This paper investigates the process through which firms and non-profit organizations (NPOs) reconcile divergent worldviews in the development of firm–NPO partnerships. Drawing on data from two long-lived firm–NPO partnerships, this study suggests that the dynamics of reconciliation in situations of institutional complexity can be better understood by examining how firms and NPOs manage the interplay of both market and social logics in an inter-organizational context. We have found that during the initial stages of collaboration, partners manage differences by engaging in joint pilot projects and by demonstrating management’s commitment to the partnerships. Subsequently, after firms and NPOs sign a formal partnership agreement, they seek to maintain a sustainable mode of interaction by adopting three distinct mechanisms for managing tensions arising from the partnership: negotiating activity scope, monitoring and learning, and modifying organizational practices. Our research findings contribute to the literature on cross-sector partnership and institutional complexity by highlighting the means by which organizations reduce tensions associated with divergent institutional logics and maintain successful partnerships.
This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution.
Buy single article
Instant access to the full article PDF.
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.
Subscribe to journal
Immediate online access to all issues from 2019. Subscription will auto renew annually.
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.
DiMaggio and Powell (1983) define the field level as “those organizations that, in the aggregate, constitute a recognized area of institutional life: key suppliers, resource and product consumers, regulatory agencies, and other organizations that produce similar services or products.”
We refer to the informants using third person pronouns throughout the paper, and the firms involved have also been disguised when anonymity might be threatened.
Alvesson, M. (2003). Beyond neopositivists, romantics, and localists: A reflexive approach to interviews in organizational research. Academy of Management Review, 28(1), 13–33.
Ansari, S., Wijen, F., & Gray, B. (2013). Constructing a climate change logic: An institutional perspective on the “tragedy of the commons”. Organization Science, 24(4), 1014–1040.
Ashraf, N., Ahmadsimab, A., & Pinkse, J. (2017). From animosity to affinity: The interplay of competing logics and interdependence in cross-sector partnerships. Journal of Management Studies, 54(6), 793–822.
Ashraf, N., Pinkse, J., Ahmadsimab, A., Ul-Haq, S., & Badar, K. (2019). Divide and rule: The effects of diversity and network structure on a firm’s sustainability performance. Long Range Planning. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lrp.2019.04.002.
Austin, J. E. (2000). Strategic collaboration between nonprofits and business. Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 29, 69–97.
Austin, J. E., & Seitanidi, M. M. (2012). Collaborative value creation: A review of partnering between nonprofits and businesses: Part I. Value creation spectrum and collaboration stages. Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 41, 726–758.
Battilana, J., & Dorado, S. (2010). Building sustainable hybrid organizations: The case of commercial microfinance organizations. Academy of Management Journal, 53(6), 1419–1440.
Battilana, J., & Lee, M. (2014). Advancing research on hybrid organizing–Insights from the study of social enterprises. Academy of Management Annals, 8(1), 397–441.
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.
Brown, L. D., & Moore, M. H. (2001). Accountability, strategy, and international nongovernmental organizations. Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 30(3), 569–587.
Candler, G., & Dumont, G. (2010). A non-profit accountability framework. Canadian Public Administration, 53(2), 259–279.
Chataway, J., Brusoni, S., Cacciatori, E., Hanlin, R., & Orsenigo, L. (2007). The International AIDS Vaccine Initiative (IAVI) in a changing landscape of vaccine development: A public/private partnership as knowledge broker and integrator. European Journal of Development Research, 19(1), 100–117.
Chenhall, R. H., Hall, M., & Smith, D. (2010). Social capital and management control systems: A study of a non-government organization. Accounting, Organizations and Society, 35(8), 737–756.
Chowdhury, I. (2012). Multiple institutional logics and inter-organizational partnership. Academy of Management Proceedings, 2012, 16161. Academy of Management Briarcliff Manor, NY 10510.
Corbin, J. M., & Strauss, A. (1990). Grounded theory research: Procedures, canons, and evaluative criteria. Qualitative Sociology, 13(1), 3–21.
Cornelissen, J. P., & Werner, M. D. (2014). Putting framing in perspective: A review of framing and frame analysis across the management and organizational literature. Academy of Management Annals, 8(1), 181–235.
Di Domenico, M., Tracey, P., & Haugh, H. (2009). The dialectic of social exchange: Theorizing corporate–social enterprise collaboration. Organization Studies, 30(8), 887–907.
DiMaggio, P. J., & Powell, W. W. (1983). The iron cage re-visited: Institutional isomorphism and collective rationality in organizational fields. American Sociological Review, 48(2), 147–160.
Drumwright, M. E., Cunningham, P. H., & Berger, I. E. (2004). Social alliances: Company/nonprofit collaboration. California Management Review, 47(1), 58–90.
Dunn, M. B., & Jones, C. (2010). Institutional logics and institutional pluralism: The contestation of care and science logics in medical education, 1967–2005. Administrative Science Quarterly, 55(1), 114–149.
Eisenhardt, K. M., & Graebner, M. E. (2007). Theory building from cases: Opportunities and challenges. Academy of Management Journal, 50(1), 25–32.
Friedland, R. (2013). God, love, and other good reasons for practice: Thinking through institutional logics. Research in the Sociology of Organizations, 39(Part A), 25–50.
Friedland, R. (2014). Divine institution: Weber’s value spheres and institutional theory. Research in the Sociology of Organizations, 41, 217–258.
Friedland, R., & Alford, R. (1991). Bringing society back in: Symbols, practices and institutional contradictions. In W. Powell & P. DiMaggio (Eds.), The new institutionalism in organizational analysis (pp. 232–266). Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Friedman, M. (1970, September 13). The social responsibility of business is to increase its profits. New York Times Magazine, pp. 122–124.
Googins, B., & Rochlin, S. (2000). Creating the partnership society: Understanding the rhetoric and reality of cross-sectoral partnerships. Business and Society Review, 105(1), 127–144.
Gray, B., & Purdy, J. (2014). Conflict in cross sector partnerships. In M. M. Seitanidi & A. Crane (Eds.), Social partnerships and responsible business: A research handbook (pp. 205–226). London: Routledge.
Greenwood, R., Raynard, M., Kodeih, F., Micelotta, E., & Lounsbury, M. (2011). Institutional complexity and organizational responses. Academy of Management Annals, 5(1), 317–371.
Guba, E. G., & Lincoln, Y. S. (1994). Competing paradigms in qualitative research. Handbook of Qualitative Research, 2(163–194), 105.
Hahn, T., Pinkse, J., Preuss, L., & Figge, F. (2015). Tensions in corporate sustainability: Towards an integrative framework. Journal of Business Ethics, 127(2), 297–316.
Hahn, T., Preuss, L., Pinkse, J., & Figge, F. (2014). Cognitive frames in corporate sustainability: Managerial sensemaking with paradoxical and business case frames. Academy of Management Review, 39(4), 463–487.
Haigh, N., & Hoffman, A. (2014). The new heretics hybrid organizations and the challenges they present to corporate sustainability. Organization & Environment, 27(3), 223–241.
Hwang, H., & Powell, W. W. (2009). The rationalization of charity: The influences of professionalism in the nonprofit sector. Administrative Science Quarterly, 54(2), 268–298.
Jensen, M. C. (2001). Value maximization, stakeholder theory, and the corporate objective function. Journal of Applied Corporate Finance, 14(3), 8–21.
Jonsson, S., & Lounsbury, M. (2017). The meaning of economic democracy: Institutional logics, parabiosis, and the construction of frames. In J. Gehman, M. Lounsbury, & R. Greenwood (Eds.), Research in the sociology of organizations, Vol. 48A: How institutions matter! (pp. 71–100). Bingley: Emerald Group.
Kivleniece, I., & Quelin, B. V. (2012). Creating and capturing value in public-private ties: A private actor’s perspective. Academy of Management Review, 37(2), 272–299.
Klein, V. H., Jr. (2015). Bringing values back in: The limitations of institutional logics and the relevance of dialectical phenomenology. Organization, 22(3), 326–350.
Kraatz, M. S., & Block, E. S. (2008). Organizational implications of institutional pluralism. The Sage Handbook of Organizational Institutionalism, 840, 243–275.
Kraatz, M. S., & Flores, R. (2015). Reinfusing values. In institutions and ideals: Philip Selznick’s legacy for organizational studies. Research in the Sociology of Organizations, 44, 353–381.
La Porta, R., Lopez-de-Silanes, F., Shleifer, A., & Vishny, R. (1999). The quality of government. The Journal of Law, Economics, and Organization, 15(1), 222–279.
Langley, A. (1999). Strategies for theorizing from process data. Academy of Management Review, 24(4), 691–710.
Locke, K. (1996). Rewriting the discovery of grounded theory after 25 years? Journal of Management Inquiry, 5, 239–245.
Lounsbury, M. (2007). A tale of two cities: Competing logics and practice variation in the professionalizing of mutual funds. Academy of Management Journal, 50(2), 289–307.
Manning, S., & Roessler, D. (2014). The formation of cross-sector development partnerships: How bridging agents shape project agendas and longer-term alliances. Journal of Business Ethics, 123(3), 527–547.
McLaughlin, T. A. (2006). Nonprofit strategic positioning: Decide where to be, plan what to do. Hoboken, NJ: Wiley.
Meyer, R. E., & Höllerer, M. A. (2010). Meaning structures in a contested issue field: A topographic map of shareholder value in Austria. Academy of Management Journal, 53(6), 1241–1262.
Miles, M. B., & Huberman, A. M. (1994). Qualitative data analysis: An expanded sourcebook (2nd ed.). Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
Pache, A.-C., & Chowdhury, I. (2012). Social entrepreneurs as institutionally embedded entrepreneurs: Toward a new model of social entrepreneurship education. Academy of Management Learning & Education, 11(3), 494–510.
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.
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.
Patton, M. Q. (2002). Two decades of developments in qualitative inquiry a personal, experiential perspective. Qualitative Social Work, 1(3), 261–283.
Poole, M. S., & Van de Ven, A. H. (1989). Using paradox to build management and organization theories. Academy of Management Review, 14(4), 562–578.
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.
Putnam, L. L., Fairhurst, G. T., & Banghart, S. (2016). Contradictions, dialectics, and paradoxes in organizations: A constitutive approach. Academy of Management Annals, 10(1), 65–171.
Reay, T., & Hinings, C. R. (2009). Managing the rivalry of competing institutional logics. Organization Studies, 30(6), 629–652.
Reay, T., & Jones, C. (2016). Qualitatively capturing institutional logics. Strategic Organization, 14(4), 441–454.
Reinhardt, F. L., Stavins, R. N., & Vietor, R. H. (2008). Corporate social responsibility through an economic lens. Review of Environmental Economics and Policy, 2(2), 219–239.
Saz-Carranza, A., & Longo, F. (2012). Managing competing institutional logics in public–private joint ventures. Public Management Review, 14(3), 331–357.
Seitanidi, M. M., & Crane, A. (2009). Implementing CSR through partnerships: Understanding the selection, design and institutionalisation of nonprofit-business partnerships. Journal of Business Ethics, 85(2), 413–429.
Selsky, J. W., & Parker, B. (2005). Cross-sector partnerships to address social issues: Challenges to theory and practice. Journal of Management, 31(6), 849–873.
Smith, W. K., Binns, A., & Tushman, M. L. (2010). Complex business models: Managing strategic paradoxes simultaneously. Long Range Planning, 43(2), 448–461.
Smith, W. K., & Lewis, M. W. (2011). Toward a theory of paradox: A dynamic equilibrium model of organizing. Academy of Management Review, 36(2), 381–403.
Smith, W. K., & Tracey, P. (2016). Institutional complexity and paradox theory: Complementarities of competing demands. Strategic Organization, 14(4), 455–466.
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.
Thornton, P. H., Ocasio, W., & Lounsbury, M. (2012). The institutional logics perspective: A new approach to culture, structure, and process. New York: Oxford University Press.
Utting, P., & Zammit, A. (2009). United Nations-business partnerships: Good intentions and contradictory agendas. Journal of Business Ethics, 90(1), 39–56.
Vian, T., McCoy, K., Richards, S. C., Connelly, P., & Feeley, F. (2007). Corporate social responsibility in global health: The Pfizer Global Health Fellows international volunteering program. Human Resource Planning, 30(1), 30–35.
Vurro, C., Dacin, M. T., & Perrini, F. (2010). Institutional antecedents of partnering for social change: How institutional logics shape cross-sector social partnerships. Journal of Business Ethics, 94, 39–53.
Yaziji, M., & Doh, J. (2009). NGOs and corporations: Conflict and collaboration. New York: Cambridge University Press.
This study was supported by HEC Montreal (Grant No. 32-153-302-0-G84).
Conflict of interest
The authors declare that they have no conflicts of interest.
This article does not contain any studies on human participants or animals performed by any of the authors. Consent was obtained from all individual participants for each of the interviews conducted in this study.
Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
About this article
Cite this article
Ahmadsimab, A., Chowdhury, I. Managing Tensions and Divergent Institutional Logics in Firm–NPO Partnerships. J Bus Ethics 168, 651–670 (2021). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-019-04265-x
- Firm–NPO partnership
- Corporate social responsibility
- Institutional logics