Trish Reay

Managing the Rivalry of Competing Institutional Logics

We investigated an organizational field where competing institutional logics existed for a lengthy period of time. We identified four mechanisms for managing the rivalry of competing logics that facilitated and strengthened the separate identities of key actors, thus providing a way for competing logics to co-exist and separately guide the behaviour of different actors. We contribute to the institutional literature by showing that competing logics can co-exist and rivalry between logics can be managed through the development of collaborative relationships.

The Recomposition of an Organizational Field: Health Care in Alberta

In this paper we develop a theoretical model that helps to understand change in mature organizational fields by emphasizing the role of competing institutional logics as part of a radical change process. Our investigation into a large-scale, government-led health reform initiative in Alberta, Canada, is based upon a qualitative case study approach to understanding the process of field recomposition. This study focuses on the later portions of change in an organizational field — that is, rather than explaining the sources of change, we investigate how a field becomes re-established after the implementation of a radical structural change.

Constellations of Institutional Logics Changes in the Professional Work of Pharmacists

Drawing on the professions and institutional literature, we develop theory about how professional work can reflect multiple institutional logics by analyzing changes in the work of pharmacists over time. Through a historical case study of U.S. pharmacists from 1852 to the present, we propose a new conceptualization of professionals and professional work as guided by a constellation of logics derived from broader society. We show that both competitive (segmenting) and cooperative (facilitative or additive) relationships among coexisting logics allow for the simultaneous influence of multiple logics on professionals and their work.

Identifying, Enabling and Managing Dynamic Capabilities in the Public Sector

In this paper, we examine how a public sector organization developed a new strategic approach based on the identification and use of an internal dynamic capability (learning through experimenting). In response to the need for continual performance improvement in spite of reduced financial resources, this organization engaged in three overlapping phases as they shifted to this strategic approach. First, managers identified appropriate latent dynamic capabilities. Next, they used their leadership skills and built on established levels of trust to enable the use of these dynamic capabilities. Finally, they managed the tension between unrestricted development of local initiatives and organizational needs for guidance and control.

Florence Nightingale Endures: Legitimizing a New Professional Role Identity

We examined the discursive processes through which a new professional role identity for registered nurses was legitimized by analysing introductory textbooks over time. We theorize five ways of rhetorically legitimizing a new professional role identity: naturalizing the past, normalizing new meanings, altering identity referents, connecting with the institutional environment, and referencing authority. In contrast to previous research focused on legitimizing new practices, we contribute to the institutional literature by showing that legitimizing a professional role identity requires the incremental development of new arguments where the past is not delegitimized. Our findings also indicate that instead of a progression from moral and pragmatic legitimacy to cognitive legitimacy, legitimizing a new role identity may focus only on moral legitimacy. Finally, our study highlights the importance of interactions between the professional task environment and the wider institutional environment as part of the process of legitimizing a professional role identity.

Toward a communicative perspective of collaborating in research: the case of the researcher–decision-maker partnership

In the shift to a post-industrial order, the production and use of knowledge is gaining greater importance in a world beyond science. Particularly in the health sciences, research foundations are emphasising the importance of translating research results into practice and are experimenting with various strategies to achieve this outcome, including requiring practitioners to become part of funded research teams. In this paper, we present a case of a partnership between researchers and decision-makers in Canada who collaborated on an investigation of implementing change in health care organisations. Grounded in this case and recent empirical work, we propose that such research collaborations can be best understood from a communicative perspective and as involving four key elements: relational stance that researchers and decision-makers assume toward each other; purpose at hand that situates occasions for developing and using knowledge; knowledge-sharing practices for translating knowledge; and forums in which researchers and practitioners access knowledge. Our analyses suggest that partnerships are most effective when researchers see the value of contextualising their work and decision-makers see how this work can help them accomplish their purpose at hand.

Is Nepotism Good or Bad? Types of Nepotism and Implications for Knowledge Management

In contrast to the literature that portrays nepotism as generally problematic, we develop a conceptual model to explain why some family firms benefit from nepotism while others do not. We distinguish two types of nepotism based on how nepots are chosen. We elaborate the differences between entitlement nepotism and reciprocal nepotism. We propose that reciprocal (vs. entitlement) nepotism is associated with three family conditions that indicate generalized (vs. restricted) social exchange relationships between family members. We also suggest that generalized social exchanges are valuable to firms because they facilitate tacit knowledge management that can lead to competitive advantage.

What Constitutes a Theoretical Contribution in Family Business

Note From Associate Editor, Trish Reay: Since moving into the Family Business Review (FBR) associate editor position about 18 months ago, I found that I was consistently referring authors to Dave Whetten’s 1989 Academy of Management Review article “What Constitutes a Theoretical Contribution?” as a way to help them understand reviewers’ concerns about a “lack of contribution” in their submitted manuscript. When FBR Editor, Pramodita Sharma, suggested that I team up with Dave to write an editorial about how to make a theoretical contribution in family business, it seemed like a great idea. Our joint comments and suggestions appear below. It is difficult for authors when reviewers (and editors) tell them that “your article doesn’t make a contribution to theory” or that it “doesn’t make a strong enough contribution to theory.” This message may not make much sense. What does it take to make a theoretical contribution? And what distinguishes a strong contribution from a weak one? While those seeking a broad treatment of the subject will find the recent Academy of Management Review article by Corley and Gioia (2011) informative, our focus is on family business scholarship. Every FBR issue carries the following message: “Family Business Review (FBR) provides a scholarly forum to publish conceptual, theoretical and empirical research aimed to advance the understanding of family enterprise around the world.” This statement of purpose clearly indicates the goal to “advance understanding;” and to do that, articles published in FBR must make a theoretical contribution to the literature on family business. But what does it mean to make such a contribution, and how can authors write articles that succeed in this respect? In this editorial, although many of our comments and suggestions apply to all areas of organizational studies, we focus on how authors can make a theoretical contribution to family business. We draw on advice and suggestions from previously published articles and book chapters as well as our own experiences to explain ways in which we believe authors can build their knowledge base and skill set regarding the development of a theoretical contribution. We do this with a strong dose of humility since we too have had articles rejected. As editors, we find ourselves trying to explain (and offer suggestions) to authors where theory development in their paper is weak; as authors, we ourselves often need someone else to point out the shortcomings of our papers. We hope that this editorial will help to improve authors’ success in publishing their work in FBR. Before we direct our attention specifically on manuscripts submitted to FBR, we want to make a few comments about theoretical contributions more generally. It is widely held that theory “explains.” Although an accurate description of a phenomenon (what is it?) is an essential precursor to explanation (why is it? or how is it?), these are logically different forms of understanding. Questions of “why is it?” tend to be answered by variance theory, whereas questions of “how is it?” tend to be answered by process theory (see Van de Ven & Poole, 2005, for a thorough explanation of process theory). Although FBR welcomes either type of theory development, our focus here is on variance theory because it is (so far) the most commonly used form of theory in family business scholarship, as shown in reviews of the literature (e.g., Chrisman et al., 2010; Sharma, 2004). In addition, we note that most theory development pertains to middle-range theory, or propositional theory, as compared with general or paradigmatic theory. Thus, we also focus on middle-range theory, which attempts to

Transforming New Ideas into Practice: An Activity Based Perspective on the Institutionalization of Practices

We develop an activity‐focused process model of how new ideas can be transformed into front line practice by reviving attention to the importance of habitualization as a key component of institutionalization. In contrast to established models that explain how ideas diffuse or spread from one organization to another, we employ a micro‐level perspective to study the subsequent intra‐organizational processes through which these ideas are transformed into new workplace practices. We followed efforts to transform the organizationally accepted idea of ‘interdisciplinary teamwork’ into new everyday practices in four cases over a six year time period. We contribute to the literature by focusing on de‐habitualizing and re‐habitualizing behaviours that connect micro‐level actions with organizational level theorizing. Our model illuminates three phases that we propose are essential to creating and sustaining this connection: micro‐level theorizing, encouraging trying the new practices, and facilitating collective meaning‐making.

Publishing Qualitative Research

based on qualitative methods. 1 With FBR’s acceptance rate of about 10%, this means that we have received and processed a great deal more qualitative submissions in total. My experience is that the quality of these manuscripts varies widely. When improvement is needed, I find that there are a number of common strategies I consistently suggest to authors in my editorial letters. This editorial article is primarily designed to combine these suggestions into one document. In addition, I asked a few others for their suggestions about how to publish qualitative research. In response to my request, I received excellent feedback from a number of FBR associate editors, reviewers, and authors who have experience with qualitative methods. I thank them all! Below you will find seven strategies that I believe capture most of the suggestions I received and that reflect my personal experiences. These strategies relate to publishing qualitative research—focusing on the point in time when a study is mostly completed and authors are beginning the process of developing a journal article; my hope is that attention to these strategies will help (especially new) qualitative researchers navigate the publishing process. This editorial builds on a previous FBR editorial by Ron Chenail (2009), titled “Communicating Your Qualitative Research Better.” I recommend this article in many of my editorial letters to authors, and continue to encourage qualitative researchers to read it. Chenail’s key messages are equally critical today as they were 5 years ago. My suggestions below about how to publish qualitative research link back to Chenail’s important points. Also, because I want to use examples to illustrate my points in this editorial, I have selected two recently published FBR articles that are excellent exemplars of qualitative research. One article is based on interview data, and the other is based on the qualitative analysis of text in documents. Although there are other types of qualitative data, interviews and documents constitute the data source of choice for the vast majority of qualitative studies submitted to FBR. These articles are two of my personal favorites from the many excellent qualitative studies published. The first is an article published by Carlo Salvato and Guido Corbetta (2013) on transitional leadership of professional advisors in family firms. It was one of the articles included in FBR’s special issue on Advising Family Enterprise and is based on in-depth interviews with key individuals in four family firms. The second article I use as an example is by two PhD students—Evelyn Micelotta and Mia Raynard (2011)—that is based on analysis of documents gathered from official websites of the world’s oldest family busi