Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Exploring Constitutional Hybridity

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
Book cover Managing Hybrid Organizations

Abstract

Hybrid organizations are topical in contemporary society, and literature in this area is growing. One neglected dimension is, however, empirically based theorizations of management and governance in hybrid organizations. Moreover, the literature tends to be based on observations of “new” forms of hybrid organizations, often referred to as social enterprises. We argue that if we want to learn about what managing hybrid organizations means, it is important to compare different types of hybrids and also to compare hybrids with as long history with those established relatively recently. Based on earlier literature, hybrid organizations are discussed as placed in contexts of institutional pluralism, at the cross-roads between institutional orders and institutional logics. Special focus is placed on exploration and comparison of what is defined here as constitutional hybrid organizations, thus hybrid organizations founded with the explicit purpose of fulfilling their mission by integrating either different institutional orders such as the market, the public sector and civil society or structural traits from the logics of different ideal-typical organizations such as the business corporation, the public agency and the association. We argue that multivocality is a concept that can explain why some hybrid organizations manage to remain hybrids over time while others face de-hybridization. A common analytical frame for the volume is developed, where six dimensions of hybridity are defined (institutional order, logics of organizational forms, ownership structures, purpose, main stakeholders and main sources of funding). The aim of this chapter is to introduce why it is timely to theorize on management and governance in hybrid organizations, to develop the theoretical frame for the book, and to introduce the explorative multidisciplinary approach behind the book and the selection of cases. The chapter ends with a brief discussion of the chapters to come.

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

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 129.00
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Hardcover Book
USD 169.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Notes

  1. 1.

    Cyert and March’s The Theory of the Firm has been an important starting and reference point for an influential theoretical development in the field of organization studies. The authors argue that firms can be seen as coalitions of interests, a view which corresponds well to the much later work of Pache and Santos (2010), who see hybrid organizations as existing in a state of “colliding worlds”.

  2. 2.

    One example is Ghana, whose 1992 constitution is a hybrid arrangement that combines features of the US presidential system and of the British Westminster system of government (Van Gyampo and Graham 2014).

References

  • 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 

  • Alexius, S., and G. Grossi. 2017. Decoupling in the Age of Market-Embedded Morality: Responsible Gambling in a Hybrid Organization. Journal of Management and Governance. http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10997-017-9387-3.

  • Alexius, S., and K. Tamm Hallström, eds. 2014. Configuring Value Conflicts in Markets. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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 

  • Battilana, J., and S. Dorado. 2010. Building Sustainable Hybrid Organizations: The Case of Commercial Microfinance Organizations. Academy of Management Journal 53: 1419–1440.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Battilana, J., and M. Lee. 2014. Advancing Research on Hybrid Organizing. Academy of Management Annals 8 (1): 397–441.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Billis, D. 2010. Towards a Theory of Hybrid Organizations. In Hybrid Organizations and the Third Sector: Challenges for Practice, Theory and Policy, ed. D. Billis, 46–69. New York: Palgrave Macmillan.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Brandsen, T., W. Van de Donk, and K. Putters. 2005. Griffins or Chameleons? Hybridity as a Permanent and Inevitable Characteristic of the Third Sector. International Journal of Public Administration 28: 749–765.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bromley, P., and J. Meyer. 2015. Hyper-Organization: Global Organizational Expansion. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Brunsson, N. 1994. Politicization and Company-ization. Management Accounting Research 5: 323–335.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cornforth, C. 2003. Introduction: The Changing Context of Governance – Emerging Issues and Paradoxes. In The Governance of Public and Non-Profit Organizations: What Do Boards Do? ed. C. Cornforth. London: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cyert, R., and J. March. 1963. A Behavior Theory of the Firm. Hoboken: Wiley.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dees, J.G. 2001. The Meanings of ‘Social Entrepreneurship’. Working paper. Stanford, CA: Stanford University.

    Google Scholar 

  • Denis, J.L., E. Ferlie, and N. Van Gestel. 2015. Understanding Hybridity in Public Organizations. Public Administration 93: 273–289.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • DiMaggio, P.J., and W.W. Powell. 1983. The Iron Cage Revisited: Institutional Isomorphism and Collective Rationality in Organizational Fields. American Sociological Review 48 (2): 147–160.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Doherty, B., H. Haugh, and F. Lyon. 2014. Social Enterprises as Hybrid Organizations: A Review and Research Agenda. International Journal of Management Reviews 4: 417–436.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dunn, M., and C. Jones. 2010. Institutional Logics and Institutional Pluralism: The Contestation of Care and Science Logics in Medical Education, 1967–2005. Administrative Science Quarterly 55: 114–149.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Forssell, A., and A. Ivarsson Westerberg. 2007. Organisation från grunden. Stockholm: Liber.

    Google Scholar 

  • Furusten, S. 2013. Institutional Theory and Organizational Change. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Grassl, H. 2011. Ethics and Economics: Towards a New Humanistic Synthesis for Business. Journal of Business Ethics 99 (1): 37–49.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Greenwood, M., and R.E. Freeman. 2017. Focusing on Ethics and Broadening Our Intellectual Base. Journal of Business Ethics 140: 1–3.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Grossi, G., and A. Thomasson. 2015. Bridging the Accountability Gap in Hybrid Organizations: The Case of Malmö-Copenhagen Port. International Review of Administrative Sciences 81 (3): 604–620.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Haigh, N., J. Walker, S. Bacq, and J. Kickul. 2015. Hybrid Organizations: Origins, Strategies, Impacts and Implications. California Management Review 57 (3): 5–12.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hatch, M.-J. 1998. The Vancouver Academy of Management Jazz Symposium – Jazz as a Metaphor for Organizing in the 21st Century. Organization Science 9 (5): 556–568. https://doi.org/10.1287/orsc.9.5.556.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hockerts, K. 2015. How Hybrid Organizations Turn Antagonistic Asserts into Complementarities. California Management Review 57 (3): 83–106.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Holt, D., and D. Littlewood. 2015. Identifying, Mapping, and Monitoring the Impact of Hybrid Firms. California Management Review 57 (3): 107–125.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jancsary, D., R.E. Meyer, M. Höllerer, and B. Vitaliano. 2017. Toward a Structural Model of Organizational-Level Institutional Pluralism and Logic Interconnectedness. Organization Science 28 (6): 1150–1167.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jay, J. 2013. Navigating Paradox as a Mechanism of Change and Innovation in Hybrid Organizations. Academy of Management Journal 56 (1 February): 137–159.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kodeih, F., and R. Greenwood. 2014. Responding to Institutional Complexity: The Role of Identity. Organization Studies 35 (1): 7–39.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kraatz, M.S., and E.S. Block. 2008. Organizational Implications of Institutional Pluralism. In The SAGE Handbook of Organizational Institutionalism, ed. R. Greenwood, C. Oliver, R. Suddaby, and K. Sahlin, 243–275. London: Sage Publications.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • 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##.

  • Mair, J., J. Mayer, and E. Lutz. 2015. Navigating Institutional Plurality: Organizational Governance in Hybrid Organizations. Organization Studies 36 (6): 713–739.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • March, J. 1962. The Business Firm as a Political Coalition. The Journal of Politics 24 (4): 662–678.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • March, J.G., and J.P. Olsen. 1989. Rediscovering Institutions: The Organizational Basis of Politics. New York: Free Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • March, J., and H. Simon. 1958. Organizations. Cambridge, MA: Blackwell.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Meyer, R., and M. Höllerer. 2010. Meaning Structures in a Contested Issue Field: A Topographic Map of Shareholder Value in Austria. Academy of Management Journal 53 (6): 1241–1262.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Meyer, J.W., and B. Rowan. 1977. Institutionalized Organizations: Formal Structure as Myth and Ceremony. American Journal of Sociology 83 (2): 340–363.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Oliver, C. 1991. Strategic Responses to Institutional Processes. Academy of Management Review 16 (1): 145–179.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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 

  • ———. 2013. Inside the Hybrid Organization: Selective Coupling as a Response to Competing Institutional Logics. Academy of Management Journal 56: 972–1001.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Padgett, J., and W. Powell. 2012. The Emergence of Organizations and Markets. Princeton: Princeton University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Purdy, J., and B. Gray. 2009. Conflicting Logics, Mechanisms of Diffusion, and Multilevel Dynamics in Emerging Institutional Fields. Academy of Management Journal 52 (2): 355–380.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Radon, J., and J. Thaler. 2005. Resolving Conflicts of Interest in State-Owned Enterprises. International Social Science Journal 57 (S1): 11–20.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rainey, H.G., and Y.H. Chun. 2005. Public and Private Management Compared. In The Oxford Handbook of Public Management, ed. E. Ferlie, L.-E. Lynn, and C. Pollitt, 72–103. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Reay, T., and C.R. Hinings. 2009. Managing the Rivalry of Competing Institutional Logics. Organization Studies 30 (6): 629–652.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Santos, F., A.-C. Pache, and C. Birkholz. 2015. Making Hybrids Work: Aligning Business Models and Organizational Design for Social Enterprises. Californian Management Review 57 (3): 36–58.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schneiberg, M. 2007. What’s on the Path? Path Dependence, Organizational Diversity and the Problem of Institutional Change in the US Economy, 1900–1950. Socio-Economic Review 5 (1): 47–80. https://doi.org/10.1093/ser/mwl006.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sjöstrand, S.-E. 1992. On the Rationale Behind ‘Irrational’ Institutions. Journal of Economic Issues XXVI (4): 1007–1040.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Skelcher, C., and S. Rathgeb Smith. 2015. Theorizing Hybridity: Institutional Logics, Complex Organizations and Actor Identities: The Case of Non-Profits. Public Administration 93: 433–448.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Spear, R. 2004. Governance in Democratic Member-Based Organizations. Annals of Public and Cooperative Economics 75: 33–59.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Su, J., Q. Zhai, and T. Karlsson. 2017. Beyond Red Tape and Fools: Institutional Theory in Entrepreneurship Research, 1992–2014. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice. July. https://doi.org/10.1111/etap.12218.

    Google Scholar 

  • Thornton, P.H., and W. Ocasio. 2008. Institutional Logics. In The SAGE Handbook of Organizational Institutionalism, ed. R. Greenwood, C. Oliver, R. Suddaby, and K. Sahlin, 99–129. London: Sage Publications.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Van Gyampo, R.E., and E. Graham. 2014. Constitutional Hybridity and Constitutionalism in Ghana. Africa Review 6: 138–150.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Weick, K. 1998. Introductory Essay – Improvisation as a Mindset for Organizational Analysis. Organization Science 9 (5): 543–555. https://doi.org/10.1287/orsc.9.5.543.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Zack, M. 2000. Jazz Improvisation and Organizing: Once More from the Top. Organizational Science 11 (2): 227–234.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Score, Stockholm University, Stockholm, Sweden

    Susanna Alexius & Staffan Furusten

  2. Stockholm School of Economics, Stockholm, Sweden

    Susanna Alexius & Staffan Furusten

Authors
  1. Susanna Alexius
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Staffan Furusten
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Susanna Alexius .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. Score, Stockholm University, Stockholm, Sweden

    Susanna Alexius  & Staffan Furusten  & 

  2. Stockholm School of Economics, Stockholm, Sweden

    Susanna Alexius  & Staffan Furusten  & 

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2019 The Author(s)

About this chapter

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this chapter

Alexius, S., Furusten, S. (2019). Exploring Constitutional Hybridity. In: Alexius, S., Furusten, S. (eds) Managing Hybrid Organizations. Palgrave Macmillan, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-95486-8_1

Download citation

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation