INSTITUTIONAL ENTREPRENEURSHIP IN MATURE FIELDS: THE BIG FIVE ACCOUNTING FIRMS ROYSTON GREENWOOD ROY SUDDABY University of Alberta This study examines change initiated from the center of mature organizational fields. As such, it addresses the paradox of embedded agency—that is, the paradox of how actors enact changes to the context by which they, as actors, are shaped. The change examined is the introduction of a new organizational form. Combining network loca- tion theory and dialectical theory, we identify four dynamics that form a process model of elite institutional entrepreneurship. Institutional theory initially focused upon ex- plaining how institutionalized structures of mean- ing affect organizational processes. Attention was given to the conforming behavior of organizations, the adoption of a limited range of socially approved organizational templates, and the resilience of in- stitutional prescriptions (Tolbert & Zucker, 1996; Scott, 2001). More recently, institutional entrepre- neurship and change have become the phenome- non of interest (Dacin, Goldstein, & Scott, 2002). The notion of change, however, “poses a problem for institutional theorists, most of whom view in- stitutions as the source of stability and order” (Scott, 2001: 181). If, as institutional theory asserts, behavior is substantially shaped by taken-for- granted institutional prescriptions, how can actors envision and enact changes to the contexts in which they are embedded? Seo and Creed (2002: 226) referred to this as the “paradox of embedded agency.” A central challenge for institutional the- ory, therefore, is to show how and why actors shaped by (i.e., embedded within) institutional structures become motivated and enabled to pro- mote change in those structures. We examine the introduction of a new organiza- tional form—the multidisciplinary practice (MDP)— within the field of professional business services. Multidisciplinary practices are firms that combine several professions, typically accounting and consult- ing, and, sometimes, law. The new form was pio- neered and championed by elite accounting firms (Greenwood, Suddaby, & Hinings, 2002) and was vig- orously contested (Covaleski, Dirsmith, & Rittenberg, 2003). As such, it is an example of institutional en- trepreneurship that runs counter to prevailing theory because change was initiated from the center of an organizational field. Moreover, given that the field is highly institutionalized, the case is an exemplar of embedded agency. The motivation for our current work was to use the mulitdisciplinary practice case to answer the following question: Why and under what circumstances are embedded elites enabled and mo- tivated to act as institutional entrepreneurs in highly institutionalized contexts? Using qualitative procedures, we explored the circumstances that prompt elite firms to promote change. Contrary to extant theory, according to which the network centrality of elites embeds them within prevailing logics of action and dulls them to the possibilities of change, we show how such a network location can sharpen awareness of alterna- tives. We find that elite, central organizations are more likely to come into contact with contradictory logics because they bridge organizational fields. Further, they become immune to coercive and nor- mative processes because their market activities expand beyond the jurisdiction of field-level regu- lations. These processes, which we label boundary bridging and boundary misalignment, expose cen- tral actors to field-level “contradictions” (Seo & Creed, 2002) and lower their embeddedness. When low embeddedness is combined with a motivation to change, central actors become institutional entrepreneurs. This study contributes to institutional theory by expanding understanding of institutional change. It The research described here is supported by the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada. This paper benefited from conversations with Joel Baum, who cut a Gordian knot; Woody Powell, who questioned an interesting assumption; and Sara Rynes, who pro- vided insightful comments on early drafts. Eva Boxen- baum, Julie Battilana, and Flora Stormer provided direct yet constructive comments in the inimitable way of doc- toral students. Tom Lee and three anonymous reviewers provided extraordinary critical feedback. Patience and careful assistance were provided by Michelle MacLean and Alisha Hurley.  Academy of Management Journal 2006, Vol. 49, No. 1, 27–48. 27