Coaction Interrupted: Logic Contestations in the Implementation of Inter‐organisational Collaboration around Talent Management in the Public Sector in Scotland

Abstract

Our study explores how human resources (HR) actors from 24 public sector organisations in Scotland interpret and address multiple and competing institutional logics in the context of the implementation of an inter-organisational collaboration within the public sector to develop and implement talent management (TM). Our findings reveal that HR actors encountered day-today difficulties in blending different versions of TM, the need to have professional autonomy versus the requirement to develop some shared TM practices, and the fit of TM practices with public sector organisations. We therefore found that institutional logics impacted in different ways on efforts to collaborate and the types of TM practices developed and implemented. Theoretically, our study findings reveal that HR actors have agency at the practice level and that powerful actors can advocate particular logics to protect their professional and organisational interests.

Tensions in talent: A micro practice perspective on the implementation of high potential talent development programs in multinational corporations

“…Our sample consists of western‐owned MNCs who potentially have different corporate parenting styles and different approaches to talent development compared to, for example Asian‐owned MNCs (Cooke, Liu, Liu, & Chen, 2019). In addition, our findings are less likely to be applicable to small firms (Nolan, Garavan, & Lynch, 2020) where there is less strategic clarity when it comes to HR practices, or indeed in the public sector where there may be a ceremonial implementation of practices (Grant, Garavan, & Mackie, 2020). For example, in organizational contexts that are less high‐performance focused, the nature of the tensions may be different.…”

Dual nature of the relationship between corporate social responsibility and human resource management: A blessing or a curse?

“…As argued byMeyer et al (1997), legitimized actorhood operates at several levels (contextual, organizational or group, and individual) that compete with each other. The interaction between macro-meso levels and their influence on the dual nature of the CSR-HRM relationship is highly salient, as depicted in Figure1below.As amplification of logics occurs and translation of CSR logics to local circumstances takes place, associated HRM practices move to the level of legitimized organizational actions(Grant et al, 2020).However, as this empirical case evinces, this process is dualistic in nature. Institutions frame certain decisions, actions and practices and, in this particular context, the widespread acceptance and legitimization of CSR leads to exploitation of the workforce (via HRM), in some cases.…”

“…Institutional logics are defined as sets of material and non‐material (symbolic) constructions that form guiding principles for collective organizational action (Friedland & Alford, 1991; Thornton et al, 2012). In current institutional scholarship, local embeddedness of institutional logics, contexts of actors and their agency, and the conditions under which institutional logics are accessed, implemented, and transformed have become a central focus (Currie & Spyridonidis, 2016; Darwish et al, 2020; Delbridge & Edwards, 2013; Grant et al, 2020; Pallas et al, 2016). In understanding how organizations interpret their internal and external environments and respond by communicating an issue to secure the support of external and internal stakeholders to pursue their CSR agenda, we utilized institutional logic perspective to understand concurrent logics guiding organizational CSR agenda and practice.…”

“…CSR logics centrality emanates from growing awareness that business should assume these responsibilities. To diffuse this logic in the organization requires that the logic be anchored in everyday practices, the management systems and human capital strategies, and through leveraging resources, including human resources (Grant et al, 2020; Jamali et al, 2015). It also involves aligning CSR in the routine functions of employees (Srinivasan & Arora, 2015).…”

“…In addressing this gap, we build on, and contribute to, institutional theory. Recent calls in institutional theory suggest a return to the core of the organization and a shift in emphasis towards understanding the micro‐processes that govern the institutional logics within organizations (Darwish et al, 2020; Grant et al, 2020; Mair et al, 2015; Martin et al, 2017; Pallas et al, 2016; Sharma et al, 2020). This entails understanding multiple institutional logics, highlighting the significance of the interaction between different formal governance structures (Darwish et al, 2020; Pache & Santos, 2010) such as HRM and the rest of the organization.…”