Where do hybrids come from? Entrepreneurial team heterogeneity as an avenue for the emergence of hybrid organizations

What is it about?

Hybrid organizations are organizations that integrate several “institutional logics” at their core. For example, social enterprises are considered as an ideal-typical case of hybrid organizations driven by both a social-welfare and a market logic. Most of the recent literature has focused on the how hybrid organizations deal with the competing demands associated with the distinct logics. However, the emergence of hybrid organizations, and in particular the way in which hybridity comes into being in nascent organizations and throughout the entrepreneurial process, remain underexplored. Extant literature reveals that hybridity may stem 1) from the opportunity pursued, e.g. opportunities for entrepreneurship in the cultural sector; 2) from the context in which the entrepreneurial process takes place, e.g. entrepreneuring in a family context; and/or 3) from the imprint of socialization experienced by the entrepreneurs and their socialenvironment. Early studies typically point at the ability of individual entrepreneurs to integrate several logics in the entrepreneurial process, that is, entrepreneuring hybrid individuals. This conceptual paper proposes complementary arguments to understand this process by stressing that hybridity can be induced by the heterogeneous composition of the entrepreneurial team. In other words, collective –rather than individual– entrepreneurship is examined as a setting in which distinct institutional logics can be enhanced and integrated, potentially leading to the creation of a hybrid organization. Drawing on extant literature on organizational imprinting and institutional logics, a model is developed and a set of propositions are set forth with the aim of bridging multiple levels of analysis and identifying the conditions for sustaining hybridity throughout the entrepreneurial process. We start with acknowledging that individuals are embedded in a social network, from which they enact norms and values, i.e. institutional logics. This social network evolves along with time and depends on various socialization sources: family, education, professional experience, religion, etc. The more heterogeneity between individuals’ social networks and socialization sources, the more likely they are to be familiarized with distinct institutional logics. Building on this premise, we contend that in a similar way as “good ideas” for entrepreneurship are found in bridging distinct social networks thanks to the informational advantage it provides, bridging institutional logics also gives an informational advantage that may be transformed into an entrepreneurial opportunity. To tap into this opportunity, we propose that entrepreneurial teams whose individual members have been socialized to different institutional logics are more likely to develop practices that are consistent with these various logics and, hence, to imprint hybridity in the organization they create. In order to nurture and to sustain hybridity in the nascent organization, the potential conflict between logics must be managed during the entrepreneurial process in a way that does not marginalize or squeeze out one of the existing logics. The paper evaluates in which situations this is most likely to happen. For example, we argue that if one individual or a subgroup of team members has been socialized to a single logic and is therefore, identified with this logic but is completely novice at other logics, the nascent organization is less likely to be imbued with hybridity. Overall, our study contributes to the literature dealing with entrepreneurial teams and with hybrid organizations and entrepreneurial processes. First, it paves the way for future research on how individual members of a founding team contribute to imprinting hybridity to an organization throughout the entrepreneurial process, which has only been touched upon by existing studies. In particular, it helps to clarify why, in some cases, heterogeneity is looked for within the team formation process. Second, it contributes to understanding the embeddedness of the collective entrepreneurship process in individual social networks. It makes clear that these social networks act as an antecedent of the team formation process, both in terms of tie crystallization (and de-crystallization in some cases of conflict) into a team and of logics borne by the individual team members. Next, our propositions connect the individual, team and organizational levels and thus advance our understanding of how institutional logics can be combined across different levels of analysis and throughout the stages of an entrepreneurial process. Finally, the paper makes the point that institutional complexity may be inherent to some organization types – i.e. social enterprises in this case – and therefore needs to be dealt with during the entrepreneurial process. Hybrids may thus purposefully be designed by entrepreneurs that either individually or collectively endorse multiple logics.

Featured Image