Advantages of Hybrid Organising in Social Entrepreneurship: Evidence from Norway

Full text

International Review of Entrepreneurship, Article #1570, 15(4): pp. 519-536.
© 2017, Senate Hall Academic Publishing.
Advantages of Hybrid Organising in
Social Entrepreneurship: Evidence from
Norway
Paulami Mitra1
Louvain Research Institute in Management and Organizations, Université Catholique de Louvain,
Belgium, and IÉSEG School of Management, France
Janice Byrne
IÉSEG School of Management, France
Frank Janssen
Louvain Research Institute in Management and Organizations, Université Catholique de Louvain,
Belgium
Abstract: Hybrid organising within the context of social entrepreneurship is on the rise. At the same
time, social entrepreneurial ventures that adopt hybrid organising are often criticized. The literature
on hybridity points to particular challenges for social entrepreneurial ventures such as conflicting
institutional logics and tensions related to their dual identity and/or mission drift. Drawing on the
literature on hybrid organising and social entrepreneurship, in this paper we take a contrary stance
and explore the positive aspects of hybrid organising in social entrepreneurship. We ask the
following research question: “What are the advantages of hybrid organising in social
entrepreneurship, if any”? Using a qualitative approach, this study theorizes two main advantages
of hybrid organising: sustainability of the organisational model and efficiency of the organisational
model. The article also discusses the implications for theory and practice.
Keywords: social entrepreneurship, hybrid organising, advantages of hybridity.
Funding: This research received a grant from IESEG School of Management's Vision Committee
for the data collection process.
1. Corresponding Author: IÉSEG School of Management, 3 Rue de la Digue, 59000 Lille, France,
Louvain Research Institute in Management and Organizations, Université Catholique de
Louvain, Place de l'Université 1, 1348 Louvain-la-Neuve, Belgium. Phone: +33 (0)320 545
892. Email: p.mitra@ieseg.fr
Acknowledgements: We wish to thank ECFED- 2016 conference members for their feedback
on an earlier version of this paper and IESEG School of Management's Vision Committee for
funding our data collection process.
© 2017, Senate Hall Academic Publishing. All Rights Reserved

520 Advantages of Hybrid Organising in Social Entrepreneurship
1. Introduction
Hybrid organising in social entrepreneurship leads to value creation which is both
social and economic in nature (Battilana et al., 2012; Doherty et al., 2014; Santos
et al., 2015; Wilson and Post, 2013). Scholars have noticed that some social
entrepreneurs intentionally pursue hybrid organising right from the inception of
their social entrepreneurial venture (Doherty et al., 2014; Chell, 2007). Some
other empirical studies found that some social ventures were circumstantially led
to adopt hybrid organising, instigating commercial fund generating activities to
support their social objectives (Tracey and Jarvis, 2007; Tracey et al., 2011).
Decreased funding, subsidies and grants received from the state, public bodies
and private institutions such as foundations and commercial businesses help to
drive this phenomenon (Spitzeck and Janssen, 2010; Defourney and Nyssens,
2010). Others explain how social entrepreneurs face more difficulty in acquiring
investors in comparison to commercial entrepreneurs (Lumpkin et al., 2013).
Some scholars claim that due to the hybrid nature of social entrepreneurship,
such ventures face specific challenges related to their dual identity (Battilana and
Lee, 2014), conflicting institutional logics (Pache and Santos, 2013a, 2013b),
higher agency costs (Tracey and Jarvis, 2007) and mission drift (Battilana and
Dorado, 2010; Foster and Bradach, 2005; Kent and Dacin, 2013). Battilana and
Lee (2014, p. 424) highlight that past research has often questioned the
sustainability of hybrid organising due to the above mentioned disadvantages and
tensions. Yet, there has been a constant rise in the adoption of a hybrid form of
organisational structure in the field of social entrepreneurship (Mair and Marti,
2006; Santos, 2012). Additionally, scholars have noted that hybrid organising in
the context of social entrepreneurship has been under-researched (Wilson and
Post, 2013).
Following the above discussion, this empirical study focusses on this above
mentioned gap in the literature and addresses the following research question:
“What are the advantages of hybrid organising in social entrepreneurship, if
any”? Our paper draws from the literature on hybrid organising and social
entrepreneurship to understand this recent change epitomized by the adoption of
hybrid organising by social entrepreneurial ventures. Our level of analysis rests at
the firm level. A case-study based approach has been utilized to explore the above
research question. Our data analysis and findings through empirical evidences
gathered from Norway suggest that there are two main advantages of hybrid
organising in the social context. The study contributes by generating theoretical
and practical implications of hybrid organising. Such implications could be of
interest to academics, policy makers, government institutions and prospective
social entrepreneurs.
Wilson and Post (2013) identified that the impacts of hybridity have not
received sufficient research focus in the context of social entrepreneurship. The
present study participates in this current debate at the intersection of hybrid

International Review of Entrepreneurship, Article #1570, 15(4) 521
organising and social entrepreneurship. The paper is organised as follows.
Section 2 provides a literature review on hybrid organising in social
entrepreneurship. Section 3 discusses the research methodology and data
collection strategy. Section 4 provides a brief background of the organisations
chosen as cases in this study. Section 5 represents the analysis and findings.
Section 6 discusses the contribution, limitation and proposes an idea for future
research. Finally section 7 draws the conclusion.
2. Theoretical Perspective
A review of the literature on social entrepreneurship suggests that an
overwhelming number of meanings and definitions of social entrepreneurship
have been proposed by several studies. Similarly, over the last few decades,
scholars have increasingly discussed and debated the concept of hybrid forms of
organising in different industries and sectors. The next section shall highlight the
literature on the intersection between hybrid organising and social
entrepreneurship.
2.1. Social Entrepreneurship
Several definitions of social entrepreneurship have been complied by Zahra et al.
(2009, p. 521), Dacin et al. (2010, p. 39) and Bacq and Janssen (2011, p. 399) that
have appeared over the years. In order to navigate the “essentially contested”
space of social entrepreneurship (Choi and Majumdar, 2013) and its unclear
boundaries and definitions (Hoogendoorn et al., 2010), we first aim to reduce this
conceptual ambiguity by clarifying the definition of social entrepreneurship that
we use throughout this study. Our study agrees with the works of those authors
who identify social value creation as the primary goal of social entrepreneurial
ventures. Choi and Majumdar (2013, p. 372) assert that in order to define and
understand social entrepreneurship, the criterion of social value creation could be
accompanied by four other criteria, namely, the social entrepreneur, the social
enterprise organisation, market orientation and social innovation. Often, when
combined, these five criteria hold as a qualifying condition for an organisation to
be viewed as a social entrepreneurial venture. Dacin et al. (2010) noted that social
entrepreneurship has also been viewed as the execution of organised and
business-like approaches in order to address social issues. Their work (Dacin et
al., 2010; Zahra and Wright, 2016) also discussed that the execution of CSR
(corporate social responsibility) and BOP (bottom of the pyramid) strategies by
conventional entrepreneurs have also been defined as social entrepreneurship in
some cases. Brenneke and Spitzeck (2010) categorize such social activities by
individuals working in big organisations under social intrapreneurship. Our

522 Advantages of Hybrid Organising in Social Entrepreneurship
definition of social entrepreneurship excludes those conventional commercial
organisations that claim themselves to be social entrepreneurial ventures by
executing a few CSR strategies. In this paper, we view social entrepreneurship “as
a process of identifying, evaluating and exploiting opportunities aiming at social
value creation by means of commercial, market-based activities and of the use of
a wide range of resources” (Bacq and Janssen, 2011, p. 376). This definition of
combining social goals with economic goals leads to our interest in understanding
hybrid organising, as described in the following sections.
2.2. Hybrid Organising
Novel and early research on hybrid organising and hybrid forms of organisational
structures was undertaken by Williamson (1975, 1991). These investigations
were conducted much before hybridity in social entrepreneurship emerged as an
important topic of reflection in academic literature. Powell (1987) explained that
hybrid forms of organising represent a strategic fit with new demands of the
market and the changing economic landscape. These scholars (Powell, 1987;
Williamson, 1975, 1991) empirically as well as theoretically explained that when
two or more logics combine in hybrid organisations, the strength of one logic
overcomes the weakness of the other. Thus, Bradach and Eccles (1989)
highlighted that hybrid organising, in many other contexts such as public-private
services, partnerships and alliances, is often highly effective. More recently, Jay
(2013) noted that hybrid organising combines multiple institutional logics that
create a paradoxical outcome of innovative solutions to complex problems.
Powell’s (1987), Bradach and Eccles’ (1989) and Williamson’s (1975, 1991)
explanations of hybrid organising ruminated over partnerships and alliances in
advertising, publishing, construction, and craft-based industries. The discussions
generally did not extend to social organisations as they were rather charities that
ran on personal funds, grants, donations and subsidies during that time. Hence we
now consider hybrid organising within the particular context of social
entrepreneurship.
2.3. Hybrid Organising and Social Entrepreneurship
Today, the concept of combining the logics, paradigms, structures and value
systems of a social goal with an economic goal has given rise to scholarly
discussions that have identified hybrid organising as a fundamental characteristic
of social entrepreneurship (Battilana et al., 2012; Dees and Anderson, 2003;
Doherty et al., 2014; Santos et al., 2015; Wilson and Post, 2013). Social
entrepreneurial ventures have evolved as a phenomenon that have integrated
traditionally separate paradigms and activities related to for-profit organisations

International Review of Entrepreneurship, Article #1570, 15(4) 523
with non-profit organisations (Battilana et al., 2012). According to Wilson and
Post (2013), this concept gives way to our understanding of hybrid organising in
social entrepreneurship as the “activities, structures, processes and meanings by
which organizations make sense of and combine aspects of multiple
organizational forms” (Battilana and Lee, 2014, p. 397). Thus, Hockerts (2015)
explains hybrid organising as a “conscious cross-breeding” of organisational
logics.
In the table on the next page, we map out the above discussion in a matrix
form (Table 1).
Table 1: Matrix representing traditional organisations and hybrid social organisations
Block A represents non-hybrid traditional model of social organisations, such
as NGOs and charities whose primary objective is to pursue a social goal. Block
C represents non-hybrid traditional model of commercial organisations, such as
private businesses and commercial entrepreneurs whose primary objective is to
pursue an economic goal. Block B represents hybrid commercial organisations,
such as businesses or public-private organisations that have a primary economic
goal and a secondary goal of catering to CSR objectives and BOP market (Dacin
et al., 2010; Zahra and Wright, 2016) strategies. Finally, block D, represents
hybrid social organisations, such as social entrepreneurial ventures that combine
their primary mission of pursuing a social goal with an objective of generating
revenue. In this paper, our focus is on firms positioned in Block D.
Hybrid organising has received several criticisms in the field of social
entrepreneurship. On one hand, scholars argue that organisations that harness a
social mission with commercial activities constantly face conflicting demands of
competing institutional logics (Pache and Santos, 2013a, 2013b). The choice of
the organisational form of such hybrid entities (i.e. social entrepreneurial
ventures) often depends on the existence of ambiguity in the institutional

524 Advantages of Hybrid Organising in Social Entrepreneurship
environment (Townsend and Hart, 2008). Hockerts’ (2010) and Khavul et al.’s
(2013) studies pointed to how certain sectoral and macro environmental forces
create tensions between social ventures’ logic of conducting philanthropic
activities and market-based activities. Such logic pluralities evoke tensions that
trigger a drift from the organisation’s primary social mission (Battilana and
Dorado, 2010).
Challenges also emerge due to the divergent dimensions of accountability
that social entrepreneurs face from different stakeholder interests (Ebrahim et al.,
2014). These divergent stakeholder interests create conflicting goals and obstruct
the execution of the social mission of hybrid organisations. Smith et al. (2013)
participated in this discussion by identifying different types of tensions, namely,
tensions related to performance, organizing, belonging and learning, which
emerged within social businesses. Kent and Dacin (2013) also focussed on
tensions and conflicts among social businesses, focusing on the microfinance
context. They suggested that such threats were caused due to permeability. They
explained that permeability in hybrid organising allowed some ambiguous and
loosely coupled logics to be easily influenced by other stronger logics. This
creates an imbalance between the social goal and the economic goal in hybrid
organisations. Similarly, Zhao and Lounsbury’s (2016) empirical work
highlighted that the social logic mitigated the chances of acquiring commercial
funding from financial institutions for a particular type of social entrepreneurial
venture, such as microfinance organisations.
As illustrated in the above examples, past studies in the social
entrepreneurship literature primarily focussed on the challenges associated with
hybrid organising. Such challenges increase further for youth-led social
entrepreneurial ventures that work towards a double bottom line goal (Clarke and
Dougherty, 2010). Sufficient research attention has not been given to our
understanding of whether hybrid organising in the context of social
entrepreneurship generates any positive impact. Our study investigates this
current gap in the literature. Through a qualitative case study based approach, our
study attempts to investigate if there are any benefits of hybrid organising in the
context of social entrepreneurship.
3. Research Methodology
To answer our research question related to advantages of hybridity in social
entrepreneurship, an abductive research approach has been utilized. We chose an
abductive approach for two specific reasons. First, such an approach allows the
researcher to conduct an interplay of empirical evidences and conceptual work,
thus respecting the primacy of both (Van Maanen et al., 2007). Given that our
research question emerged as we were engaging in fieldwork for another
academic endeavour, this approach seemed an appropriate choice. Second, it is

International Review of Entrepreneurship, Article #1570, 15(4) 525
also referred as a method that creates surprises and mystery that deviates from
established theory and creates new theory, thus leading to ‘rethink rules’
(Alvesson and Kärreman, 2007; Pierce, 1978). Given the novelty of our counter
intuitive stance (‘what’s going right ?’ while all extant research points to ‘what’s
going wrong?’), we believe this ‘deviant’ approach was fitting.
In order to conduct an abductive analysis, we followed the steps prescribed
by Alvesson and Kärreman, 2007 (p. 1269) in which, first, an “established
interpretive rule (theory)” (i.e. challenges of hybrid organising in social
entrepreneurship) is studied. Second, a surprising phenomenon (i.e. rise of hybrid
organising in social entrepreneurship) is observed despite the established theory.
The third step prescribes the articulation of the problem in order to resolve the
surprise and establish a reason for novel rethinking and retesting of existing
knowledge. However, Alvesson and Kärreman, (2007) warn that such an
approach invites researchers to “actively try to reach empirical material” and thus
may create problematization. Additionally, Weick (1999) advised how different
research strategies involve trade-offs between accuracy, simplicity and
generality. Indeed, in this study, we adhere to Langley (1999) and Pentland’s
(1999) arguments that with such qualitative techniques, “accuracy” wins over
“simplicity and generality” rendering the findings high in accuracy and closely
fitted to the original data. We believe that using abductive methods is a highly
fruitful (and slightly risky) research strategy which can result in novel
understandings (Alvesson and Kärreman, 2007). Under such constraints, a small
number of cases convey empirical richness (Eisenhardt and Graebner, 2007).
Our case studies lead us towards rethinking established theory by looking at
evidences where the established theory might refuse to hold. Given their richness
and in-depth focus, we believe that a case study method is appropriate to explore
the dynamics of hybridity. In line with the above explanation, an abductive
exploratory approach advances our knowledge through “rich, empirical
descriptions” (Eisenhardt and Graebner, 2007) to establish different views of a
phenomenon across the case studies. We studied two cases to determine if the
emergent topic is idiosyncratic to a single case setting or is applicable over more
than one context (Eisenhardt, 1989; Eisenhardt and Graebner, 2007).
3.1. Research Strategy: Selection and Design
Today, business schools have the onus of training responsible future leaders and
managers, many of whom are expected to provide solutions to social and
environmental problems by taking up the role of a social entrepreneur (Glunk and
Van Gils, 2010; Tracey and Phillips, 2007). In the Spring of 2015, a meeting was
scheduled between two Norwegian social enterprises and a French business
school. The meeting was aimed at exchanging information and best practices. The
Norwegian based organisations invited one of the authors of this study to visit

526 Advantages of Hybrid Organising in Social Entrepreneurship
their premises for a field visit. Further exchanges through in-depth interviews,
company reports and presentations followed. One of the organisations that was
chosen for this study (Case#2) was involved in training and employing
marginalized individuals, namely autistic adults, for software testing. The other
organisation (Case#1) was a fifth generation family business that contributed to
social development projects through seed funds, grants and exposure through its
own business network. Case#1 was also involved with the activities of all its
portfolio of social businesses by serving as a chair to those organisations. We
chose this organisation as we believed it would be interesting to capture different
perspectives on the challenges and advantages of pursuing a combination of both
social goals and economic objectives. Moreover, the two members of Case#1 who
were interviewed had prior experience with different successful as well as
unsuccessful social ventures.
The founders, as well as one key stakeholder were interviewed from both
organizations. For Case#1, the director of the social entrepreneurship department
and for Case#2, the chairman and shareholder of the company were interviewed.
Following an interview protocol, the respondents were asked questions on their
organisations’ mission, vision and objectives. The discussion also revolved
around the social and economic activities of their social entrepreneurial venture.
All these interviews and conversations helped in gaining information about the
history and background of the organisations, their organisational structures, the
challenges that they faced and their future strategies.
The discussion and the questions varied slightly on a case-to-case basis. The
interviews lasted between 30 minutes to 150 minutes. All the interviews were
recorded through hand-written notes. In short, primary data was collected through
four in-depth interviews, observation during field visits and the resulting field-
notes. Additionally, secondary data was collected from company websites,
power-point slides, press releases, company documents and videos uploaded on
the internet. This supplementary data helped us to ‘triangulate’, where we
intentionally double checked our data by using multiple sources and modes of
evidence (Miles and Huberman, 1994).
4. Case Descriptions
This section outlines the cases that are used in this qualitative study.
Case#1: FERD Social Entrepreneurs
FERD is a family owned financial investment company with its history dating
back to 1849. The company is headquartered in Lysaker (a suburb of Oslo) and
operates only in Norway. In 2008, Johan H. Andressen Jr., who is the fifth
generation owner and chairman of the company, launched the social
entrepreneurship department and named it FERD Social Entrepreneurs (or FERD

International Review of Entrepreneurship, Article #1570, 15(4) 527
SE). FERD SE invests in social entrepreneurship projects - providing resources
such as soft loans and grants to social entrepreneurs who share FERD SE’s vision
and values. The company assesses projects that are in their pre-launch phases -
putting them through competitive processes whereby they are measured against a
set of pre-defined criteria some of which are ‘measureable social results’,
potential ‘financial sustainability’, solution impact and ‘scalability’. The social
entrepreneurs’ entrepreneurial ability and motivation is also considered.
If successful, the financial resources that FERD SE contributes to the social
entrepreneurial venture can extend up to a period of three years and sometimes up
to six years. The assessment process continues even after the post-launch stage.
After a period of three to six years, the social entrepreneurial venture is expected
to adopt entrepreneurial means and survive on a self-earned income. FERD SE
also contributes by sharing its expertise in business development, strategic
management and exposure to FERD’s network with its portfolio social
entrepreneurs. Since 2008, the organisation has contributed towards creating
social as well as economic value. Today, some of FERD SE’s social
entrepreneurial ventures have been successful while others have either ceased to
exist or are still struggling to survive.
Case#2: UNICUS AS
UNICUS is an example of a successful social entrepreneurial venture and is an
active member of the FERD Social Entrepreneurs’ alumni portfolio. Lars
Johansson-Kjellerød founded UNICUS in 2009. Headquartered in Lysaker (a
suburb of Oslo) and operating only in Norway, UNICUS’ mission is to enhance
the lives of individuals diagnosed with Asperger’s Syndrome by offering them
employment. Individuals with Asperger’s Syndrome often face difficulties in
communication and social interaction, and suffer from loneliness and depression.
They mostly use the left side of their brain, focusing on logical, analytical and
detail oriented tasks – tasks which are highly compatible with software testing.
UNICUS trains and employs individuals diagnosed with different levels of
autism spectrum disorder. The company acknowledges these individuals as a
“strategic resource” for their organisation and strives to give ‘ordinary jobs’ to
people with autism. UNICUS AS is a market-oriented provider of software
testing and quality assurance services and provides services to organisations such
as Telenor and Statoil. From its third year of inception, the organisation started
generating revenues. Today it is a social entrepreneurial venture that believes in
pursuing a double bottom-line objective by weaving financial into its prime
mission, that is the social mission.
The table in the next page (Table 2) gives an overview of both firms.

528 Advantages of Hybrid Organising in Social Entrepreneurship
5. Analysis and Findings
Our research revealed interesting insights on the main advantages generated from
a hybrid organisation structure within the context of social entrepreneurship.
Following abductive methods, we sought to deconstruct and reconstruct our
knowledge in terms of theory and evidence. In the following section, we give a
voice to actors in the field, and document their vision of the main advantages of
hybrid organising. Two main themes emerged from our cases as to why a double
bottom line logic must be pursued by social entrepreneurs.
Table 2: Summary of Cases
Advantage 1: Sustainability of the organisational model: One of the main
themes that emerged from the cases constantly accentuated how hybridity
allowed a sustainable model for the social entrepreneurs. From the analysis of the
recorded data, transcriptions, hand written notes, press releases and you-tube
videos, the study discovered that it was important for the founders to provide an
impetus for an organisational model that is stable and sustainable. The founders
also emphasized the need for “scalability” by being “sustainable” in the long-
term. They believed that one of the ways to achieve this was by actively
embedding the social mission in the commercial activities of the venture.
Founder of Case#1 explained that without being financially independent in
the long run, the social goals are difficult to achieve solely through aids and
grants. He also mentioned that his experience in the field made him realise that all
social entrepreneurs faced challenges when it came to financing resources and
activities. The direct verbatim from the founder and CEO and the director of
Case#1 are represented below:
Case#1: FERD Social Entrepreneurs Case#2: UNICUS AS
Year founded 2008 2009
Sector Social Development Projects in all sectors Software Testing
Headquarter Lysaker (suburb of Oslo), Norway Lysaker (suburb of Oslo), Norway
No. of employees n/a (extracts HR from other departments
of FERD)
22
Name of founder Johan H. Andresen Lars Johansson-Kjellerød
Nationality of
Founder
Norwegian Swedish
Person Interviewed 1. Johan H. Andresen (Owner and
founder)
2. Katinka Greve Leiner
(Director)
1. Lars Johansson-Kjellerød
(Owner and Founder)
2. Sverre Weisteen
(Shareholder and Chairman
of the Board)

International Review of Entrepreneurship, Article #1570, 15(4) 529
“Basically they (i.e. social entrepreneurial ventures) are like any other start-up
company… the difference is that they have a social goal… but beyond that they
have the same challenges when it comes to growth, recruitment, focus…
services”... “They are driven by creating social results, and manage to organize
the activity around their solution in a way that gives the company long-term
viability”- Founder and CEO of Case#1.
“And they have to be able to make them more, (which is difficult), economically
sustainable business models which is a challenge and there are a lot more social
entrepreneurs out there who will never be able to do that. But we want to find
the ones who pioneer the business model that makes them viable and self-
sustainable because the ultimate target is actually to go from expenditure, from
the government’s side and to create people out there, youngsters who can handle
their lives and bring revenue for the government and for the society”- Director
of Case#1.
The Director of Case#1 informed that she constantly evaluated the social
impact created along with the ventures’ resource stability. At the same time she
evaluated when the social businesses might be financially at risk. The director
explained that without creating a sustainable model that generated self-earned
revenue, the social entrepreneurs ran the risk of bankruptcy. This could ultimately
lead to the abandonment of the social objectives that the organisation aimed to
pursue.
The Founder of Case#2 mentioned similar concerns. He stressed how
financial outcomes were very important for the sustainability of their model. He
explained that he was driven by values and “good karma business” and by
“give(ing) ordinary jobs to people with Asperger Syndrome”. The surplus
generated through commercial activities was used in re-investing in the
organisation for activities such as recruiting and scaling. He explained that the
financial rents helped his company to remain financially stable and sustainable,
but was also a means to reinvest into the sector in which he was operating. In
some occasions, when a surplus was produced, it was donated to the Autism
Society in Norway. Lars (case#2) believed that reinvesting the profit to improve
the lives of autistic people who could not be integrated into the employment
sector was another advantage of his organisational model. He also explained that
his organisation catered to individuals around the Oslo region. However, even
with the surplus, he has financial difficulty and resource constraints to expand in
Norway. The founder also expressed that profit maximization was not their goal,
however, generating income to remain stable and sustainable was one of their
priorities. Hence, our data analysis discovered that the above organisations
believed in accommodating a market oriented activity as they realized that
reliance on donations, grants and philanthropy could risk financial stability in the
long-term.

530 Advantages of Hybrid Organising in Social Entrepreneurship
Advantage 2: Efficiency of the organisational model and the economic
system of the Norwegian state
It was noticed that the organisations emphasised hybrid goals, that is, social as
well as business related goals as they believed that would create an efficient
organisational model. The importance of a hybrid structure in yielding tangible
and intangible returns on social investment was a recurrent finding. According to
all the interviewees, an efficient model is one that is ‘easily scalable’, creates
‘impact’, and could generate capital for reinvestment. Accommodating both
social and business oriented goals within the business model was, thus, very
important for them. For example, one of the shareholders and chairman of the
board of Case#2 explained:
“I was also in contact with some others (i.e. social entrepreneurs) in an
innovational way…and this guy (i.e. founder of Case#2), he got me to look into
this….. they (i.e. other social entrepreneurs) have the very drive, but it is not all
who are thinking business-wise,….”.
The Chairman emphasised that social innovation harnessed with an organised
and business-like approach is important for UNICUS to pursue. This eventually
would result in organisational efficiency.
The founder and CEO of Case#1 expressed that even in a welfare-oriented
state like Norway, the government often reacts slowly to various social and
environmental demands and challenges. At FERD, they explain that:
“Historically, we in Norway are accustomed to organizations and companies
whose social goals are financed through grants and gifts, largely from public or
private foundations. The challenge with this is that these companies depend on
their good donors, both private and public, in order to maintain or increase
activity. Compared with the needs of the "social market" it is easy to see that the
gifts are not reaching. This is a challenge for many big and ideal(istic) actors”.
The founder and owner believes that individuals and organisations have to be
proactive by taking action instead of wasting time for external institutions to
extend funds. From his past experiences, he realised that social entrepreneurs
must accompany their social mission with self-earned revenue. This not only
makes the organisations free from external reliance, but also leads the
organisation towards efficiency. Thus he explained:
“I do not have a life long enough to wait for the government (to) find solutions”.
Additionally, he expressed that social entrepreneurs have a lot to contribute.
At the same time, he believed that applying and waiting for donors or the
government to give grants and tax rebates is not the most efficient solution.

International Review of Entrepreneurship, Article #1570, 15(4) 531
The founder of Case#2 explained that they were always trying to create a
“perfect match for software testing” by recruiting the right employee for their
clients. He elaborated that individuals with Asperger’s syndrome were the perfect
individuals to conduct monotonous, repetitive and logical jobs such as software
testing. He also explained that such people were marginalized in most societies,
yet the society does not realize that they have the potential to perform better than
an average individual in software testing. At the same time, the software testing
is a lucrative sector. This match gave his organisation the competitive advantage
which cannot be equated with the leaders in the industry. Their double-bottom
line objective reflected an advantage that helped them efficiently run the
organisation, through paying rent, employee salaries and buying the necessary
resources such as computers and laptops. Additionally, such an approach also
benefited the Norwegian state and the society at large. His verbatim explains:
“It is efficient to have one person (in UNICUS) who is on disability benefits -
and most likely had been there all his life - out of work, is quite simple”.
The founder of Case#2 explained in detail that one of many reasons their
company’s double-bottom line strategy was efficient was because it also created
economic value to the Norwegian government. Over the life-time of one
employee, UNICUS AS approximately saved the Norwegian government more
than one million euro (NOK 11 million) for every employee that they recruit. This
created a long-term social impact in the lives of the Norwegians as money
incurred by the government through taxes could be used for other activities. Thus,
his organisation not only had financial objectives to run efficiently, but their
organisational model also helped in creating an efficient economic system for the
Norwegian government.
6. Contribution, Limitation and Future Research
Research on hybridity in social entrepreneurship is constantly growing (Battilana
and Lee, 2014; Hockerts, 2015; Hoogendoorn et al., 2010; Pache and Santos,
2013a, 2013b; Santos et al., 2015). Contrary to extant research, which
emphasizes the challenges and tensions inherent in hybrid organizing, in this
study we sought to expose the advantages generated by combining a social
objective with a financial goal. The social venture founders, managers and
stakeholders we spoke with expressed the need for their ventures to remain stable,
sustainable and efficient. It was this need which prompted them to derive their
income from commercial methods instead of relying on philanthropic funds.
Our study contributes to social entrepreneurship theory and practice in two
ways. First, this paper contributes by responding to current criticism that hybrid
organising often faces in social entrepreneurship. Our study tends to reconcile
this debate in the literature by empirically explaining the two main advantages

532 Advantages of Hybrid Organising in Social Entrepreneurship
that could be associated when financial goals are linked with social mission.
However, we do not discard that certain risks such as tensions related to
conflicting logics, dual identity and mission drift could also be associated with
hybrid organising. Dees and Elias (1998) validated this concern by highlighting
that “it would be a mistake to exaggerate or oversimplify the gap” between a
social purpose goal and a commercial goal (p.174). Second, our findings also
suggest implications for practice as it makes policy makers, mainstream
entrepreneurs, educational institutions and prospective social entrepreneurs
aware of the problems as well as the advantages associated with hybrid
organising. Having an understanding of both the problems as well as the
advantages would allow the endorsers of hybrid organising to act more
responsibly.
In terms of limitations, it can be argued that our findings cannot be
generalized or applied to all situations. However, we believe that our abductive
approach allowed us to follow a path of unpacking and repacking theory (Van
Maanen et al., 2007) from our two cases, leading to a more in-depth
understanding of hybrid organising.
7. Conclusion
Social entrepreneurship is undergoing a transition where stakeholders not only
want to create social value, but also value for their employees and customers by
being sustainable and efficient in the long-term. In other words, financial and
macro-level impediments can pose a barrier to social entrepreneurs in achieving
their tasks. Once the social entrepreneur achieves financial freedom, it allows a
financially stable organisational model that in turn advances towards long-term
value creation. Additionally, paying attention only to a social mission and
ignoring a financial objective could create impediments, delays and wastage of
time when searching for funding. This could inhibit the effectiveness of the social
impact. Thus, this paper promotes the idea that financial sustainability and
creating efficiency in the social and economic system are some of the most
important preconditions in order for social entrepreneurs to be able to solve
existing social problems.

International Review of Entrepreneurship, Article #1570, 15(4) 533
References:
Alvesson, M. and Kärreman, D. (2007), “Constructing mystery: Empirical matters in theory
development”, The Academy of Management Review, 32(4), 1265-1281.
Bacq, S. and Janssen, F. (2011), “The multiple faces of social entrepreneurship: A review of
definitional issues based on geographical and thematic criteria”, Entrepreneurship and
Regional Development, 23(5-6), 373-403.
Battilana, J., and Dorado, S. (2010), “Building sustainable hybrid organizations: The case of
commercial microfinance organizations”, Academy of Management Journal, 53(6), 1419–
1440.
Battilana, J. and Lee, M. (2014), “Advancing research on hybrid organizing: Insights from the study
of social enterprises”, The Academy of Management Annals, 8(1), 397-441.
Battilana, J., Lee, M., Walker, J. and Dorsey, C. (2012), “In search of the hybrid ideal”, Stanford
Social Innovation Review, Summer Issue, 50-55.
Bradach, J.L. and Eccles, R.G. (1989), “Price, authority and trust: From ideal types to plural forms”,
Annual Review of Sociology, 15, 97-118.
Brenneke, M. and Spitzeck, H. (2010), “Social intrapreneurship – Bottom-up social innovation”,
International Review of Entrepreneurship, 8(2), 157-176.
Chell, E. (2007), “Social enterprise and entrepreneurship: Towards a convergent theory of the
entrepreneurial process”, International Small Business Journal, 25(1), 5-26.
Choi, N. and Majumdar, S. (2013), “Social entrepreneurship as an essentially contested concept:
Opening a new avenue for systematic future research”, Journal of Business Venturing, 29(3),
363-376.
Clarke, A. and Dougherty, I. (2010), “Youth-led social entrepreneurship: Enabling social change”,
International Review of Entrepreneurship, 8(2), 133-156.
Dacin, M.T., Dacin P.A. and Matear, M. (2010), “Social entrepreneurship: Why we don’t need a
new theory and how we move forward from here”, Academy of Management Perspectives,
24(3), 37-57.
Dees, J.G. and Elias, J. (1998), “The challenges of combining social and commercial enterprise”,
Business Ethics Quarterly, 8(1), 165-178.
Dees, J.G. and Anderson, B.B. (2003), “For-profit social ventures”, International Journal of
Entrepreneurship Education, 2, 1–26.
Defourney, J. and Nyssens, M. (2010), “Social enterprise in Europe: At the crossroads of market,
public policies and third sector”, Policy and Society, 29(3), 231-242.
Doherty, B., Haugh, H. and Lyon, F. (2014), “Social enterprises as hybrid organizations: A review
and research agenda”, International Journal of Management Reviews, 16, 417-436.
Ebrahim, A., Battilana, J. and Mair, J. (2014), “The governance of social enterprises: Mission drift
and accountability challenges in hybrid organisations”, Research in Organizational Behavior,
34, 81-100.
Eisenhardt, K.M. (1989), “Building theories from case study research”, Academy of Management
Review, 14(4), 532-550.
Eisenhardt, K.M. and Graebner, M.E. (2007), “Theory building from cases: Opportunities and
challenges”, Academy of Management Journal, 50(1), 25-32.
Foster, W. and Bradach, J. (2005), “Should non-profits seek profits?”, Harvard Business Review,
83(2), 92-100.
Glunk, U. and Van Gils, A. (2010), “Social entrepreneurship education: A holistic learning
initiative”, International Review of Entrepreneurship, 8(2), 113-132.
Hockerts, K. (2010), “Social entrepreneurship between market and mission”, International Review
of Entrepreneurship, 8(2), 177-198.
Hockerts, K. (2015), “How hybrid organizations turn antagonistic assets into complementarities”,
California Management Review, 57(3), 83-106.
Hoogendoorn, B., Pennings, E. and Thurik, R. (2010), “What do we know about social
entrepreneurship? An analysis of empirical research”, International Review of
Entrepreneurship, 8(2), 71-112.
Jay, J. (2013), “Navigating paradox as a mechanism of change and innovation in hybrid
organizations”, Academy of Management Journal, 56(1), 137-159.

534 Advantages of Hybrid Organising in Social Entrepreneurship
Kent, D. and Dacin, M.T. (2013), “Bankers at the gate: Microfinance and the high cost of borrowed
logics”, Journal of Business Venturing, 28, 759-773.
Khavul, S., Chavez, H. and Bruton, G.D. (2013), “When institutional change outruns the change
agent: The contested terrain of entrepreneurial microfinance for those in poverty”, Journal of
Business Venturing, 28(1), 30-50.
Langley, A. (1999), “Strategies for theorizing from process data”, Academy of Management Review,
24(4), 691-710.
Lumpkin, G.T., Moss, T.W., Gras, D.M., Kato, S. and Amezcua, A.S. (2013), “Entrepreneurial
processes in social contexts: How are they different, if at all?”, Small Business Economics,
40(3), 761-783.
Mair, J. and Marti, I. (2006), “Social entrepreneurship research: A source of explanation, prediction,
and delight”, Journal of World Business, 41(1), 36-44.
Miles, M.B., and Huberman, A.M. (1994), Qualitative Data Analysis, Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Pache, A.C. and Santos, F. (2013a), “Inside the hybrid organization: Selective coupling as a
response to competing institutional logics”, Academy of Management Journal, 56(4), 972-
1001.
Pache, A.C. and Santos, F. (2013b), “Embedded in hybrid contexts: How individuals in
organizations respond to competing institutional logics”, Research in the Sociology of
Organizations, 39, 3-35.
Pentland, B.T. (1999), “Building process theory with narrative: From description to explanation”,
Academy of Management Review, 24(4), 711-724.
Pierce, C.S. (1978), “Pragmatism and abduction”, In: C. Hartshorne & P. Weiss (Eds.), Collected
Papers Vol. V, Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, pp. 180–212.
Powell, W.W. (1987), “Hybrid organizational arrangements: New form or transitional
development?”, California Management Review, 30(1), 67-87.
Santos, F. (2012), “A positive theory of social entrepreneurship”, Journal of Business Ethics,
111(3), 335-351.
Santos, F., Pache, A. and Birkholz, C. (2015), “Making hybrids work: Aligning business models and
organisational design for social enterprises”, California Management Review, Spring, 57(3),
36-58.
Smith W.K., Gonin A., and Besharov M.L. (2013), “Managing social-business tensions: A review
and research agenda for social enterprise”, Business Ethics Quarterly, 23(3), 407-442.
Spitzeck, H. and Janssen, F. (2010), “Social entrepreneurship: Implications for management
practice”, International Review of Entrepreneurship, 8(2), 63-70.
Townsend, D.M. and Hart, T.A. (2008), “Perceived institutional ambiguity and the choice of
organizational form in social entrepreneurial ventures”, Entrepreneurship Theory and
Practice, 32(4), 685-700.
Tracey, P. and Jarvis, O. (2007), “Toward a theory of social venture franchising”, Entrepreneurship
Theory and Practice, 31(5), 667–685.
Tracey, P. and Phillips, N. (2007), “The distinctive challenge of educating social entrepreneurs: A
postscript and rejoinder to the special issue on entrepreneurship education”, Academy of
Management Learning and Education, 6(2), 264-271.
Tracey, P., Philips, N. and Jarvis, O. (2011), “Bridging institutional entrepreneurship and the
creation of new organisational forms: A multilevel model”, Organization Science, 22(1), 60-
80.
Van Maanen, J., Sorensen, J.B. and Mitchel, T.R. (2007), “The interplay between theory and
method”, The Academy of Management Review, 32(4), 1145-1154.
Weick, K.E. (1999), “Theory construction as disciplined reflexivity: Tradeoffs in the 90s”, Academy
of Management Review, 24(4), 797-806.
Williamson, O.E. (1975), Markets and Hierarchies: Analysis and Antitrust Implications, New
York: The Free Press.
Williamson, O.E. (1991), “Strategizing, economizing, and economic organization”, Strategic
Management Journal, 12(S2), 75–94.
Wilson, F. and Post, J.E. (2013), “Business models for people, planet (& profits): Exploring the
phenomena of social business, a market-based approach to social value creation”, Small
Business Economics, 40(3), 715–737.

International Review of Entrepreneurship, Article #1570, 15(4) 535
Zahra, S.A. and Wright, M. (2016), “Understanding the social role of entrepreneurship”, Journal of
Management Studies, 53(4), 610-629.Zahra, S.A., Gedajlovic, E., Neubaum, D.O. and
Shulman, J.M. (2009), “A typology of social entrepreneurs: Motives, search processes and
ethical challenges”, Journal of Business Venturing, 24(5), 519 – 532.
Zhao, E.Y. and Lounsbury, M. (2016), “An institutional logics approach to social entrepreneurship:
Market logic, religious diversity, and resource acquisition by microfinance organizations”,
Journal of Business Venturing, 31(6), 643-662.

536 Advantages of Hybrid Organising in Social Entrepreneurship