Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Individual Actors Coping with Institutional Complexity Within a State-civil Society Partnership: The Role of Sensemaking

  • Published:
Public Organization Review Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

This study investigates the role of sensemaking in individual actors’ responses to tensions between institutional logics within a state-civil society partnership. It also links sensemaking to the partnership’s practical activities. The study illustrates tensions that resulted from activation of sensemaking as actors drew on different institutional frameworks. Responses to tensions were legitimized by sensemaking processes, in turn affecting the partnership’s practical activities. The study contributes to the literature by providing a nuanced understanding of individual actors’ responses to institutional complexity, highlighting the role of sensemaking and demonstrating a link between sensemaking and the partnership's practical activities.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Andersson, T., & Gadolin, C. (2020). Understanding institutional work through social interaction in highly institutionalized settings. Lessons from public healthcare organizations. Scandinavian Journal of Management. 36(2), 101107. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scaman.2020.101107

  • Andersson, T., & Liff, R. (2018). Co-optation as a response to competing institutional logics: Professionals and managers in healthcare. Journal of Professions and Organizations, 5(2), 71–87. https://doi.org/10.1093/jpo/joy001

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Anheier, H. K., Krlev, G., & Mildenberger, G. (Eds.). (2018). Social innovation: Comparative perspectives. Routledge.

  • Arvidson, M. (2018). Change and tensions in non-profit organizations: Beyond the isomorphism trajectory. VOLUNTAS: International Journal of Voluntary and Nonprofit Organizations, 29(5), 898–910. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11266-018-0021-z

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bévort, F., & Suddaby, R. (2016). Scripting professional identities: How individuals make sense of contradictory institutional logics. Journal of Professions and Organization, 3(1), 17–38. https://doi.org/10.1093/jpo/jov007

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Billis, D. (Ed.). (2010). Hybrid organizations and the third sector. Challenges for practice, theory and policy. Palgrave Macmillan.

  • Blomgren, M., & Waks, C. (2015). Coping with contradictions: Hybrid professionals managing institutional complexity. Journal of Professions and Organization, 2(1), 78–102. https://doi.org/10.1093/jpo/jou010

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bode, I. (2015). Social care going market: Institutional and cultural change regarding services for the elderly. Journal of Comparative Social Work, 5(1).

  • Esping-Andersen, G. (1990). The three worlds of welfare capitalism. Princeton University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Everitt, J. G. (2012). Teacher careers and inhabited institutions: Sense-making and arsenals of teaching practice in educational institutions. Symbolic Interaction, 35(2), 203–222. https://doi.org/10.1002/SYMB.16

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fangen, K. (2004). Deltagande observation. Liber.

  • Farazmand, A. (2012). Sound governance: Engaging citizens through collaborative organizations. Public Organization Review, 12(3), 223–241. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11115-012-0186-7

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Forkby, T., Höjer, S., & Liljegren, A. (2016). Making sense of common sense: Examining the decision-making of politically appointed representatives in Swedish child protection. Child & Family Social Work, 21(1), 14–25. https://doi.org/10.1111/cfs.12100

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Friedland, R., & Alford, R. (1991). Bringing society back in: Symbols, practices, and institutional contradictions. In W. W. Powell, & P. J. DiMaggio (Eds.), The New Institutionalism in Organizational Analysis (pp. 232–263). University of Chicago Press.

  • Friedson, E. (2001). Professionalism, the third logic. Polity Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gemignani, M. (2014). Memory, remembering, and oblivion in active narrative interviewing. Qualitative Inquiry, 20(2), 127–135. https://doi.org/10.1177/1077800413510271

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Greenwood, R., & Suddaby, R. (2006). Institutional entrepreneurship in mature fields: The Big Five accounting firms. The Academy of Management Journal, 49(1), 27–48. https://doi.org/10.5465/AMJ.2006.2078549

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Greenwood, R., Diaz, 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. https://doi.org/10.1287/orsc.1090.0453

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Greenwood, R., Raynard, M., Kodeih, F., Micelotta, E., & Lounsbury, M. (2011). Institutional complexity and organizational responses. The Academy of Management Annals, 5(1), 317–371. https://doi.org/10.1080/19416520.2011.590299

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hallett, T., & Ventresca, M. J. (2006). Inhabited institutions: Social interactions and organizational forms in Gouldner’s “Patterns of Industrial Bureaucracy”. Theory and Society, 35(2), 213–236. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11186-006-9003-z

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Holstein, J.A., & Gubrium, J.F. (2011). The active interview. Sage Publications.

  • Johansson, H., Arvidson, M., & Johansson, S. (2015). Welfare mix as a contested terrain: Political positions on government–non-profit relations at national and local levels in a social democratic welfare state. VOLUNTAS: International Journal of Voluntary and Nonprofit Organizations, 26(5), 1601–1619. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11266-015-9580-4

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lawrence, T., & Suddaby, R. (2006). Institutions and institutional work. In S. Clegg, C. Hardy, T. Lawrence, & W. R. Nord (Eds.), Handbook of organization studies (pp. 215– 254). (2nd ed.). Sage Publications.

  • Liljegren, A., Berlin, J., Szücs, S., & Höjer, S. (2021). The Police and ‘the balance’ – managing the workload within Swedish investigation units. Journal of Professions and Organization, 8(1), 70–85. https://doi.org/10.1093/jpo/joab002

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lindberg, M., & Hill, N. (2021). Innovativ corona-samverkan i nationellt organ för dialog och samråd mellan regeringen och det civila samhället. Socialmedicinsk Tidskrift, 98(1), 27–37.

    Google Scholar 

  • Martin, G., Currie, G., Weaver, S., Finn, R., & McDonald, R. (2017). Institutional complexity and individual responses: Delineating the boundaries of partial autonomy. Organization Studies, 38(1), 103–127. https://doi.org/10.1177/0170840616663241

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Matinheikki, J., Aaltonen, K., & Walker, D. (2019). Politics, public servants, and profits: Institutional complexity and temporary hybridization in a public infrastructure alliance project. International Journal of Project Management, 37(2), 298–317. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijproman.2018.07.004

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • McPherson, C. M., & Sauder, M. (2013). Logics in action: Managing institutional complexity in a drug court. Administrative Science Quarterly, 58(2), 165–196. https://doi.org/10.1177/0001839213486447

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Melin Emilsson, U. (2013). The role of social work in cross-professional teamwork: Examples from an older people’s team in England. British Journal of Social Work, 43(1), 116–134. https://doi.org/10.1093/bjsw/bcr185

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Nigam, A., & Ocasio, W. (2010). 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. Organization Science, 21(4), 823–841. https://doi.org/10.1287/orsc.1090.0490

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Olofsson, J. (2015). Socialpolitik – varför, hur och till vilken nytta?. Studentlitteratur.

  • Olsen, J. P. (2006). Explorations in institutions and logics of appropriateness. In J. G. March (Ed.), Explorations in organizations (pp. 191–203). Stanford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pache, A.-C., & Santos, F. (2010). When worlds collide: The internal dynamics of organizational responses to conflicting institutional demands. The Academy of Management Review, 35(3), 455–476. https://doi.org/10.5465/AMR.2010.51142368

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Palett för ett stärkt civilsamhälle (2016). Government report: SOU 2016:13. Fritzes Offentliga Publikationer.

  • Rantatalo, O. (2013). Sensemaking and organizing in the policing of high risk situations: Focusing the Swedish police national counter-terrorist unit. (Doctoral dissertation, Umeå University).

  • Reay, T., & Hinings, C. R. (2009). Managing the rivalry of competing institutional logics. Organization Studies, 30(6), 629–652. https://doi.org/10.1177/0170840609104803

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rønning, R., & Knutagård, M. (2015). Innovation in social welfare and human services. Routledge.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Sirris, S. (2019). Coherent identities and roles? Hybrid professional managers’ prioritizing of coexisting institutional logics in differing contexts. Scandinavian Journal of Management, 35(4), 101063. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scaman.2019.101063

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sørensen, E., & Torfing, J. (2008). Theories of democratic network governance. Palgrave Macmillan.

  • SOU. (2016). 13. Palett för ett stärkt civilsamhälle. Fritzes Offentliga Publikationer.

  • Thøgersen, M. (2015). Explaining collaboration and commitment in Danish non-profit organizations: Linking institutional environments to outcomes. VOLUNTAS: International Journal of Voluntary and Nonprofit Organizations, 26(5), 1639–1665. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11266-015-9604-0

    Article  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(3), 801–843. https://doi.org/10.1086/210361

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Thornton, P. H., Ocasio, W., & Lounsbury, M. (2012). The institutional logics perspective: A new approach to structure, culture and process. Oxford University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Tillmar, M., Gustavsson, M., Högberg, L., Rosell, E., & Svensson, L. (2018). Sektorsövergripande samverkan. En studie av organisering för välfärd mellan olika samhällssektorer. Helix Rapport 18:002. Linköping University College Press.

  • Weber, K., & Glynn, M. A. (2006). Making sense with institutions: Context, thought and action in Karl Weick’s theory. Organization Studies, 27(11), 1639–1660. https://doi.org/10.1177/0170840606068343

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Weick, K. E. (2010). Reflections on enacted sensemaking in the Bophal disaster. Journal of Management Studies, 47(3), 537–550. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-6486.2010.00900.x

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Weick, K. E., Sutcliffe, K. M., & Obstfeld, D. (2009). Organizing and the process of sensemaking, In K. E. Weick (Ed.), Making Sense of the Organization. The Impermanent Organization (2nd ed.). John Wiley & Sons Ltd.

  • Weick, K. E. (Ed.). (2009). Making sense of the organization. The impermanent organization (2nd ed.). John Wiley & Sons Ltd.

  • Yin, R. K. (2014). Case study research: Design and methods (5th ed.). Sage Publications.

Download references

Acknowledgements

I would like to acknowledge the contributions made by Maria Eriksson, Anders Kassman, Ola Segnestam Larsson and Anna Mankell to this article, which have been improved thanks to their valuable comments.

Funding

The data collection of this study was funded by the participating municipality. At the time of analyzing and writing the study, the author Louise Yngve was funded by Ersta Sköndal Bräcke University college as a part of PhD studies.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Ersta Sköndal Bräcke University College, Box 11189, Stockholm, Sweden

    Louise Yngve

Authors
  1. Louise Yngve
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Contributions

The corresponding author is the sole contributer to the study conception and design. Data collection and analysis was performed by Louie Yngve. The manuscript has been written by Louise Yngve.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Louise Yngve.

Ethics declarations

Conflicts of interest/competing interests

Financial: Author Louise Yngve received a salary from the participating municipality during the data collection period. No salary was received from the municipality at the time of analyzing and writing the study.

Non-financial interests: None.

Employment: Author Louise Yngve was employed by the municipality during the data collection period. This employment had ended at the time of analyzing and writing the study. The study was instead analyzed, written and completed within the remit of PhD studies at Ersta Sköndal Bräcke University college.

Compliance with Ethical Standards

The study was performed in accordance with Swedish legislation, Law (2003:460) on ethical review of research concerning people. The study has been carried out with informed consent from all participants.

Data transparency

The author Louise Yngve affirms that this manuscript is an honest, accurate, and transparent account of the study being reported: and that no important aspects of the study has been omitted.

Additional information

Publisher's note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Yngve, L. Individual Actors Coping with Institutional Complexity Within a State-civil Society Partnership: The Role of Sensemaking. Public Organiz Rev 22, 1237–1255 (2022). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11115-021-00580-y

Download citation

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11115-021-00580-y

Keywords

Search

Navigation