Logics in Action

Abstract

Drawing on a 15-month ethnographic study of a drug court, we investigate how actors from different institutional and professional backgrounds employ logical frameworks in their micro-level interactions and thus how logics affect day-to-day organizational activity. While institutional theory presumes that professionals closely adhere to the logics of their professional groups, we find that actors exercise a great deal of agency in their everyday use of logics, both in terms of which logics they adopt and for what purpose. Available logics closely resemble tools that can be creatively employed by actors to achieve individual and organizational goals. A close analysis of court negotiations allowed us to identify the logics that are available to these actors, show how they are employed, and demonstrate how their use affects the severity of the court’s decisions. We examine the ways in which professionals with four distinct logical orientations—the logics of criminal punishment, rehabilitation, community accountability, and efficiency—use logics to negotiate decisions in a drug court. We provide evidence of the discretionary use of these logics, specifying the procedural, definitional, and dispositional constraints that limit actors’ discretion and propose an explanation for why professionals stray from their “home” logics and “hijack” the logics of other court actors. Examining these micro-level processes improves our understanding of how local actors use logics to manage institutional complexity, reach consensus, and get the work of the court done.

Competing institutional logics in talent management: talent identification at the HQ and a subsidiary

“…While acknowledging these insights, previous research streams regarding institutional logics have been criticized for neglecting the microfoundations of institutional logics (Thornton et al, 2012), thus ignoring how logics are used on the ground (McPherson & Sauder, 2013). Following this criticism, there has been increasing interest in understanding how institutional logics unfold in practice, and in the locally-constructed manifestations (Besharov & Smith, 2014).…”

Symbolic Compliance and Student Concerns: Legal Endogeneity and Title IX at American Colleges and Universities

“…Theories in new institutionalism assume that organizational actors follow "scripts" that align with organizations' macrolevel interests of maintaining institutional legitimacy in a broader field, but theories of "inhabited institutionalism" challenge this idea by highlighting organizational actors' creativity and agency when responding to both macrolevel pressures and internal meaning-making processes (Binder 2007). Organizations do not just maintain a singular, uniform meaning-making system or institutional logic; instead, actors within organizations "inhabit" these institutions, negotiating multiple meaning-making systems and logics when carrying out their work within an institutional context (Hallett 2010;Hallett and Ventresca 2006;McPherson and Sauder 2013). Those actors who inhabit institutions respond to both institutional scripts, such as those of formal legitimacy and symbolic compliance that scholars of employment discrimination have documented, and multiple institutional logics that are personally, departmentally, or organizationally salient (Binder 2007).…”

“…Policies reflect both institutions' responses to legal regulation and to the needs of students in particular campus communities. Indeed, institutions are "inhabited" by actors who must navigate these multiple relationships-between students and schools and schools and the law-in their daily work on campus, defining institutional standards according to logics that prioritize both legal requirements and students' welfare in a particular setting (Binder 2007;Hallett 2010;Hallett and Ventresca 2006;McPherson and Sauder 2013).…”

Institutional context and place‐based policy: The case of Coventry & Warwickshire

“…The surge of interest in the institutional dimension of economic and regional development has led to many and only partially overlapping understandings of the term institution. Looking at the variety of institutional research, authors may refer to organizations (e.g., financial institutions), to formal (e.g., laws and regulations) and informal rules (e.g., social norms, conventions), to social beliefs (e.g., institutional logics), to stable patterns of interactions, or to the sum of all these categories (Barley & Tolbert, 1997;Hodgson, 2006;McPherson & Sauder, 2013;North, 1990;Scott, 2007). Due to this polysemy, the empirical impact of institutions on regional economic development is still poorly understood and, hence, perhaps markedly underestimated (Martin, 2000;Pike, Marlow, McCarthy, O'Brien, & Tomaney, 2015).…”