This chapter seeks to bridge the explanatory gap between uniform environmental pressures and divergent organizational outcomes by proposing a “Funnel of Causality” framework. It challenges “Contextualist” theories by demonstrating that macro-variables act merely as catalysts rather than determinants of change, failing to explain why similar economies like Germany and Austria followed opposite trajectories. Moving through the meso-level of systemic contagion and the “shock of opposition”, the analysis identifies political agency as the “master variable” driving disintermediation. The chapter argues that organizational change is primarily a weapon in internal power struggles, operationalized through the mechanism of the “Hostile Takeover”. It distinguishes between “Maintenance Leaders” who preserve bureaucracy and “Political Entrepreneurs” who strategically dismantle intermediate structures to bypass internal veto players. Ultimately, the “hollowing out” of the party is reframed not as an inevitable evolutionary drift, but as a deliberate construction by leaders seeking autonomy at the expense of institutional resilience.

错误:搜索内容不能为空,请输入英文关键词
错误:关键词超出字数限制,请精简
高级检索

Context vs. Agency: What Drives Change?

  • Beniamino Masi

摘要

This chapter seeks to bridge the explanatory gap between uniform environmental pressures and divergent organizational outcomes by proposing a “Funnel of Causality” framework. It challenges “Contextualist” theories by demonstrating that macro-variables act merely as catalysts rather than determinants of change, failing to explain why similar economies like Germany and Austria followed opposite trajectories. Moving through the meso-level of systemic contagion and the “shock of opposition”, the analysis identifies political agency as the “master variable” driving disintermediation. The chapter argues that organizational change is primarily a weapon in internal power struggles, operationalized through the mechanism of the “Hostile Takeover”. It distinguishes between “Maintenance Leaders” who preserve bureaucracy and “Political Entrepreneurs” who strategically dismantle intermediate structures to bypass internal veto players. Ultimately, the “hollowing out” of the party is reframed not as an inevitable evolutionary drift, but as a deliberate construction by leaders seeking autonomy at the expense of institutional resilience.