Indirect reciprocity is increasingly recognized as a desirable approach to support social organizations which address intractable social problems within societies. Using social organizations operating in the third sector in Tanzania, we investigate how causal mechanisms help social organizations to initiate indirect reciprocal relations with benefactors. Moreover, we address the potential consequences of such relations to both benefactors and social organizations. Our findings reveal that establishing reciprocal relations is contingent upon the credibility of social organizations and compassion capability of benefactors. Also, the findings identify positive and negative consequences of indirect reciprocity to both benefactors and social organizations. Based on these findings, we clarify the contradiction regarding the consequences of indirect reciprocity and propose a framework of inter-organizational reciprocal relations that fosters social entrepreneuring in the third sector. Furthermore, we highlight the implications of our findings for theory and practice and suggest areas for future research.
AldrichHEFiolCM (1994) Fools rush in? The institutional context of industry creation. Academy of Management Review19: 645–670.
2.
AndorferVAOtteG (2012) Do context matter for willingness to donate to natural disaster relief? An application of the factorial survey. Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly42(4): 657–688.
3.
AndreoniJ (2006) Philanthropy. In: Gerard-VaretLAKolmSCYthierJM (eds) Handbook of Giving, Reciprocity and Altruism. North Holland: Elsevier, pp. 1201–1269.
4.
ArendRJ (2009) Reputation for cooperation: contingent benefits in alliance activity. Strategic Management Journal30: 371–385.
5.
AtkinsPWParkerSK (2012) Understanding individual compassion in organizations: the role of appraisals and psychological flexibility. Academy of Management Review3(4): 524–546.
6.
AustinJStevensonHWei-SkillernJ (2006) Social and commercial entrepreneurship: same, different or both?Entrepreneurship Theory & Practice30(1): 1–22.
7.
AustinJESeitanidiMM (2012) Collaborative value creation: a review of partnering between nonprofits and businesses: part I. Value creation spectrum and collaboration stages. Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly41(5): 726–758.
8.
BarneyJB (1991) Firm resources and sustained competitive advantage. Journal of Management17: 99–120.
9.
BatemanTSOrganDW (1983) Job satisfaction and the good soldier: the relationship between affect and employee “citizenship.”Academy of Management Journal26: 587–595.
10.
BatsonCDShawLL (1991) Evidence for altruism: toward a pluralism of prosocial motives. Psychological Inquiry2(2): 107–122.
11.
BekkerRBowmanW (2009) The relationship between confidence in charitable organizations and volunteering revisited. Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly38(5): 884–897.
12.
BekkerRWeipkingP (2011) A literature review of empirical studies of philanthropy: eight mechanisms that drive charitable giving. Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly40(5): 924–973.
13.
BergeronDM (2007) The potential paradox of organizational citizenship behaviour: good citizens at what cost?Academy of Management Review32(4): 1078–1095.
14.
BergeronDMShippAJRosenB. (2013) Organizational citizenship behaviour and career outcomes: the cost of being a good citizen. Journal of Management39(4): 958–984.
15.
BogaertSBooneCDeclerckC (2008) Social value orientation and cooperation in social dilemmas: a review and conceptual model. British Journal of Social Psychology47(3): 453–480.
16.
BolinoMCTurnleyWH (2005) The personal costs of citizenship behavior: the relationship between individual initiative and role overload, job stress, and work–family conflict. Journal of Applied Psychology90(4): 740–748.
17.
BoydRRichersonPJ (1989) The evolution of indirect reciprocity. Social Network11: 213–236.
18.
ChalmersDMBalan-VnukE (2012) Innovating not-for profit social ventures: exploring the micro-foundations of internal and external absorptive capacity routines. International Small Business Journal31(7): 785–810.
19.
CharmazK (2006) Grounded Theory: A Practical Guide through Qualitative Analysis. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.
20.
CorbinJStraussA (2008) Basics of Qualitative Research: Techniques and Procedures for Developing Grounded Theory. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.
21.
DacinMTDacinPATraceyP (2011) Social entrepreneurship: a critique and future directions. Organization Science22(5): 1203–1213.
22.
DacinPADacinMTMatearM (2010) Social entrepreneurship: why we don’t need a new theory and how we move forward from here. Academy of Management Perspectives24(3): 37–57.
23.
DailyBFBishopJW (2009) A conceptual model of organizational citizenship behaviour directed toward the environment. Business & Society48(2): 242–256.
24.
DeckopJCirkaCAnderssonL (2003) Doing unto others: the reciprocity of helping behaviour in organizations. Journal of Business Ethics47: 101–113.
25.
De DreuCKWNautaA (2009) Self-interest and other-orientation in organizational behavior: implications for job performance, prosocial behavior, and personal initiative. Journal of Applied Psychology94: 913–926.
26.
DeephouseDLCarterSM (2005) An examination of differences between organization legitimacy and organizational reputation. Journal of Management Studies42(2): 329–360.
27.
DeesGJ (2012) A tale of two cultures: charity, problem solving and the future of social entrepreneurship. Journal of Business Ethics111: 321–334.
28.
DeesJG (1998) Enterprising non-profits. Harvard Business Review76(1): 42–51.
29.
EisenhardtKM (1989) Building theories from case study research. Academy of Management Review14: 532–550.
30.
EmersonJTwerskyF (eds) (1996) New Social Entrepreneurs: The Success, Challenge, and Lessons of Non-Profit Enterprise Creation. San Francisco, CA: The Roberts Foundation.
31.
EmersonRM (1976) Social exchange theory. Annual Review of Sociology2: 335–362.
32.
FelícioJAGonçalvesHMGonçalvesVC (2013) Social value and organizational performance in non-profit social organizations: social entrepreneurship, leadership and socioeconomic context effects. Journal of Business Research66: 2139–2146.
33.
GlaserBStraussA (1967) The Discovery of Grounded Theory: Strategies for Qualitative Research. New York: Aldine.
34.
GlombTMBhaveDPMinerAG. (2011) Doing good, feeling good: examining the role of organizational citizenship behaviours in changing mood. Personnel Psychology61: 191–223.
35.
GuoCPeckLR (2009) Giving and getting: charitable activity and public assistance. Administration & Society41(5): 600–627.
36.
HahnT (2015) Reciprocal Stakeholder behaviour: a motive-based approach to the implementation of normative stakeholder demands. Business & Society54(1): 9–51.
Haski-LeventhalD (2009) Altruism and volunteerism: the perception of altruism in four disciplines and their impact on the study of volunteerism. Journal for the Theory of Social Behaviour39(3): 271–299.
39.
JonesKS (2006) Giving and volunteering as distinct forms of civic engagement: the role of community integration and personal resources in formal helping. Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly35: 249–266.
40.
KinsbergenSTolsmaJRuiterS (2013) Bringing the beneficiary closer: explanation for volunteering time in Dutch Private Development Initiatives. Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly42(1): 59–83.
41.
KolmS (2008) Reciprocity: An Economics of Social Relations. New York: Cambridge University Press.
42.
LamMLL (2009) Beyond credibility of doing business in China: strategies for improving corporate citizenship of foreign multinational enterprises in China. Journal of Business Ethics87(1): 137–146.
43.
LiliusJLWorlineMCDuttonJE. (2011) Understanding compassion capability. Human Relations64(7): 873–899.
44.
LincolnYSGubaEG (1985) Naturalistic Inquiry. Newbury Park, CA: SAGE.
45.
McAllisterDJ (1995) Affect and cognition-based trust as foundations for interpersonal cooperation in organizations. Academy of Management Journal38: 24–59.
46.
MacKenzieSBPodsakoffPMFetterR (1992) Organizational citizenship behaviour and objective productivity as determinants of managerial evaluation of salespersons’ performance. Organizational Behaviour and Human Decision Processes15: 123–150.
47.
MacleanMHarveyCGordonJ (2012) Social innovation, social entrepreneurship and the practice of contemporary entrepreneurial philanthropy. International Small Business Journal31(7): 747–763.
48.
McLoughlinJKaminskiJSodagarB. (2009) A strategic approach to social impact measurement of social enterprises. Social Enterprises Journal5(2): 154–178.
49.
McNeelyBLMeglinoBM (1994) The role of dispositional and situational antecedents in prosocial organizational behaviour: an examination of intended beneficiaries of prosocial behaviour. Journal of Applied Psychology79(6): 836–844.
50.
MaddenLTDuchonDMaddenTM. (2012) Emergent organizational capacity for compassion. Academy of Management Review37(4): 689–708.
51.
MairJBattilanaJCardenasJ (2012) Organizing for society: a typology of social entrepreneuring models. Journal of Business Ethics111: 353–373.
52.
ManatschalAFreitagM (2014) Reciprocity and volunteering. Rationality and Society26(2): 208–235.
53.
MilesMBHubermanAM (1994) Qualitative Data Analysis: An Expanded Source Book. 2nd ed.Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.
54.
MillerTLGrimesMGMcMullenJS. (2012) Venturing for others with heart and head: how compassion encourages social entrepreneurship. Academy of Management Review37(4): 616–640.
55.
MolmLD (2010) The structure of reciprocity. Social Psychology Quarterly73(2): 119–131.
56.
MolmLDColletJLSchaeferDR (2007) Building solidarity through generalized exchange: a theory of reciprocity. American Journal of Sociology113(1): 205–242.
57.
MossTWLumpkinGTShortJC (2008) The dependent variable of social entrepreneurship research. Frontiers of Entrepreneurship Research28(3): 1–14.
58.
OrganDWPodsakoffPMMacKenzieSB (2006) Organizational Citizenship Behaviour: Its Nature, Antecedents and Consequences. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.
59.
PearceJLGregersonHB (1991) Task interdependence and extra-role behaviour: a test of the mediating effects of felt responsibility. Journal of Applied Psychology76: 838–844.
60.
PhilippeDDurandR (2011) The impact of norm-conforming behaviors on firm reputation. Strategic Management Journal32: 969–993.
61.
PodsakoffNPWhitingSWPodsakoffPM. (2009) Individual and organizational-level consequences of organizational citizenship behaviors: a meta-analysis. Journal of Applied Psychology94: 122–141.
62.
PrabhuJStewartDW (2001) Signaling strategies in competitive interaction: building reputation and hiding the truth. Journal of Marketing Research38: 62–72.
63.
RaubWWeesieJ (1990) Reputation and efficiency in social interactions: an example of network effects. American Journal of Sociology96: 626–654.
64.
RindovaVPWilliamsonIOPetkovaAP. (2005) Being good or being known: examination of the dimensions, antecedents and consequences of organizational reputation. Academy of Management Journal48(6): 1033–1049.
65.
RobertsPWDowlingGR (2002) Corporate reputation and sustained financial superior performance. Strategic Management Journal23: 1077–1093.
66.
RynesSLBartunekJMDuttonJE. (2012) Care and compassion through an organizational lens: opening up new possibilities. Academy of Management Review37(4): 503–523.
67.
SargeantAWoodliffeL (2005) The antecedents of donor commitment to voluntary organizations. Nonprofit Management and Leadership16(1): 61–78.
68.
ShapiroC (1983) Premiums for high quality products as returns to reputations. Quarterly Journal of Economics98: 659–680.
69.
ShawEGordonJHarveyC. (2013) Exploring contemporary entrepreneurial philanthropy. International Small Business Journal31(5): 580–599.
70.
ShortCJMossTWLumpkinGT (2009) Research in social entrepreneurship: past contributions and future opportunities. Strategic Entrepreneurship Journal3: 161–194.
71.
SimpsonBWillerR (2008) Altruism and indirect reciprocity: the interaction of person and situation in prosocial behaviour. Social Psychology Quarterly71(1): 37–52.
72.
SonnentagSGrantAM (2012) Doing good at work feels good at home, but not right away: when and why perceived prosocial impact predicts positive affect. Personnel Psychology65: 495–530.
73.
SpitzmullerMVan DyneL (2013) Proactive and reactive helping: contrasting the positive consequences of different forms of helping. Journal of Organizational Behaviour34: 560–580.
74.
StirratRLHenkelH (1997) The developmental gift: the problem of reciprocity in the NGO world. The ANNALS of the American Academy of Political and Social Science554: 66–80.
75.
StoneMM (2009) Exploring the effect of collaborations on member organizations: Washington Country’s welfare-to-work partnership. Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly29: 98–119.
76.
StraussALCorbinJM (1998) Basics of Qualitative Research: Techniques and Procedures for Developing Grounded Theory. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.
77.
SuchmanMC (1995) Managing legitimacy: strategic and institutional approaches. Academy of Management Review20(2): 571–610.
78.
Tam ChoWK (2002) Tapping motives and dynamics behind campaign contributions: insights From the Asian American case. American Politics Research30: 347–383.
79.
ThomasJPWorrallT (2002) Giving, quasi-credit and reciprocity. Rationality and Society14(3): 308–352.
80.
United Republic of Tanzania (URT) (2011) The Economic Survey, 2011. DSM. Tanzania: Kiuta Publishers.
81.
VecinaMLFernandoC (2013) Volunteering and well-being: is pleasure-based rather than pressure-based prosocial motivation that which is related to positive effects?Journal of Applied Social Psychology43: 870–878.
82.
WalkerMKentA (2013) The role of credibility and social consciousness in the corporate philanthropy-consumer behaviour relationship. Journal of Business Ethics116(2): 341–353.
83.
WeerawardenaJMortGS (2006) Investigating social entrepreneurship: a multidimensional model. Journal of World Business41(1): 21–35.
84.
WeipkingPVan LeeuwenMHD (2013) Picturing generosity: explaining the success of National Campaigns in the Netherlands. Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly42(2): 262–284.
85.
YinRK (2003) Case Study Research: Design and Methods. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.
86.
ZimmermanMAZeitzGA (2002) Beyond survival: achieving new venture growth by building legitimacy. Academy of Management Review27(3): 414–431.
