{"title":"Enacting Logics in Practice: A Critical Realist Perspective","authors":"Florian Hemme, Matthew T. Bowers, J. Todd","doi":"10.1080/14697017.2019.1703025","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"ABSTRACT Drawing from critical realism, institutional logics, and sensemaking, we examine how changing field level logics are encoded and enacted in organizational practice. In this paper, we make evident the problems inherent in attempting to characterize logics solely based on their observable macro-level structures and highlight in particular the challenges associated with appropriately distinguishing between final logic instantiations and the fluid processes underpinning their formulation. Consequently, we offer a meso-level explanation of how or why logics can be combined in practice. In the present case, the two prevailing logics coexisted because their respective actors encoded them in different ways and because distinctions between peripheral and central logic expectations were borne out of the process through which they were interpreted. Finally, we offer a contextualized interpretation of these enactment processes under consideration of the idiosyncratic features found in public service organizations. MAD statement This article sets out to Make a Difference (MAD) for change agents tasked with implementing complex organizational transformation initiatives. Documenting how the practical implementation of novel expectations depends on employees’ personal backgrounds and histories, we challenge the applicability of one-size-fits-all approaches. We highlight instead the need to attend to the differences in change perception and interpretation that are bound to arise when diverse groups of people work in separate branches or locations of the same organization and do not share sensemaking models or meaning giving frameworks.","PeriodicalId":47003,"journal":{"name":"JOURNAL OF CHANGE MANAGEMENT","volume":"20 1","pages":"122 - 99"},"PeriodicalIF":3.0000,"publicationDate":"2020-04-02","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1080/14697017.2019.1703025","citationCount":"3","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"JOURNAL OF CHANGE MANAGEMENT","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1080/14697017.2019.1703025","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"MANAGEMENT","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 3
Abstract
ABSTRACT Drawing from critical realism, institutional logics, and sensemaking, we examine how changing field level logics are encoded and enacted in organizational practice. In this paper, we make evident the problems inherent in attempting to characterize logics solely based on their observable macro-level structures and highlight in particular the challenges associated with appropriately distinguishing between final logic instantiations and the fluid processes underpinning their formulation. Consequently, we offer a meso-level explanation of how or why logics can be combined in practice. In the present case, the two prevailing logics coexisted because their respective actors encoded them in different ways and because distinctions between peripheral and central logic expectations were borne out of the process through which they were interpreted. Finally, we offer a contextualized interpretation of these enactment processes under consideration of the idiosyncratic features found in public service organizations. MAD statement This article sets out to Make a Difference (MAD) for change agents tasked with implementing complex organizational transformation initiatives. Documenting how the practical implementation of novel expectations depends on employees’ personal backgrounds and histories, we challenge the applicability of one-size-fits-all approaches. We highlight instead the need to attend to the differences in change perception and interpretation that are bound to arise when diverse groups of people work in separate branches or locations of the same organization and do not share sensemaking models or meaning giving frameworks.
期刊介绍:
Journal of Change Management is a multidisciplinary and international forum for critical, mainstream and alternative contributions - focusing as much on psychology, ethics, culture and behaviour as on structure and process. JCM is a platform for open and challenging dialogue and a thorough critique of established as well as alternative practices. JCM is aiming to provide all authors with a first decision within six weeks of submission.