This item is non-discoverable
Angela Eicher
Former Member
Title
Dr.
Last Name
Eicher
First name
Angela
Email
angela.eicher@unisg.ch
Phone
+41 71 224 7585
2 results
Now showing 1 - 2 of 2
- Some of the metrics are blocked by yourconsent settings
Item type:Publication, The Capability of being a Chameleon : Forms of Institutional Complexity in Court Management and Professionals' Respective Coping Strategies(2015-08-26); As previous research has demonstrated, courts have a rather adverse attitude towards externally imposed management endeavors, which among other factors appears to threaten their independence and a strongly related aspiration of maximizing their self-administration capacities. In this context the co-existence of multiple logics regarding both their organization and administration represents an additional management challenge, since these logics are assumed to provide different decision prescriptions. Using Besharov and Smith's (2014) framework to classify distinct logic multiplicity types, this paper contributes to current research about the organizational effects and implications of institutional complexity, thereby enhancing knowledge about the factors that affect actors' respective coping strategies. Based on an embedded case study and by employing an interpretive grounded theory approach the paper thoroughly elaborates on the different forms of institutional complexity in court management to analyze how institutional complexity is dealt with by court professionals. As our findings suggest, the form of institutional complexity not only implies different stress levels for courts and their members but also different strategy choices. Intra-organizational complexity primarily seems to be managed by adhering primacy to the judicial logic, internal boundary spanning practices, and forms of political lobbying. Inter-organizational complexity though is addressed by maintaining and increasing their autonomy through external boundary spanning and the use of different logics as "toolkits". Even though intuitively, one would expect a management logic to prevail in organizational and administrative matters, in many circumstances the judicial logic is still given priority. Contrary to intra-organizational matters, however, judicial professionals seem to be able to strategically adapt their lines of argumentation just like a chameleon to the external expectations and demands by making use of logics as "toolkits". To put it more precisely, it seems that by referring to the respective logics of their external stakeholders and thus by adjusting their communication accordingly, courts are able to exploit distinct logics in their favor. A state of logic multiplicity, therefore, does not necessarily negatively affect an organization and its members by causing stress in form of institutional complexity but might even represent an essential success factor, through enhancing its agency and adaptive capability.Type:conference paper - Some of the metrics are blocked by yourconsent settings
Item type:Publication, Co-Existing Logics in Court Administration: Micro-Level Substantiations of Institutional Pluralism(2014-09-11); Given courts' pluralistic institutional embeddedness and the need to assure legitimacy, they are confronted with a growing amount and variety of external expectations, e.g., from politics or the media who refer to distinct institutional logics. In parallel, courts' working conditions have significantly changed, leading to an increased involvement of non-judicial actors who are - due to their professional backgrounds - assumed to be "carriers of extraneous logics". This paper hypothesizes that courts are pluralistic due to changes in external demands. Drawing upon a directed content analysis of 20 semistructured interviews with court professionals, this paper investigates what kinds of logics co-exist with regard to the administration of courts and how they can be typified. In addition, the paper also analyzes how court employees deal with this institutional pluralism. Findings indicate that institutional pluralism occurs not only at the intersection with their institutional environment but also within the courts, whereby boundary spanners seem to play an important role in buffering the challenges associated therewith. Furthermore, non-judicial actors seem to get accustomed to a dominating professional legal logic, implying that there exists some kind of a primacy of the judicial logic in intraorganizational matters. This paper advances the understanding of how court actors deal with competing logics and how institutional logics unfold at the micro-level of individuals' daily work activities.Type:conference paper