Hybridization in government–civil society organization relationships: An institutional logic perspective

Abstract

This article builds a theoretical institutional logic framework to understand how distinctive institutional logics, specifically within the relationships between government and civil society organizations (CSOs), shape organizational hybridity. The present study, contextualized within a community development initiative in Seoul, South Korea, illuminates how government efforts to foster civil society lead to contested or contradictory organizational hybridity. Two types of organizational hybridity result, one government-centered and another civil society-centered. The analysis identifies six hybridizing mechanisms that induce organizational hybridity.Three of these mechanisms illustrate how a hierarchical, regulatory, and coercive logic of government induces the government-centered organizational form. The second, CSO-centered hybrid form reveals three contrasting mechanisms in which the CSOs and government are embedded in multiple, sometimes contradictory logics that reflect the plural identities of multiple CSOs.

Avid, Averse, Apprehensive, or Apathetic? A typology of collaboration attitudes

“…Future research should indeed take into account organizational capacity life stages (e.g., AbouAssi, Makhlouf, & Tran, 2019; Andersson et al, 2016) when probing into collaboration attitudes. In addition, generalizability to government collaboration (e.g., Kwon & Feiock, 2010; Liu et al, 2021; Lubell et al, 2010), for‐profit business collaboration (e.g., Ashnai et al, 2016; Pulles et al, 2014; Schierjott et al, 2018), cross‐sector collaboration (e.g., AbouAssi, Faulk, et al, 2019; Boyer & Van Slyke, 2019; Cheng & Li, 2022; Min, 2022; Spitz et al, 2021), and network interactions (e.g., Azevedo et al, 2022; Beagles, 2022; Priante et al, 2022; Sun et al, 2022; Zhou et al, 2021) is also worth assessing. Of course, we should remember that generalization in qualitative research matters and functions differently than in quantitative research (Carminati, 2018; Levitt, 2021).…”

“…Despite the abundance of scholarship on inter‐organizational collaboration in the nonprofit management literature (Gazley & Guo, 2020; O'Leary & Vij, 2012), the vast majority of work has focused on macro and meso levels of collaboration (e.g., AbouAssi et al, 2021; Beagles, 2022; Cheng & Li, 2022; Emerson et al, 2012; Min, 2022), leaving “the importance of the individual in collaborative partnerships” understudied (O'Leary & Vij, 2012, p. 514). Although a growing number of studies have attempted to look into individual leaders’ collaboration decisions and behaviors, most of these studies have focused on the roles of just a few individual characteristics such as gender (e.g., AbouAssi, Bauer, & Johnston, 2019; Gazley, 2010; Tran & AbouAssi, 2021).…”

The Nonprofit Role in Building Community Social Capital: A Moderated Mediation Model of Organizational Learning, Innovation, and Shared Mission for Social Capital Creation

“…Next, nonprofit organizations promote a sense of belonging by providing an open public place for community members to socialize, share common interests, and pursue common outcomes (Drezner, Pizmony-Levy, 2021; Hausmann et al, 2007). Finally, nonprofits bring together people with diverse backgrounds and interests and connect them in generalized reciprocity (Garrow & Hasenfeld, 2014; Min, 2022). Therefore, nonprofits facilitate social capital in these three community-building dimensions.…”

Institutional hybridisation in Swedish public sector development cooperation

“…They must reconcile foundational norms, identities, and practices with a changing environment's diverse and sometimes conflicting demands. For instance, in exploring the government‐civil society organisation (CSO) relationships in joint community development initiatives in South Korea, Min (2022) further elucidates that the distinctive logics that different collaborating organisations represent can create incompatibilities. Such incompatibilities, often stemming from differing cultural symbols and practices, can lead to tensions, necessitating mechanisms for alignment or negotiation.…”