Institutional logics

Abstract

*Abstract: *We survey research on institutional logics, which are systems of cultural elements (values, beliefs, and normative expectations) by which people, groups, and organizations make sense of and evaluate their everyday activities, and organize those activities in time and space. Although there were scattered mentions of this concept before 1990, this literature really began with the 1991 publication of a theory piece by Roger Friedland and Robert Alford. Over the past twenty years, it has become a large and diverse area of organizational research. Several books and thousands of papers and book chapters have been published on this topic, addressing institutional logics in sites as different as climate change proceedings of the United Nations, local banks in the United States, and business groups in Taiwan. Next, we review this literature, beginning with a detailed explanation of the concept and the theory surrounding it. To show how this literature developed over time within the broader framework of theory and empirical work in sociology, political science, and anthropology, we evaluate several intellectual precursors to institutional logics. We then sample papers published in ten major sociology and management journals in the United States and Europe between 1990 and 2015, and analyze this sample of papers to identify trends in theoretical development and empirical findings. After we detail these trends, we conclude by suggesting three gentle corrections and potentially useful extensions to this literature to guide future research: (1) limiting the definition of institutional logic to cultural-cognitive phenomena, rather than including material phenomena; (2) recognizing both “cold” (purely rational) cognition and “hot” (emotion-laden) cognition; and (3) developing and testing a theory (or multiple related theories), meaning a logically interconnected set of propositions concerning a delimited set of social phenomena, derived from assumptions about essential facts (axioms), that details causal mechanisms and yields empirically testable (falsifiable) hypotheses, by being more consistent about how we use concepts in theoretical statements; assessing the reliability and validity of our empirical measures; and conducting meta-analyses of the many inductive studies that have been published, to develop deductive theories.

Hollywood studio filmmaking in the age of Netflix: a tale of two institutional logics

“…Focusing on Hollywood inevitably means that we have essentially adopted a US-centric approach. It is important to note that institutional logics are historically contingent and vary over time and across geographies (Friedland and Alford 1991;Haveman and Gualtieri 2017). It would therefore be interesting to test whether the same approach can be used to analyse other national film industries with different distributions of power among social actors, technologies in use, and performance metrics.…”

“…Once established, the rules and symbols of an institutional logic are internalized, and other logics are perceived as either useless or irrelevant (Haveman and Gualtieri 2017). Schemata usually give rise to "vocabularies of practice"-that is, "systems of labelled categories used by members of a social collective to make sense of and construct organizing practices" (Thornton et al 2012: 159).…”

“…Let us now turn to the "taken-for-granted resilient social prescriptions" (Greenwood et al 2010: 521) that define the institutional logics of Hollywood studios and online streaming services (respectively). We note that although all studios and streaming services operate under one or the other institutional logic, variations exist in the manifestations of the two logics as practices and decision-making criteria as well as in the schemata and vocabularies of practice across organizations, depending on their culture and history (Haveman and Gualtieri 2017). Table 1 provides a simplified overview of the key attributes of the two institutional logics detailed below.…”

The evolving role of organizational theory within economic sociology

“…But, this perspective lacked any way to account for how such fields might change. One strand of institutional theory proposed to use the idea of conflicting institutional logics as a basis for a theory of change (Thornton & Ocasio, ; Haveman & Gualtieri, ). Logics imply that there is a cultural set of understandings that help define how a particular organizational field works, what actions make sense for actors, and what rules govern interaction both formally and informally.…”

The Actor: The Key Determinator in Service Ecosystems

“…Institutional arrangements link institutions and actions. Haveman and Gualtieri [61] define institutional logics as systems of cultural elements (values, beliefs, and normative expectations) by which individuals, groups, and organizations make sense of, evaluate, and organize their everyday activities in time and space. Conversely, Vargo and Lusch [51] (p. [67][68] argue that "institutional arrangements are sets of institutions that are nested in multiple levels of social systems that guide actors in their actions and interactions."…”