This conceptual article aims to respond to the poorly addressed question of the emergence of hybrid organizations; that is, organizations that embrace several institutional logics. It does so by developing a model and a set of propositions focusing on the heterogeneity of the entrepreneurial team as a possible driver for hybridity throughout the entrepreneurial process and up to the emergence of a hybrid organization. Contributing to the literatures on (collective) entrepreneurship, imprinting and hybrid organizations, we advance several avenues and conditions under which the heterogeneity of the entrepreneurial team may imprint the entrepreneurial process and lead to the creation of hybrid organizations. Our propositions connect the individual, team and organizational levels and thus, advance our understanding of how institutional logics can be combined across different levels of analysis and throughout the stages of an entrepreneurial process.

This article seeks to shed light on the diversity of scaling strategies of social enterprises, which can be considered as emblematic hybrid organizations. By comparing three Flemish renewable energy cooperatives with contrasted scaling strategies, the article shows how these strategies can be understood in relation to the organizational mission as imprinted at the founding. We extend the notion of hybridity beyond the combination of institutional logics to highlight the interest orientation (mutual vs. general interest). Unlike what is suggested in extant literature, we find that mutual interest orientation may be associated with “scale-up,” business growth strategies, while general interest orientation may lead to less growth-focused “scale-out” and “scale-deep” strategies. The findings illuminate aspects of the hybrid nature of social enterprises by explaining their diverse scaling strategies and extend the notion of imprinting to the interorganizational level by highlighting how social enterprises may collaborate to collectively achieve the pursuit of their multiple missions.

ABSTRACT

and organizational theory, we use co-operatives to explore social expectations and institutional arrangements around form at the societal, population, and organizational levels using a population ecology framework. We develop a research agenda based on propositions that address specific features of identity formation in less typical forms of organization, including tensions with normative business expectations, engagement with identity audiences, embeddedness in networks and alliances, structural factors influencing identity, and identity ambiguity.3

ABSTRACT

Purpose The purpose of this paper is to identify tensions that are emerging in the invention and implementation of social innovation by social entrepreneurial teams and highlights elements that influence the type of tension encountered. Design/methodology/approach Four cases are selected theoretically, studied individually, and compared to one another to identify tensions and patterns of tensions. Findings The findings reveal the predominant tensions related to goals and identity during social innovation invention and those related to time and knowledge during social innovation implementation. The size of the entrepreneurial team, the nature of the social innovation, and the interest orientation – that is, the overlap between entrepreneurial team members and beneficiaries – are found to play a role in the type of tensions encountered and their content. Research limitations/implications The chosen research approach limits the generalizability of the research results. Replication in other settings and with other types of social innovation is therefore encouraged. Originality/value In contrast to most existing studies, this research focuses on nascent social innovation projects borne by teams. It proposes that social-business tensions are not necessarily predominant in social innovation management. It suggests the importance of interest orientation as an underestimated factor in the study of social entrepreneurship.

The centrality of user‐members in cooperatives and cooperatives' embeddedness in their community and in a global network influence positively their resilience in times of crisis, as illustrated by cases of cooperatives that acted entrepreneurially during the COVID‐19 crisis. Cooperatives are hybrid organizations that maximize value, instead of profit. They are owned, governed, and controlled by their members. They are more resilient than the conventional enterprises in times of crisis, thanks to their peculiar governance characteristics that ensure member centrality. Next to member centrality, the embeddedness of cooperatives in their local environment and a global movement enhances mission centrality as well as trust and solidarity among their members, local communities, and other cooperatives.

This article contributes to understanding the role and position of worker cooperatives in society, providing a socio-political explanation to their existence as well as conceptual tools that can be used to imagine and implement economic democracy practices. It uses and complexifies Habermas’s social theory and its separation between system and lifeworld to show that cooperatives may act, intentionally and idealistically, at the interface of these two domains. This positioning enables cooperatives to participate in resisting colonization of the lifeworld by endowing individuals with resources favouring communicative action and by redefining institutional arrangements within the system. This article identifies factors explaining the varying degrees of resistance to colonization by cooperatives. It also contributes to theorizing the potential effects of organizing work in an economically democratic way.