into this trap by describing 'change ideologies' without either defining ideology or examining its socio-political origins and/or implications. In a critical analysis of the role of ideology in fostering American market capitalism, Spich (1995) observes that ideologies are neither accurate nor honest depictions of reality. For Spich (1995: 20), 'an ideology is a belief system and official viewpoint created, expressed and maintained through institutions ... which offers explanations for the world and its working'. This opens the debate to a more critical examination of the motives and interests underpinning the creation and propagation of ideology. Similarly, Weiss and Miller (1987) emphasize the need to analyze ideology with reference to 'its central theoretical focus on contention among groups and individuals with different social positions and material interests' (Weiss and Miller 1987: 108). In their conception of ideology as 'a set of beliefs about how the social world operates', Simons and Ingram (1997: 784), recognize the role of power and politics in determining what outcomes are 'desirable in a society'. In this regard, we examine the role of ideology in legitimizing organizational outcomes and how managers are socialized to think and act in ways that help to realize those outcomes.A Conceptual ModelThe key constructs are brought together to generate a model, as illustrated in Figure 1. We analyze the model within the context of IP and then show how it is realized and legitimized through functionalist and symbolic consequences. The importance of these consequences emerged from discussions with managers and thus clearly reflects managerial practice. To understand this process, it may be useful to recall Giddens' (1973: 69) 'duality of structure', which refers to the recursiveness of social life, in which 'the structural properties of social systems are both the medium and the outcome of the practices that constitute those systems...
