Hostname: page-component-7f64f4797f-rcs6z Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-11-03T17:47:05.087Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

An insider view of the hybrid organisation: How managers respond to challenges of efficiency, legitimacy and meaning

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  16 February 2015

Svein T. Johansen ,
Trude H. Olsen ,
Elsa Solstad  and
Harald Torsteinsen
Svein T. Johansen
Affiliation:
Department of Business Administration and Social Sciences, Harstad University College, Harstad, Norway
Trude H. Olsen
Affiliation:
Department of Business Administration and Social Sciences, Harstad University College, Harstad, Norway
Elsa Solstad*
Affiliation:
Department of Business Administration and Social Sciences, Harstad University College, Harstad, Norway
Harald Torsteinsen
Affiliation:
Department of Business Administration and Social Sciences, Harstad University College, Harstad, Norway
*
Corresponding author: elsa.solstad@hih.no
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

In this paper we look at how managers perceive and manage meetings between different institutional logics in three types of hybrid organisations; a savings bank, a municipality and a hospital. The paper contributes to our understanding of organisational hybridity in two ways: First, drawing on Scott’s three institutional pillars, the paper shows how meetings between different institutional logics involve not just the cultural–cognitive pillar, usually highlighted in work on hybrid organisations, but all of them, including the regulative and the normative pillars. Second, the paper suggests a hierarchical relationship between meetings and responses, ranging from less elaborate responses that primarily involve the regulative pillar to more complex and all-encompassing responses that include not only the regulative and the normative but also the cultural–cognitive pillar, triggering questions and issues about identity and purpose.

Keywords

managerial challengeshybrid organisationsinstitutional logicsmanagerial responses

Information

Type
Research Article
Information
Journal of Management & Organization , Volume 21 , Issue 6 , November 2015 , pp. 725 - 740
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press and Australian and New Zealand Academy of Management 2015 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Article purchase

Temporarily unavailable

Footnotes

Authors have contributed equally in this work and are listed in alphabetical order.

References

Battilana, J., & Dorado, S. (2010). Building sustainable hybrid organizations: The case of commercial microfinance organizations. Academy of Management Journal, 53, 1419–1440.Google Scholar
Battilana, J., & Lee, M. (2014). Advancing research on hybrid organizing: Insights from the study of social enterprises. The Academy of Management Annals, 8, 397–441.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Friedland, R., & Alford, R. (1991). Bringing society back in: Symbols, practices, and institutional contradictions. In W. Powell, & P. J. DiMaggio (Eds.), The new institutionalism in organizational analysis (pp. 232–262). Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Garfinkel, H. (1967). Studies in ethomethodology. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.Google Scholar
Garfinkel, H. (2002). Ethnomethodology’s program: Working out Durkheim’s aphorism. Lanham, MA: Rowman & Littlefield Publishers.Google Scholar
Gaskin, C., Ockerby, C., Smith, T., Russell, V., & O’Connell, B. (2012). The challenges acute care nurse unit managers face and the strategies they use to address them: Perceptions of directors of nursing and nurse unit managers. Journal of Management & Organisation, 18, 625–640.Google Scholar
Greenwood, R., Días, A. M., Li, S. X., & Lorente, J. C. (2010). The multiplicity of institutional logics and the heterogeneity of organizational responses. Organization Science, 21, 521–539.Google Scholar
Greenwood, R., Raynard, M., Kodeih, F., Micelotta, E. R., & Lounsbury, M. (2011). Institutional complexity and organizational responses. The Academy of Management Annals, 5, 317–371.Google Scholar
Jay, J. (2013). Navigating paradox as a mechanism of change and innovation in hybrid organizations. Academy of Management Journal, 56, 137–159.Google Scholar
Jepperson, R. L. (1991). Institutions, institutional effects and institutionalism. In W. W. Powell, & P. J. DiMaggio (Eds.), The new institutionalism in organizational analysis (pp. 143–163). Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Kostova, T. (1999). Transnational transfer of strategic organizational practices: A contextual perspective. Academy of Management Review, 24, 308–324.Google Scholar
Lok, J. (2010). Institutional logics as identity projects. Academy of Management Review, 53, 1305–1335.Google Scholar
Makadok, R., & Coff, R. (2009). Both market and hierarchy: An incentive-system theory of hybrid governance forms. Academy of Management Review, 34, 297–319.Google Scholar
Napshin, S. A., & Azadegan, A. (2012). Partner attachment to institutional logics: The influence of congruence and divergence. Journal of Management & Organisation, 18, 481–498.Google Scholar
The Norwegian Association of Local and Regional Authorities KS (2013). Norwegian municipalities, number of employees and man-years. Retrieved from http://www.ks.no/PageFiles/27496/Tabell%201b.pdf.Google Scholar
The Norwegian Savings Bank Association (2014). About savings banks. Retrieved from http://www.sparebankforeningen.no/id/1363.0.Google Scholar
Oliver, C. (1992). The antecedents of deinstitutionalization. Organization Studies, 13, 563–588.Google Scholar
Pache, A. C., & Santos, F. (2013a). Inside the hybrid organization: Selective coupling as a response to competing institutional logics. Academy of Management Journal, 56, 972–1001.Google Scholar
Pache, A. C., & Santos, F. (2013b). Embedded in hybrid contexts: How individuals in organizations respond to competing institutional logics. In M. Lounsbury, & E. Boxenbaum (Eds.), Institutional logics in action, part B. Research in the sociology of organizations (vol. 39B, pp. 3–35). Bingley, UK: Emerald.Google Scholar
Patton, M. Q. (2002). Qualitative research & evaluation methods. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.Google Scholar
Pettersen, P. A., & Rose, L. E. (1997). Den norske kommunen: Hva har politikerne ønsket, og hva ønsker folket? In H. Baldersheim, J. F. Bernt, T. Kleven, & J. Rattsø (Eds.), Kommunalt selvstyre i velferdsstaten (pp. 91–126). Oslo: Tano Aschehoug.Google Scholar
Pollitt, C., Bathgate, K., Caulfield, J., Smullen, A., & Talbot, C. (2001). Agency fever? Analysis of an international policy fashion. Journal of Comparative Policy Analysis: Research and Practice, 3, 271–290.Google Scholar
Pollitt, C., Talbot, C., Caulfield, J., & Smullen, A. (2004). Agencies: How governments do things through semi-autonomous organizations. Houndmills, UK: Palgrave Macmillan.Google Scholar
Pratt, M. G., & Foreman, P. O. (2000). Classifying managerial responses to multiple organizational identities. Academy of Management Journal, 25, 18–42.Google Scholar
Reay, T., & Hinings, C. R. (2009). Managing the rivalry of competing institutional logics. Organization Studies, 30, 629–652.Google Scholar
Rose, L. (2011). Den krevende borger: Kveles lokaldemokratiet? In H. Baldersheim, & E. Smith (Eds.), Lokalt demokrati uten kommunalt selvstyre? (pp. 101–131). Oslo: Abstrakt forlag.Google Scholar
Rose, L., & Skare, A. (1996). Lokalt folkestyre i klemme. Noen momenter vedrørende innbyggernes forhold til kommunen og fylkespolitikken. Working Paper No. 01-96, University of Oslo, Department of Political Science, Oslo.Google Scholar
Schein, E. H. (2004). Organizational culture and leadership (3rd ed.). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.Google Scholar
Scott, W. R. (2001). Institutions and organizations (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.Google Scholar
Smith, W. K., & Lewis, M. L. (2011). Toward a theory of paradox: A dynamic equilibrium model of organizing. Academy of Management Review, 36, 381–403.Google Scholar
Thornton, P. H. (2004). Markets from culture: Institutional logics and organizational decisions in higher education publishing. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.Google Scholar
Thornton, P. H., Ocasio, W., & Lounsbury, M. (2012). The institutional logics perspective. A new approach to culture, structure, and process. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Walker, R. (1985). Applied qualitative research. Aldershot: Gower.Google Scholar
Zilber, T. B. (2008). The work of meanings in institutional processes and thinking. In R. Greenwood, C. Oliver, K. Sahlin-Andersson, & R. Suddaby (Eds.), The SAGE handbook of organizational institutionalism (pp. 151–169). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.Google Scholar