Hybrid organizing scholarship has considered various effects of organizational configurations, including evaluations from external audience members. Due to the particular focus of hybrid scholarship on organizations that are subject to market logic, however, it is difficult to determine whether hybrid form or market logic is most relevant to evaluators. We therefore conduct two online vignette experiments, one of which is preregistered. We confirm our hypothesis that the presence of market logic decreases evaluators intent to transact with the organization, mediated through moral legitimacy. We do not confirm our hypothesis, however, that hybrid form decreases intent to transact, mediated through cognitive legitimacy. We further find that the negative market logic effect does not vary by organizational field. Our explicit focus on market logic, and its moral legitimacy evaluations, forms our core contribution to hybrid organizing scholarship, which tends to heavily lean upon the categories scholarship to explain negative audience evaluations.
AgleB. R.MitchellR. K.SonnenfeldJ. A. (1999). Who matters to CEOs? An investigation of stakeholder attributes and salience, corporate performance and CEO values. Academy of Management Journal, 42(5), 507–525.
2.
AlmandozJ. (2014). Founding teams as carriers of competing logics: When institutional forces predict banks’ risk exposure. Administrative Science Quarterly, 59(3), 442–473.
3.
BattilanaJ.BesharovM. L.MitzinneckB. C. (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 (2nd ed., pp. 133–169). 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. (2014a). Advancing research on hybrid organizing—Insights from the Study of Social Enterprises. The Academy of Management Annals, 8(1), 397–441.
6.
BattilanaJ.LeeM. (2014b). Advancing research on hybrid organizing—Insights from the study of social enterprises. The Academy of Management Annals, 8(1), 397–441.
7.
BattilanaJ.LeeM.WalkerJ.DorseyC. (2012). In search of the hybrid ideal. Stanford Social Innovation Review, 10(3), 50–55.
8.
BerinskyA. J.MargolisM. F.SancesM. W. (2014). Separating the shirkers from the workers? Making sure respondents pay attention on self-administered surveys. American Journal of Political Science, 58(3), 739–753.
9.
BesharovM. L. (2014). The relational ecology of identification: How organizational identification emerges when individuals hold divergent values. Academy of Management Journal, 57(5), 1485–1512.
10.
BesharovM. L.SmithW. K. (2014). Multiple institutional logics in organizations: Explaining their varied nature and implications. Academy of Management Review, 39(3), 364–381.
11.
BhattacharjeeA.DanaJ.BaronJ. (2017). Anti-profit beliefs: How people neglect the societal benefits of profit. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 113(5), 671–696.
12.
BhattacharyaC. B.SenS. (2003). Consumer-company identification: A framework for understanding consumers’ relationships with companies. Journal of Marketing, 67, 76–88.
13.
BitektineA. (2011). Toward a theory of social judgments of organizations: The case of legitimacy, reputation, and status. Academy of Management Review, 36(1), 151–179.
14.
BitektineA.HaackP. (2015). The “macro” and the “micro” of legitimacy: Toward a multilevel theory of the legitimacy process. Academy of Management Review, 40(1), 49–75.
15.
BitektineA.HillK.SongF.VandenbergheC. (2020). Organizational legitimacy, reputation, and status: Insights from micro-level measurement. Academy of Management Discoveries, 6(1), 107–136.
16.
BitektineA.LucasJ.SchilkeO. (2018). Institutions under a microscope: Experimental methods in institutional theory. In BrymanA.BuchananD. A. (Eds.), Unconventional methodology in organization and management research (pp. 147–167). Oxford University Press.
17.
CoppockA.McClellanO. A. (2019). Validating the demographic, political, psychological, and experimental results obtained from a new source of online survey respondents. Research & Politics, 6(1), 1–14.
18.
CutoloD.FerrianiS. (2024). Atypicality: Toward an integrative framework in organizational and market settings. Academy of Management Annals, 18(1), 157–209.
19.
DurandR.ThorntonP. H. (2018). Categorizing institutional logics, institutionalizing categories: A review of two literatures. Academy of Management Annals, 12(2), 631–658.
20.
DuttA. K.WilberC. K. (2010). Economics and ethics: An introduction.Palgrave Macmillan.
21.
EfronB.TibshiraniR. J. (1993). An introduction to the bootstrap. Chapman & Hall.
22.
FalkA.SzechN. (2013). Morals and markets. Science, 340, 707–711.
23.
FisherG.KuratkoD. F.BloodgoodJ. M.HornsbyJ. S. (2017). Legitimate to whom? The challenge of audience diversity and new venture legitimacy. Journal of Business Venturing, 32(1), 52–71.
24.
FosfuriA.GiarratanaM. S.RocaE. (2015). Walking a slippery line: Investments in social values and product longevity. Strategic Management Journal, 36(11), 1750–1760. https://doi.org/10.1002/smj.2311
25.
FourcadeM.HealyK. (2007). Moral views of market society. Annual Review of Sociology, 33(1), 285–311.
26.
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. 232–263). The University of Chicago Press.
27.
FuJ. S. (2024). Social-market hybridity in social ventures: Scale development and validation. Business & Society, 63(2), 452–486.
28.
FurrR. M.BacharachV. R. (2013). Psychometrics: An introduction (2nd ed.). Sage Publications.
29.
GautierA.PacheA.-C.SantosF. (2023). Making sense of hybrid practices: The role of individual adherence to institutional logics in impact investing. Organization Studies, 44(9), 1385–1412. https://doi.org/10.1177/01708406231181693
30.
GlaserV. L.FastN. J.HarmonD. J.GreenS. E.Jr. (2016). Institutional frame switching: How institutional logics shape individual action. In GehmanJ.LounsburyM.GreenwoodR. (Eds.), Research in the sociology of organizations (Vol. 48, pp. 35–69). Emerald Group Publishing Limited.
31.
GlynnM. A.D’AunnoT. (2023). An intellectual history of institutional theory: Looking back to move forward. Academy of Management Annals, 17(1), 301–330. https://doi.org/10.5465/annals.2020.0341
32.
GlynnM. A.HoodE. A.InnisB. D. (2021). Taking hybridity for granted: Institutionalization and hybrid identification. Research in the Sociology of Organizations, 69, 53–72.
33.
GrahamJ.HaidtJ.KolevaS.MotylM.IyerR.WojcikS. P.DittoP. H. (2013). Moral foundations theory: The pragmatic validity of moral pluralism. Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, 47, 55–130.
34.
GreenwoodR.DiazA. M.LiS. X.LorenteJ. C. (2010). The multiplicity of institutional logics and the heterogeneity of organizational responses. Organization Science, 21(2), 521–539.
35.
GreenwoodR.SuddabyR. (2006). Institutional entrepreneurship in mature fields: The big five accounting firms. Academy of Management Journal, 49(1), 27–48.
HampelC.TraceyP. (2019). Introducing a spectrum of moral evaluation: Integrating organizational stigmatization and moral legitimacy. Journal of Management Inquiry, 28(1), 11–15.
38.
HandelmanJ. M.ArnoldS. J. (1999). The role of marketing actions with a social dimension: Appeals to the institutional environment. Journal of Marketing, 63, 33–48.
39.
HayesA. F. (2022). Introduction to mediation, moderation, and conditional process analysis: A regression-based approach (3rd ed.). Guilford Press.
40.
HsuG.GrodalS. (2015). Category taken-for-grantedness as a strategic opportunity: The case of light cigarettes, 1964 to 1993. American Sociological Review, 80(1), 28–62. https://doi.org/10.1177/0003122414565391
41.
KraatzM. S.BlockE. S. (2008). Organizational implications of institutional pluralism. In GreenwoodR.OliverC.SuddabyR.SahlinK. (Eds.), The Sage handbook of organizational institutionalism (Vol. 840, pp. 243–275). Sage.
42.
KraatzM. S.BlockE. S. (2017). Institutional pluralism revisited. In GreenwoodR.OliverC.LawrenceT. B.MeyerR. E. (Eds.), Sage handbook of organizational institutionalism (2nd ed., pp. 532–557). Sage.
43.
KraatzM. S.FloresR. (2015). Reinfusing values. Research in in the Sociology of Organizations, 44, 353–381.
44.
KraatzM. S.FloresR.ChandlerD. (2020). The value of values for institutional analysis. Academy of Management Annals, 14(2), 474–512.
LeungM. D.SharkeyA. J. (2014). Out of sight, out of mind? Evidence of perceptual factors in the multiple-category discount. Organization Science, 25(1), 171–184. https://doi.org/10.1287/orsc.2013.0828
47.
LevineS. S.SchilkeO.KacperczykO.Zucker LynneG. (2023). Primer for experimental methods in organization theory. Organization Science, 34(6), 1997–2025.
48.
LiJ.HeH.LiuH.SuC. (2017). Consumer responses to corporate environmental actions in China: An environmental legitimacy perspective. Journal of Business Ethics, 143(3), 589–602. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-015-2807-x
49.
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. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-018-4047-3
50.
LiuJ.PeiferJ. L. (2022). A moral foundations framing approach: Retail investors’ investment intention in ethical mutual funds. Business & Society, 61(7), 1804–1837. https://doi.org/10.1177/00076503211062186
51.
LortieJ.CoxK. C.RoundyP. T. (2022). Social impact models, legitimacy perceptions, and consumer responses to social ventures. Journal of Business Research, 144, 312–321. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2022.01.079
MayerR. C.DavisJ. H. (1999). The effect of the performance appraisal system on trust for management: A field quasi-experiment. Journal of Applied Psychology, 84(1), 123–136.
54.
MolinskyA. L.GrantA. M.MargolisJ. D. (2012). The bedside manner of homo economicus: How and why priming an economic schema reduces compassion. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 119(1), 27–37.
55.
MossA. J.RosenzweigC.RobinsonJ.JaffeS. N.LitmanL. (2023). Is it ethical to use Mechanical Turk for behavioral research? Relevant data from a representative survey of MTurk participants and wages. Behavior Research Methods, 55(8), 4048–4067. https://doi.org/10.3758/s13428-022-02005-0
56.
PacheA.-C.SantosF. (2013a). Embedded in hybrid contexts: How individuals in organizations respond to competing institutional logics. Research in the Sociology of Organizations, 39B, 3–35.
57.
PacheA.-C.SantosF. (2013b). Inside the hybrid organization: Selective coupling as a response to competing institutional logics. Academy of Management Journal, 56(4), 972–1001.
58.
PacheA.-C.ThorntonP. H. (2020). Hybridity and institutional logics. Organizational Hybridity: Perspectives, Processes, Promises, 69, 29–52.
59.
PeiferJ. L.NewmanD. T. (2020). Making the business case for corporate social responsibility and perceived trustworthiness: A cross-stakeholder analysis. Business and Society Review, 125(2), 161–181.
60.
PreacherK. J.HayesA. F. (2008). Asymptotic and resampling strategies for assessing and comparing indirect effects in multiple mediator models. Behavior Research Methods, 40(3), 879–891.
61.
QuinnS. (2008). The transformation of morals in markets: Death, benefits, and the exchange of life insurance policies. American Journal of Sociology, 114(3), 738–780.
62.
RadoynovskaN.RuttanR. (2021). A matter of transition: authenticity judgments and attracting employees to hybridized organizations. Organization Science. http://doi.org/10.1287/orsc.2021.1495.
63.
RandrianasoloA. A.ArnoldM. J. (2020). Consumer legitimacy: Conceptualization and measurement scales. Journal of Consumer Marketing, 37(4), 385–397. https://doi.org/10.1108/JCM-03-2019-3124
64.
RisiD. (2022). Business and society research drawing on institutionalism: Integrating normative and descriptive research on values. Business & Society, 61(2), 305–339.
65.
SantosF.PacheA.-C.BirkholzC. (2015). Making hybrids work: Aligning business models and organizational design for social enterprises. California Management Review, 57(3), 36–58. https://doi.org/10.1525/cmr.2015.57.3.36
66.
SchilkeO. (2015). Organizational identity and resistance to environmental pressures. Academy of Management Proceedings, 1, 1–6.
67.
SharkeyA. J. (2014). Categories and organizational status: The role of industry status in the response to organizational deviance. American Journal of Sociology, 119(5), 1380–1433.
68.
SheeranP.WebbT. L. (2016). The intention–behavior gap. Social and Personality Psychology Compass, 10(9), 503–518.
69.
ShepherdD. A.WilliamsT. A.ZhaoE. Y. (2019). A framework for exploring the degree of hybridity in social entrepreneurship. Academy of Management Perspectives, 33(4), 491–512.
70.
SmithB. R.KnappJ.BarrT. F.StevensC. E.CannatelliB. L. (2010). Social enterprises and the timing of conception: Organizational identity tension, management, and marketing. Journal of Nonprofit & Public Sector Marketing, 22(2), 108–134.
71.
SuchmanM. C. (1995). Managing legitimacy: Strategic and institutional approaches. Academy of Management Review, 20(3), 571–610.
72.
ThorntonP. H.OcasioW. (2008). Institutional logics. The Sage Handbook of Organizational Institutionalism, 840, 99–128.
73.
ThorntonP. H.OcasioW.LounsburyM. (2012). The institutional logics perspective: A new approach to culture, structure, and process. Oxford University Press.
TurbanD. B.GreeningD. W. (1997). Corporate social performance and organizational attractiveness to prospective employees. Academy of Management Journal, 40(3), 658–672.
76.
TurnerJ. C.TajfelH. (1986). The social identity theory of intergroup behavior. Psychology of Intergroup Relations, 5, 7–24.
77.
van WervenR.BouwmeesterO.CornelissenJ. P. (2015). The power of arguments: How entrepreneurs convince stakeholders of the legitimate distinctiveness of their ventures. Journal of Business Venturing, 30(4), 616–631.
78.
VenkataramanH.VermeulenP.RaaijmakersA.MairJ. (2016). Market meets community: Institutional logics as strategic resources for development work. Organization Studies, 37(5), 709–733.
79.
WalshG.BeattyS. E. (2007). Customer-based corporate reputation of a service firm: Scale development and validation. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 35(1), 127–143.
80.
WeberK.HeinzeK. L.DeSouceyM. (2008). Forage for thought: Mobilizing codes in the movement for grass-fed meat and dairy products. Administrative Science Quarterly, 53(3), 529–567. https://doi.org/10.2189/asqu.53.3.529
81.
WryT.LounsburyM.JenningsP. D. (2014). Hybrid vigor: Securing venture capital by spanning categories in nanotechnology. Academy of Management Journal, 57(5), 1309–1333.
82.
WryT.YorkJ. G. (2017). An identity-based approach to social enterprise. Academy of Management Review, 42(3), 437–460. https://doi.org/10.5465/amr.2013.0506
83.
YueL. Q.WangJ.YangB. (2018). Contesting commercialization: Political influence, responsive authoritarianism, and cultural resistance. Administrative Science Quarterly, 1–31.
84.
ZelizerV. (1981). The price and value of children: The case of children’s insurance in the United States. American Journal of Sociology, 86(5), 1036–1056.
85.
ZietsmaC.GroenewegenP.LogueD. M.HiningsC. R. (2017). Field or fields? Building the scaffolding for cumulation of research on institutional fields. Academy of Management Annals, 11(1), 391–450.
86.
ZuckermanE. W. (1999). The categorical imperative: Securities analysts and the illegitimacy discount. American Journal of Sociology, 104(5), 1398–1438.
87.
ZuckermanE. W. (2017). The categorical imperative revisited: Implications of categorization as a theoretical tool. In DurandR.GranqvistN.TyllströmA. (Eds.), Research in the Sociology of Organizations (Vol. 51, pp. 31–68). Emerald Publishing Limited.
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.
