When Institutional Logics Collide: Reinforcing Dominance in a Merged Government Department

Abstract

Institutional logics have been the focus of researchers' interest as a means of comparing and contrasting groups within organizations and their influence and impact on each other. The findings often suggest that these groups may collaborate, compete, comingle or coexist. The interest for researchers is how such interaction between logics takes place and what the final outcome of their interaction is. But not all logics compete or collaborate in the ways suggested. This article examines how one logic dominates to the detriment of another during a merger between two government departments. Two questions underlie this research into merging institutional logics: how does a logic uphold its dominance when confronted by an alternative or competing logic and what is the wider influential institutional context?