Advertisement

Managing Hybrid Organizations

  • Staffan Furusten
  • Susanna Alexius
Chapter

Abstract

In this final chapter, we summarize and develop core findings that are illustrated with examples from the empirical case studies of the volume. Three common dilemmas in managing hybrid organization are identified: (1) financing a social mission and the risk of mission drift, (2) overlap in the roles of key stakeholders and the risk of empty governance structures and (3) modernizing a hybrid while cherishing the constitutional hybrid legacy. We argue that organizations that manage to remain hybrids in times of changed institutional conditions have established multivocality, a state where different categories of stakeholders are involved in shared, although sometimes parallel, conversations. The chapter concludes that a state of multivocal conversations can be strengthened by managerial and governance skills in improvisations and versatility.

Keywords

Institutional pluralism Management Governance Multivocality Improvisation Versatility 

References

  1. Aiken, M. 2006. Towards Market or State: Tensions and Opportunities in the Evolutionary Path of Three UK Social Enterprises. In Social Enterprise, ed. M. Nyssens, 259–271. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  2. Alexius, S., and J. Cisneros Örnberg. 2015. Mission(s) Impossible? Configuring Values in the Governance of State-Owned Enterprises. International Journal of Public Sector Management 28 (4–5): 286–306.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Alexius, S., M. Gustavsson, and T. Sardiello. 2017. Profit-making for Mutual Benefit: The Case of Folksam 1945–2015. Score Working Paper Series (2).Google Scholar
  4. Alexius, S., and K. Tamm Hallström, eds. 2014. Configuring Value Conflicts in Markets. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar.Google Scholar
  5. Battilana, J., and S. Dorado. 2010. Building Sustainable Hybrid Organizations: The Case of Commercial Microfinance Organizations. Academy of Management Journal 53: 1419–1440.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Battilana, J., and M. Lee. 2014. Advancing Research on Hybrid Organizing. Academy of Management Annals 8 (1): 397–441.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Brunsson, N. 1994. Politicization and Company-ization. Management Accounting Research 5: 323–335.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Cyert, R., and J. March. 1963. A Behavior Theory of the Firm. Hoboken: Wiley.Google Scholar
  9. Dees, J.G. 2001. The Meanings of ‘Social Entrepreneurship’. Working paper. Stanford, CA: Stanford University.Google Scholar
  10. Doherty, B., H. Haugh, and F. Lyon. 2014. Social Enterprises as Hybrid Organizations: A Review and Research Agenda. International Journal of Management Reviews 16 (4): 417–436.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Ebrahim, A., J. Battilana, and J. Mair. 2014. The Governance of Social Enterprises: Mission Drift and Accountability Challenges in Hybrid Organizations. Research in Organizational Behavior 34: 81–100.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Forssell, A., and A. Ivarsson Westerberg. 2007. Organisation från grunden. Stockholm: Liber.Google Scholar
  13. Furusten, S. 2003. God Managementkonsultation. Lund: Studentlitteratur.Google Scholar
  14. ———. 2013. Institutional Theory and Organizational Change. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. ———. 2013b. Commercialized Professionalism on the Field of Management Consulting. Journal of Organizational Change Management 26 (2): 265–285.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Grassl, H. 2011. Ethics and Economics: Towards a New Humanistic Synthesis for Business. Journal of Business Ethics 99 (1): 37–49.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Jancsary, D., R.E. Meyer, M. Höllerer, and B. Vitaliano. 2017. Toward a Structural Model of Organizational-Level Institutional Pluralism and Logic Inter Connectedness. Organization Science 28 (6): 1150–1167.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Mair, J. 2010. Social Entrepreneurship: Taking Stock and Looking Ahead. IESE Business School Working Paper No. WP-888. https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1729642##.
  19. March, J.G., and J.P. Olsen. 1975. The Uncertainty of the Past: Organizational Learning Under Ambiguity. European Journal of Political Research 3: 147–171.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. ———. 1989. Rediscovering Institutions: The Organizational Basis of Politics. New York: Free Press.Google Scholar
  21. ———. 2011. The Logic of Appropriateness. In The Oxford Handbook of Political Science, ed. R.E. Goodin, 478–497. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  22. Mars, M.M., and M. Lounsbury. 2009. Raging Against or with the Private Marketplace? Logic Hybridity and Eco-Entrepreneurship. Journal of Management Inquiry 18 (4): 4–13.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Meyer, J.W., and B. Rowan. 1977. Institutionalized Organizations: Formal Structure as Myth and Ceremony. American Journal of Sociology 83 (2): 340–363.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Mintzberg, H., and J.A. Waters. 1985. Of Strategies, Deliberate and Emergent. Strategic Management Journal 6 (3): 257–272.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Pache, A.C., and F. Santos. 2010. When Worlds Collide: The Internal Dynamics of Organizational Responses to Conflicting Institutional Demands. Academy of Management Review 35: 455–476.Google Scholar
  26. Padgett, J., and W. Powell. 2012. The Emergence of Organizations and Markets. Princeton: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
  27. Saint Martin, D. 2000. Building the New Managerialist State. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  28. Salles-Djelic, M.-L. 2017. Building Architecture for Political Influence: Atlas and the Transnational Institutionalization of the Neoliberal Think Tank. In Power, Policy and Profit: Corporate Engagement in Politics and Governance, ed. C. Garsten and A. Sörbom, 25–44. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Scott, R. 1995. Institutions and Organizations. London: Sage.Google Scholar
  30. Sjöstrand, S.-E. 1992. On the Rationale Behind ‘Irrational’ Institutions. Journal of Economic Issues XXVI (4): 1007–1040.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Stinchcombe, A.L. 1965. Social Structure and Organizations. In Handbook of Organizations, ed. J.P. March, 142–193. Chicago: Rand McNally.Google Scholar
  32. Strandqvist, K. 2018. Managing in Limbo. Stockholm: Score (Work in Progress).Google Scholar
  33. Thornton, P.H., W. Ocasio, and M. Lounsbury. 2012. The Institutional Logics Perspective – A New Approach to Culture, Structure and Process. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Zack, M. 2000. Jazz Improvisation and Organizing: Once More from the Top. Organization Science 11 (2): 227–234.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© The Author(s) 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.ScoreStockholm UniversityStockholmSweden
  2. 2.Stockholm School of EconomicsStockholmSweden

Personalised recommendations