Putting Centrality Central in the Study of Institutional Complexity: On the relative and relational aspects of the centrality of institutional logics

To understand how actors deal with institutional complexity, scholars have focused on the compatibility among different institutional logics, while paying little attention to the centrality of institutional logics: the meaning one logic has to actors relative to other logics. The degree of centrality shapes whether incompatibilities between logics are experienced, whether logics can be compartmentalized or ignored and what logics will be prioritized by powerful actors. Understanding centrality, therefore, is fundamental to the study of institutional complexity. In this article, we argue that the centrality of logics is both relational between a logic and actors and relative between different logics. We discuss the extent to which the assumptions underlying two approaches in institutional theory, the approach of inhabited institutionalism (II) and the institutional logics approach (IL), are conducive to studying the relational and relative aspects of centrality. On the basis of our theoretical analysis, we argue that the assumptions of IL are conducive to studying the relative but not the relational aspect of centrality, whereas the assumptions of II, at first sight, are conducive to studying the relational but not the relative aspect. Finally, we argue that the assumptions of II can be interpreted in such a way that II would be suitable for studying the relative aspect of centrality.