Legitimate incongruity: Strategic positioning within hybrid categories

Abstract

The primary purpose of this research is to examine the extent to which positioning hybrid ventures as more or less congruent with their category influences perceptions of their legitimacy. To do so, we first introduce and define the notion of a hybrid category as an institutional context which combines two or more dominant institutional logics that both constrain and enable organizational action. We then construct a theoretical framework instantiated within a hybrid category, suggesting that moderate incongruence between a new venture's identity narrative and the expectations most strongly associated with the category will positively influence perceived legitimacy. We further predict specific relationships among dimensions of perceived legitimacy, as well as their downstream effects on an individual's willingness to contribute resources. Across three studies in which we experimentally manipulate congruence with a hybrid category, we find a consistent pattern of support for our hypotheses and reveal a unique benefit for new hybrid ventures who position themselves in a manner that is moderately incongruent with the hybrid category. In addition, our results suggest that moral legitimacy perceptions act as a precursor to cognitive legitimacy perceptions in new hybrid categories.