The Strategic Evolution of Institutional Logics Across Social Entrepreneurial Process: A Multiple Case Study

Yanfang Xu; Chunling Zhu

doi:10.1515/erj-2023-0372

Article

The Strategic Evolution of Institutional Logics Across Social Entrepreneurial Process: A Multiple Case Study

Yanfang Xu and Chunling Zhu

Published/Copyright: July 5, 2024

Published by

Become an author with De Gruyter Brill

Submit Manuscript Author Information Explore this Subject

From the journal Entrepreneurship Research Journal Volume 15 Issue 2

Abstract

Although a hybrid logic is widely recognized as the best institutional logic for social enterprises, why and how such a hybrid logic works for social enterprises is under-explored. Based on the institutional logic theory, we conduct a multiple-case study to investigate how and why the two competing logics are combined to form a hybrid logic during social entrepreneurial process. Data are collected from the in-depth semi-structured interviews with social entrepreneurs from three leading social enterprises in China. We categorize a hybrid logic model as a dominant logic model, which includes a social-dominant logic model and a commercial-dominant logic model, and an equality of dual logic model. We find that the adoption of a hybrid logic is affected by the type of a social enterprise and the motivation to acquire different legitimacy. Specifically, an integrated social enterprise adopts a commercial-dominant logic model while an external social enterprise employs a social-dominant logic model to achieve sustainability. An embedded social enterprise can adopt an equality of dual logic model from its establishment. Our study contributes to research on strategic social entrepreneurship by revealing the dynamic relationship among different types of social enterprises, the adoption of a hybrid logic at different entrepreneurial stages, the motivation to acquire different legitimacy, and business outcomes.

Keywords: social entrepreneurship; commercial logic; social logic; hybrid logic; legitimacy acquisition

Corresponding author: Chunling Zhu, Department of General Management, School of Business Renmin University of China, Beijing, 100872, China, E-mail: zhuchunling@rmbs.ruc.edu.cn

Acknowledgements

We appreciate the insightful comments and helpful suggestions from Editor-in-Chief Professor Rania Labaki, the two anonymous reviewers, and participants at the 83rd Academy of Management (AOM) Annual Meeting.

Data availability: The data that support the findings of this study are available from the corresponding author, upon reasonable request.

References

Adizes, I. 2014. Managing Corporate Lifecycles. Mumbai, Inda: Embassy Books.Search in Google Scholar

Agarwal, N., R Chakrabarti, J.C. Prabhu, and A. Brem. 2020. “Managing Dilemmas of Resource Mobilization through Jugaad: A Multi-Method Study of Social Enterprises in Indian Healthcare.” Strategic Entrepreneurship Journal 14: 419–43. https://doi.org/10.1002/sej.1362.Search in Google Scholar

Alter, K. 2007. “Social Enterprise Typology.” Virtue Ventures LLC 12: 1–124.Search in Google Scholar

Austin, J., H. Stevenson, and J. Wei-Skillern. 2006. “Social and Commercial Entrepreneurship: Same, Different or Both?” Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice 30 (1): 1–22. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-6520.2006.00107.x.Search in Google Scholar

Battilana, J., and M. Lee. 2014. “Advancing Research on Hybrid Organizing: Insights from the Study of Social Enterprises.” The Academy of Management Annals 8: 397–441. https://doi.org/10.1080/19416520.2014.893615.Search in Google Scholar

Besharov, M. L., and W. K. Smith. 2014. “Multiple Institutional Logics in Organizations: Explaining Their Varied Nature and Implications.” Academy of Management Review 39 (3): 364–81. https://doi.org/10.5465/amr.2011.0431.Search in Google Scholar

Canestrino, R., M. C. wiklicki, P. Magliocca, and B. Pawelek. 2020. “Understanding Social Entrepreneurship: A Cultural Perspective in Business Research.” Journal of Business Research 110: 132–43. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2020.01.006.Search in Google Scholar

Chell, E. 2007. “Social Enterprise and Entrepreneurship: Towards a Convergent Theory of the Entrepreneurial Process.” International Small Business Journal 25 (1): 3–19. https://doi.org/10.1177/0266242607071779.Search in Google Scholar

Chen, X., Y. He, L. Wang, J. Xiong, and R. J. Jiang. 2022. “The Legitimization Process of Social Enterprises across Development Stages: Two Case Studies.” Journal of Business Research 148: 203–15. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2022.04.054.Search in Google Scholar

Cherrier, H., P. Goswami, and S. Ray. 2018. “Social Entrepreneurship: Creating Value in the Context of Institutional Complexity.” Journal of Business Research 86: 245–58. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2017.10.056.Search in Google Scholar

Choi, N., and S. Majumdar. 2014. “Social Entrepreneurship as an Essentially Contested Concept: Opening a New Avenue for Systematic Future Research.” Journal of Business Venturing 29 (3): 363–76. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusvent.2013.05.001.Search in Google Scholar

Creswell, J.W., and D.L. Miller. 2000. “Determining Validity in Qualitative Inquiry.” Theory into Practice 39: 124–30. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15430421tip3903_2.Search in Google Scholar

Dacin, P. A., M. T. Dacin, and M. Matear. 2010. “Social Entrepreneurship: Why We Don’t Need a New Theory and How We Move Forward from Here.” Academy of Management Perspectives 24 (3): 37–57. https://doi.org/10.5465/amp.24.3.37.Search in Google Scholar

Dacin, M., P. Dacin, and P. Tracey. 2011. “Social Entrepreneurship: A Critique and Future Directions.” Organization Science 22 (5): 1203–13. https://doi.org/10.1287/orsc.1100.0620.Search in Google Scholar

Dart, R. 2004. “The Legitimacy of Social Enterprise.” Nonprofit Management and Leadership 14 (4): 411–21. https://doi.org/10.1002/nml.43.Search in Google Scholar

Dees, J. G. 1998. “Enterprising Nonprofits.” Harvard Business Review (76): 54–69.Search in 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): 147–60. https://doi.org/10.2307/2095101.Search in Google Scholar

Eisenhardt, K. M. 1989. “Building Theories from Case Study Research.” Academy of Management Review 14 (4): 532–50. https://doi.org/10.2307/258557.Search in Google Scholar

Eisenhardt, K. M., and M. E. Graebner. 2007. “Theory Building from Cases: Opportunities and Challenges.” Academy of Management Journal 50 (1): 25–32. https://doi.org/10.5465/amj.2007.24160888.Search in Google Scholar

Friedland, R., and R. R. Alford. 1991. “Bringing Society Back in: Symbols, Practices, and Institutional Contradictions.” In The New Institutionalism in Organizational Analysis, edited by W. W. Powell, and P. J. DiMaggio. University of Chicago Press.Search in Google Scholar

Friedman, M. 2007. “The Social Responsibility of Business Is to Increase its Profits.” In Corporate Ethics and Corporate Governance, pp. 173–8.10.1007/978-3-540-70818-6_14Search in Google Scholar

Garrow, E., and Y. Hassenfeld. 2012. Managing Conflicting Institutional Logics: Social Service versus Market. Palgrave Macmillan. social enterprises.10.1057/9781137035301_6Search in Google Scholar

Gupta, Y. P., and D. C. Chin. 1994. “Organizational Life Cycle: A Review and Proposed Directions.” Mid-Atlantic Journal of Business 30 (3): 269–94.Search in Google Scholar

Haugh, H. 2012. “The Importance of Theory in Social Enterprise Research.” Social Enterprise Journal 8 (1): 7–15. https://doi.org/10.1108/17508611211226557.Search in Google Scholar

Ismail, A., and B. Johnson. 2021. “Operating as a Social Enterprise within Resource and Institutional Constraints.” Entrepreneurship Research Journal 11 (1): 20170120.Search in Google Scholar

Kruse, P., D. Wach, and J. Wegge. 2020. “What Motivates Social Entrepreneurs? A Meta- Analysis on Predictors of the Intention to Found a Social Enterprise.” Journal of Small Business Management 19 (12): 1–32. https://doi.org/10.1080/00472778.2020.1844493.Search in Google Scholar

Mair, J., and I. Marti. 2006. “Social Entrepreneurship Research: A Source of Explanation, Prediction, and Delight.” Journal of World Business 41 (1): 36–44. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jwb.2005.09.002.Search in Google Scholar

Massetti, B. L. 2008. “The Social Entrepreneurship Matrix as a “Tipping Point” for Economic Change. Emergence.” Complexity and Organization 10 (3): 1–8.Search in Google Scholar

Meyer, J. W., and B. Rowan. 1977. “Institutionalized Organizations: Formal Structure as Myth and Ceremony.” American Journal of Sociology 83: 340–633. https://doi.org/10.1086/226550.Search in Google Scholar

Miller, D., and P. H. Friesen. 1984. “A Longitudinal Study of the Corporate Life Cycle.” Management Science 30 (10): 1161–83. https://doi.org/10.1287/mnsc.30.10.1161.Search in Google Scholar

Miles, M. B., and A. M. Huberman. 1984. Qualitative Data Analysis: A Sourcebook of New Methods. Sage Publications.Search in Google Scholar

Mongelli, L., F. Rullani, T. Ramus, and T. Rimac. 2019. “The Bright Side of Hybridity: Exploring How Social Enterprises Manage and Leverage Their Hybrid Nature.” Journal of Business Ethics 159: 301–5. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-018-4050-8.Search in Google Scholar

Muñoz, P., and J. Kimmitt. 2019. “Social Mission as Competitive Advantage: A Configurational Analysis of the Strategic Conditions of Social Entrepreneurship.” Journal of Business Research 101: 854–61. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2018.11.044.Search in Google Scholar

Oliver, C. 1991. “Strategic Responses to Institutional Processes.” Academy of Management Review 16 (1): 145–79. https://doi.org/10.5465/amr.1991.4279002.Search in Google Scholar

Pache, A. C., and F. Santos. 2013. “Inside the Hybrid Organization, Selective Coupling as a Response to Competing Institutional Logics.” Academy of Management Journal 56 (4): 972–1001. https://doi.org/10.5465/amj.2011.0405.Search in Google Scholar

Powell, M.G., A. Gillett, and B. Doherty. 2019. “Sustainability in Social Enterprise: Hybrid Organizing in Public Services.” Public Management Review 21 (2): 159–86. https://doi.org/10.1080/14719037.2018.1438504.Search in Google Scholar

Quinn, R. E., and K. Cameron. 1983. “Organizational Life Cycles and Shifting Criteria of Effectiveness: Some Preliminary Evidence.” Management Science 29 (1): 33–51. https://doi.org/10.1287/mnsc.29.1.33.Search in Google Scholar

Ramus, T., A. Vaccaro, and S. Brusoni. 2017. “Institutional Complexity in Turbulent Times: Formalization, Collaboration, and the Emergence of Blended Logics.” Academy of Management Journal 60 (4): 1253–84. https://doi.org/10.5465/amj.2015.0394.Search in Google Scholar

Randolph, R. V., B. N. Alexander, K. Madison, and F. Barbera. 2022. “When Family Business Meets Social Enterprise: An Integrative Review and Future Research Agenda.” Family Business Review 35 (3): 219–45. https://doi.org/10.1177/08944865221100374.Search in Google Scholar

Roundy, P. T., and M. Bonnal. 2017. “The Singularity of Social Entrepreneurship: Untangling its Uniqueness and Market Function.” Social Science Electronic publishing 26 (3): 1–10. https://doi.org/10.1177/0971355717708068.Search in Google Scholar

Saebi, T., N. J. Foss, and S. Linder. 2019. “Social Entrepreneurship Research: Past Achievements and Future Promises.” Journal of Management 45 (1): 70–95. https://doi.org/10.1177/0149206318793196.Search in Google Scholar

Sandhu, S. 2018. “Neo-institutional Theory.” In: The International Encyclopedia of Strategic Communication, edited by R. L. Heath, and W. Johansen, 1–15. John Wiley & Sons, Inc.10.1002/9781119010722.iesc0116Search in Google Scholar

Santos, F. M. 2012. “A Positive Theory of Social Entrepreneurship.” Journal of Business Ethics 111 (3): 335–51. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-012-1413-4.Search in Google Scholar

Smith, W. K., and M. L. Besharov. 2019. “Bowing before Dual Gods: How Structured Flexibility Sustains Organizational Hybridity.” Administrative Science Quarterly 64 (1): 1–44. https://doi.org/10.1177/0001839217750826.Search in Google Scholar

Suchman, M. C. 1995. “Managing Legitimacy: Strategic and Institutional Approaches.” Academy of Management Review 20 (3): 571–610. https://doi.org/10.2307/258788.Search in Google Scholar

Sud, M., V. V. Craig, and M. B. Amanda. 2009. “Social Entrepreneurship: The Role of Institutions.” Journal of Business Ethics 85: 201–16. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-008-9939-1.Search in Google Scholar

Thornton, P. H., and W. Ocasio. 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): 801–43. https://doi.org/10.1086/210361.Search in Google Scholar

Thornton, P. H., W. Ocasio, and M. Lounsbury. 2015. “The Institutional Logics Perspective.” In Emerging Trends in the Social and Behavioral Sciences: An Interdisciplinary, Searchable, and Linkable Resource, edited by R. A. Scott, S. M. Kosslyn, and M. C. Buchmann. New York: John Wiley & Sons.10.1002/9781118900772.etrds0187Search in Google Scholar

Vargo, S. L., and R. F. Lusch. 2008. “Service-dominant Logic: Continuing the Evolution.” Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science 36: 1–10. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11747-007-0069-6.Search in Google Scholar

Vézina, M., M. Ben Selma, and M.C. Malo. 2019. “Exploring the Social Innovation Process in a Large Market Based Social Enterprise: A Dynamic Capabilities Approach.” Management Decision 57 (6): 1399–414. https://doi.org/10.1108/md-01-2017-0090.Search in Google Scholar

Xiao, Y., Z. Liu, D. Ahlstrom, and Y. Bai. 2024. “Entrepreneurs’ Personality Traits and Social Enterprise: A Legitimation Perspective.” Entrepreneurship Research Journal 14: 1133–59, https://doi.org/10.1515/erj-2022-0216.Search in Google Scholar

Yin, R. K. 2002. Case Study Research: Design and Method, 4th. London: Sage Publications.Search in Google Scholar

Yin, J., and H. Chen. 2019. “Dual-goal Management in Social Enterprises: Evidence from China.” Management Decision 57 (6): 1362–81. https://doi.org/10.1108/md-02-2017-0170.Search in Google Scholar

Yu, X.-M., and X.-Y. Bi. 2024. “The Scaling Strategies and the Scaling Performance of Chinese Social Enterprises: The Moderating Role of Organizational Resources.” Entrepreneurship Research Journal 14: 1701–33, https://doi.org/10.1515/erj-2022-0127.Search in Google Scholar

Zahra, S., Labaki, R., Gawad, S. A., and Sciascia, S. 2014. Family Firms and Social Innovation: Cultivating Organizational Embeddedness. In The SAGE Handbook of Family Business, edited by N. Melin, Sharma, 442–59. London: Sage Publications.10.4135/9781446247556.n22Search in Google Scholar

Received: 2023-09-23

Accepted: 2024-06-12

Published Online: 2024-07-05

You are currently not able to access this content.

Articles in the same Issue

https://doi.org/10.1515/erj-2023-0372

Keywords for this article

social entrepreneurship; commercial logic; social logic; hybrid logic; legitimacy acquisition