This study investigates how spatial and digital affordances within entrepreneurial ecosystems (EEs) enable early-stage hybrid ventures to overcome the liability of hybridity and to secure funding from both philanthropic and equity funding sources. Using a simultaneous equation model with a U.S.-based sample of 2,723 hybrid ventures, we demonstrate that philanthropic and equity funding exhibit a statistically and economically significant complementary relationship. We further find that accelerator participation weakens this complementary relationship, while social media utilization strengthens it. These findings highlight the mechanisms through which EE-based affordances enhance hybrid ventures’ ability to navigate competing institutional logics and attract diverse funding sources.
AbhariK.XiaoB.DavidsonE. (2017). Communication in co-innovation networks. In NahF. H.TanC. H. (Eds.), Business, government, hand organizations. Interacting with Information Systems, HCIBGO 2017. Lecture Notes in Computer Science, Vol. 10293 (pp. 139–153). Springer.
2.
AustinJ.StevensonH.Wei-SkillernJ. (2006). Social and commercial entrepreneurship: Same, different or both?Entrepreneurship Theory & Practice, 30, 1–22.
3.
AutioE.NambisanS.ThomasL. D. W.WrightM. (2018). Digital affordances, spatial affordances, and the genesis of entrepreneurial ecosystems. Strategic Entrepreneurship Journal, 12(1), 72–95.
4.
Bacon-GerasymenkoV.ArthursJ. D.ChoS. Y. (2020). How and when investment horizons determine venture capital firms’ attention breadth to portfolio companies. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 44(3), 475–503.
BattilanaJ.DoradoS. (2010). Building sustainable hybrid organizations: The case for commercial microfinance organizations. Academy of Management Journal, 53, 1419–1440.
7.
BattilanaJ.LeeM. (2014). Advancing research on hybrid organizing—Insights from the study of social enterprises. The Academy of Management Annals, 8(1), 397–441.
8.
BattilanaJ.LeeM.WalkerJ.DorseyC. (2012). In search of the hybrid ideal. Stanford Social Innovation Review, 10(3), 51–55.
9.
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.
10.
BauerD.JungeS.ReifT. (2024). Maythe resources be with you: A systematic review and framework of startup funding options. Management Review Quarterly, 74(3), 1365–1396.
11.
BaumJ. A.SilvermanB. S. (2004). Picking winners or building them? Alliance, intellectual, and human capital as selection criteria in venture financing and performance of biotechnology startups. Journal of Business Venturing, 19, 411–436.
12.
BellemareM. F.WichmanC. J. (2020). Elasticities and the inverse hyperbolic sine transformation. Oxford Bulletin of Economics and Statistics, 82(1), 50–61.
13.
BesharovM.L.MitzinneckB.C. (2020) Heterogeneity in organizational hybridity: a configurational, situated, and dynamic approach. In BesharovM.L.MitzinneckB.C. (eds), Organizational hybridity: Perspectives, processes, promises (pp. 3–25). Emerald Publishing Limited.
14.
BesharovM. L.SmithW. K. (2014). Multiple institutional logics in organizations: Explaining their varied nature and implications. Academy of Management Review, 39(3), 364–381.
15.
BridouxF.StoelhorstJ. W. (2022). Stakeholder governance: Solving the collective action problems in joint value creation. Academy of Management Review, 47(2), 214–236.
16.
CertoS. T.MillerT. (2008). Social entrepreneurship: Key issues and concepts. Business Horizons, 51, 267–271.
17.
ChenM. J.MillerD. (2012). Competitive dynamics: Themes, trends, and a prospective research platform. The Academy of Management Annals, 6(1), 135–210.
ChuaN.MiskaC.MairJ.StahlG. K. (2024). Purpose in management research: Navigating a complex and fragmented area of study. Academy of Management Annals, 18(2), 755–787.
20.
CloughertyJ. A.DusoT.MuckJ. (2016). Correcting for self-selection based endogeneity in management research: Review, recommendations and simulations. Organizational Research Methods, 19(2), 286–347.
21.
CohenS. L. (2013). What do accelerators do? Insights from incubators and angels. Innovations: Technology, Governance, Globalization, 8(3–4), 19–25.
22.
CohenS. L.BinghamC. B.HallenB. L. (2019). The role of accelerator designs in mitigating bounded rationality in new ventures. Administrative Science Quarterly, 64(4), 810–854.
23.
CohenS. L.BinghamC. B.HallenB. L. (2019). The role of accelerator designs in mitigating bounded rationality in new ventures. Organization Science, 30(1), 1–27.
24.
ColemanS.RobbA. (2009). A comparison of new firm financing by gender: Evidence from the Kauffman Firm Survey data. Small Business Economics, 33, 397–411.
25.
CrişanE. L.SalanţăI. I.BeleiuI. N.BordeanO. N.BunduchiR. (2021). A systematic literature review on accelerators. The Journal of Technology Transfer, 46, 62–89.
26.
CummingD.JohanS. (2017). The problems with and promise of entrepreneurial finance. Strategic Entrepreneurship Journal, 11, 357–370.
27.
CyertR. M.MarchJ. G. (1963). A behavioral theory of the firm. Prentice-Hall.
28.
DenisD. J. (2004). Entrepreneurial finance: An overview of the issues and evidence. Journal of Corporate Finance, 10(2), 301–326.
29.
DroverW.BusentizL.MatusikS.TownsendD.AnglinA.DushnitskyG. (2017). A review and road map of entrepreneurial financing research: Venture capital, corporate venture capital, angel investment, crowdfunding, and accelerators. Journal of Management, 43(6), 1820–1853.
30.
FerrierW. J. (2001). Navigating the competitive landscape: The drivers and consequences of competitive aggressiveness. Academy of Management Journal, 44(4), 858–877.
31.
FischerE.ReuberA. R. (2011). Social interaction via social media: (How) can interactions on Twitter affect effectual thinking and behavior?Journal of Business Venturing, 26, 1–18.
32.
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.
33.
GaiesB.MaalaouiA. (2022). Macro-level determinants of entrepreneurship and endogeneity bias—A methodological contribution. M@n@gement, 25(3), 22–38.
34.
GanzinM.ChiricoF.KroezenJ. J.DacinM. T.SirmonD. G.SuddabyR. (2024). Craft and strategic entrepreneurship: Exploring and exploiting materiality, authenticity, and tradition in craft-based ventures. Strategic Entrepreneurship Journal, 18(4), 671–685.
35.
GolantB. D.SillinceJ. A. A. (2007). The constitution of organizational legitimacy: A narrative perspective. Organizational Studies, 28(8), 1149–1167.
36.
GoswamiK.MitchellJ. R.BhagavatulaS. (2018). Accelerator expertise: Understanding the intermediary role of accelerators in the development of the Bangalore entrepreneurial ecosystem. Strategic Entrepreneurship Journal, 12, 117–150.
37.
GulatiR.SytchM. (2007). Dependence asymmetry and joint dependence in interorganizational relationships: Effects of embeddedness on a manufacturer’s performance in procurement relationships. Administrative Science Quarterly, 52(1), 32–69.
38.
HallenB. L.CohenS. L.BinghamC. B. (2020). Do accelerators work? If so, how?Organization Science, 31(2), 378–414.
39.
HallonstenO.ThomassonA. (2024). Hybrid organizations—What’s in a name?Journal of Organizational Sociology, 3(1), 27–51.
40.
HeckmanJ. J. (1979). Sample selection bias as a specification error. Econometrica, 47(1), 153–161.
41.
HellmannT.SchureP.VoD. H. (2021). Angels and venture capitalists: Substitutes or complements?Journal of Financial Economics, 141(2), 454–478.
42.
HsuD. H. (2007). Experience entrepreneurial founders, organizational capital, and venture capital funding. Research Policy, 36, 722–741.
43.
KanzeD.HuangL.ConleyM. A.HigginsE. T. (2018). We ask men to win and women not to lose: Closing the gender gap in startup funding. Academy of Management Journal, 61(2), 586–614.
44.
KaplanA. M.HaenleinM. (2010). Users of the world, unite! The challenges and opportunities of Social Media. Business Horizons, 53(1), 59–68.
45.
KherR.YangS.NewbertS. L. (2023). Accelerating emergence: The causal (but contextual) effect of social impact accelerators on nascent for-profit social ventures. Small Business Economics, 61(1), 389–413.
46.
KuratkoD. F.FisherG.BloodgoodJ. M.HornsbyJ. S. (2017). The paradox of new venture legitimation within an entrepreneurial ecosystem. Small Business Economics, 49, 119–140.
LeeM.BattilanaJ. (2020). How the zebra got its stripes: Individual founder imprinting and hybrid social ventures. In BesharovM. L.MitzinneckB. C. (Eds.), Organizational hybridity: Perspectives, processes, promises (pp. 139–165). Emerald Publishing Limited.
49.
LehnerO. M. (2013). Crowdfunding social ventures: A model and research agenda. Venture Capital, 15(4), 289–311.
50.
LewisM. W. (2000). Exploring paradox: Toward a more comprehensive guide. Academy of Management Review, 25(4), 760–776.
ManningS.RauchM.VavilovS. (2024). Creating complementarities: How entrepreneurs mobilize crowdfunding and local ecosystems. Strategic Organization, 22(4), 734–766.
53.
MossT. W.RenkoM.BlockE.MeyskensM. (2018). Funding the story of hybrid ventures: Crowdfunder lending preferences and linguistic hybridity. Journal of Business Venturing, 33(5), 643–659.
54.
NambisanS. (2017). Digital entrepreneurship: Toward a digital technology perspective of entrepreneurship. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 41(6), 1029–1055.
55.
NambisanS.WrightM.FeldmanM. (2019). The digital transformation of innovation and entrepreneurship: Progress, challenges and key themes. Research Policy, 48, 1–9.
56.
NavisC.GlynnM.A. (2011). Legitimate distinctiveness and the entrepreneurial identity: Influence on investor judgments of new venture plausibility. Academy of Management Review, 36(3), 479–499.
57.
O’RiordanS.FellerJ.NagleT. (2012). Exploring the affordances of social network sites: An analysis of three networks. ECIS 2012 Proceedings, Barcelona, Spain (p. 177). June 10–13.
58.
PacheA. C.SantosF. (2013). Inside the hybrid organization: Selective coupling in response to competing institutional logics. Academy of Management Journal, 56(4), 972–1001.
59.
PoppoL.ZengerT. (2002). Do formal contracts and relational governance function as substitutes or complements?Strategic Management Journal, 23, 707–725.
60.
RobertsP. W.LallS. A. (2019). Observing acceleration: Uncovering the effects of accelerators on impact-oriented entrepreneurs. Palgrave Macmillan.
61.
RoundyP. T. (2016). Start-up community narratives: The discursive construction of entrepreneurial ecosystems. The Journal of Entrepreneurship, 25(2), 232–248.
62.
ShaneS.StuartT. (2002). Organizational endowments and the performance of university start-ups. Management Science, 48(1), 154–170.
63.
SinghJ.TuckerD. J.HouseR. J. (1986). Organizational legitimacy and the liability of newness. Administrative Science Quarterly, 31, 171–193.
64.
SmithB.CronleyM.BarrT. (2012). Funding implications of social enterprise: The role of mission consistency, entrepreneurial competence, and attitude toward social enterprise on donor behavior. Journal of Public Policy & Marketing, 31, 142–157.
65.
SpigelB.HarrisonR. (2018). Toward a process theory of entrepreneurial ecosystems. Strategic Entrepreneurship Journal, 12(1), 151–168.
66.
StinchcombeA. L. (1965). Social structure and organizations. In MarchJ. G. (Ed.), Handbook of organizations (pp. 142–193). Rand McNally.
67.
SuchmanM. C. (1995). Managing legitimacy: Strategic and institutional approaches. Academy of Management Review, 20(3), 571–610.
68.
SuddabyR.ManelliL.FanZ. (2023). Corporate purpose: A social judgement perspective. Strategy Science, 8(2), 202–211.
69.
SunZ.LiuL.JohanS.ZhaoL. (2024). FinTech adoption and corporate greenwashing: A technology affordance perspective. British Journal of Management, Vol. 00: 1–25.
70.
SunleyP.PinchS. (2012). Financing social enterprise: Social bricolage or evolutionary entrepreneurialism?Social Enterprise Journal, 8(2), 108–122.
71.
ThompsonT. A.PurdyJ. M.VentrescaM. J. (2018). How entrepreneurial ecosystems take form: Evidence from social impact initiatives in Seattle. Strategic Entrepreneurship Journal, 12(1), 96–116.
72.
TreemJ. W.LeonardiP. M. (2013). Social media use in organizations: Exploring the affordances of visibility, editability, persistence, and association. Annals of the International Communication Association, 36(1), 143–189.
73.
WeickK. E.SutcliffeK. M.ObstfeldD. (2005). Organizing and process of sensemaking. Organization Science, 16(4), 409–421.
74.
WryT.YorkJ. G. (2017). An identity-based approach to social enterprise. Academy of Management Review, 42(3), 437–460.
75.
WurthB.MawsonS. (2024). Beyond words: How visual imagery shapes collaborative sensemaking in entrepreneurial ecosystems. Journal of Business Venturing Insights, 21, e00458.
76.
YangS.KherR.NewbertS. L. (2020). What signals matter for social startups? It depends: The influence of gender role congruity on social impact accelerator selection decisions. Journal of Business Venturing, 35(2), 105932.
77.
ZahraS. A. (1996). Technology strategy and new venture performance: A study of corporate-sponsored and independent biotechnology ventures. Journal of Business Venturing, 11(4), 289–321.
78.
ZahraS. A.GedajlovicE.NeubaumD. O.ShulmanJ. M. (2009). A typology of social entrepreneurs: Motives, search processes and ethical challenges. Journal of Business Venturing, 24, 519–532.
79.
ZimmermanM. A.ZeitzG. J. (2002). Beyond survival: New venture growth by building legitimacy. Academy of Management Review, 27(3): 414–431.
