Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Professionalization and Hybridization Dynamics of Social Enterprises

  • Original Paper
  • Published:
VOLUNTAS: International Journal of Voluntary and Nonprofit Organizations Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Most of the extant studies on social enterprises have taken a static view of institutional complexity and assumed conflict between social and market logics as given. In this study, by taking a dynamic perspective and examining the conflict between social and professional logics, we examine the process of their hybridization and how institutional complexity evolves as they grow and professionalize. Based on our study of a hospital in India, we find that social enterprises operating in highly professionalized fields pass through phases of hybridization and professionals play a crucial role as carriers of alternative logics to social enterprises.

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
Fig. 3
Fig. 4

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. All names have been changed to protect the identity of respondents.

  2. This act allows for the registration of bodies set up by seven or more persons to undertake, among other defined activities, work related to charity.

  3. In the remaining part of this article, unless otherwise indicated, “hospital” will refer to the Trust hospital.

References

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

    Google Scholar 

  • 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 

  • 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 

  • Besharov, M. L. (2014). The relational ecology of identification: How organizational identification emerges when individuals hold divergent values. Academy of Management Journal,57(5), 1485–1512.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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. https://doi.org/10.5465/amr.2011.0431.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cameron, K. S., & Whetten, D. A. (1981). Perceptions of organizational effectiveness over organizational life cycles. Administrative Science Quarterly,3, 525–544.

    Google Scholar 

  • Chisholm, R. F., & Elden, M. (1993). Features of emerging action research. Human Relations,46(2), 275–298.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cooney, K. (2006). The institutional and technical structuring of nonprofit ventures: Case study of a US hybrid organization caught between two fields. Voluntas International Journal of Voluntary and Nonprofit Organizations,17(2), 137–155.

    Google Scholar 

  • Daudigeos, T. (2013). In their profession’s service: How staff professionals exert influence in their organization. Journal of Management Studies,50(5), 722–749. https://doi.org/10.1111/joms.12021.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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 

  • 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.

    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 

  • Eden, C., & Huxham, C. (1996). Action research for management research. British Journal of Management,7(1), 75–86.

    Google Scholar 

  • Efron, S. E., & Ravid, R. (2019). Action research in education: A practical guide. Los Angeles: Guilford Publications.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fincham, R., & Forbes, T. (2015). Three's a crowd: The role of inter-logic relationships in highly complex institutional fields. British Journal of Management,26(4), 657–670.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fosfuri, A., Giarratana, M. S., & Roca, E. (2016). Social business hybrids: Demand externalities, competitive advantage, and growth through diversification. Organization Science,27(5), 1275–1289.

    Google Scholar 

  • Friedland, R., & Alford, R. R. (1991). Bringing society back. In: Symbols, practices and institutional contradictions. In W. W. Powell & P. J. DiMaggio (Eds.), The new institutionalism in organizational analysis (pp. 232–263). Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gersick, C. J. (1991). Revolutionary change theories: A multilevel exploration of the punctuated equilibrium paradigm. Academy of Management Review,16(1), 10–36.

    Google Scholar 

  • Giudici, A., Combs, J. G., Cannatelli, B. L., & Smith, B. R. (2018). Successful scaling in social franchising: The case of Impact Hub. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice,1(104), 2258718801593.

    Google Scholar 

  • Graham-Cagney, A. (2014). Cognitive mapping. In D. Coghlan & M. Brydon-Miller (Eds.), The SAGE encyclopaedia of action research (pp. 112–116). London: Sage Publications Ltd.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gray, B., & Ariss, S. S. (1985). Politics and strategic change across organizational life cycles. Academy of Management Review,10(4), 707–723.

    Google Scholar 

  • Greenwood, R., Raynard, M., Kodeih, F., Micelotta, E. R., & Lounsbury, M. (2011). Institutional complexity and organizational responses. The Academy of Management Annals,5(1), 317–371.

    Google Scholar 

  • Greiner, L. E. (1998). Evolution and revolution as organizations grow (pp. 3–11). May-June: Harvard Business Review.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hahn, R., & Ince, I. (2016). Constituents and characteristics of hybrid businesses: A qualitative, empirical framework. Journal of Small Business Management,54, 33–52.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hall, K., Miller, R., & Millar, R. (2012). Jumped or pushed: What motivates NHS staff to set up a social enterprise? Social Enterprise Journal,8(1), 10.

    Google Scholar 

  • Heins, E., Price, D., Pollock, A. M., Miller, E., Mohan, J., & Shaoul, J. (2010). A review of the evidence of third sector performance and its relevance for a universal comprehensive health system. Social Policy & Society,9(4), 515–526.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hota, P. K., Subramanian, B., & Narayanamurthy, G. (2019). Mapping the intellectual structure of social entrepreneurship research: A citation/co-citation analysis. Journal of Business Ethics,5, 1–26.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kitchener, M. (2002). Mobilizing the logic of managerialism in professional fields: The case of academic health centre mergers. Organization Studies,23(3), 391–420.

    Google Scholar 

  • Klein, S. (Ed.). (2012). Action research methods: Plain and simple. Berlin: Springer.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kraatz, M. S., & Moore, J. H. (2002). Executive migration and institutional change. Academy of Management Journal,45(1), 120–143.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lüscher, L. S., & Lewis, M. W. (2008). Organizational change and managerial sensemaking: Working through paradox. Academy of Management Journal,51(2), 221–240.

    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 

  • Marshall, C., & Rossman, G. B. (2011). Managing, analyzing, and interpreting data. C. Marshall & GB Rossman. Designing Qualitative Research,5, 205–227.

    Google Scholar 

  • Millar, R. (2012). Social enterprise in health organisation and management: Hybridity or homogeneity?. Journal of Health Organization and Management,26(2), 143–148.

    Google Scholar 

  • Miller, R., Millar, R., & Hall, K. (2012). Spin outs and social enterprise: The right to request programme in the English NHS. Public Money and Management,32(3), 233–236.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mintzberg, H. (1984). Power and organization life cycles. Academy of Management Review,9(2), 207–224.

    Google Scholar 

  • Muzio, D., Brock, D. M., & Suddaby, R. (2013). Professions and Institutional change: Towards an institutionalist sociology of the professions. Journal of Management Studies,50(5), 699–721. https://doi.org/10.1111/joms.12030.

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

    Google Scholar 

  • Pallas, J., Fredriksson, M., & Wedlin, L. (2016). Translating institutional logics: When the media logic meets professions. Organization Studies,37(11), 1661–1684. https://doi.org/10.1177/0170840616655485.

    Article  Google Scholar 

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

    Google Scholar 

  • Pfeffer, J. (1992). Managing with power: Politics and influence in organizations. Harvard: Harvard Business Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Prahalad, C. K. (2014). The fortune at the bottom of the pyramid: Eradicating poverty through profits (5th Anniversary). Dorling Kindersley (India) Pvt. Ltd.

  • Quinn, R. E., & Cameron, K. (1983). Organizational life cycles and shifting criteria of effectiveness: Some preliminary evidence. Management Science,29(1), 33–51.

    Google Scholar 

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

    Google Scholar 

  • Randall, J., & Munro, I. (2010). Institutional logics and contradictions: Competing and collaborating logics in a forum of medical and voluntary practitioners. Journal of Change Management,10(1), 23–39. https://doi.org/10.1080/14697010903549424.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Reason, P. (2006). Choice and quality in action research practice. Journal of management inquiry,15(2), 187–203.

    Google Scholar 

  • Reay, T., & Hinings, C. R. (2009). Managing the rivalry of competing institutional logics. Organization Studies,30(6), 629–652. https://doi.org/10.1177/0170840609104803.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Reay, T., & Hinings, C. R. (2005). The recomposition of an organizational field: Health care in Alberta. Organization Studies,26(3), 349–382.

    Google Scholar 

  • Roy, M. J., Donaldson, C., Baker, R., & Kerr, S. (2014). The potential of social enterprise to enhance health and well-being: A model and systematic review. Social Science and Medicine,123, 182–193.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schildt, H., & Perkmann, M. (2017). Organizational settlements: Theorizing how organizations respond to institutional complexity. Journal of Management Inquiry,26(2), 139–145. https://doi.org/10.1177/1056492616670756.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Scott, W. R. (2008). Lords of the dance: Professionals as institutional agents. Organization Studies,29(2), 219–238. https://doi.org/10.1177/0170840607088151.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Smith, K. G., Mitchell, T. R., & Summer, C. E. (1985). Top level management priorities in different stages of the organizational life cycle. Academy of Management Journal,28(4), 799–820.

    Google Scholar 

  • Stringer, E. T. (2008). Action research in education. Upper Saddle River: Pearson Prentice Hall.

    Google Scholar 

  • Thornton, P. H., Ocasio, W., & Lounsbury, M. (2012). The institutional logics perspective: A new approach to culture, structure and processes. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Van de Ven, A. H., & Poole, M. S. (1995). Explaining development and change in organizations. Academy of Management Review,20(3), 510–540.

    Google Scholar 

  • Walsh, J. P., Tushman, M. L., Kimberly, J. R., Starbuck, B., & Ashford, S. (2007). On the relationship between research and practice: Debate and reflections. Journal of Management Inquiry,16(2), 128–154.

    Google Scholar 

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

    Google Scholar 

  • Yin, R. K. (1984). Case study research: Design and methods. New York: SAGE Publications Inc.

    Google Scholar 

  • Zhang, W., Levenson, A., & Crossley, C. (2015). Move your research from the ivy tower to the board room: A primer on action research for academics, consultants, and business executives. Human Resource Management,54(1), 151–174.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Indian Institute of Management, Calcutta, D H Road, P.O. Joka, Kolkata, 700104, India

    Debabrata Chatterjee

  2. Thiagarajar School of Management, Madurai, Tamil Nadu, 625005, India

    Balaji Subramanian

  3. Research School of Management, College of Business and Economics, Australian National University, Canberra, 2601, Australia

    Pradeep Kumar Hota

Authors
  1. Debabrata Chatterjee
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Balaji Subramanian
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Pradeep Kumar Hota
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Debabrata Chatterjee.

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

Chatterjee, D., Subramanian, B. & Hota, P.K. Professionalization and Hybridization Dynamics of Social Enterprises. Voluntas 31, 457–471 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11266-020-00217-6

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11266-020-00217-6

Keywords

Search

Navigation