Intersecting Identities: Exploring Worker-Member Perspectives on Government-Certified Worker-Run Social Cooperatives in South Korea

2.1 Organizational Identity, Institutional Logics, Organizational Hybridity, and Institutional Complexity

Organizational identity addresses the fundamental question, “Who are we as an organization?”, defined by attributes perceived as central, meaning core to its character; distinctive, differentiating it from others; and enduring, indicating persistence over time (Albert and Whetten 1985). Whetten (2006) elaborated on identity components, including the ideational (relating to shared beliefs; Gioia et al. 2013, p. 127), the definitional (concerning core features), and the phenomenological (involving identity discourse), highlighting how individuals’ perceptions shape and sustain identity. Complementing this concept is organizational identification, which concerns how individuals perceive themselves relative to the organization – influencing aspects like their self-concept and commitment (Pratt 1998; Dutton et al. 1994). Our study focuses specifically on internal organizational identity, examining worker-members’ perspectives on how their cooperative enacts its (cooperative) principles and manages the competing institutional demands inherent in its hybrid nature.

Identity formation occurs within institutional contexts, illuminated by the institutional logics perspective (Friedland 2012; Friedland and Alford 1991; Thornton et al. 2012a, 2012b). Institutional logics – socially constructed cultural and material patterns guiding sensemaking (David et al. 2023; Thornton et al. 2012a, 2012b) – often present conflicting imperatives (Greenwood et al. 2011). As Glynn (2000) shows, divergent logics can drive internal identity debates, with groups championing elements aligned with preferred logics. Worker-run social cooperatives, for instance, must often balance market logic (e.g. ensuring financial viability) with civil society logic (e.g. upholding democratic member control) and public sector logic (e.g. achieving mandated social outcomes). Yet, balancing these institutional logics is particularly challenging when their core tenets conflict (Besharov and Smith 2014) – for example, when pressure for market efficiency clashes with requirements for inclusive democratic decision-making, or when public funding stipulations contradict cooperative autonomy. In such contexts of institutional complexity (Greenwood et al. 2011), organizations face contradictory demands, and managing organizational identity becomes a significant consideration.

Hybrid organizations facing multiple institutional logics engage in various adaptation processes to manage these complexities (Battilana and Lee 2014; Schildt and Perkmann 2017). Strategies can range from blending elements of new logics while preserving core identity aspects (Haveman and Rao 2006; Rao et al. 2003) to actively responding through negotiation, decoupling, or prioritizing specific logics (Pache and Thornton 2020; Skelcher and Smith 2015; Svenningsen-Berthélem et al. 2018), including specific hybridizing mechanisms identified in state-civil society relations (Min 2022). Organizational identity plays a crucial role in navigating these adaptations; it can mediate the influence of institutional logics on behavior by reinforcing or suppressing their effects based on perceived alignment (Onishi 2019). This mediating capacity points towards a dynamic reciprocity where institutional logics shape identity and practices, while these identities and practices can, in turn, reshape institutional logics over time (Durand and Thornton 2018; Thornton et al. 2012b).

The interplay between institutional logics, organizational identity, and adaptation practices inevitably generates internal tensions and pressures. These pressures can manifest at the individual level, potentially prompting responses such as exit, voice, or loyalty when members experience dissatisfaction (Hirschman 1970). Simultaneously, organizations themselves must adapt to the broader institutional pressures inherent in these dynamics (AbouAssi 2012). Building on this understanding that navigating competing demands has consequences for both members and the organization, our research examines the internal identities worker-members construct. While not assessing exit or loyalty behaviors directly, this study specifically explores “voice”-related aspects by examining worker-members’ perspectives, including potentially perceived grievances, as they navigate the institutional demands shaping their cooperative.

2.2 Worker-Run Social Cooperatives as Hybrid Organizations

Worker-run social cooperatives are complex hybrid organizations situated at the intersection of multiple theoretical domains, including organizational hybridity (Battilana and Dorado 2010; Pache and Santos 2013), diverse cooperative models (Baskaran 2015; Borzaga 1996; Spear and Thomas 1997; Vieta 2010), social enterprises (SEs) (Defourny et al. 2021), and institutional logics (Thornton et al. 2012a, 2012b; Greenwood et al. 2011). As a specific type of SEO – entities prioritizing social objectives alongside financial sustainability (Child 2016; Mook et al. 2015) – worker-run social cooperatives embody hybridity uniquely. They integrate elements from civil society, market, and public sectors by blending worker cooperative traditions with the objectives and requirements of the government-certified social enterprise framework. This configuration differentiates them significantly from other SEOs and state-related hybrids like quasi-autonomous non-governmental organizations, which typically combine governmental oversight with commercial management principles (Karré 2021, 2023; Mook et al. 2015). Consequently, worker-run social cooperatives must navigate the often-conflicting demands associated with different institutional logics inherent in this structure (Defourny et al. 2021).

The identity and structure of worker-run social cooperatives are deeply rooted in worker cooperative principles, emphasizing significant worker ownership (Spear and Thomas 1997) and adherence to ICA values and principles such as democratic member control, member economic participation, autonomy, and community concern (Baskaran 2015; ICA, n.d.). The evolution of traditional worker cooperatives to increasingly integrate social missions (Audebrand 2017; Pencavel et al. 2006) represents a key developmental path towards social cooperatives, including the worker-run forms central to this study (Defourny et al. 2021). Worker-run social cooperatives typically grant worker-members formal participation rights (e.g. voting, potential profit shares) (Novkovic et al. 2022), aligning with common member motivations concerning participatory governance, value congruence, and stable employment (Mamouni Limnios et al. 2018; Oliver 1984; Varman and Chakrabarti 2004).

Nevertheless, while recognizing that worker-run social cooperatives emphasize democratic control, in practice, membership does not necessarily equate to active participation in decision-making. Various models of participation exist, ranging from representative to direct modes (Birchall 1999; Mannan and Pek 2024; Persons 2024), adding further complexity to understanding the internal dynamics and member experiences within these organizations. The mere existence of employee ownership does not automatically yield positive outcomes like enhanced commitment or satisfaction (Gupta 2014; Kruse 2016), with research indicating mixed results (Basterretxea and Storey 2018).

Empirical evidence strongly suggests that benefits are contingent upon meaningful participation; positive effects are more likely when ownership is combined with genuine involvement in decision-making and supported by aligned human resource policies (the “three-pronged hypothesis”; Kruse et al. 2004; Kruse et al. 2010) or integrated frameworks like “Ownership High-Performance Work Systems” (Kaarsemaker and Poutsma 2006). Successfully managing the competing logics inherent in hybridity, therefore, often depends on developing “collective capabilities” – specific organizational capacities enabling multi-stakeholder governance and the strategic balancing of conflicting logics through practices like member empowerment initiatives (Vickers et al. 2025; Vickers et al. 2017).

Given these internal complexities and the need to navigate multiple institutional logics (Battilana and Lee 2014; Wolf and Mair 2019), managing this inherent hybridity often involves organizational identity adaptation. This process might see core elements preserved while peripheral aspects adjust (Glynn and Lounsbury 2005), or lead to the cultivation of an “integrated organizational identity” to consciously manage complexity (Jäger and Schröer 2014), recognizing hybridity as an enduring feature requiring ongoing management (Castelnovo et al. 2024). Frameworks such as EMES (Emergence of Social Enterprises in Europe–focusing on economic, governance, social dimensions) and the interest social enterprise model (mutual, general, capital interests) offer analytical lenses for these forms (Defourny and Nyssens 2012; Defourny et al. 2021).

In the Korean context, worker-run social cooperatives clearly manifest these hybrid characteristics across diverse sectors, engaging in public partnerships (Shin and Park 2024), market contracts (Kim and Min 2024), and targeted employment initiatives (An and Yim 2024). Their operations occur within specific legal and policy frameworks (Du et al. 2020; Jeon 2013), leading to diverse practices like balancing user-driven services with public oversight in care settings (Kim et al. 2024; Leem et al. 2024) or explicitly developing hybrid identities around democratic governance (Lee 2022).

Despite significant scholarly interest in social cooperatives globally (Borzaga 1996; Civinskas et al. 2023; Hernández Cáceres 2023), research focused specifically on worker-run social cooperatives remains limited, particularly concerning the experiences of their members within specific national contexts like Korea (Kim and Kim 2024; Lee et al. 2016). While existing case studies, including those from Korea, illustrate worker influence on cooperative practices (Cho and Jang 2021; Min 2014) and document conflicts arising from external institutional pressures (Baek et al. 2018; Ji and Kim 2018; Joo et al. 2023; Lee et al. 2023), there persists scant investigation into how these worker-members subjectively perceive and experience the daily navigation of competing institutional logics, including governmental certification requirements, market constraints, and cooperative principles.

Accordingly, this study addresses that gap by focusing on worker-members’ perspectives as the primary lens through which internal organizational identities are derived – identities based on the collective perceptions of worker-members themselves. By examining how these individuals articulate their experiences with worker-run social cooperatives amid potentially conflicting imperatives, the analysis provides insights into how worker-run social cooperatives have balanced hybrid demands within the Korean context.

2.3 Worker-Run Social Cooperatives and Public Value (Co-)Creation

The concept of “public value creation,” introduced by Moore (1995), has been subject to multiple interpretations (Alford and O’Flynn 2009; Bryson et al. 2017; Meynhardt 2009). This study adopts Moore’s (1995, 2000) perspective, in which public value creation addresses societal challenges in ways that extend to nonprofit and third-sector organizations’ social purposes, thereby encompassing a broader range of social economy organizations. According to Meynhardt (2009) and Bryson et al. (2017), this process is democratic, requiring both public officials and citizens to participate in the definition of “public value.”

Building upon Moore’s foundation, Bryson et al. (2017) proposed a “public value co-creation” framework that situates public value creation in a multi-actor, multi-organizational, and multi-sector context. In this study, “public value creation goals” refer to social challenges that public and non-public sector actors collaboratively identify and address. This conceptualization aligns with recent scholarship on public value co-creation (Kitchener et al. 2023; Mazzucato and Ryan-Collins 2022; Virtanen and Jalonen 2024) and applies to social enterprises, including work-integration social enterprises and worker-run social cooperatives (Dufour 2019; Dufour et al. 2022; Mendez et al. 2024). Within worker-run social cooperatives, public value creation combines the general interest (benefiting society at large) and the mutual interest (serving cooperative members), thereby supporting socioeconomic benefits such as job creation, community-based services, and worker empowerment.

Previous research indicates that cooperatives anchored in a strong identity can withstand market or policy pressures without compromising their social missions (Borzaga et al. 2014; Busso 2018; Thomas 2004). Greenwood et al. (2011) further observed that multiple institutional logics can coexist when an organization’s core identity remains both robust and adaptable. In worker-run social cooperatives, the interaction between identity and public value creation may foster social innovation – addressing welfare gaps, generating local employment, or promoting inclusive development.

In Korea, government-certified worker-run social cooperatives are significantly influenced by policies and regulations (Choi et al. 2020; Seo 2024). Regulatory frameworks such as the Social Enterprise Promotion Act (SEPA) and the Framework Act on Cooperatives (FAC) have facilitated official recognition (Seo 2024) and promoted a shift toward a complementary model between government and social economy organizations to achieve public value objectives (Choi et al. 2020; Toepler et al. 2023). These frameworks have created an enabling ecosystem (Bryson et al. 2017) for cooperatives to advance social objectives, such as employment generation and social service provision. Examples include a social cooperative providing legal and administrative services to vulnerable citizens (Shin and Park 2024), a forestry social cooperative integrating environmental stewardship with membership-based governance (Kim and Min 2024), and a long-term care social cooperative that combines user participation with state oversight (Kim et al. 2024). These cases demonstrate public value co-creation through multi-sector collaborations involving local communities and government entities.

The “organizational publicness” of these cooperatives (Bozeman and Moulton 2011; Choi et al. 2020) – defined as the degree of government influence on ownership, funding, and control – may significantly affect their capacity to generate public value. In Korea, worker-run social cooperatives are often government-certified social enterprises. Choi et al. (2020) found that the public sector exerts a higher degree of control over these enterprises than in the United States or the United Kingdom, which may further shape how such cooperatives reconcile external mandates with cooperative principles. Government requirements or incentives can reinforce cooperative missions or create tensions in participatory governance. Consequently, public value co-creation in these organizations unfolds at the intersection of cooperative identity, market constraints, and governmental priorities.

This study seeks to provide more detailed insights into how these hybrid organizational forms reconcile government policies, cooperative principles, and public value creation goals by examining worker-members’ perspectives. Rather than measuring specific outcomes, the analysis explores whether members regard state-imposed training, performance targets, or funding regulations as compatible with – or potentially in conflict with – the cooperative’s identity and ethos. This approach offers a ground-level perspective on the challenges and opportunities these cooperatives and their worker-members encounter in co-creating public value within a government-supported framework. Emphasizing worker-member viewpoints demonstrates how organizational publicness and cooperative identity are experienced and negotiated in day-to-day practices, thereby contributing to an assessment of these cooperatives’ effectiveness in an evolving policy environment.

3.1 Methodological Approach

This study employs Q-methodology (i.e. person-centered, subjectivity-focused research; see: Watts and Stenner 2005, 2012) to capture diverse subjective viewpoints among worker-members in government-certified Korean worker-run social cooperatives. Q-methodology is particularly appropriate for exploring intersubjectivity while maintaining analytical rigor in smaller, focused populations (Watts and Stenner 2005, 2012). This approach allows us to identify shared perspectives without requiring the large sample sizes typical of R-methodology (i.e. traditional, variable-centered quantitative research) studies, making it well-suited for investigating the potentially nuanced views within cooperative organizations.

3.2 Research Instrument and Data Collection

The instrument consisted of a Q-sort where participants ranked 68 statements – both affirmative and negative to maintain equilibrium – on an 11-point scale following a standardized forced distribution (Figure 1). These statements were systematically adapted from Begiristain-Zubillaga, Etxezarreta-Etxarri, and Morandeira-Arca’s (2022) validated framework of 66 indicators for evaluating cooperative social entrepreneurship. Their framework underwent comprehensive multi-phase validation involving both researchers and practitioners, evaluating indicators for comparability, reliability, measurability, and clarity. By way of example, within the “labor sovereignty” domain, they operationalized indicators like “sense of work” through specific evaluative statements (“Work understood as a life project and perception of its social utility,” evaluated on a scale from 0 to 4, p. 481).

Figure 1:

Q-sort layout.

To capture perspectives relevant to worker-members, we systematically tailored these indicators into Q-statements. Notably, we extended the network collaboration indicator to include the public sector, market, and civil society – resulting in 68 statements total – and also considered International Cooperative Alliance (ICA) (n.d.) principles in the process. Our objective was to create a comprehensive Q-set covering diverse factors influencing worker-member views. As such, the Begiristain-Zubillaga, Etxezarreta-Etxarri, and Morandeira-Arca (2022) framework was particularly suitable, and the content validity for our Q-set derives from their established validation process.

Our sample comprised 30 worker-members from government-certified Korean worker-run social cooperatives. This sample size is consistent with established Q-methodology norms (Cairns 2012; Fabian et al. 2022; Morea 2022) and provides an appropriate statement-to-participant ratio of 2.27 (Hensel et al. 2022). Data were collected in situ under strict anonymity protocols. After participants provided informed consent – following procedures detailing study objectives, anonymity assurances, and withdrawal rights – they ranked the 68 statements according to the standardized forced distribution shown in Figure 1. Participants were specifically instructed to refrain from providing any identifiable details, including on their Q-sorts.

Participants received 20,000 KRW compensation – approximately $15 USD during 2023. To facilitate genuine responses, they were explicitly assured that no ideal sort pattern existed and were permitted to iteratively modify their Q-sorts before finalization. Furthermore, participants could request clarification on statement meanings from the research team, and detailed instructions were provided, particularly considering potential unfamiliarity with Q-methodology procedures. To maintain the anonymity of the sorts, participants did not write their names on the Q-sort materials themselves; names were recorded on a separate list solely for the purpose of tracking compensation payment. Confidentiality of the anonymized Q-sort data was maintained through secure storage accessible only to the research team. The study adhered to ethical standards established by the Korean Society for the Scientific Study of Subjectivity and received Institutional Review Board (IRB) approval.

3.3 Data Analysis Procedures

Data analysis was performed using the “qmethod” package in R (Zabala 2014). Factor extraction utilized Principal Component Analysis (PCA) with varimax rotation, employing Pearson’s correlations to establish the relationship between Q-sorts, consistent with established Q-methodology practices (e.g. Rauma et al. 2024). The number of factors to extract was guided by commonly used criteria, including Humphrey’s Rule I (Sneegas et al. 2021) and the Kaiser–Guttmann criterion (eigenvalue > 1.00) (Watts and Stenner 2012). Reflecting Q-methodology’s focus on identifying distinct shared viewpoints (Morea 2022; Watts and Stenner 2012), we retained factors meeting these statistical thresholds that also exhibited low inter-factor correlations and included at least three Q-sorts identified as significantly loading via automatic flagging to enhance reliability (Arumugam et al. 2021; Stenmarck et al. 2023; Webler et al. 2009).

We established a significant loading threshold of ± 0.40, a conservative value consistent with recent studies (Alotaibi et al. 2022; Fabian et al. 2022; Hammami et al. 2020), designating loadings ≥ | 0.40| as significant. Although the standard formula (2.58[1/√68]) suggested 0.313 (p < 0.01), the stricter ± 0.40 threshold provides more robust factor identification, advisable for Q-methodology’s characteristic small samples (Morea 2022). To corroborate the factor solution derived from “qmethod”, we employed KADE software (Banasick 2019) to perform supplementary analyses, including PCA-based scree plots, Brown’s centroid factor analysis, and centroid factor analysis with the Horst 5.5 criterion (0.01 threshold, 100 iterations). Finally, throughout the analysis, we remained attentive to identifying potential bipolar factors, where significant positive and negative loadings on the same factor indicate opposing expressions of a shared viewpoint (Watts and Stenner 2005).

The resulting factors were interpreted by relating their Q-sort configurations to the set of six key conceptual themes derived from Begiristain-Zubillaga et al. (2022) and the ICA (n.d.). These themes were: labor sovereignty, collective approach, economic sustainability, social and territorial transformation, sustainability of life, and partnerships. Appendix 2 provides a detailed breakdown of these higher-order themes, their corresponding sub-themes, and the associated Q-sort statements used in this study. To illustrate this structure, the “labor sovereignty” higher-order theme, focusing on worker-members’ control over their labor and work environment, encompassed sub-themes such as “Sense of Work” (reflecting how members perceive the personal and social value of their work) and “Collective Work” (concerning collaboration, team spirit, and group decision-making).

3.4 Methodological Considerations

Q-methodology offers distinct advantages for exploring subjective perspectives but presents known methodological considerations. The approach has faced scrutiny regarding limitations such as potential bias from statement pre-selection, which may constrain participant views to the provided framework rather than capturing their unmediated beliefs, and constraints imposed by the forced-choice distribution (Brown 1980; Watts and Stenner 2012). Additional concerns involve the method’s capacity to reflect real-world views and the subjectivity inherent in factor identification (Kampen and Tamás 2014). Furthermore, traditional validity metrics designed for R-methodology are not directly applicable given Q-methodology’s focus on intersubjectivity rather than objective data (Brown 1980; Lundberg, de Leeuw, and Aliani 2020).

Our research design sought to proactively address several such limitations identified in the literature (Baker et al. 2006; Dziopa and Ahern 2011; Kampen and Tamás 2014; Stenmarck et al. 2023), including potential biases from pre-selection, forced-choice distribution, placement dependency effects, limited generalizability, and interpretive bias. Specifically, statement selection was grounded in a validated framework (Begiristain-Zubillaga, Etxezarreta-Etxarri, and Morandeira-Arca 2022) identified via literature review and selected according to established Q-set development practices (Brown et al. 2019, 96), followed by rigorous deliberation in constructing the final Q-set (Stenmarck et al. 2023). To mitigate forced-choice effects, participants could iteratively refine their sorts (Sæbjørnsen, Hean, and Ødegård 2021). Factor identification employed robust statistical criteria, including a p < 0.01 significance level for loadings (Section 3.3), addressing rigor concerns (Baker et al. 2006). Participant anonymity and explicit framing emphasizing no correct answers also minimized social desirability bias (Stenmarck et al. 2023).

While the mitigation measures strengthened our design, it is crucial to recognize that Q-methodology differs fundamentally from R-methodology approaches, which typically emphasize large samples, hypothesis testing, traditional validation techniques like cross-validation, and exploring mediator or moderator variables. Q-methodology is inherently exploratory, designed to reveal and describe shared viewpoints within specific groups rather than estimating population prevalence or testing pre-defined causal models (Morea 2022). Consistent with Q-methodology studies generally, such as Zaitseva and Law (2022), our study identifies emergent perspectives while acknowledging that additional viewpoints may exist beyond those captured. We also recognize alternative survey instruments were considered but not utilized, including those from the Democracy at Work Institute (2017) and Stocki and Hough (2016).

Two specific limitations inherent in our application also warrant mention. First, following established Q-methodology principles that prioritize subjectivity patterns over demographic correlations (Stephenson 1953; Watts and Stenner 2012), demographic data were not collected. This approach, while methodologically aligned, precludes analysis of how background factors might influence perspectives and limits generalizability in that respect. Second, qualitative comments during sorting were not solicited, focusing the analysis on quantitative patterns; this means richer contextual data potentially available through participant commentary was not gathered, which we acknowledge as a limitation.

4.1 Factor 1: Pragmatic and Empowered Participative Work-Integrated Social Catalysts

Factor 1 captures a narrative shared by 12 respondents, with an eigenvalue of 8.21 and accounting for 27.37 % of the cumulative explained variance. The factor’s bipolar nature manifests in divergent loadings, with 10 respondents demonstrating significant positive associations and two respondents exhibiting significant negative associations, representing near-diametrically opposed viewpoints on this perspective. Factor 1 encapsulates a narrative thematically characterized by the principles of labor sovereignty, a collective approach, the sustainability of life, economic sustainability, and social and territorial transformation within and beyond the cooperative and its milieu. The respondents associated with Factor 1 prioritize labor sovereignty and a collective approach, suggesting they ascribe significant value to autonomy, collective decision-making, and the synergy between economic viability and participative governance within their cooperative and a broader positive social impact. However, partnerships with the public sector, corporate sector, and civil society do not feature prominently in their narrative. The associated factor array is shown in Appendix 7.

The highest-ranked statements for Factor 1 reveal a strong emphasis on worker empowerment and recognition within the cooperative structure. Statements receiving the maximum positive ranking demonstrate profound worker validation and support, with Statement five affirming that “the cooperative values and recognizes the different roles and responsibilities I have within and outside of the organization” (+5) and Statement six confirming that “the cooperative supports me in balancing my professional and personal life” (+5). These maximum rankings, combined with strong positive rankings for statements about personal growth (Statement 1: “I view my work at the cooperative as an integral part of my life project, contributing to my personal growth and development”: + 4) and societal impact (Statement 2: “I believe that my work at the cooperative has a significant positive impact on society and contributes to addressing social needs”: + 4), demonstrate how this factor represents an effective integration of, on the one hand, civil society logic through its emphasis on worker well-being with, on the other hand, market logic through its recognition of professional roles.

The factor’s strong negative rankings provide crucial evidence of its democratic, collaborative orientation. The lowest rankings were given to statements suggesting lack of collaboration, with Statement 7 (“the cooperative does not effectively encourage collaboration and teamwork”) and Statement 9 (“The cooperative does not prioritize group development, and no effort is made to foster a collective mindset or team spirit (e.g. regular team meetings, team-building activities, open communication channels, shared decision-making, and skills development and knowledge-sharing) both receiving −5 rankings. Democratic governance is further evidenced by strong negative rankings for statements about lack of democratic processes (Statement 8: “The cooperative does not promote collective decision-making and shared responsibility”: −4, Statement 18: “The cooperative does not promote democratic values and practices in its day-to-day operations”: −4). This supports the interpretation of this factor as representing successful hybrid organizing where democratic principles are effectively maintained alongside operational effectiveness.

The moderate positive rankings for statements related to conflict resolution (Statement 50: “The cooperative actively works to resolve conflicts among members in a fair and constructive manner”: + 3), social justice (Statement 29: “The cooperative’s distribution policies promote social and economic justice”: + 3), and work integration (Statement 44: “The cooperative actively works to integrate individuals in situations of social exclusion into the workforce”: + 3) demonstrate how this perspective successfully balances multiple institutional logics. These rankings show integration of civil society logic through democratic governance, market logic through effective operations, and public sector logic through alignment with social objectives. By extension, respondents conforming to this profile emphasize solidarity with the cooperative movement, as evidenced by positive rankings for statements about cooperative awareness and training (Statement 40: “The cooperative raises awareness about the cooperative movement and provides training to its members”: + 3) and prioritizing social economy suppliers (Statement 39: “The cooperative prioritizes purchasing from the social market/transformative social economy, or local suppliers”: + 3).

The influence of their cooperative beyond the organization itself is emphasized through strong positive rankings for statements about community impact. The high positive rankings for statements about societal contribution (Statement 2: + 4), community well-being (Statement 20: “The cooperative actively contributes to the well-being of the community”: + 4), and local community revitalization (Statement 43: “The cooperative’s activities contribute to the preservation and revitalization of the local community”: + 4), coupled with the strong negative ranking for lack of community rootedness (Statement 42: “The cooperative is not rooted in the local community and does not seek to address its needs and challenges”: −3), demonstrate how this profile envisions itself as a catalyst for social and territorial transformation. This community orientation is further reinforced by moderate positive rankings for statements about governance improvement (Statement 37: “The cooperative engages in actions that promote improvements at different levels of governance”: + 3) and social justice promotion (Statement 29: + 3).

A focus on economic sustainability is reflected in the rankings through a pragmatic lens. The factor shows contentedness with cooperative size (Statement 10: “The size of the cooperative, in terms of the number of members, is not appropriate”: −3), satisfaction with wage structures (Statement 25: “The cooperative’s wage structure is not fair and does not promote economic equity among members”: −3, Statement 30: “The cooperative does not ensure a fair distribution of wages and income among its members, taking into consideration their roles and responsibilities”: −4), and a practical approach to compensation (Statement 4: “I am more interested in the kind of work I do at the cooperative than how much I earn”: −4). This pragmatism aligns with their perception of cooperative membership contributing to personal development (Statement 1: + 4).

Regarding its relation to the public sector’s SEO public value creation vision, this profile resonates strongly with government-designated social objectives, as evidenced by strong positive rankings for statements about social impact (Statement 2: + 4), community well-being (Statement 20: + 4), and work integration (Statement 44: + 3). However, statements about public sector relationships receive notably neutral or lower rankings, particularly those concerning public subsidies (Statement 11: “The cooperative relies on public subsidies for its operations”: 0) and public sector partnerships (Statement 63: “The cooperative actively seeks partnerships with the public sector”: + 1), suggesting a more autonomous approach compared to Factors 2 and 3. This relative detachment from public sector relationships, combined with strong positive rankings for internal democratic governance (Statement 18: −4) and community impact (Statement 43: + 4), indicates that while these worker-members align with public value creation goals, they maintain a more independent organizational identity.

Overall, the pattern of statement rankings reveals a profile that successfully balances multiple institutional logics. High positive rankings for democratic governance (Statement 18: −4) and worker empowerment (Statement 5, Statement 6: both + 5) demonstrate strong civil society logic, while pragmatic views on compensation (Statement 4: −4) reflect market logic integration. Simultaneously, positive rankings for social impact (Statement 2: + 4) and community engagement (Statement 20: + 4) show alignment with public sector logic, though without dependence on public support (Statement 11: 0).

The dominant viewpoint within Factor 1 thus suggests a hybrid model where perceived coherent alignment of institutional logics reinforces cooperative identity and supports organizational integrity and viability. Crucially, however, the factor’s bipolarity reveals this positive assessment is contested: an opposing minority perspective fundamentally questions the authenticity of this integration, suggesting cooperative principles might be symbolically adhered to rather than genuinely enacted.

4.2 Factor 2: Public Sector-Backed, Internally Marginalized Social Contributors

Factor 2 represents a narrative shared by 10 respondents, with an eigenvalue of 5.15 and accounting for 17.15 % of the cumulative explained variance. Although Factor 2 possesses a generally positive view of social and territorial transformation, unlike Factor 1, it is ambivalent-to-pessimistic concerning the actualization of the principles of labor sovereignty, collective approach, sustainability of life, and economic sustainability of its involvement. External partnerships, particularly with the public sector, feature more prominently in this narrative than in Factor 1. The complete factor array is presented in Appendix 8.

The highest-ranked statements reveal a strong emphasis on public sector relationships and internal inequities. Statement 11 received the maximum positive ranking (+5), while Statement 25 also received a + 5 ranking. This dual emphasis is reinforced by strong positive rankings for statements about public sector partnerships (Statement 63: + 3) and procurement support for other SEOs (Statement 39: + 3).

Other statement rankings at the positive end of the scale highlight deep concerns about internal equity and governance. Statement 31 (“The cooperative does not regularly review and adjust its salary structure to maintain equity and fairness among its members”: + 4), Statement 24 (“The cooperative does not distribute resources fairly and equitably among its members”: + 4), and Statement 30 (+3) collectively paint a picture of perceived economic inequity. This dissatisfaction extends to governance issues, with high positive placements for statements about lack of transparency (Statement 23: “The cooperative does not have clear processes and procedures in place to ensure transparency and accountability”: + 4) and inclusivity concerns (Statement 17: “The cooperative is not inclusive and diverse in terms of membership, leadership, and decision-making”: + 3).

Despite these internal challenges, the narrative maintains a positive view of the cooperative’s social impact. This is demonstrated through positive rankings for statements about community contribution (Statement 2: + 3, Statement 20: + 3) and strong rejection of community disconnection (Statement 42: −5). The factor also acknowledges some positive aspects of labor sovereignty, shown by high positive ranking for work-life balance support (Statement 6: + 4) and strong rejection of poor leave policies (Statement 49: “The cooperative’s time off and leave policies do not help members maintain a healthy work-life balance”: −5).

The strong opposition expressed through negative rankings illuminates serious concerns about democratic participation and conflict resolution. The notably low placement of statements about worker-member involvement (Statement 15: “I am actively involved in the cooperative’s decision-making and management processes”: −4), opinion consideration (Statement 16: “My opinions and ideas are valued and considered by the cooperative’s leadership”: −3), and conflict resolution (Statement 51: “The cooperative has effective conflict resolution mechanisms in place”: −4, Statement 50: −3) indicates significant governance challenges. Like Factor 1, this factor demonstrates pragmatism regarding compensation, firmly rejecting the notion that work nature supersedes wage considerations (Statement 4: −4).

Regarding its relationship to public sector’s SEO public value creation vision, this narrative reveals significant internal tensions. Although these worker-members acknowledge their role in creating public value through social impact (Statement 2: + 3) and community engagement (Statement 20: + 3), they experience internal marginalization evidenced by negative rankings for participation (Statement 15: −4) and positive rankings for inequity statements (Statement 25: + 5). Their strong positive rankings for public sector dependence (Statement 11: + 5) and partnerships (Statement 63: + 3) suggest they view themselves more as quasi-public sector service providers than autonomous cooperative members.

Collectively, the pattern of rankings reveals a profile where public sector logic dominates at the expense of civil society and market logics, creating significant hybrid organizing tensions. While high rankings for public subsidies (Statement 11: + 5) and partnerships (Statement 63: + 3) demonstrate strong public sector logic alignment, negative rankings for democratic participation (Statement 15: −4) and positive rankings for internal inequities (Statement 25: + 5) indicate the suppression of civil society logic. Market logic appears subordinated to public sector demands, evidenced by dissatisfaction with resource distribution (Statement 24: + 4).

Overall, the perceived acquiescence to the dominant public sector logic appears associated with the overshadowing of core cooperative principles like equity and democratic voice. Consequently, the perceived erosion of cooperative values likely diminishes member commitment, posing significant challenges to organizational integrity and long-term sustainability.

4.3 Factor 3: (Partially) Disillusioned Network-Centric Social Contributors

Factor 3 represents a narrative shared by six respondents, with an eigenvalue of 2.52 and accounting for 8.41 % of the cumulative explained variance. This narrative shares some commonalities with Factor 1, but it distinctly diverges in its stronger emphasis on partnerships and networks, showing alignment with Factor 2’s positive evaluation of external relationships. However, it expresses more negative views regarding sustainability of life and collective approach within its cooperative. The complete factor array is presented in Appendix 9.

The highest-ranked statements reveal a pragmatic orientation toward cooperative employment combined with strong social commitment. Statement 3 (“The main reason I work at the cooperative is to earn an income”) received the maximum positive ranking (+5), matching the intensity of support for Statement 2 (+5). This duality is further reflected in positive rankings for personal development (Statement 1: + 3) alongside expressed dissatisfaction with employment conditions (Statement 56: “Working for the cooperative does not provide me with significant job satisfaction”: + 3).

The rankings reflect a complex assessment of internal cooperative dynamics. Strong negative rankings for statements about inequitable practices demonstrate perceived organizational fairness, including rejection of unfair salary structures (Statement 31: −5), undemocratic governance (Statement 18: −4), and inequitable role distribution (Statement 47: “The cooperative does not ensure a fair distribution of roles and tasks”: −3). This positive view of organizational equity is reinforced by high positive rankings for inclusivity (Statement 33: “The cooperative promotes equal opportunities and does not discriminate”: + 4) and fair share capital contributions (Statement 13: “My financial contribution to the cooperative’s share capital is reasonable”: + 3). However, dissatisfaction emerges regarding member benefits, shown by negative rankings for statements about reinvestment in member benefits (Statement 27: “The cooperative prioritizes reinvestment in the organization, member benefits, and community development when allocating surplus”: −3) and well-being support (Statement 28: “The cooperative provides a range of benefits that support the well-being of its members”: −3).

The narrative strongly emphasizes community engagement and cooperative principles. High positive rankings for social impact (Statement 2: + 5), community well-being (Statement 20: + 4), and strong rejection of community disconnection (Statement 42: −5) demonstrate deep commitment to social mission. This commitment extends to cooperative movement solidarity, evidenced by positive rankings for social economy purchasing (Statement 39: + 4), cooperative awareness (Statement 40: + 3), and inclusive membership (Statement 32: “The cooperative is open to all individuals who share its values and objectives, regardless of their background or circumstances”: + 3), along with rejection of non-promotion of cooperative values (Statement 41: “The cooperative does not actively promote the values and principles of the cooperative movement in its operations and activities”: −4).

The factor’s distinctive network orientation emerges through its statement rankings about partnerships and external relationships. While rejecting complete dependence on public sector support (Statement 11: −3) and expressing financial stability (Statement 58: “The cooperative’s financial stability allows it to effectively support its mission”: + 4), the narrative emphasizes partnership pursuit (Statement 60: “The cooperative actively seeks collaboration and partnerships to enhance its diversification and resilience”: + 3). Notably, this factor uniquely expresses environmental consciousness, even while it indicates insufficient promotion of environmental practices (Statement 45: “The cooperative promotes environmentally friendly practices and technologies”: −4).

Regarding its relationship to the public sector’s SEO public value creation vision, this narrative reveals a nuanced position balancing autonomy with partnership. These worker-members strongly value their social impact role (Statement 2: + 5) while maintaining independence from public sector subsidies (Statement 11: −3). However, their emphasis on partnerships (Statement 60: + 3) and their positive view of public sector benefits (Statement 64: “The cooperative does not benefit from partnerships with the public sector (e.g. local government, public enterprises, et cetera)”: −3) suggest recognition of the public sector’s importance without depending on it. This balanced approach is complicated by internal tensions, particularly regarding member benefits and job satisfaction.

In sum, the pattern of rankings demonstrates a profile attempting to balance institutional logics through network-centric coupling, achieving partial success but experiencing internal tensions. Market logic is prominent in pragmatic motivations (Statement 3: + 5) and financial stability focus (Statement 58: + 4), whereas public sector logic manifests through partnership emphasis (Statement 60: + 3) rather than dependency. Civil society logic appears in commitments to cooperative principles (Statement 41: −4) and social mission (Statement 2: + 5), but shows strain in member satisfaction (Statement 56: + 3) and benefit concerns (Statement 28: −3).

Generally, this perceived network-centric adaptation, prioritizing external goals, potentially creates a separation between the organization’s external strategy and internal member-centric practices. An instrumental view of the cooperative may arise from this focus, reducing deep member identification and suggesting uncertainty regarding sustained engagement, cooperative vitality, and long-term sustainability due to internal dissatisfaction.

4.4 Areas of Consensus

Although none of the following areas of consensus constitute prominent parts of the narratives of the three factors, it is important to disclose them. Drawing from the consensus statements, which can be identified in Appendix 6, the cooperatives are viewed by their members as a supportive entity that places importance on community involvement and volunteering (Statement 19: “The cooperative encourages and supports my participation in community and volunteer activities”: + 2). The narrative across the factors suggests that the cooperative is seen as fostering an inclusive environment, valuing all members’ contributions, irrespective of their background (Statement 46: “The cooperative does not foster an inclusive environment that values the contributions of all members, regardless of gender or background”: −1 to −2). Furthermore, members believe that the cooperative invests both in professional growth (Statement 48: “The cooperative does not invest in the professional growth and skill development of its members”: −1 to −2) and in research and development to drive innovation (Statement 62: “The cooperative does not invest in research and development to drive innovation and enhance its products and services”: −1).

Areas of contention also emerge from the data. Although cooperatives are mildly perceived as encouraging innovation and creativity (Statement 6: −1 to −2), the depth and impact of such endeavors are not stressed. Furthermore, a neutral to slightly positive stance is evident in the cooperative’s pursuit of partnerships with the corporate/private sector (Statement 65: “The cooperative actively seeks partnerships with the corporate/private sector”: 0 to + 2). However, partnerships with the corporate/private sector evidently did not feature prominently in any of the narratives of the profiles.

Furthermore, all three profiles had a notable focus on wages. Although the three factors emphasized their social utility, they regarded wages as significant motive for their employment at their respective cooperative and being more important than the nature of the work they were engaged in (e.g. Statements 3 and 4).

Overall, some facets of the cooperative’s efforts in community involvement, inclusivity, and member development as well as all facets pertaining to innovation and creativity and private sector linkages did not constitute a prominent part of any of the narratives of any of the profiles derived from the factors. Their relative absence from the perspectives of the factors remains a subtle, albeit illuminating, undertone in their shared perspectives and suggests that cooperatives are not seen as (economically) innovative.

4.5 Drawing Distinctions: Delineating the Three Unique Perspectives on Worker-Run Social Cooperative Identities

The three factors portray distinct yet intertwined perspectives on the identities of worker-members of worker-run social cooperatives. Each perspective elucidates the unique experiences, motivations, and concerns of the members, providing a multifaceted understanding of their roles and perceptions within their respective cooperatives.

Factor 1 portrays a narrative deeply rooted in labor sovereignty, collective approach, and the integration of economic viability and participative governance. This profile resonates with a sense of agency and empowerment, emphasizing the value of individual expertise and collective decision-making. The respondents associated with this perspective view themselves as central actors in fostering social and territorial transformations, pivoting towards a community- and social good-centric approach. Unlike Factors 2 and 3, this profile stresses the significance of work-integration and has a substantially lesser emphasis on external partnerships.

In contrast, Factor 2 presents a more ambivalent narrative. While it recognizes the positive impact of its contributions to societal welfare, there is a palpable sense of internal discontent, particularly regarding internal practices and perceived marginalization within the cooperative. This perspective stresses the cooperative’s reliance on public sector support, suggesting a perceived identity of being quasi-public sector contributors. Although this profile aligns with Factor 3 in its emphasis on partnerships, it diverges in its critical assessment of internal cooperative practices.

Factor 3 offers a more heterogeneous blend of perspectives. Echoing Factor 1’s emphasis on the benefits of cooperative employment, it also resonates with Factor 2’s focus on networking and partnerships. However, the narrative is tinged with a sense of disillusionment, particularly with reference to employment satisfaction. This perspective reflects a more network-centric approach, emphasizing the importance of external collaborations while also voicing concerns about livability and internal cooperative dynamics.

5.1 Overview of Three Perspectives

Our analysis of worker-member views in government-certified worker-run social cooperatives in Korea reveals three distinct perspectives: “Pragmatic and Empowered Participative Work-Integrated Social Catalysts,” “Public Sector-Backed, Internally Marginalized Social Contributors,” and “(Partially) Disillusioned Network-Centric Social Contributors.” These viewpoints illustrate the diverse ways internal organizational identities are perceived and enacted within these hybrid entities, reflecting the dynamic and contested nature of organizational identity shaped by daily experiences with competing institutional demands. Notably, significant divergence emerges between the cooperative-driven^[2] profile of Factor 1, which largely aligns with ICA principles, and the perspectives in Factors 2 and 3. These latter profiles reflect different manifestations of operating within a government-influenced^[3],[4] context, and in both, alignment with core ICA cooperative principles appears more compromised compared to Factor 1.

5.2 The “Pragmatic and Empowered Participative Work-Integrated Social Catalysts” Perspective

Factor 1 largely aligns with the ideal of successful hybrid organizing, where most worker-members experience synergy between social and commercial goals, although two respondents held near-opposite views suggesting a failure to achieve such synergy. Their emphasis on collective decision-making (Statements 5, 6), rejection of heavy subsidy dependence (Statement 11: 0), and focus on community impact (Statements 2, 20) suggest an effective integration of multiple logics while respecting cooperative principles. This indicates that strong identification arises when members perceive coherence between participatory governance and the dual mission. Factor 1 thus illustrates how member empowerment and a shared sense of purpose can foster effective logic integration, shaping a distinct and robust organizational identity.

This profile is consistent with a cooperative-driven approach emphasizing labor sovereignty, collective decision-making, and the synergy between economic viability and participative governance, aligned with ICA principles. Participants perceive a balanced integration of logics – primarily civil society (highlighting active collaboration, fair distribution processes, and democratic structures), incorporating market (pragmatic pay view, Statement 4: −4) and public sector elements (social objectives). Their neutral stance on subsidies (Statement 11: 0) and relative detachment from public sector relationships suggest they achieve public value goals while maintaining cooperative autonomy, successfully balancing competing demands without significant identity conflict or mission drift.

5.3 The “Public Sector-Backed, Internally Marginalized Social Contributors” Perspective

In stark contrast, Factor 2 highlights the challenges of managing competing demands, revealing previously underexplored tensions in hybrid organizations where public sector logic becomes dominant. While recognizing their cooperative’s public value contribution, these worker-members feel excluded from decision-making (Statement 15: −4) and perceive internal inequities. Their strong affirmation regarding dependence on subsidies (Statement 11: + 5), juxtaposed with dissatisfaction regarding internal wage fairness (Statement 25: + 5), exemplifies how over-reliance on public sector logic can overshadow core cooperative ideals, leading to a breakdown in participatory governance and internal cohesion. This tension between external legitimacy and internal practices resonates with hybrid governance challenges, suggesting public support does not seamlessly ensure enactment of cooperative principles, potentially leading to a fractured organizational identity.

This more government-influenced profile is characterized by a strong emphasis on the public sector logic relative to civil society and market logics. Members acknowledge public value facilitated by public partnerships but feel excluded internally, perceiving that this external legitimacy coincides with internal tensions and distance from cooperative ideals. Negative views on participation and conflict resolution (Statement 50, 51: −3/−4) suggest public demands may supersede cooperative autonomy, indicating limited civil society logic enactment. This finding extends understanding of how external legitimacy can compromise internal cohesion, demonstrating how public logic dominance can fundamentally reshape organizational identity, particularly in SEOs engaged in public sector-led public value creation partnerships.

5.4 The “(Partially) Disillusioned Network-Centric Social Contributors” Perspective

Factor 3 represents another somewhat government-influenced perspective, albeit one positioned between the purely cooperative-driven Factor 1 and the heavily government-influenced Factor 2. It accentuates how inter-organizational relationships shape worker-member identities, coupled with partial disillusionment regarding internal arrangements. Emphasis on partnerships reflects embeddedness, yet the high value placed on social contribution (Statement 2: + 5) and income stability (Statement 3: + 5) coexists with relatively negative views on member benefits (Statement 28: −3) and job satisfaction (Statement 56: + 3). This demonstrates that strong external collaborations and the pursuit of external legitimacy through network ties do not always translate into fulfilling internal arrangements, highlighting potential unintended consequences for member satisfaction and commitment, thus influencing identity construction.

Although dissatisfied, members associated with this perspective recognize the benefits of cooperative employment and emphasize the cooperative’s social mission, while acknowledging the importance of external partnerships (including government support). They perceive an integration of market logic (focus on financial stability and income generation) with civil society logic (commitment to cooperative principles and community welfare), alongside public sector logic via collaborations (without primary subsidy reliance, Statement 11: −3). However, tensions arise from perceived gaps between social commitments and member benefits (Statements 27, 28: both −3), indicating partial enactment of cooperative values. This illuminates hybrid complexities where addressing multiple demands yields functional organizations but also partial member disillusionment, suggesting external partnerships, such as in pursuing public value creation, might constrain internal identity formation that aligns with the ICA’s principles.

5.5 Overarching Observations, Policy Conundrums, and Theoretical Contributions

Synthesizing these distinct viewpoints reveals several overarching themes. Across all profiles, the pragmatic prioritization of wages over the nature of work may reflect the Korean context where many cooperative members are participants rather than founders or leaders actively shaping the cooperative’s mission. This dynamic, coupled with broader employment precarity in Korea where stable income is increasingly vital (An and Yim 2024; Kim and Jang 2018; Koo and Kim 2018), might explain why respondents prioritize personal benefits. Consequently, many worker-members appear to view worker-run social cooperatives primarily as sources of employment security within an increasingly precarious labor market, rather than primarily as vehicles for deep democratic participation (see: Shin and Park 2024).

Viewed holistically, these perspectives reveal that public sector support for cooperative development has not universally engendered deep member identification with cooperative ideals, underscoring ongoing hybrid tensions. While worker-run social cooperatives in Korea might theoretically offer better job security or more “good” jobs than precarious alternatives, our data suggest motivation remains largely wage-driven, and the potential for deeper empowerment or significantly improved employment conditions through active participation is not uniformly realized. Although some initiatives may partially mitigate precarity by providing better income or protections than other insecure work, they do not in themselves guarantee the creation of universally “good” jobs characterized by both security and meaningful participation.

Furthermore, while our findings suggest connections between worker-members’ subjective perspectives and the broader context of employment precarity, assessing worker-run social cooperatives’ actual effectiveness in mitigating job precarity requires different methodological approaches. Our data, focused on subjective identity perceptions, do not conclusively demonstrate how these identities translate into objective job security or quality improvements in the long run. Future research should incorporate more direct indicators – such as wage levels, contract types, turnover rates, and worker perceptions of economic security – to clarify how, and under which conditions, specific cooperative identity configurations foster (or fail to foster) stable, high-quality employment.

An intriguing pattern across the three profiles creates a policy conundrum. Worker-members associated with Factor 1 (most positive internal experiences) rank government’s role relatively neutrally (Statement 11: 0; Statement 63: + 1), while Factor 2 members (negative internal experiences) perceive strong government support (Statement 11: + 5). Factor 3 shows a mixed picture, rejecting complete dependence but emphasizing partnership pursuit (Statement 60: + 3). Notably, positive cooperative experiences do not clearly align with acknowledging government support in worker-members’ Q-sorts. This disconnect suggests a challenge for maintaining policy support, as those potentially benefiting most from the model may not connect their positive experiences to the enabling policy framework. Policymakers might consider implementing clearer signposting of government contributions to make the connection between policy support and cooperative success more visible to members.

Collectively, these findings contribute to organizational identity scholarship by exploring the divergence between the outwardly proclaimed (“espoused”) identity of worker-run social cooperatives and worker-members’ actual day-to-day enactment of that identity (“identity-in-use”) (Gioia et al. 2013; Romanosky 2022) within complex hybrid contexts. They vividly illustrate how hybrid organizations serve as sites where identity is actively shaped, contested, and redefined (Ten Dam and Waardenburg 2020), involving continuous micro-level adaptations to competing logics (Battilana and Dorado 2010; Pache and Santos 2013). Our research contributes empirically by demonstrating identity as an ongoing, situated process rooted in bottom-up enactment. It shows worker-members engaging in sensemaking, negotiating identity through daily practices amidst operational realities and cooperative ideals (Cicognani et al. 2012; Novkovic, Prokopowicz, and Stocki 2012; Oczkowski, Krivokapic-Skoko, and Plummer 2013; Saastamoinen and Puusa 2024; Stocki and Hough 2016), while simultaneously highlighting the risks of sterile hybridization where competing demands dilute core values (Miller and French 2016). This underscores the crucial role of micro-level agency in shaping organizational identity (Ashforth, Harrison, and Corley 2008; Brown 2017).