Recasting Organizational Hybridity: A New Approach to the Incompatibility of Institutional Logics Through the Higher Common Principle
Abstract
In neo-institutional theory, the concept of organizational hybridity is characterized by the combination of institutional logics that ‘would not conventionally go together,’ as they are deemed incompatible. However, our study shows that this criterion of incompatibility between logics is not theoretically robust enough to discriminate situations of organizational hybridity, as it struggles to differentiate incompatible logics from simply different logics. In response, this article proposes a new approach to incompatibility between institutional logics by mobilizing the concept of a higher common principle derived from the economies of worth. Through the rereading of five empirical articles mobilizing the concept of hybridity, we demonstrate how the higher common principle provides a more restrictive way of operationalizing incompatibility between logics to qualify organizational hybrids more rigorously. This study ultimately leads us to recast the concept of organizational hybridity as the combination of mutually exclusive institutional logics based on strictly distinct higher common principles.
Downloads
References
Ansari, S. (Shaz), Wijen, F. & Gray, B. (2013). Constructing a climate change logic: An institutional perspective on the ‘tragedy of the commons’. Organization Science, 24(4), 1014–1040. doi: 10.1287/orsc.1120.0799
Battilana, J., Besharov, M. L. & Mitzinneck, B. C. (2017). On hybrids and hybrid organizing: A review and roadmap for future research. In R. Greenwood et al. (Eds.), The SAGE handbook of organizational institutionalism (pp. 133–169). Sage Publications Ltd.
Battilana, J. & Dorado, S. (2010). Building sustainable hybrid organizations: The case of commercial microfinance organizations. Academy of Management Journal, 53(6), 1419–1440. doi: 10.5465/amj.2010.57318391
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. doi: 10.5465/19416520.2014.893615
Battilana, J., Sengul, M., Pache, A.-C. & Model, J. (2014). Harnessing productive tensions in hybrid organizations: The case of work integration social enterprises. Academy of Management Journal, 58(6), 1658–1685. doi: 10.5465/AMJ.2013.0903
Besharov, M. L. & Mitzinneck, B. C. (2020). Heterogeneity in organizational hybridity: A configurational, situated, and dynamic approach. In M. L. Besharov et al. (Eds.), Organizational hybridity: Perspectives, processes, promises (pp. 3–25). Emerald Publishing Ltd.
Besharov, M. L. & Smith, W. (2014). Multiple institutional logics in organizations: Explaining their varied nature and implications. Academy of Management Review, 39(3), 364–381. doi: 10.5465/amr.2011.0431
Boltanski, L. & Thévenot, L. (1991). De la justification. Les économies de la grandeur. Gallimard.
Boone, C. & Özcan, S. (2016). Ideological purity vs. hybridization trade-off: When do Islamic banks hire managers from conventional banking? Organization Science, 27(6), 1380–1396. doi: 10.1287/orsc.2016.1097
Boxenbaum, E. (2014). Toward a situated stance in organizational institutionalism. Journal of Management Inquiry, 23(3), 319–323. https://doi.org/10.1177/1056492613517464
Brandl, J., Daudigeos, T., Edwards, T. & Pernkopf-Konhäusner, K. (2014). Why French pragmatism matters to organizational institutionalism. Journal of Management Inquiry, 23(3), 314–318. doi: 10.1177/1056492613517463
Christensen, T. & Lægreid, P. (2011). Complexity and hybrid public administration – Theoretical and empirical challenges. Public Organization Review, 11(4), 407–423. doi: 10.1007/s11115-010-0141-4
Cloutier, C., Gond, J. P. & Leca, B. (2017). Justification, evaluation and critique in the study of organizations: An introduction to the volume. In C. Cloutier et al. (Eds.), Justification, evaluation and critique in the study of organizations (pp. 3–29). Emerald Publishing Ltd.
Cloutier, C. & Langley, A. (2013). The logic of institutional logics: Insights from French pragmatist sociology. Journal of Management Inquiry, 22(4), 360–380. doi: 10.1177/1056492612469057
Cobb, J. A., Wry, T. & Zhao, E. Y. (2016). Funding financial inclusion: Institutional logics and the contextual contingency of funding for microfinance organizations. Academy of Management Journal, 59(6), 2103–2131. doi: 10.5465/amj.2015.0715
Cristofini, O. (2021). Toward a discursive approach to the hybridization of practice: Insights from the case of servitization in France. M@n@gement, 24(2), 23–47. doi: 10.37725/MGMT.V24I2.7796
Dalpiaz, E., Rindova, V. & Ravasi, D. (2016). Combining logics to transform organizational agency. Administrative Science Quarterly, 61(3), 347–392. doi: 10.1177/0001839216636103
Dansou, K. & Langley, A. (2012). Institutional work and the notion of test. M@n@gement, 15(5), 502–527. doi: 10.3917/mana.155.0503
Daudigeos, T. & Valiorgue, B. (2010). Convention theory : Is there a French school of organizational institutionalism ? Retrieved from http://hal.grenoble-em.com/hal-00512374
Demers, C. & Gond, J.-P. (2020). The moral microfoundations of institutional complexity: Sustainability implementation as compromise-making at an oil sands company. Organization Studies, 41(4), 563–586. doi: 10.1177/0170840619867721
Denis, J.-L., Ferlie, E. & Gestel, N. V. (2015). Understanding hybridity in public organizations. Public Administration, 93(2), 273–289. doi: 10.1111/padm.12175
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. doi: 10.1111/IJMR.12028
Dorado, S. (2020). Hybrid agency: Sheltered workshops (1941–2019). In M. L. Besharov et al. (Eds.), Organizational hybridity: Perspectives, processes, promises (pp. 237–270). Emerald Publishing Ltd.
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. doi: 10.1016/j.riob.2014.09.001
Fossestol, K., Breit, E., Andreassen, T. A. & Klemsdal, L. (2015). Managing institutional complexity in public sector reform: Hybridization in front-line service organizations. Public Administration, 93(2), 290–306. doi: 10.1111/PADM.12144
Friedland, R. (2017). The value of institutional logics. In G. Krücken et al. (Eds.), New themes in institutional analysis (pp. 12–50). Edward Elgar Publishing.
Friedland, R. & Alford, R. R. (1991). Bringing society back in: Symbols, practices, and institutional contradictions. In W. W. Powell et al. (Eds.), The new institutionalism in organizational analysis (pp. 232–263). University of Chicago Press.
Gebreiter, F. & Hidayah, N. N. (2019). Individual responses to competing accountability pressures in hybrid organisations: The case of an English business school. Accounting, Auditing & Accountability Journal, 32(3), 727–749. doi: 10.1108/AAAJ-08-2017-3098
Gioia, D. A., Corley, K. G. & Hamilton, A. L. (2012). Seeking qualitative rigor in inductive research: Notes on the Gioia methodology. Organizational Research Methods, 16(1), 15–31. doi: 10.1177/1094428112452151
Glynn, M. A., Hood, E. A. & Innis, B. D. (2020). Taking hybridity for granted: Institutionalization and hybrid identification. In M. L. Besharov et al. (Eds.), Organizational hybridity: Perspectives, processes, promises (pp. 53–72). Emerald Publishing Ltd.
Greenwood, R., Díaz, A. M., Li, S. X. & Lorente, J. C. (2010). The multiplicity of institutional logics and the heterogeneity of organizational responses. Organization Science, 21(2), 521–539. doi: 10.1287/orsc.1090.0453
Greenwood, R., Raynard, M., Kodeih, F., Micelotta, E. R. et al. (2011). Institutional complexity and organizational responses. Academy of Management Annals, 5(1), 317–371. doi: 10.5465/19416520.2011.590299
Gümüsay, A. A., Claus, L. & Amis, J. (2020a). Engaging with grand challenges: An institutional logics perspective. Organization Theory, 1(3), 1–20. doi: 10.1177/2631787720960487
Gümüsay, A. A., Smets, M. & Morris, T. (2020b). ‘God at work’: Engaging central and incompatible institutional logics through elastic hybridity. Academy of Management Journal, 63(1), 124–154. doi: 10.5465/amj.2016.0481
Hahn, T. (2020). Business sustainability as a context for studying hybridity. In M. L. Besharov et al. (Eds.), Organizational hybridity: Perspectives, processes, promises (pp. 115–138). Emerald Publishing Ltd.
Huault, I. & Taupin, B. (2012). Les fondements moraux d’une logique institutionnelle. Contestation, controverses et stabilité, Retrieved from https://hal.archives-ouvertes.fr/hal-01637436
Jagd, S. (2011). Pragmatic sociology and competing orders of worth in organizations. European Journal of Social Theory, 14(3), 343–359. doi: 10.1177/1368431011412349
Jay, J. (2013). Navigating paradox as a mechanism of change and innovation in hybrid organizations. Academy of Management Journal, 56(1), 137–159. doi: 10.5465/amj.2010.0772
Kraatz, M. S. & Block, E. S. (2008). Organizational implications of institutional pluralism. In R. Greenwood et al. (Eds.), The SAGE handbook of organizational institutionalism (pp. 243–275). Sage Publications Ltd.
Lewis, S. C. (2012). The tension between professional control and open participation : Journalism and its boundaries. Information Communication and Society, 15(6), 836–866. doi: 10.1080/1369118X.2012.674150
Mair, J., Mayer, J. & Lutz, E. (2015). Navigating institutional plurality: Organizational governance in hybrid organizations. Organization Studies, 36(6), 713–739. doi: 10.1177/0170840615580007
Mair, J. & Rathert, N. (2020). Let’s talk about problems: Advancing research on hybrid organizing, social enterprises, and institutional context. In M. L. Besharov et al. (Eds.), Organizational hybridity: Perspectives, processes, promises (pp. 189–208). Emerald Publishing Ltd.
McGivern, G., Currie, G., Ferlie, E., Fitzgerald, L. et al. (2015). Hybrid manager–professionals’ identity work: The maintenance and hybridization of medical professionalism in managerial contexts. Public Administration, 93(2), 412–432. doi: 10.1111/PADM.12119
Meyer, J. W. & Rowan, B. (1977). Institutionalized organizations: Formal structure as myth and ceremony. American Journal of Sociology, 83(2), 340–363. doi: 10.1086/226550
Mitzinneck, B. & Greco, A. (2021). Organizational hybridity. In R. W. Griffin (Eds.), Oxford Bibliographies in Management. Oxford University Press.
Murray, F. (2010). The oncomouse that roared: Hybrid exchange strategies as a source of distinction at the boundary of overlapping institutions. American Journal of Sociology, 116(2), 341–388. doi: 10.1086/653599
Ocasio, W. & Radoynovska, N. (2016). Strategy and commitments to institutional logics: Organizational heterogeneity in business models and governance. Strategic Organization, 14(4), 287–309. doi: 10.1177/1476127015625040
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. doi: 10.5465/amr.35.3.zok455
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. doi: 10.5465/amj.2011.0405
Pache, A.-C. & Thornton, P. H. (2020). Hybridity and institutional logics. In M. L. Besharov et al. (Eds.), Organizational hybridity: Perspectives, processes, promises (pp. 29–52). Emerald Publishing Ltd.
Patriotta, G., Gond, J. P. & Schultz, F. (2011). Maintaining legitimacy: Controversies, orders of worth, and public justifications. Journal of Management Studies, 48(8), 1804–1836. doi: 10.1111/j.1467-6486.2010.00990.x
Polzer, T., Meyer, R. E., Höllerer, M. A. & Seiwald, J. (2016). Institutional hybridity in public sector reform: Replacement, blending, or layering of administrative paradigms. In J. Gehman et al. (Eds.), How institutions matter! (pp. 69–99). Emerald Group Publishing Limited.
Powell, W. W. & Sandholtz, K. W. (2012). Amphibious entrepreneurs and the emergence of organizational forms. Strategic Entrepreneurship Journal, 6(2), 94–115. doi: 10.1002/SEJ.1129
Purdy, J. M. & Gray, B. (2009). Conflicting logics, mechanisms of diffusion, and multilevel dynamics in emerging institutional fields. Academy of Management Journal, 52(2), 355–380. doi: 10.5465/AMJ.2009.37308255
Raynard, M. (2016). Deconstructing complexity: Configurations of institutional complexity and structural hybridity. Strategic Organization, 14(4), 310–335. doi: 10.1177/1476127016634639
Sauermann, H. & Stephan, P. (2013). Conflicting logics? A multidimensional view of industrial and academic science. Organization Science, 24(3), 889–909. doi: 10.1287/orsc.1120.0769
Schad, J., Lewis, M. W., Raisch, S. & Smith, W. K. (2016). Paradox research in management science: Looking back to move forward. Academy of Management Annals, 10(1), 5–64. doi: 10.5465/19416520.2016.1162422
Sirris, S. (2019). Coherent identities and roles? Hybrid professional managers’ prioritizing of coexisting institutional logics in differing contexts. Scandinavian Journal of Management, 35(4), 101063. doi: 10.1016/J.SCAMAN.2019.101063
Smith, W. & Besharov, M. L. (2017). Bowing before dual gods: How structured flexibility sustains organizational hybridity. Administrative Science Quarterly, 64(1), 1–44. doi: 10.1177/0001839217750826
Smith, W. & Cunha, M. P. e. (2020). A paradoxical approach to hybridity: Integrating dynamic equilibrium and disequilibrium perspectives. In M. L. Besharov et al. (Eds.), Organizational hybridity: Perspectives, processes, promises (pp. 93–111). Emerald Publishing Ltd.
Smith, W. & Lewis, M. (2011). Toward a theory of paradox: A dynamic equilibrium model of organizing. Academy of Management Review, 36(2), 381–403. doi: 10.5465/amr.2009.0223
Spyridonidis, D. & Currie, G. (2016). The translational role of hybrid nurse middle managers in implementing clinical guidelines: Effect of, and upon, professional and managerial hierarchies. British Journal of Management, 27(4), 760–777. doi: 10.1111/1467-8551.12164
Taupin, B. (2012). The more things change… Institutional maintenance as justification work in the credit rating industry. M@n@gement, 15(5), 528–562. doi: 10.3917/mana.155.0529
Thornton, P. H. (2004). Markets from culture: Institutional logics and organizational decisions in higher education publishing. Stanford University Press.
Thornton, P. H. & Ocasio, W. (1999). Institutional logics and the historical contingency of power in organizations: Executive succession in the higher education publishing industry, 1958–1990. American Journal of Sociology, 105(3), 801–843. doi: 10.1086/210361
Thornton, P. H. & Ocasio, W. (2008). Institutional logics. In R. Greenwood et al. (Eds.), The SAGE handbook of organizational institutionalism (pp 99–128). Sage Publications Ltd.
Thornton, P. H., Ocasio, W. & Lounsbury, M. (2012). The institutional logics perspective: A new approach to culture, structure, and process. OUP Oxford.
Vickers, I., Lyon, F., Sepulveda, L. & McMullin, C. (2017). Public service innovation and multiple institutional logics: The case of hybrid social enterprise providers of health and wellbeing. Research Policy, 46(10), 1755–1768. doi: 10.1016/J.RESPOL.2017.08.003
York, J. G., O’Neil, I. & Sarasvathy, S. D. (2016). Exploring environmental entrepreneurship: Identity coupling, venture goals, and stakeholder incentives. Journal of Management Studies, 53(5), 695–737. doi: 10.1111/joms.12198
Zhao, E. Y. & Wry, T. (2016). Not all inequality is equal: Deconstructing the societal logic of patriarchy to understand microfinance lending to women. Academy of Management Journal, 59(6), 1994–2020. doi: 10.5465/amj.2015.0476
Zilber, T. B. (2011). Institutional multiplicity in practice: A tale of two high-tech conferences in Israel. Organization Science, 22(6), 1539–1559. doi: 10.1287/ORSC.1100.0611
Zucker, L. G. (1987). Institutional theories of organization. Annual Review of Sociology, 13(1), 443–464. doi: 10.1146/Annurev.so.13.080187.002303
Copyright (c) 2023 Amélie Gabriagues, Lionel Garreau
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License.
Authors retain copyright of their work, with first publication rights granted to the AIMS.
Published by 