Dominant organizational logic as an impediment to collaboration

Boivin, Caroline; Roch, Joanne

doi:10.1108/00251740610656287

Cited by 10 publications

(14 citation statements)

References 11 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…As Watson et al (2012, p. 3) point out, different dominant institutional logics among actors can be assumed: ''in a particular phase of economic development many [but not all] firms will have adopted the same dominant logic, as implied by Vargo and Lusch (2004)''. Previous research shows that a dominant institutional logic can prevent strategic alliances, and also determines the IS needs of actors (Watson et al 2012;Boivin and Roch 2006).…”

Section: Logic Multiplicitymentioning

confidence: 99%

The Negative Effects of Institutional Logic Multiplicity on Service Platforms in Intermodal Mobility Ecosystems

et al. 2020

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Digitalization is changing the mobility sector. Companies have developed entirely new mobility services, and mobility services with pre-digital roots, such as ride-sharing and public transport, have leveraged digitalization to become more convenient to use. Nevertheless, private car use remains the dominant mode of transport in most developed countries, leading to problems such as delays due to traffic congestion, insufficient parking spaces, as well as noise and air pollution. Emerging intermodal mobility ecosystems take advantage of digital advances in mobility services by providing individual, dynamic and context-aware combinations of different mobility services to simplify door-to-door mobility and contribute to the reduction of private car use. However, the service platforms are limited in terms of functional range, for example they may lack integrated ticketing and rely on static data, which makes intermodal mobility inconvenient. This article adopts the service-dominant logic perspective to analyze service ecosystems for intermodal mobility and their service provision. Drawing on traditional institutional literature, the authors question the assumption that service logic is dominant for all actors of a service ecosystem. By applying activity theory, the article illustrates how an institutional logic multiplicity among actors can negatively affect the functional range of service platforms. The results of a qualitative study in Germany show that, in particular, the state logic of some actors, which is characterized by the obligation to provide mobility, impairs the quality of service platforms in supporting citizens in intermodal mobility.

show abstract

Section: Logic Multiplicitymentioning

confidence: 99%

The Negative Effects of Institutional Logic Multiplicity on Service Platforms in Intermodal Mobility Ecosystems

et al. 2020

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…In addition to exploring how pluralism is managed in organizations, the EW framework is also a useful lens for tracing the origins of organizational controversies in order to better understand how organizational actors mobilize arguments to rhetorically advance particular viewpoints (Boivin & Roch, 2006). Past studies in this vein have examined, for example, which arguments are viewed as credible by organizational actors and why that is.…”

Section: Looking At Organizations Critically: Rhetoric Justificationmentioning

confidence: 99%

Justification, Evaluation and Critique in the Study of Organizations: An Introduction to the Volume

Cloutier¹,

Gond²,

Léca³

2017

Research in the Sociology of Organizations

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This is the accepted version of the paper.This version of the publication may differ from the final published version. Permanent repository link and evaluation in organizations by reconsidering the notion of worth, and finally 4) push the boundaries of the framework itself by questioning and fine tuning some of its core assumptions. Taken as a whole, this volume not only carves a path for a deeper embedding of the EW approach into contemporary thinking about organizations, it also invites readers to refine and expand it by confronting it with a wider range of diverse empirical contexts of interest to organizational scholars.Keywords: economies of worth; justification; critique; evaluation; French Pragmatist Sociology.3 Despite early acknowledgement of the relevance of the EW framework for studying organizations (Denis, Langley, & Rouleau, 2007;Livian & Herreros, 1994), and a recognition that it provides "a highly original perspective stressing the importance of processes of critique and justification for the production of organizational order and change" (Jagd, 2011, p. 344 (Patriotta, Gond, & Schultz, 2011;Ramirez, 2013;Taupin, 2012). JUSTIFICATION, EVALUATION AND CRITIQUE IN THE STUDY OF ORGANIZATIONS: AN INTRODUCTION TO THE VOLUMEWhile demonstrating the "generative" potential of the EW framework by combining it with other theories is both interesting and useful, there are many missed opportunities in failing to embrace the EW framework as a theory that is worthy for its own sake, one that can be particularly helpful, for example, for uncovering some of the normative contradictions that underlie institutional life by investigating how individual actors engage with a plurality of moral orders.Some of this potential can be seen in studies that have mobilized the EW framework to address topics such as intra-organizational dynamics of justification (Jagd, 2011), the strategic management of pluralistic organizations (Daigle & Rouleau, 2010;Denis et al., 2007) decision-making in public management contexts (Dodier & Camus, 1998 It is in light of the above observations and the opportunities they gave rise to that we settled on the following four objectives for the volume: (1) clarify how individuals manage the contradictions and compromises inherent in organizational pluralism by considering the daily moral life of actors inhabiting institutions; (2) look at organizations critically by unpacking the rhetorical foundations of critiques, and pragmatically examining the roles of rhetoric and justification in the critical operations that organizational actors engage in; (3) reconsider the notion of worth beyond its purely economic sense and consider the multiple facets that constitute and produce value in organizational life and (4) push the boundaries of the EW framework itself and by so doing, help further embed notions such as justification, critique and valuation in our contemporary analysis and understanding of organizations.Collectively, the set of contributions proposed in this volume address these four key objec...

show abstract

“…2000) and those that explore the dominant logic of a certain firm (e.g. Apple Inc., Boivin and Roch 2006) or specific context (e.g. entrepreneurial firms in China; Obloj et al .…”

Section: Process Of the Literature Reviewmentioning

confidence: 99%

Clarifying the Dominant Logic Construct by Disentangling and Reassembling its Dimensions

Engelmann

Kump

Schweiger

2020

Int J Management Reviews

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Since its introduction, Prahalad and Bettis's concept of dominant logic has informed a variety of scholarly conversations in management and strategy research. However, scholars have interpreted dominant logic in different ways, emphasizing different aspects, such as managerial mindsets, administrative tools and management functions, as defining elements. Similarly, empirical studies have captured various aspects, such as meanings of entrepreneurs, observable strategic decisions and business model similarity, as indicators of dominant logic. Consequently, the concept lacks analytical clarity, and it is difficult to compare or generalize findings from this diverse set of studies. The aim of this review is to improve conceptual clarity by analysing, comparing and evaluating the existing interpretations and assessments of dominant logic in 94 studies. In the first part of the review, by disentangling the interpretations of the concept, we show that dominant logic consists of four defining dimensions: (i) shared mental models; (ii) values and premises; (iii) organizational practices; and (iv) organizing structures. In the second part, we reassemble dominant logic into an integrative model and theorize about how these dimensions operate in concert to produce a firm's dominant logic. Thus, our main contribution is a clarification and synthesis of the literature, which comes with implications on how future research can conceptualize and operationalize dominant logic more consistently. This is an open access article under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits use, distribution and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

show abstract

Dominant organizational logic as an impediment to collaboration

Cited by 10 publications

References 11 publications

The Negative Effects of Institutional Logic Multiplicity on Service Platforms in Intermodal Mobility Ecosystems

The Negative Effects of Institutional Logic Multiplicity on Service Platforms in Intermodal Mobility Ecosystems

Justification, Evaluation and Critique in the Study of Organizations: An Introduction to the Volume

Clarifying the Dominant Logic Construct by Disentangling and Reassembling its Dimensions

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About