Starting with a critique of the epistemological and ontological bases of neo-institutionalism, in this article we defend the potential for the application of post-structuralist perspectives, particularly that presented by Michel Foucault, and the pragmatic perspective, represented here by the works of William James and Richard Rorty, to the institutional approach. We contend that this theoretical approach, which incorporates a dimension traditionally overlooked in institutional analyses, especially in the field of organizations, namely power, has the advantage of contributing to an enhanced comprehension of the dynamics of institutionalization. In order to achieve this, it is necessary to start from the standpoint of overcoming the objectivity-subjectivity dichotomy, so often found in institutional studies. Lastly, we re-assess institutionalization processes using the new reference standard, highlighting why certain practices become institutionalized. By contending that institutionalization processes take place within discursive fields, our proposition is that these are abetting the productivity of the power relationships, which are present in these fields. Practices that are institutionalized are practices that work, in other words, they are practices, which are both necessary and useful to the exercise of power.
power; institutionalization; discourse