Resumo

Institutional theory changed. Yet, it lacked a more sociological and social theory approach (Thornton, Ocasio, & Lounsbury, 2012). In Friedland and Alford (1991), a multi-level analysis was proposed through institutional logics. Institutional logics highlights the institutional contradictions on institutional order and open door to a theoretical connection with different theories, such as sensemaking. This relationship still lacks exploring in organizational research.

As we try to refine this theoretical relationship, we realized a meta-synthesis following steps proposed by Hoon (2013) to comprehend how social actors (individual level) make sense of institutional logics in an organizational context. We later propose a meta-causal network from our meta-analysis on a cross-study level that aims to contribute to the institutional logics’ perspective.

Thornton, Ocasio, and Lounsbury (2012) define institutional logic as “the socially constructed, historical patterns of cultural symbols and material practices, including assumptions, values, and beliefs, by which individuals and organizations provide meaning to their daily activity, organize time and space, and reproduce their lives and experiences.” (Thornton, Ocasio, & Lounsbury, 2012, p. 2). We develop our discussion following the Cross-Level Model of Institutional Logics Combining Macro-Micro and Micro-Macro proposed by the authors.

Social actors may relate to new institutional logics through both acceptance and resistance. Acceptance can be followed by a co-creation approach or a structural approach by the social actors, while resistance can be followed by a pro-active approach or a passive approach by the social actor. New institutional logics may emerge from this sensemaking.

Through the eight steps proposed by Hoon (2013) for meta-synthesis, it was possible to comprehend the relationship of institutional logics and sensemaking on individual level (social actors), and refine theory through our meta-causal network elaborated that showed how social actors react to change context of new institutional logic through acceptance and resistance, that later translate into a co-creation, structural, pro-active or passive approach.

Friedland, R. & Alford, R. (1991); Hoon, C. (2013); Khan, A. S. (2018); Molloy, C., Banking, S., Kriz, A., & Barnes, L. (2020); Ocasio, W., Thornton, P. H., & Lounsbury, M. (2017); Rossignoli, C., Ricciardi, F., & Bonomi, S. (2018); Thornton, P. H., Ocasio, W., & Lounsbury, M. (2012); Wathen, M. V. (2020); Weber, K. & Glynn, M. A. (2006); Weick, K. E., Sutcliffe, K. M., & Obstfeld, D. (2005).