Making Sense of Hybrid Practices: The role of individual adherence to institutional logics in impact investing

IF 4.9 1区 管理学 Q1 MANAGEMENT Organization Studies Pub Date : 2023-09-01 DOI:10.1177/01708406231181693
Arthur Gautier, Anne-Claire Pache, Filipe Santos
{"title":"Making Sense of Hybrid Practices: The role of individual adherence to institutional logics in impact investing","authors":"Arthur Gautier, Anne-Claire Pache, Filipe Santos","doi":"10.1177/01708406231181693","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Hybrid practices combine core elements of different institutional logics. As such, they elicit contrasting responses from individuals, including ignoring, rejecting and adopting them. Yet, extant research in institutional theory does not explain how individuals come to form these responses. To address this gap, we adopt a sensemaking perspective and conduct an inductive, comparative case study of 14 wealthy individuals based on life story interviews, examining their responses to impact investing, an emergent hybrid practice combining elements of the philanthropy and finance logics. Our study uncovers key contextual mechanisms by which institutions influence how individuals respond to hybrid practices, a neglected dimension in sensemaking studies. In particular, we show how individuals’ degree of adherence to the logics involved shapes how they notice, interpret and finally respond to impact investing. Contrary to what previous research suggests, our study shows that individuals who are merely familiar with the logics at play are better positioned than both novices and individuals who identify with the logics to evaluate hybrid practices positively and adopt them.","PeriodicalId":48423,"journal":{"name":"Organization Studies","volume":"44 1","pages":"1385 - 1412"},"PeriodicalIF":4.9000,"publicationDate":"2023-09-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"1","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Organization Studies","FirstCategoryId":"91","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1177/01708406231181693","RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"管理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"MANAGEMENT","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 1

Abstract

Hybrid practices combine core elements of different institutional logics. As such, they elicit contrasting responses from individuals, including ignoring, rejecting and adopting them. Yet, extant research in institutional theory does not explain how individuals come to form these responses. To address this gap, we adopt a sensemaking perspective and conduct an inductive, comparative case study of 14 wealthy individuals based on life story interviews, examining their responses to impact investing, an emergent hybrid practice combining elements of the philanthropy and finance logics. Our study uncovers key contextual mechanisms by which institutions influence how individuals respond to hybrid practices, a neglected dimension in sensemaking studies. In particular, we show how individuals’ degree of adherence to the logics involved shapes how they notice, interpret and finally respond to impact investing. Contrary to what previous research suggests, our study shows that individuals who are merely familiar with the logics at play are better positioned than both novices and individuals who identify with the logics to evaluate hybrid practices positively and adopt them.
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
理解混合实践:个人对制度逻辑的坚持在影响力投资中的作用
混合实践结合了不同制度逻辑的核心要素。因此,它们会引起个人的不同反应,包括忽视、拒绝和采用它们。然而,现存的制度理论研究并没有解释个人是如何形成这些反应的。为了解决这一差距,我们采用了一种感性的视角,并根据生活故事采访对14名富人进行了归纳、比较的案例研究,考察他们对影响力投资的反应,这是一种新兴的混合实践,结合了慈善和金融逻辑的元素。我们的研究揭示了机构影响个人如何应对混合实践的关键背景机制,这是感知研究中被忽视的一个维度。特别是,我们展示了个人对相关逻辑的遵守程度如何影响他们对影响力投资的注意、解释和最终反应。与之前的研究表明的相反,我们的研究表明,仅仅熟悉逻辑的人比新手和认同逻辑的人更适合积极评估混合实践并采用它们。
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
Organization Studies
Organization Studies MANAGEMENT-
CiteScore
11.50
自引率
16.70%
发文量
76
期刊介绍: Organisation Studies (OS) aims to promote the understanding of organizations, organizing and the organized, and the social relevance of that understanding. It encourages the interplay between theorizing and empirical research, in the belief that they should be mutually informative. It is a multidisciplinary peer-reviewed journal which is open to contributions of high quality, from any perspective relevant to the field and from any country. Organization Studies is, in particular, a supranational journal which gives special attention to national and cultural similarities and differences worldwide. This is reflected by its international editorial board and publisher and its collaboration with EGOS, the European Group for Organizational Studies. OS publishes papers that fully or partly draw on empirical data to make their contribution to organization theory and practice. Thus, OS welcomes work that in any form draws on empirical work to make strong theoretical and empirical contributions. If your paper is not drawing on empirical data in any form, we advise you to submit your work to Organization Theory – another journal under the auspices of the European Group for Organizational Studies (EGOS) – instead.
期刊最新文献
Media Review: The Untapped Power of Discovery Embodied Shame and Organization Studies Media Review: Extrapolations - A View from OS4F Media Review: The Value of Reputation Media Review: Reorganizing the world –Postcolonial Transitions and Navigating Nationalism in global business history
×
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