Genesis of hybrid organizational identities: The case of a social venture. Short paper submission for:

Transcription

1 Genesis of hybrid organizational identities: The case of a social venture. Short paper submission for: 10th Congrès de l Académie de l Entrepreneuriat et de l Innovation 6-8 December 2017, Dakar, Senegal Topic The research field of organizational identity is steadily expanding (Pratt et al., 2016) and hybrid organizational identities, that is two organizational identities that are at odds (Albert and Whetten, 1985; Pratt, 2016), are getting some attention from researchers. However, the focus is on the impacts of these identities and their evolution (changes in identities) (Pratt, 2016). Missing is an understanding of their formation, even though the strong future imprinting effects are recognized (Pratt et al., 2016). In this paper, we focus on the forming stage of hybrid identities by studying the case of a social venture. Literature review Our literature review starts by briefly setting the stage of our research by presenting social ventures, their specificities, and the topics that academics have addressed so far. Social ventures are indeed singular by their inherent tension between social and economic dimensions or logics (Battilana and Lee, 2014; Doherty et al., 2014). Research on social ventures has traditionally focused on identifying their similarities and differences with conventional firms. Furthermore, many studies focus on the management of the tension between social and economic objectives (Smith et al., 2013). As we are interested in the formation of organizational identities, the second section of our literature review presents the main conceptual frameworks (social construction, social actor, and the institutional perspective) (Gioia and Hamilton, 2016) before focusing on the research 1

2 concerning hybrid organizational identities (e.g. Glynn, 2000; Ashforth and Reingen, 2014). Hybrid identities can be structurally differentiated in the organization (each corresponding to a subunit for example) or housed in the same unit or group which corresponds, respectively, to ideographic vs holographic hybrid identities. Methodology Our research focuses on a how question on a scarcely investigated topic. Following Yin (1994) and Edmondson and McManus (2007) s discussion of methodological fit, a qualitative approach is more suitable than a quantitative one. We investigated the case of a young social venture, AgriWISE, part of a larger research program that studies the role of collectives in alternative agriculture in Belgium and France. AgriWISE is a Belgian cooperative venture focused on organic, small-scale, sustainable farming in the transition movement (Hopkins, 2011). But AgriWISE has also a social mission beyond its involvement in the transition movement, and thus the tacit mission of promotion of organic, small-scale farming. It is a Work Integration Social Enterprise whose finality is the integration of individuals who have been experiencing difficulties on the job market. We thus chose this case site because of its explicit social mission that makes it a hybrid organization and because it was in its early years of existence and addressing questions related to organizational identity. We conducted 15 semi-structured interviews with members of the collective between January 2013 and December The five members of the entrepreneurial team were interviewed, some of them multiple times, as well as two employees and four producers (part of the coop). Moreover, we have been authorized to tape three meetings of the producers where organizational identity-related issues were discussed. The interviews and the meetings were transcribed and coded starting with an initial grid derived from the literature review that has evolved throughout the coding process. 2

3 Findings The authors are currently still drawing up the results (through case tables; Miles and Huberman, 1994) and further analysing the material but three main findings appear. First, our preliminary results tend to confirm the emergent nature of organizational identity in the sense of Kozlowski and Klein (2000). Second, we note that while hybrid organizational identities are presented as either ideographic or holographic, the reality seems to be less clear cut, questioning the fact that hybrid organizations have hybrid identities rather than multiple ones. The latter considers the possibility of more than two identities and they do not need to be necessarily oppositional (Pratt and Foreman, 2000). Third, collective identities emerge from a process but it appears messier than the one Ashforth et al. (2011) suggest, that is: intrasubjective understanding ( I think ) fosters intersubjective understanding ( we think ) through interaction, which in turn fosters generic understanding a sense of the collective that transcends individuals ( it is ) (p. 1144). The role of the lead entrepreneur is not just from the I think to the we think. His influence is more complex with the relevance of different subgroups in the organization that influence each other. Contributions and implications This paper investigates the formation of hybrid organizational identities by focusing on the case of a social enterprise. While research on hybrid organizational identities exists, the latter are taken for granted and we do not know much about their genesis. In trying to fill this gap, this paper firstly contributes to the literature on social entrepreneurship. Hybridity in this context is generally explored in terms of organizing rather than in terms of identities whereas the centrality of the concept of organizational identity is now established in other research 3

4 fields. Furthermore, if the preliminary results are confirmed, this research would have implications on how hybrid organizational identities are firstly construed and secondly constructed which may lead to a better steering of the process. Secondly, this paper contributes to the literature on organizational identity by investigating the formation stage. The emergent nature of organizational identities is portrayed and, most importantly, the process refined. In so doing, we also answer a call for a process-view of organizational identity and for multi-level research (Schultz, 2016; Ashforth, 2016). Cited references Albert S and Whetten DA. (1985) Organizational identity. Research in organizational behavior. Ashforth BE. (2016) Organizational, subunit, and individual identities: Multilevel linkages. In: Pratt MG, Schultz M, Ashforth BE, et al. (eds) The Oxford Handbook of Organizational Identity. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press, Ashforth BE and Reingen PH. (2014) Functions of dysfunction: Managing the dynamics of an organizational duality in a natural food cooperative. Administrative Science Quarterly 59: Ashforth BE, Rogers KM and Corley KG. (2011) Identity in Organizations: Exploring Cross- Level Dynamics. Organization Science 22: Battilana J and Lee M. (2014) Advancing research on hybrid organizing - Insights from the study of social enterprises. The Academy of Management Annals 8: Doherty B, Haugh H and Lyon F. (2014) Social Enterprises as Hybrid Organizations: A Review and Research Agenda. International Journal of Management Reviews 16: Edmondson AC and McManus SE. (2007) Methodological fit in management field research. Academy of Management Review 32: Gioia DA and Hamilton AL. (2016) Great debates in organizational identity study. In: Pratt MG, Schultz M, Ashforth BE, et al. (eds) The Oxford Handbook of Organizational Identity. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press,

5 Glynn MA. (2000) When cymbals become symbols: Conflict over organizational identity within a symphony orchestra. Organization Science 11: Hopkins R. (2011) The transition companion. Making your community more resilient in uncertain. Kozlowski SWJ and Klein KJ. (2000) A multilevel approach to theory and research in organizations: Contextual, temporal, and emergent processes. In: Klein KJ and Kozlowski SWJ (eds) Multilevel theory, research, and methods in organizations: Foundations, extensions, and new directions. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass, Miles MB and Huberman AM. (1994) Qualitative data analysis: an expanded sourcebook, Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Pratt MG. (2016) Hybrid and multiple organizational identities. In: Pratt MG, Schultz M, Ashforth BE, et al. (eds) The Oxford Handbook of Organizational Identity. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press, Pratt MG and Foreman PO. (2000) Classifying managerial responses to multiple organizational identities. Academy of Management Review 25: Pratt MG, Schultz M, Ashforth BE, et al. (2016) Introduction: Organizational identity, mapping where we have been, where we are, and where we might go. In: Pratt MG, Schultz M, Ashforth BE, et al. (eds) The Oxford Handbook of Organizational Identity. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press, Schultz M. (2016) Organizational identity change and temporality. In: Pratt MG, Schultz M, Ashforth BE, et al. (eds) The Oxford Handbook of Organizational Identity. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press, Smith WK, Gonin M and Besharov ML. (2013) Managing Social-Business Tensions: A Review and Research Agenda for Social Enterprise. Business Ethics Quarterly 23: Yin RK. (1994) Case study research, design and methods, Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. 5