Advertisement

Chasing two rabbits: how social enterprises as hybrid organizations manage paradoxes

  • Ji-Hoon ParkEmail author
Original Article
  • 20 Downloads

Abstract

This study examines what kinds of paradoxes emerge in social enterprises and how they cope with those paradoxes. I argue social enterprises experience conflict due to their logic multiplicity. This research employs an inductive multiple case study design to examine management practices of social enterprises by using the sample of social enterprises in the Republic of Korea. The results empirically confirm four types of paradoxes and reveal that social enterprises use various approaches to address paradoxes, thereby sustaining their organizational hybridity. This study theoretically contributes to research on social enterprises as hybrid organizations, logic multiplicity, and organizational paradoxes.

Keywords

Hybrid organization Logic multiplicity Organizational tension Paradox Social enterprise Republic of Korea 

Notes

Acknowledgements

This research was supported by the Keimyung University Research Grant of 2018.

Compliance with ethical standards

Conflict of interest

The author states that there is no conflict of interest.

References

  1. Andriopoulos, C., & Lewis, M. W. (2009). Exploitation-exploration tensions and organizational ambidexterity: Managing paradoxes of innovation. Organization Science, 20(4), 696–717.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Battilana, J., & Dorado, S. (2010). Building sustainable hybrid organizations: The case of commercial microfinance organizations. Academy of Management Journal, 53(6), 1419–1440.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Battilana, J., Lee, M., Walker, J., & Dorsey, C. (2012). In search of the hybrid ideal. Stanford Social Innovation Review, 10(3), 50–55.Google Scholar
  5. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Bidet, E., & Eum, H. S. (2011). Social enterprise in South Korea: History and diversity. Social Enterprise Journal, 7(1), 69–85.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Billis, D. (2010). Hybrid organizations and the third sector: Challenges for practice, theory and policy. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Chen, M.-J. (2002). Transcending paradox: The Chinese “middle way” perspective. Asia Pacific Journal of Management, 19(2), 179–199.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Child, J. (2009). Context, comparison, and methodology in Chinese management research. Management and Organization Review, 5(1), 57–73.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Dacin, P. A., Dacin, M. T., & Matear, M. (2010). Social entrepreneurship: Why we don’t need a new theory and how we move forward from here. Academy of Management Perspectives, 24(3), 37–57.Google Scholar
  12. Dacin, M. T., Dacin, P. A., & Tracey, P. (2011). Social entrepreneurship: A critique and future directions. Organization Science, 22(5), 1203–1213.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Doz, Y. L., & Kosonen, M. (2008). The dynamics of strategic agility: Nokia’s rollercoaster experience. California Management Review, 50(3), 95–118.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Doz, Y. L., & Kosonen, M. (2010). Embedding strategic agility: A leadership agenda for accelerating business model renewal. Long Range Planning, 43(2–3), 370–382.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Edmondson, A. C., & McManus, S. E. (2007). Methodological fit in management field research. Academy of Management Review, 32(4), 1155–1179.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Eisenhardt, K. M. (1989). Building theories from case study research. Academy of Management Review, 14(4), 532–550.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Eisenhardt, K. M., & Graebner, M. E. (2007). Theory building from cases: Opportunities and challenges. Academy of Management Journal, 50(1), 25–32.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Gioia, D. A., Corley, K. G., & Hamilton, A. L. (2013). Seeking qualitative rigor in inductive research: Notes on the Gioia methodology. Organizational Research Methods, 16(1), 15–31.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Glaser, B. G., & Strauss, A. L. (1967). The discovery of grounded theory: Strategies for qualitative research. London: SAGE Publications Limited.Google Scholar
  22. Glynn, M. A. (2008). Beyond constraint: How institutions enable organizational identities. In R. Greenwood, C. Oliver, K. Sahlin, & R. Suddaby (Eds.), The sage handbook of organizational institutionalism (pp. 413–430). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Jay, J. (2013). Navigating paradox as a mechanism of change and innovation in hybrid organizations. Academy of Management Journal, 56(1), 137–159.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Jia, J., Yan, J., Cai, Y., & Liu, Y. (2018). Paradoxical leadership incongruence and Chinese individuals’ followership behaviors: Moderation effects of hierarchical culture and perceived strength of human resource management system. Asian Business & Management, 17(5), 313–338.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Lewis, M. W. (2000). Exploring paradox: Toward a more comprehensive guide. Academy of Management Review, 25(4), 760–776.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Lewis, M. W., Andriopoulos, C., & Smith, W. K. (2014). Paradoxical leadership to enable strategic agility. California Management Review, 56(3), 58–77.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Lewis, M. W., & Smith, W. K. (2014). Paradox as a metatheoretical perspective: Sharpening the focus and widening the scope. Journal of Applied Behavioral Science, 50(2), 1–23.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Liu, Y., & Vrontis, D. (2017). Emerging-market firms venturing into advanced economies: The role of context. Thunderbird International Business Review, 59(3), 255–261.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Locke, K. (2001). Grounded theory in management research. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.Google Scholar
  30. Lok, J. (2010). Institutional logics as identity projects. Academy of Management Journal, 53(6), 1305–1335.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Luscher, L. S., & Lewis, M. W. (2008). Organizational change and managerial sensemaking: Working through paradox. Academy of Management Journal, 51(2), 221–240.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Meyer, K. E. (2015). Context in management research in emerging economies. Management and Organization Review, 11(3), 369–377.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Miron-Spektor, E., Ingram, A., Keller, J., Smith, W. K., & Lewis, M. W. (2018). Microfoundations of organizational paradox: The problem is how we think about the problem. Academy of Management Journal, 61(1), 26–45.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Quinn, R. E., & Cameron, K. S. (1988). Paradox and transformation: Toward a theory of change in organization and management. Cambridge, MA: Ballinger.Google Scholar
  37. Raisch, S., Birkinshaw, J., Probst, G., & Tushman, M. L. (2009). Organizational ambidexterity: Balancing exploitation and exploration for sustained performance. Organization Science, 20(4), 685–695.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Santos, F., Pache, A.-C., & Birkholz, C. (2015). Making hybrids work: Aligning business models and organizational design for social enterprises. California Management Review, 57(3), 36–58.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Schad, J., Lewis, M. W., Raisch, S., & Smith, W. K. (2016). Paradox research in management science. Academy of Management Annals, 10(1), 5–64.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Short, J. C., Moss, T. W., & Lumpkin, G. T. (2009). Research in social entrepreneurship: Past contributions and future opportunities. Strategic Entrepreneurship Journal, 3(2), 161–194.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Siegner, M., Pinkse, J., & Panwar, R. (2018). Managing tensions in a social enterprise: The complex balancing act to deliver a multi-faceted but coherent social mission. Journal of Cleaner Production, 174, 1314–1324.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Smith, W. K. (2014). Dynamic decision making: A model of senior leaders managing strategic paradoxes. Academy of Management Journal, 57(6), 1592–1623.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Smith, W. K., & Besharov, M. L. (2019). Bowing before dual gods: How structured flexibility sustains organizational hybridity. Administrative Science Quarterly, 64(1), 1–44.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Smith, W. K., Besharov, M. L., Wessels, A. K., & Chertok, M. (2012). A paradoxical leadership model for social entrepreneurs: Challenges, leadership skills, and pedagogical tools for managing social and commercial demands. Academy of Management Learning & Education, 11(3), 463–478.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. 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
  47. Tracey, P., Phillips, N., & Jarvis, O. (2011). Bridging institutional entrepreneurship and the creation of new organizational forms: A multilevel model. Organization Science, 22(1), 60–80.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Van Maanen, J., Sørensen, J. B., & Mitchell, T. R. (2007). The interplay between theory and method. Academy of Management Review, 32(4), 1145–1154.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Weick, K. E. (1995). Sensemaking in organizations. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.Google Scholar
  50. Yin, R. K. (2014). Case study research: Design and methods (5th ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Limited 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.College of Business AdministrationKeimyung UniversityDaeguRepublic of Korea

Personalised recommendations