Growing research suggests social ventures (SVs) variably combine social and profit orientations in core organizational features, and this variation in hybridity leads to divergent organizational dynamics and outcomes. However, no comprehensive and precise measurement scale has emerged to capture the varying degrees of hybridity across SVs. To advance theory and empirical research, this study presents an instrument for assessing how organizational actors perceive the degree to which social and market logics are (a) compatible and (b) central to organizational functioning. An inductive-confirmatory two-study approach (Nstudy1 = 293, Nstudy2 = 315) validates a hybridity scale—composed of 6-item compatibility and 4-item centrality factors—for U.S. nonprofit organizations, benefit corporations, and social enterprises. Moreover, results reveal perceived compatibility is associated with SVs’ revenue structure, whereas centrality is related to their legal status. The development of this scale will facilitate large-scale quantitative research that systematically examines the varied nature, drivers, and implications of organizational hybridity.
AlbertiF. G.Varon GarridoM. A. (2017). Can profit and sustainability goals co-exist? New business models for hybrid firms. Journal of Business Strategy, 38(1), 3–13.
2.
AustinJ. E.StevensonH.Wei-SkillernJ. (2006). Social and commercial entrepreneurship: Same, different, or both?Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 30(1), 1–22.
3.
BattilanaJ.BesharovM.MitzinneckB. (2017). On hybrids and hybrid organizing: A review and roadmap for future research. In GreenwoodR.OliverC.LawrenceT. B.MeyerR. E.. (Eds.), The SAGE handbook of organizational institutionalism (pp. 128–162). SAGE.
4.
BattilanaJ.DoradoS. (2010). Building sustainable hybrid organizations: The case of commercial microfinance organizations. Academy of Management Journal, 53(6), 1419–1440.
5.
BattilanaJ.LeeM. (2014). Advancing research on hybrid organizing—Insights from the study of social enterprises. Academy of Management Annals, 8(1), 397–441.
6.
BattilanaJ.SengulM.PacheA.-C.ModelJ. (2015). Harnessing productive tensions in hybrid organizations: The case of work integration social enterprises. Academy of Management Journal, 58(6), 1658–1685.
7.
BeatonE. E. (2021). No margin, no mission: How practitioners justify nonprofit managerialization. VOLUNTAS, 32(3), 695–708.
8.
BesharovM. L.SmithW. K. (2014). Multiple institutional logics in organizations: Explaining their varied nature and implications. Academy of Management Review, 39(3), 364–381.
9.
BinderA. (2007). For love and money: Organizations’ creative responses to multiple environmental logics. Theory and Society, 36(6), 547–571.
10.
ColtmanT.DevinneyT. M.MidgleyD. F.VenaikS. (2008). Formative versus reflective measurement models: Two applications of formative measurement. Journal of Business Research, 61(12), 1250–1262.
11.
CycyotaC. S.HarrisonD. A. (2006). What (not) to expect when surveying executives: A meta-analysis of top manager response rates and techniques over time. Organizational Research Methods, 9(2), 133–160.
12.
DacinM. T.DacinP. A.TraceyP. (2011). Social entrepreneurship: A critique and future directions. Organization Science, 22(5), 1203–1213.
13.
DeesJ. G. (1998). Enterprising nonprofits. Harvard Business Review, 76(1), 55–67.
14.
DeesJ. G.EmersonJ.EconomyP. (2001). Enterprising nonprofits: A toolkit for social entrepreneurs. John Wiley.
15.
DesaG.BasuS. (2013). Optimization or bricolage? Overcoming resource constraints in global social entrepreneurship. Strategic Entrepreneurship Journal, 7(1), 26–49.
16.
DeVellisR. F. (2016). Scale development: Theory and applications. SAGE.
17.
DimitriadisS.LeeM.RamarajanL.BattilanaJ. (2017). Blurring the boundaries: The interplay of gender and local communities in the commercialization of social ventures. Organization Science, 28(5), 819–839.
18.
EbrahimA.BattilanaJ.MairJ. (2014). The governance of social enterprises: Mission drift and accountability challenges in hybrid organizations. Research in Organizational Behavior, 34, 81–100.
19.
FitzgeraldT.ShepherdD. (2018). Emerging structures for social enterprises within nonprofits: An institutional logics perspective. Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 47(3), 474–492.
20.
ForemanP.WhettenD. A. (2002). Members’ identification with multiple-identity organizations. Organization Science, 13(6), 618–635.
21.
FornellC.LarckerD. F. (1981). Structural equation models with unobservable variables and measurement error: Algebra and statistics. Journal of Marketing Research, 18(3), 382–388.
22.
FriedlandR.AlfordR. R. (1991). Bringing society back in: Symbols, practices, and institutional contradictions. In PowellW. W.DiMaggioP. J. (Eds.), The new institutionalism in organizational analysis (pp. 232–266). University of Chicago Press.
23.
FultonB. R. (2018). Organizations and survey research: Implementing response enhancing strategies and conducting nonresponse analyses. Sociological Methods & Research, 47(2), 240–276.
24.
GalaskiewiczJ.BielefeldW.DowellM. (2006). Networks and organizational growth: A study of community based nonprofits. Administrative Science Quarterly, 51(3), 337–380.
25.
GreenwoodR.DíazA. M.LiS. X.LorenteJ. C. (2010). The multiplicity of institutional logics and the heterogeneity of organizational responses. Organization Science, 21(2), 521–539.
26.
GreenwoodR.RaynardM.KodeihF.MicelottaE.LounsburyM. (2011). Institutional complexity and organizational responses. Academy of Management Annals, 5(1), 317–371.
27.
GuoB. (2006). Charity for profit? Exploring factors associated with the commercialization of human service nonprofits. Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 35(1), 123–138.
28.
HenselerJ.RingleC. M.SarstedtM. (2015). A new criterion for assessing discriminant validity in variance-based structural equation modeling. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 43(1), 115–135.
29.
HinkinT. R. (1998). A brief tutorial on the development of measures for use in survey questionnaires. Organizational Research Methods, 1(1), 104–121.
30.
HunoldtM.OertelS.GalanderA. (2020). Being responsible: How managers aim to implement corporate social responsibility. Business & Society, 59(7), 1441–1482.
31.
JägerU. P.SchröerA. (2014). Integrated organizational identity: A definition of hybrid organizations and a research agenda. VOLUNTAS, 25(5), 1281–1306.
32.
KlineR. B. (2005). Principles and practice of structural equation modeling. Guilford.
33.
LeeS.BoltonL. E.WinterichK. P. (2017). To profit or not to profit? The role of greed perceptions in consumer support for social ventures. Journal of Consumer Research, 44(4), 853–876.
34.
LewisM. W.SmithW. K. (2014). Paradox as a metatheoretical perspective: Sharpening the focus and widening the scope. Journal of Applied Behavioral Science, 50(2), 127–149.
35.
LitricoJ.-B.BesharovM. L. (2019). Unpacking variation in hybrid organizational forms: Changing models of social enterprise among nonprofits, 2000–2013. Journal of Business Ethics, 159(2), 343–360.
36.
LuoX. R.WangD.ZhangJ. (2017). Whose call to answer: Institutional complexity and firms’ CSR reporting. Academy of Management Journal, 60(1), 321–344.
Miron-SpektorE.IngramA.KellerJ.SmithW. K.LewisM. W. (2018). Microfoundations of organizational paradox: The problem is how we think about the problem. Academy of Management Journal, 61(1), 26–45.
39.
NunnallyJ. C.BernsteinI. H. (1994). Psychometric theory. McGraw-Hill.
40.
PacheA.SantosF. (2013). Inside the hybrid organization: Selective coupling as a response to competing institutional logics. Academy of Management Journal, 56(4), 972–1001.
41.
RawhouserH.CummingsM.CraneA. (2015). Benefit corporation legislation and the emergence of a social hybrid category. California Management Review, 57(3), 13–35.
42.
ShepherdD. A.WilliamsT. A.ZhaoE. Y. (2019). A framework for exploring the degree of hybridity in entrepreneurship. Academy of Management Perspectives, 33(4), 491–512.
43.
SmithW. K.BesharovM. L. (2019). Bowing before dual gods: How structured flexibility sustains organizational hybridity. Administrative Science Quarterly, 64(1), 1–44.
44.
StevensR.MorayN.BruneelJ. (2015). The social and economic mission of social enterprises: Dimensions, measurement, validation, and relation. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 39(5), 1051–1082.
45.
StubbsW. (2017). Sustainable entrepreneurship and B corps. Business Strategy and the Environment, 26(3), 331–344.
46.
SuykensB.De RynckF.VerschuereB. (2020). Examining the extent and coherence of nonprofit hybridization toward the market in a post-corporatist welfare state. Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 49(5), 909–930.
47.
ThorntonP. H.OcasioW.LounsburyM. (2012). The institutional logics perspective: A new approach to culture, structure, and process. Oxford University Press.
48.
WaegerD.WeberK. (2019). Institutional complexity and organizational change: An open polity perspective. Academy of Management Review, 44(2), 336–359.
49.
WryT.YorkJ. G. (2017). An identity-based approach to social enterprise. Academy of Management Review, 42(3), 437–460.
50.
WryT.ZhaoE. Y. (2018). Taking trade-offs seriously: Examining the contextually contingent relationship between social outreach intensity and financial sustainability in global microfinance. Organization Science, 29(3), 507–528.
Supplementary Material
Please find the following supplemental material available below.
For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.
For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.
