Multiple institutional logics present a theoretical puzzle. While scholars recognize their increasing prevalence within organizations, research offers conflicting perspectives on their implications, causing confusion and inhibiting deeper understanding. In response, we propose a framework that delineates types of logic multiplicity within organizations, and we link these types with different outcomes. Our framework categorizes organizations in terms of logic compatibility and logic centrality and explains how field, organizational, and individual factors influence these two dimensions. We illustrate the value of our framework by showing how it helps explain the varied implications of logic multiplicity for internal conflict. By providing insight into the nature and implications of logic multiplicity within organizations, our framework and analysis synthesize the extant literature, offer conceptual clarity, and focus future research.Institutional environments are often pluralistic. . . . As a result, organizations in search of external support and stability incorporate all sorts of incompatible structural elements (Meyer & Rowan, 1977: 356).

In a world filled with poverty, environmental degradation, and moral injustice, social enterprises offer a ray of hope. These organizations seek to achieve social missions through business ventures. Yet social missions and business ventures are associated with divergent goals, values, norms, and identities. Attending to them simultaneously creates tensions, competing demands, and ethical dilemmas. Effectively understanding social enterprises therefore depends on insight into the nature and management of these tensions. While existing research recognizes tensions between social missions and business ventures, we lack any systematic analysis. Our paper addresses this issue. We first categorize the types of tensions that arise between social missions and business ventures, emphasizing their prevalence and variety. We then explore how four different organizational theories offer insight into these tensions, and we develop an agenda for future research. We end by arguing that a focus on social-business tensions not only expands insight into social enterprises, but also provides an opportunity for research on social enterprises to inform traditional organizational theories. Taken together, our analysis of tensions in social enterprises integrates and seeks to energize research on this expanding phenomenon.

Organizations increasingly grapple with hybridity—the combination of identities, forms, logics, or other core elements that would conventionally not go together. Drawing on in-depth longitudinal data from the first ten years of a successful social enterprise—Digital Divide Data, founded in Cambodia—we induce an empirically grounded model of sustaining hybridity over time through structured flexibility: the interaction of stable organizational features and adaptive enactment processes. We identify two stable features—paradoxical frames, involving leaders’ cognitive understandings of the two sides of a hybrid as both contradictory and interdependent, and guardrails, consisting of formal structures, leadership expertise, and stakeholder relationships associated with each side—that together facilitate ongoing adaptation in the meanings and practices of dual elements, sustaining both elements over time. Our structured flexibility model reorients research away from focusing on either stable or adaptive approaches to sustaining hybridity toward understanding their interaction, with implications for scholarship on hybridity, duality, and adaptation more broadly.

No abstract

Social enterprises offer the promise of financially sustainable organizations that can respond to the world's most pressing problems. Yet for social enterprises to succeed, their leaders must effectively manage conflicting demands that arise from dual commitments to improving social welfare and achieving commercial viability. While existing research highlights distinct skills for enabling social missions or for achieving business outcomes, we draw on paradox research to build theory about the challenges and associated skills for effectively managing the tensions emerging from the juxtaposition of social mission and business outcomes. We then use two exemplary settings for educating social entrepreneurs, one in the classroom and one in the field, to illustrate pedagogical tools for teaching these skills. Integrating these challenges, skills, and pedagogical tools, we propose a paradoxical leadership model for social entrepreneurs.