Based on a qualitative study of public primary care services in Turkey, this research delves into how actors interpret and manage institutional complexity manifested in conflicts between their professional and the dominant state logics within constrained work practices. The study challenges the common assumption in the literature that actors are autonomous in making practice-related decisions and choosing which logic to enact. However, in such settings, the logic choice does not necessarily dictate the actions. We demonstrate that even two physicians choosing the same logic might act differently on the ground. Our findings reveal a two-stage response scheme, with a primary response directed immediately to the carrier of the dominant logic within the practice setting, followed by a discretionary secondary response given later to the originator of that logic outside the setting. Moreover, the nature of the carrier influences shaping the primary response. While the primary response may only temporarily reconcile the conflict, leading to a vicious circle, the secondary response may resolve the conflict permanently. Our research contributes to the literature on the micro-foundations of institutional logics by offering a nuanced understanding of how actors with limited autonomy exhibit different responses to conflicting logics, thereby causing variations in practice outcomes.