When institutional logics collide: reinforcing dominance in a merged government department

Julian Randall, Stephen Procter

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

5 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

Institutional logics have been the focus of researchers’ interest as a means of comparing and contrasting groups within organizations and their influence and impact on each other. The findings often suggest that these groups may collaborate, compete, comingle or coexist. The interest for researchers is how such interaction between logics takes place and what the final outcome of this interaction is. But not all logics compete or collaborate in the ways suggested. In this paper we will examine how one logic dominates to the detriment of another during a merger between two government departments. Two questions underlie this research into merging institutional logics: how does a logic uphold its dominance when confronted by alternative or competing logic and what is the wider influential institutional context?
Original languageEnglish
Pages (from-to)143-158
Number of pages16
JournalJournal of Change Management
Volume13
Issue number2
Early online date8 Feb 2013
DOIs
Publication statusPublished - Jun 2013

Fingerprint

Logic
Institutional logics
Government
Interaction
Mergers
Merging
Institutional context

Keywords

  • institutional logics
  • mergers
  • templates-in-use
  • embedded practices
  • co-existing logics
  • pragmatic collaboration

Cite this

When institutional logics collide : reinforcing dominance in a merged government department. / Randall, Julian; Procter, Stephen.

In: Journal of Change Management, Vol. 13, No. 2, 06.2013, p. 143-158.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Randall, Julian ; Procter, Stephen. / When institutional logics collide : reinforcing dominance in a merged government department. In: Journal of Change Management. 2013 ; Vol. 13, No. 2. pp. 143-158.
@article{c8ab8a7ae5dd482996c2a05f74db7bbd,
title = "When institutional logics collide: reinforcing dominance in a merged government department",
abstract = "Institutional logics have been the focus of researchers’ interest as a means of comparing and contrasting groups within organizations and their influence and impact on each other. The findings often suggest that these groups may collaborate, compete, comingle or coexist. The interest for researchers is how such interaction between logics takes place and what the final outcome of this interaction is. But not all logics compete or collaborate in the ways suggested. In this paper we will examine how one logic dominates to the detriment of another during a merger between two government departments. Two questions underlie this research into merging institutional logics: how does a logic uphold its dominance when confronted by alternative or competing logic and what is the wider influential institutional context?",
keywords = "institutional logics, mergers , templates-in-use, embedded practices, co-existing logics, pragmatic collaboration",
author = "Julian Randall and Stephen Procter",
year = "2013",
month = "6",
doi = "10.1080/14697017.2012.741074",
language = "English",
volume = "13",
pages = "143--158",
journal = "Journal of Change Management",
issn = "1469-7017",
publisher = "Routledge",
number = "2",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - When institutional logics collide

T2 - reinforcing dominance in a merged government department

AU - Randall, Julian

AU - Procter, Stephen

PY - 2013/6

Y1 - 2013/6

N2 - Institutional logics have been the focus of researchers’ interest as a means of comparing and contrasting groups within organizations and their influence and impact on each other. The findings often suggest that these groups may collaborate, compete, comingle or coexist. The interest for researchers is how such interaction between logics takes place and what the final outcome of this interaction is. But not all logics compete or collaborate in the ways suggested. In this paper we will examine how one logic dominates to the detriment of another during a merger between two government departments. Two questions underlie this research into merging institutional logics: how does a logic uphold its dominance when confronted by alternative or competing logic and what is the wider influential institutional context?

AB - Institutional logics have been the focus of researchers’ interest as a means of comparing and contrasting groups within organizations and their influence and impact on each other. The findings often suggest that these groups may collaborate, compete, comingle or coexist. The interest for researchers is how such interaction between logics takes place and what the final outcome of this interaction is. But not all logics compete or collaborate in the ways suggested. In this paper we will examine how one logic dominates to the detriment of another during a merger between two government departments. Two questions underlie this research into merging institutional logics: how does a logic uphold its dominance when confronted by alternative or competing logic and what is the wider influential institutional context?

KW - institutional logics

KW - mergers

KW - templates-in-use

KW - embedded practices

KW - co-existing logics

KW - pragmatic collaboration

U2 - 10.1080/14697017.2012.741074

DO - 10.1080/14697017.2012.741074

M3 - Article

VL - 13

SP - 143

EP - 158

JO - Journal of Change Management

JF - Journal of Change Management

SN - 1469-7017

IS - 2

ER -