Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Responding to Value Pluralism in Hybrid Organizations

  • Original Paper
  • Published:
Journal of Business Ethics Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

In this paper, we derive a four-stage process model of how hybrid organizations respond to specific challenges that arise under conditions of value pluralism and institutional complexity. Engaging in exploratory qualitative research of six Australian hybrid organizations, we identify institutional and organizational responses to pluralism, particularly as organizations strive to uphold multiple value commitments, such as social, environmental and/or financial outcomes. We find that by employing a process of separating, negotiating, aggregating, and subjectively assessing the value that is created, our cases demonstrate how they move between logics in a dynamic fashion and address specific challenges of cognitive dissonance, incommensurability, interdependence and aggregation. Our model contributes to the literature by reframing the notion of ‘tensions’ that arise in conditions of hybridity and characterize specific challenges and sequential responses that may go some way to addressing why some hybrids employ particular responses to pluralism and why some succeed.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Anderson, E. (1993). Value in ethics and economics. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Aram, J. D. (1989). The paradox of interdependent relations in the field of social issues in management. The Academy of Management Review, 14(2), 266–283.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Arnold, D. G., Audi, R., & Zwolinski, M. (2010). Recent work in ethical theory and its implications for business ethics. Business Ethics Quarterly, 20(4), 559–581.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Battilana, J., & Dorado, S. (2010). Building sustainable hybrid organizations: The case of commercial microfinance organizations. Academy of Management Journal, 53(6), 1419–1440.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Battilana, J., & Lee, M. (2014). Advancing research on hybrid organizing–Insights from the study of social enterprises. The Academy of Management Annals, 8(1), 397–441.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Battiliana, J., Lee, M., Walker, J., & Dorsey, C. (2012). In search of the hybrid ideal. Stanford Social Innovation Review, 10(3), 50–55.

    Google Scholar 

  • Battilana, J., Sengul, M., Pache, A. C., & Model, J. (2015). Harnessing productive tensions in hybrid organizations: The case of work integration social enterprises. Academy of Management Journal, 58(6), 1658–1685.

    Google Scholar 

  • Besharov, M. L., & Smith, W. K. (2014). Multiple institutional logics in organizations: Explaining their varied nature and implications. Academy of Management Review, 39(3), 364–381.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Binder, A. (2007). For love and money: Organizations’ creative responses to multiple environmental logics. Theory and Society, 36(6), 547–571.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Blaikie, N. (1993). Approaches to social enquiry. Cambridge: Polity Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Braun, V., & Clarke, V. (2006). Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qualitative Research in Psychology, 3(2), 77–101.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Buchholz, R. A., & Rosenthal, S. B. (1996). Toward a new understanding of moral pluralism. Business Ethics Quarterly, 6(3), 263–275.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Buchholz, R. A., & Rosenthal, S. B. (2001). A philosophical framework for case studies. Journal of Business Ethics, 29(1–2), 25–31.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Costanza, R., d’Arge, R., de Groots, R., Farber, S., Grasso, M., Hannon, B., et al. (1997). The value of the world’s ecosystem services and natural capital. Nature, 387, 253–260.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Daily, G. C., Söderqvist, T., Aniyar, S., Arrow, K., Dasgupta, P., Ehrlich, P. R., et al. (2000). The value of nature and the nature of value. Science, 289(5478), 395.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dees, J. G., & Anderson, B. B. (2003). Sector-bending: Blurring lines between nonprofit and for-profit. Society, 40(4), 16–27.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • DiMaggio, P. J., & Powell, W. W. (Eds.). (1991). The new institutionalism in organizational analysis (Vol. 17). Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ebrahim, A., Battilana, J., & Mair, J. (2014). The governance of social enterprises: Mission drift and accountability challenges in hybrid organizations. Research in Organizational Behavior, 34, 81–100.

    Google Scholar 

  • Eisenhardt, K. (1989). Building theories from case study research. The Academy of Management Review, 14(4), 532–550.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Foster, J. (Ed.). (2002). Valuing Nature? Economics, ethics and environment. New York, NY: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fowler, A. (2000). NGDOs as a moment in history: Beyond aid to social entrepreneurship or civic innovation? Third World Quarterly, 21(4), 637–654.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Friedland, R., & Alford, R. R. (1991). Bringing society back in: Symbols, practices, and institutional contradictions. In W. W. Powell & P. J. DiMaggio (Eds.), The new institutionalism in organizational analysis (pp. 232–263). Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gieryn, T. F. (1983). Boundary-work and the demarcation of science from non-science: Strains and interests in professional ideologies of scientists. American Sociological Review, 48(6), 781–795.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • GIIN. (2015). Global impact investment network website. Retrieved October 1, 2016, from https://thegiin.org/.

  • Gioia, D. A., & Pitre, E. (1990). Multiparadigm perspectives on theory building. The Academy of Management Review, 15(4), 584–602.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Goodrick, E., & Reay, T. (2011). Constellations of institutional logics. Work and Occupations, 38(3), 372–416.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Green, J., & Dalton, B. (2016). Out of the shadows: Using value pluralism to make explicit economic values in not-for-profit business strategies. Journal of Business Ethics, 139(2), 299–312.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Greenwood, R., Raynard, M., Kodeih, F., Micelotta, E. R., & Lounsbury, M. (2011). Institutional complexity and organizational responses. The Academy of Management Annals, 5(1), 317–371.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Haigh, N., Kennedy, E. D., & Walker, J. (2015). Hybrid organizations as shape-shifters. California Management Review, 57(3), 59–82.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hardin, G. (1968). The tragedy of the commons. Science, 162(3859), 1243–1248.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Henik, E. (2008). Mad as hell or scared stiff? The effects of value conflict and emotions on potential whistle-blowers. Journal of Business Ethics, 80(1), 111–119.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hitlin, S., & Piliavin, J. A. (2004). Values: Reviving a dormant concept. Annual Review of Sociology, 30, 359–393.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hockerts, K. (2015). How hybrid organizations turn antagonistic assets into complementarities. California Management Review, 57(3), 83–106.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kraatz, M. S., & Block, E. S. (2008). Organizational implications of institutional pluralism. In R. Greenwood, C. Oliver, R. Suddaby, & K. Sahlin (Eds.), The sage handbook of organizational institutionalism (pp. 243–275). London: Sage Publications.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Leitch, C. M., Hill, F. M., & Harrison, R. T. (2010). The philosophy and practice of interpretivist research in entrepreneurship: Quality, validation, and trust. Organizational Research Methods, 13(1), 67–84.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lepak, D., Smith, K., & Taylor, M. S. (2007). Value creation and value capture: A multilevel perspective. Academy of Management Review, 32(1), 180–194.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lingane, A., & Olsen, S. (2004). Guidelines for social return on investment. California Management Review, 46(3), 116–135.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mair, J., Mayer, J., & Lutz, E. (2015). Navigating institutional pluralism: Organizational governance in hybrid organizations. Organization Studies, 36(6), 713–739.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mason, E. (2017). Value Pluralism; entry in The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. In Zalta (Ed.), https://plato.stanford.edu/archives/sum2015/entries/value-pluralism/ Accessed June 1, 2017.

  • Mason, C., & Doherty, B. (2016). A fair trade-off? Paradoxes in the governance of fair-trade social enterprises. Journal of Business Ethics, 136(3), 451–469.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • McMullen, J. S., & Warnick, B. J. (2016). Should we require every new venture to be a hybrid organization? Journal of Management Studies, 53(4), 630–662.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ménard, C. (2004). The economics of hybrid organizations. Journal of Institutional and Theoretical Economics JITE, 160(3), 345–376.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Meyer, J. W., & Rowan, B. (1977). Institutionalized organizations: Formal structure as myth and ceremony. American Journal of Sociology, 83(2), 340–363.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mitchell, R. K., Weaver, G. R., Agle, B. R., Bailey, A. D., & Carlson, J. (2016). Stakeholder agency and social welfare: Pluralism and decision making in the multi-objective corporation. Academy of Management Review, 41(2), 252–275.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mulgan, G. (2010). Measuring social value. Stanford Social Innovation Review, Summer, 8(3), 38–43.

    Google Scholar 

  • Nicholls, A. (2010). The legitimacy of social entrepreneurship: Reflexive isomorphism in a pre-paradigmatic field. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 34, 611–633.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Norgaard, R. B., Scholz, A. J., & Trainor, S. F. (2001). Values, valuation and valuing processes. In E. Van Ireland, J. Van Der Straaten & H. R. J. Vollebergh (Eds.), Economic growth and valuation of the environment: A debate. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar.

    Google Scholar 

  • Oliver, C. (1991). Strategic responses to institutional processes. Academy of Management Review, 16(1), 145–179.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ostrom, E., Burger, J., Field, C. B., Norgaard, R. B., & Policansky, D. (1999). Revisiting the commons: Local lessons, global challenges. Science, 284(5412), 278–282.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pache, A.-C., & Santos, F. (2013). Inside the Hybrid Organization: Selective Coupling as a response to competing institutional logics. Academy of Management Journal, 56(4), 972–1001.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Patton, M. (1990). Purposeful Sampling Qualitative evaluation and research methods (pp. 169–186). Beverly Hills: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pigou, A. C. (1962). The economics of welfare (4th ed.). London: MacMillan.

    Google Scholar 

  • Powell, W. W. (1987). Hybrid organizational arrangements: New form or transitional development? California Management Review, 30(1), 67–87.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Prasad, A., & Prasad, P. (2002). The coming of age of interpretive organizational research. Organizational Research Methods, 5(1), 4–11.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pratt, M. G., & Foreman, P. O. (2000). Classifying managerial responses to multiple organizational identities. Academy of Management Review, 25(1), 18–42.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Purdy, J. M., & Gray, B. (2009). Conflicting logics, mechanisms of diffusion, and multilevel dynamics in emerging institutional fields. Academy of Management Journal, 52(2), 355–380.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Santos, F., Pache, A. C., & Birkholz, C. (2015). Making hybrids work. California Management Review, 57(3), 36–58.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sethi, A. (1986). Interactional value theory: An interpretation. The Journal of Value Inquiry, 20, 209–222.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Siggelkow, N. (2007). Persuasion with case studies. Academy of Management Journal, 50(1), 20–24.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Skelcher, C., & Smith, S. R. (2015). Theorizing hybridity: Institutional logics, complex organizations, and actor identities: The case of nonprofits. Public Administration, 93(2), 433–448.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Skorupski, J. (1996). Value-pluralism. Royal Institute of Philosophy Supplement, 40, 101–115.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Smets, M., Jarzabkowski, P., Burke, G. T., & Spee, P. (2015). Reinsurance trading in Lloyd’s of London: Balancing conflicting-yet-complementary logics in practice. Academy of Management Journal, 58(3), 932–970.

    Google Scholar 

  • Stubbs, W. (2017). Sustainable entrepreneurship and B corps. Business Strategy and the Environment, 26(3), 331–344.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tetlock, P. E. (1986). A value pluralism model of ideological reasoning. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 50(4), 819–827.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tetlock, P. E. (2000). Coping with trade-offs: Psychological constraints and political implications (pp. 239–263). Elements of reason: Cognition, choice, and the bounds of rationality.

    Google Scholar 

  • Thomson, J. J. (1997). The right and the good. The Journal of Philosophy, 94(6), 273–298.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Thornton, P. H., & Ocasio, W. (1999). Institutional logics and the historical contingency of power in organizations: Executive succession in the higher education publishing industry, 1958–1990. American Journal of Sociology, 105(3), 801–843.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Trainor, S. F. (2006). Realms of value: Conflicting natural resource values and incommensurability. Environmental Values, 15, 3–29.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • van der Linden, B., & Freeman, R. E. (2017). Profit and Other Values: Thick Evaluation in Decision Making. Business Ethics Quarterly, 27(3), 1–27.

    Google Scholar 

  • van Oosterhout, J. H., Wempe, B., & van Willigenburg, T. (2004). Rethinking organizational ethics: A plea for pluralism. Journal of Business Ethics, 55(4), 385–393.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wagner-Tsukamoto, S. (2005). An economic approach to business ethics: Moral agency of the firm and the enabling and constraining effects of economic institutions and interactions in a market economy. Journal of Business Ethics, 60(1), 75–89.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Williams, B. (1981). Moral luck. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Yin, R. K. (2003). Case study research: Design and methods (3rd ed.). Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications.

    Google Scholar 

  • Zahra, S. A., & Wright, M. (2016). Understanding the social role of entrepreneurship. Journal of Management Studies, 53(4), 610–629.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Centre for Social Impact, Swinburne University of Technology, John St, Hawthorn, VIC, 3122, Australia

    Erin I. Castellas

  2. Monash University, Wellington Rd, Clayton, VIC, 3800, Australia

    Wendy Stubbs & Véronique Ambrosini

Authors
  1. Erin I. Castellas
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Wendy Stubbs
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Véronique Ambrosini
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Erin I. Castellas.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest

Erin I. Castellas, Wendy Stubbs and Véronique Ambrosini declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Castellas, E.I., Stubbs, W. & Ambrosini, V. Responding to Value Pluralism in Hybrid Organizations. J Bus Ethics 159, 635–650 (2019). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-018-3809-2

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-018-3809-2

Keywords

Search

Navigation