Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-gbm5v Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-27T08:45:47.606Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

Changes in the power balance of institutional logics: Middle managers’ responses

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  26 December 2017

Trude Høgvold Olsen
Affiliation:
School of Business and Economics, UiT The Arctic University of Norway, Harstad, Norway
Elsa Solstad*
Affiliation:
School of Business and Economics, UiT The Arctic University of Norway, Harstad, Norway
*
Corresponding author: elsa.solstad@uit.no

Abstract

The purpose of this paper is to explore how middle managers respond when an existing institutional logic is reinforced through radical organisational change. We analyse documents and interviews with middle managers in three public sector contexts (hospitals, upper secondary schools, municipal agencies) in which the power balance between the managerial and professional logics changed through mergers. Contrary to expectations from previous research, we found a variety of responses across contexts. Our data suggest that the middle managers chose whether to acknowledge available information about the managerial logic, and that they either accepted or rejected the new power balance between the logics. There were two different ways of accepting the new power balance: by showing loyalty or through resignation. Its rejection took the form of strategically adhering to the managerial logic as a novice, even though a middle manager was, or should have been, familiar with this logic.

Type
Research Article
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press and Australian and New Zealand Academy of Management 2017

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Arman, R., Liff, R., & Wikström, E. (2014). The hierarchization of competing logics in psychiatric care in Sweden. Scandinavian Journal of Management, 30(3), 282291.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Balogun, J. (2003). From blaming the middle to harnessing its potential: Creating change intermediaries. British Journal of Management, 14, 6983.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Balogun, J., & Johnson, G. (2004). Organizational restructuring and middle management sensemaking. Academy of Management Journal, 47(4), 523549.Google Scholar
Battilana, J., & Dorado, S. (2010). Building sustainable hybrid organizations: The case of commercial microfinance organizations. Academy of Management Journal, 53(6), 14191440.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Besharov, M. L., & Smith, W. K. (2014). Multiple institutional logics in organizations: Explaining their varied nature and implications. Academy of Management Review, 39(3), 364381.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bryant, M., & Stensaker, I. (2011). The competing roles of middle management: Negotiated order in the context of change. Journal of Change Management, 11(3), 353373.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Currie, G., & Procter, S. J. (2005). The antecedents of middle managers’ strategic contribution: The case of a professional bureaucracy. Journal of Management Studies, 42(7), 13251356.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Exworthy, M., & Halford, S. (1999). Professionals and managers in a changing public sector: Conflict, compromise and collaboration?. In M. Exworthy, & S. Halford (Eds.), Professionals and the new managerialism in the public sector (pp. 117). Buckingham, UK: Open University Press.Google Scholar
Floyd, S. W., & Wooldridge, B. (1997). Middle management’s strategic influence and organizational performance. Journal of Management Studies, 34(3), 465485.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Freidson, E. (2001). Professionalism: The third logic. Cambridge, UK: Polity Press.Google Scholar
Greenwood, R., Díaz, A. M., Li, S. X., & Lorente, J. C. (2010). The multiplicity of institutional logics and the heterogeneity of organizational responses. Organization Science, 21(2), 521539.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Greenwood, R., Raynard, M., Kodeih, F., Micelotta, E. R., & Lounsbury, M. (2011). Institutional complexity and organizational responses. Academy of Management Annals, 5(1), 317371.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Huy, Q. N. (2001). In praise of middle managers. Harvard Business Review, 79(September), 7279.Google ScholarPubMed
Huy, Q. N. (2002). Emotional balancing of organizational continuity and radical change: The contribution of middle managers. Administrative Science Quarterly, 47(1), 3169.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jay, J. (2013). Navigating paradox as a mechanism of change and innovation in hybrid organizations. Academy of Management Journal, 56(1), 137159.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Johansen, S. T., Olsen, T. H., Solstad, E., & Torsteinsen, H. (2015). An insider view of the hybrid organisation: How managers respond to challenges of efficiency, legitimacy and meaning. Journal of Management and Organization, 21(6), 725740.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kitchener, M. (2002). Mobilizing the logic of managerialism in professional fields: The case of academic health centre mergers. Organization Studies, 23(3), 391420.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kristiansen, M., Obstfelder, A., & Lotherington, A. T. (2015). Nurses’ sensemaking of contradicting logics: An underexposed aspect of organizational work in nursing homes. Scandinavian Journal of Management, 31(3), 330337.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Langley, A., Golden-Biddle, K., Reay, T., Denis, J. L., Hébert, Y., Lamothe, L., & Gervais, J. (2012). Identity struggles in merging organizations: Renegotiating the sameness–difference dialectic. Journal of Applied Behavioral Science, 48(2), 135167.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lindberg, K. (2014). Performing multiple logics in practice. Scandinavian Journal of Management, 30(4), 485497.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Llewellyn, S. (2001). ‘Two-way windows’: Clinicians as medical managers. Organization Studies, 22(4), 593623.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lok, J. (2010). Institutional logics as identity projects. Academy of Management Journal, 53(6), 13051335.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McPherson, C. M., & Sauder, M. (2013). Logics in action: Managing institutional complexity in a drug court. Administrative Science Quarterly, 58(2), 165196.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Meyer, C. B. (2006). Destructive dynamics of middle management intervention in postmerger processes. Journal of Applied Behavioral Science, 42(4), 397419.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nicolini, D., Powell, J., Conville, P., & Marinez-Solano, L. (2008). Managing knowledge in the healthcare sector: A review. International Journal of Management Reviews, 10(3), 245263.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pache, A. C., & Santos, F. (2013). Embedded in hybrid contexts: How individuals in organizations respond to competing institutional logics. In M. Lounsbury, & E. Boxenbaum (Eds.), Institutional logics in action, Part B. Research in the sociology of organizations, 39B (pp. 335). Bingley, UK: Emerald.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pettersen, I. J., & Solstad, E. (2014). Managerialism and profession-based logic: The use of accounting information in changing hospitals. Financial Accountability & Management, 30(4), 363382.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Randall, J., & Procter, S. (2013). When institutional logics collide: Reinforcing dominance in a merged government department. Journal of Change Management, 13(2), 143158.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Reay, T., & Hinings, C. R. (2009). Managing the rivalry of competing institutional logics. Organization Studies, 30(6), 629652.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Selznick, P. (1957). Leadership in administration. New York, NY: Harper and Row.Google Scholar
Sharma, G., & Good, D. (2013). The work of middle managers: Sensemaking and sensegiving for creating positive social change. Journal of Applied Behavioral Science, 49(1), 95122.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Thornton, P. H., Ocasio, W., & Lounsbury, M. (2012). The institutional logics perspective. A new approach to culture, structure, and process. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wooldridge, B., Schmid, T., & Floyd, S. W. (2008). The middle management perspective on strategy process: Contributions, synthesis, and future research. Journal of Management, 34(6), 11901221.CrossRefGoogle Scholar