Search results

Social enterprises have long been considered ideal settings for studying hybrid organizing due to their combination of social and economic goals and activities. In this chapter, the authors argue that the current research focus on hybrid organizing foregrounds the paradox, conflicting logics, and multiple identities associated with the pursuit of multiple goals but underappreciates the relationship between hybrid organizing and its institutional context. Recognizing that the primary objective of social enterprises is to tackle social problems, the authors introduce the social problem domain as an analytically useful and theoretically interesting meso-level to examine the role of context for hybrid organizing and to advance conversations on hybridity in organizational theory. Social problem domains offer insights into the political, cultural, and material differences in how various societies deal with social problems, which in turn affects hybrid organizing. The authors provide empirical insights derived from an analysis of social enterprises across three countries and social problem domains. The authors show how the institutional arrangements of social enterprises differ considerably across contexts, and how these arrangements affect how social enterprises become more or less similar compared to traditional ways of organizing in these problem domains. Based on these findings, the authors outline a research agenda on social enterprises that focuses on examining the nature, antecedents, and outcomes of hybrid organizing around social problems across multiple levels of analysis. With this chapter, the authors move the focus of social enterprise research in organizational theory from studying how these organizations cope with multiple logics and goals toward studying how they engage in markets for public purpose.

This paper aims to examine the contributions of hybrid organisations to wellbeing in small Pacific island countries.

The concept and different forms of hybrid organisations are examined, and then the operation and contributions to wellbeing of three Fijian hybrid organisations are considered.

Hybrid organisations in this region operate with a commitment to the common good and an ethic of care. Fijian hybrid organisations improve social and economic wellbeing for individuals, families and communities by providing employment, schools and training facilities, financial and support services, sustainable agriculture projects and facilitating networking. These services improve individual and community social and economic wellbeing, build resilience, add to personal and family security, offer opportunities for the future, advance leadership skills and sustain the environment. Commercial activities that support these organisations in their wellbeing endeavours include product sales, service fees, project levies and investment income.

Generalisability beyond the Pacific region is not assured, as this review only examines hybrid organisations in small Pacific island countries.

Hybrid organisations offer an alternative pathway to achieve a sustainable enterprise economy, an approach that is more culturally relevant for the Pacific region. Policies to nurture the development of these organisations, and research into the startup, operation, impact and effectiveness of different hybrid organisation models would help to improve wellbeing in this region. International charities and aid agencies could advance the wellbeing of people living in this region by supporting the development of hybrid organisations. External agencies seeking to support hybrid organisation development are advised to consider providing funding through a regional agency rather than engaging directly with national governments.

Developing a robust hybrid organisation sector will improve social and economic wellbeing for people living in small island nations.

As one of the first studies to examine wellbeing and hybrid organisations, this review adds to hybrid business theory by its consideration of small Pacific island countries. The authors add to existing understandings of how hybrid organisations contribute to social and economic wellbeing for individuals, families and communities. The review identifies each form hybrid organisational form adopts. Each has a central commitment to generating social and economic value but different revenue sources. The review adds valuable new knowledge to the limited scholarship of this region by identifying the philosophical foundations and contributions to wellbeing of these hybrid organisations. A future research agenda and policy development process is proposed to improve wellbeing and advance hybrid organisations in the region.

This paper aims to systematically review the field of non-financial reporting (NFR) in hybrid organizations, focusing on state-owned enterprises, third-sector organizations and public–private partnerships. This is a timely attempt to identify the state of the art in the literature and outline the future research agenda. The paper answers two research questions: RQ1. What can be learned about NFR in hybrid organizations from the existing literature? RQ2. What are the future avenues for research on the topic?

A systematic literature review method was applied in this paper to summarize evidence from extant literature on NFR in hybrid organizations. The Scopus and Web of Science Core Collection databases were used to locate 92 articles for the review.

Recent years have witnessed a sharp increase in the number of articles on the topic. Regarding the implications of NFR for hybrid characteristics, NFR has some potential to strengthen the influence of non-market (i.e. state, community and social) logics in hybrid organizations. However, this potential may be limited due to the effect of market logics and the tensions that arise between the multiple logics in hybrid organizations. Regarding the implications of hybrid characteristics for NFR, these characteristics can not only affect the extent, the quality, the likelihood and the institutionalization of NFR but also result in the development of new NFR frameworks. The review calls for more research on the implications of NFR for multiple institutional logics and the implications of these logics for NFR in hybrid organizations.

To the best of the authors’ knowledge, this is the first literature review that mobilizes insights from hybridity research to analyze NFR literature on diverse hybrid organizations.

Purpose: This chapter aims to study the organizational challenges that arise from a hybrid character of organizations. Using a taxonomy of hybridization, based on the societal triangle, we provide a more comprehensive understanding of challenges that different archetypes of hybrid organizations face. This research focuses on enterprises providing private goods. Methodology/Approach: First, a taxonomy of hybridity is introduced based on the societal triangle of state, market, and society. Based on a literature search, we selected 75 articles to determine the main organizational challenges for the four hybrid archetypes. The organizational challenges are clustered in five themes: mission and balancing divergent goals, leadership, hiring and employee involvement, accounting and financial issues, and future outlook. The themes are discussed with 17 case organizations including social-oriented enterprises (SEs), as well as profit-driven enterprises that have moved toward different levels of hybridity. Findings: Our findings emphasize that different kinds of hybrid organizations face different kinds of challenges but also handle them differently. For SEs, the main challenges are related to financial value creation and future outlook, while for profit-oriented enterprises, the main struggles are related to leadership, employee involvement, and balancing divergent goals. Research Limitations/Implications (if applicable): This study is of an explorative nature, focusing on four hybrid archetypes and using broadly defined themes. Future research could involve all hybrid archetypes and define the challenges more succinctly. Originality/Value of Paper: Hybrid enterprises are usually classified according to typologies based on at least two different ways of thinking (“logics”). This paper uses a taxonomy based on the societal triangle which brings analytical clarity when defining hybridity and identifying challenges. Next to that we discuss organizational challenges with 17 organizations from different hybrid archetypes. The results show that depending on the archetype, organizations face different challenges and also handle these challenges differently.

This paper aims to understand the challenges of managing projects in hybrid organizations. The authors explore how organizations with persistent competing institutional logics strive to balance competing priorities, and the authors craft a research agenda to examine the capabilities to manage projects in hybrid organizations.

The authors focus on the social enterprise hybrid organizational form to study how such organizations manage persistent competing social and economic logics. The authors review the project management and social enterprise literature to generate new insights and suggest future research directions for theory development for project management.

The understanding of the influences of the institutional context on the management of projects is still quite limited. The authors propose that project managers need adaptive capabilities to address how the dual logics, and their corresponding different expectations, can be flexibly combined. The objective is not to reduce the complexity due to the different logics, which is the focus of much of the literature on institutional complexity. Instead, the focus is on how to incorporate dual logics into a successfully blended hybrid organization.

There is a dearth of literature about how projects are successfully managed in hybrid organizations with persistent competing institutional logics, like social enterprises, and important questions remain to be answered. This paper offers new insights on the capabilities required to flexibly combine dual logics that would generally compete and create conflict on projects in hybrid organizations.

The purpose of this paper is to find a new conception of hybridity to set ground for further systematic research. The concept of hybrid organisations is used in many ways. This leads to confusion among scholars and the term of hybridity appears to be meaningless and useless for research and practice.

In this explorative research design, the authors conducted 11 interviews with managing directors and managers of hybrid organisations in four different countries across Europe.

Each and every organisation is hybrid but to different degrees and with different patterns. It is important to measure hybridity to give value to the term of hybrid organisations. According to input, process and output dimensions, the authors could classify possible dimensions of hybridity measurement within organisations.

The developed cube model serves as a new point of departure for hybrid organisation research and helps to build analytical types of hybrid organisations. The research has been highly explorative, and the limited number of cases researched leads to the requirement of further validation on a broader basis. In addition, the still rather conceptual state of the cube model will need further validation by means of a set of hybridity indicators.

The paper presents a way to deal with the question about what hybridity exactly is and whether hybridity is a term that has an analytical value. It also provides the first attempt to connect more analytical meaning to the concept of hybridity by suggesting an approach to concretely measure it.

As hybrid organizations become increasingly common, the authors observe that some hybrid forms are becoming institutionalized and legitimated. The authors explore the implications of the institutionalization of hybridity, addressing both the internal tensions that plague many hybrids and the external tensions stemming from evaluator assessments and stakeholder uncertainty. The authors propose that institutionalization can dampen internal tensions associated with hybridity and also facilitate legitimation and acceptance by external audiences. The authors present identity as a useful theoretical lens through which to examine these questions, as identities are born from, but also have the potential to modify, existing institutional arrangements. The authors present directions for future research at the juncture of identity, hybridity, and institutionalization, suggesting potential avenues of inquiry in this productive stream of research.

Drawing upon theoretical insights on value creation perspectives, the authors aim to advance the understanding of performance and accountability in different hybrid organisations.

The authors conceptualise common theoretical origins of hybrid organisations and how they create and enact value, by reflecting on the Accounting, Auditing and Accountability Journal (AAAJ) special issue articles. Furthermore, the authors propose an agenda for future research into accounting, performance and accountability for hybrid organisations.

Hybrid organisations can be conceptualised through their approaches to value creation (mixing, compromising and legitimising). This article provides a more detailed understanding of accounting, performance and accountability changes in hybrid organisations.

This contribution also has relevant practical implications for actors, such as politicians, managers, professionals, auditors, controllers and accountants, encased in various hybrid organisations, policy contexts and multi-faceted interfaces between public, private and civil society.

Hybridity lenses reveal novel connections between different types of hybrid organisations and how they create and enact multiple values.

The purpose of this paper is to examine how hybrid organisations combine institutional logics to tackle complex social needs.

A multiple case study design was followed, and cases were selected using a two-staged sampling process. Using qualitative analysis, the mechanisms through which logics are selected, prioritised and get integrated in the strategies and practices of these organisations are illustrated.

The study contributes to the literature on hybrid organisations and their ability to address social problems in two important ways. First, the paper reveals through the concept of institutional rationality why market-based organisations emerge to address complex social needs in a complex institutional context. Second, the study demonstrates that there is heterogeneity in how logics are blended externally in their strategies and in how logics are integrated internally within the organisation.

All the cases are selected from India; hence the possibility that the findings are valid only for countries with similar institutional and socio-economic contexts cannot be negated.

The policy implication is that if business organisations should embrace social goals substantively, a regulation in the form of CSR is not enough. Instead, there should be institutional provisions to promote such hybrid organisational forms where alternative logics such as community, profession, etc., are part of the core logics of the organisation.

This study connects the strategic choices of organisations with their institutional logics’ configuration in the Indian context.

The purpose of this paper is to explore how accounting and control practices contribute to the persistence of the multiple logics that characterise hybrid organizations, i.e. organizations that constantly incorporate elements from different institutional logics at the very core of their identity.

The authors draw on the literature regarding institutional logics and on studies exploring the enabling power of accounting to interpret the findings derived from a longitudinal case study of a hybrid organization operating in the field of brain-computer interface technology.

The study shows that the persistence of conflicting logics and innovation within hybrid organizations can be sustained through the mediating role of accounting and control practices. By engaging different interested parties within processes of innovation, these practices can establish complex interconnections between conflicting perspectives and their objects of concern. Consequently, accounting and control do not address a specific logic but instead contribute to lock different parties to their own logic, allowing them to engage and generate innovation while maintaining their diversity.

Whereas previous studies have explored mechanisms for keeping the multiple logics of hybrids separate or for reconciling them, the paper shows that conflicts between these logics do not need to be reduced but can be mediated to generate innovation. Additionally, the authors contribute to the literature on accounting “in action”, by illustrating the role of accounting and control practices as boundary objects that act within a broader “ecology of objects” through which innovation materializes in a context of enduring institutional pluralism.