Edited by Marc Pradel-Miquel, Ana B. Cano-Hila and Marisol García Cabeza
Citizenship, Civil Society and Social Movements
Edited by Marc Pradel-Miquel, Ana B. Cano-Hila and Marisol García Cabeza
Edited by David Billis and Colin Rochester
Lars Fuglsang and Jørn Kjølseth Møller
In this chapter we develop a framework for analysing the challenge of dealing with innovation in hybrid public services. The main objective of the chapter is to analyse how hybridity can lead to innovation. Hybrid organisations are defined by the literature as organisations that combine multiple organisational identities and forms (Battilana and Lee, 2014), multiple institutional logics (Jay, 2013; Battilana and Lee, 2014) or sector principles (Billis, 2010). For the purpose of this chapter we define hybrid organisations as organisations that combine two or more institutional logics. An institutional logic is a socially constructed pattern of cultural symbols and material practices by which individuals and organisations provide meaning to their daily activity (Thornton et al., 2012, p. 2). For organisations, logics may translate into organisational ‘principles’ (Billis, 2010) or rules of the game. In this chapter we use logics and principles as almost interchangeable concepts but for us the overarching phenomenon is logics. The example of hybridity we analyse in this chapter is the growing ‘servitisation’ of public services. Servitisation we understand as a new institutional logic that leads public services to emphasise user-centric innovation approaches. Servitisation and the user-centric logic represent a move towards market sector principles and therefore an increase in sector hybridity.
Benjamin Huybrechts, Julie Rijpens, Aurélie Soetens and Helen Haugh
Hybrid organisations are ‘organizations that combine institutional logics in unprecedented ways’ (Battilana and Dorado, 2010, p. 1419; Scott, 2001); they thus bring together logics from different, and often conflicting, fields into a singular organisational form. Social enterprises, for example, are typical hybrids that combine economic, social and environmental goals (Battilana and Lee, 2014; Billis, 2010; Doherty et al., 2014) and have been found to operate successfully in diverse sectors such as microfinance (Battilana and Dorado, 2010), fair trade (Huybrechts, 2012) and work integration (Pache and Santos, 2013). Although exploiting business methods to address social or environmental problems might suggest an organisational model that combines the best of both worlds, categorical confusion has been found to limit an organisation’s access to resources and negatively impact upon long-term survival (Tracey et al., 2011). Hybridity in organisations is not a new phenomenon (Billis, 2010), but interest in innovative organisational models that facilitate the achievement of double, or triple, bottom lines has recently flourished in response to global sustainability challenges (Hoffman et al., 2012). Hybrid organisations, however, face legitimacy challenges in that they are: (1) difficult to categorise within established organisational taxonomies (Aldrich and Fiol, 1994; Suchman, 1995); and (2) held to account to multiple institutional demands by audiences that use different and possibly contradictory legitimation criteria (Kraatz and Block, 2008). In turn the credibility of their claims of commitment to different sets of standards may be deemed to be unconvincing. Securing the conferment of legitimacy from stakeholders is therefore an important challenge facing hybrid organisations. Previous research, however, has not investigated the activities required to build legitimacy when an organisational form bridges two or more institutional categories.
The organisational life of faith communities and religious congregations is changing in post-secular environments with new interactions, opportunities for collaboration and social contracts between the public and private sectors and civil society organisations (secular and religious). Religious communities with shrinking congregations and faithbased organisations (FBOs) in a post-secular environment are developing strategies for networking and collaboration with the public and private sectors. They are utilising a new discourse of solidarity and inclusion, which also attracts a larger public that goes beyond the shrinking constituencies of their own members. Collaboration has been accompanied by the growth of hybridity and hybrid organisations. Billis (2010) suggests that this occurs when an organisation from one sector, for example the civil society/third sector, adopts the different approaches and principles of the public and/or the private sector. As this chapter will show, hybrid organisational forms can bring with them the prospect of answers to difficult problems of communities and welfare. But they can also present their own inherent problems when the different principles become uncomfortable partners. I shall shortly illustrate this in a personal example.
Gabriela Vaceková, Hana Lipovská and Jana Soukopová
The theoretical relevance and practical importance of the development of hybrid organisations around the world has been experienced, among others, by the post-communist economies. The trend towards emerging hybridisation in the transitional economies of Central and Eastern Europe (CEE) has grown significantly in recent years. The process of spanning sectoral boundaries (Billis, 2010; Dees and Anderson, 2003; Laville and Nyssens, 2001) is ‘now perhaps accelerating’ (Donnelly-Cox, 2015), especially with the development of social enterprises that seem to transcend sectors (Dees and Anderson, 2003). To date, however, we lack the means of reflecting in detail on the specific nature of hybridity in a transitional context as well as on the kinds of current public debates and policy-making discourses within which it takes place. This chapter intends to try to fill this gap. The chapter does not attempt to do justice to the considerable heterogeneity of transitional economies but focuses on the Czech Republic in an attempt to present a comprehensive picture of the way in which civil society was transformed in this one country. From the early years of the transition from communist rule, public services were seen as being delivered by hybrid organisations operating in the intersection of the market, the civil society and the public sector.
Boers Börje and Mattias Nordqvist
The objective of this chapter is to deepen our understanding of the nature of family businesses by analysing them as hybrid organisations. We define family businesses as businesses where one or several families own the controlling majority of the shares and are actively involved in the business (Chrisman et al., 2005; Chua et al., 1999). The focus of the chapter is on the theoretical notion of family businesses as hybrid organisations, and it draws on case research based on two publicly listed family firms. Publicly listed family firms are common around the world (La Porta et al., 1999) and they illustrate explicitly the hybrid character of family businesses by combining the logic of family ownership with the expectation of delivering shareholder value (Boers and Nordqvist, 2012). We argue that hybridity is especially apparent in publicly listed family businesses, where it arises from different underlying institutional logics related to the family and the market and the private and the public. The hybrid nature of this kind of business has an impact on their decision-making, their control and/or their governance more generally. To analyse the two cases, we draw on literature on hybrid organisations, governance and family firms. The study of hybrid organisations has gained momentum in recent years (see, e.g., Battilana and Dorado, 2010; Battilana and Lee, 2014; Billis, 2010; Pache and Santos, 2013; and also this Handbook). The current focus seems to be on social enterprises as typical examples of hybrid organisations (Battilana and Lee, 2014; Doherty et al., 2014). Yet this phenomenon is not exclusive to social enterprises or the third sector: it is equally relevant for some public sector and for-profit organisations. The most common type of business is the family business (Dyer, 2003), which also represents a hybrid organisation, with the two domains of family and business constituting the source of hybridity. Family businesses have been portrayed as hybrid organisations in previous literature (e.g., Arregle et al., 2007; Boers and Nordqvist, 2012; Ljungkvist and Boers, 2017), but the concept of hybridity has not gained as much research attention as it deserves. The purpose of this chapter is to address this limitation.
In an era when the recent financial crisis has raised questions about the morality and sustainability of the economic system, and austerity measures have led to funding challenges for many charitable and voluntary organisations, hybrid organisational forms such as social enterprise offer a promising alternative: an ethical form of business able to address social issues and reduce the dependence on donations and government funding. However, history suggests that it can be difficult for social enterprises to maintain their social goals in the face of commercial pressures and that consequently they may succumb to mission drift. Organisational governance is important in helping to manage these competing pressures, and this chapter examines some of the main choices and challenges that social enterprises face in designing their governance structures, systems and processes. One of the challenges facing hybrid organisations, such as social enterprises, is how to combine different logics; for example, many social enterprises have to combine a commercial logic necessary for operating in the market with a ‘charitable’1 logic of pursuing a social mission (Ebrahim et al., 2014). It has been suggested that combining different logics can result in long-term instability, where one logic comes to dominate (Young et al., 2012). Indeed, traditional left-wing critiques of co-operatives and other forms of employee ownership suggested that these organisations would simply degenerate into being no different from capitalist forms of business as they succumbed to pressures from the marketplace (Mandel, 1975). This process whereby an organisation gradually loses its social mission is often called mission creep or mission drift (Minkoff and Powell, 2006; Jones, 2007). While social enterprises are not the only types of organisation to be susceptible to mission drift, they face the particular challenge of trying to manage being both a business and pursuing a social mission.