Unpacking Variation in Hybrid Organizational Forms: Changing Models of Social Enterprise Among Nonprofits, 2000–2013
To remain financially viable and continue to accomplish their social missions, nonprofits are increasingly adopting a hybrid organizational form that combines commercial and social welfare logics. While studies recognize that individual organizations vary in how they incorporate and manage hybridity, variation at the level of the organizational form remains poorly understood. Existing studies tend to treat forms as either hybrid or not, limiting our understanding of the different ways a hybrid form may combine multiple logics and how such combinations evolve over time. Analyzing 14 years of data from Canadian nonprofits seeking funding for social enterprise activities, we identify two novel dimensions along which a hybrid form may vary—the locus of integration and the scope of logics. We further find that as the commercial logic became more widespread within the nonprofit sector, variants of the hybrid form shifted from primarily emphasizing the commercial logic to more equally emphasizing both the commercial and social welfare logics and integrating the two logics in multiple ways. Drawing on these findings, we contribute a multi-dimensional conception of hybrid forms and theorize how form-level variation in hybridity can arise from organization-level cognitive challenges that actors face when combining seemingly incompatible logics. We then build on this theorizing to offer an alternative perspective on commercialization of the nonprofit sector as a contextually dependent rather than universal trend.
KeywordsSocial enterprise Hybrids Nonprofit organizations Social change Institutional logics Institutional complexity Institutional theory Organizational forms
We are indebted to Enterprising Nonprofits for providing access to the data analyzed in this paper. We thank the guest editors of the special issue as well as two anonymous reviewers for their helpful guidance during the review process. We also thank Michael Lounsbury, Royston Greenwood, Joshua Margolis, as well as seminar participants at Queen’s University, the Tokyo Colloquium for Organization Studies, the Community of Social Innovation annual conference, the EGOS 2014 Conference in Rotterdam, and the AOM 2018 conference in Chicago, for their comments on prior versions of this paper. Chuhan Liu, Thomas Moir, Alex Tablan, Diego Soares and Emily Zong provided research assistance. This research received financial support from the Smith School of Business at Queen’s University, the ILR School at Cornell University, and an Insight Development grant from the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada.
This study was funded by the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada (Grant Number 430-2013-0604).
Compliance with Ethical Standards
Conflict of interest
The authors declare that they have no conflicts of interest.
All procedures performed in studies involving human participants were in accordance with the ethical standards of the institutional and/or national research committee and with the 1964 Helsinki declaration and its later amendments or comparable ethical standards. For this type of study (i.e., archival), formal consent is not required. This article does not contain any studies with animals performed by any of the authors.
- Albert, S., & Whetten, D. (1985). Organizational identity. In L. L. Cummings, & B. M. Staw (Eds.), Research in organizational behavior (pp. 263–296). Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.Google Scholar
- Battilana, J., Besharov, M. L., & Mitzinneck, B. (2017). On hybrids and hybrid organizing: A review and roadmap for future research. In R. Greenwood, C. Oliver, T. B. Lawrence & R. E. Meyer (Eds.), The SAGE handbook of organizational institutionalism (pp. 128–162). Thousand Oaks: SAGE Publications.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 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
- Besharov, M. L., Smith, W. K., & Darabi, T. (2018). Combining differentiating and integrating to support social innovation. In T. B. Gerald, P. George, Tracey & H. Joshi (Eds.), Handbook of inclusive innovation: The role of organizations, markets, and communities in social innovation. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar.Google Scholar
- Brouard, F., & McMurtry, J. J. 2015. Social enterprises in Canada: A brief report. Canadian Journal of Nonprofit and Social Economy Research, 6(1): 18–24.Google Scholar
- D’Aunno, T., Sutton, R. I., & Price, R. H. 1991. Isomorphism and external support in conflicting institutional environments—a study of drug-abuse treatment units. Academy of Management Journal, 34(3): 636–661.Google Scholar
- Dees, J. G. (1998). Enterprising nonprofits. Harvard Business Review, 76(1), 5–15Google Scholar
- Elson, P. R., Hall, P., Leeson-Klym, S., Penner, D., & Andres, J. 2015. Social enterprises in the Canadian West. Canadian Journal of Nonprofit and Social Economy Research, 6(1): 83–103.Google Scholar
- Friedland, R., & Alford, R. R. 1991. Bringing society back. In: Symbols, practices, and institutional contradictions. In W. W. Powell, & P. DiMaggio (Eds.), The New institutionalism in organizational analysis (232–263). Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
- Hoffman, A. J. (1999). Institutional evolution and change: Environmentalism and the US chemical industry. Academy of Management Journal, 42(4), 351–371.Google Scholar
- Lounsbury, M., & Strang, D. 2009. Social enterpreneurship: Success stories and logic construction. In D. C. Hammack, & S. Heydemann (Eds.), Globalization, philanthropy, and civil society: projecting institutional logics abroad (pp. 71–94). Bloomington: Indiana University Press.Google Scholar
- 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
- 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.Google Scholar
- Ramus, T., Vaccaro, A., & Brusoni, S. (in press). Institutional complexity in turbulent times: Formalization, collaboration, and the emergence of blended logics. Academy of Management Journal.Google Scholar
- Reay, T., & Hinings, C. R. (2009). Managing the rivalry of competing institutional logics. Organization Studies, 30(6), 629–652.Google Scholar
- Selznick, P. (1957). Leadership in administration. A sociological interpretation. New York: Harper & Row.Google Scholar
- Simpson, A. (2002). Enterprising non-profits. Caledon Institute of Social Policy, Community Stories.Google Scholar
- Smith, W. K., & Besharov, M. L. (forthcoming). Bowing before dual gods: How structured flexibility sustains organizational hybridity. Administrative Science Quarterly, 64(1).Google Scholar
- Thornton, P., Jones, C., & Kury, K. (2005). Institutional logics and institutional change in organizations: Transformations in accounting, architecture, and publishing. In C. Jones & P. H. Thornton (Eds.), Transformation in cultural industries (1st edn., pp. 125–170). Amsterdam; Boston: Elsevier JAI.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Thornton, P. H. (2002). The rise of the corporation in a craft industry: Conflict and conformity in institutional logics. Academy of Management Journal, 45(1), 81–101.Google Scholar