Hybridity in Nonprofit Organizations: Organizational Perspectives on Combining Multiple Logics

IF 5.9 1区 哲学 Q1 BUSINESS Journal of Business Ethics Pub Date : 2024-05-02 DOI:10.1007/s10551-024-05687-y
Aastha Malhotra, April L. Wright, Lee C. Jarvis
{"title":"Hybridity in Nonprofit Organizations: Organizational Perspectives on Combining Multiple Logics","authors":"Aastha Malhotra, April L. Wright, Lee C. Jarvis","doi":"10.1007/s10551-024-05687-y","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p>Seeking to better understand how nonprofit organizations (NPOs) manage hybridity, we investigated what distinguishes NPOs that combine multiple logics in productive and unproductive ways. We collected and analyzed data from six case studies of NPOs delivering social services in Australia. Our findings reveal that organizational members of NPOs take a <i>perspective</i> on their hybrid nature which comprises four elements: motivational framing, actor engagement, resourcing attitude, and governance orientation. NPOs that combine multiple logics in productive and unproductive ways, respectively, are distinguished by (1) a compelling or confused motivational framing for combining logics; (2) actors having active and shared, or passive and isolated, engagement with multiple logics; (3) attitudes toward resourcing multiple logics that are either coherent or competitive; and (4) a governance orientation toward multiple logics as opportunities to leverage or problems to resist. Our findings contribute to the literature by deepening understanding of the interplay between complex constellations of multiple logics in NPOs, including religious and professional logics. We also develop a model of organizational perspectives on hybridity and their implications for distinguishing NPOs that productively harness tensions between logics.</p>","PeriodicalId":15279,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Business Ethics","volume":"97 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":5.9000,"publicationDate":"2024-05-02","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Business Ethics","FirstCategoryId":"91","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-024-05687-y","RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"哲学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"BUSINESS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Seeking to better understand how nonprofit organizations (NPOs) manage hybridity, we investigated what distinguishes NPOs that combine multiple logics in productive and unproductive ways. We collected and analyzed data from six case studies of NPOs delivering social services in Australia. Our findings reveal that organizational members of NPOs take a perspective on their hybrid nature which comprises four elements: motivational framing, actor engagement, resourcing attitude, and governance orientation. NPOs that combine multiple logics in productive and unproductive ways, respectively, are distinguished by (1) a compelling or confused motivational framing for combining logics; (2) actors having active and shared, or passive and isolated, engagement with multiple logics; (3) attitudes toward resourcing multiple logics that are either coherent or competitive; and (4) a governance orientation toward multiple logics as opportunities to leverage or problems to resist. Our findings contribute to the literature by deepening understanding of the interplay between complex constellations of multiple logics in NPOs, including religious and professional logics. We also develop a model of organizational perspectives on hybridity and their implications for distinguishing NPOs that productively harness tensions between logics.

Abstract Image

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
非营利组织的混合性:结合多种逻辑的组织视角
为了更好地了解非营利组织(NPO)如何管理混合性,我们研究了以富有成效和非富有成效的方式结合多种逻辑的非营利组织的区别。我们收集并分析了澳大利亚六个提供社会服务的非营利组织的案例研究数据。我们的研究结果表明,非营利组织的组织成员对其混合性质的看法包括四个要素:动机框架、行动者参与、资源态度和治理导向。以富有成效的方式和非富有成效的方式结合多种逻辑的非营利组织分别具有以下特点:(1)结合逻辑的动机框架令人信服或令人困惑;(2)参与者积极、共同地参与多种逻辑,或被动、孤立地参与多种逻辑;(3)对多种逻辑的资源态度是一致的或竞争性的;以及(4)将多种逻辑视为可以利用的机会或可以抵制的问题的治理取向。我们的研究结果加深了人们对非营利组织中多重逻辑(包括宗教逻辑和专业逻辑)复杂组合之间相互作用的理解,从而为相关文献做出了贡献。我们还建立了一个关于混合性的组织视角模型,以及这些视角对区分有效利用各种逻辑之间的紧张关系的非营利组织的影响。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
12.80
自引率
9.80%
发文量
265
期刊介绍: The Journal of Business Ethics publishes only original articles from a wide variety of methodological and disciplinary perspectives concerning ethical issues related to business that bring something new or unique to the discourse in their field. Since its initiation in 1980, the editors have encouraged the broadest possible scope. The term `business'' is understood in a wide sense to include all systems involved in the exchange of goods and services, while `ethics'' is circumscribed as all human action aimed at securing a good life. Systems of production, consumption, marketing, advertising, social and economic accounting, labour relations, public relations and organisational behaviour are analysed from a moral viewpoint. The style and level of dialogue involve all who are interested in business ethics - the business community, universities, government agencies and consumer groups. Speculative philosophy as well as reports of empirical research are welcomed. In order to promote a dialogue between the various interested groups as much as possible, papers are presented in a style relatively free of specialist jargon.
期刊最新文献
Are Employees Safer When the CEO Looks Greedy? Considering the Dark Side of Work: Bullshit Job Perceptions, Deviant Work Behavior, and the Moderating Role of Work Ethic Historical Ownership of Family Firms and Corporate Fraud Sameness and/or Otherness: What Matters More for Narcissist CEOs in the Context of Non-market Strategy? The Rise of Partisan CSR: Corporate Responses to the Russia–Ukraine War
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1