Glynn
Hybrid identities and organizational structure
Under girding normative-utilitarian hybrids are "two logical systems of management": "In a
normative organization, the principle for determining what ought to be retained is
tradition. In a utilitarian organization, the principle is cost-effectiveness».
In the parianee of institutional theorists, such identity elements are bounded by different
systems of meaning, cultural values, and institutionallogics, all of which lend meaning and
thus legitimacy to the collective (Suchman, 1995), but function to separate different
aspects so that one does not contaminate another. Hybridized organizational identities
come in two different forms, each with a conesponding organizational structure that has
differential capabilities to resolve and integrate identity elements. One form of hybrid
identity is holographic, in which each organizational unit mirrors the complex, multifaceted
nature of the organization's identity. Each structural unit contains both identity elements,
leaving individual organizational memhers to manage any strains emerging from the
conflict between the identity elements. Thus, the hybrid identity is diffuse, and the different
identity elements are not restricted to particular structural units or organizational roles;
any organizational member conceivably has the capability to enact, perform, or manage the
institutional identity.
The second form of hybrid identity is ideographic; this form is more characteristic of
cultural institutions. Cultural organizations have hybrid identities that are typically
specialized or ideographic, for example, artists perform the ideology (music, dance,
painting) and administrators manage the business. Thus, incongruous identity elements-
normative artistry and utilitarian economies--exist side
by side and are claimed by different structural units within the organization (Albert &
Whetten, 1985, p. 271). Thus, ideographic organizations have specialized roles that enact
and professionalize different elements.
THE MUSIC DIRECTORAT THE SYMPHONY ORCHESTRA
The specialization of identities in the symphony has yielded a structural design that has been
described as somewhat rigid and isolationist, compartmentalizing
both the roles and their iocurnbents (musicians, administrators), as wellas
their associated identities and logies (Americanizing the American Orchestra,
1993, p. 177). The organization of the symphony has been compared to a
three-legged stool, consisting of three administrative roles: executive director,
chair of the board of directors, and music director ( or conductor). Thus, the music
director is formally part of the symphony's administrative structure and yet
has explicit responsibility for the normative elements of identity and the musical
performance of the symphony. In this configuration, the role of music director is
unique, in that it reflects, and incorporates, bothof the dual identity elements in
the orchestra; it is the only role having explicit responsibility intherealm of the
aesthetic with a direct line to the symphony's board of directors. The musicians
have no formal role in the leadership structure, but instead voice their concerns
through the music director or alternative structures, such as the union (i.e., the
American Pederation of Musicians).
n an interview I conducted with one ASO musician, the role of the music director
was described as that of an intermediary, linking the musicians to the symphony's
board of directors, bridging, as it were, the normative identity
(represented by the musicians) and the utilitarian identity (represented by the administration).
As shown, the role of the music director is a structural component that can potentially integrate or
mediate conflict arising from the two disparate elements of artistry and administration, or
potentially exacerbate such conflict by inflaming and politicizing both sides. Thus, this role is
central both to maintaining the hybrid identity of the symphony, because it encapsulates both
, identity elements (artistic and utilitarian), and to demarcating the boundary between them.
Moreover, the role can also be thought of as a strategie resource that can amplify or temper
tensions arising from conflicts between these two identity elements, as, for instance, when
financial issues threaten to diminish the aesthetic capabilities of the orchestra.
The hybrid orchestral identity has a parallel in the ways that resources are emphasized and the
ways in which the definition of core capabilities is contested. Professional, occupational, and
public groups-artists, administrators, and audience--constitute separate identity fields (Runt,
Benford, & Snow, 1994) within the symphony orchestra and, filtered through their particular
identity lens, emphasize differential sets of resources and define different institutional
capabilities.
When the music director and the orchestra are conjoined, at their best they are
described as a "penetrating partnership" (Henry, 1995a, p. 4H) or "masterly collaboration"
(Henry, 1996c, p. 3D). But, even in their partnership, they are recognized as distinctive.
Thus, as much as the music director is involved in the musical performance, and
in planning, interpreting, and conducting the orchestral program, he is still recognized
as somewhat apart and distinct from the orchestra and its musicians.
Does claiming an ideological identity by the music director preclude any additional claims on the
utilitarian elements of the symphony identity?--> Metaphorically, the music director was
described as one of the three legs of the sttuctural stool; It is that contiguration that is invoked in
aligning him with the administration in other public accounts. it is evident that this institutional
role carries the dual identity elements that characterize the orchestra: normative ideology
(musical artistry) and utilitarian economics (financial concerns).
This examination of the symphony orchestra revealed how its dual identity
elements-artistic and utilitarian-mapped onto one key structural role, that
of the music director or conductor. In stable times, this role was pivotal in articulating
the dual identity of this cultural institution and creating a boundary that
served to compartmentalize and contain the two essential-but potentially
conflictual-elements. The role also bridged the divide occasionally, serving as conduit for ideas,
influence, and information (see Fig. 5.1). By incorporating
elements of both the normative and utilitarian identities of the orchestra,
the role of music director straddles both elements. However, it was in times of
organizational strife, retrenchment, and heightened tensions between the identity
elements that the role was under the greatest strain, becoming perhaps untenable
for the role and its occupant.
In response to market and economic pressures, orchestras have begun to
draw on more popular interpretations of the musical canon (Glynn, 2002), sometimes blending
the "highbrow" art of the classics with more "lowbrow" forms from popular culture (Dowd, Liddle,
Lu po, & Borden, 2002). This creates a blurring often symphony's identity, as the long-dominant
aesthetic identity yields to a more commercialized market logic; the result is to challenge the very
identity of the symphony.
Thus, a structural role that, in stale terms, offers the promise of building. These aspects of the art
world, ironically, is challenged in both times of organizational strife and retrenchment, when the
tension between the identity elements was brought to the fore. The role of music director seemed
to be a pivotal one, claimed by identity groups (musicians and administrators) contesting the role
and its implications for the organizational identity, but ultimately, at the symphony I studied,
abandoned by both, as neither musicians nor administrators rose to support the incumbent.
Hybrid identities and organizational structure
Under girding normative-utilitarian hybrids are "two logical systems of management": "In a
normative organization, the principle for determining what ought to be retained is
tradition. In a utilitarian organization, the principle is cost-effectiveness».
In the parianee of institutional theorists, such identity elements are bounded by different
systems of meaning, cultural values, and institutionallogics, all of which lend meaning and
thus legitimacy to the collective (Suchman, 1995), but function to separate different
aspects so that one does not contaminate another. Hybridized organizational identities
come in two different forms, each with a conesponding organizational structure that has
differential capabilities to resolve and integrate identity elements. One form of hybrid
identity is holographic, in which each organizational unit mirrors the complex, multifaceted
nature of the organization's identity. Each structural unit contains both identity elements,
leaving individual organizational memhers to manage any strains emerging from the
conflict between the identity elements. Thus, the hybrid identity is diffuse, and the different
identity elements are not restricted to particular structural units or organizational roles;
any organizational member conceivably has the capability to enact, perform, or manage the
institutional identity.
The second form of hybrid identity is ideographic; this form is more characteristic of
cultural institutions. Cultural organizations have hybrid identities that are typically
specialized or ideographic, for example, artists perform the ideology (music, dance,
painting) and administrators manage the business. Thus, incongruous identity elements-
normative artistry and utilitarian economies--exist side
by side and are claimed by different structural units within the organization (Albert &
Whetten, 1985, p. 271). Thus, ideographic organizations have specialized roles that enact
and professionalize different elements.
THE MUSIC DIRECTORAT THE SYMPHONY ORCHESTRA
The specialization of identities in the symphony has yielded a structural design that has been
described as somewhat rigid and isolationist, compartmentalizing
both the roles and their iocurnbents (musicians, administrators), as wellas
their associated identities and logies (Americanizing the American Orchestra,
1993, p. 177). The organization of the symphony has been compared to a
three-legged stool, consisting of three administrative roles: executive director,
chair of the board of directors, and music director ( or conductor). Thus, the music
director is formally part of the symphony's administrative structure and yet
has explicit responsibility for the normative elements of identity and the musical
performance of the symphony. In this configuration, the role of music director is
unique, in that it reflects, and incorporates, bothof the dual identity elements in
the orchestra; it is the only role having explicit responsibility intherealm of the
aesthetic with a direct line to the symphony's board of directors. The musicians
have no formal role in the leadership structure, but instead voice their concerns
through the music director or alternative structures, such as the union (i.e., the
American Pederation of Musicians).
n an interview I conducted with one ASO musician, the role of the music director
was described as that of an intermediary, linking the musicians to the symphony's
board of directors, bridging, as it were, the normative identity
(represented by the musicians) and the utilitarian identity (represented by the administration).
As shown, the role of the music director is a structural component that can potentially integrate or
mediate conflict arising from the two disparate elements of artistry and administration, or
potentially exacerbate such conflict by inflaming and politicizing both sides. Thus, this role is
central both to maintaining the hybrid identity of the symphony, because it encapsulates both
, identity elements (artistic and utilitarian), and to demarcating the boundary between them.
Moreover, the role can also be thought of as a strategie resource that can amplify or temper
tensions arising from conflicts between these two identity elements, as, for instance, when
financial issues threaten to diminish the aesthetic capabilities of the orchestra.
The hybrid orchestral identity has a parallel in the ways that resources are emphasized and the
ways in which the definition of core capabilities is contested. Professional, occupational, and
public groups-artists, administrators, and audience--constitute separate identity fields (Runt,
Benford, & Snow, 1994) within the symphony orchestra and, filtered through their particular
identity lens, emphasize differential sets of resources and define different institutional
capabilities.
When the music director and the orchestra are conjoined, at their best they are
described as a "penetrating partnership" (Henry, 1995a, p. 4H) or "masterly collaboration"
(Henry, 1996c, p. 3D). But, even in their partnership, they are recognized as distinctive.
Thus, as much as the music director is involved in the musical performance, and
in planning, interpreting, and conducting the orchestral program, he is still recognized
as somewhat apart and distinct from the orchestra and its musicians.
Does claiming an ideological identity by the music director preclude any additional claims on the
utilitarian elements of the symphony identity?--> Metaphorically, the music director was
described as one of the three legs of the sttuctural stool; It is that contiguration that is invoked in
aligning him with the administration in other public accounts. it is evident that this institutional
role carries the dual identity elements that characterize the orchestra: normative ideology
(musical artistry) and utilitarian economics (financial concerns).
This examination of the symphony orchestra revealed how its dual identity
elements-artistic and utilitarian-mapped onto one key structural role, that
of the music director or conductor. In stable times, this role was pivotal in articulating
the dual identity of this cultural institution and creating a boundary that
served to compartmentalize and contain the two essential-but potentially
conflictual-elements. The role also bridged the divide occasionally, serving as conduit for ideas,
influence, and information (see Fig. 5.1). By incorporating
elements of both the normative and utilitarian identities of the orchestra,
the role of music director straddles both elements. However, it was in times of
organizational strife, retrenchment, and heightened tensions between the identity
elements that the role was under the greatest strain, becoming perhaps untenable
for the role and its occupant.
In response to market and economic pressures, orchestras have begun to
draw on more popular interpretations of the musical canon (Glynn, 2002), sometimes blending
the "highbrow" art of the classics with more "lowbrow" forms from popular culture (Dowd, Liddle,
Lu po, & Borden, 2002). This creates a blurring often symphony's identity, as the long-dominant
aesthetic identity yields to a more commercialized market logic; the result is to challenge the very
identity of the symphony.
Thus, a structural role that, in stale terms, offers the promise of building. These aspects of the art
world, ironically, is challenged in both times of organizational strife and retrenchment, when the
tension between the identity elements was brought to the fore. The role of music director seemed
to be a pivotal one, claimed by identity groups (musicians and administrators) contesting the role
and its implications for the organizational identity, but ultimately, at the symphony I studied,
abandoned by both, as neither musicians nor administrators rose to support the incumbent.
