poetry and stories. 2003). when the classification rule was changed. 50 memoranda. which submitted any amendments two weeks before the scheduled meeting. or action). which developed in opposition to a cricket-as-business logic. 13 agendas. which are elaborated in the first stage of analysis. Criteria for the former measure included number of years competing in the Championship. (2) where? (societal. 1989. recorded in minutes by the MCC secretary. Any rule change required support of a two-third majority of County representatives and confirmation by the MCC committee. and minutes of meetings. were submitted to the MCC secretary for inclusion on the agenda for the next ACCC meeting. and the establishment of County clubs at the organizational level. Miles & Huberman. 146 letters of correspondence. Data analysis then moved on to the two time periods in which rule changes indicated an institutional change process had occurred. and in-between at the end of field formation and maturation. and two museum guides. The veracity of our interpretation of the emergence of a cricket-asart logic and an amateur script was confirmed by (1) viewing of artwork and artifacts displayed in the museum at Lord’s Cricket Ground and at the house of a private collector and (2) consultation with the archivist-historian. The MCC Cricket Sub-Committee also reviewed the ACCC agenda. 156 newspaper clippings. held twice yearly. periphery. when the qualification rule was changed. The agenda and memorandums were then circulated to Counties. we identify material from these archival documents with numerical superscripts. the collector. Rao et al. 26 reports. the logic of cricket-as-art—and relative closeness to the field’s rule-making authority. rule. and (4) who? (which clubs or committees?). Data on cricket’s early history of field formation were sourced from the Wisden Cricketers’ Almanack (published annually since 1864 and containing articles on English and international cricket and abridged minutes of governance meetings). accompanied by a memorandum of justification. Data Analysis To enable in-depth analysis of the first stage of field formation.. and attended by representatives of the MCC Cricket Sub-Committee as well as the Counties. and 49 scholarly books and articles written by sociologists and sports historiographers. 195 questionnaires. 2002. logics. the establishment of collaborative governance mechanisms. This led to the demarcation of three stages of institutional formation and change: (1) field formation and maturation. and (3) the period 1962– 67. field. We labeled the six Counties that were classified as closest to the field’s central value system and authority structures as central elites. gained status from staging international matches. As shown in Table 3. we found letters inviting central elites to meet at private homes to . Six Counties were rated high on both closeness to the field’s central value system and rule-making authority. our data set comprised only 17 Counties that self-governed their field through committees.2013 Wright and Zammuto 313 TABLE 2 Oppositions between Logics of Cricket-as-Art and Cricket-as-Business Dimensions Field structure Capital prioritized (Bourdieu. with Kent and Surrey playing their first match in 1840. 1984) Primary source of legitimacy (Suchman. Disciples of the cricket-as-art logic and traditional guardians of the field. Surrey. these criteria were important in determining the Counties’ status. They enjoyed a large and loyal membership with traditional values and. but central elites were more likely to hold positions on the MCC Cricket SubCommittee and/or be MCC office bearers. With the exception of the two northern Counties. Table 3 summarizes our classifications of the field positions of Counties. central elites were located in close proximity to London. it was not unexpected to find that a County that was close to the field’s central values was also close to the rule-making authority. as described earlier. Collaborative governance meant that County representation on and proximity to the field’s hierarchy of committees provided a mechanism for affirming and disseminating values. medium-medium. as home to four of the six Test grounds. which facilitated committee representation by reducing the burden of traveling to meetings. Key amateurs and administrators of all Counties were members of MCC. central elites comprised the founding Championship competitors. power. Three combinations only of the two measures emerged from our data: high-high. Middlesex. 1995) Structures for interorganizational relationships Archetypes for sporting competition Archetypes for organizational structures Archetypes for acquisition of labor resources Most valued labor resources Formal rules for employment of labor resources Logic of Cricket-as-Art Logic of Cricket-as-Business Field of Restricted Production Symbolic capital Aesthetic Field of Large Scale Production Economic capital Utilitarian County members Appropriateness Mass market (spectators paying at the gate) Consequences Moral Pragmatic Hierarchy Historically specified Traditional Championship Long battles (three-day matches) Traditional county boundaries Member-owned and financed clubs Decision-making power vested with committees Cartel of employers Market Individually controlled Modern cups and leagues Short contests (limits on each team’s innings) Customer segments Structures appropriate for maximizing returns Decision-making power vested with owners of resources Labor as free agents Amateurs valued on social class Oppositional classification Naturalized qualification Cricketers valued on merit Universal classification Instant qualification ship success. The use of Shils’s two measures to determine field location is likely to produce more varied combinations in fields with larger numbers of participants. 1993) Emphasis on cricket as a cultural product Most valued consumers Criteria for decision making (March & Olsen. six Counties were rated medium on both measures.” “medium. and Hampshire dominated the number of representatives and office bearers.” or “low” for its closeness to the field’s central value system and a summary rating as “high. Therefore. A central elite won the Championship on all but three occasions from 1890 to 1935. central elites gained power through their relationships with MCC. and criteria for the latter included convenience of traveling to London for committee meetings and relationships with MCC. We confirmed the veracity of our criteria and ratings through independent discussions with the MCC archivist-historian and with a cricket expert who assists authors with historical fact checking. and low-low. and five Counties were rated low on both measures. However.” or “low” for its closeness to the field’s rule-making authority. and resources.” “medium. There was a high level of informal interaction between central elites and MCC (for example. Applying these criteria allowed us to give each County Cricket Club a summary rating as “high. As we explain below. Category Central elite Central elite Central elite Central elite Central elite Central elite Peripheral elite Peripheral elite Peripheral elite Peripheral elite Peripheral elite Peripheral elite Marginal player Marginal player Marginal player Marginal player Marginal player County Club Surrey Yorkshire Middlesex Kent Hampshire Lancashire Sussex Nottinghamshire Gloucestershire Somerset Warwickshire Essex Derbyshire Leicestershire Worcestershire Northamptonshire Glamorgan 1864 1864 1864 1864 1864 1865 1864 1864 1870 1891 1895 1895 1895 1895 1899 1905 1921 First Year in Championship London North London South-East South North South-East Midlands West South-West North-West South-East North Midlands North-West Midlands Wales Location (Relative to London) X X X X X X Test Ground 7 18 3 4 0 7 0 2 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 First: 1890–1935 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 5 6 3 Last: 1921–35 Championship Performance Classification of Positional Location in the Field Pre-1935 TABLE 3 Descriptive Data on Individual County Clubs –5% 3% –8% –2% –13% –4% –8% –27% –44% –52% –8% –18% –46% –19% –27% –84% –56% Net Cricket Income (Five-Year Average: 1956–60) X X X X X X X X X X X Supporters’ Club 8 11 2 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 2 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 6 2 4 0 1 1 6 0 5 0 Last: 1936–67 Championship Performance First: 1936–67 Performance 1936–67 . where. and establishment of new sources of finance (translations). we extracted 246 statements attributed to individual County representatives from the minutes. we present the findings of our three stages of analysis. A total of 173 statements were extracted from archival documents and coded for their expression of rules. we use extensive endnotes. they found London relatively accessible for meetings. when and who by asking how these were connected. We analyzed the minutes of meetings. To address our research question on the role of different groups of organizational actors in the change process. In the next section. when the field had formed and matured. west and lower north of England. Marginal players had small memberships and limited representation on the committees of MCC. 2009b). We borrow the term from Scott to represent “actors who are at the periphery of a field” (2008: 102). We coded statements according to whether they expressed support for. 1993). and other documents in which Counties proposed and contested a rule change regarding the qualification of cricketers. Having classified the field location of each County at the end of 1935. and/or organizational practices following Elsbach and Kramer’s (1996) method of mapping evidential patterns in organizational statements. and a marginal player always finished in last place and never won a Championship during our classification period. presented in the Appendix. we labeled this mechanism of script revision “displacement. such as applications to register cricketers. payments to cricketers. memorandums. to provide full historical documentation (Hill. we iterated between what. As shown in Table 3. Clustering around the south. the process we uncovered was confirmed. membership in these Counties lacked the social status of membership in a central elite club. patterns emerged that refined our coding and revealed 315 mechanisms for the encoding and revision of scripts. . the existing classification rule and the extent to which the County representative justified support or rejection through logics. field. Reading iteratively within and between the documents. increasing confirmability through “triangulation” (Jick. scripts. or rejection of. This group joined the Championship after the MCC officially consecrated it as “first class” in 1894. this group included both founding Championship competitors and later entrants. logics. we analyzed the change process involving the classification rule from 1936 to 1962 (see Wright. As segments of text were hand-coded for mechanisms and levels.4 No marginal players staged Test matches. This led to second-order insights about the interplay between societal. Finally. and organizational action. and formal passage of new rules (institutionalization). we traced (1) chains of arguments used to challenge or defend the status quo by different committee members. memorandums.3 We labeled the six Counties that had a medium level of closeness to the field’s central value system and authority structures as peripheral elites. Confirmability was enhanced by discussing emergent insights with the MCC archivisthistorian and other experts. Each statement was made in response to the possibility of changing the classification rule by removing amateur status and recategorizing all players as cricketers. Peripheral elites had solid representation on the MCC Committee and some representation on the MCC Cricket Sub-Committee.” When coding was completed. They were geographically and culturally distant from London. Because a text segment was coded as referencing a field script when it assigned a particular style of performance (plot) to a particular type of cricketer (role). Glamorgan. shifts in plots and/or roles became apparent over time. we labeled the five Counties that had the lowest level of closeness to the field’s value system and authority structure as marginal players. 1979). located in Wales. Although their memberships were loyal and relatively sizable. societal ideology. scripts. and by different committees. (2) actions taken by individual Counties to acquire financial and human resources. and reports of County Cricket’s subcommittees and committees relevant to amateur status. As is appropriate in historical archival research. we repeated the coding procedures to analyze the role of individual Counties in the change process for the qualification rule. was especially so (the archives contained correspondence indicating travel to meetings posed a time and financial burden).2013 Wright and Zammuto discuss cricket matters2 and private correspondence about actions of marginal players (see below) undermining central elites). Finally. societal ideology. Interpretations were derived from multiple documents. with Sussex a strong voice. and two peripheral elites hosted Test grounds. reports. and organizational levels in the process of institutional change. Finally. Our method conforms to Lincoln and Guba’s (2000) principles of methodological and interpretative rigor. acting as representatives of collective field interests (theorizations). acting as representatives of individual County interests. repeating over two change cycles. As discussed later. 2000).”5 codification of the “laws of cricket” and emergence of rudimentary club structures followed. and other professionals who aspired to position themselves closer to the upper classes of landed aristocracy and further from working class laborers in factories and mines. the MCC. The amateur “wielded the willow” of the bat “as great artists use fiddles. club members enjoyed substantial autonomy to develop nonmarket criteria for cricket production. because cricketers titled as amateurs played cricket for pleasure as an expression of their moral character (role). produced cricket as a cultural product for themselves as producing consumers and were educated to appreciate the esthetics of a three-day match and the amateur script. landowners and aristocrats took on presidential roles. which belongs with the the- . manly British game. Teams were composed of amateurs from the upper and aspirational middle classes. the Industrial Revolution had spawned a middle class of businessmen. .”a type of field that (1) produces cultural goods for a public of producers of cultural goods. “untainted by vulgarity or crudity. “cricket was a dance with a bat in your hand. Pairs of batsmen tried to score runs by hitting the ball and running from one end of the batting pitch to the other. the nobility and gentry assembled cricket teams.”10. Embracing a logic of cricket-as-art. and organized sports (Mangan. they played in an exuberant and aesthetic style (plot). as “the discipline and reliance on one another which it teaches is so valuable. and “by common consent gained the appellation noble. and working class professionals who received salaries. such as high-brow art being produced for other artists. County members.”13 playing strokes that turned “the old one-stringed instrument into a many chorded lyre. when social class hierarchies ordered postfeudal society (Birley. Whereas for amateurs. Each match was played over three days by two teams of 11 players February each. is a standing ‘panegyric’ on the English character: none but an orderly and sensible race of people would so amuse themselves. When alumni traveled throughout the colonies. The Church of England promoted cricket as “a manly recreation” that “calls into requisition all the cardinal virtues .”8 in response to societal and organizational pressures. who were reimbursed only for expenses.”9 It was also included in the curriculum of elite schools and universities to foster sportsmanship and leadership. they used cricket to diffuse ideas about Anglo-Saxon character (Kaufman & Patterson. 2009a).316 Academy of Management Journal INSTITUTIONAL CHANGE PROCESSES IN COUNTY CRICKET Stage 1: Formation of the Field of County Cricket The first cricket matches were staged as public entertainment in England in the 1700s. as owners of clubs. 12 the amateur style of play differed visibly from that of professionals.”14 Professionals performed an oppositional script: because their livelihood depended on cricket performance (role). In the language of scripts (Barley.6 By 1800.”8 to entertain members. including servants. Despite some cross-subsidization of costs by gate spectators from the working class. The bowling team sought to dismiss each batsman by taking his wicket in a variety of ways. The field met Bourdieu’s (1993) description of a “field of restricted cultural production. philosophically considered. and military officers. paint brushes. The winner was the team with the most runs after each team had batted twice. 1962).”10 Learning to “Play up! play up! and play the game!”11 prepared schoolboys for their future roles in empire. As interest grew in this “glorious. boasting membership of landed aristocrats. 1986). middle-class aspirants sought membership in the MCC and emerging elite cricket clubs organized around the geographic unit of a county. to compete for wagers (Altham.”16 Interaction of class-based values at the societal level and club production of scripted cricketing performances at the organizational level drove formation of a new field around a logic of cricket-asart (Wright. and (3) prioritizes the accumulation of symbolic capital over economic capital. clergy. 1981). Because amateurs received coaching at elite schools and universities where cricket was “character training. became the law-making authority and “mother of cricket. One team batted while the opposing team bowled and fielded the ball. (2) evaluates products using legitimacy criteria developed by the field itself. During visits to their country estates. patience.”15 professionals avoided using their bat for anything that “never were a business stroke. the professional adopted a workmanlike defensive style motivated by results (plot). religion. Clubs banned wagering and staged cricket matches. and professionals performed administrative duties (Marqusee. They in part achieved this repositioning by an identity of moral character developed through education. A draw was declared if no team was dismissed twice in the three days allocated for the match. At the societal level. pianos. members evaluated cricket as a “dramatic spectacle. 2005): “The game of cricket. self-denial. civil servants. fortitude.”9 At the organizational level.”7 Cricket production remained informal until the field was institutionalized in the Victorian era. 2005).6 Clubs were managed by elected committees. . marginal players raised funds by imitating an organizational form visible in football and league cricket.”20 for “County Clubs will then steadily deteriorate into mere ‘firms. this rule affirmed the pastoral roots of the upper classes as the appropriate definition for belonging in the field of restricted cultural production and precluded market-based definitions of belonging as a tradable commodity. opera and the dance”17 (James. 2005: 258). if necessary. and the merchant minded”22 represented by the field of large-scale cultural production. known as “supporters’ clubs” (Table 3). The County Cricket field of restricted cultural production saw itself as “a cult and a philosophy inexplicable to the profanum vulgus . First. MCC appointed a commission to examine the County game. . The classification rule created “amateur” and “professional” as an oppositional pair of titles and publicly affirmed the superior status of the amateur: “No gentleman ought to make a profit by his services in the cricket field. supporters’ clubs officially had “no ties”25 to a cricket club and “stuck to the old formula to help and not hinder.” could belong in County Cricket only after being naturalized. naturalized professionals. Peripheral elites followed . County Cricket “must not be tampered with to please people who think it can have the concentrated excitement of an hour and a half’s football.” In turn. marginal players showed symbolic conformity to the field of restricted cultural production logic while achieving efficiency by subsidizing cricket production through a cricket-as-business organizational form. and hierarchically superior to. emerging in the industrial areas of Northern England in the 1880s. who faced the dual problems of low membership and an inadequate stock of naturalized cricketers.”19 We label this the “titled amateur script. such as football.”18 A logic of cricket-as-art requires cricketers able to perform as artists. Postwar commitment to cricket-as-art at the field level intensified pressures on marginal players for financial and human resources. 1993). the qualification rule specified that cricketers could play either for their county of birth or of two-year residence but could not play for multiple Counties in a single season. Conformity to the cricket-as-art logic undermined the viability of marginal players.18 By mandating that labor resources be naturalized into the soil of a County. this rule assisted Counties to “get going again”24 in 1946 after WWII depleted stocks of healthy cricketers. 1993: 78) authentic first-class cricket and cricketers.2013 Wright and Zammuto atre. placing time limits on each batting team. the field of restricted cultural production: “It stands to reason that cricket dominated by amateurs must be livelier than cricket in which professionals set the tone. to satisfy working class demand for spectator sports of short duration. labeled “overseas players.”21 Fields of restricted cultural production exist in opposition to fields of large-scale production. Counties avoided bankruptcy through donations from benefactors and a share of profits from Test cricket. 1970). the commission recommended special registration for “exceptional cases”23 of cricketers not naturalized through birth or residence. because fewer cricketers could afford to play as amateurs.”23 the commission’s (1937) report concluded the presence of amateurs was “desirable for obvious reasons. Cricketers born outside of the United Kingdom. At the end of 1935. They responded to the contradiction between field legitimacy and organizational efficiency by translating the field logic in three ways. and the rule encoded a script in which cricketers titled as amateurs “wielded the willow” in a style distinctive to. Translating and scripting at the organizational level.”25 By decoupling. which produce cultural products for the public at large (Bourdieu. Counties faced declining revenue as crowds fell during the Great Depression and.”23 To reduce delay in qualifying amateurs.’ like Football League Clubs. Opposing the field of restricted cultural pro- 317 duction of County Cricket was the field of largescale cultural production of league cricket clubs. ballet. . Affirming the need to preserve “the art and character of the game. 1936–62 After forming as a field of restricted cultural production of cricket-as-art. Clubs became consecrated as First-Class Counties by playing a minimum number of three-day matches against MCC and other Counties (Bowen. Counties were expected to produce attractive Championship cricket using an indigenous supply of amateurs and. Stage 2: Changing the Classification Rule. Formalization of governance structures and rules of oppositional classification and naturalized qualification ensured that the field remained distinct from. Introduced in 1939. Leagues produced Saturday matches. First-class cricketers were consecrated through classification and qualification rules. other forms of cricket production and other commercial sports. rising labor costs for professionals. and valued in. Formal governance of the field of restricted cultural production was introduced by MCC from 1873 to 1894 to “consecrate” (Bourdieu. Generating income from lotteries and gambling pools. who simply provide public entertainments by the medium of troupes of paid players. The classification rule allowed amateurs to be refunded out-of-pocket expenses only. 45. no central elite made payments to amateurs employed in administrative positions. and socioeconomic change had reduced the number of independently wealthy individuals willing to play as amateurs. including matches representing their home countries.”40 Only the “genuine amateur”41.27 To keep marginal players in check. the role of titled amateur was problematic because the observable patterns of behavior disputed causality between possessing the title of am- .318 Academy of Management Journal by introducing their own supporters’ clubs.”36 Marginal players. drive and enterprise traditionally associated with the amateur. since marginal players continued to face a shortage of indigenous cricketers. Marginal players with small populations and supporters’ clubs had both the motive for and financial capacity to engage in translation. peripheral and central elites used the ACCC to place quotas on a County’s specially registered players in 1951 and prescribed special registration “as only an alternative to qualification by residence [that] should not be regarded as the normal method of qualification.94 for marginal players. However. However. translation of the classification rules caused an observable disconnection between role and plot in the performance of the titled amateur script vis-à-vis the professional script. 39. the average ratio of annual income from supporters’ clubs to normal cricket income was 0. The latter group “steadfastly refused to “have a bang” irrespective of the state of the game. 35 percent for peripheral elites.23 for peripheral elites and zero for central elites. except England.”24 Moreover. Registration was forfeited if cricketers played in any other first-class competitions. and 28 percent for central elites.”37 resisted field attempts to police financial arrangements. From 1956 to 1960. including as a “public relations officer”35 with a supporters’ club. central and peripheral elites sought to “clear up any doubt”28 as to what constituted legitimate recruitment of overseas-born professionals. Yet two world wars had depleted cricketer stocks.”39 Regarding the plot. County Cricket required a supply of amateurs able to perform the titled amateur script. 46 wielded the willow for pleasure. they translated the rule into action by importing overseas cricketers willing to qualify by residence because “no country. salaries paid to professionals constituted 43 percent of total expenses for marginal players. Marginal players made the same number of applications for special registration in the 1949 and 1950 seasons as peripheral and central elites combined. peripheral elites translated the rule by reimbursing “phony”32 expenses and paying amateurs for administrative duties never performed. From 1958 to 1962. with central elites submitting only a third as many applications as marginal players. To sustain February itself as a field of restricted cultural production.”29 Thus. In the four years from 1957 to 1960. marginal players translated the classification rule to improve access to amateurs. when cricketers sought payment for loss of earnings without forfeiting the “social status of an amateur title. Marginal players justified paying key amateurs for their time as a means of preserving “the leadership. rather than as already naturalized resources employed serendipitously. Northamptonshire. field participants generally observed that instead of playing cricket for pleasure not profit. cross-subsidized by a 61. interpreted special registration as a routine method of qualifying nonnaturalized professionals and registered four times as many cricketers as other Counties in the five years prior to 1949. central and peripheral elites defined “importing (as) a real problem”30 and used the ACCC to limit Counties to a quota of two overseas players in 1957. results-oriented plot of the professional.”29 marginal players and. to a lesser extent. while others performed the defensive. they also observed that only some cricketers titled as amateurs wielded the willow in the exuberant amateur style.26 Second.31 Third. whereas every marginal player and half the peripheral elites did so. In contrast. marginal players translated overseas players as resources to be naturalized after active importing. The amateur plot remained unquestioned by the field as “of great value to the game”47 because it carried the field of restricted cultural production logic of cricket-as-art. either at home or on tours. to support professionalism. plays sufficient First Class Cricket. marginal players translated the qualification rules so as to improve their access to professional cricketers. arguing MCC was “interfering too much in their domestic affairs. 0. 42 or “true amateur”43. Because this translation contradicted traditional belonging to a field of restricted cultural production. Regarding the role. Over time. The ACCC ruled that three years’ residency in the United Kingdom was required for special registration. some titled amateurs “retained their amateur status title while continuing to derive their income either wholly or in part from the game”38 and “some amateurs were far better paid than the professionals. 44.000 member supporters’ club.33 Four marginal players and one peripheral elite were investigated for what central elites and other peripheral elites considered “excessive payments of amateur expenses”34 and “hypocrisies”34 of paying cricketers for nominal administrative duties. For example. Shared sacrifice and military efforts organized on merit had eroded the gap between the working and middle classes (Holt.” decoupled from the “proper”57 contest of the three-day Championship.2 percent for peripheral elites. Theorization that “in this democratic age a true amateur should not require the benefits of .48 By 1960. The ACCC devised a solution to appeal to “the modern public who wanted entertainment value.”53 vulnerable marginal players and peripheral elites introduced supporters’ clubs. In 1936. amateurs represented 21. less dramatic and perhaps less moral. class distinctions were perceived as pretentious. and a new classification rule. In Championship matches played during the 1960 season.2013 Wright and Zammuto ateur and wielding the willow. A title no longer drove the plot of the amateur script. the central elite’s objective in agreeing to a “cup. lacks the element of excitement which so many competitive activities provide. Societal change. At the same time. theorization of societal change created top-down pressure. and 20. In contrast. In 1963 they introduced a KnockOut Cup with matches completed in a single day.”56 The impact of England’s growing egalitarianism on the producing and consuming aspects of the cricket field of restricted cultural production was eventually carried through to a change in the classification rule. With fewer cricketers performing the amateur plot.8 percent for marginal players. The shift from hierarchical to egalitarian ideologies of social class was drawn down into the field by peripheral elites and marginal players who questioned the “snob value of amateur status”58 and the “insulting and derogatory comment on modern professionals”59 implied an oppositional classification. Progression toward egalitarianism undermined cricket as a field of restricted cultural production. The decline in amateurs was most pronounced for marginal players.”58 rather than aesthetic edification. the number of amateurs playing at least one Championship match had fallen from 175 amateurs in 1936 to 64 in 1960. shifting logics. “only about six clubs could hope to break even”57 (see Table 3). The latter inquiry reported that after excluding “non-normal”56 income from supporters’ clubs.”49 The “approach of the modern crick- 319 eter to batting”50 was unattractive. lacking “positive fight between bat and ball. 2013). from watching cricket. This theorization coming down from the societal level aligned with the genuine amateur script coming up from organizational action. Two wars and decline of empire accelerated progression from class-based hierarchization toward egalitarianism as the legitimate organizing principle for English society.”51 Societal progression toward egalitarianism also eroded the consuming aspect of cricket’s field of restricted cultural production by shrinking the base of cultivated consumers who valued the artistry of the Championship. and the number of professionals rose from 191 to 262.3 percent of the labor force of central elites.8 percent of the labor forces of central elites and peripheral elites respectively. central elites noted County Cricket “developed a tendency to be less artistic.”51 Although central elites believed members remained “the true cricket enthusiast”52 and “should always constitute the basis of a County’s economy. 48 percent of cricketers who played at least one County Championship match were classified as amateurs. an outcome of marginal player translation in response to the shortage of amateurs from England’s shrinking upper class. amateurs represented 15. amateurs represented only 6. For gate spectators. “a threeday cricket match is a long drawn-out affair. which.1 and 20. 1993). In all Counties. achieved primarily through a significant increase in the average number of Championship matches played by each amateur compared to the 1936 season.4 percent of the labor force of marginal players. these amateurs played substantially fewer Championship matches than did professionals. This raised criticism from the MCC and central elites stating that “it was wrong for County cricket to be kept alive by artificial means”54 and spawned field inquiries in 1957 and 1960 – 61 to consider how to grow “interest and active support”55 for cricket. As a new collective identity was forged. In Championship matches played during the 1936 season. The titled amateur role was displaced in the new script. The Cup was an outcome of an institutional change process that moved the field of restricted cultural production’s anchor in response to societal and organizational pressures. was to ensure survival of the field of restricted cultural production by increasing “spectator appeal”49 without causing “a set-back in prestige. which we label the “genuine amateur script”: genuine amateurs (role) play in an aesthetic and exuberant style (plot). in the modern world. Rather. Translation and script displacement caused bottom-up pressure for institutional change. 1993). 23. The producing aspect of this field of restricted cultural production was undermined by overreliance on professional labor. It did not represent art being usurped by business as the core logic for the field (Wright & Zammuto. an identity that requires producers able to produce cricket as art and consumers cultivated to appreciate it (Bourdieu. ”39 Thus. marginal players joined peripheral elites in rejecting the classification rule. were initially supportive of retaining oppositional classification. The outcome of alignment between societal. We found that when a subcommittee of ACCC was first set up to consider a rule change in 1957. peripheral elites sought to further the institutional change process by proposing a change in the qualification rule. As the representative for one marginal player complained. the amateur plot core to the field of restricted cultural production was preserved while the socially unpalatable oppositional classification was removed. to monitor payments made to amateurs. the existing rule limited recruitment of world-class cricketers. Stage 3: Changing the Qualification Rule. stated. This occurred after the MCC set up a standing committee in 1958. The proposed rule change carried a shift from a relatively pure field of restricted cultural production to one in which the dominant cricket-as-art logic was forced to incorporate cricket-as-business practices for survival. too. then the rule should be tightened to prevent payment of amateurs. and 1964 to permit employment of overseas players not naturalized through residence. For peripheral elites. they reconciled its inevitability in an egalitarian society February with preservation of the amateur plot through the genuine amateur script. When the committee acted on four “doubtful cases” involving marginal players. with the ACCC affirming the need for cricketers to be naturalized. peripheral elites were sufficiently embedded in the cricket-as-art logic for payment of amateurs to be recognized as contradictory but not so embedded they took the existence of the rule for granted. Marginal players. Two Counties proposed the change.320 Academy of Management Journal distinction to be publicly known”59 was supported by scripting in which “an alteration in the name of a cricketer would not in any way alter his attitude to the game. and . Over time. Our coding revealed that peripheral elites put forward proposals to the ACCC in 1962. Thus.K. central elites were strongly supportive of retaining amateur status because they took for granted the cricket-as-art logic and valued social class distinctions and the titled amateur script. “All players in First-Class County Cricket shall in future be called cricketers and that any financial arrangements made with them will be the sole concern of their respective Counties. Although both Counties employed some naturalized overseas cricketers. Peripheral elites challenged the capacity to separate symbol from substance. who were unwilling to sit out two years of cricket to establish residential qualification. field. perceiving the field rule to exist independently of their own practice of financially compensating cricketers who wanted to play as amateurs.”60 Marginal players then supported peripheral elites in seeking an egalitarian rule change that would not impede their use of practices consistent with a cricket-as-business logic at the organizational level. Marginal players sought to retain amateurs as symbols of the cricket-as-art logic without believing in the substance of that logic. This shift had begun with the change in the amateur classification rule. comprising representatives from itself and from central and peripheral elites.”62 Kept afloat by revenue from supporters’ clubs but facing declining gates at Championship matches due to poor performances. I do not think they have the right to do that. 1962–67 Having secured a change in the classification rule. and organizational pressures in the institutional change process was a new field rule in which the oppositional classification of amateur and professional was replaced with the universal classification “cricketer.”44 Timed to coincide with the start of the Knock-Out Cup. They were the first group of Counties to conceive that it was possible for the plot of the amateur script to be preserved without the amateur title. producing a less elitist and more decentralized labor market for cricketers. otherwise oppositional classification made no sense and should be abandoned. The boundary achieved through qualification rules remained intact. if the amateur title was to be retained. Both had been elite members when the field first emerged in the Victorian era and aspired to improve their current field position by employing overseas “stars”61 as “crowd pullers. the new rule was a carrier of a field logic in which the boundary between cricket-as-art and cricket-as-business was less distinct. they questioned whether retaining amateur status was worth the loss of financial autonomy. 1963.” The new rule. Nottinghamshire and Gloucestershire had observed the impact of worldclass overseas players on attendances in Australian domestic cricket and league cricket in the U. legislated at the end of 1962. albeit with residential qualification reduced to two years to appease overseas cricket boards. “The inference when you analyse it really is that this Committee who do not appear to know the ramifications of our cricket organization are telling me that I do not know my job. The central elites were never supportive of the rule change because it undermined the cricket-as-art logic at the core of their identity and power base. Nottinghamshire and Gloucestershire. However. On each occasion in 1962.”73 These new patterns of behavior displaced the genuine amateur script. Marginal players finished last in the Championship only 5 times from 1950 to 1967. Change.70 Thus. Because “Counties with a small population were at a disadvantage so far as obtaining first class cricketers. 64. As with their response to the classification rule. marginal players’ support of retaining naturalization was symbolic rather than substantive. character and accomplishment. performed the plot of wielding the willow with character and artistry. English cricketers abandoned the genuine amateur script for a professional script in which field participants generally noted these cricketers performed cricket not as art but as work: “The ultra professional approach. The overseas player was scripted into the role of genuine amateur because the field observed the “excellent craftsmen”74 who learned their cricket outside of the U. overseas players performed with “color. this resulted in marginal players outperforming peripheral elites in the Championships. a two-third majority was unattainable when central elites preferred to appeal to County captains to produce cricket more consistent with the genuine amateur script. 1963. Script displacement produced bottom-up pressure on central elites to adopt a less restrictive approach to qualification rules to preserve the artistry of Championship cricket in the field of restricted cultural production. . However. for their active importing strategy— they conceded their teams resembled “a Cricket 321 League of Nations”69—was inconsistent with traditional belonging within the cricket-as-art logic.K.80 . would lead to “auctions” in which “overseas stars. Central elites contested the appropriateness of further crowd-pulling business practices. those marginal players who had improved their performance by importing cricketers under the existing rule had little incentive to vote to change it. and India willing to qualify by residence.66 Concerned they would lose their dominant field position.”63. signaling central elite acceptance of the necessity of adopting some practices underpinned by a cricket-as-business logic to preserve the cricket-as-art logic at the core of the weakened field of restricted cultural production. compared to 13 last placings for peripheral elites and zero for central elites. This was supported by top-down pressure from societal progression toward egalitarianism. has produced a stereotyped pattern which is deadly to watch and which gives the appearance of being boring to play. . drab”72 style.71 Comprising representatives from each group of Counties. After oppositional classification was removed. they predicted. a really dynamic attitude”75 and brought “added life and colour”76 to the game. where efficiency and a misguided belief that negative tactics pay. Commitment to naturalization was weakened from the mid 1960s.2013 Wright and Zammuto with the Knock-Out Cup innovation. Most peripheral elite and marginal players were in support. Australia. By 1960. The press argued the field had “a moral duty”78 to open the labor market and that it was “negligent”79 to exclude cricketers on the basis of an elitist qualification rule of naturalization. They adopted “an enterprising manner . Central elites initially gained support from marginal players in opposing a rule change. Performance of the amateur plot was especially observable in West Indian players: “Cricket is a game for enjoyment and the West Indies certainly convey the impression they enjoy playing.”71 In contrast to this “dull. agreed to play for the “highest bidder. and 1964 when peripheral elites proposed instantly qualified overseas players. central elites responded by using control of the MCC Cricket Sub-Committee and Registration Committee to circulate antichange memorandums to all Counties.”77 The new script displaced the amateur role while preserving the amateur plot: overseas players (role) play in the aesthetic and exuberant style of the amateur (plot).”68 some marginal players and peripheral elites had translated the existing qualification rule into action by adopting “a policy of recruiting talent wherever in the world it can be found”69 and pursued cricketers from countries such as the West Indies. 65 The implication was the rule “would only be of advantage to the wealthy Counties”64 able to afford the world’s best cricketers by siphoning funds from supporters’ clubs.” who had no loyalty to an adopted County. for three years central elites prescribed boundaries around how far the cricket-asbusiness logic could penetrate the field of restricted cultural production by banning nonnaturalized overseas stars. two marginal players were earning more income from their supporters’ clubs than two central elites were earning from their entire cricket operations. Surveys of the public and County members affirmed that England’s modern egalitarian society did not understand the exclusion of overseas stars who could provide entertaining cricket or protection of the employment of English cricketers who did not. Central elites construed their entry as creating an artificial Championship devoid of “natural”67 rivalry grounded in traditional belonging. the inquiry committee proposed the ACCC reduce the qualification period for overseas cricketers in 1966. As shown in Table 3. The surveys were conducted by an inquiry committee set up by MCC. At the field level. DISCUSSION In this study. Finally. and organizational levels over time. February Processual Mechanisms and Groups of Organizational Actors in Institutional Change We present our findings on the institutional change process in County Cricket as a three-stage model in Figure 1. We find that the middle-status group acts as an intermediary in the top-down. We found that when scripts were translated into human action inconsistent with the scripts themselves. We focused on three groups of actors located at field center. Our model shows how institutional change. which created script 1 of the titled amateur feeding up from the organizational level. and County membership fell for the first time.82 At season end. and the problematic element was replaced with something more representative of both human action and institutional values. At the societal level. displacement occurred over time. These groups triggered and responded to different processual mechanisms in subsequent stages of the institutional change process. as indicated by rule changes. gate spectators declined from the two million who paid to see Championship cricket in 1950 to half a million. The rules of oppositional classification and naturalized qualification carried the logic of cricket-as-art throughout the field. with new rules delimiting the progression away from the cricket-as-art logic core to the definition of the field. and in between vis-à-vis the field’s central values and rule-making authority. status. Field formation positioned organizational actors at the center. These rules were encoded in the script and replicated in action at the organizational level from the late 1800s through WWI and WWII. and in between. occurred at moments of alignment between progressions of societal.”84 Naturalization put inappropriate resource constraints on Counties by impeding employment of cricketers able to perform the artistry of the amateur plot: “These overseas players will replace the old amateurs—players who went out there to entertain. encoding. field. Naturalization did not fit with societal progression towards egalitarianism. and institutionalization.322 Academy of Management Journal When the boring play continued through the 1966 season. periphery. This rule change was another outcome of the ongoing institutional change process aligning a shift in field logic with societal and organizational pressures. bottom-up change process in response to actions taken by the center and periphery when evolutionary change occurs in mature organizational fields.83 Only four Counties—three central elites and one marginal player—were opposed. A practice consistent with the latter—importing star cricketers to increase gates—was made legitimate because it preserved the field of restricted cultural production’s survival. Moments of alignment in the institutional change process were achieved via mechanisms of theorization. The unproblematic element of a script. was preserved. . a role or a plot may be displaced as scripts are revised. and identity for the central elite. field. and organizational levels. When a man is earning his living in any occupation he gets the job first and then takes up residence. the role and plot dimensions of the scripts coming up from action at the organizational level were progressively displaced in stages 2 and 3. central elites insisted on quotas and conditions on transfers to prevent the “descent of cricket into the commercial level of soccer. we examined the role that different groups of organizational actors play in institutional change processes occurring across societal.”85 At the field. revision/displacement. Peripheral elites and marginal players theorized. albeit in a less pure form. periphery. the organizing structure for English society evolved from an ideological foundation of social class in stage 1 toward egalitarianism in stages 2 and 3.81 Central elites proposed reducing qualification periods to one year for the 1967 season. the rule change was a carrier of increased permeability in the boundary between logics of cricket-as-art and cricket-as-business. Thus.”86 Thus. Rules were carriers of this progression between ideal-type anchors. peripheral elites and marginal players proposed instant qualification. Figure 1 shows how the formation of County Cricket as a field of restricted cultural production was produced in stage 1 by (1) theorization drawing down from societal ideology about social class and (2) action. “The old conception that a cricketer should be establishing his family in the county of his adoption is a relic of the amateur game. translating. Our findings make a novel contribution to the literature on institutional change processes by showing when and why different groups of actors become motivated to trigger and respond to different processual mechanisms at different levels. which could be either the role or the plot. which was agreed on. the logic of cricket-as-art moved away from its anchor at the field of restricted cultural production end of Bourdieu’s (1993) dichotomy in stage 1 to end stage 3 as a less pure field of restricted cultural production located closer to the field of large-scale cultural production logic of cricket-as-business. and it preserved the cricket-as-art logic that was a source of power. history of success. Peripheral elites leveraged their position between the center and periphery of the field to broker between central elites and marginal players for incremental institutional change to bring the societal. • Art Rules: Oppositional classification and naturalized qualification. Supporters’ clubs. When peripheral elites joined central elites to police the rules. Marginal players reduced their resource disadvantage by deviating from the field-level logic through organization-level acts of translation. Because these marginal players subscribed superficially to the values embedded in the cricket-as-art logic. they were also the most cognitively open to deviating from institutional rules and expectations for sourcing cricketers. In stage 2. In the “Cricket Logic” boxes. field. b Script 1: Cricketers with the title of amateur (role) play in the amateur style (plot). marginal players mobilized to support field change because policing would reverse the performance gains achieved through their translations. they subscribed to the cricket-as-art logic. and loyal membership and were the most committed to the logic of cricket-as-art. Central elites located closest to the center of the field faced the lowest resource constraints because of their size. FIELD LEVEL a e • Art Art b Script 2: Cricketers who play in the amateur style (plot) are genuine amateurs (role). RULE ESTABLISHMENT RULE CHANGE 1873/1894 1962 Business Business Rules: Universal classification and instant qualification within limits. field.2013 Wright and Zammuto 323 FIGURE 1 Processes of Institutional Change in English County Cricketa SOCIETAL LEVEL Class-Based Hierarchy Egalitarianism a a Cricket Logic Art • Cricket Logic Business a e d ORGANIZATIONAL LEVEL TIME c Cricket Logic Business Rules: Universal classification and naturalized qualification. d ⫽ “revision/displacement”. e ⫽ “institutionalization” (see Table 1). Rules made sense as carriers of field logics only if they were enforced. they struggled with postwar resource constraints. and organizational levels back into alignment. society-level progression away from social class after WWII exacerbated resource pressures at the organizational level. Peripheral elites had a foot in both the center and periphery. In contrast. b ⫽ “endoding”. bullets indicate the shift between the cricket-as-art and cricket-as-business logics over time. d Action Action Action Informal production of cricket matches. resulting in some marginal players outperforming peripheral elites. peripheral elites then reduced central elites’ resistance through theorization that connected societal evolution to the new scripts coming up from the resource-seeking trans- . Having manipulated marginal players into supporting field change. peripheral elites were uniquely positioned to perceive the lack of alignment between societal. actors located at the field periphery were the most resource-constrained. 2002). d c e Script 3: Overseas players (role) play in the amateur style (plot). Misuse of registration. The capacity of organizational actors to access financial and human resources was restricted relative to their field location. and organizational levels as an institutional contradiction (Seo & Creed. and the field was sustainable only if its central logic accommodated societal evolution. Payment of amateurs. When the deviant translations of marginal players further increased these resource pressures and undermined the central values of the field. Purposeful recruitment of overseas players. like marginal players. c ⫽ “translating”. RULE CHANGE 1967 a Codes for arrows: a ⫽ “theorization”. Like central elites. Political campaigning. and consequential for. we found that the initial deviant response came from actors at the periphery and not from those between the center and periphery. Scott. In a mature organizational field. The peripheral elites theorized a new classification rule (universal classification) would bring the field’s logic back into alignment with the societal shift toward egalitarianism and with the new script feeding up into the field from the organizational level. 2000) and accounting (Greenwood & Suddaby. and in between in relation to the field’s central value system and authority structure. 1991. Peripheral elites again acted as intermediaries in a top-down. and professional fields. This allows participants to be located in meaningful groups at the field center. our findings apply to mature organizational fields only and not to emerging fields. Our study suggests a new point of departure for future research into institutional change may be to conceive of multiple logics not as discrete units but as continuums between ideal types. 2006. and shared purpose are tacit. We expect to see this same process playing out in other fields in which societal progression toward modernity feeds down into a field as a shift toward a market logic and away from a logic historically framed as its opposition. 1991. & Cooper. that this latter group of organizations became motivated to broker in the interest of change. Ruef. Further progression toward egalitarianism had occurred in societal ideology. Moreover. 1983). Hensmans. script 3. however. such as health care (Reay & Hinings. Townley. had displaced script 2 and fed up into the field from translations of marginal players. 2005.. We found. Script 2 of the genuine amateur had displaced script 1 by preserving the plot dimension of the original script and displacing the role dimension. 1983). nor disadvantaged by. interaction. It follows that the necessary motivation for peripheral elites to engage in a field-level political response to the organization-level deviance of marginal players is absent in emerging fields. other groups and the field as a collective. 2005). we find that the group of actors between center and periphery plays an important role in mediating topdown.324 Academy of Management Journal lations of marginal players. when they perceived the periphery’s deviant actions threatened their own survival and the field’s common purpose and values. Without this visibility and mutual dependence. Scope Conditions and Future Research Although our data collection and analysis were limited to a single case study of one cultural field. The field is also stabilized by a system of values that defines the rules by which participants interact (Scott. internal structures of domination and patterns of coalition are well established. in mature fields information exchange and interaction between participants is deep. and partici- February pants share a common understanding of the field and its boundaries from other fields (DiMaggio & Powell. 2010. 2008). the deviant actions of the periphery. Diaz. 2009. 2003. Extending institutional studies that have focused narrowly on the role of either center or periphery in initiating change (Greenwood & Suddaby. Rao et al. 1998) and orchestras (Glynn & Lounsbury. This may provide new insight into the processual mechanisms by which multiple logics play out in fields over time (Greenwood. the mechanisms repeated for the change in the qualification rule. & Lorente. First. the actions of each group of field participants are visible to. we believe our theoretical insight that the group of actors between a field’s center and periphery serve as intermediaries in top-down. Our findings offer new insight into the literature on middle-status conformity and the literature on institutional change. 2006. In stage 3. and codified (DiMaggio & Powell. and a new script.. informal. and still developing. such as museums (DiMaggio. 2010) and how hybridized logics emerge at the . frequent. 2003). 2001). our findings apply only to mature fields impacted by evolutionary societal change and not to those affected by discontinuous change threatening field survival. the group between the center and periphery is neither aware of. 2005). Li. Suddaby & Greenwood. The new rule was institutionalized by County Cricket’s rule makers and encoded script 2 as institutional expectations for action. Rojas. in which information exchange. Mendel. rather than conform. Thus. Oakes. bottom-up change processes. bottom-up change process through theorization to bring the field back into alignment with the societal and organizational levels. In keeping with the argument from sociology that middle-status groups conform (Phillips & Zuckerman. bottom-up institutional change processes is generalizable to other fields within two scope conditions. Their action involved theorization of incremental changes in institutional rules and practices reflecting a movement along a continuum between multiple field logics as ideal types. Evolutionary change in societal ideology triggers the processual mechanisms we observed that ultimately motivated a group between the center and periphery to act to bring the field logic back into alignment with societal and organizational levels. periphery. Second. This includes other cultural fields. & Caronna. Leblebici et al. & Luckmann. Barley. Institutionalization and structuration: Studying the links between action and institution. we were able to develop a richer account of how and why resources. New York: Penguin Books. Birley. 1989. D. However. 1967. Our study shows the advantages of incorporating both lenses for building processual explanations of the dynamics of institutional change. S. across levels over time. The new institutionalism in organizational analysis: 337–360. N.. By examining which groups of organizational actors were triggering and responding to different mechanisms at different levels in the change process over time. 2006). Bowen. J.. 1997. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. London: Eyre & Spottiswoode. P. Because this offers some confidence in the processes we uncovered. A call for culture. A history of cricket. & Karabel. & Tolbert. D. Social space and symbolic power. The dynamics of interaction among field center.). Future research may explore the different processes by which scripts function to maintain or change institutional logics within organizational fields. 1986. S.). N. Batchelor. London: Grant Richards. N. we found that scripts were inverted to support societal evolution from social class hierarchies to egalitarianism. War and peace: The evolution of modern personnel administration in U. S. S. 1970. Technology as an occasion for structuring: Evidence from observations of CT scanners and the social order of radiology departments. & Jennings. focusing on contests among field participants in driving change (Schneiberg. emphasizing change processes across the multiple levels of an institutional system. W. 7: 14 –25. Bourdieu. illuminates how and why microlevel institutional shifts occur. Bourdieu. Preston (Ed. S. In N. Barley. The processual mechanisms are likely to differ between institutional change triggered by societal disruptions and societal evolutions of the type we study here. J. & Dorado. and actions affect institutional change than was possible to do in previous studies.K. interests. Institutional origins and transformations: The case of American community colleges. Organization Studies. L. 53: 1419 –1440. P. In W. 2000. periphery. Brint. B.2013 Wright and Zammuto organizational level (Battilana & Dorado. Building sustainable hybrid organizations: The case of commercial microfinance organizations.S. Fry. S. it covered a sufficiently lengthy time period to confirm the processual mechanisms linking societal. C. London: Allen & Unwin. J. P. or a horizontal lens. H. manifested in the very concrete ac- 325 tions of some field participants and the ongoing mobilization of discourse by others. R. such as fields facing political revolutions and exogenous shocks such as the oil crisis and. More research in a variety of “disrupted” and “evolving” fields is needed to further unpack this scope condition. . vol. 1962. 1922. Powell & P. Although our findings are limited to a single case study.. American Journal of Sociology. Cricket: A history of its growth and development throughout the world. climate change. the same scripts encoding cricket-as-art at the beginning of the institutional change process were used to theorize the introduction of a limited number of rules and practices consistent with a cricket-asbusiness logic at the end. and organizational levels and the role played by different groups of actors over two cycles of institutional change. Cardus. 2010. 1951. Academy of Management Journal. J. 92: 350 –383. field. Cardus. Administrative Science Quarterly. 1986. T. U. P. F. Our findings also invite future research into how the process of institutional change varies in mature fields impacted by discontinuous societal change. Dobbin. The social construction of reality. & Tracey. R. P. which reported that organization-level scripts maintain the British class system at the societal level (Dacin. our findings highlight the important role of scripts in institutional change processes and point to the need for more research into script displacement as a mechanism for institutional change and maintenance. London: Aurum Press. Finally. Battilana. R. That is. In contrast to a recent study of Cambridge dining hall rituals. 2010).. Baron. 18: 93–117. R.. Berger.. London: Phoenix House. 1952. 1. Munir. The willow wand: Some cricket myths explored. 31: 78 –108. A cricketer’s book. Cambridge. DiMaggio (Eds. we encourage other researchers to combine vertical and horizontal lenses to develop process theories of change. research to date has tended to privilege either a vertical lens. 1991. Sociological Theory. D. potentially. industry. 2010). REFERENCES Altham. and in between.: Polity Press. Conclusions Scholars of institutional change have made significant inroads into building a body of knowledge about how change plays out in mature organizational fields. 1993. The field of cultural production. In W. 21: 521–539. R. DiMaggio (Eds. J. 2005.326 Academy of Management Journal Wisden cricketer’s alamanack: 88 –91. & Tracey. 2010.K. DiMaggio (Eds. Academy of Management Journal. K. R. W. & Lounsbury. 2007. Academy of Management Review. 1991. 42: 1031–1055. Institutions. 1981. Fraser. The multiplicity of institutional logics and the heterogeneity of organizational responses. G. Berkeley: University of California Press. Czarniawska. B. C. W. Administrative Science Quarterly. R.. art museums. T. M. Powell & P. Copay. C. 53: 1393–1418. 2005. L. Diaz. X. P. 2000. 14: 532–550. H. R. Li. Newbury Park. J. Kraatz. 1996. C. Mixing qualitative and quantitative methods: Triangulation in action. P.. Lincoln (Eds.. R. The new institutionalism in organizational analysis: 232– 266. 2009. James. . drama and morals of cricket. Administrative Science Quarterly. CA: Sage. R.). In W. Powell & P. Haveman. D. M. American Journal of Sociology. S. The new institutionalism in organizational analysis: 143–163. J. E. Organization Science. Building theories from case study research. & Joerges.). Greenwood. & Zajac. Jick. 1950. Greenwood. Glynn.. Giddens. London: John Wisden. Fry. P. B.. O. Cambridge. 45: 58 – 80. Paradigmatic controversies. Salancik. M. Friedland. 1991. Academy of Management Journal. W. & Guba. Cross-national cultural diffusion: The global spread of cricket.S. London: Yellow Jersey Press. Denzin & Y. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. 1997. B. M. 2005. CA: Sage. DiMaggio. discursive change and authenticity in a cultural production system. Social movement organizations: A metaphor for strategic actors in institutional fields. 24: 355–381. 2002.. 48: 147–160. T. 50: 289 –307. M. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. J. J. In B. Organization Studies. 52: 148 –178. Powell & P. G. T. 102: 1606 –1651.. Hill. K.. Thousand Oaks. Beyond a boundary. 36: 333–362. W. M. 1996. & Rao. & Hardy. 61: 812– 836. Jepperson. Academy of Management Journal. Kaufman. S. Lounsbury. 1991. Administrative Science Quarterly. DiMaggio. 1958. A tale of two cities: Competing logics and practice variation in the professionalising of mutual funds. M. 2003. American Sociological Review. 1991. Handbook of qualitative research: 163–188. The constitution of society. A. A. 1983. K. 2010. Czarniawska & G. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Dacin. L. Greenwood. H. J. DiMaggio (Eds. R. R. Academy of Management Journal. Life worth living.. D. 41: 442– 476. M. & Lorente. & Patterson. Exploring the limits of the new institutionalism: Causes and consequences of illegitimate organizational change. W. & King. & Hinings. 1993.). February Theorizing change: The role of professional associations in the transformation of institutionalized fields. Sevon (Eds. F. In W.. R. Munir. London: John Wisden. Berlin: de Gruyter. 1979. Suddaby. Holt. H. Fry. A. Institutional entrepreneurship in mature fields: The big five accounting firms.. Institutional change and the transformation of interorganizational fields: An organizational history of the U... Lincoln. 49: 27– 48. E. and institutionalization.). C. From the critics’ corner: Logic blending. K.. R. Discourse and deinstitutionalization: The decline of DDT. Leblebici. Maguire. J. 1993. Bringing society back in. S. S. 24: 602– 611. London: Eyre and Spottiswood. and emerging confluences. Athleticism in the Victorian and Edwardian public school: The emergence and consolidation of an educational ideology. A. A. Archival strategies and techniques. & Suddaby. M. American Sociological Review. contradictions. Cricketer: 364 –365. Elsbach. R. Hensmans.S... R. institutional effects. J. S. C. A. 70: 82–110. B... & Powell.. U. Eisenhardt. Journal of Management Studies. Art. R. The iron cage revisited: Institutional isomorphism and collective rationality in organizational fields. R. The travel of ideas. In Wisden cricketer’s almanack: 70. K. In N. M. London: Clarendon. G.. Academy of Management Journal. Members’ responses to organizational identity threats: Encountering and countering the business week rankings. & Kramer. J. 1996. Structuring a theory of moral sentiments: Institutional and organizational coevolution in the early thrift industry. C. 1937. M. 1984. R. Formal dining at Cambridge colleges: Linking ritual performance and institutional maintenance. The new institutionalism in organizational analysis: 1920 –1940. 1989. R. Sport and the British: A modern history. Translating organizational change: 13– 48.: Cambridge University Press.. radio broadcasting industry. Warwickshire’s ups and downs. Constructing an organizational field as a professional project: U. American Sociological Review. & Alford. 2006.). Mangan. C. & Olsen. N.. G. Her research focuses on institutional logics and institutional change. 2006. A. His research . 2002. 2002.). Centre and periphery.. London: Routledge & Kegan Paul. Purdy. 2008. Miles. In S. D. 1961. Pardon. Wisden cricketer’s almanack. Thornton. CA: Sage. 50: 35– 67. H. Raymond F. Scott. 107: 379 – 429. Lawrence. 30: 629 – 652.-G. W. She received her Ph. P.). Mendel. C. T. S. 49: 281–303. & Gray. Townley. F. B. Academy of Management Review. Academy of Management Journal. 45: 81–101. Suchman. 2013. American Journal of Sociology. The work of the symbolic in institutional processes: Translations of rational myths in Israeli high tech. M.au) is a senior lecturer at the University of Queensland Business School. E.. Suddaby. Marshall.. Wright (a.. Academy of Management Review. Reay. J. He received his Ph. Managing legitimacy: Strategic and institutional approaches. L. P. 2000. R. and multilevel dynamics in emerging institutional fields.. & Creed. Domination in organizational fields: It’s just not cricket. 2010.. Institutional change in Toque Ville: Nouvelle cuisine as an identity movement in French gastronomy. Wright. Qualitative data analysis: An expanded sourcebook. The recomposition of an organizational field: Health care in Alberta. In R. J. K. American Journal of Sociology. W. American Political Science Review.uq. Discourse and institutions. H. 2005. T. Wisden cricketer’s almanack. P. W. Institutional change and health care organizations: From professional dominance to managed care.2013 Wright and Zammuto March. Rao.. 2009a. Anyone but England (3rd ed. R. An introduction to social movements. 2001. & Hinings. 2009b. 1964. L. M.. D. Scott. Rethinking the case study in international business research: 361–382.D. Business planning as pedagogy: Language and control in a changing institutional field. 2003. Reay.. London: Sage. London: Edward Elgar. Power through institutional work: Acquiring academic authority in the 1968 Third World Strike. mechanisms of diffusion. 1994. The new institutionalism: Organizational factors in political life. organizational diversity and the problem of institutional change in the US economy. 1911. P. E. B. T. Piekkari & C. R. J. and institutional change: A dialectical perspective. Ruef.. 1995. Marqusee. 108: 795– 843. M. Oakes. in management from the University of Queensland. Thousand Oaks. Wilson.. not what I say: New questions for documents in IB case research. Socio-Economic Review.edu. B. 2005. Academy of Management Review. Wright. Administrative Science Quarterly.. M. M. Phillips. Newbolt. Monin. R. Creating opportunities for institutional entrepreneurship: The colonel and the Cup in English County Cricket. L. M. & Zuckerman. & Caronna. Administrative Science Quarterly. April L. C. Schneiberg. 29: 635– 652.uq. 26: 351–384. 52: 355–380. Zammuto (r. B.. & Zammuto. London: John Wisden. B. Watch what I do.wright@business. Academy of Management Journal. in organizational behavior from the University of Illinois. D. What’s on the path? Path dependence. 28: 51– 68. Cricket: A little book for lovers of the game: Page nos. C. Wright. L.). Organization. R. Kent & Co. 43: 257–292. Rhetorical strategies of legitimacy. Rojas. H. Institutional change in large law firms: A resource dependency and institutional perspective. 1900 –1950.. Academy of Management Journal. 78: 734 –749. J. Institutions and organizations: Ideas and interests (3rd ed. 27: 222–247. T. P. New York: Basic Books. 45: 102–119. & Huberman. 5: 47– 80. M. Conflicting logics. & Hardy. Zilber. J. F. & Lee. Journal of Business Venturing. 1984. Managing the rivalry of competing logics. A.. Looker (Ed. Shils. R. & Greenwood. London: John Wisden. 2006. 2004.edu. S. Welch (Eds. 16: 855– 885. Academy of Management Journal. H.D. & Durand. M. The logic of personal knowledge: Essays presented to Michael Polanyi: 117–130. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. 20: 571– 610. A. The rise of the corporation in a craft industry: Conflict and conformity in institutional logics. Hamilton. A. Institutional contradictions. Phillips. D. 1973. R. 53: 1263–1280. A. London: Aurum. Organization Studies. 327 Seo.zammuto@business. E. Middle status conformity: Theoretical restatement and evidence from two markets. Sherer. & Cooper.. 1998.au) is a professor of strategy at the University of Queensland Business School. praxis. C. 2009. 2002.. R.). Vitaïlampada (first published in 1912). W. & Hinings. Academy of Management Journal. J.). London: Simpkin.. 2005. (Ed. Organization Studies. 2009. and pluvious insurance claims (wet weather). Calculations based on County annual financial records submitted to the ACCC for the period 1956 – 60. season tickets. and his articles and books elevated cricket to the intelligentsia in the 1920s. 11. Warner was a first-class cricketer for Oxford University. correspondence dated March 18. For example. Ranjitsinhji (1897. and minutes of the meeting of the MCC Cricket Sub-Committee. Memorandum written by the chairman of the Amateur Status Sub-Committee. MCC). Kent). cushions). .” sent to members of the Cricket Enquiry Committee. The Laws of Cricket were first codified in 1744 and subsequently revised in 1774. I imagine. 19. 15. Report of the Commission to Investigate the Problems Confronting the Counties Taking Part in the First-Class County Championship (Findlay Commission). from the Glamorgan secretary to the MCC secretary states: “I have no desire to come up and attend the Meeting. share of Test match profits (including television and broadcasting). 20. 14. by Neville Cardus (1931. J. MCC’s amateur classification rule written in 1878. Character and Sportsmanship (Williams & Norgate. was first published in 1912. Longmans Green. edited by F. James’ autobiographical book was first published in 1963. Middlesex. Wm.” 3.” 4. Newbolt (1925). 25. Memorandum. Birley (2000). reprinted in S. Derbyshire and Worcestershire and many others who have such a considerable income from sources not connected with cricket that this will be a mere drop in the ocean. car park (summer only). to January 8. foreign tours share. as explained in this section. Sussex. Blackwood & Sons). APPENDIX Archival Sources 1. 1957. Prince Ranji played first-class cricket for Cambridge University. . and England from 1893 to 1912. see also (Sir Theodore) Cook (1927). Fry. score cards and publications. sale of rights (television. first published in 1744.” The minutes of the ACCC meeting dated March 17. The Cricket Field. Cardus (1922). The Jubilee Book of Cricket. They may. Surrey as the first inter-County match in 1773. 22. Hampshire. S. and central elite 8 applications for special registration. “Introduction. and England from 1894 to 1921. 1862). 24. 13. 1961. 8. B. Proposal submitted to the ACCC by MCC secretary to amend rule 3 of the “Rules of County Cricket. correspondence dated December 11. 23. December 1937. Lillywhite (1849) (pub- 10. 1951. Opening lines of “An Heroic Poem” by John Love. 5. Ashley Cooper. S. Pardon (1911). not the case with MCC. later becoming MCC president. photography. titled “An appreciation . gate and stand revenue. March 14. Fred Lillywhite. Marshall. For example. February 8. states: “The odd thing is that we are yielding income to Counties who really do not need it at all. Cricket (May 1913). 12.” Cricket. Prince K. The history of cricket from the mid 1700s to mid 1800s is recorded in a 15-volume work (Scores and Biographies. 16. March 18. London). 21. Looker. 1962. it will be quite impossible to arrive at the correct decision at a big Committee meeting and so I feel that some of us must make the decision beforehand. first published in 1851. 1922 edition published by St. 1958. of course. 1958. James Press. Data calculated from the minutes of 15 meetings of the Registration Committee from April 11. 9. in which marginal players made 24. London). 1925. 18. 2. Letter to the editor. and England from 1895 to 1920. Yorkshire and Lancashire it is. The Badminton Book of Cricket was first published in 1887 (Longmans Green. adaptation. 26. quote attributed to Louis Hall. Normal cricket income was defined by the ACCC as constituting all membership revenue. It records Kent vs. and institutional change. ACCC (1950). 17. 1962. correspondence dated March 23. after going very thoroughly into the two cases and we must persuade the Committee to agree with our decision. that “I agree with you that we are yielding income to many Counties who really do not want it. peripheral elite 17. England v Australia (1911–1912 Tour). Batchelor (1951). 6. 1950. “Supporters” Clubs. from Lancashire to the MCC secretary. R. 29. Thomas Hughes (1857). Tom Brown’s Schooldays. C. Cricket: A Little Book for Lovers of the Game (London: Simpkin. Sussex. Reverend James Pycroft. played first-class cricket for Oxford University. catering (summer only). by Sir Pelham Warner (1912. London). 27. For example. Committee governance procedures. Whilst this is true of Surrey.” dated November 15. C. Fry (1937). were sourced from minutes of the meeting of the ACCC. “Vitaï Lampada. Sir John Squire. quoted. Hamilton. Neville Cardus was a music critic and cricket writer for the Manchester Guardian. states: “As I regard you as one of the few who understands Laws and Rules. L. also note the “inconvenience” of travel experienced by marginal players. 1949. 1953. 7. I think you had better come over to my house . 28. I am referring to Counties like Glamorgan. It seems to me quite unnecessary to add another £10 on to the cricketing expenses to do so. The Guide to Cricketeers. 1965.” The MCC secretary replied on March 20. say and I suppose quite rightly that we could have a supporters club if we wished. professional cricketer in the 1880s.328 Academy of Management Journal uses organization theory as a framework to study organizational culture.” Sir Henry Newbolt. February lished annually from 1848 to 1866 and a forerunner to the Wisden Cricketer’s Almanack). and printing. when a cricketer’s amateur status was ruled as invalid and the cricketer subsequently refused to play as a professional. Letter sent by MCC secretary to the chairman of the Amateur Status Standing Committee. 52. 33. October 9. 51. Minutes of the meeting of the Special Sub-Committee re Amateur Status. 34. 54. 62. 1960: “The loss of a Test cricketer to the game is a prospect which my Committee view with dismay. Memorandum “Amateur Status. November 13. to May 4. 38. written by member of Cricket Enquiry Committee and circulated to all committee members. 1964. Report of Special Sub-Committee to Examine Amateur Status. dated March 25. hotels and meals. Quote is from a letter from Northamptonshire to Amateur Status Standing Committee. G. Minutes of the meeting of Cricket Enquiry Committee. Calculations based on County annual financial records submitted to the ACCC for the period 1957– 60. dated November 26. Memorandum prepared by two members of MCC Cricket Sub-Committee. 1956. dated October 29. dated December 16. and by Glamorgan secretary dated April 26. 63. Minutes of the meeting of the MCC Cricket SubCommittee. upkeep of clothing and equipment. Final Report of the Special Sub-Committee of ACCC. by Northamptonshire secretary dated November 12 and 17. Minutes of the meeting of Special Sub-Committee re Structure of First-Class Cricket. 1961. Minutes of meeting of Amateur Status Standing Committee. lunches and teas at matches. 1957. April 25. June 16. and entertainment allowance for captains. Northamptonshire stated the following in a letter of complaint to the Amateur Status Standing Committee dated May 18. and correspondence between MCC secretary and Somerset. Minutes of meeting of Special Sub-Committee re Amateur Status. November 23. 1960. 56. 1957. Total expenses were defined as administration. 1961. December 12. 1957. Special Sub-Committee re Amateur Status and a field conference on amateur status and by players at the captains’ meetings. Editorials in the Wisden Almanack and articles in the Cricketer and newspapers carried similar commentary. ACCC. As with note 38. February 14. Minutes of the County Captains Meeting. 1962. March 17. 46. January 31. Minutes of meeting of the Special Sub-Committee re Future Welfare of First-class Cricket. dated November 26. That a field consensus had emerged around a new script was further supported in scholarly books on cricket history. Minutes of the meeting of Special Sub-Committee re Structure of First-Class Cricket. dated November 7. 41. 1958. Wright and Zammuto of the problems connected with the enquiry into amateur status in English cricket. November 28. 1957. Also letters sent to the Amateur Status Standing Committee by Derbyshire secretary dated August 14. 57. 1961. . rent and rates of the County ground. 1958. 39. 49. 1966.2013 30. 32. 1956. cost of matches. Minutes of meetings of Amateur Status Standing Committee. dated May 29. the quote is from a single document. by Worcestershire secretary dated October 29. 1957. December 7. July 19. 1961. 1957. October 15. Minutes of the meeting of the Special Sub-Committee re Future Welfare of First-class Cricket. 44. Minutes of the meeting of the Cricket Enquiry Committee. January 23. 1961. May 29. and April 11. 1960. November 11. 60. Memorandum titled “The importance of the first day’s play in County matches” and dated February 21. Minutes of the meeting of the Cricket Enquiry Committee. 1958. and taxi to matches. 1958. utilities. 1961. November 28. 36. Memorandum written by Kent to support the club’s proposal to the ACCC. Fry (1958). January 12. Minutes of the meeting of the ACCC meeting. 1961. 58. 47. 1962. Correspondence between MCC secretary and chair of the Amateur Status Standing Committee. 1960. 1962. June 25. dated February 15. but similar views were expressed by field-level committees.” 61. Similarly. 1958. tipping. 40. March 21. 1962. 1962 and circulated to all Counties. 55. July 11. 1962.” dated September 30. 1962. 1961. 1962. Allowable expenses for amateurs are for traveling by rail. 37. chaired by D. November 26 1962. Memorandum on amateur status prepared by Glamorgan and circulated to all Counties and MCC. 59. 1958. 42. 329 43. Similar comments were expressed by other Counties in minutes of meetings of MCC Cricket SubCommittee. 45. professional staff. 1961. Memorandum written by Glamorgan to support the Counties proposal to the ACCC. 1958. insurances. Reply by MCC secretary to letter from the public. 1957. November 15. Minutes of the meeting of Special Sub-Committee re Future Welfare of First-class Cricket.” prepared by the Sub-Committee on Amateur Status for the Cricket Enquiry Committee. 31. 53. 35. 1956 and Report of the Special Sub-Committee re Future Welfare of First-class Cricket. 48. The number and percentages of amateurs reported in this paragraph are calculated from the scorecards of all County Championship matches played in 1936 and in 1960. individual Counties. Minutes of the meeting of the ACCC. Minutes of Advisory County Cricket Committee meeting. dated September 24. and the cricket media in a range of documents. Minutes of meeting of Special Sub-Committee re Amateur Status. Clark. maintenance and upkeep of turf. Glamorgan and the Amateur Status Standing Committee exchanged 11 letters from April 26. car. 1957. Coldham. 1958. 1967.” Guardian. 83. 73. 75. secretary of Surrey. March 14. “Still some doubts about importing stars. p. 77. August 1967. chairman of Surrey. November 29. chaired by D. article in The Cricketeer. Minutes of the meeting of the ACCC. March 12. 79. 1967. Irving Rosenwater. “Overseas players can be signed at once. 80. 86. Memorandum. 1964. dated February 21. 66. 1967). Memorandum written by Gloucestershire club to support proposal submitted to the ACCC meeting. James D.” Wisden Almanack. 1967). captain and County secretary of Glamorgan. 1966.” Observer. Minutes of the meeting of the ACCC. a “national opinion poll” of the general public administered through a newspaper. 69. Minutes of the meeting of the ACCC. 68. “Ups and Downs of Northamptonshire. March 9. the quote contained in the final report of this special subcommit- 72. 1967. November 28. vice chairman of Essex. Clark. secretary of Leicestershire. secretary of Northamptonshire. dated December 16. Minutes of the meeting of the ACCC. November 29. 1967. 1966. December 9. Agenda for the meeting of the ACCC. 1967. 81. G. February tee expresses field consensus that a new script had emerged. November 26. p. 2. December 7. 76.330 Academy of Management Journal 64. “Tempo of the Game.” written by chairman of the Cricket Enquiry Committee and circulated to members. “Qualification must be waived. November 29. Calculations based on County annual financial records submitted to the ACCC for the period 1957– 60. and a postal survey of all County players (in excess of 100 replies).” Daily Mirror (November 28. Fraser (1950). 1964. Minutes of the meeting of the ACCC. November 28. Wisden Cricketer’s Almanack (1964). March 18. a postal survey of County members. former captain of England and Sussex. 1961. 85. chairman of Yorkshire. treasurer of MCC. 1967. 1967. 1964. “Don’t give Gary out this time. captain of Middlesex. Information collected by the special subcommittee included a questionnaire completed by all Counties.” Daily Telegraph (November 30. 71. 1962. March 15.” Times. “When the circus comes to town. 84. Minutes of the meeting of the MCC Cricket SubCommittee. The Warwickshire club approved this article’ calculations were based on County Championship records in Wisden Cricketer’s Almanack. 74. 65. Given the make-up of the special subcommittee and its information sources. . 1963. Minutes of the meeting of the ACCC. Minutes of the meeting of the ACCC. 67. and a cricket correspondent for a national daily newspaper. Final Report of the Special Sub-Committee of ACCC. This subcommittee was made up of the chairman of Kent. 82.