Search results

Third-sector organizations have been described as intermediate organizations (Evers, 1995) in mixed economies (Ben-Ner & van Hoomissen, 1991) that are situated in the interstices between the private and the public sector. This curious mode of defining a group of organizations in terms of something they are not has created a rich field of opportunities to explore the interfaces between them and other organizations in the private, public or third sectors. Research has emerged from this juxtaposition that explores the maintenance of organizational differences and the processes of organizational convergence. Interest in hybridization as a process to explain the management of the conflicting pressures to maintain difference and foster convergence has led to advances in institutional theory (Battilana & Dorado, 2010), institutional entrepreneurship (Tracey, Phillips, & Jarvis, 2011) and our understanding of bricolage (DiDomenico, Haugh, & Tracey, 2010). In their chapter, Le Ber and Branzei add to this area of critical analysis by adopting feminist theory to extend our understanding of hybridization practices in the third sector.

Despite the increase in empirical studies of social enterprise in management and organization research, the lack of a cohesive knowledge base in this area is concerning. In this chapter, we propose that the underdevelopment of the attendant research infrastructure is an important, but oft-overlooked, barrier to the development of this body of empirical research.

We explore this proposition through a review of 55 empirical studies of social enterprises published in the last fifteen years, in which we examine the mix and trajectory of research methods used and the research infrastructure on which these studies depend.

We find that empirical research has used social enterprise largely as a context for theory development, rather than deductively testing, and thus building upon, existing theories. The latter pattern is due largely to the absence of two key dimensions of infrastructure: well-defined samples, and consistent, operational measures of social enterprise success. Finally, we identify present trends along both dimensions that contribute to changing the research infrastructure for empirical social enterprise research.

Our analysis highlights the critical need for research infrastructure to advance empirical research on social enterprise. From this perspective, research infrastructure-building provides an important opportunity for researchers interested in social enterprise and others interested in enabling high-quality empirical research in this setting.

The hospitality and tourism industry is highly labor-intensive. It is constituted by a fast-paced, dynamic, unpredictable and unstable operating environment that requires an extraordinary leadership ability, and leaders may need to adopt a transformational leadership style. A plethora of theoretical and empirical studies have shown the importance of transformational leadership. However, there is still much to be learned. Meanwhile, no study to date has measured the relationship between transformational leadership, job involvement, and job satisfaction among employees in the hospitality and tourism industry in New Zealand. This study expands our understanding of transformational leadership in the specific context of hospitality and tourism.

Purpose: This literature review aims to answer the calls for further exploration of scaling challenges and opportunities for social entrepreneurs (SEs). We address the scaling issue of social entrepreneurship through the theoretical lens of sustainable business models. Methodology: This paper investigates, on a multilevel approach, 340 journal articles published in one of the 20 peer-reviewed journals in management, entrepreneurship, CSR, organizational behavior, and nonprofit. It also considers influential articles due to their relatively high citation count (i.e., more than 150 times) outside of those selected journals. This paper furthermore analyses in-depth 32 scaling articles. Findings: This study positions the topics of social entrepreneurship over the last decades, together with the six types of scaling strategies: scaling up, scaling down, scaling across, scaling deep, scaling out, and diversification. It also discusses 15 challenges related to the scaling efforts by SEs. It furthermore elaborates on potential leads for research and practice regarding scaling social impact. Social Implications: There are many pathways for SEs to increase their impact on society, even though it remains quite challenging to achieve for most. Understanding what possibilities or limitations apply to individual SEs is but a first step in developing the full potential of social entrepreneurship. Originality: This paper approaches scaling from three complementary levels of analysis, i.e., individual, organizational, and institutional. Thus we provide more clarity and a nuanced perspective on past and future research regarding scaling challenges and opportunities.

Despite its central importance in nearly all societies, religion has been largely neglected in the study of organizations and management. In this introduction to the volume on religion and organization theory, we argue that such neglect limits unnecessarily the relevance and scope of organization and management theory (OMT) and that there is therefore great value in connecting organizational research with a deeper appreciation and concern for religion. We begin by speculating about some of the reasons why organization and management theorists are hesitant to study religion, and go on to discuss some nascent points of contact between religion and OMT. We conclude with a discussion of the articles in this volume, which represent an attempt to remedy this unfortunate blind spot within OMT scholarship.

This chapter develops a community perspective on entrepreneurialization and demonstrates the epistemic value of community-based analysis. It focuses on the particularities of socio-economic settings that shape the emergence of social enterprises and allows for a consideration of diverse groups of actors beyond entrepreneurs.

The chapter draws from a literature review on UK policies around social enterprise and an ethnographic study of a deprived community in North-West England. It provides an in-depth account of how competition for scarce funds and the new hope around entrepreneurialism are negotiated and translated into action by policy actors in one local community.

The review contextualizes the evolution of social enterprise in the United Kingdom and highlights the need for grounded analysis of the effects of policies. A range of themes emerge from the ethnographic case: a misalignment between social workers’ and beneficiaries’ expectations and interests; a tendency to shift from holistic welfare to narrow, time-limited interventions; the importance of spatiality for issues of deprivation; and imbalances in the flows of money and attention between different communities.

The chapter questions the emphasis placed upon social enterprise as a source of innovation. The suggested focus on community redirects scholarly debate to the most important group of actors: the socially, politically, or economically excluded target groups of social innovations.

This chapter contributes to our understanding of the roles being played by social enterprises in a community and raises questions about their value as a vehicle of policy and of innovation.

Hybrid ventures are on the rise, both in practice and in scholarly circles. Despite this momentum, there is a paucity of inter-organizational research on hybrid ventures. Such research is necessary to substantiate a prevailing belief about hybrid entrepreneurs: namely, that they are actively changing the world. Highlighting three “innovations” that hybrid entrepreneurs and their ventures bring to organizational fields – (1) a hybrid identity, (2) a hybrid organizational form, and (3) a hybrid logic – this chapter identifies inter-organizational research questions and scholarly conversations that may be capable of evaluating whether hybrid entrepreneurs are indeed “agents of change.”