Institutional change is widely acknowledged as critical to tackling grand challenges.
However, deeply rooted historical patterns of action often constrain
transformative efforts. While recent research emphasizes that actors can mobilize
history as a resource, less attention has been paid to how their interpretations
of history are shaped – and constrained – by their sociomaterial contexts.
In this paper, we introduce two subjective orientations toward history: history
as an anchor, in which actors treat history as fixed and draw on dominant narratives
to legitimize incremental change, and history as a project, in which
actors view history as malleable and actively reassemble historical elements to
support transformative change. These orientations, shaped by actors’ relational
positions, influence the kinds of change actors pursue and how they attempt
to legitimize those efforts. By centering actors’ interpretations of history and
their relational embeddedness, we advance knowledge of how actors’ interpretations
of history influence the pace, scope, and nature of change efforts.
Furthermore, we provide guidance for practitioners navigating institutional
change, emphasizing the importance of reflexivity in historical engagements and suggesting that the attention to diversity of historical perspectives among
stakeholders is required to manage historical dissonance and foster inclusive
and sustainable change.