On the Plasticity of Institutions: Containing and Restoring Practice Breakdowns at the Cambridge University Boat Club

Abstract

Using a 199-day ethnography of Cambridge's 2007 season preparations for the annual University Boat Race, we explore the microprocesses through which highly institutionalized practices are maintained by examining how institutional inhabitants collectively restore breakdowns in institutionalized practice. Our analysis reveals how institutions can be inoculated against such breakdowns through maintenance work. We find that the salience and importance of different forms of maintenance work vary with the nature and process history of practice breakdowns. This lends institutions the plasticity through which ever-changing practice performances can be accommodated without necessarily effecting permanent structural change.

Full text

ON THE PLASTICITY OF INSTITUTIONS:
CONTAINING AND RESTORING PRACTICE BREAKDOWNS
AT THE CAMBRIDGE UNIVERSITY BOAT CLUB
JACO LOK
University of New South Wales
MARK DERond
University of Cambridge
Using a 199-day ethnography of Cambridge’s 2007 season preparations for the annual
University Boat Race, we explore the microprocesses through which highly institu-
tionalized practices are maintained by examining how institutional inhabitants col-
lectively restore breakdowns in institutionalized practice. Our analysis reveals how
institutions can be inoculated against such breakdowns through maintenance work.
We find that the salience and importance of different forms of maintenance work vary
with the nature and process history of practice breakdowns. This lends institutions the
plasticity through which ever-changing practice performances can be accommodated
without necessarily effecting permanent structural change.
The Boat Race has survived the enormous social
change that has transformed Oxford and Cambridge
universities in every other way over the past
175 years. It continues to project the same qualities
of fair play that it adopted in its infancy, and once a
year it demonstrates publicly the cut and thrust of
the eternal rivalry between the two elite academic
institutions.
-Matheson (2004: 7–8)
Despite the stability of the University Boat Race
as an institution, our ethnography of Cambridge’s
2007 season led us to what Alvesson and Karreman
(2007) might call a “mystery”: our microlevel ob-
servations revealed regular instances in which in-
stitutionalized practices broke down and began to
diverge from highly institutionalized scripts. This
led to unexpected behaviors that were difficult to
reconcile with recent theorizing on the microfoun-
dations of institutional stability. How can institu-
tional stability be achieved through practice perfor-
mances that not only deviate from, but also
challenge, institutionalized rules, norms, and
beliefs?
According to the institutional work approach to
the question of persistence, maintenance work—in
the form of socialization, rule monitoring, and en-
forcement activities by institutional custodians—is
required to overcome the entropic tendencies that
characterize most institutions (Dacin, Munir, &
Tracey, 2010; Lawrence & Suddaby, 2006; Law-
rence, Suddaby, & Leca, 2009). This perspective
has recently emerged as an alternative to a more
structuralist approach to institutional persistence
in which institutions are seen as self-reproducing
through the presence and continued operation of
self-regulating controls that increase the costs of
nonconformity (Jepperson, 1991). However, in our
case neither perspective appeared to offer a suffi-
cient explanation of the microprocesses through
which institutional stability was preserved. Al-
though some sort of “work” was clearly involved in
the process of reconciling breakdowns in practice
with institutionalized scripts, this work often ap-
peared to be very different from the custodial main-
tenance work highlighted by the institutional work
approach.
In this article, we unpack this mystery to advance
understanding of the microprocesses through
which highly institutionalized practices are main-
tained. Through an in-depth process study of the
Cambridge University Boat Club’s selection prac-
tices, we explore how institutional inhabitants col-
lectively restore performative breakdowns in insti-
tutionalized practice. We are specifically interested
in the relations between different forms of institu-
tional maintenance work over time as a basis for
To reflect the truly collaborative process behind the
writing of this article, and in the spirit of its empirical
setting, we left the order of authorship to chance by using
a simple coin toss. We wish to thank Hari Tsoukas and
three anonymous referees for their uncompromising ef-
forts in helping us shape this article. We also thank
Ricardo Flores, Tom Lawrence, Hugh Willmott, and the
members of the Institutional Theory discussion group at
the Australian School of Business, University of New
South Wales, for their input.
娀Academy of Management Journal
2013, Vol. 56, No. 1, 185–207.
http://dx.doi.org/10.5465/amj.2010.0688
185
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.

institutional persistence. Unlike Dacin, Munir, and
Tracey, (2010), who explored the processes through
which higher-level institutions such as the British
class system are maintained through the repeated
performance of institutionalized practices at the
micro level, we focus on the processes involved in
the maintenance of these institutionalized mi-
crolevel practices themselves. Our focus on the mi-
crodynamics of institutional maintenance at the
practice level is consistent with a general recogni-
tion that institutions are sustained, altered, and
extinguished as they are enacted by interacting hu-
man beings in concrete social situations (Hallett,
Shulman, & Fine, 2009; Powell & Colyvas, 2008).
Our analysis of the fieldwork reveals a general pro-
cess through which collective breakdowns in institu-
tionalized practices can be resolved in such a way
that the basic organizing principles on which they
rest are inoculated against the practice performances
that appear to challenge them. First, practice break-
downs—disruptions of the normal, taken-for-granted
flow of practice when things don’t go as expected—
tend to be pragmatically smoothed over through a
process we call “containment,” through which small
tears in an institutional script are temporarily
patched up. Next, we find that minor breakdown
episodes accumulate over time to produce more se-
vere, collective practice breakdowns. In these situa-
tions, practice performances that deviate from insti-
tutionalized expectations can no longer be smoothed
over through containment and require other forms of
maintenance work. We call these “restoration.” Res-
toration work predominantly involves the framing of
actions that appear to threaten some of the institu-
tions’ basic organizing principles as necessary excep-
tions that can be justified in terms of the overall
institutional imperative. Thus, institutional stability
entails a degree of “plasticity” whereby institutional
scripts are stretched to accommodate ever-changing
practice performance.
We offer three main contributions based on our
analysis. First, we contribute to the nascent litera-
ture on institutional maintenance by showing that,
at the micro level of analysis, the maintenance of
institutionalized practices involves more than ef-
fective custodial work in the form of socialization,
rule monitoring, and enforcement, which so far
have been its primary theoretical focus. We extend
the concept of institutional maintenance work to
include “reflexive normalization” and “negotia-
tion” and show that these other forms of mainte-
nance work are also integral to the microprocesses
through which institutions are maintained. Sec-
ond, our analysis suggests that the specific form
maintenance work takes is highly contingent on
both the particular substantive nature and process
history of practice breakdowns. Thus, in this study
we begin to theorize some of the conditions under
which different forms of maintenance work can
become more or less salient as a basis for institu-
tional stability. Finally, we show how different
forms of institutional maintenance work can pre-
serve the ostensive integrity of institutionalized
practices, protecting an institution from practice
performances that deviate from, or even challenge,
its basic organizing principles. This suggests that
rather than being directly recursive (as often im-
plied by practice theorists), the relationship be-
tween institutions and the practice performances
for which, and of which, they form a pattern, is
mediated by maintenance work. We show how this
maintenance work lends institutions the plasticity
through which ever-changing practice perfor-
mances can be accommodated without effecting
structural change.
We develop these contributions by first elaborat-
ing their theoretical foundations, before presenting
the methods through which they were induced,
followed by the empirical analysis and a discussion
that further specifies them. This is done for con-
ventional presentation purposes and does not re-
flect a deductive theorization process (Suddaby,
2006); our ideas and concepts emerged from the
study itself through iterative cycles of thematic em-
pirical analysis and consultations of the relevant
literature (Strauss & Corbin, 1998).
THEORETICAL CONTEXT
Institutions, Social Practice, and Maintenance
Our conception of institutions is grounded in
practice theory (Feldman & Orlikowski, 2011),
which provides a performative perspective on in-
stitutions wherein they are seen as constituted in,
and maintained through, social practice (e.g., Bar-
ley & Tolbert, 1997; Lawrence & Suddaby, 2006;
Scott, 2001). We define institutions as patterns both
of and for particular types of social practices,
namely those that are distributed across time and
space, routinized and taken-for-granted, “objecti-
vated” as existing apart from and beyond the peo-
ple who embody them and legitimated in terms of
an overarching institutional logic (Barley, 2008;
Berger & Luckmann, 1991). Practices, in turn, are
defined as organized human activities regulated by
goals and standards (Schatzki, 2001, 2005; Yanow
& Tsoukas, 2009). Institutions, as patterns of and
for particular types of social practice, take the form
of taken-for-granted scripts that are informed by
particular sets of rules, norms, beliefs, and practical
goals, which together constitute their organizing
186 FebruaryAcademy of Management Journal

principles (Barley & Tolbert, 1997; Bourdieu, 1990;
Friedland & Alford, 1991). Practice theory treats
these organizing principles as features of, and as
embedded in, social practices, hence as both sub-
ject to and constitutive of the latter (Schatzki,
2001). In our view, the question, What micropro-
cesses are involved in the maintenance of institu-
tions? is therefore equivalent to the question, What
microprocesses are involved in the maintenance of
institutionalized social practices?
To date, practice theory has not provided a clear
answer to this important question. Indeed, Schatzki
argued that practice theory accounts of exactly how
the institutional order is sustained through practice
are “as diverse as theorists’ depictions of the field
of practices” (2001: 5; cf. Barnes, 2001; Giddens,
1984; Schatzki, 2001, 2006). In this article, we de-
velop three basic ideas as a theoretical entry point
into this question of institutional maintenance
through practice reproduction. First, because of
their performative nature, institutionalized prac-
tices are prone to breakdowns, regardless of how
effective socialization processes are in routinizing
them. Second, it is through the reconciliation of
such breakdown episodes with institutionalized
scripts that institutionalized practices are main-
tained. Third, such reconciliation can involve dif-
ferent forms of maintenance work that are contin-
gent on the particular nature and process history of
breakdown episodes. In the remainder of this sec-
tion, we elaborate the theoretical foundations of
these three key ideas.
Practice Breakdowns and Institutional Stability
Practice theorists have shown that practices are
subject to performative breakdown (Sandberg &
Tsoukas, 2011). Breakdowns are defined as dis-
crepancies between the expectations and experi-
ence of institutional inhabitants, causing them feel-
ings of surprise that temporarily disrupt the flow of
practice (Yanow & Tsoukas, 2009). Breakdowns in
practice can occur regardless of degree of routini-
zation, as practices involve an ongoing, continually
evolving conversation with the materials that em-
body them, which can include an awareness of
their interdependencies with other practices
(Yanow & Tsoukas, 2009). For example, Feldman
(2000) showed how stable organizational routines
can become a source of change when practitioners
respond to breakdowns by adjusting their work pat-
terns to changes in context, or to the reflexive real-
ization that better ways to achieve their goal may
exist. Thus, practice breakdowns can trigger con-
scious reflection that opens up the potential for
new courses of action (Yanow & Tsoukas, 2009).
These new courses of action, in turn, can begin to
threaten the stability of institutions insofar as ac-
tions that diverge from institutionalized scripts can
threaten the organizing principles on which they
are based (Berger & Luckmann, 1991). Hence,
breakdown episodes that threaten the organizing
principles of a particular practice, or set of prac-
tices, require some form of maintenance work to
ensure continued institutional stability. For exam-
ple, Dacin and colleagues (2010) reported that
breakdowns in the institutionalized ritual of formal
dining at Cambridge University, caused by students
departing from protocol, triggered immediate cor-
rective disciplinary responses by university per-
sonnel (Porters and Manciples). This particular
maintenance response is required for the continued
stability of dining rituals because departures from
protocol threaten one of their key organizing prin-
ciples: respect for tradition.
Different Forms of Maintenance Work
Custodial work. The nascent literature on insti-
tutional work in organizational institutionalism
emphasizes the importance of this particular form
of maintenance work for institutional stability. The
main theoretical focus of this approach in regards
to the question of institutional stability is on the
institutional workers who engage in intentional ef-
fort to maintain institutions through rule creation,
socialization, monitoring, and enforcement activi-
ties (Lawrence & Suddaby, 2006; Lawrence et al.,
2009). Like the Porters and Manciples in the case of
Cambridge’s formal dining rituals, institutional
maintenance workers are seen to act as institutional
custodians whose custodial work in the form of
rule creation, socialization, and enforcement activ-
ities “can serve as a critical counterforce to en-
tropy” (Dacin & Dacin, 2008: 346).
However, although active and intentional custo-
dial work may indeed be a necessary condition for
the continued stability of most institutions, other
performative approaches to the question of social
order, such as negotiated order theory and ethno-
methodology, have shown that effective custodial
work is insufficient in itself as an explanation of
institutional persistence. Barley (2008) argued that
these perspectives have been largely ignored in or-
ganizational institutionalism, despite their inher-
ent potential to inform it. We take inspiration from
these two perspectives as a basis for extending the
concept of institutional maintenance work to in-
clude some different types of work highlighted by
each. Rather than aiming to integrate these two
perspectives into one grand theory of institutional
maintenance (which would be unfeasible, given
2013 187Lok and de Rond

their distinctive and incommensurable contribu-
tions), we borrow some distinct, empirically
grounded concepts from each to further our under-
standing of institutional maintenance. This enables
us to theorize institutional maintenance as a mul-
tilayered process, rather than as a one-dimensional
process in which entropic forces are only coun-
tered by custodial work.
Negotiation work. Negotiated order theory has
shown how rules and norms can emerge from, and
be maintained through, ongoing negotiations
among all organization members, instead of
through imposition by institutional custodians
(Gerson, 1976; Strauss, 1978). According to this
perspective, whatever structuring norms and rules
apply to a particular situation is not necessarily the
result of a stable, internalized consensus that is
manufactured and maintained through successful
custodial work by institutional custodians. Rather,
norms and rules can be the dynamic and emergent
outcome of an ongoing negotiation process through
which their validity and jurisdiction are estab-
lished in situ by participants in the negotiations
themselves (Barley, 2008). This perspective thus
suggests that order is something at which organiza-
tion members must constantly work, by means of
ongoing negotiations (Day & Day, 1977). Negotiated
order theorists see negotiation as part and parcel of
any social order, implying that negotiation work, as
a form of institutional maintenance work, is likely
to be an important basis for institutional stability.
Strauss (1978: 252) also pointed out, however, that
not everything is equally negotiable, or negotiable
at all. As such, negotiation work as a basis for
institutional order is clearly distinct from other
social processes, for example coercion or political
manipulation, and it is a research task to discover
just what is and what is not negotiable at any given
time or in any given period (Strauss, 1978).
Reflexive normalization work. Regardless of
whether rules are the product of custodial work or
of negotiations, ethnomethodology has shown that
they do not operate to make people’s behavior more
predictable as some kind of independent exoge-
nous containing force. Rather, people use rules in
interaction to understand and reflexively account
for whatever their actual activities turn out to be
(Garfinkel, 1967; Zimmerman, 1971). Garfinkel’s
famous breaching experiments, in which he created
breakdowns in everyday interaction practices, sug-
gest that one particular form of such reflexive ac-
counting involves what we call reflexive normal-
ization work: for as long as possible people tend to
account for unexpected interactions in terms of a
general background of knowledge and expectancies
in such a way that it normalizes these interactions
(Heritage, 1984). For example, after attending a
therapy session in which interactions were pur-
posely designed to be nonsensical, many partici-
pants accounted for these interactions as normal,
functional parts of the very interaction scripts they
were designed to breach (Garfinkel, 1967). In an-
other example, Garfinkel (1967) reported that the
odd behavior of students who acted like formal
boarders in their normal family setting was some-
times accounted for by their families as a joke that
they could simply ignore or respond to by playing
along. This certainly wasn’t the only way in which
family members reacted to this breakdown in ex-
pected interaction; most reacted angrily, thus high-
lighting rather than normalizing the breakdown.
Reflexive normalization work, therefore, is a dis-
tinct and specific form of reflexive accounting
through which any tensions caused by divergent
behavior are (temporarily) smoothed over, thus
temporarily containing its potentially disruptive ef-
fects. As such, reflexive normalization work can be
an important form of institutional maintenance
work that is distinct from custodial and negotiation
work. Importantly, unlike custodial work, which
has been theorized to involve strategic intent and
effort that are consciously aimed at institutional
maintenance (Lawrence, Suddaby, & Leca, 2011;
Lawrence et al., 2009), reflexive normalization
work constitutes a far less conscious and inten-
tional basis for institutional stability.
Relating Practice Breakdowns to Different
Forms of Maintenance Work
If all three of these forms of maintenance work—
custodial, negotiation, and reflexive normalization
work—play a role in the maintenance of institu-
tionalized practice, as we suggest, the question be-
comes how they are related to practice breakdowns.
Yanow and Tsoukas (2009) argued that different
types of breakdown elicit different responses from
practitioners, who change their engagement with
practice depending on the type of disturbance or
surprise they encounter. They theorize a progres-
sion model of practice breakdowns at the individ-
ual phenomenological level of analysis in which
new, ever more consciously reflexive forms of prac-
tice engagement are triggered by the failure of a
previous form of engagement to resolve a break-
down. The final stage of this model is what Yanow
and Tsoukas call total breakdown: a complete in-
terruption or stoppage in the flow of practice dur-
ing which practitioners consciously and theoreti-
cally reflect on what they are doing.
From an institutional perspective, it is such total
breakdowns that form the starting point, rather
188 FebruaryAcademy of Management Journal

than the end point, of interest because it is the
actions that follow total breakdowns that have an
important impact on the stability of institutional-
ized practices. In cases in which total breakdowns
trigger a new course of action, practices can change
(e.g., Feldman, 2000); in cases in which they trigger
an effective maintenance response, they can remain
the same (e.g., Dacin et al., 2010). However, rather
than dismissing the institutional relevance of
Yanow and Tsoukas’s (2009) ideas for this reason,
we can build on them. Specifically, their idea that
different types of breakdowns elicit different re-
sponses, and that these responses progressively es-
calate over time, can apply at the level of social
practice as well. This shift in level of analysis re-
quires a corresponding change in research ques-
tion. For the institutionally relevant question is not
the one Yanow and Tsoukas (2009) posed: How
does the nature of reflexive engagement vary by
breakdown type and their progression over time?
There, breakdown types are differentiated by the
extent to which they interrupt the temporal flow of
practice. But rather, the institutionally relevant
question is: How does maintenance work in re-
sponse to these breakdowns vary by breakdown
type and their progression over time? Here, break-
down types are differentiated not by the extent to
which they interrupt the temporal flow of practice,
but by the extent to which the actions involved in
them pose a threat to the stability of institutional-
ized practices. This specific empirical question is the
focus of our analysis, proffered as a basis for devel-
oping a better general theoretical understanding of
the process through which institutional stability can
be achieved through practice breakdowns.
EMPIRICAL CONTEXT
Cambridge University Boat Club and
the Boat Race
The Cambridge University Boat Club (CUBC) is a
constituent part of the Boat Race: a 185-year old
competition between Oxford University and Cam-
bridge University. It is the second oldest varsity
match in the world (predated only by a cricket
match) and deeply embedded not just in Oxbridge
tradition, but in the institution of competitive
sports, British and international rowing, and, his-
torically, the Royal Navy.
CUBC’s practices reflect this embeddedness
through an insistence on fair play, transparency,
meritocracy, sportsmanship, honor, and respect for
tradition. As it is a student race, all participants
must be “in statu populari,” or full-time students
for the duration of the year in which a given Boat
Race falls. CUBC’s single constitutional objective is
reflected in a basic organizing principle called “the
Stephens test,” so named after a former club man-
ager, Roger Stephens, who introduced the test in
the mid 1980s. This principle overarches all of its
practices: “Will doing X rather than Y help us win
the Boat Race?” This singular objective is pursued
through a rigid training and selection system, sup-
ported by a clear authority structure and by exten-
sive socialization processes based on 185 years of
accumulated experience, documented annually by
the president of CUBC in a closely guarded note-
book (the president is a student elected annually by
CUBC alumni still resident in Cambridge). Like
Adler and Adler’s (1988) college basketball team
and Wulff’s (1998) ballet company, CUBC domi-
nates the lives of its members and is highly com-
petitive, closed, and exclusive.
The eight oarsmen and one coxswain selected to
race Oxford are awarded a “Blue,” the highest dis-
tinction for University sportsmen and -women, and
a potentially important differentiating factor ca-
reerwise. Moreover, having represented Cambridge
in the Boat Race is a source of enduring pride,
symbolized by having one’s name painted in gold
on the wood-paneled walls inside the boathouse—
alongside a simple “won” or “lost.” The social con-
tract between CUBC and a rowing squad boils
down to a simple understanding: to represent Cam-
bridge in The Boat Race is a privilege of the highest
order that requires great personal sacrifice and ac-
ceptance that one might be cut from the squad at
any time by the chief coach. This social contract is
made explicit at the first meeting of all “triallists”
and is reinforced the next morning when a 2000-
meter “erg test” is used to weed out the first hand-
ful of hopefuls.
CUBC’s alumni (“Old Blues”) help socialize new-
comers into the ways and customs of an elite and
secretive world. It is here that triallists are told of
the Boat Race’s defining moments: the original
race, in 1829; the only dead heat, in 1877; the 1987
Oxford mutiny; Cambridge’s string of victories in
the 1920s and 1990s; and the closest-ever result, in
2003: just one foot over 4.2 miles (or a margin of
0.005%). Socialization also involves fueling a long-
standing rivalry between the two universities that
fosters team identity and commitment. Together,
these custodial processes ensure the production of
oarsmen who fully identify with the institutional
project of winning the Boat Race:
When I raced we had a real dislike of Cambridge....
We felt they were arrogant. Some had been disre-
spectful to us, both personally and in the press.
Winning and losing this race can be a life-defining
experience. After one of them, an ambulance took
2013 189Lok and de Rond

away five of the eight crew. That’s commitment.
(Matt Smith, Oxford Blue and former Oxford Uni-
versity Boat Club president [Guardian, 2009a])
CUBC’s Selection System as Highly
Institutionalized Social Practice
For the purposes of this study, we concentrated
on CUBC’s selection system. This system forms the
backbone of the CUBC insofar as race preparations
revolve around selection: a season-long attrition
process that ensures that the fastest possible crew is
produced on race day. CUBC’s selection system
serves as a strong example of a set of highly insti-
tutionalized practices: they are social; distributed
over time (they go back decades) and space (they
are very similar to selection practices elsewhere);
and highly routinized (their organizing principles
and legitimating logic are taken-for-granted and re-
inforced through extensive socialization process-
es); and their purpose and necessity are objecti-
vated as existing over and beyond the people who
embody them and legitimated in terms of a logic
consisting of key organizing principles. Our discus-
sion of CUBC selection system follows a three-tier
structure: (1) selection methods, (2) the process of
selection, and (3) basic organizing principles for
selection practices. Together these form a highly
institutionalized script that has informed actual se-
lection practices at CUBC for decades.
Selection methods. Competitive rowing prac-
tices have become highly institutionalized world-
wide, with very similar training programs (a com-
bination of water and land training), standardized
equipment (Concept II rowing machines), values
(e.g., “You never let your crew down,” “You don’t
want to have anything left in the tank when cross-
ing the finish line”), and a generic vocabulary (e.g.,
“Eights,” “Fours,” “Pairs,” “catch,” “recovery,”
“stroke,” “rhythm,” “rigging”). Almost all of those
joining CUBC have rowed competitively for years.
Selection is based on the same battery of tests as in
international rowing, prominent among which are
2,000- and 5,000-meter tests on indoor rowing ma-
chines, and “seat-races.” These tests are designed
to provide objective assessments of performance
and potential and an ongoing rank ordering of
squad members based on power, technique, and
endurance.
Seat-racing complements erg-based testing by
providing data on the ability to “move” a boat. Here
two crews of four race each other over a 1,500-
meter course. After the first race, two rowers, one
from each crew, swap places. The race restarts, the
aim being to isolate the effect of a single rower on
an entire crew in a real boat on actual water. The
process continues until coaches are satisfied that
they have sufficient data on each oarsman’s boat-
moving ability and the relative speeds of different
combinations of rowers. Combined results from erg
tests and seat-races are expected to provide an ob-
jective ranking of the eight best boat movers. This
ranking can then be used to make selection deci-
sions and to ensure the fastest combination will
race Oxford on Boat Race day.
The process of selection. CUBC’s selection pro-
cess in 2007 was identical to those of recent de-
cades; accumulated experience has made race
preparation formulaic: Erg tests provide a tentative
ranking, which is then ratified by means of a set of
seat-racing results; should these be inconsistent,
the chief coach (using the combined expertise of
his coaching team) makes a judgment based on
subjective assessments (e.g., of perceived fit in
style). Those who survive CUBC’s two-week boot
camp at the start of each season continue with 11
training sessions per week over six days, for an
average of seven hours per day, or over 40 hours per
week. The boot camp in September 2006 shrunk
the original 39-strong squad to one of 32, which is
normal for this time of year. Over the following
months, via attrition and elimination using erg tests
and seat-racing, it gradually becomes clear who are
the top four oarsmen on strokeside (port) and bow-
side (starboard), a process complicated by the abil-
ity of some to row on either side of the boat.
After the squad is reduced to around 22 over the
next three months, the chief coach typically de-
cides to formulate a tentative Blue Boat and Goldie
(reserve) crew. This is done during a training camp
in Banyoles, Spain, in early January so as to allow
enough time for the Blue Boat to learn to synchro-
nize their rowing as a crew. Theoretically—and as
the chief coach will emphasize, also practically—
selection continues until the day of the Boat Race
itself. This helps maintain a level of competition
within the squad, in that no one is ever guaranteed
a place. That said, it is uncommon for major
changes to take place after selection in January, bar
for sudden illness or injury or when two or three
rowers remain very close in performance (as was
the case in 2007 with oarsmen Oli, Colin, and
Jake).
1
In the latter case, the coaches’ perceptions of
fit become increasingly important. They are the
final arbiters of selection.
Basic organizing principles. Three basic organ-
izing principles are central to CUBC’s selection sys-
tem as a set of highly institutionalized social prac-
1
Actual personal names are used throughout this
article.
190 FebruaryAcademy of Management Journal

tices: (1) fairness and objectivity of selection
methods, (2) authority of the coach, and (3) respect
for the rules and traditions of CUBC and the Boat
Race. First, the importance of fairness and objectiv-
ity as a general organizing principle implies that
selection decisions must be justifiable in the con-
text of objective and transparent performance data
so as to ensure “fair play.” It also means that
coaches are transparent with test results. Thus, the
chief coach would typically e-mail test results to
the squad within 24 hours and post them in sum-
mary format on the inward-facing door to the gym.
Oarsmen in turn were expected to be candid about
their physical condition and to not show up for
training when ill to avoid infecting others.
Second, it is the head coach who makes final
selection decisions, and his selection authority is
expected to go unquestioned. Selection decisions
are based on available performance data and a de-
gree of personal judgment when data are inconclu-
sive. As the erg and seat-racing data for the 2007
season in Table 1 suggest, it is not always clear who
constitute the eight fastest rowers. Whereas selec-
tion of the first three was clear-cut (Thorsten,
Kieran, and Sebastian), the next five required the
coach’s judgment. Given inconclusive, and some-
times inconsistent, performance data, his authority
is essential for selection decisions. These decisions
are expected to go unquestioned, given his coach-
ing pedigree. The authority of the coach as a basic
organizing principle of CUBC’s selection practices
is further bolstered by a clear rule against “self-
binning”: you never walk out on the squad until the
coach orders you to.
Finally, oarsmen were expected to behave in a
manner befitting the professional, honorable cul-
ture of CUBC (and Cambridge University generally)
and to respect its rules and traditions. In practice
this meant that one would never, in public, criti-
cize either members of the squad or Oxford. It also
meant that rules such as the “in statu populari”
imperative, which makes it compulsory for race
participants to be enrolled as full-time students and
to complete their course, were taken very seriously.
Taken together, the selection methods, the selec-
tion process, and the general organizing principles
underlying CUBC’s selection system constitute the
script that informs actual practice at CUBC. Our
analysis will focus on the microprocesses through
which the structural features of this script can be
maintained in the face of actual practice perfor-
mances that diverge from and even threaten them.
METHODS
Data Sources
Our focus on microprocesses of institutional
maintenance prompted us to adopt an inductive,
qualitative process approach (Langley, 1999), using
CUBC as an extreme case in which such processes
were “transparently observable” (Eisenhardt, 1989:
537). This allowed us to directly examine mainte-
nance processes themselves through fine-grained
qualitative data collected in real time and to tease
out their complex interrelations. Our principal data
set comprises a 199-day ethnography of CUBC’s
2007 training and selection program, from the very
TABLE 1
Erg Test and Seat-Racing Results for the 2007 Boat Race Campaign
Crew
Member 2K PB Ranking 2K 09/20 Ranking 2K 11/15 Ranking 5K 12/19 Ranking
Seat-Race
12/31
Selected
for Blue
Boat
Thorsten 05:48.9 1 Injured — 05:52.3 1 15:11.5 1 WNR
b
Yes
Kieran 05:49.0 2 06:08.0 4 05:54.6 2 GB trial
a
— WNR Yes
Seb 05:53.1 3 06:00.8 1 05:56.7 3 15:25.7 2 WNR Yes
Jake 05:55.0 4 06:12.4 8 06:07.4 6 15:40.2 3 Lost Yes
Dan 06:04.0 5 06:27.2 10 06:07.7 ⫽7 15:46.3 4 Lost Yes
Don 06:05.0 6 06:11.3 6 06:13.7 10 16:08.5 8 Lost No
Tom 06:05.9 7 06:09.8 5 06:03.2 5 GB trial — WNR Yes
Pete 06:07.0 8 06:07.7 3 06:02.4 4 15:49.3 6 Won Yes
Colin 06:09.5 9 06:12.5 9 06:07.7 ⫽7 15:54.9 7 Won No
Kip 06:10.5 10 06:11.9 7 Injured — 15:46.9 5 Won Yes
Oli 06:11.0 11 06:06.9 2 06:13.6 9 16:13.7 9 Won No
a
The Great Britain (GB) trials were taking place on the same day, and Kieran and Tom were required to attend if they wanted to join
the 2008 Olympic selection process.
b
WNR is “was not raced.” The chief coach chose not to seat-race Thorsten, Kieran, Sebastian, and Tom. The first three had persistently
shown themselves to be the top performers, and the coach felt Tom completed the “stern four” of the eight well. The decision to keep these
four rowers together was based on a strong performance during the Head of the River Fours race and his ongoing impression that, as a
foursome, they produced a very fast boat in practice.
2013 191Lok and de Rond

first day of training until (and including) the Boat
Race, and as detailed in de Rond (2008). Additional
data sources include all major publications on the
history of Oxbridge rowing and the Boat Race as
well as substantial proprietary archival documents.
Ethnographic observations and interviews.
True to the ethnographic tradition, one of us spent
an entire Boat Race season (September 19, 2006, to
April 7, 2007) with the squad, full-time. He joined
the squad for their daily training sessions, sat in on
all coaches’ meetings, and socialized with the
squad and coaches outside of training hours. When
the CUBC trained off-site, in Banyoles, London, or
Chester, he traveled with them, slept in their
rooms, worked alongside them in rigging boats,
loading equipment, driving club vans, mopping
floors, cooking breakfast, and studying video foot-
age of water outings and past Boat Races. Detailed
written records of observations and interviews
were kept, supplemented by extensive notes on the
thoughts, feelings, and dreams of the ethnographer.
Before retiring each night, he transcribed each
day’s extensive field notes, which include descrip-
tions of events (e.g., selection races) and rituals
(e.g., formal dinners) and of mundane activities.
Taken together, these notes cover some 1,300 hours
of observation over 199 consecutive days.
E-mail communication, video footage, logbooks,
popular press, and books. The ethnographer’s priv-
ileged access to the coaches and squad included his
being copied on all e-mail correspondence, gener-
ating a record of some 350 individual e-mails.
These include such regular features as announce-
ments, weekly training schedules, and erg test re-
sults, but also postrace “wash-ups” (or discussions
on what went well and what didn’t), reproaches of
athletes by the chief coach (covering such issues as
dirty kit left in the locker rooms), pranks, banter,
and links to YouTube clips of exemplary rowing.
E-mail correspondence between coaches provided
access to detailed performance data and their eval-
uations of athletes. Additional proprietary data in-
cluded video footage of training outings, footage of
the 2007 Boat Race (from the umpire’s launch), and
a voice recording of the coxswain calling the race.
Proprietary archival data included a logbook kept
by former CUBC presidents. Publicly available doc-
uments include postrace press reports from a vari-
ety of national and local papers, articles anticipat-
ing the Boat Race from rowing magazines, blogs,
and books. These books include six of the most
important historical accounts of the race, published
between 1939 and 2006, and autobiographical ac-
counts of former Boat Race oarsmen who went on
to earn Olympic medals.
Data Analysis
In analyzing the data, we deployed a theory-
building approach that involved moving from the
personal account of the ethnographer—consisting
primarily of “thick” descriptions based on field
notes, observations, and interview transcripts—to
one that was more analytical and integrated into
current research (Pratt, 2000; Van Maanen, 1979).
We followed an iterative process, traveling back
and forth between the data, the literature, and an
emerging structure of theoretical arguments and
empirical categories, which we developed through
cyclic reading and rereading of the material (Miles
& Huberman, 1994).
We began our analysis by following Sandberg
and Tsoukas’s (2011) recommendation to explore
practitioners’ responses to practice breakdowns as
a strategy for better understanding the practical
rationality through which they sustain or transform
their practices. The five major practice breakdowns
we took as our starting point were those that rowers
and coaching staff themselves identified in a
postrace evaluation as the defining moments of the
2007 season, in which things did not go as antici-
pated. In addition to these postrace discussions, we
provided Blue Boat crew members with a list of all
observed breakdowns generated from our first anal-
ysis of the data. These were framed as “situations in
which things did not go as expected.” We asked
them to distinguish between minor and major
breakdowns by assigning each breakdown a num-
ber (1 ⫽“very important,” 2 ⫽“moderately impor-
tant,” 3 ⫽“unimportant”). We also gave them the
option of adding items to our list. None were
added, though crew members did occasionally
write explanatory comments after the breakdown
episodes, specifying how they themselves experi-
enced these episodes. Having taken the time to add
free-written comments also suggests they took the
exercise seriously. We focused on those break-
downs that all of the rowers marked as very or
moderately important.
Summaries of these five major practice break-
downs, the way in which each incident deviated
from the script and threatened institutional rules,
norms, beliefs, or principles, and the maintenance
response that followed incidents are presented in
Table 2. Figure 1 places breakdowns on a timeline
in relation to the main selection races. For each of
the five breakdown episodes, we answered three
questions: (1) in what way did each episode con-
stitute a practice breakdown, and what were its
(potential) institutional implications? (2) What
were the individual and collective responses to the
practice breakdowns, and how was the breakdown
192 FebruaryAcademy of Management Journal

TABLE 2
Overview of Five Practice Breakdowns during the 2007 Season
Major Breakdown Episodes Nature of the Institutional Threat Restoration Response
1. The crew rebels against the coaching
staff when they decide not to select
Dan for the Blue Boat in view of his
seat-racing performance. They
convince Dan to come back to the
team after he self-bins and force his
selection.
The coach’s authority normally goes
unquestioned and his selection
decisions are respected, especially
when they are based on legitimate
seat-racing results. Overruling the
coaching decision threatens both
the principles of fairness and the
unquestioned authority of the
coach, which are both central to
CUBC’s selection system as an
institution.
Dan’s selection is legitimated in terms of the
institutional imperative: Dan makes the
boat go faster due to his likeable
personality and ability to “gel” the crew’s
strong personalities. His selection is
framed as a necessary exception to the use
of seat-racing results and coaching
authority as a basis for selection decisions
that can be justified in terms of the
overriding objective of winning the race.
2. Jake’s erg scores should have placed
him in the top eight rowers. Instead,
he upsets expectations in seat-racing
in Banyoles, losing not only his own
race by a huge margin (9 seconds)
but by being a member of the losing
crew in each seat race. The coach
decides to give him another chance
through which he manages to secure
selection. This is seen as unfair by
several oarsmen.
Jake lost his seat-races very
conclusively. What point is there
in seat-racing if you are willing to
give some (but not others) a
second chance? The use of
coaching authority to overrule
objective seat racing results
threatens the principle of fairness
and objectivity that are central to
CUBC’s selection system as an
institution.
Rather than simply overruling seat race
results and selecting Jake, the coach gives
Jake an extra chance in the form of a race-
off against his nearest competitors, Colin
and Oli, who outrowed him in Banyoles.
This preserves the principle that a fair
race should be the basis of selection
decisions. Moreover, as with Dan, this
decision is presented as a necessary
exception that is justifiable in terms of the
overall objective of winning the race.
3. The coxswain Russ performs poorly
in the races leading up to the Boat
Race; his calls are considered too
aggressive and he steers poorly.
However, given his experience, and
because he is such a likeable person,
no one broaches the issue publicly.
This causes great uncertainty in the
boat just days before the race.
CUBC’s imperative of winning the
Boat Race, as captured in the
Stephens test, suggested that
concerns regarding Russ’s
performance should have been
raised much earlier. The crew’s
protection of Russ therefore
threatens CUBC’s single
constitutional objective. Turning a
blind eye to poor performance for
the sake of team unity and the
prevention of personal
embarrassment should not trump
the Stephens test.
Russ is replaced with Rebecca at the last
minute, causing him public
embarrassment; the team feels bad for him
but quickly refocuses on race preparation.
By correcting their earlier failure to
address this issue in such a harsh way, it
serves to strengthen the principle of the
Stephens test.
4. The coach continues to experiment
with the stroke seat position, rotating
Kieran and Thorsten just days before
the race. Stability is paramount so
close to the race. Besides, Thorsten’s
performance data place him
consistently as the strongest crew
member, warranting stroke seat. The
crew defuse Thorsten’s threat to self-
bin and put him in stroke seat,
bypassing their chief coach
Overruling the coaching decision
destroys his decision-making
authority, which is central to
CUBC’s selection system as an
institution. Simply ignoring
coaching decisions and effectively
excluding the chief coach from
race preparations does not seem
institutionally justifiable.
The decision to bypass the coach is
legitimated as a necessary exception
forced by unique circumstances (in this
case the alleged incompetence of this
particular coach) that can be justified in
terms of the institutional imperative of
winning the race. Moreover, the episode is
framed as a positive sign of the productive
progression of the team; they have now
developed to such a high level that they
can make decisions themselves.
5. Thorsten leaves Cambridge shortly
after winning the 2007 Boat Race
and before having finished his BA
course, triggering a formal complaint
by Oxford.
The social contract between Oxford
and Cambridge dictates that
oarsmen are, and should remain,
in statu populari during the year
of the Boat Race. All Cambridge
rowers have to be approved by
Oxford and vice versa prior to the
race to protect the integrity of this
being a student race. Breaking the
in statu populari rule threatens
this integrity.
CUBC issues a formal apology to Oxford and
disciplines Thorsten by formally stripping
him of his Blue.
2013 193Lok and de Rond

subsequently resolved? and (3) How might one ex-
plain these responses in terms of the processes that
preceded each practice breakdown? By exploring
these questions, we tried to explain why and how
different practice breakdowns were resolved, look-
ing carefully at their process history and resolution.
To chart a process history for each temporary
breakdown, we used a combination of what Lang-
ley (1999) called narrative and visual mapping
strategies for making sense of process data. We
constructed detailed process narratives from the
raw data for each breakdown—aiming to preserve
as much of the richness of our data as possible—
and used detailed graphical representations as an
intermediary step between the raw data and more
abstract theoretical conceptualization. After com-
pleting the process narratives and the maps for
each of the five temporary breakdowns, we com-
pared them to look for common progressions in
sources of influence (Langley, 1999). Our aim in
this second phase of our data analysis was to iden-
tify different types of maintenance processes and to
understand their interrelations over time. We
linked different types of maintenance processes to
more general constructs from the literature on in-
stitutional maintenance and also noticed that each
of our process maps could be organized into similar
temporal brackets (Langley, 1999), which enabled
us to analytically isolate two main process phases
that were involved in four of our five main break-
down episodes.
Below we present our analysis and findings in
two forms. In the interest of cohesion and readabil-
ity (given the size of the data set and the impor-
tance of detail), we first provide descriptive vi-
gnettes of the five breakdown episodes. The aim
here is to illustrate some of the chronological rela-
tions between different episodes as well as the emic
power of lived experience, which often gets lost in
analytic discourse. This illustration is then fol-
lowed by our analysis of the maintenance work
involved in these breakdown episodes.
FINDINGS
Five Breakdown Episodes
Episode 1, January 3, 2007: Forcing Dan into
the boat. After the first 17 of the 39-strong squad
had been dismissed owing to performance ratings,
the chief coach, Duncan Holland, formulated a ten-
tative Blue Boat and Goldie (reserve) crew. Al-
though the compositions of these crews can change
after this point in a season, major changes are rel-
atively rare. Oarsmen are well aware that these
tentative crews closely resemble those who will
race Oxford in the spring, so it is extremely impor-
tant to be included in the tentative top (Blue Boat)
crew at this stage.
Coach Holland remained uncertain about one
seat (for which Colin was the most likely candi-
date) but seemed set on the other seven, as well as
FIGURE 1
Time Line of the 2007 Season
Selection
Tests
Events
Major
Breakdown
Episodes
Declaration
of 2K PB Seat-races
2K test 2K test 5K test
Boot Camp Head of the
Charles (Boston)
Indoor
Champs
Head of
River Fours
Banyoles
selection
camp
Fixtures
against
Molesey
Head of
River Race The Boat Race
19 September 23 October 12 November 18 November 19 December 27 March 29 March 31 March 7 April
29 December
Crew challenges
chief coach to get
Dan selected.
Jake’s
second
seat race.Russ’s poor
performance
triggers his
removal that
night.
Crew reverses
stroke
experiments.
Thorsten
leaves
Cambridge.
194 FebruaryAcademy of Management Journal

the coxswain. No sooner had he announced his
selection than Tom, Kieran, Seb, Thorsten, and Kip
challenged his decision to leave Dan out of the
crew. Dan had lost his seat-race, and test results to
date favored Colin. Even as the chief coach’s selec-
tion decision was backed by objective performance
data, the rowers accepted Dan’s reasoning that seat
racing “wasn’t his thing” and, besides, Dan’s affa-
ble personality brought them together in a way
Colin never could. Colin’s nickname of “space ca-
det” paid testimony to his comparative lack of so-
cial skills. Faced with such opposition, Holland felt
he was left no option but to give in to the rowers
and replace Colin with Dan. He feared risking a
revolt akin to the 1987 Oxford mutiny, where the
strongest oarsmen walked out over a similar selec-
tion controversy.
Dan’s selection was controversial in that it threat-
ened to undermine the unquestioned authority of
the coach as well as the supremacy of test results
for crew selection that is supposed to be transpar-
ent, objective, and based on “fair play.” Dan had
already had a difficult relationship with the chief
coach, who, he thought, underestimated his abili-
ties and potential. On November 17, 2006, he had
manifested his frustration with the chief coach’s
decisions by binning himself. “I’m going . . . I’m
fucking tired of this shit,” he had said, followed on
the heel by Holland’s: “If you’re walking out of
here, you’re walking out of CUBC!” (field notes).
Bruised by the confrontation, Dan headed for a
local Starbucks, where he was joined by Tom and,
over the course of the next two hours, talked into
turning back into the fold. After all, one of the
shared understandings within CUBC is that you
never “self-bin”; you stay with the club until the
chief coach, having applied the Stephens test, de-
cides to bin you. Later that afternoon, Dan returned
apologetically and proceeded to give his best per-
formance yet at the Head of the River Fours race
two days later. His resentment of Duncan Holland
remained, however, as evidenced by increasingly
acerbic jokes about the coach. Aside from the odd
smile, the squad members mostly ignored Dan’s
tomfoolery, and they eventually overturned the
coach’s selection decision in his favor, thus threat-
ening both his selection authority and the principle
of fairness and objectivity. (As the data in Table 1
suggest, Dan also disappointed in a 2K erg test
[compared to his personal best], whereas Oli im-
pressed in his first but not second 2K, and Jake and
Colin in their second but not first. Moreover, Co-
lin’s and Oli’s seat-racing results should have se-
cured them seats in the Blue Boat, but did not.)
Episode 2, February 11, 2007: Jake is given an
extra chance. Jake, a former Stanford rower, had
been promised another try at seat-racing by the
chief coach after a dismal performance during the
squad’s yearly, midterm selection camp in Ban-
yoles. Until then, he had been considered a strong
Blue Boat contender but, owing to poor seat-racing
results, was left out of Blue Boat selection. Yet the
coaches held an extraordinary seat race on Febru-
ary 11 to decide who was the fastest boat mover
among Jake and his then-closest competitors, Oli
and Colin. No one else had been extended this
privilege: Oli and Colin had both won their seat
races, and now, to their dismay, were forced to
repeat the test. Jake understood this to be “an ex-
ception to the rule” and worked hard to prove the
coaches right. He saw his immediate challenge to
be persuading the crew and coaches that he was the
better of the remaining oarsmen:
I spent a lot of time thinking how others would
perceive me... and I particularly wanted the
coaches to see me working hard...butIdidn’t want
Colin and Oli to see me working hard because then
they might start working hard too—and I didn’t
want them to find out until it was too late....Idid
feel badly about this because I like Colin and Oli and
feel sad about having to compete with them for a
place in the Blue Boat. . . . I wanted so badly to get
inside their heads and let them know I was the alpha
male—it is so confusing to mentally attack your
friends—it drives you insane but sanity seemed like
a small price to pay for something I wanted so badly.
(field notes)
The “second chance” offer threatened to under-
mine the significance of seat racing as a criterion
for crew selection and, by implication, the princi-
ple of fairness and objectivity. After all, the privi-
lege was only ever extended to Jake.
Episode 3, March 27, 2007: Russ’s demotion.
Russ had begun the 2007 season as the best quali-
fied coxswain and, in his third season at CUBC,
was aware that his odds of selection were excellent.
Yet, although continuing to turn up for every train-
ing session, he made the unusual decision to take
up varsity boxing at the same time. By pursuing
this two-tier strategy, Russ effectively maximized
his chances of gaining a University Blue that year
(for either boxing or rowing). The squad and chief
coach, aware of Russ’s ambitions, reluctantly ac-
cepted his reassurances of commitment to CUBC.
In return for his reassurances, and lacking a viable
alternative, they remained publicly supportive,
even traveling up to London in full CUBC attire to
cheer him on during his varsity boxing match on
March 8.
Despite the squad’s acquiescence, doubts about
Russ’ commitment escalated when he made a stra-
2013 195Lok and de Rond

tegically bad call during the Head of the River
Charles regatta in Cambridge, Massachusetts,
five weeks into the season. Expected to easily win
their division, Cambridge University came in at
number eight instead, leaving Russ to accept the
bulk of the responsibility. His aggression, though
useful in boxing, was not conducive to rhythm in
rowing and had begun to frustrate the oarsmen.
After another dismal performance on March 27, the
crew decided it was time for him to go.
Kip spoke very strongly and said he hated Russ’s
calls in training and racing and only put up with
him because he thought everyone else liked him....
Seb and I said we hated his race calls....Thorsten,
Jake and Pete agreed they didn’t like his calls but
hadn’t said anything because they each thought ev-
erybody else liked Russ so didn’t want to cause
dissention in the crew. (Kieran, personal communi-
cation, October 15, 2007)
With only ten days to go before the Boat Race,
their decision was unusual and controversial. As a
national newspaper stated the following morning:
“The decision of the Cambridge coach, Duncan
Holland, to change coxes this close to the race has
a smack of desperation about it” (Guardian, 2007).
The institutional principle under threat in this
particular case is the Stephens test, insofar as the
crew should have voiced their concern over Russ’s
performance much earlier. According to this test,
concern with boat speed should dwarf interper-
sonal concerns.
Episode 4, March 29, 2007: Rebellion over
stroke seat. With just nine days to go until the race,
the crew reversed a high-stakes experiment, de-
vised by their chief coach. In so doing, crew mem-
bers emancipated themselves from what had be-
come an increasingly unworkable relationship. The
previous day, the chief coach had decided to swap
the positions of two oarsmen, “stroke” and “six-
seat.” Stroke is easily the more prestigious of the
two in that its incumbent sets the rowing pattern
and rating and is in full view of the 120 million
watching the Boat Race via satellite or online. The
swap was to be for two outings only and designed
to help Thorsten to feel the crew’s rhythm further
down the boat by switching seats with Kieran.
Kieran didn’t object: like Thorsten, he had long had
his eye set on stroke seat. They had been close
rivals ever since Thorsten beat Kieran by the small-
est measurable margin (a tenth of a second) at the
British indoor rowing championships 18 months
earlier, and their test results had remained close
since. When the chief coach decided to keep Kieran
at stroke for a third and a fourth outing, the crew
rebelled. Thorsten, confused and insecure, threat-
ened to walk out of the race. Tom, as student pres-
ident, called an ad hoc meeting the next day, March
29. Kieran took the floor:
I never asked to stroke this crew and this close to the
Race I don’t want the stroke seat....Theonly thing
that should matter at this point is how we can make
this boat go as fast as possible.... It’s not about
some glory seat or any of that crap, but whether or
not we win next week—and if we do, nobody will
give a shit who sat where; and if we lose, no one will
give a shit either who was at stroke. (field notes)
The crew reversed the stroke seat experiment by
placing Thorsten at stroke. The chief coach, present
at the meeting, was never asked for his opinion.
The boat belonged to the boys now. However, in
taking charge of their own destiny, the crew risked
undermining the authority vested in the chief
coach, and thus one of the key principles underly-
ing CUBC’s selection system.
Episode 5, April 29, 2007: Thorsten departing
early. With Thorsten, a reigning world champion,
2
in stroke seat, Cambridge rowed to victory in the
153rd Boat Race on April 7, 2007. Three weeks later
Thorsten dumbfounded both universities by an-
nouncing his decision to permanently return to
Germany without completing his course. To do so
threatened to undermine a 180-year old institution,
founded on the premise that all participating oarsmen
must be in statu populari for the entire academic year.
His departure triggered a formal complaint from Ox-
ford and mobilized the national media:
On the choppy waters of the Thames no quarter is
sought or given as crews from Oxford and Cam-
bridge battle each year in the Boat Race. Behind the
scenes, however, the event is supposed to embody
the gentlemanly ideals of amateur sport. Now that
image has taken a battering after Cambridge were
forced to issue a groveling apology in the wake of a
dispute every bit as fierce as the oarsmen’s annual
battle . . . that Cambridge broke the “spirit” of the
Boat Race by including an oarsman who was not a
full-time student . . . the CUBC president, has writ-
ten to Robin Ejsmond-Frey, the OUBC president, to
express his “deep regret at the circumstances that
have led to this disagreement between our two
clubs.” . . . In his letter of reply last week, Mr Ejs-
mond-Frey wrote: “As you clearly state, the spirit of
our contest has been called into question and there
is undoubtedly work required going forward to re-
pair any damage done.” (Guardian, 2007b)
Given his poor academic record, and pressure to
rejoin his German crew in preparation for the 2007
2
Thorsten won his gold medal at the 2006 world row-
ing championship.
196 FebruaryAcademy of Management Journal

World Championships, Thorsten’s return to Ger-
many may not have been entirely surprising to
CUBC outsiders. After all, his academic perfor-
mance had been the subject of banter within the
squad on many occasions. Thorsten had even been
forced back into College accommodation (from a
flat he shared with a German crew member) so as to
improve his English and regain academic form. To
insiders, however, the ensuing controversy cannot
be overestimated. The threat to the Boat Race and to
CUBC’s selection system, as institutions, proved
significant in that Thorsten’s actions violated the in
statu populari principle on which the race was
founded.
Analysis of Practice Breakdowns
We entered our fieldwork with the impression
that CUBC and its selection system constituted an
extreme case of institutional stability. After all,
CUBC’s strong socialization processes, combined
with a selection system that excludes anyone who
is not willing or able to play by CUBC’s highly
institutionalized rules and processes, ensure the
production of oarsmen who are fully committed to
CUBC’s objective of winning the race and who
take for granted the role of CUBC’s selection sys-
tem in achieving this objective. Yet despite this,
the episodes described above reveal a pattern of
major practice breakdowns that directly threat-
ened some of the key organizing principles on
which CUBC’s selection practices were based, as
shown in Table 2.
The first question this raises is where these
breakdowns came from, given CUBC’s closed,
highly institutionalized environment. The second
is why they did not lead to any permanent struc-
tural changes in CUBC’s selection practices. Our
analysis reveals that four out of the five major
breakdown episodes we analyzed (all except epi-
sode 2) were preceded by an accumulation of minor
events in which things did not go as expected.
These minor breakdowns were rooted in the unique
personalities, performances, and expectations that
each person brought into the enactment of CUBC’s
selection practices and were initially pragmatically
smoothed over through a process we call “contain-
ment.” Containment involved custodial, negotia-
tion, and reflexive normalization work, each a dis-
tinct form of maintenance work through which the
flow of practice was normalized despite small di-
vergences from the relevant script. Over time, how-
ever, minor breakdowns accumulated to the point
at which containment became untenable, causing
major collective breakdowns in practice that di-
rectly threatened some key organizing principles.
These major breakdowns, in turn, triggered a pro-
cess we call “restoration,” which involved other
forms of maintenance work through which key or-
ganizing principles were protected from practice
performances that threatened them. Figure 2 sum-
FIGURE 2
Conceptual Structure of Our Findings
Forms of Institutional Maintenance Work
Normalization Work Negotiation Work Custodial Work
Temporal Brackets
Containment
Ignoring
Acting as if a departure from
institutional expectations did not
happen and/or is immaterial or
unimportant.
Tolerating
Allowing someone to continue to
behave contrary to institutional
expectations for the sake of getting
on with things by keeping him/her
on board.
Reinforcing
Reminding oneself/others of
institutional expectations, either
explicitly or implicitly.
Restoration
Excepting and Coopting
The framing of actions that threaten
the institution as pragmatically
necessary exceptions brought about
by unique circumstances that can be
justified in terms of an overarching
institutional imperative.
Reversing
Undoing actions that are contrary
to institutional expectations by
convincing the people involved to
go back on an institutionally
divergent decision made earlier.
Self-correcting
Corrective interventions by
institutional inhabitants themselves
aimed at restoring normal,
institutionalized practice.
Formal Disciplining
Punishing people whose behaviors
(threaten to) undermine the
institution.
2013 197Lok and de Rond

marizes this general process and the types of insti-
tutional maintenance work it involves.
Thus, our analysis reveals how the micropro-
cesses through which institutions can be inocu-
lated against practice breakdowns vary with the
particular process history of such breakdowns. We
also find that the particular type of maintenance
work that was triggered by practice breakdowns
depends on the nature of the institutional threat
these breakdowns posed; only when the actions
involved in a breakdown were not considered in-
stitutionally justifiable, or reversible, or personally
excusable was formal custodial work in the form of
formal disciplining involved in restoration. Below
we describe these findings in more detail.
Phase 1: Containment of Minor Breakdowns
The inability of oarsmen and coaches to perfectly
enact practice scripts consistently caused minor
tensions between institutionalized expectations
and actual practice performance. For example,
leading up to breakdown episode 1, Dan had found
it difficult to establish rapport with the chief coach.
Their relationship soured as it became increasingly
clear that Dan might miss out on selection. Instead
of blaming himself for lack of fitness (as evidenced
in Table 1, which shows how his first erg test was
significantly poorer than his personal best), Dan
blamed the coach for being ineffective. Some of his
more malicious attempts to undermine the coach
saw him drawing comparisons between the male
endowments of the Cambridge coach and his for-
mer Northeastern University coach, belittling the
former’s masculinity and coaching abilities. Such
regular jibes constituted a series of very minor
breakdowns in the normal flow of selection prac-
tice in the sense that they diverged from the insti-
tutional selection script by actively undermining
the coach’s authority.
Likewise, leading up to episode 3, Russ was in-
volved in a series of minor incidents that contrib-
uted to the major breakdown of his last minute
demotion. He was seen fraternizing with Oxford on
the riverbank in Putney, and he risked compromis-
ing total commitment by pursuing a parallel boxing
Blue and disregarding some crew members’ criti-
cism of his aggression and poor steering while
“coxing.” Episode 4 (the rebellion over stroke seat)
was preceded by a series of breakdowns that had
already undermined the coach’s authority; stories
of his responsibility for Cambridge’s loss the previ-
ous year contributed further to this undermining.
And finally, Thorsten (episode 5) had found it dif-
ficult to combine rowing and studying all year.
All of these incidents were initially dealt with by
means of different forms of maintenance work that
contained them by downplaying their significance.
In reflective discussions after the 2007 season, row-
ers continued to frame them as “minor,” “unim-
portant,” or “interesting, not worrying.” Rather
than seeing this downplaying as an accurate reflec-
tion of the actual significance of these breakdowns,
we see it as part and parcel of the maintenance
work that contains incidents to maintain the nor-
mal flow of practice for as long as possible. Such
maintenance work took three main forms: “ignor-
ing,” “tolerating,” and “reinforcing.”
Ignoring. In the case of Dan’s jokes about the
coach, the squad typically ignored them or attrib-
uted them to an inconsequential personality clash.
Distancing themselves further from the chief coach
by joining Dan’s negativity might unnecessarily
prejudice the coaching team against them. The se-
lection system designed to produce the fastest pos-
sible crew to race Oxford could thus be under-
mined. Ignoring Dan’s jokes and attributing the
tension to a normal clash of personalities consti-
tutes a form of reflexive normalization work
through which unusual or unexpected behavior is
accounted for in terms of a common stock of knowl-
edge through which this behavior is made under-
standable and explainable, and thus normalized.
Such normalization work temporarily smooths
over any tensions caused by divergent behavior,
thus temporarily containing the behavior’s poten-
tially disruptive effects on institutionalized prac-
tice until such containment is no longer possible.
Ignoring as a form of reflexive normalization work
played a role not only in the development of epi-
sode 1, in which the crew forced Dan’s selection,
but also in episode 3: most squad members contin-
ued to ignore Russ’s overly aggressive calls because
they each thought everybody else liked Russ and
that speaking out against him might cause dissen-
sion within the crew.
Tolerating. Russ’s decision to simultaneously
pursue Blues in boxing and rowing took the squad
and chief coach by surprise and triggered negotia-
tion work between Russ and the squad to come to
an acceptable working agreement that fell outside
of the scope of the normal selection script, which
demands 100 percent commitment from all in-
volved. Russ sought to mitigate the crew’s concerns
about his dual commitment by promising to attend
all training sessions and, as soon as the boxing
varsity match was over, to rededicate himself fully
to the CUBC. Although the squad had four other
coxswains at its disposal, none came close to Russ’s
level of experience, and the CUBC couldn’t take the
risk of binning Russ with no viable alternative yet
198 FebruaryAcademy of Management Journal

in place. So instead they accepted his promise of
commitment and tolerated his practicing boxing
moves in front of the mirrors while the oarsmen
were lifting weights or pulling ergs, even at the risk
of allowing Russ to set a poor example for future
generations of oarsmen. Although this negotiated
outcome succeeded in temporarily containing the
disruptive impact of Russ’s unique demands, the
lack of full commitment this signaled did continue
to play a role in the lead-up to episode 3, Russ’s
last-minute demotion.
Reinforcing. A third form of maintenance work
involved in the containment of minor breakdowns
was a particular type of custodial work we call
“reinforcing.” In the case of Thorsten’s academic
struggles and Russ’s fraternizing with Oxford crew
members, this took the form of teasing. Thorsten’s
imperfect English and poor grades became the butt
of jokes within the squad. These were poignant,
even if gentle, reminders of the importance of es-
calating his efforts academically so as not to jeop-
ardize Cambridge’s chances of a Boat Race victory
by excluding their most powerful oarsman; his Col-
lege, and the University, might well have insisted
that he cease any involvement with CUBC if his
academic work continued to suffer. The impor-
tance of a minimally acceptable academic perfor-
mance was further reinforced when he was forced
to move back into College to focus on his academic
work. Similarly, teasing Russ about his informal
contacts with Oxford served to remind everyone of
the importance of treating Oxford as the enemy.
After all, tolerating informal contacts might weaken
the desire to beat them.
Phase 2: Restoration of Major Breakdowns
As minor breakdowns accumulated and selection
pressures mounted, containment work became in-
creasingly untenable. At critical selection junctions
(episodes 1–4), these minor tensions escalated into
breakdowns that threatened the validity and viabil-
ity of the very organizing principles on which
CUBC’s selection system was based (see Table 2).
Rather than custodial responses involving dedi-
cated maintenance workers (cf. Dacin et al., 2010;
Lawrence & Suddaby, 2006), other forms of main-
tenance work occurred in all but one breakdown,
maintenance that again involved reflexive normal-
ization, negotiation, and custodial work performed
by the crew members themselves. Through this
maintenance work, divergent practice perfor-
mances were reconciled with practice scripts in a
way that protected the organizing principles on
which these scripts were based from the practice
performances that threatened them. This restora-
tion work took four main forms: “excepting and
coopting,” “reversing,” “self-correcting,” and “for-
mal disciplining.”
Excepting and coopting. As Table 2 shows, the
most prominent way in which CUBC members rec-
onciled major practice breakdowns with the rele-
vant practice script was through processes of ex-
cepting and coopting. These involve framing
actions that threatened particular organizing prin-
ciples as pragmatically necessary exceptions to
normal institutionalized practice brought about by
unique circumstances (excepting) that could be jus-
tified by the institutional imperative of winning the
Boat Race (coopting). This form of accounting for
divergent actions accomplished two things: First, it
temporarily stretched the relevant practice scripts
to create room for actions that ordinarily would be
seen as inappropriate by referring to the higher
objective of winning the race. Actions that diverged
from relevant scripts and threatened their organiz-
ing principles were thus coopted into these scripts
as necessary and justifiable by subordinating the
principles under threat to the overarching principle
of winning the race. Second, by making sure that
everybody understood that they were necessary ex-
ceptions to the rule, the principles under threat
were, paradoxically, validated, thus protecting hem
from practice performances that threatened them.
The exception proved the rule. This form of ac-
counting for divergent behaviors as exceptions to a
rule that still holds in principle is a form of reflex-
ive normalization work that serves to maintain in-
stitutions. For example, Heritage (1984) argued that
the norm of returning greetings can be maintained
even in cases in which greetings are not returned
when these cases are accounted for as explainable
exceptions to a rule that still holds.
For example, in episode 1, the crew members
were willing to accept Dan’s rationalization that his
seat-racing results were not indicative of his ability
to make this particular crew move fast. By virtue of
his affable personality, they argued, Dan was
uniquely able to defuse conflict and raise their
overall level of synchronization in a sport where
small differences in timing and power application
dramatically affect boat speed. The challenge to the
coach’s decision to exclude Dan based on legiti-
mate seat-racing results was thus justified in terms
of CUBC’s constitutional objective of winning the
race. By presenting Dan’s case as a unique, neces-
sary exception, coaching authority and the use of
seat racing as a basis for selection were still upheld
in principle, even though in this particular case
practice diverged from these selection principles.
In episode 2, the coach used a similar argument
to justify Jake’s extraordinary seat-race. The un-
2013 199Lok and de Rond

usual decision to ignore Jake’s seat-racing result
was further normalized by the use of a “race-off”
against his nearest competitors, rather than simply
overruling seat race results and selecting Jake. This
preserved the principle that a fair race should be
the basis of selection decisions, thus restoring the
principles of fairness and objectivity as the basis for
selection decisions. Jake’s winning the race-off jus-
tified the decision further.
Finally, in the rebellion over stroke seat, episode
4, the collective decision to bypass the chief coach
was again legitimated as a necessary exception
forced by unique circumstances, in this case having
a “failed” coach who was seen to have unnecessar-
ily put Cambridge’s chances of winning the race at
risk through experiments that destabilized the boat
and upset Thorsten. Again through excepting and
coopting, the principle of coaching authority as the
basis for selection decisions was protected from
practice performances that directly threatened it:
only in this particular, unique case was it justifi-
able to ignore the coach for the sake of winning the
race. The episode was normalized further through
framing it as a positive sign of the productive pro-
gression of a team who no longer needed their chief
coach to make decisions for them. The fact that it
was Kieran—Thorsten’s long-standing rival—who
effectively turned the tables and subordinated his
own interests to those of the crew in an effort to
restore the balance was used to prove this point. In
all three cases, therefore, reflexive normalization
work ensured that the principles on which the se-
lection system was based were protected from prac-
tice performances that threatened them.
Reversing. Both episode 1 and episode 4 involved
oarsmen self-binning, or in Thorsten’s case threaten-
ing to self-bin, in the heat of the moment, despite
strong institutional pressures not to. Students join the
CUBC on the understanding that they never walk out
of the club, no matter how poor their prospects. This
is precisely what the chief coach reminded Dan of
when he chose to walk out of the boathouse on No-
vember 17. Tom, as president, took the unprece-
dented step of talking Dan into reversing his decision
and giving a formal apology. In Thorsten’s case too,
his threat to self-bin was met with disbelief, before
leading others to persuade him of the importance of
his role for boat speed. In both cases, actions in direct
violation of the rules were reversed through negotia-
tion work, which restored normalcy by deescalating
the high emotions that led to the self-binning and by
making the people involved see that their actions
were unnecessary and would hurt CUBC’s chances of
winning the Boat Race.
Self-correcting. Russ’s poor performance in fix-
tures (mock races) leading up to the Boat Race and
the negative effect of his aggression on the crew’s
ability to coordinate should have ruled him out of
Blue Boat selection long before he was dismissed.
The crew’s reluctance to tackle this issue earlier
appears to have been motivated by their affect for
Russ, and their attempt to contain potential dissen-
sion in the crew if they were to publicly speak out
against him. When this became unsustainable, and
great uncertainty and confusion beset the team just
11 days before the race, restoration took the form of
self-correcting. Frustrated at having lost yet another
fixture, the crew reacted by replacing Russ with
Rebecca,
3
even though this caused him great public
embarrassment. The harshness of this corrective
decision served to restore and even strengthen one
of CUBC’s golden rules, the Stephen’s test, which
had been neglected in Russ’s case: all decisions
must be oriented toward winning the Boat Race.
This self-correcting work can been seen as a partic-
ular form of custodial work that involves the self-
policing of rules as well as self-corrective actions in
relation to these rules.
Formal disciplining. Unlike all of the other
breakdowns that were internal affairs, Thorsten’s
premature departure from Cambridge (episode 5)
triggered a formal complaint from Oxford. In re-
turning to Germany prematurely, he put Cam-
bridge’s win into jeopardy, with Oxford claiming
the race result should be annulled. Even within
CUBC’s own community of Old Blues, Thorsten’s
actions were seen as unsportsmanlike. Cambridge’s
subsequent efforts at restoring relations with Ox-
ford were twofold: (1) Thorsten was formally and
publicly disciplined by stripping him of the Uni-
versity Blue he would otherwise have received for
competing and (2) the statu populari clause in the
agreement between the two boat clubs was verbally
clarified to emphasize that full-time status applies
to the entire academic year within which a Boat
Race falls. The written clause in the contract be-
tween Oxford and Cambridge itself remained en-
tirely unchanged.
Taken together, these findings show that major
practice breakdowns cannot be analyzed in isola-
tion from their particular process history, because
the particular form of maintenance work they can
trigger is contingent on this history. Whereas ignor-
ing, tolerating, and reinforcing were prevalent dur-
ing the containment phase of practice breakdowns,
restoration involved different types of maintenance
3
Rebecca is not in the test table because she was a
coxswain. Coxswains are required not for their strength
but for their ability to steer a boat and coach its crew
during the race.
200 FebruaryAcademy of Management Journal

work in the form of excepting and coopting, revers-
ing, self-correcting, and formal disciplining.
Maintenance Work and the Substantive Nature
of Practice Breakdowns
Our analysis suggests that, in addition to being
contingent on the particular process history of prac-
tice breakdowns, the particular form maintenance
work took was contingent on the particular sub-
stantive nature of each breakdown. Table 3 reveals
a pattern across the range of minor and major break-
downs we studied that suggests that the triggering
of reflexive normalization, negotiation, and custo-
dial work as maintenance responses to practice
breakdowns was highly contingent. Each type of
maintenance work was specifically suited to the
nature and process history of a particular break-
down and appears to have been contingent on three
main substantive factors: (1) whether the actions
involved were considered personally excusable,by
which we mean the extent to which divergent ac-
tions were considered understandable and excus-
able from a personal rather than an institutional
perspective, (2) whether the actions involved in
breakdowns were reversible, by which we mean the
extent to which divergent actions were final and
could not be undone, and (3) whether the actions
involved in a breakdown were institutionally justi-
fiable, by which we mean the extent to which it was
possible to legitimate divergent actions in terms of
institutional principles. We find that breakdowns
can be usefully differentiated on the basis of these
three substantive dimensions and that maintenance
responses appear to vary with this differentiation.
Accordingly, Table 3 shows that it is not just
institutional justifiability that determines the likely
maintenance response following practice break-
downs. Personal excusability and the reversibility
of actions involved in a breakdown episode also
appeared to have played an important role in the
case of CUBC. For example, when actions were not
seen as reversible or institutionally justifiable, but
still were seen as personally excusable, an ignoring
response followed (e.g., Dan’s jokes), or a reinforc-
ing response followed, when the possible negative
consequences of simply ignoring the minor break-
downs were seen as more significant (e.g., Thor-
sten’s poor academic performance).
When actions were seen as personally excusable
and still reversible through negotiations, a revers-
ing response followed (e.g., Dan’s self-binning and
Thorsten’s self-binning threat). Other negotiation
work, in the form of tolerating, was triggered for
breakdowns for which actions were seen as person-
ally excusable and not yet final (e.g., Russ’s request
to pursue a boxing Blue). In other words, the revers-
ibility of actions involved in practice breakdowns
appears to be a key factor in triggering negotiation
work over other forms of maintenance work. Only in
the case of episode 3, Russ’s demotion, were actions
that were reversible (not dealing with his poor per-
formance earlier) resolved through a different form of
maintenance work. In this particular case there was
no room for negotiation because the actions were
those of the crew members themselves and were not
considered personally excusable in relation to the
weight of the Stephens test.
Interestingly, the question of the institutional
justifiability of breakdowns only appears to have
become relevant for major breakdowns for which
containment work had become untenable. Only in
these cases was there an attempt to stretch the
institutional justifiability of the actions involved by
legitimating them on the basis of the higher princi-
ple of winning the race. In other words, after a
major practice breakdown had occurred, actions
that seemed institutionally unjustifiable before but
could be contained (e.g., undermining the coach’s
authority) were reframed to make them justifiable.
Our findings suggest that before a major breakdown,
this type of reflexive normalization work may be un-
necessary as long as breakdowns are seen to be per-
sonally excusable and therefore containable.
Finally, formal disciplining occurred only in the
one case in which actions were neither institution-
ally justifiable, reversible, nor personally excus-
able: Thorsten’s early departure. The highly public
nature of this breakdown as compared to all of the
other breakdowns is likely to have contributed to
this particular maintenance response. CUBC had to
be seen to take firm action to restore and protect the
integrity of the Boat Race as an institution.
DISCUSSION
Our objective in this study was to understand
how institutional stability can be collectively ac-
complished through practice performance that
frequently deviates from, and even challenges,
institutionalized rules, norms, beliefs, and prin-
ciples. We studied the seemingly highly stable
and institutionalized selection system of the 180-
year old Cambridge University Boat Club over the
course of one complete season and showed how
institutional inhabitants collectively contained
and restored performative breakdowns in institu-
tionalized practice. Specifically, we found that,
at the micro level of analysis, institutional main-
tenance involves different forms of maintenance
work and that their salience and importance are
2013 201Lok and de Rond

TABLE 3
Maintenance Responses and the Substantive Nature of Practice Breakdowns
Practice Breakdowns
Rule, Norm,
Belief, or Principle
under Threat
Are Actions
Considered
Personally
Excusable?
Are
Actions
Reversible?
Are Actions
Institutionally
Justifiable? Maintenance Responses to Practice Breakdowns
Russ wants to combine boxing
with rowing.
100% commitment to
CUBC.
Yes Yes Yes Tolerating Crew reaches a working agreement with Russ
that will allow him to box as long as it
does not jeopardize his coxing
performance.
Dan self-bins when it becomes
clear he is unlikely to be
selected.
Never bin yourself. Yes Yes No Reversing Crew convinces Dan to stay by explicitly
reminding him why he is there and what
is at stake.
Thorsten threatens to self-bin
when the coach continues
to put Kieran in stroke seat.
Never bin yourself. Yes Yes No Reversing Crew convinces Thorsten to stay by
expressing their preference for him in
stroke seat.
Coach decides to give Jake an
extra chance despite his
poor seat-racing
performance.
Fairness and
objectivity of the
selection methods.
Yes No Yes Excepting and
Coopting
Extra selection race justified as a necessary
exception to make sure best man is
selected.
Crew forces coach to overturn
decision regarding Dan’s
selection.
Authority of the
coach and
objectivity of the
selection methods.
Yes No Yes Excepting and
coopting
Decision justified on the basis that Dan’s
personality makes the boat go faster.
Dan cracks jokes at the
coach’s expense to show his
unhappiness with him.
Authority of the
coach.
Yes No No Ignoring Dan’s jokes are ignored, and frictions are
attributed to an inconsequential
personality clash.
Russ is seen fraternizing with
the Oxford crew.
Oxford is the enemy. Yes No No Reinforcing Crew teases Russ, implicitly reminding him
that Oxford is the enemy.
Thorsten is struggling to cope
with combining rowing
with academic life
throughout the season.
In statu populari
rule.
Yes No No Reinforcing Crew teases Thorsten, implicitly reminding
him that he should really be able to
combine both, like the rest of them,
especially since the University cannot be
seen to compromise on academic standards
for sportsmen in its admissions.
Crew hesitates to speak out
against Russ despite history
of poor performance.
Stephens test. No Yes No Self-correcting Crew publicly demotes Russ and replaces
him with Rebecca, justified in terms of the
institutional imperative.
Crew ignores and overrules
coaching staff in stroke seat
decision.
Authority of the
coach.
No No Yes Excepting and
coopting
Decision justified on the basis that the crew
knows better what is required to win the
race better than the coach does, because of
his incompetence.
Thorsten leaves Cambridge
early after winning the race.
In statu populari
rule.
No No No Formal
disciplining
Thorsten is punished by stripping of his
Blue.

contingent on the particular nature and process
history of practice breakdowns.
Figure 3 summarizes the general process through
which institutional stability can be achieved
through maintenance responses to practice break-
downs. It shows how practice breakdowns can re-
sult from tensions between institutionalized script
and actual practice performance. When such break-
downs are minor, containment work follows,
smoothing over the practice breakdowns until this
becomes no longer tenable. Containment work can
take three forms: (1) ignoring: acting as if a depar-
ture from institutional expectations did not happen
and/or is immaterial or unimportant; (2) tolerating:
allowing someone to continue to behave contrary to
institutional expectations for the sake of getting on
with things by keeping him/her on board; and (3)
reinforcing: reminding oneself or others of institu-
tional expectations, either explicitly or implicitly.
When breakdowns are major, restoration work
follows, which can resolve the breakdowns by re-
aligning the institutionalized script with actual
practice. We have shown that restoration work can
preserve the structural integrity of an institution
either by some type of corrective or disciplinary
action, or, more commonly in our case, by tempo-
rarily stretching the institutional script. Such
stretching primarily involves what we call except-
ing and coopting: the framing of actions that
threaten the institution as pragmatically necessary
exceptions brought about by unique circumstances
that can be justified in terms of an overarching,
higher institutional imperative. Corrective restora-
tion work, on the other hand, can take the form of
reversing (undoing actions that are contrary to in-
stitutional expectations by convincing the people
involved to reverse an institutionally divergent de-
cision made earlier); self-correcting (corrective in-
terventions by institutional inhabitants themselves
aimed at restoring normal, institutionalized prac-
tice); and, finally, formal disciplining (punishing
people whose behaviors [threaten to] undermine
the institution). These findings form the basis for
making three distinct contributions to organiza-
tional institutionalism (Greenwood, Oliver, Sahlin,
& Suddaby, 2008), which we discuss next.
Extending the Concept of Institutional
Maintenance Work
Given a central assumption in institutional the-
ory that institutional reproduction is essentially
automatic, the process of institutional maintenance
was, until recently, largely overlooked (Dacin et al.,
2010). The nascent institutional work approach has
begun to address this gap by highlighting the im-
FIGURE 3
The Process of Accomplishing Institutional Stability through Practice Breakdowns
2013 203Lok and de Rond

portance of custodial work in the form of rule cre-
ation, socialization, and enforcement activities for
institutional persistence (Dacin et al., 2010; Law-
rence & Suddaby, 2006; Lawrence et al., 2009). In
this study, we have sought to contribute to this
emerging literature by augmenting and extending
this understanding of institutional maintenance
processes in two ways.
First, our analysis highlights some of the limits of
socialization and rule enforcement by institutional
custodians as a basis for institutional stability. We
studied an extreme case in which socialization
pressures to conform were very strong, and a strin-
gent selection system was designed to exclude any-
one who deviated from strict, taken-for-granted
practice standards. Yet breakdowns of institution-
alized practice still occurred regularly. We believe
that, rather than help prevent them, CUBC’s social-
ization processes actually contributed to these
breakdowns, in that the processes turned selection
and winning into an all-or-nothing quest in which
the tremendously high personal stakes involved
caused tensions around selection from which sev-
eral major practice breakdowns originated.
Moreover, a classical rule enforcement response
to these breakdowns in the form of formal disci-
plining was only evident in one of the five major
practice breakdowns we studied. In all other cases,
the legitimate authority of the coaching staff, and of
the chief coach in particular, was in question, and
the coaches were very aware that a formal custodial
response to these challenges in the form of disci-
plining or excluding the rowers involved would
have likely led to a complete collapse of the 2007
Cambridge season. Hence, rule enforcement as a
maintenance response was ineffective in these
cases because practice breakdowns threatened the
very power relations through which this custodial
work would normally be effected. Therefore, rather
than theorizing custodial work in the form of rule
creation, socialization, and enforcement activities as
the main critical counterforce to the entropic tenden-
cies of institutions, our analysis suggests that these
cannot fully prevent practice breakdowns, even in
extreme cases in which socialization processes are
strong and designated custodians with legitimate au-
thority to enforce rules are present.
Second, and in relation to these limits of social-
ization and rule enforcement as a basis for institu-
tional stability, we have shown how other forms of
maintenance work, in the form of reflexive normal-
ization and negotiation work, are also integral to
the microprocesses through which institutions are
maintained. Our analysis also extends the concept
of custodial work itself by highlighting reinforcing
and self-correction work and showing that these
different forms of custodial work can be carried out
by practitioners themselves, instead of involving
designated, purposive institutional custodians.
In all of these microprocesses, the effort and in-
tentionality involved in maintenance work varied
with its particular form, and it generally appeared
much less purposive and strategic than is often
suggested by proponents of the institutional work
approach (cf. Lawrence & Suddaby, 2006; Law-
rence et al., 2009). Reflexive normalization work in
particular appeared to be a largely subconscious
and relatively effortless microprocess that was pri-
marily directed at collective sensemaking rather
than institutional maintenance as such.
The Contingent Nature of Different Forms of
Maintenance Work
Given that one of sociology’s central problems is
that of explaining social order, it is not surprising that
a plethora of explanations of order and stability exist.
Still lacking, however, is an understanding of how
different processes and mechanisms of institutional
stability are related to each other, and under which
particular conditions each becomes more or less sa-
lient. In this study, we have begun to tackle this
important question by theorizing institutional main-
tenance as a multilayered process involving different
forms of maintenance work over time.
Our analysis suggests that the specific form
maintenance work takes is highly contingent on
both the particular nature and process history of
practice breakdowns. Maintenance work is tempo-
rally contingent in the sense that in our case restor-
ative forms of maintenance work were often only
triggered after containment work had become un-
tenable. Such containment work in the form of
ignoring, tolerating, and reinforcing is clearly a
very different form of maintenance work than re-
storative work, not only in substance, but also,
more importantly, in effects. As its name suggests,
containment work merely smooths over minor
practice breakdowns without actually resolving the
tensions that cause them, thus temporarily prevent-
ing more serious breakdowns from developing and
enabling practitioners to “get on with things.” Res-
toration work, on the other hand, reconciles practice
breakdowns with institutionalized scripts by protect-
ing the organizing principles on which these are
based from practice performances that threaten them.
Our analysis also suggests that the particular
forms containment and restoration work take de-
pend on the substantive nature of practice break-
downs. Specifically, breakdowns of institutional-
ized practice can be differentiated by the nature
and extent of the threat they pose to an institution
204 FebruaryAcademy of Management Journal

in terms of the institutional justifiability, reversibil-
ity, and personal excusability of the actions in-
volved in them. Rather than theorizing institutional
maintenance as a one-dimensional process in
which actions are either institutionally conformant
or divergent, and a corrective custodial mainte-
nance response is likely to follow divergent ac-
tions, this substantive differentiation of practice
breakdowns enables a more nuanced, contingent un-
derstanding of institutional maintenance processes.
Our analysis suggests that institutional practice
scripts can be temporarily stretched through partic-
ular forms of maintenance work when actions in-
volved in breakdowns are seen as either personally
excusable or reversible, even when they do not
appear to be institutionally justifiable. Moreover,
we also show how institutional maintenance work
can involve reflexive normalization processes, in
the form of excepting and coopting, through which
divergent actions are made institutionally justifi-
able, at least temporarily, under particular, unique
circumstances. In our case, a more classical custo-
dial maintenance response in the form of formal
disciplining only followed a practice breakdown in
which the actions involved were neither institu-
tionally justifiable, reversible, nor considered per-
sonally excusable. The activation of custodial
work, negotiation work, and reflexive normaliza-
tion work as different forms of institutional main-
tenance work thus appears to be highly contingent
on both the particular nature and process history of
practice breakdowns.
Maintenance Work as a Basis for
Institutional Plasticity
In biology, the concept of plasticity is used to
indicate the capacity of organisms with the same
genotype to vary in developmental pattern or be-
havior according to varying environmental condi-
tions (Pigliucci, 2001). Similarly, in neuroscience
the concept is used as an indicator of the capacity
for continuous alteration of the neural pathways of
the brain and nervous system in response to expe-
rience or injury (Stiles, 2000). Our analysis suggests
that institutions can be characterized by a similar
type of plasticity and that such plasticity is accom-
plished through contingent maintenance work. We
have shown how, through maintenance work, in-
stitutional scripts can be stretched to temporarily
fit practice performances that appear to diverge
from them without necessarily causing permanent
structural change. This implies that rather than be-
ing directly recursive, as often implied by practice
theorists, the relationship between institutions and
the practice performances for which, and of which,
they form a pattern, is mediated by maintenance
work, as shown in Figure 3.
Our analysis suggests that one particular form of
reflexive normalization work we call “excepting
and coopting”—a process whereby practice devia-
tions are accounted for as necessary, justifiable ex-
ceptions to a rule that still holds—may be a partic-
ularly prevalent and effective form of maintenance
work because it lends institutions the plasticity
through which ever-changing practice perfor-
mances can be accommodated. Such plasticity is
accomplished through the construction of a hierar-
chical relationship between different organizing
principles in legitimating accounts, temporarily
subordinating some principles (e.g., fairness and
objectivity of selection methods; decision making
authority of coach) to others (e.g., winning the
race). This creates a temporary space in the practice
script into which seemingly divergent practices can
be temporarily coopted. Permanent change of the
script is avoided through the understanding that
the cooptation of divergent actions is a necessary
exception forced by unique circumstances, which
preserves the validity of the organizing principles
that are challenged by the coopted actions.
This understanding of institutional maintenance
as the basis of institutional plasticity enables us to
augment the metaphor of maintenance work as a
“critical counterforce” (Dacin & Dacin, 2008) to the
entropic tendencies of institutions. Rather than meet-
ing entropic force with custodial counterforce, main-
tenance work can also involve the paradoxical use of
divergent actions to validate and strengthen the very
principles these divergent actions threaten. In cases
of practice breakdowns for which custodial work is
unnecessary or ineffective as a maintenance re-
sponse, plasticity may therefore be a more appropri-
ate metaphor for the process of institutional
maintenance.
Concluding Remarks
Although we believe CUBC was particularly suit-
able for exploring microprocesses of institutional
maintenance in depth, given their particular sa-
lience in this case, the generalizability of our find-
ings to other institutions will need to be established
in future research. It would be particularly useful to
examine whether and how institutional mainte-
nance processes operate in more mundane and
more fragile institutions. The conditions under
which different types of maintenance processes we
describe in this study become more or less salient
also require further specification. Finally, it would
be interesting to explore the relative plasticity of
different institutions as well as any additional
2013 205Lok and de Rond

mechanisms that make such plasticity possible:
Are some scripts more prone to stretching than
others? And does such stretching always involve
processes of reflexive normalization? We believe
that answers to these important questions could
significantly advance understanding of the process
of institutional maintenance.
Interest in the microfoundations of organiza-
tional institutionalism has increased (Powell &
Colyvas, 2008), producing work that has contrib-
uted to a more sophisticated understanding of the
complex relations between institutions and the
people who inhabit them (e.g., Creed, DeJordy, &
Lok, 2010; Hallett, 2010; Lok, 2010). Yet Suddaby
(2010: 15) noted that to date there has still been
little effort to specifically understand the complex
and often invisible processes by which institu-
tional inhabitants work to maintain institutions or
to create at least the appearance of stability. We
have taken up this challenge and have shown how
the ability of human beings to reflexively and some-
times even strategically engage with institutionalized
practices does not necessarily imply these are prone
to change. Institutional plasticity, accomplished
through different forms of maintenance work, can
ensure that actions that appear to diverge from insti-
tutional scripts end up strengthening them.
REFERENCES
Adler, P. A., & Adler, P. 1988. Intense loyalty in organi-
zations: A case study of college athletics. Adminis-
trative Science Quarterly, 33: 401–417.
Alvesson, M., & Karreman, D. 2007. Constructing mys-
tery: Empirical matters in theory development.
Academy of Management Review, 32: 1265–1281.
Barley, S. R. 2008. Coalface institutionalism. In R. Green-
wood, C. Oliver, K. Sahlin, & R. Suddaby (Eds.), The
SAGE handbook of organizational institutionalism:
491–518. London: Sage.
Barley, S. R., & Tolbert, P. S. 1997. Institutionalization
and structuration: Studying the links between ac-
tion and institutions. Organization Studies, 18:
93–117.
Barnes, B. 2001. Practice as collective action. In T. R.
Schatzki, K. Knorr Cetina, & E. Von Savigny (Eds.),
The practice turn in contemporary theory: 17–28.
Abingdon, U.K.: Routledge.
Berger, P. L., & Luckmann, T. 1991. The social construc-
tion of reality: A treatise on the sociology of knowl-
edge. London: Penguin.
Bourdieu, P. 1990. The logic of practice. Stanford, CA:
Stanford University Press.
Creed, W. E. D., DeJordy, R., & Lok, J. 2010. Being the
change: Resolving institutional contradiction
through identity work. Academy of Management
Journal, 53: 1336–1364.
Dacin, M. T., & Dacin, P. A. 2008. Traditions as institu-
tionalized practice: Implications for deinistitu-
tionalization. In R. Greenwood, C. Oliver, K. Sah-
lin, & R. Suddaby (Eds.), The SAGE handbook of
organizational institutionalism: 327–351. London:
Sage.
Dacin, M. T., Munir, K., & Tracey, P. 2010. Formal dining
at Cambridge colleges: Linking ritual performance
and institutional maintenance. Academy of Man-
agement Journal, 53: 1393–1418.
Day, R., & Day, J. 1977. A review of the current state of
negotiated order theory. Sociological Quarterly, 18:
126–142.
de Rond, M. 2008. The last amateurs: To hell and back
with the Cambridge Boat Race crew. London: Icon.
Eisenhardt, K. M. 1989. Building theories from case
study research. Academy of Management Review,
14: 552–550.
Feldman, M. S., & Orlikowski, W. J. 2011. Theorizing
practice and practicing theory. Organization Sci-
ence, 22: 1240–1253.
Feldman, M. 2000. Organizational routines as a source of
continuous change. Organization Science, 11: 611–
629.
Friedland, R., & Alford, R. R. 1991. Bringing society
back in: Symbols, practice, and institutional con-
tradiction. In W. W. Powell & P. J. DiMaggio (Eds.),
The new institutionalism in organizational analy-
sis: 232–267. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Garfinkel, H. 1967. Studies in ethnomethodology. Engle-
wood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.
Gerson, E. 1976. On the quality of life. American Socio-
logical Review, 4: 266–279.
Giddens, A. 1984. The constitution of society: Outlines
of the theory of structuration. Cambridge, U.K.: Pol-
ity Press.
Greenwood, R., Oliver, C., Sahlin, K., & Suddaby, R.
2008. Introduction. In R. Greenwood, C. Oliver, K.
Sahlin, & R. Suddaby (Eds.), The SAGE handbook
of organizational institutionalism: 1–46. London:
Sage.
Guardian. 2007. March 28.
Guardian. 2009a. March 27.
Guardian. 2009b. July 29.
Hallett, T. 2010. The myth incarnate: Recoupling pro-
cesses, turmoil, and inhabited institutions in an ur-
ban elementary school. American Sociological Re-
view, 75: 52–74.
206 FebruaryAcademy of Management Journal

Hallett, T. D., Shulman, D., & Fine, G. A. 2009. Peopling
organizations: The promise of classical symbolic in-
teractionism for an inhabited institutionalism. In P.
Adler (Ed.), The Oxford handbook of sociology and
organization studies: Classical foundations: 486–
510. Oxford, U.K.: Oxford University Press.
Heritage, J. 1984. Garfinkel and ethnomethodology.
Cambridge, U.K.: Polity Press.
Jepperson, R. L. 1991. Institutions, institutional effects
and institutionalism. In P. J. DiMaggio & W. W. Pow-
ell (Eds.), The new institutionalism in organiza-
tional analysis: 143–163. Chicago: University of
Chicago Press.
Langley, A. 1999. Strategies for theorizing from process
data. Academy of Management Review, 24: 691–710.
Lawrence, T. B., Suddaby, R., & Leca, B. 2009. Introduc-
tion: Theorizing and studying institutional work. In
T. B. Lawrence, R. Suddaby, & B. Leca (Eds.), Insti-
tutional work: Actors and agency in institutional
studies of organization. Cambridge, U.K.: Cam-
bridge University Press.
Lawrence, T., & Suddaby, R. 2006. Institutions and insti-
tutional work. In S. R. Clegg, C. Hardy, T. B. Law-
rence, & W. R. Nord (Eds.), Handbook of organisa-
tion studies (2nd ed.): 215–255. London: Sage.
Lawrence, T., Suddaby, R., & Leca, B. 2011. Institutional
work: Refocusing institutional studies of organiza-
tion. Journal of Management Inquiry, 20: 52–58.
Lok, J. 2010. Institutional logics as identity projects.
Academy of Management Journal, 53: 1305–1335.
Matheson, H. 2004. A private match for public consump-
tion. In C. Dodds, D. Marks, D. Clegg, & M. Edwards
(Eds.), Battle of the Blues: The Oxford and Cam-
bridge Boat Race from 1829: 5–10. London: P to M
Limited.
Miles, M., & Huberman, A. 1994. An expanded source-
book: Qualitative data analysis. London: Sage.
Pigliucci, M. 2001. Phenotypic plasticity: Beyond na-
ture and nurture. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins Univer-
sity Press.
Powell, W. W., & Colyvas, J. A. 2008. Microfoundations
of institutional theory. In R. Greenwood, C. Oliver,
K. Sahlin, & R. Suddaby (Eds.), The SAGE hand-
book of organizational institutionalism: 276–298.
London: Sage.
Pratt, M. G. 2000. The good, the bad, and the ambiva-
lent: Managing identification among Amway dis-
tributors. Administrative Science Quarterly, 45:
456–493.
Sandberg, J., & Tsoukas, H. 2011. Grasping the logic of
practice: Theorizing through practical rationality.
Academy of Management Review, 36: 338–360.
Schatzki, T. R. 2001. Introduction: Practice theory. In
T. R. Schatzki, K. Knorr Cetina, & E. Von Savigny
(Eds.), The practice turn in contemporary theory:
1–14. London: Routledge.
Schatzki, T. R. 2005. The sites of organization. Organi-
zation Studies, 26: 465–484.
Schatzki, T. R. 2006. On organizations as they happen.
Organization Studies, 27: 1863–1873.
Scott, W. R. 2001. Institutions and organizations (2nd
ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Stiles, J. 2000. Neural plasticity and cognitive develop-
ment. Developmental Neuropsychology, 18: 237–272.
Strauss, A. 1978. Negotiations: Varieties, contexts, pro-
cesses, and social order. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Strauss, A., & Corbin, J. 1998. Basics of qualitative re-
search: Grounded theory procedures and tech-
niques. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
Suddaby, R. 2006. From the editors: What grounded the-
ory is not. Academy of Management Journal, 49:
633–642.
Suddaby, R. 2010. Challenges for institutional theory.
Journal of Management Inquiry, 19: 14–20.
Van Maanen, J. 1979. The fact of fiction in organizational
ethnography. Administrative Science Quarterly,
24: 538–550.
Wulff, H. 1998. Ballet across borders: Career and cul-
ture in the world of dancers. Oxford, U.K.: Berg.
Yanow, D., & Tsoukas, H. 2009. What is reflection-in-
action? A phenomenological account. Journal of
Management Studies, 46: 1339–1364.
Zimmerman, D. H. 1971. The practicalities of rule use. In
J. D. Douglas (Ed.), Understanding everyday life:
Toward the reconstruction of sociological knowl-
edge: 221–238. London: Routledge.
Jaco Lok (j.lok@unsw.edu.au) is a senior lecturer at the
Australian School of Business, University of New South
Wales. He received his Ph.D. from Judge Business School at
the University of Cambridge. His research interests include
further developing the microfoundations of institutional
theory by exploring the complex relations between institu-
tions and the people and organizations who inhabit them.
Mark de Rond (mejd3@cam.ac.uk) is reader in strategy and
organization at Judge Business School, University of Cam-
bridge. He holds a DPhil from Oxford University, where he
learned to row. A recurring feature in his work is the expe-
rience of being human in high-performance environments,
specifically the processes by which people reconcile them-
selves to the contradictions inherent in such contexts.
2013 207Lok and de Rond