Search results

Institutional logics create order and stability. They organize interaction and prescribe how we should behave towards each other. Such logics have generally been regarded as exclusive, in the sense that an organizational field is always guided by a single institutional logic. If there are two or more institutional logics in one setting at the same time this will create conflicting demands and contradictions. So how do organizations and individuals that act in these settings, where different institutional logics do meet, cope with the conflicting demands? This question is researched by studying actors who organize partnerships between corporations and non-profit organizations. Institutional logics have typically been studied at field level. My study follows a more recent literature strand focusing on individuals and their way of coping with conflicting institutional logics. In this thesis, interviews, text analysis and observations are used. The interviews were conducted with CSR managers of corporations, managers of corporate partners at non-profit organizations, CSR consultants, and project managers of intermediary organizations. These actors are working in an environment where conflicting institutional logics are played out. Using a narrative approach it is shown how these actors are aware of their institutional environment and its conflicts which requires them to constantly act as translators. The study shows that the actors organize an interplay between a market-logic and a social-welfare logic by bringing together the logics and establishing limits to what extent logics can be mixed. Thus, the actors can be understood as bilingual, rather than hybrids. Furthermore, it is argued that a narrative approach provides the possibility to understand institutional logics in empirical contexts as more present and visible than they are usually considered to be. The study concludes that bilingual actors balance conflicting demands and negotiate requirements set by institutional logics in their day-to-day work. Settings where institutional logics meet can hence be understood as both a contradiction and an ongoing interplay.