Hostname: page-component-745bb68f8f-s22k5 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-01-27T13:48:26.603Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Managing Social-Business Tensions: A Review and Research Agenda for Social Enterprise

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  23 January 2015

Wendy K. Smith ,
Michael Gonin  and
Marya L. Besharov
Wendy K. Smith
Affiliation:
University of Delaware
Michael Gonin
Affiliation:
University of Zurich and University of Lausanne
Marya L. Besharov
Affiliation:
Cornell University
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract:

In a world filled with poverty, environmental degradation, and moral injustice, social enterprises offer a ray of hope. These organizations seek to achieve social missions through business ventures. Yet social missions and business ventures are associated with divergent goals, values, norms, and identities. Attending to them simultaneously creates tensions, competing demands, and ethical dilemmas. Effectively understanding social enterprises therefore depends on insight into the nature and management of these tensions. While existing research recognizes tensions between social missions and business ventures, we lack any systematic analysis. Our paper addresses this issue. We first categorize the types of tensions that arise between social missions and business ventures, emphasizing their prevalence and variety. We then explore how four different organizational theories offer insight into these tensions, and we develop an agenda for future research. We end by arguing that a focus on social-business tensions not only expands insight into social enterprises, but also provides an opportunity for research on social enterprises to inform traditional organizational theories. Taken together, our analysis of tensions in social enterprises integrates and seeks to energize research on this expanding phenomenon.

Keywords

social enterprisesocial entrepreneurparadox theoryinstitutional theorystakeholder theoryorganizational identityhybrid organizations
Type
Articles
Information
Business Ethics Quarterly , Volume 23 , Issue 3 , July 2013 , pp. 407 - 442
Copyright
Copyright © Society for Business Ethics 2013

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

REFERENCES

Agle, B.R.Donaldson, T.Freeman, R.E.Jensen, M.C.Mitchell, R.K. & Wood, D.J. 2008. Dialogue: Toward superior stakeholder theory. Business Ethics Quarterly, 18(2): 153–90. http://dx.doi.org/10.5840/beq200818214CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Agle, B.R.Mitchell, R.K. & Sonnenfeld, J.A. 1999. Who matters to CEOs? An investigation of stakeholder attributes and salience, corporate performance, and CEO values. Academy of Management Journal, 42(5): 507–25. http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/256973CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Albert, S. & Whetten, D.A. 1985. Organizational identity. Research in Organizational Behavior, 7: 263–95.Google Scholar
Alter, S.K. 2008. Social enterprise models and their mission and money relationship. Nicholls, A. (Ed.), Social entrepreneurship: New models of sustainable social change: 205–32. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Andriopoulos, C. & Lewis, M.W. 2009. Exploitation-exploration tensions and organizational ambidexterity: Managing paradoxes of innovation. Organization Science, 20(4): 696–717. http://dx.doi.org/10.1287/orsc.1080.0406CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Anteby, M. & Wrzesniewski, A. Forthcoming In search of the self at work: Young adults’ experiences of a dual identity organization. Research in the Sociology of Work.Google Scholar
Argenti, P.A. 2004. Collaborating with activists: How Starbucks works with NGOs. California Management Review, 47(1): 91–116. http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/41166288CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Argyris, C. 1988. Crafting a theory of practice: The case of organizational paradoxes. In Quinn, R. & Cameron, K. (Eds.), Paradox and transformation: Toward a theory of change in organization and management: 255–78. Cambridge, MA: Ballinger.Google Scholar
Ashforth, B.E.Reingen, P.H. & Ward, J.C. 2013. Friend and foe? The dynamics of an organizational duality in a natural food cooperative. Administrative Science Quarterly, Provisional Accept.Google Scholar
Bartunek, J. 1988. The dynamics of personal and organizational reframing. In Quinn, R. & Cameron, K. (Eds.), Paradox and transformation: Toward a theory of change in organization and management: 137–62. Cambridge, MA: Ballinger.Google Scholar
Battilana, J. & Dorado, S. 2010. Building sustainable hybrid organizations: The case of commercial microfinance organizations. Academy of Management Journal, 53(6): 1419–40. http://dx.doi.org/10.5465/AMJ.2010.57318391CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Battilana, J.Lee, M.Walker, J. & Dorsey, C. 2012. In search of the hybrid ideal. Stanford Social Innovation Review, 10(3) (Summer): 51–55.Google Scholar
Battilana, J.Pache, A.C.Sengul, M. & Model, J. 2011. Beyond organizational instability and conflict: On the challenges of remaining hybrid. Working Paper, Harvard University, Cambridge, MA.Google Scholar
Battilana, J.Pache, A.C.Sengul, M. & Model, J. 2013. Keeping a foot in both camps: Understanding the drivers of social performance in hybrid organizations. Working Paper, Harvard University, Cambridge, MA.Google Scholar
Baur, D. & Palazzo, G. 2011. The moral legitimacy of NGOs as partners of corporations. Business Ethics Quarterly, 21(4): 579–604. http://dx.doi.org/10.5840/beq201121437CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Beech, N.Burns, H.de Caestecker, L.MacIntosh, R. & MacLean, D. 2004. Paradox as invitation to act in problematic change situations. Human Relations, 57(10): 1313–1332. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0018726704048357CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bell, T. 2011. Being the only b. Stanford Social Innovation Review, 9(3): 27–28.Google Scholar
Berger, I.E.Cunningham, P.H. & Drumwright, M.E. 2004. Social alliances: Company/nonprofit collaboration. California Management Review, 47: 58–90. http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/41166287CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Berman, S.L.Wicks, A.C.Kotha, S. & Jones, T.M. 1999. Does stakeholder orientation matter? The relationship between stakeholder management models and firm financial performance. Academy of Management Journal, 42(5): 488–506. http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/256972CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Besharov, M.L. 2013. Toward a relational ecology of identification: A process model of managing identification based on divergent values. Working Paper, Cornell University, Ithaca, NY..Google Scholar
Besharov, M.L. & Smith, W.K. 2013. Multiple logics within organizations: An integrative framework and model of organizational hybridity. Working Paper, Cornell University, Ithaca, NY.Google Scholar
Bornstein, D. 2004. How to change the world: Social entrepreneurs and the power of new ideas. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Bornstein, D. 2013. Beyond profit: A talk with Muhammad Yunus. New York Times. (April 17).Google Scholar
Borzaga, C. & Santuari, A. 2001. Italy: From traditional co-operatives to innovative social enterprises. In Borzaga, C. & Defourny, J. (Eds.), The emergence of social enterprise: 166–81. London: Routledge.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Boyd, B.Henning, N.Reyna, E.Wang, D. & Welch, M. 2009. Hybrid organizations: New business models for environmental leadership. Sheffield, UK: Greenleaf.Google Scholar
Bromberger, A.R. 2011. A new type of hybrid. Stanford Social Innovation Review, 9(2): 49–53.Google Scholar
Cameron, K. 1986. Effectiveness as paradox: Consensus and conflict in conceptions of organizational effectiveness. Management Science, 32(5): 539–53. http://dx.doi.org/10.1287/mnsc.32.5.539CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cameron, K. & Lavine, M. 2006. Making the impossible possible: Leading extraordinary performance. San Francisco: Berrett-Koehler.Google Scholar
Chowdhury, I. & Santos, F.M. 2011. Gram vikas. In Hamschmidt, J. & Pirson, M. (Eds.), Case studies in social entrepreneurship and sustainability: 43–68. Sheffield, UK: Greenleaf Publishing.Google Scholar
Cooney, K. 2012. Mission control: Examining the institutionalization of new legal forms of social enterprise in different strategic action fields. In Gidron, B. & Hasenfeld, Y. (Eds.), Social enterprises: An organizational perspective. New York: Palgrave Macmillan.Google Scholar
Corley, K.G. & Gioia, D.A. 2004. Identity ambiguity and change in the wake of a corporate spin-off. Administrative Science Quarterly, 49(2): 173–208.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cornforth, C. 2004. The governance of cooperatives and mutual associations: A paradox perspective. Annals of Public and Cooperative Economics, 71: 11–32. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8292.2004.00241.xCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cyert, R.M. & March, J.G. 1963. A behavioral theory of the firm. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.Google Scholar
Dacin, M.T.Dacin, P.A. & Tracey, P. 2011. Social entrepreneurship: A critique and future directions. Organization Science, 22(5): 1203–13. http://dx.doi.org/10.1287/orsc.1100.0620CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dacin, P.A.Dacin, M.T. & 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. http://dx.doi.org/10.5465/AMP.2010.52842950Google Scholar
Davis, G.F. 1991. Agents without principles? The spread of the poison pill through the intercorporate network. Administrative Science Quarterly, 36(4): 583–613. http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/2393275CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dees, J.G. 2001. The meaning of social entrepreneurship. http://www.caseatduke.org,Original draft: 1998, Revised 2001.Google Scholar
Dees, J.G. 2007. Taking social entrepreneurship seriously: Uncertainty, innovation, and social problem solving. Society 44(3): 24–31. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/BF02819936CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dees, J.G. 2012. A tale of two cultures: Charity, problem solving, and the future of social entrepreneurship. Journal of Business Ethics, 111(3): 321–34. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10551-012-1412-5CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dees, J.G.Battle Anderson, B. & Wei-Skillern, J. 2004. Scaling social enterpreneurship: Strategies for spreading social innovations. Stanford Social Innovation Review, 1(4): 24–32.Google Scholar
Defourny, J. & Nyssens, M. 2010. Conceptions of social enterprise and social entrepreneur-ship in Europe and the United States: Convergences and divergences. Journal of Social Entrepreneurship, 1(1): 32–53. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/19420670903442053CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Denis, J.-l.Langley, A. & Rouleau, L. 2006. The power of numbers in strategizing. Strategic Organization, 4(4): 349–77. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/1476127006069427CrossRefGoogle Scholar
DiMaggio, P. 1988. Interest and agency in institutional theory. In Zucker, L.G. (Ed.), Institutional patterns and organizations: 3–21. Cambridge, MA: Ballinger.Google Scholar
DiMaggio, P. & Powell, W.W. 1983. The iron cage revisited: Institutional isomorphism and collective rationality in organizational fields. American Sociological Review, 48(2): 147–60. http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/2095101CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Donaldson, T. & Preston, L.E. 1995. The stakeholder theory of the corporation: Concepts, evidence, and implications. Academy of Management Review, 20(1): 65–91.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Driver, M. 2012. An interview with Michael Porter: Social entrepreneurship and the transformation of capitalism. Academy of Management Learning & Education, 11(3): 421–31.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dutton, J. & Dukerich, J. 1991. Keeping an eye on the mirror: Image and identity in organizational adaptation. Academy of Management Journal, 34(3): 517–54. http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/256405CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ebrahim, A. & Rangan, V.K. 2010. Putting the brakes on impact: A contingency framework for measuring social impact. Academy of Management Proceedings.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Eisenhardt, K.M. & Westcott, B. 1988. Paradoxical demands and the creation of excellence: The case of just in time manufacturing. In Quinn, R. & Cameron, K. (Eds.), Paradox and transformation: Toward a theory of change in organization and management: 19–54. Cambridge, MA: Ballinger.Google Scholar
Elsbach, K. 1999. An expanded model of organizational identification. In R. I. Sutton & B. M. Staw. (Eds.), Research in organizational behavior, vol. 21: 163–99. Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.Google Scholar
Elsbach, K. 2001. Coping with hybrid organizational identities: Evidence from California legislative staff. In Wagner, J. (Ed.), Advances in qualitative organizational research, vol. 3: 59–90. Oxford: Elsevier Science Ltd.Google Scholar
Epstein, M. 2008. Making sustainability work. Sheffield, UK: Greenleaf Publishing.Google Scholar
Farjoun, M. 2010. Beyond dualism: Stability and change as duality. Academy of Management Review, 35(2): 202–25. http://dx.doi.org/10.5465/AMR.2010.48463331Google Scholar
Feldman, M.S. & Orlikowski, W.J. 2011. Theorizing practice and practicing theory. Organization Science, 22: 1240–53. http://dx.doi.org/10.1287/orsc.1100.0612CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fiol, C.M.Pratt, M.G. & O’Connor, E.J. 2009. Managing intractable identity conflict. Academy of Management Review, 34(1): 32–55. http://dx.doi.org/10.5465/AMR.2009.35713276CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Forcadell, F. 2005. Democracy, cooperation and business success: The case of Mondragón Corporación Cooperativa. Journal of Business Ethics, 56(3): 255–74. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10551-004-5094-5CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ford, J. & Backoff, R. 1988. Organizational change in and out of dualities and paradox. In Quinn, R. & Cameron, K. (Eds.), Paradox and transformation: Toward a theory of change in organization and management: 81–121.Cambridge, MA: Ballinger.Google Scholar
Foreman, P.O. & Whetten, D.A. 2002. Members’ identification with multiple-identity organizations. Organization Science, 13(6): 618–35. http://dx.doi.org/10.1287/orsc.13.6.618.493CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Freeman, R.E. 1984. Strategic management: A stakeholder approach. Boston: Pitman.Google Scholar
Frooman, J. 1999. Stakeholder influence strategies. Academy of Management Review, 24(2): 191–205.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Galaskiewicz, J.Bielefeld, W. & Dowell, M. 2006. Networks and organizational growth: A study of community based nonprofits. Administrative Science Quarterly, 51(3): 337–80.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Galaskiewicz, J. & Burt, R.S. 1991. Interorganization contagion in corporate philanthropy. Administrative Science Quarterly, 36(1): 88–105. http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/2393431CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Glynn, M.A. 2000. When cymbals become symbols: Conflict over organizational identity within a symphony orchestra. Organization Science, 11(3): 285–98. http://dx.doi.org/10.1287/orsc.11.3.285.12496CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Golden-Biddle, K. & Rao, H. 1997. Breaches in the boardroom: Organizational identity and conflicts of commitment in a non profit organization. Organization Science, 8(6): 593–611. http://dx.doi.org/10.1287/orsc.8.6.593CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gonin, M. 2007. Business research, self-fulfilling prophecy, and the inherent responsibility of scholars. Journal of Academic Ethics, 5(1): 33–58. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10805-007-9039-3CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Greenwood, R.Díaz, A.M.Li, S.X. & Lorente, J.C. 2010. The multiplicity of institutional logics and the heterogeneity of organizational responses. Organization Science, 21(2): 521–39. http://dx.doi.org/10.1287/orsc.1090.0453CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Greenwood, R.Raynard, M.Kodeih, F.Micelotta, E.R. & Lounsbury, M. 2011. Institutional complexity and organizational responses. Academy of Management Annals, 5(1): 317–71. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/19416520.2011.590299CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Grimes, M. 2010. Strategic sensemaking within funding relationships: The effects of performance measurement on organizational identity in the social sector. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 34(4): 763–83. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-6520.2010.00398.xCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gutierrez, B.Howard-Grenville, J. & Scully, M.A. 2010. The faithful rise up: Split identification and an unlikely change effort. Academy of Management Journal, 53(4): 673–99. http://dx.doi.org/10.5465/AMJ.2010.52814362CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Haigh, N. & Hoffman, A.J. 2012. Hybrid organizations: The next chapter of sustainable business. Organizational Dynamics, 41(2): 126–34. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.orgdyn.2012.01.006CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hanleybrown, F.Kania, J. & Kramer, M.R. 2012. Channeling change: Making collective impact work. Stanford Social Innovation Review, blog entry. Available at http://www.ssireview.org/blog/entry/channeling_change_making_collective_impact_work.Google Scholar
Hart, K.Laville, J.-L. & Cattani, A.D. 2010. The human economy: A citizen’s guide. Cambridge: Polity Press.Google Scholar
Haugh, H. & Peredo, A.M. 2010. The origins, launch and diffusion of the community interest company, Academy of Management, Montreal.Google Scholar
Hoffman, A.J.Badiane, K.K. & Haigh, N. 2010. Hybrid organizations as agents of positive social change: Bridging the for-profit and non-profit divide. Working paper, Ross School of Business, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor.Google Scholar
Hsu, G. 2006. Jacks of all trades and masters of none: Audiences’ reactions to spanning genres in feature film production. Administrative Science Quarterly, 51(3): 420–50.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jarzabkowski, P. 2008. Shaping strategy as a structuration process. Academy of Management Journal, 51(4): 621–50.Google Scholar
Jay, J. 2013. Navigating paradox as a mechanism of change and innovation in hybrid organizations. Academy of Management Journal, 56(1): 137–59. http://dx.doi.org/10.5465/amj.2010.0772CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jensen, M.C. 2002. Value maximization, stakeholder theory, and the corporate objective function. Business Ethics Quarterly, 12(2): 235–56. http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/3857812CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jensen, M.C. 2008. Non-rational behavior, value conflict, stakeholder theory and firm behavior in dialogue: Toward superior stakeholder theory. Business Ethics Quarterly, 18(2): 167–71.Google Scholar
Kania, J. & Kramer, M. 2011. Collective impact. Stanford Social Innovation Review, 9(1): 36–41.Google Scholar
Karnani, A.Garrette, B.Kassalow, J. & Lee, M. 2011. Better vision for the poor. Stanford Social Innovation Review, 9(2) (Spring): 66–71.Google Scholar
Kraatz, M.S. & Block, E. 2008. Organizational implications of institutional pluralism. In Greenwood, R.Oliver, C.Sahlin, K. & Suddaby, R. (Eds.), The Sage handbook of organizational institutionalism: 243–75. Los Angeles: SAGE. http://dx.doi.org/10.4135/9781849200387.n10CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lawrence, T.Suddaby, R. & Leca, B. 2011. Institutional work: Refocusing institutional studies of organization. Journal of Management Inquiry, 20(1) 52–58. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/1056492610387222CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Levinthal, D. & March, J. 1993. The myopia of learning. Strategic Management Journal, 14 (Special Issue): 95–112. http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/smj.4250141009CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lewis, M.W. 2000. Exploring paradox: Toward a more comprehensive guide. Academy of Management Review, 25(4): 760–76.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lewis, M.W.Andriopoulos, C. & Smith, W.K. Forthcoming. Paradoxical leadership to enable strategic agility. California Management Review.Google Scholar
Light, P.C. 2009. Social entrepreneurship revisited: Not just anyone, anywhere in any organization can make breakthrough change. Stanford Social Innovation Review, 7(3) (Summer): 21–22.Google Scholar
Luscher, L. & Lewis, M. 2008. Organizational change and managerial sensemaking: Working through paradox. Academy of Management Journal, 51(2): 221–40. http://dx.doi.org/10.5465/AMJ.2008.31767217CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mair, J. & Martí, I. 2006. Social entrepreneurship research: A source of explanation, prediction, and delight. Journal of World Business, 41(1): 36–44. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/jjwb.2005.09.002CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mair, J. & Martí, I. 2009. Entrepreneurship in and around institutional voids: A case study from Bangladesh. Journal of Business Venturing, 24(5): 419–35. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016Zj.jbusvent.2008.04.006CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mair, J.Martí, I. & Ventresca, M.J. 2012. Building inclusive markets in rural Bangladesh: How intermediaries work institutional voids. Academy of Management Journal, 55(4): 819–50. http://dx.doi.org/10.5465/amj.2010.0627CrossRefGoogle Scholar
March, J. 1991. Exploration and exploitation in organizational learning. Organization Science, 2(1): 71–87. http://dx.doi.org/10.1287/orsc.2.1.71CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Margolis, J.D. & Walsh, J. 2003. Misery loves company: Rethinking social initiatives by business. Administrative Science Quarterly, 48(2): 268–305. http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/3556659CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Marquis, C. & Battilana, J. 2009. Acting globally but thinking locally? The enduring influence of local communities on organizations. Research in Organizational Behavior, 29: 283–302. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.riob.2009.06.001CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Martin, R. 2007. The opposable mind: How successful leaders win through integrative thinking. Boston: Harvard Business School Press.Google Scholar
Mersland, R. & Strom, R.Ø. 2010. Microfinance mission drift?. World Development, 38(1): 28–36. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.worlddev.2009.05.006CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Meyer, J.W. & Rowan, B. 1977. Institutionalized organizations: Formal structure as myth and ceremony. American Journal of Sociology, 83(2): 340–63. http://dx.doi.org/10.1086/226550CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Miller, T.L.Wesley, C.L. & Williams, D.E. 2012. Educating the minds of caring hearts: Comparing the views of practitioners and educators on the importance of social entrepreneurship competencies. Academy of Management Learning & Education, 11(3): 349–70. http://dx.doi.org/10.5465/amle.2011.0017CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mitchell, R.K.Agle, B.R. & Wood, D. 1997. Toward a theory of stakeholer indentification and salience: Defining the principle of who and what really counts. Academy of Management Review, 22(4): 853–96.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Moon, J.Crane, A. & Matten, D. 2005. Can corporations be citizens? Corporate citizenship as a metaphor for business participation in society. Business Ethics Quarterly, 15(3): 429–53. http://dx.doi.org/10.5840/beq200515329CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Moss, T.W.Short, J.C.Payne, G.T. & Lumpkin, G.T. 2011. Dual identities in social ventures: An exploratory study. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 35(4): 805–30. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-6520.2010.00372.xCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nag, R.Corley, K.G. & Gioia, D.A. 2007. The intersection of organizational identity, knowledge, and practice: Attempting strategic change via knowledge crafting. Academy of Management Journal, 50(4): 821–47. http://dx.doi.org/10.5465/AMJ.2007.26279173CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Navis, C. & Glynn, M.A. 2011. Legitimate distinctiveness and the entrepreneurial identity: Influence on investor judgments of new venture plausibility. Academy of Management Review, 36(3): 479–99. http://dx.doi.org/10.5465/AMR.2011.61031809Google Scholar
Negro, G.Kocak, O. & Hsu, G. 2010. Research on categories in the sociology of organizations. Categories in Markets: Origins and Evolution, 31: 3–35.Google Scholar
Nicholls, A. & Opal, C. 2004. Fair trade: Market-driven ethical consumption. London: Sage Publications.Google Scholar
Ogden, S. & Watson, R. 1999. Corporate performance and stakeholder management: Balancing shareholder and customer interests in the U.K. privatized water industry. Academy of Management Journal, 42(5): 526–38. http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/256974CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Orlitzky, M.Schmidt, F.L. & Rynes, S.L. 2003. Corporate social and financial performance: A meta-analysis. Organization Studies, 24(3): 403–41. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0170840603024003910CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pache, A.C. 2013. From caring entrepreneur to caring enterprise: Addressing the ethical challenges of scaling up social enterprises. Working paper, Insead University, Fontainebleau, France.Google Scholar
Pache, A.C. & Chowdhury, I. 2012. Social entrepreneurs as institutionally embedded entrepreneurs: Toward a new model of social entrepreneurship education. Academy of Management Learning & Education, 11(3): 494–510. http://dx.doi.org/10.5465/amle.2011.0019CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pache, A.C. & Santos, F. 2010. When worlds collide: The internal dynamics of organizational responses to conflicting institutional demands. Academy of Management Review, 35(3): 455–76. http://dx.doi.org/10.5465/AMR.2010.51142368Google Scholar
Pache, A.C. Forthcoming. Inside the hybrid organization: Selective coupling as a response to conflicting institutional logics. Academy of Management Journal.Google Scholar
Pfeffer, J. & Salancik, G.R. 1978. The external control of organizations: A resource dependence perspective. New York: Harper and Row.Google Scholar
Phillips, R.A. & Freeman, R.E. 2008. Corporate citizenship and community stakeholders. In Scherer, A.G. & Palazzo, G. (Eds.), Handbook of research on global corporate citizenship: 99–115. Cheltenham, UK: Edward Elgar.Google Scholar
Poole, M.S. & Van de Ven, A. 1989. Using paradox to build management and organizational theory. Academy of Management Review, 14(4): 562–78.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Porter, T.M. 1995. Trust in numbers: The pursuit of objectivity in science and public life. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Powell, W.W. & Colyvas, J. 2008. Microfoundations of institutional theory. In Greenwood, R.Oliver, C.Sahlin, K. & Suddaby, R. (Eds.), The Sage handbook of organizational institutionalism: 276–98. Los Angeles: SAGE. http://dx.doi.org/10.4135/9781849200387.n11CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Prahalad, C.K. 2006. The fortune at the bottom of the pyramid. Delhi: Pearson Education India.Google Scholar
Pratt, M.G. 2000. The good, the bad, and the ambivalent: Managing identification among Amway distributors. Administrative Science Quarterly, 45(3): 456–93.http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/2667106CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pratt, M.G. & Corley, K. 2007. Managing multiple organizational identities: On identity ambiguity, identity conflict, and members’ reactions. In Bartel, C.A.Blader, S. & Wrzesniewski, A. (Eds.), Identity and the modern organization: 99–118. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
Pratt, M.G. & Foreman, P.O. 2000. Classifying managerial responses to multiple organizational identities. Academy of Management Review, 25(1): 18–42.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pratt, M.G. & Kraatz, M.S. 2009. E pluribus unum: Multiple identities and the organizational self. In Roberts, L.M. & Dutton, J.E. (Eds.), Exploring positive identities and organizations: Building a theoretical and research foundation: 385–410. New York: Psychology Press.Google Scholar
Pratt, M.G. & Rafaeli, A. 1997. Organizational dress as a symbol of multilayered social identities. Academy of Management Journal, 40(4): 862–98.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Quinn, R. & Cameron, K. 1998. Paradox and transformation: Toward a theory of change in organization and management Cambridge, MA: Ballinger.Google Scholar
Rothenberg, A. 1979. The emerging goddess Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Rowley, T.J. & Moldoveanu, M. 2003. When will stakeholder groups act? An interest- and identity-based model of stakeholder group mobilization. Academy of Management Review, 28(2): 204–19.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Seelos, C. & Mair, J. 2005. Social entrepreneurship: Creating new business models to serve the poor. Business Horizons, 48: 241–46. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.bushor.2004.11.006CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Seelos, C. & Mair, J. 2007. Profitable business models and market creation in the context of deep poverty: A strategic view. Academy of Management Perspectives, 21(4): 49–63. http://dx.doi.org/10.5465/AMP.2007.27895339CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Selznick, P. 1957. Leadership in administration. Berkeley: University of California Press.Google Scholar
Seo, M. & Creed, W. 2002. Institutional contradictions, praxis, and institutional change: A dialectical perspective. Academy of Management Review, 27(2): 222–47.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sisón, A.J.G.Hartman, E.M. & Fontrodona, J. 2012. Reviving tradition: Virtue and the common good in business and management. Business Ethics Quarterly, 22(2): 207–10.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Smith, K. 2002. Manna in the wilderness of AIDS: Ten lessons in abundance. Cleveland: Pilgrim Press.Google Scholar
Smith, K. & Berg, D. 1987. Paradoxes of group life. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.Google Scholar
Smith, W.K. 2013. Dynamic response patterns to paradoxical tensions: A model of senior leadership practices to manage ambidexterity. Working paper, University of Delaware, Newark.Google Scholar
Smith, W.K.Besharov, M.L.Wessels, A. & 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): 463–78. http://dx.doi.org/10.5465/amle.2011.0021CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Smith, W.K.Leonard, H. & Epstein, M. 2007. Digital divide data: A social enterprise in action. Harvard Business School Case Study.Google Scholar
Smith, W.K. & Lewis, M.W. 2011. Toward a theory of paradox: A dynamic equilibrium model of organizing. Academy of Management Review, 36(2): 381–403. http://dx.doi.org/10.5465/AMR.2011.59330958Google Scholar
Smith, W.K.Lewis, M.W. & Tushman, M. 2011. Organizational sustainability: Organization design and senior leadership to enable strategic paradox. In Cameron, K. & Spreitzer, G. (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of positive organizational scholarship: 798–810. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Smith, W.K. & Tushman, M.L. 2005. Managing strategic contradictions: A top management model for managing innovation streams. Organization Science, 16(5): 522–36. http://dx.doi.org/10.1287/orsc.1050.0134CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Snaith, I. 2007. Recent reforms to corporate legal structures for social enterprise in the UK: Opportunity or confusion. Social Enterprise Journal, 3(1): 20–30. http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/17508610780000719CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sonenshein, S. 2006. Crafting social issues at work. Academy of Management Journal, 49(6): 1158–72. http://dx.doi.org/10.5465/AMJ.2006.23478243CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Stohl, C. & Cheney, G. 2001. Participatory processes/paradoxical practices: Communication and the dilemmas of organizational democracy. Management Communication Quarterly, 14(3): 349–407. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0893318901143001CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Stoltzfus, K.Stohl, C. & Seibold, D.R. 2011. Managing organizational change: Paradoxical problems, solutions, and consequences. Journal of Organizational Change Management, 24(3): 349–67. http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/09534811111132749CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Stuart, T.E.Hoang, H. & Hybels, R.C. 1999. Interorganizational endorsements and the performance of entrepreneurial ventures. Administrative Science Quarterly, 44(2): 315–49. http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/2666998CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Suchman, M.C. 1995. Managing legitimacy: Strategic and institutional approaches. Academy of Management Review, 20(3): 571–610.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sundaramurthy, C. & Lewis, M. 2003. Control and collaboration: Paradoxes of governance. Academy of Management Review, 28(3): 397–415.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Swartz, J. 2010. How I did it: Timberland’s CEO on standing up to 65,000 angry activists. Harvard Business Review, 88(9): 39–43.Google Scholar
Thompson, J. 1967. Organizations in action: Social science bases of administrative theory. New York: McGraw-Hill.Google Scholar
Thornton, P.H. 2002. The rise of the corporation in a craft industry: Conflict and conformity in institutional logics. Academy of Management Journal, 45(1): 81–101. http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/3069286CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Thornton, P.H.Ocasio, W. & Lounsbury, M. 2012. The institutional logics perspective: A new approach to culture, structure and process. New York: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tracey, P. 2012. Introduction: Digital resources and textbooks for teaching social entrepreneurship and innovation. Academy of Management Learning & Education, 11(3): 511–11. http://dx.doi.org/10.5465/amle.2012.0212CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tracey, P. & 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 & Education, 6(2): 264–71. http://dx.doi.org/10.5465/AMLE.2007.25223465CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tracey, P.Phillips, N. & Haugh, H. 2005. Beyond philanthropy: Community enterprise as a basis for corporate citizenship. Journal of Business Ethics, 58(4): 327–44. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10551-004-6944-xCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tracey, P.Phillips, N. & Jarvis, O. 2011. Bridging institutional entrepreneurship and the creation of new organizational forms: A multilevel model. Organization Science, 22(1): 60–80. http://dx.doi.org/10.1287/orsc.1090.0522CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Treviño, L.K. & Weaver, G.R. 1999. The stakeholder research tradition: Converging theorists-not convergent theory. Academy of Management Review, 24(2): 222–27.Google Scholar
Vince, R. & Broussine, M. 1996. Paradox, defense and attachment: Accessing and working with emotions and relations underlying organizational change. Organization Studies, 17(1): 1–21. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/017084069601700101CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Voss, G.B.Cable, D.M. & Voss, Z.G. 2008. Linking organizational values to relationships with external constituents: A study of nonprofit professional theatres. Organization Science, 11(3): 330–47. http://dx.doi.org/10.1287/orsc.11.3.330.12497CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wang, J. & Dewhirst, H.D. 1992. Boards of directors and stakeholder orientation. Journal of Business Ethics, 11(2): 115–23. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/BF00872318CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Weaver, G.R.Treviño, L.K. & Cochran, P.L. 1999. Integrated and decoupled corporate social performance: Management commitments, external pressure, and corporate ethics practices. Academy of Management Journal, 42(5): 539–52. http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/256975CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Westenholz, A. 1993. Paradoxical thinking and change in frames of reference. Organization Studies, 14(1): 37–58.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Yunus, M. 1999. Banker to the poor. New York: Public Affairs.Google Scholar
Yunus, M. 2010. Building social business : The new kind of capitalism that serves humanity’s most pressing needs. New York: Public Affairs.Google Scholar
Zahra, S.A.Gedajlovic, E.Neubaum, D. & Shulman, J.M. 2009. A typology of social entrepreneurs: Motives, search processes and ethical challenges. Journal of Business Venturing, 24(5): 519–32. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusvent.2008.04.007CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Zuckerman, E. 1999. The cateogrical imperative: Securities analysis and the illegitimacy discount. American Journal of Sociology, 104(5): 1398–1438. http://dx.doi.org/10.1086/210178CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Zuckerman, E. 2000. Focusing the corporate product: Securities analysts and de-diversification. Administrative Science Quarterly, 45(3): 591–619. http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/2667110CrossRefGoogle Scholar