No abstract

No abstract

We investigated an organizational field where competing institutional logics existed for a lengthy period of time. We identified four mechanisms for managing the rivalry of competing logics that facilitated and strengthened the separate identities of key actors, thus providing a way for competing logics to co-exist and separately guide the behaviour of different actors. We contribute to the institutional literature by showing that competing logics can co-exist and rivalry between logics can be managed through the development of collaborative relationships.

No abstract

No abstract

No abstract

No abstract

In this paper we develop a theoretical model that helps to understand change in mature organizational fields by emphasizing the role of competing institutional logics as part of a radical change process. Our investigation into a large-scale, government-led health reform initiative in Alberta, Canada, is based upon a qualitative case study approach to understanding the process of field recomposition. This study focuses on the later portions of change in an organizational field — that is, rather than explaining the sources of change, we investigate how a field becomes re-established after the implementation of a radical structural change.