Search results

In current research on market categories, hybridity (i.e., the association of organizations and/or the products they offer with multiple category memberships) represents an important issue with many practical implications, especially for project-based forms of organizations. This chapter explores the evolution of hybridity and the conditions under which different kinds of project-based organizations develop hybrid projects. By studying the feature film industry in the United States from 1920 until 1970, this chapter contrasts the current perspective based on status-organizing processes and suggests that hybridity is a population-level process that can be interpreted as the result of the construction and interplay of different identities, and on the dynamic of the identity dimensions employed by different actors in such effort. The chapter shows that the development and construction of the identity of a temporary organization is different from other types of organizations, and is linked to identification processes both at the organizational level, with the company or with specific individuals in key roles, and at the institutional/collective level, with pure (single-category) and hybrid (multi-category) genres. This chapter highlights the mutual interactions and constraints between these two levels in different life stages of the film industry.

Scholars increasingly depict hybridity as pervasive across organizations. The authors offer insight about how paradox theory informs and expands this approach to hybridity. To do so, the authors do a deeper dive into paradox theory, comparing and contrasting a dynamic equilibrium approach with a permanent dialectics approach. Integrating these two approaches offers paradox theory insights that can enrich and expand hybridity scholarship. The authors offer suggestions for how paradox theory can help develop a future research agenda for organizational hybridity.

As hybrid organisations operating at the intersection of opposing institutional logics, social enterprises (SEs) pursue the creation of social value w hile functioning as businesses, which generates tensions between social and business concerns. Limited knowledge exists, however, of how hybridity is managed at the intra-individual level. Drawing on regulatory focus theory (RFT), this paper investigates the role of self-regulation in managing hybridity tensions in SEs.

A multiple-case design is useful in investigating the situated cognitive mechanisms underlying individual self-regulation in the context of managing tensions in SEs. The authors interviewed 22 managers from Belgian SEs that had been active in the home-care sector for at least five years before the COVID-19 pandemic to understand how managers handle the tensions between social and business concerns through self-regulation.

The authors show that managers in SEs experience three forms of tensioning: tensioning as intertwining, tensioning as competition and tensioning as superseding. Managers respond differently to tensions depending on their self-regulatory focus (promotion versus prevention) on social and business goals, and this is reflected in their hybridity practices (entrepreneurship, commercialisation, corporatisation and managerialisation). Informed by both social and business logics, hybridity practices serve as tactics used as part of managers' self-regulation, enabling them to handle tensions.

By studying the interactions between individual cognition and institutional logics, this study contributes to the micro-foundations of institutional logics by revealing the role of self-regulation mechanisms in managing tensions in hybrid organisations.

This study aims to understand whether and how the use of performance measures in the context of healthcare organizations facilitates the dynamics of compromise or whether it creates moral struggles among a wide variety of actors. It offers novel insights into the concept of hybridity by investigating its underlying moral dimension. Drawing upon the sociology of worth theory (Boltanski and Thévenot, 1991, 2006), this paper examines how actors negotiate and compromise over time concerning issues of justice, involving the use of performance measures on a day-to-day basis.

The article presents a single case study of a medical unit in a French public hospital. Data were obtained through the ethnographic method, semi-structured interviews and internal financial and accounting documents.

Unlike earlier accounting studies, the authors analyze whether, and how, accounting, on one hand, contributes to the dynamics of compromise between actors with divergent values that characterize hybrid organizations, and, on the other hand, increases tensions among actors with convergent values involved in caregiving. This offers practical insights into three relational mechanisms underlying the dynamics of compromise and their limits through the time dimension.

The authors use a single case study in a country-specific context.

This study helps managers of healthcare organizations to understand the relationships between the use of performance measures and their impact on the evaluation of worth in practice.

In terms of theoretical contribution, the authors show how the sociology of worth (Boltanski and Thévenot, 1991, 2006) complements the analysis of hybridity and develop an original approach to understanding the ambivalent role of performance measures in bringing together divergent values within French public hospitals.

In addressing policy problems, it is difficult to disentangle public policies from private efforts, business institutions and civic activities. Societies may acknowledge that all these domains have a role in accomplishing social aims, but there are fundamental problems in understanding why, how and with what implications this occurs. Drawing upon the insights from the papers of this special issue, the authors aim to advance the understanding of governance and accountability in different contexts of hybridity, hybrid governance and organizations.

The authors conceptualize common theoretical origins of hybrid organizations and the ways in which they create and enact value by reflecting on the articles of the special issue. Furthermore, the authors propose agendas for future research into hybrid organizations.

Hybrid organizations can be conceptualized through two types of lenses: (1) the dimensions of hybridity (ownership, institutional logics, funding and control) and (2) their approaches to value creation (mixing, compromising and legitimizing).

This article provides more detailed and comprehensive understanding of hybridity. This contribution has also important practical implications for actors, such as politicians, managers, street-level bureaucrats, professionals, auditors and accountants who may be enveloped in various hybrid settings, policy contexts and multi-faceted interfaces between public, private and the civil society sector.

Hybridity lenses reveal novel connections between four types of hybrid institutional contexts: state-owned enterprises (SOEs), non-profit organizations (NPOs), social enterprises (SEs) and municipally owned corporations (MOCs). This paper provides theoretical instruments for doing so.

This study aims to investigate the hybridization practices that medical managers engage with to promote accounting and performance measurement in the hybrid setting of healthcare. In doing so, the authors explore how medical managers enact and become practitioners of hybridity.

The authors adopt a practice lens to conceptualize hybridization as an emergent, situated practice and capture the micro-activities that medical managers engage with when they enact hybridity. The authors conducted semi-structured interviews with medical managers, business managers and coding professionals and collected documents at an English National Health Service (NHS) hospital over the course of five years.

The findings accentuate two emergent practices through which medical managers instill hybridity to individuals who are hesitant or resistant to hybridization. Medical managers engage in equivocalizing and de-stigmatizing practices to broaden the understandings, further diversify or reconcile the teleologies of clinicians in non-managerial roles. In doing so, the authors signal the merits of accounting in improving care outcomes and remove the stigma associated to clinical engagement with costs.

The study contributes to hybridization and practice theory literature via capturing how hybridity is enacted in practice in a healthcare setting. As medical managers engage with and promote accounting information and performance measurement technologies in their practice environment, they transcend professional boundaries and hybridize the professional spaces that surround them.

This paper aims to analyse performance measurement ambiguities in hybrid universities. In accounting research, performance measurement of universities has been discussed in detail, and there is some research on impacts of hybridity in institutional systems. However, there is a particular need in accounting research for more sophisticated theorizations of the ambiguities associated with measuring performance in hybrid organizations. Moreover, there is a dearth of accounting-related interdisciplinary studies conceptualizing the hybridity of universities with important implications for measuring and reporting performance. This paper fills this research gap by providing more elaborate basis for conceptualizing performance measurement ambiguities through the lenses of hybrid universities.

The authors critically scrutinize the promise of performance measurement in hybrid universities and explore why it may result in new policy problems. Questions asked are as follows: How can we better understand those institutional mechanisms through which the promise of performance measurement may ultimately result in new forms of ambiguities and unexpected outcomes, and what are the specific characteristics of hybridity that make those mechanisms possible in universities?

The authors propose a conceptual model for studying universities in hybrid performance settings. The model provides a new inter-disciplinary approach for conceptualizing performance measurement ambiguities in universities when they are influenced by hybridity, hybrid arrangements and hybrid governance.

This paper provides more elaborate basis for understanding hybridity of universities, not only through reforms for combining business, government and collegial professional logics (e.g. corporatization, marketization) or through new hybrid mixes of professions but also as a more comprehensive, inter-disciplinary understanding of institutional structures, logics and practices at modern universities.

We explore a case example of hybridity between a large worker-owned cooperative and a union through three lenses: organizational forms, multiple institutional logics, and organizational identity. We delineate three types of organizational hybridity: (1) stretching an existing organizational form; (2) creating a new organizational form; and (3) and retaining multiple discrete organizational forms in a common venture. The cooperative–union hybrid shares members from the two contributing organizations, and so can be classified as a matrix sub-form of multi-organizational hybridity. This study describes how the coop-union hybrid manages the multiple logics and identities retained from both contributing organizations. It considers the hazards of combining these logics and identities, and offers some suggestions on how to avoid potential difficulties. Finally, given the complexity and inefficiencies of the matrix form, we explore whether matrix hybridity is a transitional or permanent form in this particular instance of a cooperative–union venture.

This study reports on a four-month ethnographic project conducted among young Catholic women in Mumbai, India. Here, the author examines how the media consumption of participants is implicated in reconstituting Indian national identity. Because Hinduism is closely tied to conceptualizations of Indianness and because women continue to be marginalized in Indian society, Catholic women in India are viewed as second-class citizens or “not Indian enough” or “appropriately Indian” by virtue of their gender and religious affiliation. However, through media consumption that emphasizes hybridity, participants destabilize narrow definitions of Indian identity. Specifically, participants cultivate hybridity as central to an Indian identity that is viable in an increasingly global society. Within this formulation of hybridity, markers of their marginalization are reframed as markers of distinction. By centering hybridity in their media consumption, young, middle-class Catholic women (re)imagine their national identity in translocal cosmopolitan terms that subverts marginalization experienced by virtue of their religion and leverages privileges they enjoy by virtue of their middle-class status. Importantly, this version of Indian identity remains elitist in that it remains inaccessible to poor women, including poor women of minority groups.

The purpose of this paper is to critically explore hybrid organisations in health care. It examines the broad literature on hybrids focusing on issues of perspective, definition, sub-type and level. It then presents the results of the literature review of hybrid health care organisations, exploring which organisations have been viewed as hybrids, and then examining studies in more detail with respect to the research questions.

It critically explores the literature on hybrid organisations in health care through a structured search.

It is found that a wide variety of hybrid forms exist, but not clear what they combine or how they combine it. However, the level of depth from some of these studies is rather limited, with little consensus on definition, and relatively few drawing on any explicit conceptual perspective. It seems that the wider hybridity literatures have limited influence of studies of hybrid health care organisations.

As far as the authors are aware, this paper is the first attempt to critically review the literature on hybrid organisations in health care. It is concluded that it is difficult to define and explain hybrid health care organisations. Health care hybrids appear to be chameleons as they appear to be able to change their form to different observers.