The institutional entrepreneurship definition offers means to understand the role of social actors (individuals, organizations, networks or social movements) in the institutions creation and change. This issue is treated in organizational institutionalism scope and draws attention for structured actors with sufficient resources to perform change. The organizational fields appear as locus of intentional action although the institutional pressures for the inertia result in a provisory stability in such fields. Literature has privileged themes that deal with institutions stability and persistence, putting change in a secondary position. Questions about social embeddedness and legitimacy need to be better explained. In this context, the objective of this paper is to reflect on the subject and point out the relevance of the actors, despite their embeddedness they can envision beyond the borders of the field. In such a way, there are going to be seen in this essay: (i) fields position relevance (central or peripheral) and the field condition (emergent, in crisis, mature) where the actors are embedded; (II) the action capacity of social actors; (III) the reflexive capacity of actors and (IV) the mechanisms of teorization and diffusion.