This study investigates whether and how the pursuit of certain commercial business practices such as market orientation and market disruptiveness capability improves both the economic performance and ...social performance of social enterprises. Based on the empirical data collected from 164 UK social enterprises, our results show that market orientation improves social performance and economic performance simultaneously, whereas market disruptiveness capability improves only the economic performance, not the social performance, of social enterprises. However, we found a positive interaction effect of market disruptiveness capability and market orientation on social performance, while its effect is negative on economic performance.
Full text
Available for:
GEOZS, IJS, IMTLJ, KILJ, KISLJ, NLZOH, NUK, OILJ, PNG, SAZU, SBCE, SBJE, UILJ, UL, UM, UPCLJ, UPUK, ZAGLJ, ZRSKP
We explore the concept of organizational hybridity from the perspective of the Judgment-Based Approach to entrepreneurship (JBA). The JBA provides much-needed microfoundations for hybridity in the ...form of a more nuanced, action-based view of the market mechanism in shaping enterprises. Rather than a problem of conflicting logics at the organizational level, hybridity is redefined as entrepreneurial judgment at the individual level about combinations of monetary and psychic profit. Viewed this way, hybridity is a universal characteristic of real-world enterprises rather than a defining feature of a specific subset of them. This approach thus ultimately reshapes our understanding of hybridity and suggests an alternative view that is less conflictual and insular, and more conciliatory and integrated. It also sheds light on various problems facing such enterprises, including strategy formation, practical wisdom, normative pressures, mission drift, entrepreneurial groups, and public policy.
Hybrid enterprises are said to combine different logics or orientations within an organization. These logics are typically described as either economic or social, and are usually conceived as existing in inherent tension with each other; hence, hybrid enterprises are neither conventional monetary profit-seeking businesses nor purely social or charitable organizations, but some awkward, possibly paradoxical combination of both. The best-known and most frequently studied types of hybrids are social enterprises, which straddle the line between monetary profit-seeking and the pursuit of broader social goals or social value.
The literature on hybrids is growing rapidly, but to date there has been little agreement over its fundamental concepts and frameworks, and key questions remain about the origins, meaning, and development of hybrids. There is particular debate about whether the different “logics” of hybrids are necessarily in tension or conflict, or whether they exist harmoniously, as complements. Are hybrids just another form of profit-seeking market organization? As organizations, are they puzzles to solve, or perhaps paradoxes to confront? Answering these questions is crucial for understanding of what hybrids are, how they work, and what their broader implications are for economy and society.
We address to these debates by developing a new conceptual basis for studying hybrid enterprises. We argue that current controversies are usually the result of studying hybridity only at the organizational level. In response, we explore the microfoundations of hybridity, showing that what is called hybrid organizing simply reflects entrepreneurs' choices about how to pursue monetary profits and psychic profits. Drawing on the Judgment-Based Approach to entrepreneurship (JBA), we show how entrepreneurial decision-making constantly negotiates the boundaries of monetary calculation and profit-seeking and alternative, non-monetary goals such as providing social benefits. Understanding the interplay between the monetary and psychic profit leads to a more realistic and nuanced account of the causal foundations of hybridity, while also dispelling some confusions that have arisen in the literature. Ultimately, what is called hybridity at the organizational level is simply the result of entrepreneurial action at the individual level about combinations of profit.
This approach leads to several notable results. First, it emphasizes that all enterprises are to some extent social and contain elements of what is called hybridity. Second, as a result, microfoundations challenge the importance of hybridity as such as a key construct. What is called hybridity is not a defining characteristic of certain organizations, but exists in all enterprises, and is a persistent aspect of entrepreneurial decisions regarding how to organize and restructure firms. Third, a micro-level approach dissolves the perceived tension between different logics in the enterprise, promoting a view that is less conflictual and insular, and more conciliatory and integrated. Fourth, microfoundations can help connect meso- and macro- level research as a way of encouraging a more comprehensive research program that includes all sizes and shapes of enterprise. Fifth, they also shed light on various problems facing enterprises of all types, including strategy formation, practical wisdom, normative pressures, mission drift, entrepreneurial groups, and public policy.
•Entrepreneurial judgment provides action-based microfoundations for “hybridity.”•Hybridity occurs in all enterprises, not only a subset of organizations.•At the micro level, hybridity is combinations of monetary and “psychic” profit.•These profit decisions shed light on moral, strategic, normative, group, and policy aspects of entrepreneurship.
Full text
Available for:
GEOZS, IJS, IMTLJ, KILJ, KISLJ, NLZOH, NUK, OILJ, PNG, SAZU, SBCE, SBJE, UILJ, UL, UM, UPCLJ, UPUK, ZAGLJ, ZRSKP
Social enterprises have been proved to be important actors in the regional development through market approaches to societal problems. The development of the social entrepreneurship sector in Romania ...was supported in a great measure by the European Social Fund (ESF), which granted funds within the “Development of social economy” calls for proposals in the period 2007–2014. These actions were taken before legislation regarding social entrepreneurship or social economy would come into force. The research presented in this paper is based on data provided by the Romanian authorities managing grants for the development of social enterprises and the Romanian Ministry of Public Finances. Data were further analysed, classified and transposed in visual maps. The correlations made with the GDP/development regions showed a lack of perspective regarding the distribution of funds depending on the development needs. The paper wishes to emphasize the importance of strategic planning in the European funds distribution.
In the absence of a widely accepted and common definition of social enterprise (SE), a large research project, the ""International Comparative Social Enterprise Models"" (ICSEM) Project, was carried ...out over a five-year period; it involved more than 200 researchers from 55 countries and relied on bottom-up approaches to capture the SE phenomenon. This strategy made it possible to take into account and give legitimacy to locally embedded approaches, thus resulting in an analysis encompassing a wide diversity of social enterprises, while simultaneously allowing for the identification of major SE models to delineate the field on common grounds at the international level. These SE models reveal or confirm an overall trend towards new ways of sharing the responsibility for the common good in today’s economies and societies. We tend to consider as good news the fact that social enterprises actually stem from all parts of the economy. Indeed, societies are facing many complex challenges at all levels, from the local to the global level. The diversity and internal variety of SE models are a sign of a broadly shared willingness to develop appropriate—although sometimes embryonic—responses to these challenges, on the basis of innovative economic/business models driven by a social mission. In spite of their weaknesses, social enterprises may be seen as advocates for and vehicles of the general interest across the whole economy. Of course, the debate about privatisation, deregulation and globalised market competition—all factors that may hinder efforts in the search for the common good–has to be addressed as well. The first of a series of four ICSEM books, Social Enterprise in Asia will serve as a key reference and resource for teachers, researchers, students, experts, policy makers, journalists and other categories of people who want to acquire a broad understanding of the phenomena of social enterprise and social entrepreneurship as they emerge and develop across the world.
The past decade has witnessed a surge of research interest in social entrepreneurship (SE). This has resulted in important insights concerning the role of SE in fostering inclusive growth and ...institutional change. However, the rapid growth of SE research, the emerging nature of the literature, and the fact that SE builds on different disciplines and fields (e.g., entrepreneurship, sociology, economics, ethics) have led to a rather fragmented literature without dominant frameworks. This situation risks leading to a duplication of efforts and hampers cumulative knowledge growth. Drawing on 395 peer-reviewed articles on SE, we (1) identify gaps in SE research on three levels of analysis (i.e., individual, organizational, institutional), (2) proffer an integrative multistage, multilevel framework, and (3) discuss promising avenues for further research on SE.
Full text
Available for:
NUK, OILJ, SAZU, UKNU, UL, UM, UPUK
The quest for a widely accepted definition of social enterprise (SE) has been a central issue in the last two decades. However, it only seems feasible today to identify a few criteria that were most ...debated: the specific role of individual social entrepreneurs, the place of social innovation, the search for market income and the issue of governance. The arena of conceptualization efforts should now be fed with more contributions starting from bottom-up approaches built upon a hypothesis that could be termed "the impossibility of a unified definition". In this paper, we develop a theoretical framework combining principles of interest (mutual, general and capital interest) and resource mixes to identify institutional trajectories generating four major SE models. We then show that all four SE models may address the actual diversity of SE's social missions. Finally, we suggest that such social missions may be enhanced differently depending on the respective governance mechanisms. La quête d'une définition largement acceptée de la notion d'entreprise sociale constitue, depuis deux décennies, un enjeu central. Cependant, tout ce qu'il semble possible de faire à l'heure actuelle est d'identifier les quelques critères qui ont fait l'objet du plus grand nombre de travaux et de débats : le rôle spécifique des entrepreneurs sociaux individuels, la place de l'innovation sociale, la quête de ressources marchandes et la question de la gouvernance. Le champ des efforts de conceptualisation doit maintenant être alimenté par davantage de contributions s'appuyant sur des approches « bottom-up », construites sur la base d'une hypothèse que l'on pourrait désigner comme « l'impossibilité d'une définition unifiée ». Dans le présent article, nous élaborons un cadre théorique combinant différents principes d'intérêts (mutuel, général et capitaliste) et différentes combinaisons de ressources pour identifier des trajectoires institutionnelles générant quatre principaux modèles d'entreprise sociale. Nous montrons ensuite que ces quatre modèles peuvent couvrir la diversité effective des missions sociales desdites entreprises. Nous suggérons enfin que ces missions sociales pourraient être plus ou moins renforcées en fonction des mécanismes de gouvernance adoptés par les entreprises sociales. Die Suche nach einer weitgehend akzeptierten Definition von Sozialunternehmen ist ein zentrales Thema. Es erscheint heute nur angebracht, einige der am häufigsten diskutierten Kriterien zu identifizieren: die spezifische Rolle einzelner Sozialunternehmer, den Ort der sozialen Innovation, das Streben nach Markteinnahmen und das Problem der Steuerung. Die Bemühungen zur Konzeptualisierung sollten nun mit weiteren Beiträgen ergänzt werden, ausgehend von Bottom-up-Ansätzen, die auf einer Hypothese beruhen, welche als ,,die Unmöglichkeit einer einheitlichen Definition "bezeichnet werden könnte. In diesem Beitrag entwickeln wir ein theoretisches Rahmenwerk, das die Grundsätze des Interesse (beiderseitiges, allgemeines und kapitales Interesse) und Ressourcenmixe miteinander verknüpft, um die institutionellen Entwicklungen zu identifizieren, aus denen vier wesentliche Modelle des Sozialunternehmens hervorgehen. Anschließend zeigen wir, dass alle vier Modelle auf die tatsächliche Diversität der sozialen Missionen der Sozialunternehmen eingehen können. Letztendlich schlagen wir vor, dass diese sozialen Missionen abhängig von den entsprechenden Steuerungsmechanismen unterschiedlich ausgeweitet werden können. La búsqueda de una definición ampliamente aceptada de la empresa social ha sido una cuestión centrai. Sólo parece factible en la actualidad identificar algunos criterios que fueron muy debatidos: el papel específico de los emprendedores sociales individuales; el lugar de la innovación social, la busqueda de ingresos de mercado y la cuestión de la gobernanza. El campo de los esfuerzos de conceptualización debe ser alimentado ahora con mas contribuciones comenzando con enfoques de abajo-arriba basados en una hipótesis que podria ser califìcada corno "la imposibilidad de una definición unificada". En el presente documento, desarrollamos un marco teorico que combina los principios de interés (interés mutuo, generai y del capital) y las mezclas de recursos para identificar trayectorias institucionales que generan cuatro modelos de empresa social (SE, por sus siglas en inglés) principales. Después mostramos que los cuatro modelos de SE pueden abordar la diversidad real de las misiones sociales de la SE. Finalmente, sugerimos que dichas misiones sociales pueden ser mejoradas de manera diferente dependiendo de los mecanismos de gobernanza respectivos.
Full text
Available for:
BFBNIB, CEKLJ, DOBA, EMUNI, FIS, FZAB, GEOZS, GIS, IJS, IMTLJ, IZUM, KILJ, KISLJ, MFDPS, NLZOH, NMLJ, NUK, OBVAL, ODKLJ, OILJ, PILJ, PNG, SAZU, SBCE, SBJE, SBMB, SBNM, UILJ, UKNU, UL, UM, UPUK, VKSCE, ZAGLJ
Bowing before Dual Gods Smith, Wendy K.; Besharov, Marya L.
Administrative science quarterly,
03/2019, Volume:
64, Issue:
1
Journal Article
Peer reviewed
Open access
Organizations increasingly grapple with hybridity—the combination of identities, forms, logics, or other core elements that would conventionally not go together. Drawing on in-depth longitudinal data ...from the first ten years of a successful social enterprise—Digital Divide Data, founded in Cambodia—we induce an empirically grounded model of sustaining hybridity over time through structured flexibility: the interaction of stable organizational features and adaptive enactment processes. We identify two stable features—paradoxical frames, involving leaders’ cognitive understandings of the two sides of a hybrid as both contradictory and interdependent, and guardrails, consisting of formal structures, leadership expertise, and stakeholder relationships associated with each side—that together facilitate ongoing adaptation in the meanings and practices of dual elements, sustaining both elements over time. Our structured flexibility model reorients research away from focusing on either stable or adaptive approaches to sustaining hybridity toward understanding their interaction, with implications for scholarship on hybridity, duality, and adaptation more broadly.
Full text
Available for:
BFBNIB, IZUM, KILJ, NMLJ, NUK, ODKLJ, OILJ, PILJ, PNG, SAZU, UKNU, UL, UM, UPUK
PDF
