Scholars and critics tend to regard social enterprise as a paradoxical organizational form. And yet those who are closest to the apparent paradox in at least two prominent social enterprise industries—fair trade and socially responsible investing—are not inclined to regard their work as paradoxical. How is this so? Drawing upon, and then extending, the sensemaking literature, I argue that practitioners of social enterprise do not experience their working conditions as paradoxical because they frame away the potentially paradoxical elements of their work. Specifically, they employ three frames: looking at the big picture, engaging with potentially paradoxical conditions rather than turning from them, and making favorable comparisons that ease the paradoxical strain. These insights form the basis of a refined model of sensemaking in organizations, which accounts not only for how members of organizations deal with paradox but also how they come to recognize (or frame away) paradox in the first place.
BartunekJ. M. (1988). The dynamics of personal and organizational reframing. In QuinnR. E.CameronK. S. (Eds.), Paradox and transformation: Toward a theory of change in organization and management (pp. 137–162). Cambridge, MA: Ballinger.
2.
BattilanaJ.DoradoS. (2010). Building sustainable hybrid organizations: The case of commercial microfinance organizations. Academy of Management Journal, 53, 1419–1440.
3.
BattilanaJ.LeeM. (2014). Advancing research on hybrid organizing: Insights from the study of social enterprises. Academy of Management Annals, 8(1), 397–441.
4.
BattilanaJ.SengulM.PacheA. C.ModelJ. (2015). Harnessing productive tensions in hybrid organizations: The case of work integration social enterprises. Academy of Management Journal, 58, 1658–1685.
5.
BednarekR.ParoutisS.SillinceJ. (2017). Transcendence through rhetorical practices: Responding to paradox in the science sector. Organization Studies, 38, 77–101.
6.
BeechN.BurnsH.de CaesteckerL.MacIntoshR.MacLeanD. (2004). Paradox as invitation to act in problematic change situations. Human Relations, 57, 1313–1332.
7.
BinderA. J.AbelA. R. (2019). Symbolically maintained inequality: How Harvard and Stanford students construct boundaries among elite universities. Sociology of Education, 92, 41–58.
8.
BirkinshawJ.FossN. J.LindenbergS. (2014). Combining purpose with profits. MIT Sloan Management Review, 55(3), 49.
9.
BrownA. D.ColvilleI.PyeA. (2015). Making sense of sensemaking in organization studies. Organization Studies, 36, 265–277.
10.
CameronK. S.QuinnR. E. (1988). Organizational paradox and transformation. In QuinnR. E.CameronK. S. (Eds.), Paradox and transformation: Toward a theory of change in organization and management (pp. 1–18). Cambridge, MA: Ballinger.
11.
CharmazK. (2006). Constructing grounded theory: A practical guide through qualitative analysis. Los Angeles, CA: SAGE Publications.
12.
ChildC. (2015). Mainstreaming and its discontents: Fair trade, socially responsible investing, and industry trajectories. Journal of Business Ethics, 130, 601–618.
13.
CorbinJ.StraussA. (2014). Basics of qualitative research (4th edition). Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications.
14.
CornelissenJ. P.WernerM. D. (2014). Putting framing in perspective: A review of framing and frame analysis across the management and organizational literature. Academy of Management Annals, 8, 181–235.
15.
CzarniawskaB. (2006). A golden braid: Allport, Goffman, Weick. Organization Studies, 27, 1661–1674.
16.
DunbarR.GarudR.RaghuramS. (1996). A frame for deframing in strategic analysis. Journal of Management Inquiry, 5, 23–34.
17.
EbrahimA.BattilanaJ.MairJ. (2014). The governance of social enterprises: Mission drift and accountability challenges in hybrid organizations. Research in Organizational Behavior, 34, 81–100.
18.
El-SawadA.ArnoldJ.CohenL. (2004). “Doublethink”: The prevalence and function of contradiction in accounts of organizational life. Human Relations, 57), 1179–1203.
19.
GalaskiewiczJ.BarringerS. N. (2012). Social enterprises and social categories. In GidronB.HasenfeldY. (Eds.), Social enterprises: An organizational perspective (pp. 47–70). New York: Palgrave Macmillan.
20.
GioiaD. A.CorleyK. G.HamiltonA. L. (2012). Seeking qualitative rigor in inductive research: Notes on the Gioia methodology. Organizational Research Methods, 16, 15–31.
21.
GoffmanE. (1974). Frame analysis: An essay on the organization of experience. Boston, MA: Northeastern University Press.
22.
HahnT.PreussL.PinkseJ.FiggeF. (2014). Cognitive frames in corporate sustainability: Managerial sensemaking with paradoxical and business case frames. Academy of Management Review, 39, 463–487.
23.
HargraveT. J.Van de VenA. H. (2017). Integrating dialectical and paradox perspectives on managing contradictions in organizations. Organization Studies, 38, 319–339.
24.
JayJ. (2013). Navigating paradox as a mechanism of change and innovation in hybrid organizations. Academy of Management Journal, 56, 137–159.
25.
KerlinJ. A.GagnaireK. (2009). United States. In KerlinJ. A. (Ed.), Social enterprise: A global comparison (pp. 87–113). Lebanon, NH: Tufts University Press.
26.
KraatzM. S.BlockE. S. (2008). Organizational implications of institutional pluralism. In GreenwoodR.OliverC.SuddabyR.SahlinK. (Eds.), The Sage handbook of organizational institutionalism (pp. 243–275). Los Angeles, CA: SAGE Publications.
27.
LewisM. W. (2000). Exploring paradox: Toward a more comprehensive guide. Academy of Management Review, 25, 760–776.
28.
LincolnY. S.GubaE. G. (1985). Naturalistic inquiry. Newbury Park, CA: SAGE Publications.
29.
LukerK. (2008). Salsa dancing into the social sciences: Research in an age of info-glut. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
30.
LüscherL. S.LewisM. W. (2008). Organizational change and managerial sensemaking: Working through paradox. Academy of Management Journal, 51, 221–240.
31.
MaitlisS.ChristiansonM. (2014). Sensemaking in organizations: Taking stock and moving forward. Academy of Management Annals, 8, 57–125.
32.
MarkowitzL.CobbD.HedleyM. (2012). Framing ambiguity: Insider/outsiders and the successful legitimation project of the socially responsible mutual fund industry. Organization, 19, 3–23.
33.
McInerneyP. B. (2014). From social movement to moral market: How the circuit riders sparked an IT revolution and created a technology market. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.
34.
McPhersonC. M.SauderM. (2013). Logics in action: Managing institutional complexity in a drug court. Administrative Science Quarterly, 58, 165–196.
35.
MilesM. B.HubermanA. M. (1994). Qualitative data analysis: An expanded sourcebook. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications.
36.
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, 26–45.
37.
PacheA. C.SantosF. (2010). When worlds collide: The internal dynamics of organizational responses to conflicting institutional demands. Academy of Management Review, 35, 455–476.
38.
PacheA. C.SantosF. (2013). Inside the hybrid organization: Selective coupling as a response to competing institutional logics. Academy of Management Journal, 56, 972–1001.
39.
PughA. J. (2013). What good are interviews for thinking about culture? Demystifying interpretive analysis. American Journal of Cultural Sociology, 1, 42–68.
40.
QuinnR. E.CameronK. S. (1988). Paradox and transformation: A framework for viewing organization and management. In QuinnR. E.CameronK. S. (Eds.), Paradox and transformation: Toward a theory of change in organization and management (pp. 289–308). Cambridge, MA: Ballinger.
41.
SantosF.PacheA. C.BirkholzC. (2015). Making hybrids work: Aligning business models and organizational design for social enterprises. California Management Review, 57(3), 36–58.
42.
SchadJ.LewisM. W.RaischS.SmithW. K. (2016). Paradox research in management science: Looking back to move forward. Academy of Management Annals, 10, 5–64.
43.
SharmaG.BansalP. (2017). Partners for good: How business and NGOs engage the commercial–social paradox. Organization Studies, 38, 341–364.
44.
SmetsM.JarzabkowskiP.BurkeG. T.SpeeP. (2015). Reinsurance trading in Lloyd’s of London: Balancing conflicting-yet-complementary logics in practice. Academy of Management Journal, 58, 932–970.
45.
SmithW. K.BesharovM. L. (2019). Bowing before dual gods: How structured flexibility sustains organizational hybridity. Administrative Science Quarterly, 64, 1–44.
46.
SmithW. K.GoninM.BesharovM. L. (2013). Managing social–business tensions: A review and research agenda for social enterprise. Business Ethics Quarterly, 23, 407–442.
47.
SmithW. K.LewisM. W. (2011). Toward a theory of paradox: A dynamic equilibrium model of organizing. Academy of Management Review, 36, 381–403.
48.
TavoryI.TimmermansS. (2014). Abductive analysis: Theorizing qualitative research. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
49.
WeickK. E. (1995). Sensemaking in organizations. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications.
50.
WeickK. E.SutcliffeK. M.ObstfeldD. (2005). Organizing and the process of sensemaking. Organization Science, 16, 409–421.
51.
WeissR. S. (1994). Learning from strangers: The art and method of qualitative interview studies. New York: Free Press.
52.
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, 507–528.
53.
ZerubavelE. (1993). The fine line. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
