Hostname: page-component-5db58dd55d-jnbmb Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2026-07-07T04:18:33.008Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Purpose, Commitment and Coordination Around Small Wins: A Proactive Approach to Governance in Integrated Hybrid Organizations

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 January 2026

Miriam Wolf Open the ORCID record for Miriam Wolf [Opens in a new window]  and
Johanna Mair
Miriam Wolf*
Affiliation:
Zürcher Hochschule für Angewandte Wissenschaften, Pfingstweidstrasse 96, Postfach 707, 8037 Zurich, Switzerland
Johanna Mair*
Affiliation:
Hertie School of Governance, Friedrichstrasse 180, 10117, Berlin, Germany
*
miriamwolf@yahoo.com
mair@hertie-school.org
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Integrated hybrid organizations, for instance social enterprises that pursue both social and economic goals through a single activity, are seen by many as promising vehicles to create social value while remaining economically sustainable. At the same time, they are said to run the risk of mission drift—losing sight of their social mission while navigating market and political pressures. While organizational governance mechanisms that ensure the overall direction, control and accountability of the organization are considered key to avoiding mission drift, scholars have argued that traditional governance mechanisms may not work in the context of social enterprises. Drawing on the legacy of old institutional theory, this article proposes a proactive approach to governance in social enterprises. We complement and go beyond control and compliance approaches and introduce a governance approach focused on purpose, commitment and coordinating around small wins. We propose that these three interlocking governance mechanisms allow social enterprises to mitigate the risk of mission drift in a proactive rather than reactive manner.

Keywords

Hybrid organizationsGovernancePurposeCommitmentSmall wins

Information

Type
Original Paper
Information
Voluntas: International Journal of Voluntary and Nonprofit Organizations , Volume 30 , Issue 3 , June 2019 , pp. 535 - 548
Copyright
Copyright © International Society for Third-Sector Research 2019

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.)

Article purchase

Temporarily unavailable

References

Almandoz, J. (2012). Arriving at the starting line: The impact of community and financial logics on new banking ventures. Academy of Management Journal, 55, 1381–1406. doi: 10.5465/amj.2011.0361.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Barman, E. (2008). With strings attached: Nonprofits and the adoption of donor choice. Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 37, 39–56. doi: 10.1177/0899764007303530.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Battilana, J., & Dorado, S. (2010). Building sustainable hybrid organizations: The case of commercial microfinance organizations. Academy of Management Journal, 53(6), 1419–1440. doi: 10.5465/amj.2010.57318391.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Battilana, J., & Lee, M. (2014). Advancing research on hybrid organizing—insights from the study of social enterprises. Academy of Management Journal, (8), 397–441.Google Scholar
Beckert, J. (2002). Beyond the market. The social foundations of economic efficiency. Princeton: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Besharov, M., & Khurana, R. (2015). Leading amidst competing technical and institutional demands: Revisiting Selznick’s conception of leadership. In Kraatz, M. S. (Ed.), Institutions and ideals: Philip Selznick’s legacy for organizational studies (Research in the sociology of organizations) (Vol. 44 pp. 53–88). Bingley: Emerald Group Publishing Limited.Google Scholar
Bies, A. L. (2010). Evolution of nonprofit self-regulation in Europe. Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 39(6), 1057–1086. doi: 10.1177/0899764010371852.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Blau, P. M., & Scott, W. R. (1962). Formal organizations: A comparative approach. San Francisco: Chandler. (Reprinted as a Stanford Business Classic, Stanford University Press, 2003).10.1515/9780804767361CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bouchard, M. (Ed.). (2013). Innovation and the social economy: The Québec experience. Toronto: University of Toronto Press.10.3138/9781442695092CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bouchard, M., Cruz-Filho, P., & Zerdani, T. (2015). Social enterprise in Quebec: Understanding their ‘Institutional Footprint’. Canadian Journal of Nonprofit and Social Economy Research, 6(1), 42–62. doi: 10.22230/cjnser.2015v6n1a198.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Brakman Reiser, D. (2010). Governing and financing blended enterprise. Chicago-Kent Law Review, 85(2), 619–655.Google Scholar
Brakman Reiser, D. (2013). Theorizing forms for social enterprise. Emory Law Journal, 62, 681–739.Google Scholar
Brakman Reiser, D., & Dean, S. A. (2017). Social enterprise law. Trust, public benefit and capital markets. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Bromley, P., & Meyer, J. W. (2014). “They are all organizations”: The cultural roots of blurring between the nonprofit, business, and government sectors. Administration and Society, 49(7), 939–966. doi: 10.1177/0095399714548268.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bundesministerium für Wirtschaft und Energie. (2017). Praxisleitfaden Soziales Unternehmertum. Berlin.Google Scholar
Christen, R., & Drake, D. (2002). Commercialization. The new reality of microfinance. In Drake, D. & Rhyne, E. (Eds.), The commercialization of microfinance. Balancing business and development (pp. 2–22). Bloomfield: Kumarian Press.Google Scholar
Cooney, K. (2006). The institutional and technical structuring of nonprofit ventures: Case study of a U.S. hybrid organization caught between two fields. VOLUNTAS: International Journal of Voluntary and Nonprofit Organizations, 17, 143–161. doi: 10.1007/s11266-006-9010-8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cooney, K. (2013). Mission control: Examining the institutionalization of new legal forms of social enterprise in different strategic action fields. In Gidron, B. & Hasenfeld, Y. (Eds.), Social enterprise: An organizational perspective (pp. 198–221). Hampshire: Palgrave Macmillan.Google Scholar
Cornforth, C. (2004). Understanding and combating mission drift in social enterprises. Social EnterpriseJournal, 10(1), 3–20. doi: 10.1108/SEJ-09-2013-0036.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cornforth, C. (2012). Nonprofit governance research: Limitations of the focus on boards and suggestions for new directions. Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 41, 1116–1135. doi: 10.1177/0899764011427959.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cornforth, C. (2014). Understanding and combating mission drift in social enterprises. Social Enterprise Journal, 10(1), 3–20. doi: 10.1108/SEJ-09-2013-0036.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cornforth, C., & Chambers, N. (2010). The role of corporate governance and boards in organisational performance. In Walsh, Kieran, Harvey, Gill, & Jas, Pauline (Eds.), Connecting knowledge and performance in public services: From knowing to doing. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Cornforth, C., & Simpson, S. (2002). Change and continuity in the governance of non-profit organisations in the U.K: The impact of organizational size. Nonprofit Management and Leadership, 12(4), 451–470. doi: 10.1002/nml.12408.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cornforth, C., & Spear, R. (2010). The governance of hybrid organizations. In Billis, D. (Ed.), Hybrid organizations and the third sector—challenges for practice, theory and policy (pp. 70–89). New York: Palgrave Macmillan.Google Scholar
Crucke, S., & Knockaert, M. (2016). When Stakeholder representation leads to faultlines. A study of board service performance in social enterprises. Journal of Management Studies, 53(5), 768–793. doi: 10.1111/joms.12197.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dalton, D. R., Hitt, M. A., Certo, S. T., & Dalton, C. M. (2007). The fundamental agency problem and its mitigation: Independence, equity, and the market for corporate control. Academy of Management Annals, 1, 1–64. doi: 10.1080/078559806.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
De Wit, F. R. C., Geer, L. L., & Jehn, K. A. (2012). The paradox of intragroup conflict: a meta-analysis. Journal of Applied Psychology, 97(2), 360–390. doi: 10.1037/a0024844.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Defourny, J., & Nyssens, N. (2010). Conceptions of social enterprise and social entrepreneurship in Europe and the United States: Convergences and divergences. Journal of Social Entrepreneurship, 1(1), 32–53. doi: 10.1080/19420670903442053.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Defourny, J., & Nyssens, S. (2017). Fundamentals for an international typology of social enterprise models. VOLUNTAS: International Journal of Voluntary and Nonprofit Organizations, 28, 2469–2497. doi: 10.1007/s11266-017-9884-7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Djelic, M. C., & Quack, S. (2010). Transnational communities: Shaping global economic governance. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press doi: 10.1017/CBO9780511778100.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Doherty, B., Foster, G., Mason, C., Meehan, J., Meehan, K., Rotheroe, N., & Royce, M. (2009). Management for social enterprise. London: Sage.10.4135/9781446269404CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ebrahim, A. (2003). Accountability in practice: Mechanisms for NGOs. World Development, 31(5), 813–829. doi: 10.1016/S0305-750X(03)00014-7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ebrahim, A., Battilana, J., & Mair, J. (2014). The governance of social enterprises: Mission drift and accountability challenges in hybrid organizations. Research in Organizational Behavior, 34, 81–100. doi: 10.1016/j.riob.2014.09.001.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Eckerd, A., & Moulton, S. (2011). Heterogeneous roles and heterogeneous practices: Understanding the adoption and uses of nonprofit performance evaluations. American Journal of Evaluation, 32(1), 98–117. doi: 10.1177/1098214010381780.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Edwards, M., & Hulme, D. (1996). Too close for comfort? The impact of official aid on nongovernmental organizations. Current Issues in Comparative Education, 1(1), 6–28.Google Scholar
Erakovic, L., & Jackson, B. (2012). Promoting leadership in governance and governance in leadership. In Davila, A., Elvira, M., Ramirez, J., & Zapata-Cantu, L. (Eds.), Understanding organizations in complex, emergent and uncertain environments (pp. 68–83). Basingstoke: Palgrave. doi: 10.1057/9781137026088_4.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
European Commission (2017). Social enterprises. Retrieved from: http://ec.europa.eu/growth/sectors/social-economy/enterprises_en. Accessed 6 Apr 2019.Google Scholar
Ferraro, F., Etzion, D., & Gehman, J. (2015). Tackling grand challenges pragmatically: Robust action revisited. Organization Studies, 36, 363–390. doi: 10.1177/0170840614563742.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fisman, R., Kurhana, R., & Martenson, E. (2009). Mission-driven governance. Stanford Social Innovation Review, 7(3), 36–43.Google Scholar
Fligstein, N. (1991). The theory of fields and its application to corporate governance. Seattle University Law Review, 39, 237–262.Google Scholar
Galera, G., & Borzaga, C. (2009). Social enterprise: An international overview of its conceptual evolution and legal implementation. Social Enterprise Journal, 5(3), 210–228. doi: 10.1108/17508610911004313.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Grodal, S., & Mahoney, S. (2015). From field consensus to fragmentation: How means-ends decoupling hinders progress on grand challenges. Working Paper.Google Scholar
Gugerty, M. K. (2010). The emergence of nonprofit self-regulation in Africa. Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 39(6), 1087–1112. doi: 10.1177/0899764010372972.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hajer, M. A., & Wagenaar, H. (2003). Deliberative policy analysis: Understanding governance in the network society. Theories of Institutional Design. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press doi: 10.1017/CBO9780511490934.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hoffman, A. J. (1999). Institutional evolution and change: Environmentalism and the U.S. chemical industry. Academy of Management Journal, 42(4), 351–371.10.2307/257008CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hollensbe, E., Wookey, C., Hickey, L., George, G., & Nichols, C. V. (2014). Organizations with purpose. Academy of Management Journal, 57(5), 1227–1234. doi: 10.5465/amj.2014.4005.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Horton, K. E., Bayerl, P. S., & Jacobs, G. (2014). Identity conflicts at work: An integrative framework. Journal of Organizational behaviour, 35, 6–22. doi: 10.1002/job.1893.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Howard-Grenville, J., Buckle, S. J., Hoskins, B. J., & George, G. (2014). From the editors: Climate change and management. Academy of Management Journal, 57, 615–623. doi: 10.5465/amj.2014.4003.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Huysentruyt, M., Mair, J., & Stephan, U. (2016). Market-oriented and mission-focused: social enterprises around the globe. Stanford Social Innovation Review. Online October 19th.Google Scholar
Hwang, H., & Powell, W. W. (2009). The rationalization of charity: The influences of professionalism in the nonprofit sector. Administrative Science Quarterly, 54, 268–298. doi: 10.2189/asqu.2009.54.2.268.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jackson, G., Nicoll, M., & Roy, M. J. (2018). The distinctive challenges and opportunities for creating leadership within social enterprises. Social Enterprise Journal, 14(1), 71–91. doi: 10.1108/SEJ-03-2017-0016.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jäger, U., & Schröer, A. (2013). Integrated organizational identity: A definition of hybrid organizations and a research agenda. VOLUNTAS: International Journal of Voluntary and Nonprofit Organizations, 25(5), 1281–1306. doi: 10.1007/s11266-013-9386-1.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jäger, U., & Schröer, A. (2014). Integrated organizational identity: A definition of hybrid organizations and a research agenda. VOLUNTAS: International Journal of Voluntary and Nonprofit Organizations, 25, 1281–1306. doi: 10.1007/s11266-013-9386-1.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jones, M. B. (2007). The multiple source of mission drift. Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 36(2), 299–307. doi: 10.1177/0899764007300385.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kerlin, J. A. (2013). Defining social enterprise across different contexts. Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 42(1), 84–108. doi: 10.1177/0899764011433040.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Klijn, E-H (1996). Analyzing and managing policy processes in complex networks: A theoretical examination of the concept policy network and its problems. Administration and Society, 28(1), 90–119. doi: 10.1177/009539979602800104.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kraatz, M. S., & Block, E. S. (2008). Organizational implications of institutional pluralism. In Greenwood, R., Oliver, C., Suddaby, R., & Sahlin-Andersson, K. (Eds.), Handbook of organizational institutionalism. London: Sage.Google Scholar
Levi-Faur, D., & Jordana, J. (2005). Preface: The making of a new regulatory order. The Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, 598, 6–9. doi: 10.1177/0002716204272612.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mair, J., Mayer, J., & Lutz, E. (2015). Navigating institutional plurality: Organizational governance in hybrid organizations. Organisation Studies, 36(6), 713–739. doi: 10.1177/0170840615580007.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mair, J., Wolf, M., & Ioan, A. (2016). Germany country report: A first analyses and profiling of social enterprises in Germany. SEFORÏS. Available at: http://www.seforis.eu/germany/. Accessed 6 Apr 2019.Google Scholar
Mair, J., Wolf, M., & Ioan, A. (forthcoming, 2020). Governance of social enterprises. In Anheier, H. K. & Baums, T. (Eds.), Advances in corporate governance: Comparative perspectives. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Mersland, R., & Øystrein, S. (2010). Microfinance mission drift?. World Development, 38(1), 28–36. doi: 10.1016/j.worlddev.2009.05.006.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Moore, M. H. (2000). Managing for value: Organizational strategy in for-profit, nonprofit, and governmental organizations. Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 29(1), 183–204. doi: 10.1177/089976400773746391.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nyssens, M. (Ed.). (2006). Social enterprise. At the crossroads of market, public policies and civil society. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Ostrower, F., & Stone, M. M. (2006). Governance: Research trends, gaps, and future prospects. In Powell, W. W. & Steinberg, R. (Eds.), The nonprofit sector: A research handbook (pp. 612–628). Yale: Yale University Press.Google 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), 455–476.Google Scholar
Padgett, J. F., & Ansell, C. K. (1993). Robust action and the rise of the Medici, 1400–1434. American Journal of Sociology, 98, 1259–1319. doi: 10.1086/230190.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Padgett, J. F., & Powell, W. W. (2012). The problem of emergence. In Padgett, J. F. & Powell, W. W. (Eds.), The Emergence of organizations and markets (pp. 1–29). Princeton: Princeton University Press.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, S. D. (2013). Shining light on charities or looking in the wrong place? Regulation-by transparency in Canada. VOLUNTAS: International Journal of Voluntary and Nonprofit Organizations, 24, 881–905. doi: 10.1007/s11266-013-9374-5.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pratt, M. G., & Foreman, P. O. (2000). Classifying managerial responses to multiple organizational identities. Academy of Management Review, 25(1), 18–42. doi: 10.5465/amr.2000.2791601.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Renz, D. (2006). Reframing governance. The Nonprofit Quarterly, 13, 6–11.Google Scholar
Rhodes, R. A. W. (1996). The new governance: Governing without government. Political Studies, 44(4), 652–667. doi: 10.1111/j.1467-9248.1996.tb01747.x.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ridley-Duff, R. (2010). Communitarian governance in social enterprises: Case evidence from the Mondragon Cooperative Corporation and school trends Ltd. Social Enterprise Journal, 6(2), 125–145. doi: 10.1108/17508611011069266.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Saidel, J. (1998). Expanding the governance construct: Functions and contributions of nonprofit advisory groups. Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 27(4), 421–436. doi: 10.1177/0899764098274003.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schröer, A., & Jäger, U. (2015). Beyond balancing? A research agenda on leadership in hybrid organizations. International Studies of Management and Organization, 45(3), 259–281. doi: 10.1080/00208825.2015.1006032.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Selznick, P. (1949). TVA and the grass roots. Berkeley: University of California Press.Google Scholar
Selznick, P. (1957). Leadership in administration. New York: Harper and Row.Google Scholar
Selznick, P. (1994). The moral commonwealth: Social theory and the promise of community. Berkeley: University of California Press.10.1525/9780520354753CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sidel, M. (2010). The promise and limits of collective action for nonprofit self-regulation: Evidence from Asia. Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 39(6), 1039–1056. doi: 10.1177/0899764010371514.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Smith, S. R. (2010). Hybridization and nonprofit organizations: The governance challenge. Policy and Society, 29, 219–229. doi: 10.1016/j.polsoc.2010.06.003.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Smith, W. K., & Besharov, M. (2018). Bowing before dual gods: How structured flexibility sustains organizational hybridity. Administrative Science Quarterly, 64, 1–44. doi: 10.1177/0001839217750826.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Smith, W. K., Gonin, M., & Besharov, M. (2013). Managing social-business tensions: A review and research agenda for social enterprise. Business Ethics Quarterly, 23(3), 407–442. doi: 10.5840/beq201323327.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Spear, R., Cornforth, C., & Aiken, M. (2009). The governance challenges of social enterprises: Evidence from a UK empirical study. Annals of Public and Cooperative Economics, 80(2), 247–273. doi: 10.1111/j.1467-8292.2009.00386.x.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Stone, M., & Ostrower, F. (2007). Acting in the public interest? Another look at research on nonprofit governance. Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 36(3), 416–438. doi: 10.1177/0899764006296049.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Stone, M. M., Zhao, J., & Cureton, C. (2012). Toward understanding governance in hybrid organizations: The case of Minnesota’s charter schools. Paper presented at the 2012 ARNOVA Conference.Google Scholar
Tacon, R., Walters, G., & Cornforth, C. (2017). Accountability in nonprofit governance: A process-based study. Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 46(4), 685–704. doi: 10.1177/0899764017691637.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Thornton, P. H., & Ocasio, W. (1999). Institutional logics and the historical contingency of power in organizations: Executive succession in the higher education publishing industry, 1958–1990. American Journal of Sociology, 105, 801–843. doi: 10.1086/210361.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tracey, P., Phillips, N., & Jarvis, O. (2011). Bridging institutional entrepreneurship and the creation of new organizational forms: A multilevel model. Organization Science, 22, 60–80. doi: 10.1287/orsc.1090.0522.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Weick, K. E. (1984). Small wins: Redefining the scale of social problems. American Psychologist, 39(1), 40–49. doi: 10.1037/0003-066X.39.1.40.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Weick, K. E. (1993). Organizational redesign as improvisation. In Huber, G. P. & Glick, W. H. (Eds.), Organizational change and redesign (pp. 346–379). Cary: Oxford University Press.10.1093/oso/9780195072853.003.0011CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Weisbrod, B. A. (2004). The pitfalls of profits. Stanford Social Innovation Review, 2, 40–47.Google Scholar
Westphal, J., & Zajac, E. J. (2013). A behavioural theory of corporate governance: Explicating the mechanisms of socially situated and socially constituted agency. The Academy of Management Annals, 7(1), 607–661. doi: 10.1080/19416520.2013.783669.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Young, D., Kerlin, J., Teasdale, S., & Soh, J. (2012). The dynamics and long-term stability of social enterprise. In Jill, K. & Sophie, B. (Eds.), Patterns in social entrepreneurship research (pp. 217–240). Cheltenham: Edward Elgar Publishing Ltd.Google Scholar
Young, D., & Salamon, L. (2002). Commercialization, social ventures and for-profit competition. In Salamon, L. (Ed.), The state of nonprofit America (pp. 423–446). Washington DC: Brookings Institution Press.Google Scholar