Content uploaded by Paulami Mitra
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Paulami Mitra on Nov 01, 2019
Content may be subject to copyright.
International Review of Entrepreneurship, Article #1601, 17(2): pp. 107-126
© 2019, Senate Hall Academic Publishing
The Rise of Hybrids: A Note for Social
Entrepreneurship Educators
Paulami Mitra
1
IÉSEG School of Management, Lille, France & Louvain Research Institute in Management and
Organizations, Université Catholique de Louvain, Belgium
Jill Kickul
Marshall School of Business, University of Southern California, Los Angeles, USA
Lisa Gundry
Driehaus College of Business, DePaul University, Chicago, USA
Jacqueline Orr
Marshall School of Business, University of Southern California, Los Angeles, USA
Abstract. Social entrepreneurship education is a rapidly emerging topic in the global education
sector. Several articles and special issues have made a significant theoretical and practical
contribution to the topics and methods adopted to train and educate social entrepreneurs. Despite
these past contributions, we believe that prior publications have left a hole in the literature with
regard to the instruction and development of social entrepreneurs and others interested in hybrid
organizing. In our paper, we address this gap and outline the main topics related to hybrid
organising structure that should be included into the fabric of the social entrepreneurship education
curriculum offered by social entrepreneurship educators while training and developing prospective
social entrepreneurs. Our essay outlines key topics to integrate into educational programs and the
techniques that can be adopted to mitigate the tensions, overcome the challenges and leverage the
advantages generated by hybrid organising in social entrepreneurship.
Keywords: social entrepreneurship education, hybrid organising.
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
108 The Rise of Hybrids: A Note for Social Entrepreneurship Educators
1. Introduction
Social entrepreneurship is a process that offers innovative solutions to complex
and persistent social and environmental problems that government and private
enterprises often fail to resolve (Kickul and Lyons, 2016; Mair and Marti, 2006;
Zahra et al., 2009). The Global Entrepreneurship Monitor’s (GEM) research on
social entrepreneurship reported the prevalence of social entrepreneurial activity
at an average rate of 2.8% in 2009 (Terjesen et al., 2009). This climbed to 3.2%
in 2015 (Bosma et al., 2015), thus recording an increase of 14.3% in 6 years,
globally. These GEM reports suggest that social entrepreneurial activity is
relatively rare but is a growing phenomenon.
Social entrepreneurship came into prominence in the face of depleting
financial resources, rising costs and a growing competition among social
purpose organisations to acquire public and private grants (Dees, 1998;
Defourny and Nyssens, 2010; Spitzeck and Janssen, 2010). Most definitions of
social entrepreneurship stress its hybrid nature (Saebi et al., 2019) and social
and/or environmental value (Dacin et al., 2011; Dacin et al., 2010; Peredo and
McLean, 2006). Thus, social entrepreneurs aim to create social wealth while also
pursuing financial goals by exploiting market-based solutions and by utilizing a
wide range of resources (Bacq and Janssen, 2011). As social entrepreneurship
cross-fertilises social logic with economic logic, hybridity is considered as one
of its inherent characteristics (Battilana and Lee, 2014; Doherty et al., 2014).
Hybrid organisations have been defined as “enterprises that design their
business models based on the alleviation of a particular social or environmental
issue. Hybrids generate income and attract capital in ways that may be consistent
with for-profit models, nonprofit models, or both” (Haigh et al., 2015b, p. 5).
These organisations contain characteristics of more than one sector (Billis,
2010). It is an organisational form combined of business and social purpose that
social entrepreneurial ventures employ (Battilana and Lee, 2014; Doherty et al.,
2014). As Hockerts noted, in recent decades, “hybrid enterprises have emerged
as an alternative means for social purpose organisations to achieve their
mission” (Hockerts, 2015, p. 103).
Previous literature has associated hybridity as an efficient and strategic fit to
the new demands of the dynamic economic and market environments (Powell,
1987; Bradach and Eccles, 1989). In different industrial sectors, hybrid
organising was utilised as an attempt to neutralize the weakness of one
governance structure with the strength of another governance structure
(Williamson, 1975, 1991). However, more recently, several studies have
discussed the different advantages (Mitra et al., 2017) as well as the different
tensions created by hybridity in social entrepreneurship (Battilana and Dorado,
2010; Battilana et al., 2015; Kannothra et al., 2018; Kent and Dacin, 2013;
Pache and Santos, 2010, 2013; Smith et al., 2013; Zhao and Lounsbury, 2016).
As social entrepreneurship embodies hybridity as its fundamental
characteristic (Battilana et al., 2012; Haigh and Hoffman, 2012; Hockerts,
International Review of Entrepreneurship, Article #1601, 17(2) 109
2006), it is important for educators to train and develop social entrepreneurs by
exposing them to the challenges, benefits and impacts of hybridity and its
paradoxical nature of tensions (Knight and Paroutis, 2016). Additionally, Kickul
et al. (2018) highlighted that time is ripe to think about new ways of augmenting
the curriculum of social entrepreneurship education. Our paper suggests that
hybrid organising is germane and central to the social entrepreneurship
education curriculum. Our review of past publications also noted that significant
contributions have been made by developing different discussions, pedagogic
devices and training methods for social entrepreneurs such as the ones developed
by Glunk and Van Gils (2010), Kickul et al. (2018), Kickul et al. (2012), Pache
and Chowdhury (2012), Smith and Woodworth (2012) and Tracey and Philips
(2007). However, there is an omission on the topic of how prospective social
entrepreneurs should be trained and equipped with necessary skills to manage a
hybrid social enterprise. We advocate that the theme of hybrid organising must
be evoked by social entrepreneurship educators while training and developing
students that will eventually manage and navigate the challenges of the hybrid
nature of their social enterprises. It is for this reason that our essay advocates a
conceptual roadmap to expose students to the theoretical and practical
knowledge related to hybrid organising in social entrepreneurship.
In the next section, we illustrate our pedagogic framework that circumscribes
seven key themes of hybrid organising that can be utilized by social
entrepreneurship educators. A discussion outlining a roadmap of hybrid
organising and some concluding thoughts on different ways to deliver the course
is presented.
2. Fabric of the Hybrid Curriculum
We propose that the pedagogic fabric of hybrid organising in social
entrepreneurship education should be designed around seven key themes for
students interested in adopting the hybrid organising form in their social
enterprises. These themes should outline 2.1) a theoretical understanding of
hybrids in the context of social entrepreneurship, 2.2) an understanding of why
hybrids are needed, 2.3) some examples of hybrid forms in social
entrepreneurship, 2.4) challenges of hybrid organising, 2.5) advantages of hybrid
organising, 2.6) how to effectively manage tensions in hybrids and 2.7) the
hybrid roadmap. The following sections describe these themes with suggested
approaches to integrate them into social entrepreneurship training and
development.
2.1. Theoretical Understanding of Hybrids in Social Entrepreneurship
Social entrepreneurship education is gaining momentum in universities, business
schools, incubators, and educational training programs. As a multi-disciplinary
110 The Rise of Hybrids: A Note for Social Entrepreneurship Educators
field that draws from entrepreneurship, strategy, and business ethics, social
entrepreneurship education provides a unique opportunity for business schools to
design an environment to teach courses and train students interested in pursuing
a hybrid structure for their social enterprises. As social entrepreneurship has
developed in recent decades, there have been distinct approaches to educational
activities while pedagogical frameworks and tools have been designed, shared
and used in educational settings around the world (Brock and Kim, 2011).
During its evolution, entrepreneurship curricula included general management
education topics and competencies, e.g. strategy, finance, accounting, marketing,
human resources. This knowledge was extended by building courses and
programs that included opportunity-specific and venture-specific knowledge
(Vesper, 1998). As Pache and Chowdhury (2012) explained, contemporary
entrepreneurship education has shifted focus from educating “about”
entrepreneurship (e.g. principles and practices) to educating “for”
entrepreneurship (e.g. individual skills, characteristics and behaviors) which
enables students to become effective entrepreneurs. Kirby (2004), for example
urged that programs help students develop communications, creativity, critical-
thinking, leadership, problem-solving and social networking skills. Further
differentiating social entrepreneurship education, Pache and Chowdhury (2012)
proposed teaching the skills needed to connect three competing logics: social-
welfare, commercial and public sector. We discuss the contribution of this
framework in greater detail in Section 2.4 of this paper. Building upon this, Zhu
et al. (2016) proposed a social-practice wisdom curriculum matrix that includes
emphasis on values-led practice and problem-solving to help social
entrepreneurs maximize social impact.
Social entrepreneurship education has grown prolifically in recent years. Yet,
there is still a confusion among different stakeholders, such as students and
practitioners, about the theoretical definition and the practical structure of a
hybrid social entrepreneurial venture. For this reason, we propose that social
entrepreneurship educators should provide a useful definition and outline clear
illustrations of the different types of hybrid social business models that exist.
One such definition is that social business models are designed to address some
of the world’s most pressing social and environmental problems accompanied by
income generation strategies structured under a for-profit model, non-profit
model, or both simultaneously (Haigh et al., 2015b). For example, a hybrid
social enterprise could be a non-profit organisation supported by a mix of
philanthropic funds and earned income and that would limit itself from
participating in profit maximization or shareholder value creation (Dees and
Anderson, 2002; Dees and Anderson, 2006). Social enterprises could equally
operate under a for-profit model and engage in income generation and attract
investment from professional investors (Dees and Anderson, 2002; Kickul and
Lyons, 2016). Such is the case of a Norwegian social entrepreneurial venture
named Unicus that had raised capital and acquired soft loans from an investor
for the launch and future expansion of the organisation (Mitra et al., 2017).
International Review of Entrepreneurship, Article #1601, 17(2) 111
Hybrid social enterprises might also target sustainable market-based solutions in
a way that the revenue generated makes them completely self-sufficient. They
could also exist as a traditional non-profit entity pursuing a social mission
combined with a traditional for-profit entity pursuing financial objectives (Haigh
et al., 2015b). Destiny Reflection/Foundation, a social entrepreneurial venture
based in Calcutta, India is an example of this category of a hybrid social
entrepreneurial venture. Upon launch of the organisation, it structured Destiny
Foundation as a traditional non-profit pursuing a social mission accompanied by
Destiny Reflection as a fashion business division pursuing its financial
objectives. Thus, depending on the competing demands of a social mission and
the commercial objectives, hybridity in social entrepreneurship can be
understood as a balancing act between these two bottom-line logics.
Educators are also encouraged to generate a clear theoretical
understanding by explaining that hybrid organising in social entrepreneurship is
based upon the basic foundation of creating both social value and commercial
revenue through a single unified strategy. As Zahra and Wright (2016) noted,
entrepreneurs may build hybrid organizational and governance structures that
facilitate both social and commercial objectives in pursuit of the desired blended
value. Such value creation could range from producing a local impact to a global
impact or span across rural to urban spaces.
Furthermore, a design thinking approach has been advocated that
leverages the four mega-themes of social entrepreneurship: innovation, impact,
sustainability and scale (Kickul et al., 2018). We believe that these four mega-
themes have direct implications for hybridity in social enterprises. Students can
attain project-based learning experiences and be encouraged to exhibit their
creativity skills and the sensibility of a designer to create a solution to a poorly
defined wicked problem using a viable hybrid strategy (Brown, 2008). Based on
the needs of the beneficiaries, the solution is designed through an iterative
process of gaining access to understand problems and users in the field,
knowledge sharing and brainstorming (Dunne and Martin, 2006; Wang and
Wang, 2011) within the framework of a hybrid structure. These experiential
approaches, in conjunction with knowledge and training on the opportunities,
features and challenges of hybrid organising, can improve desired outcomes of
educational programs in social entrepreneurship. While social entrepreneurs act
as agents of creating social impact to improve society and the environment, they
could also engage in creating long-term systemic change by scaling-deep or
scaling-wide through the use of innovative and financially sustainable hybrid
strategies (Kickul and Gundry, 2015; Kickul et al., 2018).
Furthermore, given the social, political, economic and cultural
differences between countries, educators must design their lectures in order to
launch discussions on country specific differences of social entrepreneurial
activities. For example, according to the GEM 2015 report (Bosma et al., 2015)
some developed countries like USA and Australia reported 11% and 11.1%
involvement in social entrepreneurial activities respectively. These levels are
112 The Rise of Hybrids: A Note for Social Entrepreneurship Educators
higher compared to the global average noted as 3.2%. A deeper analysis of these
numbers might also provoke students to ponder why lower levels of social
entrepreneurial activities are taking place in less developed countries such as
Morocco (1.1%), Vietnam (1.4%) or Thailand (2.9%). Previous studies suggest
that social entrepreneurship often exists among institutional voids (Mair and
Marti, 2009) and resource scarce or penurious environments (Domenico et al.,
2010; Peredo and Chrisman, 2006), making lesser developed countries an ideal
location for its launch and growth. Referring to the above data retrieved from
GEM 2015, it is not clear why certain countries report more activity than the
others. Such debates and analysis of critical issues must be contemplated by
educators in order to improve theoretical and practical understanding of social
entrepreneurship.
2.2. Why Are Hybrids Needed?
It has been discussed that social entrepreneurship education has been suffering
from a lack of theorizing (Pache and Chowdhury, 2012). We urge that students
should be encouraged to gain a theoretical understanding of the role that hybrid
organising in social entrepreneurship plays and why hybrids are needed. In the
face of free market ideology and the on-going global economic crisis, there has
been a constant decrease in the availability of funding, grants and philanthropic
investments from government institutions, public bodies and the private
companies in both developed and developing nations (Hoogendoorn et al., 2010;
Hoogendoorn, 2016; Kickul and Lyons, 2016). Private sector investors have also
been reluctant in investing in social entrepreneurial projects due to the
uncertainty of financial return on investment (Lumpkin et al., 2013; Lyons and
Kickul, 2013). As a result, there has been an increasing reliance on self-
organising and self-sufficiency through self-generated income that has led social
enterprises to intentionally adopt or circumstantially design (Doherty et al.,
2014; Tracey et al., 2011; Wilson and Post, 2013) mechanisms of revenue
generation for their social purpose organisations. For example, Anwesha the
Quest, a social enterprise based in Calcutta, India, eventually adopted and
incrementally expanded its market-based activities to generate revenue to run its
organisational activities. Another example is the case of Aspire, a social
enterprise based in UK launched to tackle homelessness in Bristol and Oxford.
Right from the start, Aspire was launched as a standalone self-sustaining social
business (Tracey and Jarvis, 2007; Tracey, Phillips and Jarvis, 2011). Thus, as
financial viability is vital in order to sustain the social mission along with the
social innovation designed by the social entrepreneur (Haigh et al., 2015b), there
has been a rise in the adoption of hybrid form of organising among social
businesses (Mair and Marti, 2006; Mitra et al., 2017; Santos 2012).
International Review of Entrepreneurship, Article #1601, 17(2) 113
2.3. A Few Examples of Hybrids in Social Entrepreneurship
Below we illustrate three different types of hybrid organising models through
some real case examples. These three types of hybrid social entrepreneurial
business models could be discussed with students.
2.3.1. Hot Bread Kitchen: A Non-Profit Hybrid Social Enterprise
Founder Jessamyn W. Rodriguez realized that due to lack of fluency in English,
credential recognition, family structures and inadequacy of professional
networks, immigrants, especially immigrant women, were forced to the
periphery of the society where they often ended up staying at home or accepted
low-paying domestic jobs. She also realized that 5.7 million immigrant women
lived below the poverty line in the United States. Having a master baking
certificate and work experience related to immigration policy at the United
Nations, Jessamyn launched Hot Bread Kitchen as a non-profit social enterprise
in 2007 in New York City’s East Harlem. The founder aimed at bridging this
social gap in New York City by offering paid nine month training in baking to
immigrant women. These women brought with them ethnic baking recipes from
different countries. On the job, the women were also trained in basic math,
science, English fluency and management skills. After nine months of intensive
training, some bakers continued to stay in the job while others were helped to
incubate small businesses. Other women were also encouraged to secure jobs in
the culinary industry. Eventually, Jessamyn also helped create a fractional shift
in the male dominated culinary industry of baking and selling breads.
The concept of Hot Bread Kitchen has been widely acclaimed for its
innovative selection of international, ethnic and artisanal breads.
Simultaneously, this social business model has become an award-winning
workforce development program by employing low-income immigrant women,
baking bread inspired by their countries of origin, while learning job skills that
led them to acquire professional positions in the food industry. While aiming to
run this non-profit, the founder realized that all the activities of the social
enterprise could not be supported only by selling breads. As a result, along with
the revenue generated through sales of bread, the social enterprise had been
supported by initial seed funds, corporate donations, private donations and even
crowdfunding activities (Ashoka Changemakers, 2016-2017). The illustration of
Hot Bread Kitchen allows students to learn how the social organization has
combined two traditionally separate models: a social welfare model that guides
its workforce development mission and a revenue generation model that guides
its commercial activities. Additionally, it is highlighted that revenue generation
does not necessarily limit the non-profit’s access to philanthropic funds.
114 The Rise of Hybrids: A Note for Social Entrepreneurship Educators
2.3.2. Frogtek: A For-Profit Hybrid Social Enterprise
Frogtek, another example of a hybrid social enterprise, was launched in 2008 as
a for-profit dedicated to developing and deploying inexpensive business tools,
technical devices and mobile software for micro-entrepreneurs in emerging
markets such as Mexico and Columbia. The social enterprise aimed to boost the
productivity, profits and business growth of small shopkeepers and micro-
retailers by allowing them to digitally record their sales, store expenses and
revenues. In order for Frogtek to scale out and reach as many micro-
entrepreneurs and “mom and pop” stores as possible, CEO and founder David
del Ser decided to incorporate Frogtek as a for-profit right from its launch. He
believed that scaling wide and creating a larger social impact would necessitate
startup financing from mainstream venture capital. The insight for students is
that Frogtek’s for-profit social business model had been successful in attracting
angel investors. Even though attracting investors for its unique model was
challenging, David del Ser was careful in engaging only with those venture
capitalists whose values aligned with those of his organization (Battilana et al.,
2012).
2.3.3. Embrace and Embrace Innovations: A Non-Profit Arm and a For-Profit
Arm
While attending a program at a highly reputed university in the United States,
four graduates named Jane Chen, Linus Liang, Razmig Hovaghimian and Rahul
Panicker developed an idea to commercialize a low-cost incubator for premature
infants. Later, the founding team was joined by Naganand Murty. The team
learned that twenty million babies were born prematurely worldwide and four
million infant deaths occurred due to premature birth, mostly in developing
countries (Radjou et al., 2012). Around 2008, the team cofounded a social
enterprise and started developing an incubator at a fraction of the price of
fabrication in developed countries. They pursued a social mission aimed at
reducing infant deaths due to premature birth, mainly in developing countries,
underdeveloped nations and rural areas. The company that was launched was
called Embrace. Chen (2013) explained that given the inherent risks of
launching an untested product, the uncertainty related to the commercial
viability of the incubator and the inexperience of the young management team,
Embrace was launched as a non-profit organisation and was created under
501(c)(3). Entities operating under 501(c)(3) benefit from tax exemptions and
can offer tax exemptions to its donors under certain conditions.
To access a wider pool of investors and venture capitalists, to raise capital
and to scale up its operations in order to create a higher social impact, a for-
profit arm named Embrace Innovations was spun off by Embrace. The non-
International Review of Entrepreneurship, Article #1601, 17(2) 115
profit Embrace and the for-profit Embrace Innovations acted as a hybrid entity
that helped the founding team pursue its social mission of reaching out to as
many infants as possible with a low-cost incubator, along with pursuing its
financial objectives that would support the organization in developing new
medical devices for at risk babies. The hybrid entity was created such that the
nonprofit owned equity in the for-profit, a structure that gave the nonprofit
power to control the activities of the joint venture while protecting its social
mission. While sharing such real-life cases, students must also be made aware
that Embrace’s model was complicated and the team had to constantly
restructure and experiment with its hybrid organising structure (Etzel, 2015).
2.3.4. Challenges of Hybrid Organising
Social entrepreneurs are individuals embedded in competing institutional logics
of social welfare, commercial sector and public sector (Pache and Chowdhury,
2012). To mobilise resources and navigate through the different institutional
spheres, social entrepreneurs could encounter different challenges related to
competing logics, cultural differences or conflicting interests of various
stakeholders (Battilana and Dorado, 2010; Tracey et al., 2011). Additionally,
similar to the efforts of commercial business entrepreneurs, social entrepreneurs
must be trained to manage their social enterprises by utilizing their business
skills and by regularly measuring their financial performance along with the
social impact created (Kickul et al., 2012). It can be complex and challenging
for social entrepreneurs who manage hybrid organisations to combine the
distinctive social and economic objectives (Dees and Elias, 1998; Austin et al.,
2006). In this section, we discuss some key complexities and challenges that
hybrid entities might face due to this bifurcated structure.
It is important for students to understand the different tensions and disputes
that owners, managers and other stakeholders of hybrid social enterprises could
face at the time of launch and beyond. First, social entrepreneurial ventures
demonstrate arenas of contradiction while harnessing competing demands of a
market logic that is traditionally associated with for-profit commercial
businesses, with a social welfare logic that is traditionally associated with non-
profit organisations or charities. In their quest to incorporate incompatible logics
and coalesce antagonistic practices, the stronger logic often tends to prevail and
fight over the weaker logic (Greenwood et al., 2011; Pache and Santos, 2010;
Tracey et al., 2011; Zilber, 2002). This in turn triggers institutional conflict
within hybrid organisations. Thus, competing logics in hybrid social
entrepreneurial ventures create stringent demands and operational tensions on
the organisation, where either the market logic wins over the social-welfare
logic, or vice-versa (Pache and Santos, 2013). This can be seen in the case of
Aspire in the UK (Tracey et al., 2011). Accounts suggest that the organisation
collapsed a few years after it was scaled nationwide as the social entrepreneurs
could not manage to satisfy the competing demands of the market logic (i.e.,
116 The Rise of Hybrids: A Note for Social Entrepreneurship Educators
clients) and the social logic (i.e., beneficiaries). Students must be exposed to
this potentially paralyzing conflict of logics, and encouraged to achieve a
balance between the hybrid logics.
Second, research suggests that due to their dual identity and divergent goals,
hybrids are fragile organisations that run the possibility of “mission drift”
(Battilana and Dorado, 2010; Foster and Bradach, 2005; Kent and Dacin, 2013).
Tensions and drift in mission tend to occur while intermingling paradoxical
ideas of market dynamics with social purpose that is traditionally associated with
non-profits or charities. The risk of mission drift, such as the cases studied in the
microfinance sector (Kent and Dacin, 2013; Khavul et al., 2013), has been
noticed as the market activity of serving the needs of the commercial clients are
unintentionally or intentionally given more importance than serving the
beneficiaries (Santos et al., 2015). Such tensions are accentuated further by
sectoral and macro-environmental forces in which the hybrid organisation is
embedded (Hockerts, 2010; Khavul et al., 2013). Hence, students must realize
that balancing a social mission with an economic mission can be challenging.
Recent work by Castellas et al. (2018) goes beyond the high-level tension
between social and financial goals to investigate how hybrids respond to value
pluralism, or how they attempt to sustain multiple values and logics. This work
argues that organisations respond to “specific challenges rather than amorphous
tensions,” and “a critical success factor of hybrids is the ability to sustain
pluralism.” Castellas et al. (2018) demonstrate that organisations which are
successfully able to navigate the balancing of otherwise disjointed activities
follow a four-step process model that includes (1) separating value into distinct
components (i.e. social, environmental, or financial), (2) negotiating the value of
those priorities over one another, (3) aggregating the components into a notion
of blended value, and (4) continually assessing value creation, re-negotiating as
necessary.
The above mentioned work highlights the need to educate students in skills
that are particular to hybrid organisations, which must balance unique demands
that are not present in traditional enterprises. Al Taji and Bengo (2018)
investigated the particular managerial skills required by hybrid organisations.
Like Castellas et al. (2018), Al Taji and Bengo (2018) urge that we study the
specific and complex challenges associated with hybrids, as opposed to only
focusing on general tensions. The above authors suggest exploring “specific
practical challenges [to demonstrate] how the general challenges appear in
practice and then how specific skills can be associated with them.” Al Taji and
Bengo’s (2018) work within the stages of paradoxical leadership for social
entrepreneurs was developed by Smith et al. (2012). Based on an in-depth study
of Italian organisations, the authors identified a number of specific skills needed
to manage the distinct challenges that hybrid organisations face. These specific
skills are ones that educators should strive to impart in the classroom: (1)
adopting an abundance mentality, (2) embracing paradoxical thinking, (3)
recognizing the distinct value of each domain (i.e. social and commercial
International Review of Entrepreneurship, Article #1601, 17(2) 117
domains), (4) mindfully attending to the distinctions between domains, (5)
developing trust, openness and cultural sensitivity, (6) and seeking synergies in
decision making to support both social and cultural domains (Al Taji and Bengo,
2018). These findings raise a challenge in that successful integration of these
skills will require grounding in a number of disciplines, some of which fall
outside of traditional business curricula.
Furthermore, contrary to the studies conducted in the microfinance sector
where the market logic dominated over welfare logic, Battilana et al’s (2015)
study related to work integration social enterprises noted “social imprinting” as a
challenge that organisations operating at the intersection of social and
commercial sectors faced. The authors (Battilana et al., 2015) viewed that
overall social performance can also be negatively affected through the social
enterprises’ over consciousness on achieving its social mission. Such an
emphasis on pursuing the social mission can be viewed as a challenge as it
indirectly weakens the social outcome by negatively affecting the commercial
activities and financial objectives. Thus, through such examples, we recommend
that social entrepreneurship educators paint a picture of both perspectives of
mission drift so that students can understand the necessity of fine-tuning the
balance between social value creation and financial value creation.
Fourth, social enterprises could adopt different legal and organisational
structures, such as the three examples (i.e. Hot Bread Kitchen, Frogtek and
Embrace and Embrace Innovations) discussed in the previous section.
Irrespective of for-profit or non-profit structure, hybrid entities could also face
difficulties in attracting philanthropic donations or raising capital from private
investors. Stakeholders might question the organisational legitimacy due to the
organisation’s divergent identity (Smith et al., 2013) and dual mission (Doherty
et al., 2014; Moss et al., 2011). This could further lead to confusion among
different types of investors as they would tend to associate hybrid entities with
low social or financial return due to its overlapping pursuit of a social mission
and a commercial objective (Miller and Wesley, 2010). For example, Frogtek’s
founder revealed that attracting venture capital, even for his for-profit hybrid
social enterprise, had been challenging as investors associated such investments
as risky (Battilana et al., 2012). Finally, for the same reason, challenges could
also arise while attracting a workforce due to the conflicting demands of
stakeholders originating from divergent backgrounds.
2.4. Advantages of Hybrid Organising
The combination of forms in hybrid organising leads to challenges as well as
unique possibilities (Battilana and Lee, 2014). In this section, we discuss three
main advantages of hybrid organising that we think should be discussed with
prospective adopters. Students must be alerted to the specific role that income
plays in hybrid models. Some studies have highlighted that hybrid organising
leads to economic-sustainability, efficiency and aids the redistribution of
118 The Rise of Hybrids: A Note for Social Entrepreneurship Educators
economic resources (Santos et al., 2015; Mitra et al., 2017; Wilson and Post,
2013). Highlighting some cases from Norway, Mitra et al. (2017) discussed that
simultaneous pursuit of social and financial mission helped social entrepreneurs
in maintaining a steady cash-flow. Thus, designing a stable and sustainable
model has been advocated by Kickul et al. (2018). Income generation also
helped the Norwegian social entrepreneurs in scaling and creating a wider social
impact, as explained by the empirical study conducted by Mitra et al. (2017).
Through another study, Wilson and Post (2013) also noted that self-
sustainability was perceived as a more reliable model than donation-based
models. Furthermore, through participation in market-based transactions, hybrid
models created conditions for wealth creation and redistribution in the local,
national and global economy (Wilson and Post, 2013). This further leads to
efficient organisational models along with efficient economic systems (Mitra et
al., 2017).
Finally, the legal structure of hybrid social ventures should be discussed, as
these confer certain advantages and flexibilities. Haigh et al. (2015a) note that
social entrepreneurs have a strong desire for flexibility in achieving their aims,
and that over time, a hybrid organization’s legal structure becomes a primary
tool for balancing social and financial goals.
For instance, hybrid social organisations can be registered under different
legislative categories, such a benefit corporation, 501(3)(c), low-profit limited
liability company (L3C), non-governmental organisation (NGO) or an
association. Determined by the country or state’s legal and taxation policies, the
legal structure adopted can allow hybrid organisations to gain an advantage
through friendly taxation policies. Furthermore, some legal structures allow tax
benefit to donors while other structures might place favourable conditions on
fund-raising through venture capitalists. Thus, students must be made aware of
such structures so that they can treat them as strategic tools while embarking on
solving some of the most pressing problems of the world.
2.5. How to Effectively Manage Tensions in Hybrids
Conflicting demands distract social entrepreneurs from strategically focussing
on the joint pursuit of the dual social and commercial missions. We believe that
prospective social entrepreneurs must also be trained to adopt different
techniques to mitigate the challenges and leverage the advantages posed by
hybrid organising. Some methods explored through case studies suggest that
building a sustainable hybrid organisation can be pursued through recruiting
employees and managers with the right balance, developing a common
organisational identity among them, and by adopting formal and informal
socialization processes (Battilana et al., 2015; Battilana and Dorado, 2010).
In order to build a common organisational identity, studies show that in some
cases, hired employees must be free from attachment from either of the
competing logics. As a result, new graduates from universities that do not have
International Review of Entrepreneurship, Article #1601, 17(2) 119
extensive work experience might be recruited and trained to work for hybrid
social enterprises. Such training and apprenticeship processes should also create
spaces of socialization with organisational members and promote job-shadowing
of a senior colleague. This would help young individuals acclimatize with the
dual identity of the hybrid organisation right from the start of their career
(Battilana et al., 2015; Batilana and Dorado, 2010).
Another hiring method highlighted by the above-mentioned authors was to
recruit an executive director skilled in both business and social issues.
Additionally, non-executive employees should be recruited with an even balance
such that one group of employees would bring extensive knowledge and work
experience either from the social sector or from the commercial sector. This
should be followed by regularized group rituals, meetings and exchanges in
order to understand each other’s job responsibilities and challenges. To fill mid-
level management positions, internal promotion of employees could be
preferred.
To avoid tensions and preserve organisational hybridity, management should
create “spaces of negotiation” (Battilana et al., 2015) through formal and
informal socialization processes. This is consistent with the process model by
Castellas et al. (2018), which allows for organisations to embrace pluralism to
sustain blended value. To follow Battilana et al. (2015), spaces of group
discussion, exchanges and socialization processes are utilised such that each
adopter of one logic engages and consults with the adopter of another logic
before decision-making. If a decision is not reached, the executive director takes
the lead and comes in to mediate the tensions. Additionally, it is also very
important to discuss progress on social and commercial objectives, create
transparency of the social and business activities, and define goals, metrics and
schedules. Finally, the organisation must also discuss possible clashes and
design creative solutions. In times of conflict, the executive director should
make the final decision.
Furthermore, it should be emphasized that both the above techniques come
with certain advantages and disadvantages. Accounts suggest that the above two
methods discussed only allows an overview of two different approaches often
taken by hybrid social enterprises to avoid or resolve tensions related to
organisational identity and conflicting interests of stakeholders. Although it is
hard to justify which method is better than the other, they do, however, enable
the cohort to understand how executive directors and management can arbitrate
tensions.
Lastly, Roundy (2017) has demonstrated the hybrid nature of entrepreneurial
ecosystems. He asserts that hybrid support organizations, such as incubators,
accelerators, etc., “play a critical role in introducing and spreading dual
institutional logics” and that when participants in the ecosystem “interact with
hybrid support organizations, oftentimes at formative stages in the
entrepreneurial process, they gain exposure to the logics that drive these
organizations and that are in, turn, dominant in entrepreneurial ecosystems”
120 The Rise of Hybrids: A Note for Social Entrepreneurship Educators
(Roundy, 2017). The above scholar expounds that (social) entrepreneurs who
wish to be successful members of such an ecosystem must align with that
ecosystem’s dominant logics. In this way, nascent hybrid organisations may
draw support from larger entrepreneurial ecosystems as they learn to navigate
their particular tensions and trade-offs.
Figure 1: The Hybrid Roadmap
2.6. The Hybrid Roadmap
In conclusion, students can be guided in formulating a hybrid roadmap. It is
essential for students to understand that as the social mission of the social
enterprise is its primary mission, the organisational activities should be created
around the social or environmental cause that the venture attempts to alleviate.
Hence, as a first step, students should ask themselves, (1) “what is the social
mission of the organisation?” and (2) “what is the social impact that we would
like to achieve?” Once the social mission has been articulated, students should
start exploring the different resources they need and the activities the
organisation should put in place in order to achieve its impact. Furthermore, it is
also necessary to guide students in formulating different market-based strategies
that would support the economic sustainability of the primary mission. Thus, as
a next step, students must explore, (3) “what resources do we need to fulfil our
social impact?” and (4) “what activities does the organisation need to have in
place to achieve its impact?” Additionally, often the beneficiaries of the social
project are underprivileged and might not be able to pay for the services
generated by the social enterprise. In this case, it becomes vital to design the
organisational activities such that they generate enough revenues to sustain the
social mission. Thus, students should be encouraged to think about market-based
International Review of Entrepreneurship, Article #1601, 17(2) 121
activities and ask themselves, (5) “how is the social mission and the impact
going to be sustained financially?” Finally, students must understand that the
legal structure of hybrid social entrepreneurial ventures should be chosen
carefully. The legal structure can be seen as a strategic tool to achieve social and
financial needs. Hence, students must study the legal structures carefully to
affirm, “what is the best legal structure that supports the mission and the
impact?” Figure 1 gives a diagrammatic overview of the hybrid roadmap.
3. Discussion and Concluding Thoughts
Over the last few years, government institutions, policy makers, practitioners
and academics have started placing emphasis on the role that social
entrepreneurs play in society. Theoretically as well as practically, there is a need
to develop models, structures and processes at the macro-environment level in
order to support their activities so that social entrepreneurial ventures can
function more effectively by overcoming key constraining factors (Chell et al.,
2016). One of the ways to support social entrepreneurs is through development
of unique pedagogic frameworks that will facilitate launching and managing
hybrid social entrepreneurial ventures.
Through this paper, we outlined some topics that will aid social
entrepreneurship educators while training and developing students interested in
the topic of hybrid organising in social entrepreneurship. First, students must
understand why hybrid organising became popular. Students must also gain a
theoretical understanding of the hybrid organisation form that is characterised by
overlapping social-welfare logic and commercial logic. Additionally, some
relevant examples of such organisations based in developed countries as well as
developing countries must be provided. These examples include non-profit
structures, for profit structures and organisations that have established both non-
profit and for-profit structures simultaneously. Finally, the challenges,
advantages and some strategies to navigate the tensions that are created by such
a bifurcated structure must be discussed.
As a note to social entrepreneurship educators, our essay also focusses
mainly on the theoretical aspects of teaching hybrid organising in social
entrepreneurship. As a discussion on developing practical knowledge on hybrid
organising is warranted, we call for future research studies on how prospective
social entrepreneurship students can gain hands-on and practical skills in
managing a hybrid social entrepreneurial venture. Moreover, as discussed
earlier, the four mega-themes of social entrepreneurship: innovation, impact,
sustainability and scale (Kickul et al., 2018) can provide a useful framework for
teaching hybridity and strengthening the effectiveness and impact of social
entrepreneurship education.
122 The Rise of Hybrids: A Note for Social Entrepreneurship Educators
In sum, hybrid organising is an important theme in the social
entrepreneurship education discourse. Recent articles on social entrepreneurship
education have omitted a discussion around this topic. Observing this gap, we
attempted to contribute by outlining the key topics central to hybrid organising
that must be included in the fabric of the social entrepreneurship curriculum.
Furthermore, it is our hope that this discourse on hybrid organising will not only
help in training future social entrepreneurs, but also facilitate educators in order
to motivate students from any discipline, including prospective entrepreneurship
students and future managers of businesses, to harness, combine and synthesise
hybridization strategies across organisational activities. We believe that the
theoretical knowledge about the advantages, challenges and the methods to
mitigate the tensions inflicted by hybrid organising featured in this current paper
would allow educators to train not only prospective social entrepreneurs, but any
stakeholder interested in broadening their focus beyond financial value
generation.
References:
Al Taji, F.N.A. and Bengo, I. (2018), “The Distinctive Managerial Challenges of Hybrid
Organizations: Which Skills are Required?”, Journal of Social Entrepreneurship,
forthcoming. Published online 11 December 2018.
Ashoka Changemakers. (2016-2017), “Hot Bread Kitchen - Preserving traditions, rising
expectations - USA”. Accessed: August, 2018.
(https://www.changemakers.com/economicopportunity/entries/hot-bread-
kitchenpreserving-traditions-rising-expectati)
Austin, J., Stevenson, H. and Wei-Skillern, J. (2006), “Social and Commercial Entrepreneurship:
Same, Different or Both?”, Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 30(1): p 1-22.
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): p 373-403.
Battilana, J. and Dorado, S. (2010), “Building Sustainable Hybrid Organizations: The Case of
Commercial Microfinance Organizations”, Academy of Management Journal, 53(6): p
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): p 397-441.
Battilana, J., Lee, M., Walker, J. and Dorsey, C. (2012), “In Search of the Hybrid Ideal”, Stanford
Social Innovation Review, Summer Issue: p 50-55.
Battilana, J., Sengul, M., Pache, A.C. and Model, J. (2015), “Harnessing Productive Tensions in
Hybrid Organizations: The Case of Work Integration Social Enterprises”, Academy of
Management Journal, 58(6): p 1658-1685.
Billis, D. (2010), Hybrid Organizations and the Third Sector: Challenges for Practice, Theory and
Policy, New York: Palgrave Macmillan.
Bosma, N., Schøtt, T., Terjesen, S.A. and Kew, P. (2015), “Global Entrepreneurship Monitor 2015
to 2016: Special Topic Report on Social Entrepreneurship”, Babson Park, MA: Babson
College.
Bradach, J.L. and Eccles, R.G. (1989), “Price, Authority, and Trust: From Ideal Types to Plural
Forms”, Annual Review of Sociology, 15(1): p 97-118.
International Review of Entrepreneurship, Article #1601, 17(2) 123
Brock, D., and Kim, M. (2011), Social Entrepreneurship Education Handbook. Washington, DC:
Ashoka.
Brown, T. (2008), “Design thinking”, Harvard Business Review, June: p 84–92.
Castellas, E., Stubbs, W. and Ambrosini, V. (2018), “Responding to Value Pluralism in Hybrid
Organizations”, Journal of Business Ethics, forthcoming. Published online 12 February
2018.
Chell, E., Spence, L.J., Perrini, F. and Harris, J.D. (2016), “Social Entrepreneurship and Business
Ethics: Does Social Equal Ethical?”, Journal of Business Ethics, 133(4): p 619-625.
Chen, J. (2013), “Should Your Business be Nonprofit or For-profit?”, Harvard Business Review.
Accessed: August, 2018. (https://hbr.org/2013/02/should-your-business-be-nonpro)
Dacin, M.T., Dacin, P. and Tracey, P. (2011), “Social Entrepreneurship: A Critique and Future
Directions”, Organization Science, 22(5): p 1203–1213.
Dacin, P.A., Dacin, M.T. 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): p 37–57.
Dees, J.G. (1998), “Enterprising Nonprofits,” Harvard Business Review 76(1): p 54–67.
Dees, J.G. and Anderson, B.B. (2002), “For-Profit Social Ventures”, International Journal of
Entrepreneurship Education, 2(1): p 1-26.
Dees, J.G. and Anderson, B.B. (2006), “Framing a Theory on SE: Building on Two Schools of
Practice and Thought”, ARNOVA Occasional Paper Series, 1(3): p 39-66.
Dees, J.G. and Elias, J. (1998), “The Challenges of Combining Social and Commercial
Enterprise”, Business Ethics Quarterly, 8(1): p 165-178.
Defourny, J. and Nyssens, M. (2010), “Conceptions of Social Enterprise and Social
Entrepreneurship in Europe and the United States: Convergences and Divergences”,
Journal of Social Entrepreneurship, 1(1): p 32 -53.
Doherty, B., Haugh, H. and Lyon, F. (2014), “Social Enterprises as Hybrid Organizations: A
Review and Research Agenda”, International Journal of Management Reviews, 16(4): p
417-436.
Domenico, M.D., Haugh, H. and Tracey, P. (2010), “Social bricolage: Theorizing social value
creation in social enterprises”, Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 34(4): 681-703.
Dunne, D., and Martin, R. (2006), “Design Thinking and How It Will Change Management
Education: An Interview and Discussion”, Academy of Management Learning &
Education, 5(4), p 512–523.
Etzel, M. (2015), “Philanthropy’s New Frontier- Impact Investing”, Stanford Social Innovation
Review. Accessed: August, 2018.
(https://ssir.org/articles/entry/philanthropys_new_frontierimpact_investing)
Foster, W. and Bradach, J. (2005), “Should Non-Profits Seek Profits?”, Harvard Business Review,
83(2), p 92-100.
Glunk, U. and Van Gils, A. (2010), “Social Entrepreneurship Education: A Holistic Learning
Initiative”, International Review of Entrepreneurship, 8(2): p 113-132.
Greenwood, R., Raynard, M., Odeih, F., Micelotta, E. and Lounsbury, M. (2011), “Institutional
Complexity and Organisational Responses”, Academy of Management Annals, 5(1): p 317-
371.
Haigh, N. and Hoffman, A.J. (2012), “Hybrid Organizations: The Next Chapter of Sustainable
Business”, Organizational Dynamics, 41(2): p 126–34.
Haigh, N., Kennedy, E.D. and Walker J. (2015a), “Hybrid Organizations as Shape-Shifters:
Altering Legal Structure for Strategic Gain”, California Management Review, 57(3): p 59-
82.
Haigh, N., Walker, J., Bacq, S. and Kickul, J. (2015b), “Hybrid Organisations: Origins, Strategies,
Impacts and Implications”, California Management Review, 57(3): p 5-12.
Hockerts, K. (2006), “Entrepreneurial Opportunity in Social Purpose Business Ventures”, In Mair,
J., Robinson, J. and Hockerts, K. (Eds.), Social Entrepreneurship. Basingstoke, UK:
Palgrave Macmillan.
124 The Rise of Hybrids: A Note for Social Entrepreneurship Educators
Hockerts, K. (2010), “Social Entrepreneurship between Market and Mission”, International
Review of Entrepreneurship, 8(2), p 177-198.
Hockerts, K. (2015), “How Hybrid Organizations Turn Antagonistic Assets into
Complementarities”, California Management Review, 57(3), p 83-106.
Hoogendoorn, B. (2016), “The Prevalence and Determinants of Social Entrepreneurship at the
Macro Level”, Journal of Small Business Management, 54(S1), p 278-296.
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), p 71-112.
Kannothra, C.G., Manning, S. and Haigh, N. (2018), “How Hybrids Manage Growth and Social-
Business Tensions in Global Supply Chains: The Case of Impact Sourcing”, Journal of
Business Ethics, 148(2): p 271-290.
Kent, D. and Dacin, M.T. (2013), “Bankers at the Gate: Microfinance and the High Cost of
Borrowed Logics”, Journal of Business Venturing, 28(6), p 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), p 30-50.
Kickul, J. and Gundry, L. (2015), “Innovations in Social Entrepreneurship—Scaling For Impact”,
International Journal of Entrepreneurship and Innovation, 16(4), p 233–237.
Kickul, J. and Lyons, T.S. (2016), Understanding Social Entrepreneurship: The Relentless Pursuit
of Mission in an Ever Changing World (2nd Edition). New York: Routledge.
Kickul, J., Gundry, L., Mitra, P. and Berçot, L. (2018), “Designing with Purpose: Advocating
Innovation, Impact, Sustainability, and Scale in Social Entrepreneurship Education”,
Entrepreneurship Education and Pedagogy, 1(2): p 205-221.
Kickul, J., Janssen-Selvadurai, C. and Griffiths, M. (2012), “A Blended Value Framework for
Educating the Next Cadre of Social Entrepreneurs”, Academy of Management Learning &
Education, 11(3): p 479-473.
Kirby, D.A. (2004), “Entrepreneurship Education: Can Business Schools Meet the Challenge?”
Education + Training, 46(8/9), p 510-519.
Knight, E. and Paroutis, S. (2016), “Expanding the Paradox-Pedagody Links: Paradox as a
Threshold Concept in Management Education”. In: Lewis, M., Smith, W., Jarzabkowski,
P. and Langley, A. (Eds.) Oxford Handbook of Organisational Paradox: Approaches to
Plurality, Tensions and Contradictions, Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
Lumpkin, G., Moss, T., Gras, D., Kato, S. and Amezcua, A. (2013), “Entrepreneurial Processes in
Social Contexts: How are They Different, if at All”? Small Business Economics, 40(3): p
761-783.
Lyons, T.S. and Kickul, J. (2013), “The Social Enterprise Financing Landscape: The Lay of the
Land and New Research on the Horizon”, Entrepreneurship Research Journal, 3(2): p
147-159.
Mair, J. and Marti, I. (2006), “Social Entrepreneurship Research: A Source of Explanation,
Prediction, and Delight”, Journal of World Business, 41(1): p 36-44.
Mair, J. and Marti, I. (2009), “Entrepreneurship in and around Institutional Voids: A Case Study
from Bangladesh”, Journal of Business Venturing, 24(5): 419-435.
Miller, T.L., and Wesley, C.L. (2010), “Assessing Mission and Resources for Social Change: An
Organizational Identity Perspective on Social Venture Capitalists’ Decision Criteria”,
Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 34(4), p 705-733.
Mitra, P., Byrne, J. and Janssen, F. (2017), “Advantages of Hybrid Organising in Social
Entrepreneurship: Evidence from Norway”, International Review of Entrepreneurship,
15(4): p 519-536.
Moss, T.W., Short, J.C., Payne, G.T. and Lumpkin, G.T. (2011), “Dual Identities in Social
Ventures: An Exploratory Study”, Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 35(4): p 805-
830.
International Review of Entrepreneurship, Article #1601, 17(2) 125
Pache, A. and Chowdhury, I. (2012), “Social Entrepreneurs as Institutionally Embedded
Entrepreneurs: Toward a New Model of Social Entrepreneurship Education”, Academy of
Management Learning & Education, 11(3): p 494-510.
Pache, A.C. and Santos, F. (2010), “When Worlds Collide: The Internal Dynamics of
Organisational Responses to Conflicting Institutional Demands”, Academy of Management
Review, 35(3): p 455-476.
Pache, A.C. and Santos, F. (2013), “Inside the Hybrid Organization: Selective Coupling as a
Response to Competing Institutional Logics”, Academy of Management Journal, 56(4), p
972- 1001.
Peredo, A.M. and Chrisman, J.J. (2006), “Toward a Theory of Community-based
Entrepreneurship”, Academy of Management Review, 31(2): 309-328.
Peredo, A.M. and McLean, M. (2006), “Social Entrepreneurship: A Critical Review of the
Concept”, Journal of World Business, 41(1), p 56–65.
Powell, W.W. (1987), “Hybrid Organizational Arrangements: New Form or Transitional
Development?”, California Management Review, 30(1): p 67-87.
Radjou, N., Prabhu, J. and Ahuja, S. (2012), “When Ingenuity Saves Lives”, Harvard Business
Review. Accessed: August, 2018. (https://hbr.org/2012/05/when-ingenuity-saves-lives)
Roundy, P. T. (2017), “Hybrid Organizations and the Logics of Entrepreneurial Ecosystems”,
International Entrepreneurship and Management Journal, 13(4), 1221-1237.
Saebi, T., Foss, N.J. and Linder, S. (2019), “Social Entrepreneurship Research: Past Achievements
and Future Promises”, Journal of Management, 45(1), 70-95.
Santos, F. (2012), “A Positive Theory of Social Entrepreneurship”, Journal of Business Ethics,
111(3): p 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, 57(3):
p 36-58.
Smith, W.K., Besharov, M.L., Wessels, A.K. and Chertok, M. (2012), “A Paradoxical Leadership
Model for Social Entrepreneurs: Challenges, Leadership Skills, and Pedagogical Tools for
Managing Social and Commercial Demands”, Academy of Management Learning &
Education, 11(3): p 463-478.
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): p
407-442.
Smith, I.H. and Woodworth, W.P. (2012), “Developing Social Entrepreneurs and Social
Innovators: A Social Identity and Self-Efficacy Approach”, Academy of Management
Learning & Education, 11(3): p 390-407.
Spitzeck, H. and Janssen, F. (2010), “Social Entrepreneurship: Implications for Management
Practice”, International Review of Entrepreneurship, 8(2): p 63-70.
Terjesen, S., Lepoutre, J., Justo, R. and Bosma, N. (2009), “Global Entrepreneurship Monitor 2009
Report on Social Entrepreneurship”, Babson Park, MA: Babson College.
Tracey, P. and Jarvis, O. (2007), “Toward a Theory of Social Venture Franchising”,
Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 31(5): p 667–685.
Tracey, P. and Philips, N. (2007), “The Distinctive Challenge of Educating Social Entrepreneurs:
A Postscript and Rejoinder to the Special Issue on Entrepreneurship Education”, Academy
of Management Learning & Education, 6(2): p 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): p 60-80.
Vesper, K. H. (1998), Unfinished Business (Entrepreneurship) of the 20th Century. San Diego, CA:
USASBE.
Wang, S. and Wang, H. (2011), “Teaching Design Thinking Through Case Analysis: Joint
Analytical Process”, Decision Sciences, 9(1): p 113–118.
126 The Rise of Hybrids: A Note for Social Entrepreneurship Educators
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): p 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): p 715-737.
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): p 519-532.
Zahra, S.A. and Wright, M. (2016), “Understanding the Social Role of Entrepreneurship”, Journal
of Management Studies, 53(4): p 612-629.
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): p 643-662.
Zhu, Y., Rooney, D. and Phillips, N. (2016), “Practice-Based Wisdom Theory for Integrating
Institutional Logics: A New Model for Social Entrepreneurship Learning and Education”,
Academy of Management Learning & Education, 15(3), p 607-625.
Zilber, T.B. (2002), “Institutionalization as an Interplay Between Actions, Meaning And Actors:
The Case of a Rape Crisis Center in Israel”, Academy of Management Journal, 45(1): p
234-254.
