The DOI matches its Crossref record; 95 of the 95 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Navigating Institutional Plurality: Organizational Governance in Hybrid Organizations
Abstract
Hybrid organizations operate in a context of institutional plurality and enact elements of multiple, often conflicting institutional logics. Governance is highly relevant in navigating such an environment. This study examines how hybrid organizations set up their governance structures and practices. Building on survey data from 70 social enterprises, a subset of hybrid organizations, we identify two types of hybrid organization: conforming hybrids rely on the prioritization of a single institutional logic and dissenting hybrids use defiance, selective coupling and innovation as mechanisms to combine and balance the prescriptions of several institutional logics. We illustrate these mechanisms by drawing on the qualitative analysis of selected cases. This study refines current debates on social enterprises as hybrid organizations. Based on our findings, we speculate that some social enterprises might assume hybridity for symbolic reasons while others – genuine hybrids – do so for substantive reasons.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cites
Institutionalized Organizations: Formal Structure as Myth and Ceremony
Meyer, J. W., & Rowan, B. (1977) · American Journal of Sociology · doi:10.1086/226550 · Cited by 28,308
(2010) · Cited by 24,023
Agency Theory: An Assessment and Review
Eisenhardt, K. M. (1989) · The Academy of Management Review · doi:10.5465/amr.1989.4279003 · Cited by 13,338
Social Theory and Social Structure
Ross, E. J., & Merton, R. K. (1958) · The American Catholic Sociological Review · doi:10.2307/3709394 · Cited by 10,315
Strategic Responses to Institutional Processes
Oliver, C. (1991) · The Academy of Management Review · doi:10.5465/amr.1991.4279002 · Cited by 8,950
The New Institutionalism in Organizational Analysis.
Andrews, A. O., Powell, W. W., & DiMaggio, P. J. (1993) · Administrative Science Quarterly · doi:10.2307/2393344 · Cited by 8,261
Social Theory and Social Structure.
Bock, K. E., & Merton, R. K. (1969) · American Sociological Review · doi:10.2307/2091967 · Cited by 6,660
Higher market valuation of companies with a small board of directors
Yermack, D. (1996) · Journal of Financial Economics · doi:10.1016/0304-405x(95)00844-5 · Cited by 6,603
Rediscovering institutions: the organizational basis of politics
(1990) · Choice Reviews Online · doi:10.5860/choice.27-5387 · Cited by 5,533
The new institutionalism in organizational analysis
(1992) · Choice Reviews Online · doi:10.5860/choice.29-5991 · Cited by 5,470
Cited by
Bauwens, T., Huybrechts, B., & Dufays, F. (2020) · Organization & Environment · doi:10.1177/1086026619837126 · Cited by 182
Business models for environmental sustainability: Contemporary shortcomings and some perspectives
De Giacomo, M. R., & Bleischwitz, R. (2020) · Business Strategy and the Environment · doi:10.1002/bse.2576 · Cited by 71
Competing logics in a hybrid organization: ICT service provision in the Italian health care sector
Maran, L., & Lowe, A. (2022) · Accounting, Auditing & Accountability Journal · doi:10.1108/aaaj-12-2019-4334 · Cited by 27
Metadata
- Authors
- Mair, J., Mayer, J., & Lutz, E.
- Venue
- Organization Studies
- Publisher
- SAGE Publications
- Published
- 2015-05-13
- Volume
- 36
- Issue
- 6
- Pages
- 713-739
- ISSN
- 0170-8406 (ISSN-L)
- 1741-3044
- OpenAlex
- W1483436082
- Cited by
- 522
- References
- 95
- FWCI
- 62.68
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Navigating Institutional Plurality: Organizational Governance in Hybrid Organizations. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1177/0170840615580007
- The paper
- Mair, J., Mayer, J., & Lutz, E. (2015). Navigating Institutional Plurality: Organizational Governance in Hybrid Organizations. Organization Studies. https://doi.org/10.1177/0170840615580007
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.
