Skip main navigation
Articles

“God at Work”: Engaging Central and Incompatible Institutional Logics through Elastic Hybridity

    Published Online:13 Feb 2020https://doi.org/10.5465/amj.2016.0481

    Abstract

    Based on a 24-month ethnographic case study of the opening of the first Islamic bank in Germany, we make three contributions to the institutional theory literature. First, we outline “polysemy” and “polyphony” as mechanisms that dynamically engage conflicting logics through an organizational–individual interplay. Borrowing from paradox theory, we explain how hybrids can empower individuals to fluidly separate and integrate logics when neither structural compartmentalizing nor organizational blending is feasible because management cannot prescribe a specific balance of logics. Second, we explain the state of “elastic hybridity,” constituted through the recursive, multilevel relationship between polysemy and polyphony. Elastic hybrids maintain unity in diversity. They are capable of institutionally bending without organizationally breaking and thus enable individuals to practice more of their personal convictions at work while still experiencing a sense of shared organizational purpose. Third, we show how contested hybrids can be made to last. By dynamically making logics either less central or more compatible, elastic hybrids become less conflict prone and more resilient without permanently becoming more aligned or estranged.

    REFERENCES

    • Almandoz, J. 2012. Arriving at the starting line: The impact of community and financial logics on new banking ventures. Academy of Management Journal, 55: 1381–1406.Link , Google Scholar
    • Almandoz, J. 2014. Founding teams as carriers of competing logics: When institutional forces predict banks’ risk exposure. Administrative Science Quarterly, 59: 442–473. Google Scholar
    • Andriopoulos, C., & Lewis, M. W. 2009. Exploitation–exploration tensions and organizational ambidexterity: Managing paradoxes of innovation. Organization Science, 20: 696–717. Google Scholar
    • Ayub, M. 2007. Understanding Islamic finance. Chichester, West Sussex, U.K.:Wiley. Google Scholar
    • Bakhtin, M. M. 1984. Problems of Dostoevsky’s poetics. Minneapolis, MN: University of Minnesota Press. Google Scholar
    • Battilana, J., & Dorado, S. 2010. Building sustainable hybrid organizations: The case of commercial microfinance organizations. Academy of Management Journal, 53: 1419–1440.Link , Google Scholar
    • Battilana, J., & Lee, M. 2014. Advancing research on hybrid organizing: Insights from the study of social enterprises. Academy of Management Annals, 8: 397–441.Link , Google Scholar
    • Battilana, J., Sengul, M., Pache, A.-C., & Model, J. 2015. Harnessing productive tensions in hybrid organizations: The case of work integration social enterprises. Academy of Management Journal, 58: 1658–1685.Link , Google Scholar
    • Besharov, M. L. 2014. The relational ecology of identification: How organizational identification emerges when individuals hold divergent values. Academy of Management Journal, 57: 1485–1512.Link , Google Scholar
    • Besharov, M. L., & Smith, W. K. 2014. Multiple institutional logics in organizations: Explaining their varied nature and implications. Academy of Management Review, 39: 364–381.Link , Google Scholar
    • Binder, A. 2007. For love and money: Organizations’ creative responses to multiple environmental logics. Theory and Society, 36: 547–571. Google Scholar
    • Boone, C., & Özcan, S. 2016. Ideological purity vs. hybridization trade-off: When do Islamic banks hire managers from conventional banking? Organization Science, 27: 1380–1396. Google Scholar
    • Briscoe, F., & Murphy, C. 2012. Sleight of hand? Practice opacity, third-party responses, and the interorganizational diffusion of controversial practices. Administrative Science Quarterly, 57: 553–584. Google Scholar
    • Brunsson, N. 1989. The organization of hypocrisy: Talk, decisions and actions in organizations. New York, NY: John Wiley & Sons. Google Scholar
    • Chan-Serafin, S., Brief, A. P., & George, J. M. 2013. Perspective—how does religion matter and why? Religion and the organizational sciences. Organization Science, 24: 1585–1600. Google Scholar
    • Chia, R., & Najak, A. 2017. Circumventing the logic and limits of representation: Otherness in east–west approaches to paradox. In W. K. SmithM. W. LewisP. JarzabkowskiA. Langley (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of organizational paradox: 125–140. Oxford, U.K.:Oxford University Press. Google Scholar
    • Christensen, L. T., & Cornelissen, J. 2011. Bridging corporate and organizational communication: Review, development and a look to the future. Management Communication Quarterly, 25: 383–414. Google Scholar
    • Cooren, F., Kuhn, T., Cornelissen, J. P., & Clark, T. 2011. Communication, organizing and organization: An overview and introduction to the special issue. Organization Studies, 32: 1149–1170. Google Scholar
    • Corley, K. G., & Gioia, D. A. 2004. Identity ambiguity and change in the wake of a corporate spin-off. Administrative Science Quarterly, 49: 173–208. Google Scholar
    • Cornelissen, J. P. 2005. Beyond compare: Metaphor in organization theory. Academy of Management Review, 30: 751–764.Link , Google Scholar
    • Cornelissen, J. P., Durand, R., Fiss, P. C., Lammers, J. C., & Vaara, E. 2015. Putting communication front and center in institutional theory and analysis. Academy of Management Review, 40: 10–27.Link , Google Scholar
    • Creed, W. E. D., DeJordy, R., & Lok, J. 2010. Being the change: Resolving institutional contradiction through identity work. Academy of Management Journal, 53: 1336–1364.Link , Google Scholar
    • Dalpiaz, E., Rindova, V., & Ravasi, D. 2016. Combining logics to transform organizational agency: Blending industry and art at Alessi. Administrative Science Quarterly, 61: 347–392. Google Scholar
    • D’Aunno, T., Sutton, R. I., & Price, R. H. 1991. Isomorphism and external support in conflicting institutional environments: A study of drug abuse treatment units. Academy of Management Journal, 34: 636–661.Link , Google Scholar
    • DeJordy, R., Almond, B., Nielsen, R., & Douglas Creed, W. E. 2014. Serving two masters: Transformative resolutions to institutional contradictions. In P. TraceyN. PhillipsM. Lounsbury (Eds.), Religion and organization theory, 41: 301–337. Bingley, U.K.:Emerald Group. Google Scholar
    • Di Mauro, F., Caristi, P., Couderc, S., Di Maria, A., Ho, L., Grewal, B. K., Masciantonio, S., Ongena, S., & Zaher, S. 2013. Islamic finance in Europe (Occasional paper series, no. 146/2013) [PDF]. Frankfurt, Germany: European Central Bank. Retrieved from https://www.ecb.europa.eu/pub/pdf/scpops/ecbocp146.pdf Google Scholar
    • Durand, R., & Jourdan, J. 2012. Jules or Jim: Alternative conformity to minority logics. Academy of Management Journal, 55: 1295–1315.Link , Google Scholar
    • Eisenberg, E. M. 1984. Ambiguity as strategy in organizational communication. Communication Monographs, 51: 227–242. Google Scholar
    • Eisenhardt, K. M., & Graebner, M. E. 2007. Theory building from cases: Opportunities and challenges. Academy of Management Journal, 50: 25–32.Link , Google Scholar
    • Essers, C., & Benschop, Y. 2007. Enterprising identities: Female entrepreneurs of Moroccan or Turkish origin in the Netherlands. Organization Studies, 28: 49–69. Google Scholar
    • Ferlie, E., Fitzgerald, L., Wood, M., & Hawkins, C. 2005. The nonspread of innovations: The mediating role of professionals. Academy of Management Journal, 48: 117–134.Link , Google Scholar
    • Friedland, R., & Alford, R. 1991. Bringing society back in: Symbols, practices and institutional contradictions. In W. PowellP. DiMaggio (Eds.), The new institutionalism in organizational analysis: 232–263. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press. Google Scholar
    • Furnari, S. 2014. Interstitial spaces: Micro-interaction settings and the genesis of new practices between institutional fields. Academy of Management Review, 39: 439–462.Link , Google Scholar
    • Gioia, D. A., Corley, K. G., & Hamilton, A. L. 2013. Seeking qualitative rigor in inductive research: Notes on the Gioia methodology. Organizational Research Methods, 16: 15–31. Google Scholar
    • Giroux, H. 2006. “It was such a handy term”: Management fashions and pragmatic ambiguity. Journal of Management Studies, 43: 1227–1260. Google Scholar
    • Glynn, M. A. 2000. When cymbals become symbols: Conflict over organizational identity within a symphony orchestra. Organization Science, 11: 285–298. Google Scholar
    • Gold, R. L. 1958. Roles in sociological field observations. Social Forces, 36: 217–223. Google Scholar
    • Granqvist, N., & Gustafsson, R. 2016. Temporal institutional work. Academy of Management Journal, 59: 1009–1035.Link , Google Scholar
    • Greenwood, R., Raynard, M., Kodeih, F., Micelotta, E. R., & Lounsbury, M. 2011. Institutional complexity and organizational responses. Academy of Management Annals, 5: 317–371.Link , Google Scholar
    • Grim, B. 2016. The role of faith in systemic global challenges [PDF]. Geneva, Switzerland: World Economic Forum. Retrieved from http://www3.weforum.org/docs/WEF_GAC16_Role_of_Faith_in_Systemic_Global_Challenges.pdf Google Scholar
    • Gümüsay, A. A. 2015. Entrepreneurship from an Islamic Perspective. Journal of Business Ethics, 130: 199–208. Google Scholar
    • Gümüsay, A. A. 2017. The potential for plurality and prevalence of the religious institutional logic. Business & Society. Published online ahead of print.doi: 10.1177/0007650317745634. Google Scholar
    • Gümüsay, A. A. 2018. Unpacking entrepreneurial opportunities: An institutional logics perspective. Innovation: Management, Policy and Practice, 20: 209–222. Google Scholar
    • Hayat, U., & Malik, A. 2014. Islamic finance: Ethics, concepts, practice [PDF]. Research Foundation Literature Reviews. Charlottesville, VA: CFA Institute Research Foundation. Retrieved from https://www.cfainstitute.org/-/media/documents/book/rf-lit-review/2014/rflr-v9-n3-1-pdf.ashx Google Scholar
    • Heracleous, L., & Barrett, M. 2001. Organizational change as discourse: Communicative actions and deep structures in the context of information technology implementation. Academy of Management Journal, 44: 755–778.Link , Google Scholar
    • Iannaccone, L. R. 1998. Introduction to the economics of religion. Journal of Economic Literature, 36: 1465–1495. Google Scholar
    • Jarzabkowski, P., Matthiesen, J. K., & Van de Ven, A. H. 2009. Doing which work? A practice approach to institutional pluralism. In T. B. LawrenceR. SuddabyB. Leca (Eds.), Institutional work: Actors and agency in institutional studies of organizations: 284–316. Cambridge, U.K.:Cambridge University Press. Google Scholar
    • Jay, J. 2013. Navigating paradox as a mechanism of change and innovation in hybrid organizations. Academy of Management Journal, 56: 137–159.Link , Google Scholar
    • Kellogg, K. C. 2009. Operating room: Relational spaces and microinstitutional change in surgery. American Journal of Sociology, 115: 657–711. Google Scholar
    • Kraatz, M. S., & Block, E. S. 2008. Organizational implications of institutional pluralism. In R. GreenwoodC. OliverR. SuddabyK. Sahlin-Andersson (Eds.), The SAGE handbook of organizational institutionalism: 243–275. London, U.K.:SAGE. Google Scholar
    • Kreiner, G. E., Hollensbe, E., Sheep, M. L., Smith, B. R., & Kataria, N. 2015. Elasticity and the dialectic tensions of organizational identity: How can we hold together while we are pulling apart? Academy of Management Journal, 58: 981–1011.Link , Google Scholar
    • Langley, A. 1999. Strategies for theorizing from process data. Academy of Management Review, 24: 691–710.Link , Google Scholar
    • Lawrence, P. R., & Lorsch, J. W. 1967. Differentiation and integration in complex organizations. Administrative Science Quarterly, 12: 1–47. Google Scholar
    • Lewis, M. W. 2000. Exploring paradox: Toward a more comprehensive guide. Academy of Management Review, 25: 760–776.Link , Google Scholar
    • Locke, K. 2001. Grounded theory in management research. London, U.K.:SAGE. Google Scholar
    • Lok, J., & de Rond, M. 2013. On the plasticity of institutions: Containing and restoring practice breakdowns at the Cambridge University Boat Club. Academy of Management Journal, 56: 185–207.Link , Google Scholar
    • Lounsbury, M., & Glynn, M. A. 2001. Cultural entrepreneurship: Stories, legitimacy, and the acquisition of resources. Strategic Management Journal, 22: 545–564. Google Scholar
    • Marquis, C., & Lounsbury, M. 2007. Vive la résistance: Competing logics and the consolidation of U.S. community banking. Academy of Management Journal, 50: 799–820.Link , Google Scholar
    • Meyer, R. E., & Höllerer, M. A. 2016. Laying a smoke screen: Ambiguity and neutralization as strategic responses to intra-institutional complexity. Strategic Organization, 14: 373–406. Google Scholar
    • Meyer, J. W., & Rowan, B. 1977. Institutionalized organizations: Formal structure as myth and ceremony. American Journal of Sociology, 83: 340–363. Google Scholar
    • Nelson, R. E. 1989. Organization–environment isomorphism, rejection, and substitution in Brazilian Protestantism. Organization Studies, 10: 207–224. Google Scholar
    • Nelson, R. E. 1993. Authority, organization, and societal context in multinational churches. Administrative Science Quarterly, 38: 653–682. Google Scholar
    • Ocasio, W., Loewenstein, J., & Nigam, A. 2015. How streams of communication reproduce and change institutional logics: The role of categories. Academy of Management Review, 40: 28–48.Link , Google Scholar
    • Orlikowski, W. J., & Yates, J. 2002. It’s about time: Temporal structuring in organizations. Organization Science, 13: 684–700. Google Scholar
    • Pache, A.-C., & Santos, F. 2010. When worlds collide: The internal dynamics of organizational responses to conflicting institutional demands. Academy of Management Review, 35: 455–476.Link , Google Scholar
    • Pache, A.-C., & Santos, F. 2013. Inside the hybrid organization: Selective coupling as a response to conflicting institutional logics. Academy of Management Journal, 56: 972–1001.Link , Google Scholar
    • Peifer, J. L. 2014. The institutional complexity of religious mutual funds: Appreciating the uniqueness of societal logics. In P. TraceyN. PhillipsM. Lounsbury (Eds.), Religion and organization theory, 41: 339–368. Bingley, U.K.:Emerald Group. Google Scholar
    • Phillips, N., Lawrence, T. B., & Hardy, C. 2004. Discourse and institutions. Academy of Management Review, 29: 635–652.Link , Google Scholar
    • Poole, M. S., & Van de Ven, A. H. 1989. Using paradox to build management and organization theories. Academy of Management Review, 14: 562–578.Link , Google Scholar
    • Pound, E. 1996. The cantos of Ezra Pound. New York, NY: New Directions. Google Scholar
    • Powell, W. W., & Colyvas, J. A. 2008. Microfoundations of institutional theory. In R. GreenwoodC. OliverK. Sahlin-AnderssonR. Suddaby (Eds.), The SAGE handbook of organizational institutionalism: 276–298. London, U.K.:SAGE. Google Scholar
    • Pratt, M. G., Rockmann, K. W., & Kaufmann, J. B. 2006. Constructing professional identity: The role of work and identity learning cycles in the customization of identity among medical residents. Academy of Management Journal, 49: 235–262.Link , Google Scholar
    • Preminger, B., & Drori, G. S. 2016. How institutions get materialized in space: “Spatialized logics” along Jerusalem’s Western Wall. In J. GehmanM. LounsburyR.Greenwood (Eds.), How institutions matter!, vol. 48A: 101–136. Bingley, U.K.:Emerald Group. Google Scholar
    • Purchase, S., Ellis, N., Mallett, O., & Theingi, T. 2018. Religious social identities in the hybrid self-presentations of Sikh businesspeople. British Journal of Management, 29: 99–117. Google Scholar
    • Putnam, L. L., Fairhurst, G. T., & Banghart, S. 2016. Contradictions, dialectics, and paradoxes in organizations: A constitutive approach. Academy of Management Annals, 10: 65–171.Link , Google Scholar
    • Quattrone, P. 2015. Governing social orders, unfolding rationality, and Jesuit accounting practices: A procedural approach to institutional logics. Administrative Science Quarterly, 60: 411–445. Google Scholar
    • Raaijmakers, A. G. M., Vermeulen, P. A. M., Meeus, M. T. H., & Zietsma, C. 2015. I need time! Exploring pathways to compliance under institutional complexity. Academy of Management Journal, 58: 85–110.Link , Google Scholar
    • Ramus, T., Vaccaro, A., & Brusoni, S. 2017. Institutional complexity in turbulent times: Formalization, collaboration, and the emergence of blended logics. Academy of Management Journal, 60: 1253–1284.Link , Google Scholar
    • Reay, T., & Hinings, C. R. 2009. Managing the rivalry of competing institutional logics. Organization Studies, 30: 629–652. Google Scholar
    • Reinecke, J., & Ansari, S. 2015. When times collide: Temporal brokerage at the intersection of markets and development. Academy of Management Journal, 58: 618–648.Link , Google Scholar
    • Rossman, G. B., & Rallis, S. F. 2003. Learning in the field: An introduction to qualitative research. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE. Google Scholar
    • Schad, J., Lewis, M. W., Raisch, S., & Smith, W. K. 2016. Paradox research in management science: Looking back to move forward. Academy of Management Annals, 10: 5–64.Link , Google Scholar
    • Selznick, P. 1957. Leadership in administration: A sociological interpretation. Evanston, IL: Row, Peterson. Google Scholar
    • Sillince, J., Jarzabkowski, P., & Shaw, D. 2012. Shaping strategic action through the rhetorical construction and exploitation of ambiguity. Organization Science, 23: 630–650. Google Scholar
    • Smets, M., Jarzabkowski, P., Burke, G., & Spee, P. 2015. Reinsurance trading in Lloyd’s of London: Balancing conflicting-yet-complementary logics in practice. Academy of Management Journal, 58: 932–970.Link , Google Scholar
    • Smets, M., Morris, T., & Greenwood, R. 2012. From practice to field: A multilevel model of practice-driven institutional change. Academy of Management Journal, 55: 877–904.Link , Google Scholar
    • Smith, W. K. 2014. Dynamic decision-making: A model of senior leaders managing strategic paradoxes. Academy of Management Journal, 57: 1592–1623.Link , Google Scholar
    • Smith, W. K., & Besharov, M. L. 2019. Bowing before dual gods: How structured flexibility sustains organizational hybridity. Administrative Science Quarterly, 64: 1–44. Google Scholar
    • Smith, W. K., & Lewis, M. W. 2011. Toward a theory of paradox: A dynamic equilibrium model of organizing. Academy of Management Review, 36: 381–403.Link , Google Scholar
    • Smith, W. K., & Tracey, P. 2016. Institutional complexity and paradox theory: Complementarities of competing demands. Strategic Organization, 14: 455–466. Google Scholar
    • Smith, W. K., & Tushman, M. L. 2005. Managing strategic contradictions: A top management model for managing innovation streams. Organization Science, 16: 522–536. Google Scholar
    • Suddaby, R. 2010. Challenges for institutional theory. Journal of Management Inquiry, 19: 14–20. Google Scholar
    • Suddaby, R., & Greenwood, R. 2005. Rhetorical strategies of legitimacy. Administrative Science Quarterly, 50: 35–67. Google Scholar
    • Taylor, S. J., & Bogdan, R. 1984. Introduction to qualitative research methods: The search for meanings (2nd ed.). New York, NY: Wiley. Google Scholar
    • Thornton, P. H. 2004. Markets from culture: Institutional logics and organizational decisions in higher education publishing. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press. Google Scholar
    • 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. American Journal of Sociology, 105: 801–843. Google Scholar
    • Thornton, P. H., Ocasio, W., & Lounsbury, M. 2012. The institutional logics perspective: A new approach to culture, structure, and process. Oxford, U.K.:Oxford University Press. Google Scholar
    • Tillich, P. 1957. Dynamics of faith. New York, NY: Harper & Row. Google Scholar
    • Townley, B. 2002. The role of competing rationalities in institutional change. Academy of Management Journal, 45: 163–179.Link , Google Scholar
    • Tracey, P. 2012. Religion and organization: A critical review of current trends and future directions. Academy of Management Annals, 6: 87–134.Link , Google Scholar
    • Tracey, P. 2016. Spreading the word: The microfoundations of institutional persuasion and conversion. Organization Science, 27: 989–1009. Google Scholar
    • Tracey, P., Phillips, N., & Jarvis, O. 2011. Bridging institutional entrepreneurship and the creation of new organizational forms: A multilevel model. Organization Science, 22: 60–80. Google Scholar
    • Tracey, P., Phillips, N., & Lounsbury, M. 2014. Taking religion seriously in the study of organizations. In P. TraceyN. PhillipsM. Lounsbury (Eds.), Religion and organization theory, 41: 3–21. Bingley, U.K.:Emerald Group. Google Scholar
    • Washington, M., Van Buren, H. J., III, & Patterson, K. 2014. Pastor practices in the era of megachurches: New organizational practices and forms for a changing institutional environment. In P. TraceyN. PhillipsM. Lounsbury (Eds.), Religion and organization theory, 41: 187–213. Bingley, U.K.:Emerald Group. Google Scholar
    • Weber, M. 1904. The Protestant ethic and the spirit of capitalism. London, U.K.:Allen & Unwin. Google Scholar
    • Weber, M. 1920. The sociology of religion. Boston, MA: Beacon Press. Google Scholar
    • Zilber, T. B. 2011. Institutional multiplicity in practice: A tale of two high-tech conferences in Israel. Organization Science, 22: 1539–1559. Google Scholar
    • Zilber, T. B. 2016. How institutional logics matter: A bottom-up exploration. In J. GehmanM. LounsburyR. Greenwood (Eds.), How institutions matter!, vol. 48A: 137–155. Bingley, U.K.:Emerald Group. Google Scholar
    Academy of Management
      Academy of Management
      100 Summit Lake Drive, Suite 110
      Valhalla, NY 10595, USA
      Phone: +1 (914) 326-1800
      Fax: +1 (914) 326-1900
    © 2024 Academy of Management
    Powered by Atypon® Literatum