| Summary: | As an under-researched form of coordination and control, little is known of how collegiality is practiced, especially in for-profit firms. Our thesis has sought to address this research gap by interviewing professionals from two fields which are recognized as collegial, namely lawyers and architects. Our aim was to depict how for-profit firms coordinate and control using collegiality in relation to the traditional modes of governance of bureaucracy and management. We do this by utilizing the concept of institutional logics which focuses on field-level meaning systems and how actors use these systems of values, beliefs and expectations to make sense of their institutional environment. We could observe a clear coexistence of all three modes of governance. Our respondents indicated an awareness of the different logics and demonstrated an understanding of which governance mode was called for in which situation. This interplay was highly contextual and contingent on each situation's institutional demands and expectations. Collegial values were keenly advocated, yet work tasks that were legalized were also bureaucratized. The coexistence of fundamentally contradictory governance modes did not however appear to meet much internal resistance and seemed to rather function peacefully with wide employee acceptance.
|
|---|
