Abstract
| Original language | English |
|---|---|
| Pages (from-to) | 911-947 |
| Number of pages | 37 |
| Journal | Organ. Stud. |
| Volume | 42 |
| Issue number | 6 |
| DOIs | |
| Publication status | Published - 24 Jun 2019 |
Keywords
- dynamic capabilities
- hybrid organizations
- micro-foundations
- sustainability
- tensions
Fingerprint
Dive into the research topics of 'Serving Multiple Masters: The role of micro-foundations of dynamic capabilities in addressing tensions in for-profit hybrid organizations'. Together they form a unique fingerprint.Cite this
- APA
- Author
- BIBTEX
- Harvard
- Standard
- RIS
- Vancouver
}
In: Organ. Stud., Vol. 42, No. 6, 24.06.2019, p. 911-947.
Research output: Contribution to journal › Article › peer-review
TY - JOUR
T1 - Serving Multiple Masters: The role of micro-foundations of dynamic capabilities in addressing tensions in for-profit hybrid organizations
AU - Vallaster, C.
AU - Maon, F.
AU - Lindgreen, A.
AU - Vanhamme, J.
N1 - Cited By :30 Export Date: 14 December 2023 Correspondence Address: Vallaster, C.; Salzburg University of Applied SciencesAustria; email: [email protected] Funding details: Marketing Science Institute, MSI Funding text 1: The authors thank Guido Palazzo for comments on a previous draft. They also thank the journal’s editor Trish Reay, senior editor Marvin Washington, and three anonymous reviewers for their helpful, constructive and encouraging comments and suggestions throughout the review process. The authors would like to thank Forschungsförderungsfonds (FFF) der Universität Liechtenstein and the Marketing Science Institute, Cambridge, Massachusetts, the U.S. for having supported this research. References: Andriopoulos, C., Lewis, M.W., Managing innovation paradoxes: Ambidexterity lessons from leading product design companies (2010) Long Range Planning, 43, pp. 104-122; Argote, L., Ren, Y., Transactive memory systems: A microfoundation of dynamic capabilities (2012) Journal of Management Studies, 49, pp. 1375-1382; Arndt, F., Pierce, L., The behavioral and evolutionary roots of dynamic capabilities (2018) Industrial and Corporate Change, 27, pp. 413-424; Barney, J., Firm resources and sustained competitive advantage (1991) Journal of Management, 17, pp. 99-120; Barney, J., Felin, T., What are microfoundations? (2013) Academy of Management Perspectives, 27, pp. 138-155; Battilana, J., Dorado, S., Building sustainable hybrid organizations: The case of commercial microfinance organizations (2010) Academy of Management Journal, 53, pp. 1419-1440; Battilana, J., Lee, M., Advancing research on hybrid organizing: Insights from the study of social enterprises (2014) Academy of Management Annals, 8 (1), pp. 397-441; Battilana, J., Sengul, M., Pache, A.-C., Model, J., Harnessing productive tensions in hybrid organizations: The case of work integration social enterprises (2015) Academy of Management Journal, 58, pp. 1658-1685; Benn, S., Edwards, M., Williams, T., (2014) Organizational change for corporate sustainability, , London, Routledge; Birkinshaw, J., Crilly, D., Bouquet, C., Lee, S.Y., How do firms manage strategic dualities? A process perspective (2016) Academy of Management Discoveries, 2 (1), pp. 51-78; Borland, H., Ambrosini, V., Lindgreen, A., Vanhamme, J., Building theory at the intersection of ecological sustainability and strategic management (2016) Journal of Business Ethics, 135, pp. 293-307; Boyd, B., Henning, N., Reyna, E., Wang, D., Welch, M., (2009) Hybrid organizations: New business models for environmental leadership, , Sheffield, UK, Greenleaf Publishing; Bradbury, H., Sustaining inner and outer worlds: A whole-systems approach to developing sustainable business practices in management (2003) Journal of Management Education, 27, pp. 172-187; Bromberger, A., A new type of hybrid (2011) Stanford Social Innovation Review, 9 (2), pp. 49-53; Caligiuri, P., When Unilever bought Ben & Jerry’s: A story of CEO adaptability (2012) Fast Company, , https://www.fastcompany.com/3000398/when-unilever-bought-ben-jerrys-story-ceo-adaptability, August, 12, Retrieved from; Eisenhardt, K., Building theories from case study research (1989) Academy of Management Review, 14, pp. 532-550; Eisenhardt, K., Graebner, M., Theory building from cases: Opportunities and challenges (2007) Academy of Management Journal, 50, pp. 25-32; Eisenhardt, K., Martin, J., Dynamic capabilities: What are they? (2000) Strategic Management Journal, 21, pp. 1105-1121; Ellis, T., (2010) The new pioneers: Sustainable business success through social innovation and social entrepreneurship, , Chichester, UK, Wiley; Felin, T., Foss, N., Strategic organization: A field in search of micro-foundations (2005) Strategic Organization, 3, pp. 441-455; Felin, T., Foss, N., Heimeriks, K., Madsen, T., Microfoundations of routines and capabilities: Individuals, processes, and structure (2012) Journal of Management Studies, 49, pp. 1351-1374; Fortis, Z., Maon, F., Frooman, J., Reiner, G., Unknown knowns and known unknowns: Framing the role of organizational learning in corporate social responsibility development (2018) International Journal of Management Reviews, 20, pp. 277-300; Gehman, J., Treviño, L., Garud, R., Values work: A process study of the emergence and performance of organizational values practices (2013) Academy of Management Journal, 56, pp. 84-112; Gelles, D., Gobbled up, but still doing good for the world (2015) The New York Times, , August, 5, BU3; Gelles, D., The revolution at Etsy (2017) The New York Times, , November, 26, BU1; Gioia, D., Corley, K., Hamilton, A., Seeking qualitative rigor in inductive research: Notes on the Gioia methodology (2013) Organizational Research Methods, 16, pp. 15-31; Hahn, T., Pinkse, J., Preuss, L., Figge, F., Tensions in corporate sustainability: Towards an integrative framework (2015) Journal of Business Ethics, 127, pp. 297-316; Hahn, T., Preuss, L., Pinkse, J., Figge, F., Cognitive frames in corporate sustainability: Managerial sensemaking with paradoxical and business case frames (2014) Academy of Management Review, 39, pp. 463-487; Haigh, N., Hoffman, A., Hybrid organizations: The next chapter of sustainable business (2012) Organizational Dynamics, 41, pp. 126-134; Haigh, N., Hoffman, A., The new heretics: Hybrid organizations and the challenges they present to corporate sustainability (2014) Organization & Environment, 27, pp. 223-241; Haigh, N., Kennedy, E.D., Walker, J., Hybrid organizations as shape-shifters: Altering legal structure for strategic gain (2015) California Management Review, 57 (3), pp. 59-82. , (, a; Haigh, N., Walker, J., Bacq, S., Kickul, J., Hybrid organizations: Origins, strategies, impacts, and implications (2015) California Management Review, 57 (3), pp. 5-13. , (, b; Hart, S., A natural-resource-based view of the firm (1995) Academy of Management Review, 20, pp. 986-1014; Helfat, C., Peteraf, M., Managerial cognitive capabilities and the microfoundations of dynamic capabilities (2015) Strategic Management Journal, 36, pp. 831-850; Iansiti, M., Clark, K., Integration and dynamic capability: Evidence from product development in automobiles and mainframe computers (1994) Industrial and Corporate Change, 3, pp. 557-605; Jarzabkowski, P., (2005) Strategy as practice: An activity-based approach, , London, SAGE Publications; Jarzabkowski, P., Shaping strategy as a structuration process (2008) Academy of Management Journal, 51, pp. 621-650; Jay, J., Navigating paradox as a mechanism of change and innovation in hybrid organizations (2013) Academy of Management Journal, 56, pp. 137-159; Kato, S., Ashley, S., Weaver, R., Insights for measuring social value: Classification of measures related to the capabilities approach (2018) VOLUNTAS: International Journal of Voluntary and Nonprofit Organizations, 29, pp. 558-573; Kellogg, K., Operating room: Relational spaces and microinstitutional change in surgery (2009) American Journal of Sociology, 115, pp. 657-711; Kelly, M., Duncan, V., Dubb, S., (2016) Strategies for financing the inclusive economy, , Washington, DC, Democracy Collaborative; Kuntz, J.R., Näswall, K., Malinen, S., Resilient employees in resilient organizations: Flourishing beyond adversity (2016) Industrial and Organizational Psychology, 9 (2), pp. 456-462; Laasch, O., Beyond the purely commercial business model: Organizational value logics and the heterogeneity of sustainability business models (2018) Long Range Planning, 51, pp. 158-183; Lengnick-Hall, C., Beck, T., Lengnick-Hall, M., Developing a capacity for organizational resilience through strategic human resource management (2011) Human Resource Management Review, 21, pp. 243-255; Lubin, D., Esty, D., The sustainability imperative (2010) Harvard Business Review, 88 (5), pp. 42-50; Maon, F., Lindgreen, A., Swaen, V., Organizational stages and cultural phases: A critical review and a consolidative model of corporate social responsibility development (2010) International Journal of Management Reviews, 12, pp. 20-38; Marquis, C., Besharov, M., Thomason, B., (2009) Whole foods: Balancing social mission and growth, , Boston, MA, Harvard Business Publishing; Mirvis, P., Herrera, M., Googins, B., Albareda, L., Corporate social innovation: How firms learn to innovate for the greater good (2016) Journal of Business Research, 69, pp. 5014-5021; Mohrman, S., Lawler, E., Parallel participation structures (1989) Public Administration Quarterly, 13, pp. 255-272; Moss, T., Short, J., Payne, G., Lumpkin, G., Dual identities in social ventures: An exploratory study (2011) Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 35, pp. 805-830; O’Connor, G.C., Major innovation as a dynamic capability: A systems approach (2008) Journal of Product Innovation Management, 25, pp. 313-330; Ortiz-de-Mandojana, N., Bansal, P., The long-term benefits of organizational resilience through sustainable business practices (2016) Strategic Management Journal, 37, pp. 1615-1631; Pache, A.-C., Santos, F., Inside the hybrid organization: Selective coupling as a response to competing institutional logics (2013) Academy of Management Journal, 56, pp. 972-1001; Pelling, M., High, C., Dearing, J., Smith, D., Shadow spaces for social learning: A relational understanding of adaptive capacity to climate change within organisations (2008) Environment and Planning A, 40, pp. 867-884; Peteraf, M., Di Stefano, G., Verona, G., The elephant in the room of dynamic capabilities: Bringing two diverging conversations together (2013) Strategic Management Journal, 34, pp. 1389-1410; Porter, M., (1985) Competitive advantage, , New York, The Free Press; Ramachandran, V., Strategic corporate social responsibility: A ‘dynamic capabilities’ perspective (2011) Corporate Social Responsibility and Environmental Management, 18, pp. 285-293; Ralston, D., The crossvergence perspective: Reflections and projections (2008) Journal of International Business Studies, 39, pp. 27-40; Ramus, T., Vaccaro, A., Stakeholders matter: How social enterprises address mission drift (2017) Journal of Business Ethics, 143, pp. 307-322; Rawhouser, H., Cummings, M., Crane, A., Benefit corporation legislation and the emergence of a social hybrid category (2015) California Management Review, 57 (3), pp. 13-35; Rothaermel, F., Hess, A., Building dynamic capabilities: Innovation driven by individual-, firm-, and network-level effects (2007) Organization Science, 18, pp. 898-921; Santos, F., Pache, A.-C., Birkholz, C., Making hybrids work: Aligning business models and organizational design for social enterprises (2015) California Management Review, 57 (3), pp. 36-58; Schneckenberg, D., Truong, Y., Mazloomi, H., Microfoundations of innovative capabilities: The leverage of collaborative technologies on organizational learning and knowledge management in a multinational corporation (2015) Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 100 (1), pp. 356-368; Smith, W., Besharov, M., Bowing before dual gods: How structured flexibility sustains organizational hybridity (2019) Administrative Science Quarterly, 64, pp. 1-44. , 19, December, 2017, –, First published online; Smith, W., Gonin, M., Besharov, M., Managing social-business tensions: A review and research agenda for social enterprise (2013) Business Ethics Quarterly, 23, pp. 407-442; Sterman, J., (2000) Business dynamics: Systems thinking and modeling for a complex world, , New York, Irwin; Strauss, A., Corbin, J., (1990) Basics of qualitative research: Grounded theory procedures and techniques, , London, SAGE Publications; Strauss, K., Lepoutre, J., Wood, G., Fifty shades of green: How microfoundations of sustainability dynamic capabilities vary across organizational contexts (2017) Journal of Organizational Behavior, 38, pp. 1338-1355; Teece, D., Explicating dynamic capabilities: The nature and microfoundations of (sustainable) enterprise performance (2007) Strategic Management Journal, 28, pp. 1319-1350; Teece, D., Pisano, G., Shuen, A., Dynamic capabilities and strategic management (1997) Strategic Management Journal, 18, pp. 509-533; Tsang, E., Williams, J., Generalization and induction: Misconceptions, clarifications, and a classification of induction (2012) MIS Quarterly, 36, pp. 729-748; Van Maanen, J., The fact of fiction in organizational ethnography (1979) Administrative Science Quarterly, 24), pp. 539-550; Wals, A., Schwarzin, L., Fostering organizational sustainability through dialogic interaction (2012) The Learning Organization, 19, pp. 11-27; Wu, Q., He, Q., Duan, Y., O’Regan, N., Implementing dynamic capabilities for corporate strategic change toward sustainability (2012) Strategic Change, 21, pp. 231-247; Yin, R., (2003) Case study research: Design and methods, , 3rd ed., Thousand Oaks, CA, SAGE Publications; Zietsma, C., Lawrence, T., Institutional work in the transformation of an organizational field: The interplay of boundary work and practice work (2010) Administrative Science Quarterly, 55, pp. 189-221; Zollo, M., Winter, S., Deliberate learning and the evolution of dynamic capabilities (2002) Organization Science, 13, pp. 339-353
PY - 2019/6/24
Y1 - 2019/6/24
N2 - Regular for-profit companies might claim social and environmental goals, beyond their primary economic objectives, but sustainability-driven for-profit hybrids explicitly design and implement their organizational activities to pursue social, environmental and economic goals equivalently, which typically generates tensions, inherent to their hybrid nature. The ability to address these tensions is key to these organizations’ success, yet the manner in which they do so remains poorly understood. In this case-based qualitative study, the authors explicate how specific individual and collective practices contribute continuously to alleviating hybridity-related tensions among for-profit hybrids and allow them to achieve success. With a micro-foundational perspective on for-profit hybrids’ dynamic capabilities, this study’s findings identify four central, dynamic capabilities of for-profit hybrids, supported by respective sets of micro-foundations. Nine of these micro-foundations contribute specifically to addressing central tensions, to different extents. This study thus highlights how for-profit hybrids embrace hybridity-related tensions to foster the creation of sustainable value.
AB - Regular for-profit companies might claim social and environmental goals, beyond their primary economic objectives, but sustainability-driven for-profit hybrids explicitly design and implement their organizational activities to pursue social, environmental and economic goals equivalently, which typically generates tensions, inherent to their hybrid nature. The ability to address these tensions is key to these organizations’ success, yet the manner in which they do so remains poorly understood. In this case-based qualitative study, the authors explicate how specific individual and collective practices contribute continuously to alleviating hybridity-related tensions among for-profit hybrids and allow them to achieve success. With a micro-foundational perspective on for-profit hybrids’ dynamic capabilities, this study’s findings identify four central, dynamic capabilities of for-profit hybrids, supported by respective sets of micro-foundations. Nine of these micro-foundations contribute specifically to addressing central tensions, to different extents. This study thus highlights how for-profit hybrids embrace hybridity-related tensions to foster the creation of sustainable value.
KW - dynamic capabilities
KW - hybrid organizations
KW - micro-foundations
KW - sustainability
KW - tensions
UR - https://www.mendeley.com/catalogue/b5c5f0ff-6516-32d2-9f18-9552e5afc6aa/
U2 - 10.1177/0170840619856034
DO - 10.1177/0170840619856034
M3 - Article
SN - 0170-8406
VL - 42
SP - 911
EP - 947
JO - Organ. Stud.
JF - Organ. Stud.
IS - 6
ER -