Call for Papers

Call for short papers (pdf)

Institutional life can be understood as playing games. While much scholarly attention has been dedicated to the formal and informal rules of these games within the different arenas in which these games take place—whether at organizational, field, or societal levels—recent studies have shifted toward exploring the players themselves. This involves questions such as: Who are the players, and who plays with or against whom? Under which conditions do these dynamics occur, and what intended or unintended consequences follow?

The term “player” is especially intriguing because its neutrality can accommodate different labels that institutional research has used to describe “who/m.” Moreover, “player” carries a playful quality, capturing the provisional and shifting roles and social positioning that subjects and objects assume within institutional dynamics. As Berger and Luckmann (1967, p. 78) stated, “… man is capable of producing a world that he then experiences as something other than a human product […]. At the moment, it is important to emphasize that the relationship between man, the producer, and the social world, his product, is and remains a dialectical one.” While some studies emphasize the macrolevel conceptualization of players (Drori et al., 2009; Hwang et al., 2019; Hwang & Colyvas, 2020), others seek to locate these dynamics within everyday interactions (Frank & Meyer, 2002; Hallett & Hawbaker, 2021; Hallett & Ventresca, 2006; Lawrence et al., 2009; Lawrence & Phillips, 2019).

Accordingly, the broader institutional literature has proposed two archetypes of players: actorhood and personhood. Actorhood is a social construction of institutionally defined roles with rights and responsibilities (Scott, 2014). Personhood, by contrast, refers to individuals as whole beings—emotional, social, embodied, and shaped by biographical histories (Cunha et al., 2018; Voronov & Weber, 2020). While these two archetypes provide different accounts of biographical histories and embodied experiences of players, they reflect a deeper theoretical divide in understanding the ontological and epistemological positioning of players. As Hwang and Colyvas (2021, p. 217) pointed out, “ever since Weber (1978) if not before, sociologists have recognized different bases of action, but the distinction between social and individual is a poor one.” While in weakly institutionalized environments personhood might have more influence on the formation of institutional arrangements, in more established contexts actorhood seems to shape much of the lived experience of the inhabited institutions, whether this is due to network effects or the orchestration of intentionality (Padgett & Powell, 2013; Semper, 2019).

When conceptual considerations and empirical examinations in institutional research are connected with current social and management phenomena, puzzling interpretations of players and their roles in institutional life arise. For example, Donald Trump acts “strategically” within and beyond institutional arrangements, shaping policies and public discourse. His presence as a controversial figure influences how institutions respond and align with his leadership style. Does Trump’s exercise of actorhood and/or personhood reflect the authentic appeal of the lying demagogue (Hahl et al., 2018)? AI companies like OpenAI and DeepMind actively shape norms and regulations around emerging technologies through innovation and lobbying. Their public reputations grant them authority and trust in the institutional field of artificial intelligence. In what ways does the actorhood of AI companies and/or the personhood of technological entrepreneurs contribute to the expansion of scientization and surveillance capitalism in hyperorganizational society (Bromley & Meyer, 2015; Zuboff, 2020)? Taylor Swift’s challenge to copyright and royalty norms gained force not only because she acted strategically, but also because her personal narrative of fairness, control, and emotional sincerity made her institutional claims compelling. How does this blend of actorhood and personhood enable her to reshape the industry rules of the game? (Voronov & Vince, 2012; Voronov & Weber, 2016; Zhang et al., 2024). Social movements such as #MeToo collectively challenge established norms related to gender and power within institutions. They develop a shared identity and moral authority that compels institutional change and public recognition. How does the collective personhood of social movements influence their capacity to alter institutional rules (Cole, 2025; Tsutsui, 2017)?

Against this backdrop, this sub-theme seeks to interrogate the interdependencies and tensions between personhood—the embodied, inhabited experience of individuals navigating institutional life—and actorhood—the abstract, constructed capacity of institutional actors. Zooming in on players can bring refreshing angles to delimit the boundaries of institutions from conventions. By returning to the subjects of institutional life and considering how players of institutions construct themselves through an aesthetic feeling-perception process (Weik, 2019), it presents multiple theoretical opportunities to critically rediscover and conceptualize the sources, media, and outcomes of institutional (re)production. Understanding the interplay between personhood and actorhood is also critical for theorizing inhabited institutionalism, institutional change, identity work, and agency.

This sub-theme aims to foster dialogue that bridges micro and macro perspectives, challenging scholars to rethink how institutional theory conceptualizes players of games—not just as carriers of scripts but as persons inhabiting institutional worlds. We encourage submissions inspired but not limited by the following questions:

• How do institutional arrangements shape and constrain the lived experience of personhood?

• In what ways does actorhood obscure or amplify the complexity of individual subjectivity?

• What methodological innovations allow us to capture both inhabited experience and constructed actorhood?

• What can we learn from different types of players which are rarely considered in institutional scholarship, for example, nation-states, animals, nature, or technology such as AI?

• How do materiality and corporeality help us better define personhood and actorhood?

• How can individuals engage in internal conversations and reflexivity to reconcile their personhood?

• What can we learn from philosophical understandings of personhood and actorhood? How does performativity shape how we reconcile personhood and actorhood?

• Can institutional theory reconcile microlevel phenomenology with macrolevel structuralism?

We welcome both conceptual papers and empirical studies that shed light on the tensions and intersections between personhood and actorhood, as well as their implications for institutional dynamics. Contributions drawing on diverse methodological approaches, theoretical perspectives, and empirical settings are encouraged. We particularly invite work that advances new conceptualizations, challenges established assumptions, or offers innovative empirical insights. This sub-theme will be held in person.

• Berger, P. L., & Luckmann, T. (1989). The social construction of reality: A treatise in the sociology of knowledge. Anchor Books.
• Bitektine, A., Haack, P., Bothello, J., & Mair, J. (2020). Inhabited actors: Internalizing institutions through communication and actorhood models. Journal of Management Studies, 57(4), 885–897.
• Bromley, P., & Meyer, J. W. (2015). Hyper-organization: Global organizational expansion. Oxford University Press.
• Cole, W. M. (2025). Abortion policies in a polarizing world society, 1970 to 2020. American Sociological Review, 90(4), 594–625.
• Cunha, M. P. e, Cardona, M. J., Clegg, S., Gomes, J. F. S., Matallana, M., Rego, A., & Sánchez, I. D. (2018). Through the looking glass: Leader personhood and the intersubjective construction of institutions. Journal of Political Power, 11(3), 378–402.
• Drori, G. S., Meyer, J. W., & Hwang, H. (2009). Global organization: Rationalization and actorhood as dominant scripts. In R. E. Meyer, K. Sahlin, M. J. Ventresca, & P. Walgenbach (Eds.), Research in the sociology of organizations: Ideology and institutions (Vol. 27, pp. 17–43). Emerald Group Publishing Limited. https://doi.org/10.1108/S0733-558X(2009)0000027003
• Frank, D. J., & Meyer, J. W. (2002). The profusion of individual roles and identities in the postwar period. Sociological Theory, 20(1), 86–105.
• Hahl, O., Kim, M., & Zuckerman Sivan, E. W. (2018). The authentic appeal of the lying demagogue: Proclaiming the deeper truth about political illegitimacy. American Sociological Review, 83(1), 1–33.
• Hallett, T., & Hawbaker, A. (2021). The case for an inhabited institutionalism in organizational research: Interaction, coupling, and change reconsidered. Theory and Society, 50(1), 1–32.
• Hallett, T., & Ventresca, M. J. (2006). Inhabited institutions: Social interactions and organizational forms in Gouldner’s Patterns of Industrial Bureaucracy. Theory and Society, 35(2), 213–236.
• Hwang, H., & Colyvas, J. A. (2020). Ontology, levels of society, and degrees of generality: Theorizing actors as abstractions in institutional theory. Academy of Management Review, 45(3), 570–595.
• Hwang, H., & Colyvas, J. A. (2021). Constructed actors and constitutive institutions for a contemporary world. Academy of Management Review, 46(1), 214–219.
• Hwang, H., Colyvas, J. A., & Drori, G. S. (2019). The proliferation and profusion of actors in institutional theory. In H. Hwang, J. A. Colyvas, & G. S. Drori (Eds.), Agents, actors, actorhood: Institutional perspectives on the nature of agency, action, and authority (Research in the Sociology of Organizations, Vol. 58, pp. 3–20). Emerald Publishing Limited. https://doi.org/10.1108/S0733-558X20190000058002
• Lawrence, T. B., & Phillips, N. (2019). Constructing organizational life: How social-symbolic work shapes selves, organizations, and institutions. Oxford University Press.
• Lawrence, T. B., Suddaby, R., & Leca, B. (2009). Institutional work: Actors and agency in institutional studies of organizations. Cambridge University Press.
• Meyer, R. E., & Vaara, E. (2020). Institutions and actorhood as co-constitutive and co-constructed: The argument and areas for future research. Journal of Management Studies, 57(4), 898–910.
• Padgett, J. F., & Powell, W. W. (2013). The emergence of organizations and markets. Princeton University Press.
• Scott, W. R. (2014). Institutions and organizations: Ideas, interests and identities (4th ed.). Sage.
• Semper, D. (2019). Machina ex deus? From distributed to orchestrated agency. In H. Hwang, J. A. Colyvas, & G. S. Drori (Eds.), Agents, actors, actorhood: Institutional perspectives on the nature of agency, action, and authority (Research in the Sociology of Organizations, Vol. 58, pp. 187–208). Emerald Publishing Limited. https://doi.org/10.1108/S0733-558X20190000058011
• Tsutsui, K. (2017). Human rights and minority activism in Japan: Transformation of movement actorhood and local-global feedback loop. American Journal of Sociology, 122(4), 1050–1103.
• Voronov, M., & Vince, R. (2012). Integrating emotions into the analysis of institutional work. Academy of Management Review, 37(1), 58–81.
• Voronov, M., & Weber, K. (2016). The heart of institutions: Emotional competence and institutional actorhood. Academy of Management Review, 41(3), 456–478.
• Voronov, M., & Weber, K. (2020). People, actors, and the humanizing of institutional theory. Journal of Management Studies, 57(4), 873–884.
• Weber, M. (1978). Economy and society: An outline of interpretive sociology. University of California Press.
• Weik, E. (2019). Understanding institutional endurance: The role of dynamic form, harmony, and rhythm in institutions. Academy of Management Review, 44(2), 321–335.
• Zhang, R., Voronov, M., Toubiana, M., Vince, R., & Hudson, B. A. (2024). Beyond the feeling individual: Insights from sociology on emotions and embeddedness. Journal of Management Studies, 61(5), 2212–2250.
• Zuboff, S. (2020). The age of surveillance capitalism: The fight for a human future at the new frontier of power. PublicAffairs.