Skip to main content

The Influence of Interorganizational Collaboration on Logic Conciliation and Tensions Within Hybrid Organizations: Insights from Social Enterprise–Corporate Collaborations

Abstract

An increasing amount of research has examined the management of competing logics, and possible tensions arising between them, within “hybrid organizations.” However, the ways in which the relationships of hybrids with other organizations shape the conciliation of these logics and tensions have received limited attention so far. In this theoretical paper, we examine how hybrid organizations deal with interorganizational collaboration, in particular whether and how their hybridity can be maintained when they partner with “dominant-logic organizations.” Drawing on empirical literature on social enterprise–corporate collaborations, we develop a framework and several propositions on how competing logics and their balancing within hybrid organizations may be affected by interactions with organizations underpinned by one dominant logic. We suggest that influences will mostly depend on the type of collaboration pursued. A collaboration based on a lower level of engagement and interaction between the two partners is likely to give precedence to one logic over the other, reducing inter-logic tensions but possibly compromising organizational hybridity. By contrast, a collaboration featuring numerous interactions and mission compatibility may facilitate sustained hybridity if tensions are acknowledged and managed. Our propositions contribute to the literatures on hybrid organizations, interorganizational collaboration, and social enterprise.

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution.

Fig. 1

References

  1. Almandoz, J. (2014). Founding teams as carriers of competing logics: When institutional forces predict banks’ risk exposure. Administrative Science Quarterly,59(3), 442–473.

    Google Scholar 

  2. André, K., & Pache, A.-C. (2016). From caring entrepreneur to caring enterprise: Addressing the ethical challenges of scaling up social enterprises. Journal of Business Ethics,133(4), 659–675.

    Google Scholar 

  3. Arya, B., & Salk, J. E. (2006). Cross-sector alliance learning and effectiveness of voluntary codes of corporate social responsibility. Business Ethics Quarterly,16(2), 211–234.

    Google Scholar 

  4. Ashforth, B. E., & Reingen, P. H. (2014). Functions of dysfunction: Managing the dynamics of an organizational duality in a natural food cooperative. Administrative Science Quarterly,59(3), 474–516.

    Google Scholar 

  5. Austin, J. E. (2000). Strategic collaboration between nonprofits and businesses. Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly,29(1), 69–97.

    Google Scholar 

  6. Austin, J., Leonard, H. B., Reficco, E., & Wei-Skillern, J. (2006). Social entrepreneurship: it is for corporations, too. In A. Nicholls (Ed.), Social entrepreneurship. New models of sustainable social change (pp. 169–204). Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  7. 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(5), 726–758.

    Google Scholar 

  8. Barinaga, E. (2018). Coopted! mission drift in a social venture engaged in a cross-sectoral partnership. VOLUNTAS: International Journal of Voluntary and Nonprofit Organizations.,31, 437.

    Google Scholar 

  9. 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 

  10. 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.

    Google Scholar 

  11. 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 

  12. Berger, I. E., Cunningham, P. H., & Drumwright, M. E. (2004). Social alliances: Company/nonprofit collaboration. California Management Review,47(1), 58–90.

    Google Scholar 

  13. Bergman, B. (2017). Agents of change? An inter-organizational research agenda on hybrid new ventures. In A. C. Corbett & J. A. Katz (Eds.), Hybrid ventures (pp. 219–232). New York: Emerald.

    Google Scholar 

  14. 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.

    Google Scholar 

  15. Bezençon, V., & Blili, S. (2009). Fair trade managerial practices: Strategy, organisation and engagement. Journal of Business Ethics,90(1), 95–113.

    Google Scholar 

  16. Blundel, R. K., & Lyon, F. (2014). Towards a ‘long view’: Historical perspectives on the scaling and replication of social ventures. Journal of Social Entrepreneurship,6(1), 80–102.

    Google Scholar 

  17. Bode, I., Gardin, L., & Nyssens, M. (2011). Quasi-marketization in domiciliary care: Varied patterns, similar problems? International Journal of Sociology and Social Policy,31(3), 225–235.

    Google Scholar 

  18. Borys, B., & Jemison, D. B. (1989). Hybrid arrangements as strategic alliances: Theoretical issues in organizational combinations. Academy of Management Review,14(2), 234–249.

    Google Scholar 

  19. Brandsen, T., van de Donk, W., & Putters, K. (2005). Griffins or chameleons? Hybridity as a permanent and inevitable characteristic of the third sector. International Journal of Public Administration,28(9–10), 749–765.

    Google Scholar 

  20. Bryson, J. M., Crosby, B. C., & Stone, M. M. (2006). The design and implementation of cross-sector collaborations: Propositions from the literature. Public Administration Review,66, 44–55.

    Google Scholar 

  21. Child, J., & Faulkner, D. (1998). Strategies of co-operation. Managing alliances, networks, and joint ventures. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  22. Clarke, A., & Crane, A. (2018). Cross-sector partnerships for systemic change: Systematized literature review and agenda for further research. Journal of Business Ethics,150(1), 303–313.

    Google Scholar 

  23. Cornforth, C. (2014). Understanding and combating mission drift in social enterprises. Social Enterprise Journal,1, 3.

    Google Scholar 

  24. 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 

  25. Dart, R. (2004). The legitimacy of social enterprise. Nonprofit Management & Leadership,14(4), 411–424.

    Google Scholar 

  26. Davies, I. A., & Doherty, B. (2019). Balancing a hybrid business model: The search for equilibrium at cafédirect. Journal of Business Ethics,157(4), 1043–1066.

    Google Scholar 

  27. Defourny, J., & Nyssens, M. (2008). Social enterprise in europe: Recent trends and developments. EMES Working Paper 08(01).

  28. Dentoni, D., Bitzer, V., & Pascucci, S. (2016). Cross-sector partnerships and the co-creation of dynamic capabilities for stakeholder orientation. Journal of Business Ethics,135(1), 35–53.

    Google Scholar 

  29. Di Domenico, M., Tracey, P., & Haugh, H. (2009). The dialectic of social exchange: Theorizing corporate-social enterprise collaboration. Organization Studies,30(8), 887–907.

    Google Scholar 

  30. Doherty, B., Haugh, H., & Lyon, F. (2014). Social enterprises as hybrid organizations. A review and research agenda. International Journal of Management Reviews,16(4), 417–436.

    Google Scholar 

  31. Dufays, F., & Huybrechts, B. (2016). Where do hybrids come from? Entrepreneurial team heterogeneity as an avenue for the emergence of hybrid organizations. International Small Business Journal,34(6), 777–796.

    Google Scholar 

  32. 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 

  33. Everett, J., & Jamal, T. B. (2004). Multistakeholder collaboration as symbolic marketplace and pedagogic practice. Journal of Management Inquiry,13(1), 57–78.

    Google Scholar 

  34. Gillett, A., Loader, K., Doherty, B., & Scott, J. M. (2018). An examination of tensions in a hybrid collaboration: A longitudinal study of an empty homes project. Journal of Business Ethics.,157(4), 949–967.

    Google Scholar 

  35. Grimes, M., Williams, T. A., & Zhao, E. Y. (2019). Anchors aweigh: The sources, variety, and challenges of mission drift. Academy of Management Review,44(4), 819–845.

    Google Scholar 

  36. Gutiérrez, R., Márquez, P., & Reficco, E. (2016). Configuration and development of alliance portfolios: A comparison of same-sector and cross-sector partnerships. Journal of Business Ethics,135(1), 55–69.

    Google Scholar 

  37. Hermes, N., Lensink, R., & Meesters, A. (2011). Outreach and efficiency of microfinance institutions. World Development,39(6), 938–948.

    Google Scholar 

  38. Howard, J., & Taylor, M. (2010). Hybridity in partnership working: managing tensions and opportunities. In D. Billis (Ed.), Hybrid organizations and the third sector (pp. 175–196). New York: Palgrave MacMillan.

    Google Scholar 

  39. Hudon, M., & Sandberg, J. (2013). The ethical crisis in microfinance. Business Ethics Quarterly,23(4), 561–589.

    Google Scholar 

  40. Huybrechts, B., & Haugh, H. (2018). The roles of networks in institutionalizing new hybrid organizational forms: Insights from the European renewable energy cooperative network. Organization Studies,39(8), 1085–1108.

    Google Scholar 

  41. Huybrechts, B., & Nicholls, A. (2013). The role of legitimacy in social enterprise-corporate collaboration. Social Enterprise Journal,9(2), 130–146.

    Google Scholar 

  42. Huybrechts, B., Nicholls, A., & Edinger, K. (2017). Sacred alliance or pact with the devil? How and why social enterprises collaborate with mainstream businesses in the fair trade sector. Entrepreneurship & Regional Development,29(7–8), 586–608.

    Google Scholar 

  43. Jay, J. (2013). Navigating paradox as a mechanism of change and innovation in hybrid organizations. Academy of Management Journal,56(1), 137–159.

    Google Scholar 

  44. Kumar, K., & van Dissel, H. G. (1996). Sustainable collaboration: Managing conflict and cooperation in interorganizational systems. MIS Quarterly,20(3), 279–300.

    Google Scholar 

  45. Laville, J.-L., Lemaître, A., & Nyssens, M. (2006). Public policies and social enterprises in Europe: the challenge of institutionalization. In M. Nyssens (Ed.), Social enterprise: At the crossroads of market, public policies and civil society. London: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  46. Lawrence, T. B., Hardy, C., & Phillips, N. (2002). Institutional effects of interorganizational collaboration: The emergence of proto-institutions. Academy of Management Journal,45, 281–290.

    Google Scholar 

  47. Le Ber, M., & Branzei, O. (2010a). (Re)Forming strategic cross-sector partnerships relational processes of social innovation. Business & Society,49(1), 140–172.

    Google Scholar 

  48. Le Ber, M., & Branzei, O. (2010b). Towards a critical theory of value creation in cross-sector partnerships. Organization,17(5), 599–629.

    Google Scholar 

  49. Le Ber, M., & Branzei, O. (2010c). Value frame fusion in cross sector interactions. Journal of Business Ethics,94(1), 163–195.

    Google Scholar 

  50. Le Pennec, M., & Raufflet, E. (2018). Value creation in inter-organizational collaboration: An empirical study. Journal of Business Ethics,148(4), 817–834.

    Google Scholar 

  51. Lee, M., & Battilana, J. (2013). How the zebra got its stripes: Imprinting of individuals and hybrid social ventures. Harvard Business School Organizational Behavior Unit Working Paper 14(5).

  52. Litrico, J.-B., & Besharov, M. L. (2019). Unpacking variation in hybrid organizational forms: Changing models of social enterprise among nonprofits, 2000–2013. Journal of Business Ethics,159(2), 343–360.

    Google Scholar 

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

    Google Scholar 

  54. 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.

    Google Scholar 

  55. McMullen, J. S. (2018). Organizational hybrids as biological hybrids: Insights for research on the relationship between social enterprise and the entrepreneurial ecosystem. Journal of Business Venturing,33(5), 575–590.

    Google Scholar 

  56. McMullin, C., & Skelcher, C. (2018). The impact of societal-level institutional logics on hybridity: Evidence from nonprofit organizations in England and France. VOLUNTAS: International Journal of Voluntary and Nonprofit Organizations,29(5), 911–924.

    Google Scholar 

  57. Mongelli, L., Rullani, F., Ramus, T., & Rimac, T. (2019). The bright side of hybridity: Exploring how social enterprises manage and leverage their hybrid nature. Journal of Business Ethics,159(2), 301–305.

    Google Scholar 

  58. Murphy, M., Arenas, D., & Batista, J. M. (2015). Value creation in cross-sector collaborations: The roles of experience and alignment. Journal of Business Ethics,130(1), 145–162.

    Google Scholar 

  59. Nicholls, A., & Huybrechts, B. (2016). Sustaining inter-organizational relationships across institutional logics and power asymmetries: The case of fair trade. Journal of Business Ethics,135(4), 699–714.

    Google Scholar 

  60. O’Regan, K. M., & Oster, S. M. (2000). Nonprofit and for-profit partnerships: Rationale and challenges of cross-sector contracting. Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly,29(1), 120–140.

    Google Scholar 

  61. Ometto, M. P., Gegenhuber, T., Winter, J., & Greenwood, R. (2019). From balancing missions to mission drift: The role of the institutional context, spaces, and compartmentalization in the scaling of social enterprises. Business & Society,58(5), 1003–1046.

    Google Scholar 

  62. 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 

  63. Pache, A.-C., & Santos, F. (2013). Inside the hybrid organization: Selective coupling as a response to conflicting institutional logics. Academy of Management Journal,56(4), 972–1001.

    Google Scholar 

  64. Pfeffer, J., & Salancik, G. (1978). The external control of organizations: A resource dependence perspective. New York: Harper & Row.

    Google Scholar 

  65. Ramus, T., & Vaccaro, A. (2017). Stakeholders matter: How social enterprises address mission drift. Journal of Business Ethics,143(2), 307–322.

    Google Scholar 

  66. Ramus, T., Vaccaro, A., & Brusoni, S. (2017). Institutional complexity in turbulent times: Formalization, collaboration, and the emergence of blended logics. Academy of Management Journal,60(4), 1253–1284.

    Google Scholar 

  67. Raynolds, L. T. (2009). Mainstreaming fair trade coffee: From partnership to traceability. World Development,37(6), 1083–1093.

    Google Scholar 

  68. 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, 413–429.

    Google Scholar 

  69. 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.

    Google Scholar 

  70. Shepherd, D. A., Williams, T. A., & Zhao, E. Y. (2019). A framework for exploring the degree of hybridity in social entrepreneurship. Academy of Management Perspectives,33(4), 491–512.

    Google Scholar 

  71. 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.

    Google Scholar 

  72. Smith, W. K., & Besharov, M. L. (2019). Bowing before dual gods: How structured flexibility sustains organizational hybridity. Administrative Science Quarterly,64(1), 1–44.

    Google Scholar 

  73. Smith, W. K., Gonin, M., & Besharov, M. L. (2013). Managing social-business tensions: A review and research agenda for social enterprise. Business Ethics Quarterly,23(3), 407–442.

    Google Scholar 

  74. 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.

    Google Scholar 

  75. Stadtler, L. (2018). Tightrope walking: Navigating competition in multi-company cross-sector social partnerships. Journal of Business Ethics,148(2), 329–345.

    Google Scholar 

  76. 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. The American Journal of Sociology,105(3), 801–843.

    Google Scholar 

  77. Tracey, P., Phillips, N., & Haugh, H. (2005). Beyond philanthropy: Community enterprise as a basis for corporate citizenship. Journal of Business Ethics,58(4), 327–344.

    Google Scholar 

  78. van Hille, I., de Bakker, F. G. A., Ferguson, J. E., & Groenewegen, P. (2019). Navigating tensions in a cross-sector social partnership: How a convener drives change for sustainability. Corporate Social Responsibility and Environmental Management,26(2), 317–329.

    Google Scholar 

  79. van Tulder, R., Seitanidi, M. M., Crane, A., & Brammer, S. (2016). Enhancing the impact of cross-sector partnerships: Four impact loops for channeling partnership studies. Journal of Business Ethics,135(1), 1–17.

    Google Scholar 

  80. Vickers, I., Lyon, F., Sepulveda, L., & McMullin, C. (2017). Public service innovation and multiple institutional logics: The case of hybrid social enterprise providers of health and wellbeing. Research Policy,46(10), 1755–1768.

    Google Scholar 

  81. Vurro, C., Dacin, T., & Perrini, F. (2010). Institutional antecedents of partnering for social change: How institutional logics shape cross-sector social partnerships. Journal of Business Ethics,94(1), 39–53.

    Google Scholar 

  82. Weidner, K., Weber, C., & Göbel, M. (2019). You scratch my back and I scratch yours: Investigating inter-partner legitimacy in relationships between social enterprises and their key partners. Business & Society,58(3), 493–532.

    Google Scholar 

  83. Wry, T., & York, J. G. (2017). An identity-based approach to social enterprise. Academy of Management Review,42(3), 437–460.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding authors

Correspondence to Claudia Savarese or Marek Hudon.

Ethics declarations

Research Involving Human and Animal Rights

This article does not contain any studies with human participants or animals performed by any of the authors.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Savarese, C., Huybrechts, B. & Hudon, M. The Influence of Interorganizational Collaboration on Logic Conciliation and Tensions Within Hybrid Organizations: Insights from Social Enterprise–Corporate Collaborations. J Bus Ethics (2020). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-020-04557-7

Download citation

Keywords

  • Hybrid organization
  • Social enterprise
  • Interorganizational collaboration
  • Institutional logics
  • Inter-logic tensions