Open Access

Julia BrandlORCiD, Arjan KozicaORCiD

• Current research argues that competing institutional logistics1 can co-exist enduringly and investigates how organizations cope with such institutional complexity (Greenwood et al. 2011). Thereby, the role of practices for handling competing logics has been overlooked and it is currently only to limited extent understood how organizations establish compromises between competing logics. Therefore, we investigated the recent performance appraisal reform of a German public sector organization that occurred in 2008 (see also Kozica, Brandl 2015). BAND (the pseudonym for our organization) has been using performance appraisals for several decades, and performance appraisals have already become entrenched instruments (Zeitz, Mittal, McAulay 1999) for handling staff promotion decisions. While BAND accepted the accountability logic of the performance appraisal, the professional logic (which is based on trust and comradeship as a high value of being professional in our organization) is accepted too and BAND has established a fine-grained compromise between the different logics. During the recent reform of the performance appraisal system, however, this compromise has broken up and challenged organizational members to (re-)arrange a compromise. By using French convention school of thinking (Boltanski, Thévenot 2006) we address how BAND copes with conflicting logics by forming compromises in organizational practices. Thereby, we show that the concept of convention is particularly promising for understanding of how organizations deal with institutional complexity. More broadly, our argument contributes to the elaboration of an organizational theory for the institutional logics discussion that explains how organizational and individual actions are interlinked.