Some Future Directions for the Study of Dominant Logic

Multiple dominant logics

By its very nature, dominant logic represents the dominant way in which managers think and act. It economizes on cognitive processing by offering a schema to classify environmental cues, and interpret their meanings. However, when the meaning of environmental cues change or the cues themselves change, it is inappropriate. Classification and interpretation of cues become inappropriate either because new cues are not recognized or categorized in inappropriate categories, or strategies to deal with these new cues are incompatible. A dominant logic that was once well adapted becomes non-adaptable.

Ashby (1956) argued that requisite variety in the internal environment is required to match variety in the external environment. Applied in the context of logics, this suggests that organizations in rapidly changing environments have to move beyond a dominant logic, and toward what is best characterized as multiple logics. As population ecologists have advocated (Hannan and Freeman, 1977), generalization is preferred over specialization in changing environments. Having a range of logics would not only allow organizations to scan and recognize a broader spectrum of environmental cues, but also select responses from a repertoire of logics. It is both easier and speedier to switch among multiple logics than to ‘unfreeze’ a deeply ingrained dominant logic and develop a new dominant logic. In the ideal (and perhaps unrealistic) case, the organization can flexibly change to another logic that is more appropriate as conditions change. Maintaining and executing a variety or continuum of logics might also mitigate against the condensation process that deeply and firmly embeds a dominant logic. By cultivating several logics and a meta-logic for choosing among them, organizations ostensibly could develop multiple ways of perceiving the environment.