Contemporary organizations increasingly embrace multiple identities, but such hybridity may fuel innovation. This research examines communicative drivers of organizational hybridity (i.e., network, community, and institutional) and how plural organizational identities relate to the creation of novel ideas. Research composed of survey, archival, and expert evaluation data from 293 U.S. nonprofits highlights the influence of institutional factors on the development of hybrid social-business organizational identities. Moreover, the availability of charitable donations in the local community and institutional demands from the market are positively related to an organization’s innovativeness orientation and/or social innovation novelty, and the nonprofit commercialization environment of the local community is also positively related to social innovation novelty. Findings suggest nonprofit and business orientations are not necessarily contradictory, and that organizations can realize innovation through blending dual identities. This study advances research on hybrid organizing, organizational identity, and social innovation and offers implications for leveraging hybrid identities for social impact.
AtoubaY. C.ShumateM. (2015). International nonprofit collaboration: Examining the role of homophily. Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 44(3), 587–608. https://doi.org/10.1177/0899764014524991
2.
AustinJ. E.SeitanidiM. M. (2012). Collaborative value creation: A review of partnering between nonprofits and businesses. Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 41(6), 929–968. https://doi.org/10.1177/0899764012454685
3.
BacqS.LumpkinG. (2021). Social entrepreneurship and COVID-19. Journal of Management Studies, 58(1), 285–288. https://doi.org/10.1111/joms.12641
4.
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.
5.
BattilanaJ.DoradoS. (2010). Building sustainable hybrid organizations: The case of commercial microfinance organizations. Academy of Management Journal, 53(6), 1419–1440. https://doi.org/10.5465/amj.2010.57318391
6.
BattilanaJ.LeeM. (2014). Advancing research on hybrid organizing—insights from the study of social enterprises. Academy of Management Annals, 8(1), 397–441. https://doi.org/10.1080/19416520.2014.893615
BerzinS. C.Pitt-CatsouphesM.Gaitan-RossiP. (2015). Defining our own future: Human service leaders on social innovation. Human Service Organizations: Management, Leadership & Governance, 39(5), 412–425. https://doi.org/10.1080/23303131.2015.1060914
9.
BesharovM. L.SmithW. K. (2014). Multiple institutional logics in organizations: Explaining their varied nature and implications. Academy of Management Review, 39(3), 364–381. https://doi.org/10.5465/amr.2011.0431
10.
BurtR. S. (2004). Structural holes and good ideas. American Journal of Sociology, 110(2), 349–399. https://doi.org/10.1086/421787
11.
Cajaiba-SantanaG. (2014). Social innovation: Moving the field forward. A conceptual framework. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 82, 42–51. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.techfore.2013.05.008
12.
ChoiS. (2014). Learning orientation and market orientation as catalysts for innovation in nonprofit organizations. Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 43(2), 393–413. https://doi.org/10.1177/0899764012465491
13.
CorleyK. G.GioiaD. A. (2004). Semantic learning as change enabler: Relating organizational identity and organizational learning. In Easterby-SmithM.LylesM. (Eds.), The Blackwell handbook of organizational learning and knowledge management (pp. 621–636). Blackwell.
14.
CorpleD. (2024). From human services to “justice enterprises”: Reframing the market-mission tension in U.S. organizations serving survivors of commercial sexual exploitation. Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 53(2), 348–371. https://doi.org/10.1177/08997640231176797
15.
CouleT.PatmoreB. (2013). Institutional logics, institutional work, and public service innovation in non‐profit organizations. Public Administration, 91(4), 980–997. https://doi.org/10.1111/padm.12005
16.
CrossanM. M.ApaydinM. (2010). A multi-dimensional framework of organizational innovation: A systematic review of the literature. Journal of Management Studies, 47(6), 1154–1191. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-6486.2009.00880.x
17.
CurranP. J.WestS. G.FinchJ. F. (1996). The robustness of test statistics to nonnormality and specification error in confirmatory factor analysis. Psychological Methods, 1(1), 16–29. https://doi.org/10.1037/1082-989X.1.1.16
18.
de WitA.MensinkW.EinarssonT.BekkersR. (2019). Beyond service production: Volunteering for social innovation. Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 48(2_suppl), 52S–71S. https://doi.org/10.1177/0899764017734651
19.
Di DomenicoM.TraceyP.HaughH. (2009). The dialectic of social exchange: Theorizing corporate–social enterprise collaboration. Organization Studies, 30(8), 887–907. https://doi.org/10.1177/0170840609334954
20.
DiMaggioP. (1986). Nonprofit enterprise in the arts: Studies in mission and constraint. Oxford University Press.
21.
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. https://doi.org/10.1287/orsc.2017.1144
22.
DongQ.LuJ.LeeC. (2022). Advocating with a commercial mindset: The impact of commercial income on nonprofit advocacy engagement. Nonprofit Management & Leadership, 33(1), 203–216. https://doi.org/10.1002/nml.21514
ElersP.DuttaM. J.ElersS. (2021). Engagement and the nonprofit organization: Voices from the margins. Management Communication Quarterly, 35(3), 368–391. https://doi.org/10.1177/08933189211001883
25.
ForemanP.WhettenD. A. (2002). Members’ identification with multiple-identity organizations. Organization Science, 13(6), 618–635. https://doi.org/10.1287/orsc.13.6.618.493
26.
FuJ. S.CooperK. R. (2021). Interorganizational network portfolios of nonprofit organizations: Implications for collaboration management. Nonprofit Management & Leadership, 31(3), 437–459. https://doi.org/10.1002/nml.21438
27.
FuJ. S.CooperK. R. (2022). Reconsidering communication visibility in politically restrictive contexts: Organizational social media use in China. Journal of Communication, 72(5), 540–552. https://doi.org/10.1093/joc/jqac024
28.
FultonB. R. (2018). Organizations and survey research: Implementing response enhancing strategies and conducting nonresponse analyses. Sociological Methods & Research, 47(2), 240–276. https://doi.org/10.1177/0049124115626169
29.
GalaskiewiczJ.BielefeldW.DowellM. (2006). Networks and organizational growth: A study of community based nonprofits. Administrative Science Quarterly, 51(3), 337–380. https://doi.org/10.2189/asqu.51.3.337
30.
GuoC.AcarM. (2005). Understanding collaboration among nonprofit organizations: Combining resource dependency, institutional, and network perspectives. Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 34(3), 340–361. https://doi.org/10.1177/0899764005275411
31.
HelmS. T.AnderssonF. O. (2010). Beyond taxonomy: An empirical validation of social entrepreneurship in the nonprofit sector. Nonprofit Management & Leadership, 20(3), 259–276. https://doi.org/10.1002/nml.253
32.
HoelscherC. S. (2019). Collaboration for strategic change: Examining dialectical tensions in an interorganizational change effort. Management Communication Quarterly, 33(3), 329–362. https://doi.org/10.1177/0893318919834340
33.
HolmesS.MoirL. (2007). Developing a conceptual framework to identify corporate innovations through engagement with non-profit stakeholders. Corporate Governance: An International Review, 7(4), 414–422. https://doi.org/10.1108/14720700710820498
34.
JaskyteK. (2011). Predictors of administrative and technological innovations in nonprofit organizations. Public Administration Review, 71(1), 77–86. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-6210.2010.02308.x
35.
JayJ. (2013). Navigating paradox as a mechanism of change and innovation in hybrid organizations. Academy of Management Journal, 56(1), 137–159. https://doi.org/10.5465/amj.2010.0772
36.
KimS.LeeH. (2006). The impact of organizational context and information technology on employee knowledge-sharing capabilities. Public Administration Review, 66(3), 370–385. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-6210.2006.00595.x
37.
KindornayS.TissotS.SheibanN. (2014). The value of cross-sector development partnerships. North-South Institute.
38.
KoW. W.LiuG.Wan YusoffW. T.Che MatC. R. (2019). Social entrepreneurial passion and social innovation performance. Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 48(4), 759–783. https://doi.org/10.1177/0899764019830243
39.
KopanevaI. M.CheneyG. (2019). Organizational identity formation in alternative organizations: A study of three benefit corporations. Management Communication Quarterly, 33(4), 484–511. https://doi.org/10.1177/0893318919858684
40.
KoschmannM. A.SandersM. L. (2020). Understanding nonprofit work: A communication perspective. John Wiley & Sons.
LeRouxK. (2009). Managing stakeholder demands: Balancing responsiveness to clients and funding agents in nonprofit social service organizations. Administration & Society, 41(2), 158–184. https://doi.org/10.1177/0095399709332298
43.
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
44.
LurtzK.KreutzerK. (2017). Entrepreneurial orientation and social venture creation in nonprofit organizations. Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 46(1), 92–115. https://doi.org/10.1177/0899764016654221
45.
MaierF.MeyerM.SteinbereithnerM. (2016). Nonprofit organizations becoming business-like: A systematic review. Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 45(1), 64–86. https://doi.org/10.1177/0899764014561796
MarquisC.DavisG. F.GlynnM. A. (2013). Golfing alone? Corporations, elites, and nonprofit growth in 100 American communities. Organization Science, 24(1), 39–57. https://doi.org/10.1287/orsc.1110.0717
48.
McDonaldR. E. (2007). An investigation of innovation in nonprofit organizations: The role of organizational mission. Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 36(2), 256–281. https://doi.org/10.1177/0899764006295996
49.
MeaseJ. J. (2019). Applied tensional analysis: Engaging practitioners and the constitutive shift. Management Learning, 50(4), 409–426. https://doi.org/10.1177/1350507619849604
50.
MorrisM. H.WebbJ. W.FranklinR. (2011). Understanding the manifestation of entrepreneurial orientation in the nonprofit context. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 35(5), 947–971. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-6520.2011.00453.x
51.
MulroyE. A. (2003). Community as a factor in implementing interorganizational partnerships: Issues, constraints, and adaptations. Nonprofit Management & Leadership, 14(1), 47–66. https://doi.org/10.1002/nml.20
52.
NichollsA.MurdockA. (2012). Social innovation: Blurring boundaries to reconfigure markets. Springer.
53.
PhillsJ. A.DeiglmeierK.MillerD. T. (2008). Rediscovering social innovation. Stanford Social Innovation Review, 6(4), 34–43.
54.
PodsakoffP. M.MacKenzieS. B.PodsakoffN. P. (2012). Sources of method bias in social science research and recommendations on how to control it. Annual Review of Psychology, 63(1), 539–569. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-psych-120710-100452
55.
PooleM. S. (2003). Innovation in nonprofit organizations: A selective review and introduction. In KaplanH. (Ed.), Organizational innovation: Studies of program change in community agencies (pp. 1–12). Springer.
56.
PooleM. S.Van de VenA. H. (1989). Using paradox to build management and organization theories. Academy of Management Review, 14(4), 562–578. https://doi.org/10.2307/258559
57.
PutnamL. L.FairhurstG. T.BanghartS. (2016). Contradictions, dialectics, and paradoxes in organizations: A constitutive approach. Academy of Management Annals, 10(1), 65–171. https://doi.org/10.1080/19416520.2016.1162421
58.
RauchA.WiklundJ.LumpkinG. T.FreseM. (2009). Entrepreneurial orientation and business performance: An assessment of past research and suggestions for the future. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 33(3), 761–787. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-6520.2009.00308.x
59.
RheeL.LeonardiP. M. (2018). Which pathway to good ideas? An attention-based view of innovation in social networks. Strategic Management Journal, 39(4), 1188–1215. https://doi.org/10.1002/smj.2755
60.
RosenbuschN.RauchA.BauschA. (2013). The mediating role of entrepreneurial orientation in the task environment–performance relationship: A meta-analysis. Journal of Management, 39(3), 633–659. https://doi.org/10.1177/0149206311425612
61.
SandersM. L. (2012). Theorizing nonprofit organizations as contradictory enterprises: Understanding the inherent tensions of nonprofit marketization. Management Communication Quarterly, 26(1), 179–185. https://doi.org/10.1177/0893318911423761
62.
SandersM. L. (2015). Being nonprofit-like in a market economy: Understanding the mission-market tension in nonprofit organizing. Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 44(2), 205–222. https://doi.org/10.1177/0899764013508606
63.
ShumateM.AtoubaY.CooperK. R.PilnyA. (2014). Two paths diverged: Examining the antecedents to social entrepreneurship. Management Communication Quarterly, 28(3), 404–421. https://doi.org/10.1177/0893318914538561
64.
ShumateM.CooperK. R. (2022). Networks for social impact. Oxford University Press.
65.
SkelcherC.SmithS. R. (2015). Theorizing hybridity: Institutional logics, complex organizations, and actor identities: The case of nonprofits. Public Administration, 93(2), 433–448. https://doi.org/10.1111/padm.12105
66.
SmithS. R. (2014). Hybridity and nonprofit organizations: The research agenda. American Behavioral Scientist, 58(11), 1494–1508. https://doi.org/10.1177/0002764214534675
SvenssonP. G.MahoneyT. Q.HambrickM. E. (2020). What does innovation mean to nonprofit practitioners?Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 49(2), 380–398. https://doi.org/10.1177/0899764019872009
69.
TraceyP.StottN. (2017). Social innovation: A window on alternative ways of organizing and innovating. Innovation: Organization & Management, 19(1), 51–60. https://doi.org/10.1080/14479338.2016.1268924
70.
van WijkJ.ZietsmaC.DoradoS.de BakkerF. G.MartíI. (2019). Social innovation: Integrating micro, meso, and macro level insights from institutional theory. Business & Society, 58(5), 887–918. https://doi.org/10.1177/0007650318789104
71.
WangR.ChenB. (2023). A configurational approach to attracting participation in crowdsourcing social innovation: The case of Openideo. Management Communication Quarterly, 37(2), 340–367. https://doi.org/10.1177/08933189221108360
72.
WeerawardenaJ.MortG. S. (2012). Competitive strategy in socially entrepreneurial nonprofit organizations: Innovation and differentiation. Journal of Public Policy and Marketing, 31(1), 91–101. https://doi.org/10.1509/jppm.11.034
73.
WiklundJ.ShepherdD. (2003). Knowledge‐based resources, entrepreneurial orientation, and the performance of small and medium‐sized businesses. Strategic Management Journal, 24(13), 1307–1314. https://doi.org/10.1002/smj.360
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.
