Managing the Rivalry of Competing Institutional Logics
Why is this work in the frame?
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Machine scores (provisional)
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
- Teacher spread
- 0.212 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
- Validation status
score_only:v0-immature-baseline· verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it
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.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
The record
- Venue
- Organization Studies
- Topic
- Management and Organizational Studies
- Field
- Business, Management and Accounting
- Canadian institutions
- University of Alberta
- Funders
- —
- Keywords
- RivalryOrganization studiesField (mathematics)Institutional logicPeriod (music)Institutional theorySociologyKey (lock)Law and economicsPolitical sciencePublic relationsPositive economicsEconomicsManagementComputer scienceMicroeconomicsSocial scienceComputer security
- Has abstract in OpenAlex
- yes