This study explores how employees in hybrid organizations navigate institutional contradictions in the context of India’s evolving energy sector. Drawing on a qualitative case study of VTPL, a public–private hybrid firm, we examine how non-managerial and contractual employees experience and respond to tensions arising from conflicting public and private logics. Framing the case study as a process investigation, we identify four coping strategies: pragmatic role-switching, symbolic compliance, contractual worker resilience and legitimacy shielding. These strategies reflect a dynamic process of sensemaking and adaptation, moving beyond static models of conflicting logics in hybrid organizations. Our findings contribute to research by demonstrating how employees actively construct hybrid work identities and shape responses from the bottom up. The study offers insights into how hybrid organizations can foster adaptation and flexibility to sustain performance in complex environments.
AlbertiF. G., & Varon GarridoM. A. (2017). Can profit and sustainability goals co-exist? New business models for hybrid firms. Journal of Business Strategy, 38(1), 3–13.
2.
AlexiusS., & FurustenS. (2020). Enabling sustainable transformation: Hybrid organizations in early phases of path generation. Journal of Business Ethics, 165, 547–563.
3.
AlvessonM., & SandbergJ. (2011). Generating research questions through problematization. The Academy of Management Review, 36(2), 247–271.
4.
AmersonR. (2011). Making a case for the case study method. The Journal of Nursing Education, 50(8), 427–428.
5.
ArslanB., VasudevaG., & HirschE. B. (2024). Public–private and private–private collaboration as pathways for socially beneficial innovation: Evidence from antimicrobial drug-development tasks. AMJ, 67, 554–582.
6.
AwasthyR., & GuptaR. K. (2021). Unravelling the layers of Indian culture and worldview: An exploratory study. International Journal of Indian Culture and Business Management, 22(1), 137–166.
7.
BattilanaJ., BesharovM. L., & MitzinneckB. C. (2017). On hybrids and hybrids 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 Publications.
8.
BattilanaJ., & DoradoS. (2010). Building sustainable hybrid organizations: The case of commercial microfinance organizations. The Academy of Management Journal, 53(6), 1419–1440.
9.
BattilanaJ., & LeeM. (2014). Advancing research on hybrid organizing: Insights from the study of social enterprises. Academy of Management Annals, 8, 397–441.
10.
BattilanaJ., LeeM., WalkerJ., & DorseyC. (2012). In search of the hybrid ideal. Stanford Social Innovation Review, 10(3), 50–55.
11.
BattilanaJ., SengulM., PacheA.-C., & ModelJ. (2015). Harnessing productive tensions in hybrid organizations: The case of work integration social enterprises. The Academy of Management Journal, 58(6), 1658–1685.
12.
BattilanaJ., YenJ., FerrerasI., & RamarajanL. (2022). Democratizing work: Redistributing power in organizations for a democratic and sustainable future. Organization Theory, 3(1), 1–21.
13.
BesharovM. L. (2014). The relational ecology of identification: How organizational identification emerges when individuals hold divergent values. AMJ, 57, 1485–1512.
14.
BesharovM. L., & SmithW. K. (2014). Multiple institutional logics in organizations: Explaining their varied nature and implications. AMR, 39(3), 364–381.
15.
BraunV., & ClarkeV. (2006). Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qualitative Research in Psychology, 3(2), 77–101.
16.
BraunV., & ClarkeV. (2019). Reflecting on reflexive thematic analysis. Qualitative Research in Sport, Exercise and Health, 11(4), 589–597.
17.
CalciolariS., PrenestiniA., & LegaF. (2017). An organizational culture for all seasons? How cultural type dominance and strength influence different performance goals. Public Management Review, 20(9), 1400–1422.
18.
CloutierC., & LangleyA. (2020). What makes a process theoretical contribution?Organization Theory, 1(1), 1–32.
19.
DhillonD. K., & KaurK. (2024). A nexus between sustainability, energy utilisation and economic growth at aggregate and disaggregate level: A case of India. International Journal of Energy Sector Management, 18(3), 433–456.
20.
DorobantuS., GruberM., RavasiD., & WellmanN. (2024). The AMJ management research canvas: A tool for conducting and reporting empirical research. Academy of Management Journal, 67(5), 1163–1174.
21.
EbrahimA., BattilanaJ., & MairJ. (2014). The governance of social enterprises: Mission drift and accountability challenges in hybrid organizations. Research in Organizational Behavior, 34(2014), 81–100.
22.
EisenhardtK. M. (1989). Building theories from case study research. Academy of Management Review, 14(4), 532–550.
23.
EisenhardtK. M. (2021). What is the Eisenhardt method, really?Strategic Organization, 19(1), 147–160.
24.
EisenhardtK. M., & GraebnerM. E. (2007). Theory building from cases: Opportunities and challenges. Academy of Management Journal, 50(1), 25–32.
25.
FarquharJ., MichelsN., & RobsonJ. (2020). Triangulation in industrial qualitative case study research: Widening the scope. Industrial Marketing Management, 87, 160–170.
26.
FuschP., FuschG. E., & NessL. R.2018. Denzin’s paradigm shift: Revisiting triangulation in qualitative research. Journal of Sustainable Social Change, 10(1), 2.
27.
GehmanJ., GlaserV. L., EisenhardtK. M., GioiaD. A., LangleyA., & CorleyK. G. (2018). Finding theory–method fit: A comparison of three qualitative approaches to theory building. Journal of Management Inquiry, 27, 284–300.
GreenwoodR., RaynardM., KodeihF., MicelottaE. R., & LounsburyM. (2011). Institutional complexity and organizational responses. Academy of Management Annals, 5(1), 317–371.
30.
GretschelP., RamugondoE. L., & GalvaanR. (2023). Linking paradigms and methodologies in a qualitative case study focused on exploring the operation of power in human actions during the design of a new occupational therapy intervention. International Journal of Qualitative Methods, 22, 1–8.
31.
GuestG., BunceA., & JohnsonL. (2006). How many interviews are enough? An experiment with data saturation and variability. Field Methods, 18(1), 59–82.
32.
GulbrandsenM., ThuneT. M., BorlaugS. B., & HansonJ. (2015). Emerging hybrid practices in public–private research centers. Public Administration, 93, 363–379.
33.
GuptaR. K., & AwasthyR. (2015). Qualitative research in management: Methods and experiences. Sage Publications.
34.
HaighN., & HoffmanA. J. (2012). Hybrid organizations: The next chapter of sustainable business. Organizational Dynamics, 41(2), 126–134.
35.
HalaiA. (2006). Ethics in qualitative research: Issues and challenges (EdQual Working Paper No. 4, University of Sussex).
36.
HeresL., & LasthuizenK. (2012). What’s the difference? Ethical leadership in public, hybrid, and private sector organizations. Journal of Change Management, 12(4), 441–466.
37.
HestadD., EbersM., & LjungbergJ. (2020). Toward a conceptual framework for hybrid organizations: A systematic review of the literature. Scandinavian Journal of Management, 36(4), 101119.
38.
HofstedeG. (2001). Culture’s consequences: Comparing values, behaviors, institutions, and organisations across nations. Sage.
39.
JarzabkowskiP., SmetsM., BednarekR., BurkeG. T., & SpeeP. (2013). Institutional ambidexterity: Leveraging institutional complexity in practice. In LounsburyM. & BoxenbaumE. (Eds), Institutional logics in action (Vol. 39A, pp. 37–61). Emerald Group Publishing Limited.
40.
JayJ. (2013). Navigating paradox as a mechanism of change and innovation in hybrid organizations. AMJ, 56, 137–159.
41.
JemineG., & BlaiseM. (2024). Orchestrating public reforms through joint organizations: The case of a new remuneration policy in Belgian healthcare. Public Management Review, 26(6), 1–20.
42.
KanonM., & AnderssonT. (2023). Working on connective professionalism: What cross-sector strategists in Swedish public organizations do to develop connectivity in addressing ‘wicked’ policy problems. Journal of Professions and Organization, 10(1), 50–64.
43.
KarréP. M. (2021). Value creation by two types of hybrid organizations: Opportunities and risks. In VakkuriJ. & JohansonJ.-E. (Eds), Hybrid governance, organisations and society. Value creation perspectives (pp. 202–218). Routledge.
44.
LægreidP., & RykkjaL. H. (2021). Accountability and inter-organizational collaboration within the state. Public Management Review, 24(5), 683–703.
45.
LangleyA. (2009). Studying processes in and around organizations. In BuchananD. A. & BrymanA. (Eds), The Sage handbook of organizational research methods (pp. 409–429). Sage Publications.
46.
LangleyA., SmallmanC., TsoukasH., & Van de VenA. H. (2013). Process studies of change in organization and management: Unveiling temporality, activity, and flow. Academy of Management Journal, 56(1), 1–13.
47.
LewisM. W. (2000). Exploring paradox: Toward a more comprehensive guide. Academy of Management Review, 25, 760–776.
48.
LewisM. W., & SmithW. K. (2014). Paradox as a metatheoretical perspective: Sharpening the focus and widening the scope. The Journal of Applied Behavioral Science, 50(2), 127–149.
49.
LincolnY. S., & GubaE. G. (1985). Naturalistic inquiry. Sage Publications.
50.
LokJ. (2010). Institutional logics as identity projects. Academy of Management Journal, 53(6), 1305–1335.
McPhersonC. M., & SauderM. (2013). Logics in action: Managing institutional complexity in a drug court. Administrative Science Quarterly, 58(2), 165–196.
53.
MénardC. (2022). Hybrids: Where are we?Journal of Institutional Economics, 18(2), 297–312.
54.
MoriokaS. N., BolisI., EvansS., & CarvalhoM. M. (2017). Transforming sustainability challenges into competitive advantage: Multiple case studies kaleidoscope converging into sustainable business models. Journal of Cleaner Production, 167, 723–738.
55.
NowellL. S., NorrisJ. M., WhiteD. E., & MoulesN. J. (2017). Thematic analysis: Striving to meet the trustworthiness criteria. International Journal of Qualitative Methods, 16(1), 1–13.
56.
NyimbiliF., & NyimbiliL.2024. Types of purposive sampling techniques with their examples and application in qualitative research studies. British Journal of Multidisciplinary and Advanced Studies, 5(1), 90–99.
57.
PacheA.-C., & SantosF. (2013). Inside the hybrid organization: Selective coupling as a response to competing institutional logics. Academy of Management Journal, 56(4), 972–1001.
58.
PandaA., & GuptaR. K. (2004). Mapping cultural diversity within India: A meta-analysis of some recent studies. Global Business Review, 5(1), 27–49.
59.
PattonM. Q. (2002). Qualitative research and evaluation methods (3rd ed.). Sage Publications.
60.
PutnamL. L., FairhurstG. T., & BanghartS. (2016). Contradictions, dialectics, and paradoxes in organizations: A constitutive approach. Academy of Management Annals, 10, 65–171.
61.
RayP. K. (2020). Transforming public sector undertakings in India: Management innovations and strategies. Springer.
62.
ReayT., GoodrickE., WaldorffS. B., & CasebeerA. (2017). Getting leopards to change their spots: Co creating a new professional role identity. Academy of Management Journal, 60(3), 1043–1070.
63.
ReayT., & HiningsC. R. (2009). Managing the rivalry of competing institutional logics. Organization Studies, 30(6), 629–652.
64.
SharviniS. R., NoorZ. Z., ChongC. S., StringerL. C., & YusufR. O. (2018). Energy consumption trends and their linkages with renewable energy policies in East and Southeast Asian countries: Challenges and opportunities. Sustainable Environment Research, 28(6), 257–266.
65.
SinhaJ. B. P., & KanungoR. N. (1997). Context sensitivity and balancing in Indian organizational behaviour. International Journal of Psychology, 32(2), 93–105.
66.
SkelcherC., & SmithS. R. (2015). Theorizing hybridity: Institutional logics, complex organizations, and actor identities: The case of non-profits. Public Administration, 93(3), 433–448.
67.
SmetsM., MorrisT., & GreenwoodR. (2012). From practice to field: A multilevel model of practice-driven institutional change. The Academy of Management Journal, 55(4), 877–904.
68.
SmithW. K., & BesharovM. L. (2019). Bowing before dual gods: How structured flexibility sustains organizational hybridity. Administrative Science Quarterly, 64(1), 1–44.
69.
SmithW. K., & LewisM. W. (2011). Toward a theory of paradox: A dynamic equilibrium model of organizing. Academy of Management Review, 36, 381–403.
70.
StakeR. E. (2005). Qualitative case studies. In DenzinN. K. & LincolnY. S. (Eds), The Sage handbook of qualitative research (pp. 443–466). Sage Publications.
71.
StraussA., & CorbinJ. (1998). Basics of qualitative research: Techniques and procedures for developing grounded theory (2nd ed.). Sage Publications.
72.
ThorntonP., & OcasioW. (2008). Institutional logics. In GreenwoodR., OliverC., & SuddabyR. (Eds), The Sage handbook of organizational institutionalism (pp. 99–128). Sage Publications.
73.
TorfingJ., ChristensenS. L., & SorensenE. (2024). Coping with conflicts, dilemmas, and paradoxes through constructive hybridization. In RoiselandA., SorensenE., & TorfingJ. (Eds), Advancing co-creation in local governance: The role of coping strategies and constructive hybridization. Edward Elgar Publishing.
74.
TrivediA., TyagiA., ChichiO., KumarS., & TrivediV. (2024). Substation technology selection for environment efficient power distribution system in India: An integrated AHP-TOPSIS-based approach. International Journal of Energy Sector Management, 18(3), 617–638.
75.
VassalloJ. P., PrabhuJ. C., BanerjeeS., & VoolaR. (2019). The role of hybrid organizations in scaling social innovations in bottom-of-the-pyramid markets: Insights from microfinance in India. Journal of Product Innovation Management, 36, 744–763.
76.
WalshamG. (2006). Doing interpretive research. European Journal of Information Systems, 15(3), 320–330.
77.
WeickK. E. (1995). Sensemaking in Organizations. Sage Publications.
78.
YinR. K. (2018). Case study research and applications: Design and methods (6th ed.). Sage Publications.
