5-Year Project: 2011 Review

This year, I reviewed 327 articles. I liked 54 of them. That is more than usual, but during this year there were some pretty awesome meta-analyses and other articles describing the process of theory-building. Which, in my book, is the equivalent of finding gold at the end of the rainbow. Only better. Because what would I do with gold? Great articles, on the other hand, are like oxygen for PhD students. And we can all agree oxygen is more important than gold.

Here are the articles:

1. Alvesson, M., & Sandberg, J. 2011. Generating research questions through problematization. Academy of Management Review, 36(2): 247–271.
2. Bailey, D. E., & Barley, S. R. 2011. Teaching-learning ecologies: Mapping the environment to structure through action. Organization Science, 22(1): 262–285.
3. Battilana, J. 2011. The enabling role of social position in diverging from the institutional status quo: Evidence from the UK National Health Service. Organization Science, 22(4): 817–834.
4. Bechky, B. A., & Okhuysen, G. A. 2011. Expecting the unexpected? How SWAT officers and film crews handle surprises. Academy of Management Journal, 54(2): 239–261.
5. Bingham, C. B., & Eisenhardt, K. M. 2011. Rational heuristics: the “simple rules” that strategists learn from process experience. Strategic Management Journal, 32(13): 1437–1464.
6. Boivie, S., Lange, D., McDonald, M. L., & Westphal, J. D. 2011. Me or we: The effects of CEO organizational identification on agency costs. Academy of Management Journal, 54(3): 551–576.
7. Bono, J. E., & McNamara, G. 2011. Publishing in AMJ—Part 2: Research design. Academy of Management Journal, 54(4): 657–660.
8. Borgatti, S. P., & Halgin, D. S. 2011. On network theory. Organization Science, 22(5): 1168–1181.
9. Burton, R. M., & Obel, B. 2011. Computational modeling for what-is, what-might-be, and what-should-be studies-And triangulation. Organization Science, 22(5): 1195–1202.
10. Colquitt, J. A., & George, G. 2011. Publishing in AMJ—part 1: topic choice. Academy of Management Journal, 54(3): 432–435.
11. Corley, K. 2011. The coming of age for qualitative research: Embracing the diversity of qualitative methods. Academy of Management Journal, 54(2): 233–237.
12. Corley, K. G., & Gioia, D. A. 2011. Building theory about theory building: what constitutes a theoretical contribution? Academy of Management Review, 36(1): 12–32.
13. Crossan, M. M., Maurer, C. C., & White, R. E. 2011. Reflections on the 2009 AMR decade award: do we have a theory of organizational learning? Academy of Management Review, 36(3): 446–460.
14. Crossland, C., & Hambrick, D. 2011. Differences in managerial discretion across countries: how nation‐level institutions affect the degree to which ceos matter. Strategic Management Journal. http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/smj.913/full, October 24, 2014.
15. Desai, V. M. 2011. Mass media and massive failures: Determining organizational efforts to defend field legitimacy following crises. Academy of Management Journal, 54(2): 263–278.
16. Dowell, G. W. S., Shackell, M. B., & Stuart, N. V. 2011. Boards, CEOs, and surviving a financial crisis: Evidence from the internet shakeout. Strategic Management Journal, 32(10): 1025–1045.
17. Garud, R., Dunbar, R. L. M., & Bartel, C. A. 2011. Dealing with unusual experiences: A narrative perspective on organizational learning. Organization science, 22(3): 587–601.
18. Geletkanycz, M. A., & Boyd, B. K. 2011. CEO outside directorships and firm performance: A reconciliation of agency and embeddedness views. Academy of Management Journal, 54(2): 335–352.
19. Grant, A. M., & Berry, J. W. 2011. The necessity of others is the mother of invention: Intrinsic and prosocial motivations, perspective taking, and creativity. Academy of Management Journal, 54(1): 73–96.
20. Grant, A. M., & Pollock, T. G. 2011. Publishing in AMJ—Part 3: Setting the hook. Academy of Management Journal, 54(5): 873–879.
21. Greve, H. R. 2011. Fast and expensive: The diffusion of a disappointing innovation. Strategic Management Journal, 32(9): 949–968.
22. Hillman, A. 2011. Editor’s Comments: What IS the Future of Theory? Academy of Management Review, 36(4): 606–608.
23. Howard-Grenville, J., Golden-Biddle, K., Irwin, J., & Mao, J. 2011. Liminality as cultural process for cultural change. Organization Science, 22(2): 522–539.
24. Kellogg, K. C. 2011. Hot lights and cold steel: Cultural and political toolkits for practice change in surgery. Organization Science, 22(2): 482–502.
25. Kilduff, M., Mehra, A., & Dunn, M. B. 2011. From blue sky research to problem solving: A philosophy of science theory of new knowledge production. Academy of Management Review, 36(2): 297–317.
26. Kirca, A. H., Hult, G. T. M., Roth, K., Cavusgil, S. T., Perryy, M. Z., Akdeniz, M. B., et al. 2011. Firm-specific assets, multinationality, and financial performance: A meta-analytic review and theoretical integration. Academy of Management Journal, 54(1): 47–72.
27. Kulich, C., Trojanowski, G., Ryan, M. K., Alexander Haslam, S., & Renneboog, L. D. R. 2011. Who gets the carrot and who gets the stick? Evidence of gender disparities in executive remuneration. Strategic Management Journal, 32(3): 301–321.
28. Levinthal, D. A. 2011. A behavioral approach to strategy—what’s the alternative? Strategic Management Journal, 32(13): 1517–1523.
29. Marcel, J. J., Barr, P. S., & Duhaime, I. M. 2011. The influence of executive cognition on competitive dynamics. Strategic Management Journal, 32(2): 115–138.
30. McDonald, M. L., & Westphal, J. D. 2011. My brother’s keeper? CEO identification with the corporate elite, social support among CEOs, and leader effectiveness. Academy of Management Journal, 54(4): 661–693.
31. Miller, K. D., & Tsang, E. W. K. 2011. Testing management theories: critical realist philosophy and research methods. Strategic Management Journal, 32(2): 139–158.
32. Muller, A., & Kräussl, R. 2011. Doing good deeds in times of need: A strategic perspective on corporate disaster donations. Strategic Management Journal, 32(9): 911–929.
33. Nembhard, I. M., & Tucker, A. L. 2011. Deliberate learning to improve performance in dynamic service settings: Evidence from hospital intensive care units. Organization Science, 22(4): 907–922.
34. Nicolini, D. 2011. Practice as the site of knowing: insights from the field of telemedicine. Organization Science, 22(3): 602–620.
35. Oh, C. H., & Oetzel, J. 2011. Multinationals’ response to major disasters: how does subsidiary investment vary in response to the type of disaster and the quality of country governance? Strategic Management Journal, 32(6): 658–681.
36. Okhuysen, G., & Bonardi, J.-P. 2011. The challenges of building theory by combining lenses. Academy of Management Review, 36(1): 6–11.
37. Oswick, C., Fleming, P., & Hanlon, G. 2011. From borrowing to blending: Rethinking the processes of organizational theory building. Academy of Management Review, 36(2): 318–337.
38. Park, S. H., Westphal, J. D., & Stern, I. 2011. Set up for a fall the insidious effects of flattery and opinion conformity toward corporate leaders. Administrative Science Quarterly, 56(2): 257–302.
39. Powell, T. C. 2011. Neurostrategy. Strategic Management Journal, 32(13): 1484–1499.
40. Raes, A. M. L., Heijltjes, M. G., Glunk, U., & Roe, R. A. 2011. The interface of the top management team and middle managers: A process model. Academy of Management Review, 36(1): 102–126.
41. Robert Mitchell, J., Shepherd, D. A., & Sharfman, M. P. 2011. Erratic strategic decisions: when and why managers are inconsistent in strategic decision making. Strategic Management Journal, 32(7): 683–704.
42. Sandberg, J., & Tsoukas, H. 2011. Grasping the logic of practice: Theorizing through practical rationality. Academy of Management Review, 36(2): 338–360.
43. Shepherd, D. A., & Sutcliffe, K. M. 2011. Inductive top-down theorizing: A source of new theories of organization. Academy of Management Review, 36(2): 361–380.
44. Shipp, A. J., & Jansen, K. J. 2011. Reinterpreting time in fit theory: Crafting and recrafting narratives of fit in medias res. Academy of Management Review, 36(1): 76–101.
45. Sitkin, S. B., See, K. E., Miller, C. C., Lawless, M. W., & Carton, A. M. 2011. The paradox of stretch goals: Organizations in pursuit of the seemingly impossible. Academy of Management Review, 36(3): 544–566.
46. Sparrowe, R. T., & Mayer, K. J. 2011. Publishing in AMJ—Part 4: Grounding Hypotheses. Academy of Management Journal, 54(6): 1098–1102.
47. Suddaby, R., Hardy, C., & Huy, Q. N. 2011. Introduction to special topic forum: Where are the new theories of organization? Academy of Management Review, 36(2): 236–246.
48. Thompson, M. 2011. Ontological shift or ontological drift? Reality claims, epistemological frameworks, and theory generation in organization studies. Academy of Management Review, 36(4): 754–773.
49. Tsang, E. W. K., & Ellsaesser, F. 2011. How contrastive explanation facilitates theory building. Academy of Management Review, 36(2): 404–419.
50. Vaara, E., & Tienari, J. 2011. On the narrative construction of multinational corporations: An antenarrative analysis of legitimation and resistance in a cross-border merger. Organization Science, 22(2): 370–390.
51. Walsh, I. J., & Bartunek, J. M. 2011. Cheating the fates: Organizational foundings in the wake of demise. Academy of Management Journal, 54(5): 1017–1044.
52. Whiteman, G., & Cooper, W. H. 2011. Ecological sensemaking. Academy of Management Journal, 54(5): 889–911.
53. Wong, E. M., Ormiston, M. E., & Tetlock, P. E. 2011. The effects of top management team integrative complexity and decentralized decision making on corporate social performance. Academy of Management Journal, 54(6): 1207–1228.
54. Wowak, A. J., Hambrick, D. C., & Henderson, A. D. 2011. Do CEOs encounter within-tenure settling up? A multiperiod perspective on executive pay and dismissal. Academy of Management Journal, 54(4): 719–739.

5-Year Project: 2010 Review

Another year, and more confirmation of my preferences. I am not surprised that I am paying close attention to institutional theory, institutional logics, and change processes. I began to look at those topics as a first year for my Year One Summer Paper Proposal.

For this year, I looked at 295 articles in the top five strategic management journals. Of those, I immediately liked 44 articles:

1. Almirall, E. & Casadesus-Masanell, R. Open versus closed innovation: A model of discovery and divergence. Acad. Manag. Rev. 35, 27–47 (2010).
2. Ansari, S. M., Fiss, P. C. & Zajac, E. J. Made to fit: How practices vary as they diffuse. Acad. Manag. Rev. 35, 67–92 (2010).
3. Arend, R. J. & Lévesque, M. Is the resource-based view a practical organizational theory? Organ. Sci. 21, 913–930 (2010).
4. Battilana, J. & Dorado, S. Building sustainable hybrid organizations: The case of commercial microfinance organizations. Acad. Manag. J. 53, 1419–1440 (2010).
5. Castel, P. & Friedberg, E. Institutional change as an interactive process: the case of the modernization of the French cancer centers. Organ. Sci. 21, 311–330 (2010).
6. Chowdhury, S. K. & Endres, M. L. The impact of client variability on nurses’ occupational strain and injury: Cross-level moderation by safety climate. Acad. Manag. J. 53, 182–198 (2010).
7. Connelly, B. L., Tihanyi, L., Certo, S. T. & Hitt, M. A. Marching to the beat of different drummers: The influence of institutional owners on competitive actions. Acad. Manag. J. 53, 723–742 (2010).
8. Creed, W. E. D., DeJordy, R. & Lok, J. Being the change: Resolving institutional contradiction through identity work. Acad. Manag. J. 53, 1336–1364 (2010).
9. Cruz, C. C., Gómez-Mejia, L. R. & Becerra, M. Perceptions of benevolence and the design of agency contracts: CEO-TMT relationships in family firms. Acad. Manag. J. 53, 69–89 (2010).
10. D’Aveni, R. A., Dagnino, G. B. & Smith, K. G. The age of temporary advantage. Strateg. Manag. J. 31, 1371–1385 (2010).
11. Dacin, M. T., Munir, K. & Tracey, P. Formal dining at Cambridge colleges: Linking ritual performance and institutional maintenance. Acad. Manag. J. 53, 1393–1418 (2010).
12. Dunn, M. B. & Jones, C. Institutional logics and institutional pluralism: The contestation of care and science logics in medical education, 1967–2005. Adm. Sci. Q. 55, 114–149 (2010).
13. Farjoun, M. Beyond dualism: Stability and change as a duality. Acad. Manag. Rev. 35, 202–225 (2010).
14. Gilpin, D. R. & Murphy, P. J. Crisis management in a complex world. (Oxford University Press, 2008).
15. Greenwood, R., Díaz, A. M., Li, S. X. & Lorente, J. C. The multiplicity of institutional logics and the heterogeneity of organizational responses. Organ. Sci. 21, 521–539 (2010).
16. Gruber, M., Heinemann, F., Brettel, M. & Hungeling, S. Configurations of resources and capabilities and their performance implications: an exploratory study on technology ventures. Strateg. Manag. J. 31, 1337–1356 (2010).
17. Hardy, C. & Maguire, S. Discourse, field-configuring events, and change in organizations and institutional fields: Narratives of DDT and the Stockholm Convention. Acad. Manag. J. 53, 1365–1392 (2010).
18. Haynes, K. T. & Hillman, A. The effect of board capital and CEO power on strategic change. Strateg. Manag. J. 31, 1145–1163 (2010).
19. Hermelo, F. D. & Vassolo, R. Institutional development and hypercompetition in emerging economies. Strateg. Manag. J. 31, 1457–1473 (2010).
20. INSIGHT, D. N. T. EDITORS’COMMENTS: DEVELOPING NOVEL THEORETICAL INSIGHT FROM REVIEWS OF EXISTING THEORY AND RESEARCH. Acad. Manag. Rev. 35, 506–509 (2010).
21. King, B. G., Felin, T. & Whetten, D. A. Perspective-Finding the Organization in Organizational Theory: A Meta-Theory of the Organization as a Social Actor. Organ. Sci. 21, 290–305 (2010).
22. Kraatz, M. S., Ventresca, M. J. & Deng, L. Precarious values and mundane innovations: Enrollment management in American liberal arts colleges. Acad. Manag. J. 53, 1521–1545 (2010).
23. Kunc, M. H. & Morecroft, J. D. W. Managerial decision making and firm performance under a resource‐based paradigm. Strateg. Manag. J. 31, 1164–1182 (2010).
24. Lahiri, N. Geographic distribution of R&D activity: how does it affect innovation quality? Acad. Manag. J. 53, 1194–1209 (2010).
25. Li, J. & Tang, Y. I. CEO hubris and firm risk taking in China: The moderating role of managerial discretion. Acad. Manag. J. 53, 45–68 (2010).
26. Lok, J. Institutional logics as identity projects. Acad. Manag. J. 53, 1305–1335 (2010).
27. Madsen, P. M. & Desai, V. Failing to learn? The effects of failure and success on organizational learning in the global orbital launch vehicle industry. Acad. Manag. J. 53, 451–476 (2010).
28. McDonald, M. L. & Westphal, J. D. A little help here? Board control, CEO identification with the corporate elite, and strategic help provided to CEOs at other firms. Acad. Manag. J. 53, 343–370 (2010).
29. Mutch, A. Technology, organization, and structure-a morphogenetic approach. Organ. Sci. 21, 507–520 (2010).
30. Nadkarni, S. & Herrmann, P. O. L. CEO personality, strategic flexibility, and firm performance: the case of the Indian business process outsourcing industry. Acad. Manag. J. 53, 1050–1073 (2010).
31. Nigam, A. & Ocasio, W. Event attention, environmental sensemaking, and change in institutional logics: An inductive analysis of the effects of public attention to Clinton’s health care reform initiative. Organ. Sci. 21, 823–841 (2010).
32. Osterman, P. The truth about middle managers: Who they are, how they work, why they matter. (Harvard Business Press, 2013).
33. Pache, A.-C. & Santos, F. When worlds collide: The internal dynamics of organizational responses to conflicting institutional demands. Acad. Manag. Rev. 35, 455–476 (2010).
34. Plambeck, N. & Weber, K. When the glass is half full and half empty: CEOs’ ambivalent interpretations of strategic issues. Strateg. Manag. J. 31, 689–710 (2010).
35. Shipilov, A. V, Greve, H. R. & Rowley, T. J. When do interlocks matter? Institutional logics and the diffusion of multiple corporate governance practices. Acad. Manag. J. 53, 846–864 (2010).
36. Sonenshein, S. We’re Changing—Or are we? untangling the role of progressive, regressive, and stability narratives during strategic change implementation. Acad. Manag. J. 53, 477–512 (2010).
37. Suddaby, R., Elsbach, K. D., Greenwood, R., Meyer, J. W. & Zilber, T. B. Organizations and their institutional environments—Bringing meaning, values, and culture back in: Introduction to the special research forum. Acad. Manag. J. 53, 1234–1240 (2010).
38. Surroca, J., Tribó, J. A. & Waddock, S. Corporate responsibility and financial performance: The role of intangible resources. Strateg. Manag. J. 31, 463–490 (2010).
39. Tang, Y. & Liou, F. Does firm performance reveal its own causes? The role of Bayesian inference. Strateg. Manag. J. 31, 39–57 (2010).
40. Tortoriello, M. & Krackhardt, D. Activating cross-boundary knowledge: the role of Simmelian ties in the generation of innovations. Acad. Manag. J. 53, 167–181 (2010).
41. Yang, H., Phelps, C. & Steensma, H. K. Learning from what others have learned from you: The effects of knowledge spillovers on originating firms. Acad. Manag. J. 53, 371–389 (2010).
42. Yuan, F. & Woodman, R. W. Innovative behavior in the workplace: The role of performance and image outcome expectations. Acad. Manag. J. 53, 323–342 (2010).
43. Zhang, Y. & Rajagopalan, N. Once an outsider, always an outsider? CEO origin, strategic change, and firm performance. Strateg. Manag. J. 31, 334–346 (2010).
44. Zietsma, C. & Lawrence, T. B. Institutional work in the transformation of an organizational field: The interplay of boundary work and practice work. Adm. Sci. Q. 55, 189–221 (2010).

It is great to review articles and choose some that have been discussed in my seminars. It makes me really thankful that our faculty make an effort to include recent literature.

A few more years to go!

Exploring the Institutional Logics Literature

I am overdue with an idea paper. On October 24, I wrote about Top Management Teams. I should have had an update on October 31. No excuses. I missed the deadline. So, even if it is late, this is my latest research idea.

BRIEF LITERATURE OVERVIEW
Friedland and Alford’s seminal essay paved the way for an emergent field of research focused on institutional logics. Institutional logics builds on, but fundamentally departs from neoinstitutional theory (Thornton & Ocasio, 2008). While institutional logics is concerned with how culture and rules shape organizations, the focus is on how different institutional logics impact individuals and organizations (Thornton & Ocasio, 2008). Jackall initially described logics as “the way a particular social world works” (Jackall, 1988). Later, building on Jackall’s and Friedland and Alford’s arguments, Thornton and Ocasio expanded this concept to define institutional logics as “the socially constructed, historical pattern of material practices, assumptions, values, beliefs, and rules by which individuals produce and reproduce their material substance, organize time and space, and provide meaning to their social reality” (Thornton & Ocasio, 1999).

GAPS: COMPETING LOGICS
I explored the literature of competing logics in my summer paper. However, my discussion of the gaps was not clear enough.

Institutional logics has been studied at the field level (Lounsbury, 2002, 2007; Marquis & Lounsbury, 2007; Reay & Hinings, 2009), industry level (Greenwood, Díaz, Li, & Lorente, 2010; Thornton, Jones, & Kury, 2005; Thornton & Ocasio, 1999; Thornton, 2002) , and organizational level (Battilana & Dorado, 2010). A recent paper by Besharov and Smith (Besharov & Smith, 2014) details a framework that explains how field, organizational and individual factors influence logic compatibility and centrality.

I would like to explore more about the individual factors. In particular since I have not paid much attention to this aspect of the literature. It is my impression that individuals are seen as drawing from the institutional logics present in their environment. For example, Thorton discussed how the organization and society specify constraints and opportunities for individual action (Thornton, 2002). In a different paper Thornton and Ocasio (1999) showed how institutional logics focused the attention of actors when making executive succession decisions in the publishing industry. When the editorial logic was dominant, executive attention revolved around author-editor relationships and so the determinants of executive succession were based on organization size. On the other hand, when the market logic was dominant, executive attention was directed at resource acquisition, and determinants of succession were based on the product market.

I am curious to investigate the extent to which individuals who embody competing logics impact the organization. This could be in terms of how the organization manages the conflict, for instance, the increase or decrease in conflict. Or this could also be studied on the decisions the organization makes as reflections of the logic that prevailed at that time.

GAPS: EMERGING LOGICS LOGICS
My summer paper built arguments around hybrid organizations and competing logics. However, the research gap was not clearly articulated.

Organizations that adopt multiple, distinct logics internally are often referred to as hybrid organizations (Battilana & Dorado, 2010). Most commonly, however, this definition is applied to social enterprises. These are organizations that combine social welfare and commercial logics (Battilana & Dorado, 2010; Pache & Santos, 2013). In my summer paper, my argument revolved around unpacking how the tensions within an organization were impacted by the adoption of the benefit corporation legal form.

A different question emerged that looks outside the organization to understand how this legal form came about. The social movements literature could be used to understand this process. Many researchers have already discussed the rise of a new logic.  Traditionally, the focus of institutional logics research has been on how an industry achieves a dominant logic. The dominant institutional logics are also referred to as prevailing logics, and are the widely accepted institutional logics in a particular industry (Dunn & Jones, 2005; Thornton & Ocasio, 1999). Following this tradition, institutional logics researchers have studied how different institutional environments, with distinct logics, lead organizations to change and adopt different practices (Haveman & Rao, 1997; Lounsbury, 2001).

The emergence of a hybrid logic, however, might be different than the process of one logic emerging as dominant. The process for these two separate logics to become so intertwined as to have legitimacy in the legal system is interesting. However, I need to create a good research question.

SOME RESEARCH QUESTIONS
Some preliminary research questions revolving institutional logics include:

• •Competing logics:
• To what extent do individuals that embody two competing logics, and have their identity formed around both logics, help or hinder the organization?
• Do organizations working in an environment where competing logics exist perform better when their leaders (top management or CEO) embody both logics?
• Emerging logics:
• The emergence of a hybrid logic. Individuals, organizations, and society are nested levels, and each of those was impacted in order to bring out legal change.

These questions are contingent on a closer and more detailed examination of the literature.

CITES
Battilana, J., & Dorado, S. (2010). Building sustainable hybrid organizations: The case of commercial microfinance organizations. Academy of Management Journal, 53(6), 1419–1440.

Besharov, M., & Smith, W. (2014). Multiple institutional logics in organizations: Explaining their varied nature and implications. Academy of Management Review.

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), 521–539.

Jackall, R. (1988). Moral mazes: The world of corporate managers. International Journal of Politics, Culture, and Society, 1(4), 598–614.

Lounsbury, M. (2002). Institutional transformation and status mobility: The professionalization of the field of finance. Academy of Management Journal, 45(1), 255–266.

Lounsbury, M. (2007). A tale of two cities: Competing logics and practice variation in the professionalizing of mutual funds. Academy of Management Journal, 50(2), 289–307.

Marquis, C., & Lounsbury, M. (2007). Vive la résistance: Competing logics and the consolidation of US community banking. Academy of Management Journal, 50(4), 799–820.

Pache, A.-C., & Santos, F. (2013). Inside the Hybrid Organization: Selective Coupling as a Response to Competing Institutional Logics. Academy of Management Journal, 56(4), 972–1001.

Reay, T., & Hinings, C. R. (2009). Managing the rivalry of competing institutional logics. Organization Studies, 30(6), 629–652.

Thornton, P. H. (2002). The rise of the corporation in a craft industry: Conflict and conformity in institutional logics. Academy of Management Journal, 45(1), 81–101.

Thornton, P. H., Jones, C., & Kury, K. (2005). Institutional logics and institutional change in organizations: Transformation in accounting, architecture, and publishing. Research in the Sociology of Organizations, 23, 125–170.

Thornton, P. H., & Ocasio, W. (1999). Institutional logics and the historical contingency of power in organizations: Executive succession in the higher education publishing industry, 1958-1990 1. American Journal of Sociology, 105(3), 801–843.

Thornton, P. H., & Ocasio, W. (2008). Institutional logics. The Sage Handbook of Organizational Institutionalism, 840.