Institutional Logics: Motivating Action and Overcoming Resistance to Change

Abstract

Institutional logics are interrelated sets of cultural elements (norms, values, beliefs, and symbols) that help people and organizations make sense of their everyday activities and order those activities in time and space. In this paper, we describe the rise of a robust literature on institutional logics, which mostly focuses on Western societies. We then describe changes in Chinese society and economy over the past four decades, as it shifted from state-controlled planning and redistribution to market-mediated exchange. We detail how the institutional logics that guide Chinese firms have been transformed in the wake of the economic transition. The state logic, which developed in the Maoist era, valorizes equality, national community, and political stability. Although it is still in evidence, it has been partly supplanted by a market logic that encourages efficiency, competition, and property rights. But this market logic differs from the one that prevails in Western capitalist economies. The Chinese version of the market logic valorizes the central role that the state and the Communist Party continue to play in economic life. Therefore, in the Chinese version of the market logic, efficiency, competition, and property rights are tempered by a continued concern for political stability. We review and summarize the existing literature on institutional logics and Chinese firms, and then identify fruitful lines that future research could take.

Commentary on Perspective Article: ‘Institutional Logics: Motivating Action and Overcoming Resistance to Change’ – Heather A. Haveman, David Joseph-Goteiner, and Danyang Li

“…

Haveman, Joseph-Goteiner, and Li's (2023) perspective article contributes important insights into China's transition away from central planning and redistribution toward greater market coordination of economic exchange. In our commentary on their insightful article, we build on and extend their arguments in three main ways.

…”

“…In contexts where a powerful government actor has the legitimacy and authority to define and channel institutional change processes, the institutional logics guiding decision-making and behavior are likely to be especially 'sticky' (North, 1993), persisting 'even in the face of powerful forces propelling change' (Haveman et al, 2023). This situation extends beyond authoritarian regimes to include fields and industries where a central actor or organization can dictate or define how logics should be prioritized and how they manifest in structures, practices, and governance mechanisms (Greenwood, Raynard, Kodeih, Micelotta, & Lounsbury, 2011;Raynard, 2016).…”

“…This suggests a different dynamic among would-be change agents than the competitive one typically emphasized in prior research. The Chinese government, as Haveman et al (2023) note, is not monolithic; but, instead, 'hierarchical, with multiple administrative levels that have different powers, with influence flowing from the top to the bottom and from the bottom to the top'. Despite these actors operating at different levels, and having potentially different interests and agendas, there is a 'thematic pull' in the direction of incremental reform as opposed to revolutionary change (Raynard et al, 2021;Smets et al, 2017).…”

Expanding the Scope of Institutional Logics Research

“…And while the literature has exploded, there is much more research that is neededespecially in non-Western contexts such as China. Our aim in this paper is to complement and extend the arguments of Haveman, Joseph-Goteiner, and Li (2023) to contribute to the development of a broader research agenda on institutional logics. We draw on some recent writings (e.g., Lounsbury & Wang, 2020;Lounsbury, Steele, Wang, & Toubiana, 2021) that provide a slightly different orientation towards the conceptualization and contemporary problematics of institutional logics scholarship, and then discuss implications for research in China.…”

“…To begin, while the institutional logics perspective is profoundly cultural in its orientation, informed by the cultural turn that swept across the social sciences and humanities in the late 20th century (e.g., Friedland & Mohr, 2004), it is important to emphasize that most logics research since the seminal paper by Friedland and Alford (1991) has emphasized that logics are relatively enduring configurations of symbolic beliefs and material practices. Somewhat differently, Haveman, Joseph-Goteiner, and Li (2023) note the importance of practice, but they conceptualize logics and practice as relatively distinct, albeit interrelated. We prefer to conceptualize practices as more fundamental to the concept of logic and believe that the most powerful scholarship on institutional logics is undergirded by a practice theoretic approach to culture (e.g., Bourdieu, 1998;Lizardo & Strand, 2010;Swidler, 1986) that accords practices a more central role in both theory and empirical analysis.…”