Responding to Value Pluralism in Hybrid Organizations
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.
KeywordsAggregation Environmental value Hybrid organizations Incommensurability Institutional complexity Institutional logics Social enterprise Social value Value pluralism
Compliance with Ethical Standards
Conflict of interest
Erin I. Castellas, Wendy Stubbs and Véronique Ambrosini declare that they have no conflict of interest.
- 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.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
- Blaikie, N. (1993). Approaches to social enquiry. Cambridge: Polity Press.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
- Eisenhardt, K. (1989). Building theories from case study research. The Academy of Management Review, 14(4), 532–550.Google Scholar
- Foster, J. (Ed.). (2002). Valuing Nature? Economics, ethics and environment. New York, NY: Routledge.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
- 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.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.
- Mulgan, G. (2010). Measuring social value. Stanford Social Innovation Review, Summer, 8(3), 38–43.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
- 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
- Pratt, M. G., & Foreman, P. O. (2000). Classifying managerial responses to multiple organizational identities. Academy of Management Review, 25(1), 18–42.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
- 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
- Yin, R. K. (2003). Case study research: Design and methods (3rd ed.). Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications.Google Scholar