The Bright Side of Hybridity: Exploring How Social Enterprises Manage and Leverage Their Hybrid Nature

Mongelli, Luca; Rullani, Francesco; Ramus, Tommaso; Rimac, Tomislav

doi:10.1007/s10551-018-4050-8

Cited by 48 publications

(25 citation statements)

References 37 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Hybrid organizations are those that, at their core, combine two (or more) institutional logics, defined as "socially constructed, historical patterns of material practices, assumptions, values, beliefs and rules" (Thornton and Ocasio 1999, p. 108). For example, social enterprises, defined as "private organizations providing goods and services directly related to their explicit aim to benefit the community" (Defourny and Nyssens 2008, p. 5), combine a social and a market logic (Battilana and Lee 2014;Doherty et al 2014;Mongelli et al 2019;Pache and Santos 2013). Hybrid organizations need to respond to multiple institutional demands corresponding to the logics they wish to embody.…”

Section: Combining Logics and Managing Tensions Within Hybrid Organizationsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Recently, much scholarly attention has been devoted to hybrid organizations, defined as organizations combining distinct and potentially conflicting institutional logics (Battilana and Lee 2014;McMullen 2018;Pache and Santos 2013). For example, as examined in this paper, social enterprises may pursue a social mission while conducting commercial activities on the market, thus combining social and market logics (Battilana and Lee 2014;Doherty et al 2014;Mason and Doherty 2016;Mongelli et al 2019). The ways in which hybrids manage the different logics that they embody and potential tensions between these logics have been increasingly studied at the internal, organizational level (Ashforth and Reingen 2014;Smith and Besharov 2019)for example, by examining founding teams (Almandoz 2014) and boards of directors (Ebrahim et al 2014).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

The Influence of Interorganizational Collaboration on Logic Conciliation and Tensions Within Hybrid Organizations: Insights from Social Enterprise–Corporate Collaborations

Savarese¹,

Huybrechts²,

Hudon³

2020

J Bus Ethics

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

An increasing amount of research has examined the management of competing logics, and possible tensions arising between them, within "hybrid organizations." However, the ways in which the relationships of hybrids with other organizations shape the conciliation of these logics and tensions have received limited attention so far. In this theoretical paper, we examine how hybrid organizations deal with interorganizational collaboration, in particular whether and how their hybridity can be maintained when they partner with "dominant-logic organizations." Drawing on empirical literature on social enterprise-corporate collaborations, we develop a framework and several propositions on how competing logics and their balancing within hybrid organizations may be affected by interactions with organizations underpinned by one dominant logic. We suggest that influences will mostly depend on the type of collaboration pursued. A collaboration based on a lower level of engagement and interaction between the two partners is likely to give precedence to one logic over the other, reducing inter-logic tensions but possibly compromising organizational hybridity. By contrast, a collaboration featuring numerous interactions and mission compatibility may facilitate sustained hybridity if tensions are acknowledged and managed. Our propositions contribute to the literatures on hybrid organizations, interorganizational collaboration, and social enterprise.

show abstract

Section: Combining Logics and Managing Tensions Within Hybrid Organizationsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

The Influence of Interorganizational Collaboration on Logic Conciliation and Tensions Within Hybrid Organizations: Insights from Social Enterprise–Corporate Collaborations

Savarese¹,

Huybrechts²,

Hudon³

2020

J Bus Ethics

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Social enterprises (SEs), conceived as “organizations whose purpose is to achieve a social mission through the use of market mechanisms” (Ebrahim et al 2014 : 82), are attracting growing research interest (Berbegal-Mirabent et al 2021 ; Mongelli et al 2019 ; Muñoz and Kimmitt 2019 ; Tykkyläinen and Ritala 2021 ). The term SE can refer to different types of organizations, but the following criteria are usually employed to characterize them (European Commission 2015 ): (1) they are engaged in an economic activity, (2) they pursue an explicit and primary social aim, (3) they have limits on distribution of profits and assets, and (4) they are independent and participatory in terms of governance.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Downward accountability to beneficiaries in social enterprises: do partnerships with nonprofits boost it without undermining accountability to other stakeholders?

2021

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The hybrid nature of social enterprises gives them a high potential for developing social innovations, but at the same time leads to tensions within these organizations. The barriers they face to gain access to traditional sources of funding are pushing social enterprises to reinforce their business models and rely more on commercial activities, and this fact increases the risk of mission drift and can weaken accountability towards beneficiaries of the social mission in favor of dominant stakeholders such as funders or clients of the commercial activities. Our research attempts to analyze whether partnerships between social enterprises and nonprofits strengthen accountability to beneficiaries without hindering accountability to other stakeholders, thus allowing both social and economic objectives to operate together. Based on a survey with a sample of social enterprises partnering with nonprofits, results reveal that as the partnership moves along a collaboration continuum to a transformational stage, accountability to beneficiaries is encouraged, whereas accountability to other types of stakeholders is also improved or, at least, not affected.

show abstract

“…Indicators of economic value Common-good orientation (Cho, 2006;Mair et al, 2012;Searing, 2014;Yockey, 2014) Enhancing the quality of life or social wealth (Zahra and Wright, 2016) Improves unwanted states of societal affairs (Achleitner, 2016) Needs satisfaction (instead of pursuing purely economic objectives) (Borzaga and Tortia, 2010); unmet social needs (Dufays and Huybrechts, 2014) Positive societal transformation (Mongelli et al, 2019) Social impact assessment is based on "economic language and disciplined metrics-based thinking from the banking and finance sectors" (Cooney and Lynch-Cerullo, 2014) Economic achievement (Osorio-Vega, 2019) Financial wealth (Zahra and Wright, 2016) Functional value (Pongsakornrungsilp and Schroeder, 2011) Material value (Chell, 2007) Personal wealth (Chell, 2007;Zahra and Wright, 2016) Providing market segments with goods or services and thus with economic value (Corbett, 2016) Satisfaction, profit or firm performance (Trevelyan and Williams, 2019) Price/earnings ratios; the price ("the economic value of the exchange") (Young, 2006) Krijnen (2006), using the term "value sphere," mentions four value categories: the practical realm, beauty, the sacred realm, and cognition. In light of the multiplicity of indicators of value and considering the origin of these indicators in scholarly theories and everyday knowledge, it is clear that the value categories established by axiology to date are in need of extension.…”

Section: Indicators Of Social Valuementioning

confidence: 99%

Social value cocreation: a mode of value cocreation

Haase

2021

SEJ

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Purpose This paper aims to present a value cocreation framework that furthers understanding of social value cocreation. Design/methodology/approach This paper is an interdisciplinary conceptual analysis drawing on social enterprise studies, marketing research and philosophical value theory. It applies a visible-hand approach to the study of market relationships and, in line with philosophical research strategies, unfolds its analysis using conceptual distinctions. Findings This study provides a framework that substantiates the distinction between two modes of value cocreation and identifies the structure of the social enterprise business model. It explains how social enterprises can be conceived as role models for for-profit organizations, and it elucidates why social value cocreation is a demanding objective. Research limitations/implications This paper develops an integrative, nondichotomist view of value cocreation that does not conceptualize social and economic value cocreation as opposing goals. Practical implications Social enterprises can use the business model structure and two modes of value cocreation and view themselves as role models for for-profit organizations. Social implications This paper applies a visible-hand approach to both for-profit organizations and social enterprises. Using its framework, for-profit organizations can reflect on the consequences of their actions on society and how social value cocreation can improve social enterprise effectiveness. Originality/value To the best of the author’s knowledge, this paper is the first to bridge service-oriented approaches to marketing and social enterprise studies using philosophical value theory to improve understanding of social value cocreation.

show abstract

The Bright Side of Hybridity: Exploring How Social Enterprises Manage and Leverage Their Hybrid Nature

Cited by 48 publications

References 37 publications

The Influence of Interorganizational Collaboration on Logic Conciliation and Tensions Within Hybrid Organizations: Insights from Social Enterprise–Corporate Collaborations

The Influence of Interorganizational Collaboration on Logic Conciliation and Tensions Within Hybrid Organizations: Insights from Social Enterprise–Corporate Collaborations

Downward accountability to beneficiaries in social enterprises: do partnerships with nonprofits boost it without undermining accountability to other stakeholders?

Social value cocreation: a mode of value cocreation

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About