{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.02824858757062147, 'fraction_numerical': 0.013182674199623353, 'mean_word_length': 5.614107883817427, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
CONTRASTING TWO PERSPECTIVES ON ORGANIZATIONAL CHANGE: INSTITUTIONAL VERSUS COMPLEMENTARITY THEORY 1 INTRODUCTION Among the most controversially debated issues by organization theorists are how far-reaching change is possible in the configuration of organizations, and the challenges involved therein

Among the most controversially debated issues by organization theorists are how far-reaching change is possible in the configuration of organizations, and the challenges involved therein (Amis, Slack, & Hinings, 2004; Gersick, 1991; Pettigrew, Woodman, & Cameron, 2001). Proponents of different theoretical perspectives and approaches concur that organizational inertia is more widespread than change (e.g. Miller & Friesen, 1984; Miller & Chen, 1994). However, there is substantial disagreement with respect to the question of whether configuration change in organizations is more likely to take place as a long-term, continuous process or rather as a swift, discontinuous one. Similarly, various authors disagree about the success chances of organizational change. Success can be defined as the probability that an organization emerges out of the change process with a new configuration that enables it to compete in its environment in a state of stability (and hence, inertia) for an extended period of time. These issues are of eminent importance for both managers and public policy makers who need to decide whether, and to what extent, they should invest in the adaptation of organizations that are successful within a particular socio-economic environment, as these conditions change.