Responding to Value Pluralism in Hybrid Organizations

Research output: Contribution to journalArticleResearchpeer-review

Abstract

In this paper, we derive a four-stage process model of how hybrid organizations respond to specific challenges that arise under conditions of value pluralism and institutional complexity. Engaging in exploratory qualitative research of six Australian hybrid organizations, we identify institutional and organizational responses to pluralism, particularly as organizations strive to uphold multiple value commitments, such as social, environmental and/or financial outcomes. We find that by employing a process of separating, negotiating, aggregating, and subjectively assessing the value that is created, our cases demonstrate how they move between logics in a dynamic fashion and address specific challenges of cognitive dissonance, incommensurability, interdependence and aggregation. Our model contributes to the literature by reframing the notion of ‘tensions’ that arise in conditions of hybridity and characterize specific challenges and sequential responses that may go some way to addressing why some hybrids employ particular responses to pluralism and why some succeed.

Original languageEnglish
Number of pages16
JournalJournal of Business Ethics
DOIs
Publication statusAccepted/In press - 12 Feb 2018

Keywords

  • Aggregation
  • Environmental value
  • Hybrid organizations
  • Incommensurability
  • Institutional complexity
  • Institutional logics
  • Social enterprise
  • Social value
  • Value pluralism

Cite this

@article{6763ebddfe1e45f7beee0239f70805cd,
title = "Responding to Value Pluralism in Hybrid Organizations",
abstract = "In this paper, we derive a four-stage process model of how hybrid organizations respond to specific challenges that arise under conditions of value pluralism and institutional complexity. Engaging in exploratory qualitative research of six Australian hybrid organizations, we identify institutional and organizational responses to pluralism, particularly as organizations strive to uphold multiple value commitments, such as social, environmental and/or financial outcomes. We find that by employing a process of separating, negotiating, aggregating, and subjectively assessing the value that is created, our cases demonstrate how they move between logics in a dynamic fashion and address specific challenges of cognitive dissonance, incommensurability, interdependence and aggregation. Our model contributes to the literature by reframing the notion of ‘tensions’ that arise in conditions of hybridity and characterize specific challenges and sequential responses that may go some way to addressing why some hybrids employ particular responses to pluralism and why some succeed.",
keywords = "Aggregation, Environmental value, Hybrid organizations, Incommensurability, Institutional complexity, Institutional logics, Social enterprise, Social value, Value pluralism",
author = "Castellas, {Erin I.} and Wendy Stubbs and V{\'e}ronique Ambrosini",
year = "2018",
month = "2",
day = "12",
doi = "10.1007/s10551-018-3809-2",
language = "English",
journal = "Journal of Business Ethics",
issn = "0167-4544",
publisher = "Springer-Verlag London Ltd.",

}

Responding to Value Pluralism in Hybrid Organizations. / Castellas, Erin I.; Stubbs, Wendy; Ambrosini, Véronique.

In: Journal of Business Ethics, 12.02.2018.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticleResearchpeer-review

TY - JOUR

T1 - Responding to Value Pluralism in Hybrid Organizations

AU - Castellas, Erin I.

AU - Stubbs, Wendy

AU - Ambrosini, Véronique

PY - 2018/2/12

Y1 - 2018/2/12

N2 - In this paper, we derive a four-stage process model of how hybrid organizations respond to specific challenges that arise under conditions of value pluralism and institutional complexity. Engaging in exploratory qualitative research of six Australian hybrid organizations, we identify institutional and organizational responses to pluralism, particularly as organizations strive to uphold multiple value commitments, such as social, environmental and/or financial outcomes. We find that by employing a process of separating, negotiating, aggregating, and subjectively assessing the value that is created, our cases demonstrate how they move between logics in a dynamic fashion and address specific challenges of cognitive dissonance, incommensurability, interdependence and aggregation. Our model contributes to the literature by reframing the notion of ‘tensions’ that arise in conditions of hybridity and characterize specific challenges and sequential responses that may go some way to addressing why some hybrids employ particular responses to pluralism and why some succeed.

AB - In this paper, we derive a four-stage process model of how hybrid organizations respond to specific challenges that arise under conditions of value pluralism and institutional complexity. Engaging in exploratory qualitative research of six Australian hybrid organizations, we identify institutional and organizational responses to pluralism, particularly as organizations strive to uphold multiple value commitments, such as social, environmental and/or financial outcomes. We find that by employing a process of separating, negotiating, aggregating, and subjectively assessing the value that is created, our cases demonstrate how they move between logics in a dynamic fashion and address specific challenges of cognitive dissonance, incommensurability, interdependence and aggregation. Our model contributes to the literature by reframing the notion of ‘tensions’ that arise in conditions of hybridity and characterize specific challenges and sequential responses that may go some way to addressing why some hybrids employ particular responses to pluralism and why some succeed.

KW - Aggregation

KW - Environmental value

KW - Hybrid organizations

KW - Incommensurability

KW - Institutional complexity

KW - Institutional logics

KW - Social enterprise

KW - Social value

KW - Value pluralism

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85041908940&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1007/s10551-018-3809-2

DO - 10.1007/s10551-018-3809-2

M3 - Article

JO - Journal of Business Ethics

JF - Journal of Business Ethics

SN - 0167-4544

ER -