Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Stakeholder Knowledge and Behavioral Integration in Boards of Social Enterprises: A Team Production Approach

  • Research Papers
  • Published:
VOLUNTAS: International Journal of Voluntary and Nonprofit Organizations Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

The social entrepreneurship literature increasingly acknowledges that the board of directors is of major importance in dealing with the multiple goal pursuit of social enterprises. Using a team production perspective, we study the relationship between stakeholder knowledge in the board and the engagement of the board in counseling and decision-making (i.e., board service performance) and subsequent organizational performance. The results of our study, using a sample of Flemish social enterprises, reveal that board stakeholder knowledge is positively related to board service performance. This relationship is moderated by board behavioral integration, which is strengthening the relationship in case of high stakeholder knowledge. Finally, while board service performance is positively related to social performance and, specifically, the social goal of hiring disadvantaged people, it is not significantly related to financial performance.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Åberg, C., Bankewitz, M., & Knockaert, M. (2019). Service tasks of board of directors: A literature review and research agenda in an era of new governance practices. European Management Journal, 37(5), 648–663.

    Google Scholar 

  • Aguilera, R. V., Desender, K., Bednar, M. K., & Lee, J. H. (2015). Connecting the dots: Bringing external corporate governance into the corporate governance puzzle. Academy of Management Annals, 9(1), 483–573.

    Google Scholar 

  • Aguinis, H., Dalton, D. R., Bosco, F. A., Pierce, C. A., & Dalton, C. M. (2011). Meta-analytic choices and judgment calls: Implications for theory building and testing, obtained effect sizes, and scholarly impact. Journal of Management, 37(1), 5–38.

    Google Scholar 

  • Austin, J., Stevenson, H., Wei-Skillern, J. (2006). Social and commercial entrepreneurship: Same, different, or Both? Entrepreneurship: Theory & Practice, 30(1), 1–22.

  • Ayuso, S., Rodríguez, M. A., García-Castro, R., & Ariño, M. A. (2014). Maximizing stakeholders’ interests: An empirical analysis of the stakeholder approach to corporate governance. Business & Society, 53(3), 414–439.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bacq, S., & Janssen, F. (2011). The multiple faces of social entrepreneurship: A review of definitional issues based on geographical and thematic criteria. Entrepreneurship & Regional Development, 23(5–6), 373–403.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bandalos, D. L. (1997). Assessing sources of error in structural equation models: The effects of sample size, reliability, and model misspecification. Structural Equation Modeling: A Multidisciplinary Journal, 4(3), 177–192.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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 

  • Blair, M. M., & Stout, L. A. (1999). A team production theory of corporate law. Virginia Law Review, 85(2), 247–328.

    Google Scholar 

  • Brolis, O., Courtois, M., Herman, G., & Nyssens, M. (2018). Do social enterprises discriminate less than for-profit organizations? The influence of sector and diversity policies on managers’ prejudice toward immigrants. Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 47(4), 745–766.

    Google Scholar 

  • Chang, S.-J., van Witteloostuijn, A., & Eden, L. (2010). From the Editors: Common method variance in international business research. Journal of International Business Studies, 41(2), 178–184.

    Google Scholar 

  • Coombes, S. M. T., Morris, M. H., Allen, J. A., & Webb, J. W. (2011). Behavioural orientations of non-profit boards as a factor in entrepreneurial performance: does governance matter? Journal of Management Studies, 48(4), 829–856.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cornforth, C. (2014). Understanding and combating mission drift in social enterprises. Social Enterprise Journal, 10(1), 3–20.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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). Basingstoke: Palgrave.

    Google Scholar 

  • Crucke, S. , & Decramer, A. (2016). The development of a measurement instrument for the organizational performance of social enterprises. Sustainability, 8(2).

  • 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.

  • Defourny, J., & Nyssens, M. (2008). Social enterprise in Europe: Recent trends and developments. Social Enterprise Journal, 4(3), 202–228.

    Google Scholar 

  • Defourny, J., & Nyssens, M. (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 

  • Defourny, J. , & Nyssens, M. (2017). Fundamentals for an international typology of social enterprise models. VOLUNTAS: International Journal of Voluntary and Nonprofit Organizations, 28(6), 2469–2497.

  • 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 

  • Dufays, F. (2019). Exploring the drivers of tensions in social innovation management in the context of social entrepreneurial teams. Management Decision, 57(6), 1344–1361.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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 

  • Finkelstein, S., & Mooney, A. C. (2003). Not the usual suspects: How to use board process to make boards better. Academy of Management Executive, 17(2), 101–113.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gabrielsson, J., Huse, M., & Minichilli, A. (2007). Understanding the leadership role of the board chairperson through a team production approach. International Journal of Leadership Studies, 3(1), 21–39.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gill, M., Flynn, R. J., & Reissing, E. (2005). The governance self-assessment checklist: An instrument for assessing board effectiveness. Nonprofit Management and Leadership, 15(3), 271–294.

    Google Scholar 

  • Good Governance: a Code for the Voluntary and Community Sector. (2010). https://ecgi.global/code/good-governance-code-voluntary-and-community-sector.

  • Hair, J. F., Hult, G. T. M., Ringle, C. M., & Sarstedt, M. (2017). A primer on partial least squares structural equation modeling (PLS-SEM) (2nd ed.). Los Angeles: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hambrick, D. (1994). Top management groups: A conceptual integration and reconsideration of the team label. In B. M. Staw & L. L. Cummings (Eds.), Research in organitazional behaviour. Greenwich CT: JAI Press, Vol. 16, 171–214.

  • Hambrick, D., Werder, A. V., & Zajac, E. J. (2008). New directions in corporate governance research. Organization Science, 19(3), 381–385.

    Google Scholar 

  • Harman, H. H. (1976). Modern factor analysis (3rd ed.). Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Harrison, Y., Murray, V., & Cornforth, C. (2013). Perceptions of board chair leadership effectiveness in nonprofit and voluntary sector organizations. VOLUNTAS: International Journal of Voluntary and Nonprofit Organizations, 24(3), 688–712.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hayes, A. F. (2017). An introduction to mediation, moderation, and conditional process analysis: a regression-based approach. Second (edition). New York: Guilford Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Heracleous, L., & Lan, L. L. (2012). Agency theory, institutional sensitivity, and inductive reasoning: Towards a legal perspective. Journal of Management Studies, 49(1), 223–239.

    Google Scholar 

  • Huybrechts, B., Mertens, S. , & Rijpens, J. (2014). Explaining stakeholder involvement in social enterprise governance through resources and legitimacy. In J. Defourny, L. Hulgard & V. Pestoff (Eds.), Social enterprise and the third sector: changing european landscapes in a comparative perspective. Londen: Routledge.

  • Janssens, W., Wijnen, K., De Pelsmacker, P., & Van Kenhove, P. (2008). Marketing research with SPSS. London UK: Prentice Hall.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jaskyte, K. (2018). Board attributes and processes, board effectiveness, and organizational innovation: Evidence from nonprofit organizations. VOLUNTAS: International Journal of Voluntary and Nonprofit Organizations, 29(5), 1098–1111.

  • Kaufman, A., & Englander, E. (2005). A team production model of corporate governance. Academy of Management Executive, 19(3), 9–22.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kiel, G. C., & Nicholson, G. J. (2005). Evaluating boards and directors. Corporate Governance: An International Review, 13(5), 613–631.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kim, Y., & Cannella, A. A. (2008). Toward a social capital theory of director selection. Corporate Governance: An International Review, 16(4), 282–293.

    Google Scholar 

  • Knockaert, M., & Ucbasaran, D. (2013). The service role of outside boards in high tech start-ups: A resource dependency perspective. British Journal of Management, 24(1), 69–84.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lan, L. L., & Heracleous, L. (2010). Rethinking agency theory: The view from law. Academy of Management Review, 35(2), 294–314.

    Google Scholar 

  • Li, J., & Hambrick, D. C. (2005). Factional groups: A new vantage on demographic faultlines, conflict, and disintegration in work teams. Academy of Management Journal, 48(5), 794–813.

    Google Scholar 

  • Liu, G., Takeda, S., & Ko, W.-W. (2014). Strategic orientation and social enterprise performance. Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 43(3), 480–501.

    Google Scholar 

  • Low, C. (2006). A framework for the governance of social enterprise. International Journal of Social Economics, 33(5), 376–385.

    Google Scholar 

  • Machold, S., & Farquhar, S. (2013). Board task evolution: A longitudinal field study in the UK. Corporate Governance: An International Review, 21(2), 147–164.

    Google Scholar 

  • Machold, S., Huse, M., Minichilli, A., & Nordqvist, M. (2011). Board leadership and strategy involvement in small firms: A team production approach. Corporate Governance: An International Review, 19(4), 368–383.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mair, J., Battilana, J., & Cardenas, J. (2012). Organizing for society: A typology of social entrepreneuring models. Journal of Business Ethics, 111(3), 353–373.

    Google Scholar 

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

    Google Scholar 

  • 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 

  • Mason, C., Kirkbride, J., & Bryde, D. (2007). From stakeholders to institutions: The changing face of social enterprise governance theory. Management Decision, 45(2), 284–301.

    Google Scholar 

  • Minichilli, A., Zattoni, A., Nielsen, S., & Huse, M. (2012). Board task performance: An exploration of micro-and macro-level determinants of board effectiveness. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 33(2), 193–215.

    Google Scholar 

  • Minichilli, A., Zattoni, A., & Zona, F. (2009). Making boards effective: An empirical examination of board task performance. British Journal of Management, 20(1), 55–74.

    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 response to conflicting institutional logics. Academy of Management Journal, 56(4), 972–1001.

    Google Scholar 

  • Payne, G. T., Benson, G. S., & Finegold, D. L. (2009). Corporate board attributes, team effectiveness and financial performance. Journal of Management Studies, 46(4), 704–731.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pestoff, V., & Hulgård, L. (2016). Participatory governance in social enterprise. VOLUNTAS: International Journal of Voluntary and Nonprofit Organizations, 27(4), 1742–1759.

  • Podsakoff, P. M., MacKenzie, S. B., Lee, J.-Y., & Podsakoff, N. P. (2003). Common method biases in behavioral research: A critical review of the literature and recommended remedies. Journal of Applied Psychology, 88(5), 879–903.

    Google Scholar 

  • Podsakoff, P. M., MacKenzie, S. B. , & Podsakoff, N. P. (2012). Sources of method bias in social science research and recommendations on how to control it. Annual Review of Psychology, 63(539–569.

  • Podsakoff, P. M., & Organ, D. W. (1986). Self-Reports in organizational research: Problems and prospects. Journal of Management, 12(4), 531–544.

    Google Scholar 

  • Santos, F. M. (2012). a positive theory of social entrepreneurship. Journal of Business Ethics, 111(3), 335–351.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sarstedt, M., Ringle, C. M., & Hair, J. F. (2014). PLS-SEM: looking back and moving forward. Long Range Planning, 47(3), 132–137.

    Google Scholar 

  • Scherer, A. G., & Palazzo, G. (2011). The new political role of business in a globalized world: A review of a new perspective on csr and its implications for the firm, governance, and democracy. Journal of Management Studies, 48(4), 899–931.

    Google Scholar 

  • Shepherd, N. G., & Rudd, J. M. (2014). The influence of context on the strategic decision-making process: A review of the literature. International Journal of Management Reviews, 16(3), 340–364.

    Google Scholar 

  • Siqueira, A. C. O., Guenster, N., Vanacker, T., & Crucke, S. (2018). A longitudinal comparison of capital structure between young for-profit social and commercial enterprises. Journal of Business Venturing, 33(2), 225–240.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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 

  • Spear, R., & Bidet, E. (2005). Social enterprise for work integration in 12 European countries: A descriptive analysis. Annals of Public and Cooperative Economics, 76(2), 195–231.

    Google Scholar 

  • Spear, R., Cornforth, C., & Aiken, M. (2009). The governance challenges of social enterprises: Evidence from a UK empirical study. Annals of Public & Cooperative Economics, 80(2), 247–273.

    Google Scholar 

  • Stevens, R., Moray, N., & Bruneel, J. (2015). The social and economic mission of social enterprises: Dimensions, measurement, validation, and relation. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 39(5), 1051–1082.

    Google Scholar 

  • Stevens, R., Moray, N., Bruneel, J., & Clarysse, B. (2015). Attention allocation to multiple goals: The case of for-profit social enterprises. Strategic management journal, 36(7), 1006–1016.

    Google Scholar 

  • Van Opstal, W., Deraedt, E., & Gijselinckx, C. (2009). Monitoring profile shifts and differences among WISEs in Flanders. Social Enterprise Journal, 5(3), 229–258.

    Google Scholar 

  • Vandenbroucke, E., Knockaert, M., & Ucbasaran, D. (2019). The relationship between top management team-outside board conflict and outside board service involvement in high-tech start-ups. Journal of Small Business Management, 57(3), 891–908.

    Google Scholar 

  • Vlaamse overheid. (2016). Aanbevelingen goed bestuur in welzijns- en zorgorganisaties: social profitorganisaties. Departement Welzijn, Volksgezondheid & Gezin, 1–36.

  • Westphal, J. D. (1999). Collaboration in the boardroom: Behavioral and performance consequences of CEO-board social ties. Academy of Management Journal, 42(1), 7–24.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wiklund, J., & Shepherd, D. (2005). Entrepreneurial orientation and small business performance: A configurational approach. Journal of Business Venturing, 20(1), 71–91.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wolf, M., & Mair, J. (2019). Purpose, commitment and coordination around small wins: A proactive approach to governance in integrated hybrid organizations. VOLUNTAS: International Journal of Voluntary and Nonprofit Organizations, 1–14.

  • Yang, C., Nay, S., & Hoyle, R. H. (2010). Three approaches to using lengthy ordinal scales in structural equation models: Parceling, latent scoring, and shortening scales. Applied Psychological Measurement, 34(2), 122–142.

    Google Scholar 

  • Young, D., & Lecy, J. (2014). Defining the universe of social enterprise: Competing metaphors. VOLUNTAS: International Journal of Voluntary and Nonprofit Organizations, 25(5), 1307–1332.

  • Yunus, M., Moingeon, B., & Lehmann-Ortega, L. (2010). Building social business models: Lessons from the Grameen experience. Long Range Planning, 43(2–3), 308–325.

    Google Scholar 

  • Zattoni, A., Gnan, L., & Huse, M. (2015). Does family involvement influence firm performance? Exploring the mediating effects of board processes and tasks. Journal of Management, 41(4), 1214–1243.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Faculty of Economics and Business Administration, Ghent University, Tweekerkenstraat 2, 9000, Ghent, Belgium

    Saskia Crucke & Mirjam Knockaert

  2. Entrepreneurship Research Institute, Technical University Munich, Arcisstraße 21, 80333, München, Germany

    Mirjam Knockaert

Authors
  1. Saskia Crucke
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Mirjam Knockaert
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Saskia Crucke.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

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

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Crucke, S., Knockaert, M. Stakeholder Knowledge and Behavioral Integration in Boards of Social Enterprises: A Team Production Approach. Voluntas 32, 90–103 (2021). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11266-020-00284-9

Download citation

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11266-020-00284-9

Keywords

Search

Navigation