Advertisement

Purpose, Commitment and Coordination Around Small Wins: A Proactive Approach to Governance in Integrated Hybrid Organizations

  • Miriam WolfEmail author
  • Johanna Mair
Original Paper
  • 36 Downloads

Abstract

Integrated hybrid organizations, for instance social enterprises that pursue both social and economic goals through a single activity, are seen by many as promising vehicles to create social value while remaining economically sustainable. At the same time, they are said to run the risk of mission drift—losing sight of their social mission while navigating market and political pressures. While organizational governance mechanisms that ensure the overall direction, control and accountability of the organization are considered key to avoiding mission drift, scholars have argued that traditional governance mechanisms may not work in the context of social enterprises. Drawing on the legacy of old institutional theory, this article proposes a proactive approach to governance in social enterprises. We complement and go beyond control and compliance approaches and introduce a governance approach focused on purpose, commitment and coordinating around small wins. We propose that these three interlocking governance mechanisms allow social enterprises to mitigate the risk of mission drift in a proactive rather than reactive manner.

Keywords

Hybrid organizations Governance Purpose Commitment Small wins 

Notes

Acknowledgements

This research received funding from the European Union’s Seventh Framework Programme for research, technological development and demonstration under grant agreement no 613500.

References

  1. Almandoz, J. (2012). Arriving at the starting line: The impact of community and financial logics on new banking ventures. Academy of Management Journal, 55, 1381–1406.Google Scholar
  2. Barman, E. (2008). With strings attached: Nonprofits and the adoption of donor choice. Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 37, 39–56.Google Scholar
  3. Battilana, J., & Dorado, S. (2010). Building sustainable hybrid organizations: The case of commercial microfinance organizations. Academy of Management Journal, 53(6), 1419–1440.Google Scholar
  4. Battilana, J., & Lee, M. (2014). Advancing research on hybrid organizing—insights from the study of social enterprises. Academy of Management Annals, 8, 397–441.Google Scholar
  5. Beckert, J. (2002). Beyond the market. The social foundations of economic efficiency. Princeton: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
  6. Besharov, M., & Khurana, R. (2015). Leading amidst competing technical and institutional demands: Revisiting Selznick’s conception of leadership. In M. S. Kraatz (Ed.), Institutions and ideals: Philip Selznick’s legacy for organizational studies (Research in the sociology of organizations) (Vol. 44, pp. 53–88). Bingley: Emerald Group Publishing Limited.Google Scholar
  7. Bies, A. L. (2010). Evolution of nonprofit self-regulation in Europe. Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 39(6), 1057–1086.Google Scholar
  8. Blau, P. M., & Scott, W. R. (1962). Formal organizations: A comparative approach. San Francisco: Chandler. (Reprinted as a Stanford Business Classic, Stanford University Press, 2003).Google Scholar
  9. Bouchard, M. (Ed.). (2013). Innovation and the social economy: The Québec experience. Toronto: University of Toronto Press.Google Scholar
  10. Bouchard, M., Cruz-Filho, P., & Zerdani, T. (2015). Social enterprise in Quebec: Understanding their ‘Institutional Footprint’. Canadian Journal of Nonprofit and Social Economy Research, 6(1), 42–62.Google Scholar
  11. Brakman Reiser, D. (2010). Governing and financing blended enterprise. Chicago-Kent Law Review, 85(2), 619–655.Google Scholar
  12. Brakman Reiser, D. (2013). Theorizing forms for social enterprise. Emory Law Journal, 62, 681–739.Google Scholar
  13. Brakman Reiser, D., & Dean, S. A. (2017). Social enterprise law. Trust, public benefit and capital markets. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  14. Bromley, P., & Meyer, J. W. (2014). “They are all organizations”: The cultural roots of blurring between the nonprofit, business, and government sectors. Administration and Society, 49(7), 939–966.Google Scholar
  15. Bundesministerium für Wirtschaft und Energie. (2017). Praxisleitfaden Soziales Unternehmertum. Berlin.Google Scholar
  16. Christen, R., & Drake, D. (2002). Commercialization. The new reality of microfinance. In D. Drake & E. Rhyne (Eds.), The commercialization of microfinance. Balancing business and development (pp. 2–22). Bloomfield: Kumarian Press.Google Scholar
  17. Cooney, K. (2006). The institutional and technical structuring of nonprofit ventures: Case study of a U.S. hybrid organization caught between two fields. VOLUNTAS: International Journal of Voluntary and Nonprofit Organizations, 17, 143–161.Google Scholar
  18. Cooney, K. (2013). Mission control: Examining the institutionalization of new legal forms of social enterprise in different strategic action fields. In B. Gidron & Y. Hasenfeld (Eds.), Social enterprise: An organizational perspective (pp. 198–221). Hampshire: Palgrave Macmillan.Google Scholar
  19. Cornforth, C. (2004). Understanding and combating mission drift in social enterprises. Social Enterprise Journal ,10(1), 3–20.Google Scholar
  20. Cornforth, C. (2012). Nonprofit governance research: Limitations of the focus on boards and suggestions for new directions. Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 41, 1116–1135.Google Scholar
  21. Cornforth, C. (2014). Understanding and combating mission drift in social enterprises. Social Enterprise Journal, 10(1), 3–20.Google Scholar
  22. Cornforth, C., & Chambers, N. (2010). The role of corporate governance and boards in organisational performance. In Kieran Walsh, Gill Harvey, & Pauline Jas (Eds.), Connecting knowledge and performance in public services: From knowing to doing. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  23. Cornforth, C., & Simpson, S. (2002). Change and continuity in the governance of non-profit organisations in the U.K: The impact of organizational size. Nonprofit Management and Leadership, 12(4), 451–470.Google Scholar
  24. Cornforth, C., & Spear, R. (2010). The governance of hybrid organizations. In D. Billis (Ed.), Hybrid organizations and the third sector—challenges for practice, theory and policy (pp. 70–89). New York: Palgrave Macmillan.Google Scholar
  25. Crucke, S., & Knockaert, M. (2016). When Stakeholder representation leads to faultlines. A study of board service performance in social enterprises. Journal of Management Studies, 53(5), 768–793.Google Scholar
  26. Dalton, D. R., Hitt, M. A., Certo, S. T., & Dalton, C. M. (2007). The fundamental agency problem and its mitigation: Independence, equity, and the market for corporate control. Academy of Management Annals, 1, 1–64.Google Scholar
  27. De Wit, F. R. C., Geer, L. L., & Jehn, K. A. (2012). The paradox of intragroup conflict: a meta-analysis. Journal of Applied Psychology, 97(2), 360–390.Google Scholar
  28. Defourny, J., & Nyssens, N. (2010). Conceptions of social enterprise and social entrepreneurship in Europe and the United States: Convergences and divergences. Journal of Social Entrepreneurship, 1(1), 32–53.Google Scholar
  29. Defourny, J., & Nyssens, S. (2017). Fundamentals for an international typology of social enterprise models. VOLUNTAS: International Journal of Voluntary and Nonprofit Organizations, 28, 2469–2497.Google Scholar
  30. Djelic, M. C., & Quack, S. (2010). Transnational communities: Shaping global economic governance. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  31. Doherty, B., Foster, G., Mason, C., Meehan, J., Meehan, K., Rotheroe, N., et al. (2009). Management for social enterprise. London: Sage.Google Scholar
  32. Ebrahim, A. (2003). Accountability in practice: Mechanisms for NGOs. World Development, 31(5), 813–829.Google Scholar
  33. 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
  34. Eckerd, A., & Moulton, S. (2011). Heterogeneous roles and heterogeneous practices: Understanding the adoption and uses of nonprofit performance evaluations. American Journal of Evaluation, 32(1), 98–117.Google Scholar
  35. Edwards, M., & Hulme, D. (1996). Too close for comfort? The impact of official aid on nongovernmental organizations. Current Issues in Comparative Education, 1(1), 6–28.Google Scholar
  36. Erakovic, L., & Jackson, B. (2012). Promoting leadership in governance and governance in leadership. In A. Davila, M. Elvira, J. Ramirez, & L. Zapata-Cantu (Eds.), Understanding organizations in complex, emergent and uncertain environments (pp. 68–83). Basingstoke: Palgrave.Google Scholar
  37. European Commission (2017). Social enterprises. Retrieved from: http://ec.europa.eu/growth/sectors/social-economy/enterprises_en. Accessed 6 Apr 2019.
  38. Ferraro, F., Etzion, D., & Gehman, J. (2015). Tackling grand challenges pragmatically: Robust action revisited. Organization Studies, 36, 363–390.Google Scholar
  39. Fisman, R., Kurhana, R., & Martenson, E. (2009). Mission-driven governance. Stanford Social Innovation Review, 7(3), 36–43.Google Scholar
  40. Fligstein, N. (1991). The theory of fields and its application to corporate governance. Seattle University Law Review, 39, 237–262.Google Scholar
  41. Galera, G., & Borzaga, C. (2009). Social enterprise: An international overview of its conceptual evolution and legal implementation. Social Enterprise Journal, 5(3), 210–228.Google Scholar
  42. Grodal, S., & Mahoney, S. (2015). From field consensus to fragmentation: How means-ends decoupling hinders progress on grand challenges. Working Paper. Google Scholar
  43. Gugerty, M. K. (2010). The emergence of nonprofit self-regulation in Africa. Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 39(6), 1087–1112.Google Scholar
  44. Hajer, M. A., & Wagenaar, H. (2003). Deliberative policy analysis: Understanding governance in the network society. Theories of Institutional Design. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  45. Hoffman, A. J. (1999). Institutional evolution and change: Environmentalism and the U.S. chemical industry. Academy of Management Journal, 42(4), 351–371.Google Scholar
  46. Hollensbe, E., Wookey, C., Hickey, L., George, G., & Nichols, C. V. (2014). Organizations with purpose. Academy of Management Journal, 57(5), 1227–1234.Google Scholar
  47. Horton, K. E., Bayerl, P. S., & Jacobs, G. (2014). Identity conflicts at work: An integrative framework. Journal of Organizational behaviour, 35, 6–22.Google Scholar
  48. Howard-Grenville, J., Buckle, S. J., Hoskins, B. J., & George, G. (2014). From the editors: Climate change and management. Academy of Management Journal, 57, 615–623.Google Scholar
  49. Huysentruyt, M., Mair, J., & Stephan, U. (2016). Market-oriented and mission-focused: social enterprises around the globe. Stanford Social Innovation Review. Online October 19th.Google Scholar
  50. Hwang, H., & Powell, W. W. (2009). The rationalization of charity: The influences of professionalism in the nonprofit sector. Administrative Science Quarterly, 54, 268–298.Google Scholar
  51. Jackson, G., Nicoll, M., & Roy, M. J. (2018). The distinctive challenges and opportunities for creating leadership within social enterprises. Social Enterprise Journal, 14(1), 71–91.Google Scholar
  52. Jäger, U., & Schröer, A. (2013). Integrated organizational identity: A definition of hybrid organizations and a research agenda. VOLUNTAS: International Journal of Voluntary and Nonprofit Organizations, 25(5), 1281–1306.Google Scholar
  53. Jäger, U., & Schröer, A. (2014). Integrated organizational identity: A definition of hybrid organizations and a research agenda. VOLUNTAS: International Journal of Voluntary and Nonprofit Organizations, 25, 1281–1306.Google Scholar
  54. Jones, M. B. (2007). The multiple source of mission drift. Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 36(2), 299–307.Google Scholar
  55. Kerlin, J. A. (2013). Defining social enterprise across different contexts. Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 42(1), 84–108.Google Scholar
  56. Klijn, E.-H. (1996). Analyzing and managing policy processes in complex networks: A theoretical examination of the concept policy network and its problems. Administration and Society, 28(1), 90–119.Google Scholar
  57. Kraatz, M. S., & Block, E. S. (2008). Organizational implications of institutional pluralism. In R. Greenwood, C. Oliver, R. Suddaby, & K. Sahlin-Andersson (Eds.), Handbook of organizational institutionalism. London: Sage.Google Scholar
  58. Levi-Faur, D., & Jordana, J. (2005). Preface: The making of a new regulatory order. The Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, 598, 6–9.Google Scholar
  59. Mair, J., Mayer, J., & Lutz, E. (2015). Navigating institutional plurality: Organizational governance in hybrid organizations. Organisation Studies, 36(6), 713–739.Google Scholar
  60. Mair, J., Wolf, M., & Ioan, A. (2016). Germany country report: A first analyses and profiling of social enterprises in Germany. SEFORÏS. Available at: http://www.seforis.eu/germany/. Accessed 6 Apr 2019.
  61. Mair, J., Wolf, M., & Ioan, A. (forthcoming, 2020). Governance of social enterprises. In: H. K. Anheier, & T. Baums (Eds.), Advances in corporate governance: Comparative perspectives. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  62. Mersland, R., & Øystrein, S. (2010). Microfinance mission drift? World Development, 38(1), 28–36.Google Scholar
  63. Moore, M. H. (2000). Managing for value: Organizational strategy in for-profit, nonprofit, and governmental organizations. Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 29(1), 183–204.Google Scholar
  64. Nyssens, M. (Ed.). (2006). Social enterprise. At the crossroads of market, public policies and civil society. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  65. Ostrower, F., & Stone, M. M. (2006). Governance: Research trends, gaps, and future prospects. In W. W. Powell & R. Steinberg (Eds.), The nonprofit sector: A research handbook (pp. 612–628). Yale: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
  66. Pache, A. C., & Santos, F. (2010). When worlds collide: The internal dynamics of organizational responses to conflicting institutional demands. Academy of Management Review, 35(3), 455–476.Google Scholar
  67. Padgett, J. F., & Ansell, C. K. (1993). Robust action and the rise of the Medici, 1400–1434. American Journal of Sociology, 98, 1259–1319.Google Scholar
  68. Padgett, J. F., & Powell, W. W. (2012). The problem of emergence. In J. F. Padgett & W. W. Powell (Eds.), The Emergence of organizations and markets (pp. 1–29). Princeton: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
  69. Pfeffer, J., & Salancik, G. R. (1978). The external control of organizations: A resource dependence perspective. New York: Harper and Row.Google Scholar
  70. Phillips, S. D. (2013). Shining light on charities or looking in the wrong place? Regulation-by transparency in Canada. VOLUNTAS: International Journal of Voluntary and Nonprofit Organizations, 24, 881–905.Google Scholar
  71. Pratt, M. G., & Foreman, P. O. (2000). Classifying managerial responses to multiple organizational identities. Academy of Management Review, 25(1), 18–42.Google Scholar
  72. Renz, D. (2006). Reframing governance. The Nonprofit Quarterly, 13, 6–11.Google Scholar
  73. Rhodes, R. A. W. (1996). The new governance: Governing without government. Political Studies, 44(4), 652–667.Google Scholar
  74. Ridley-Duff, R. (2010). Communitarian governance in social enterprises: Case evidence from the Mondragon Cooperative Corporation and school trends Ltd. Social Enterprise Journal, 6(2), 125–145.Google Scholar
  75. Saidel, J. (1998). Expanding the governance construct: Functions and contributions of nonprofit advisory groups. Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 27(4), 421–436.Google Scholar
  76. Schröer, A., & Jäger, U. (2015). Beyond balancing? A research agenda on leadership in hybrid organizations. International Studies of Management and Organization, 45(3), 259–281.Google Scholar
  77. Selznick, P. (1949). TVA and the grass roots. Berkeley: University of California Press.Google Scholar
  78. Selznick, P. (1957). Leadership in administration. New York: Harper and Row.Google Scholar
  79. Selznick, P. (1994). The moral commonwealth: Social theory and the promise of community. Berkeley: University of California Press.Google Scholar
  80. Sidel, M. (2010). The promise and limits of collective action for nonprofit self-regulation: Evidence from Asia. Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 39(6), 1039–1056.Google Scholar
  81. Smith, S. R. (2010). Hybridization and nonprofit organizations: The governance challenge. Policy and Society, 29, 219–229.Google Scholar
  82. Smith, W. K., & Besharov, M. (2018). Bowing before dual gods: How structured flexibility sustains organizational hybridity. Administrative Science Quarterly, 64, 1–44.Google Scholar
  83. Smith, W. K., Gonin, M., & Besharov, M. (2013). Managing social-business tensions: A review and research agenda for social enterprise. Business Ethics Quarterly, 23(3), 407–442.Google Scholar
  84. Spear, R., Cornforth, C., & Aiken, M. (2009). The governance challenges of social enterprises: Evidence from a UK empirical study. Annals of Public and Cooperative Economics, 80(2), 247–273.Google Scholar
  85. Stone, M., & Ostrower, F. (2007). Acting in the public interest? Another look at research on nonprofit governance. Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 36(3), 416–438.Google Scholar
  86. Stone, M. M., Zhao, J., & Cureton, C. (2012). Toward understanding governance in hybrid organizations: The case of Minnesota’s charter schools. Paper presented at the 2012 ARNOVA Conference.Google Scholar
  87. Tacon, R., Walters, G., & Cornforth, C. (2017). Accountability in nonprofit governance: A process-based study. Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 46(4), 685–704.Google Scholar
  88. 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, 801–843.Google Scholar
  89. Tracey, P., Phillips, N., & Jarvis, O. (2011). Bridging institutional entrepreneurship and the creation of new organizational forms: A multilevel model. Organization Science, 22, 60–80.Google Scholar
  90. Weick, K. E. (1984). Small wins: Redefining the scale of social problems. American Psychologist, 39(1), 40–49.Google Scholar
  91. Weick, K. E. (1993). Organizational redesign as improvisation. In G. P. Huber & W. H. Glick (Eds.), Organizational change and redesign (pp. 346–379). Cary: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  92. Weisbrod, B. A. (2004). The pitfalls of profits. Stanford Social Innovation Review, 2, 40–47.Google Scholar
  93. Westphal, J., & Zajac, E. J. (2013). A behavioural theory of corporate governance: Explicating the mechanisms of socially situated and socially constituted agency. The Academy of Management Annals, 7(1), 607–661.Google Scholar
  94. Young, D., Kerlin, J., Teasdale, S., & Soh, J. (2012). The dynamics and long-term stability of social enterprise. In K. Jill & B. Sophie (Eds.), Patterns in social entrepreneurship research (pp. 217–240). Cheltenham: Edward Elgar Publishing Ltd.Google Scholar
  95. Young, D., & Salamon, L. (2002). Commercialization, social ventures and for-profit competition. In L. Salamon (Ed.), The state of nonprofit America (pp. 423–446). Washington DC: Brookings Institution Press.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© International Society for Third-Sector Research 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Zürcher Hochschule für Angewandte WissenschaftenZurichSwitzerland
  2. 2.Hertie School of GovernanceBerlinGermany

Personalised recommendations