Recasting Organizational Hybridity: A New Approach to the Incompatibility of Institutional Logics Through the Higher Common Principle

IF 1.1 Q4 MANAGEMENT
Management Pub Date : 2023-06-01 DOI:10.37725/mgmt.2023.5367
Amélie Gabriagues, Lionel Garreau
{"title":"Recasting Organizational Hybridity: A New Approach to the Incompatibility of Institutional Logics Through the Higher Common Principle","authors":"Amélie Gabriagues, Lionel Garreau","doi":"10.37725/mgmt.2023.5367","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"In neo-institutional theory, the concept of organizational hybridity is characterized by the combination of institutional logics that ‘would not conventionally go together,’ as they are deemed incompatible. However, our study shows that this criterion of incompatibility between logics is not theoretically robust enough to discriminate situations of organizational hybridity, as it struggles to differentiate incompatible logics from simply different logics. In response, this article proposes a new approach to incompatibility between institutional logics by mobilizing the concept of a higher common principle derived from the economies of worth. Through the rereading of five empirical articles mobilizing the concept of hybridity, we demonstrate how the higher common principle provides a more restrictive way of operationalizing incompatibility between logics to qualify organizational hybrids more rigorously. This study ultimately leads us to recast the concept of organizational hybridity as the combination of mutually exclusive institutional logics based on strictly distinct higher common principles.","PeriodicalId":47182,"journal":{"name":"Management","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.1000,"publicationDate":"2023-06-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Management","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.37725/mgmt.2023.5367","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"MANAGEMENT","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

In neo-institutional theory, the concept of organizational hybridity is characterized by the combination of institutional logics that ‘would not conventionally go together,’ as they are deemed incompatible. However, our study shows that this criterion of incompatibility between logics is not theoretically robust enough to discriminate situations of organizational hybridity, as it struggles to differentiate incompatible logics from simply different logics. In response, this article proposes a new approach to incompatibility between institutional logics by mobilizing the concept of a higher common principle derived from the economies of worth. Through the rereading of five empirical articles mobilizing the concept of hybridity, we demonstrate how the higher common principle provides a more restrictive way of operationalizing incompatibility between logics to qualify organizational hybrids more rigorously. This study ultimately leads us to recast the concept of organizational hybridity as the combination of mutually exclusive institutional logics based on strictly distinct higher common principles.
重铸组织混杂性:从更高共同原则看制度逻辑不相容的新途径
在新制度理论中,组织杂交性的概念以制度逻辑的组合为特征,这些逻辑“通常不会一起走”,因为它们被认为是不相容的。然而,我们的研究表明,这种逻辑之间不相容的标准在理论上不够稳健,不足以区分组织混杂的情况,因为它很难区分不相容的逻辑和简单的不同逻辑。作为回应,本文提出了一种新的方法,通过动员来自价值经济的更高共同原则的概念来解决制度逻辑之间的不相容。通过重读五篇调动混合概念的实证文章,我们展示了更高的共同原则如何提供一种更具限制性的方式来实现逻辑之间的不兼容性,从而更严格地限定组织混合。本研究最终引导我们将组织杂交性的概念重新定义为基于严格不同的更高共同原则的互斥制度逻辑的组合。
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 求助全文
来源期刊
Management
Management MANAGEMENT-
CiteScore
1.50
自引率
8.00%
发文量
21
审稿时长
70 weeks
期刊介绍: The Journal deals with pressing problems, not only of general nature, but especially with those occurring in the countries in transition. In fact, it aims to cover functional issues, specific topics and general aspects of management related to all kinds of organizations – manufacturing and service companies, profit-making firms and non-profit organizations, private and public, as well as large and small enterprises.
×
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
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
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 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信