Tensions in social entrepreneurial teams: Going beyond the social-commercial duality

Social enterprises are often conceived of as hybrid organisations because they embody (at least) two distinct logics, i.e. a social-welfare logic and a commercial logic (Battilana & Lee, 2014; Doherty et al., 2014). So far,... [ view full abstract ]

Social enterprises are often conceived of as hybrid organisations because they embody (at least) two distinct logics, i.e. a social-welfare logic and a commercial logic (Battilana & Lee, 2014; Doherty et al., 2014). So far, the literature on hybrid organisations has mainly focused on how hybridity-caused tensions are dealt with by established hybrids on the one hand (Pache & Santos, 2013), or by individual hybrid entrepreneurs when it deals with organizational emergence on the other hand (e.g.: Wry & York, in press). However, many hybrid organisations, and social enterprises in particular, are created by teams (Dufays & Huybrechts, 2014), which makes it crucial to understand tensions at the inter-individual level – a level that has only poorly been dealt with, in particular in the context of nascent hybrid organisations (with the notable exceptions of Almandoz, 2012, 2014). Nascent hybrids constitute a setting in which tensions between logics are likely to be exacerbated as adjustments still need to be done both within the entrepreneurial team, among others through team members’ familiarisation with logics they do not carry (Almandoz, 2014), and outside the team, with stakeholders (De Clercq & Voronov, 2011). Hence, it constitutes an ideal context for exploring what types of organizational tensions may be encountered, how these are more or less likely to appear depending on some entrepreneurial team characteristics, and how they are dealt with.

What is missing is a clearer picture of the relationship between the types of organizational tensions and characteristics of the nascent hybrid organisation. This paper aims to contribute to closing this gap by observing, locating, and explaining how different types of tensions translate in entrepreneurial teams at early stages of hybrid organizing. Four cases of nascent social enterprises (at the inception stage and during the first year after incorporation) borne by teams are studied and compared in order to let emerge new theoretical insights (Eisenhardt, 1989). Data analysis follows the paradox theoretical framework proposed by Smith and Lewis (2011). 

Results reveal that the duality of mission salient to social entrepreneurship is not the only tension finding its source in institutional pluralism. Several tensions actually happen within a particular – social welfare – logic and concern with how this logic is translated into the entrepreneurial project. Eventually, those latter tensions are reinforced by the hybrid nature of the organization as the commercial logic may be called upon to support one or the other alternative at hand in the tension. It also highlights the role of the type of interest pursued by the social entrepreneurial team, i.e. general vs. mutual interest, in the management of hybridity.

Overall, this paper contributes to developing theory on how institutional pluralism may play a role in tensions at the inter-individual level in nascent hybrid organizations. It identifies team characteristics as potential drivers of certain types of tensions. Further, it participates in opening the black box of the ‘social’ in social entrepreneurship by showing how the social-welfare logic may be a driver of tension on its own in social entrepreneurial teams, independently from the mission duality and the hybridity salient to social entrepreneurship. It suggests that the type of interest pursued – and hence related to social entrepreneurial motivations –  is a strong element in the definition of the social dimension.

References

Almandoz, J. (2012). Arriving at the starting line: The impact of community and financial logics on new banking ventures. Academy of Management Journal, 55(6), 1381-1406.

Almandoz, J. (2014). Founding teams as carriers of competing logics: When institutional forces predict banks’ risk exposure. Administrative Science Quarterly, 59(3), 442-473.

Battilana, J., & Lee, M. (2014). Advancing research on hybrid organizing: Insights from the study of social enterprises. Academy of Management Annals, 8(1), 397-441.

De Clercq, D., & Voronov, M. (2011). Sustainability in entrepreneurship: A tale of two logics. International Small Business Journal, 29(4), 322-344.

Doherty, B., Haugh, H., & Lyon, F. (2014). Social enterprises as hybrid organizations: A review and research agenda. International Journal of Management Reviews, 16(4), 417-436.

Dufays, F., & Huybrechts, B. (2014). Connecting the dots for social value: A review on social networks and social entrepreneurship. Journal of Social Entrepreneurship, 5(2), 214-237.

Eisenhardt, K. M. (1989). Building theories from case study research. Academy of Management Review, 14(4), 532-550.

Pache, A.-C., & Santos, F. (2013). Inside the hybrid organization: Selective coupling as a response to conflicting institutional logics. Academy of Management Journal, 56(4), 972-1001.

Smith, W. K., & Lewis, M. W. (2011). Toward a theory of paradox: A dynamic equilibrium model of organizing. Academy of Management Review, 36(2), 381-403.

Wry, T., & York, J. (in press). An identity based approach to social enterprise. Academy of Management Review.