We explore how new types of hybrid organizations (organizations that combine institutional logics in unprecedented ways) can develop and maintain their hybrid nature in the absence of a "ready-to-wear" model for handling the tensions between the logics they combine. The results of our comparative study of two pioneering commercial microfinance organizations suggest that to be sustainable new types of hybrid organizations need to create a common organizational identity that strikes a balance between the logics they combine. Our evidence further suggests that the crucial early levers for developing such an organizational identity among organizational members are hiring and socialization policies.

This paper proposes that processes of institutional change vary depending on the form taken by the three factors that define them: agency, resource mobilization, and opportunity. The paper builds on a conceptualization of agency that considers that change may result from diverse forms of agency (i.e. strategic, routine, and sense-making). It develops the concept of resource mobilization, focusing on the process as opposed to the skills required for mobilization. It then suggests that the mobilization of resources, support and acceptance, accompanying the diffusion and legitimation of institutional changes may follow leverage, partaking, or convening processes. Finally, the paper defines institutional opportunity as an objective condition of organizational fields, suggesting that fields may be opportunity opaque, transparent, or hazy. Opportunities, of course, only become real when perceived by actors. Building on current sociological work, the paper suggests that actors’ perception of the opportunity transparency of fields varies with their temporal orientation and social networks. Considering the possible variations of agency, resource mobilization, and opportunity, and how they may combine, the paper defines three profiles of institutional change: entrepreneurship, partaking, and convening.

Entrepreneurship scholars have identified factors that frame the entrepreneurial process, such as the gender, race, ethnicity and wealth of entrepreneurs, the technological nature of the products or services offered, or the geographic location of ventures. Ventures bridging profit and service goals in new and creative ways are mushrooming. Building on a review of current research, the author speculates that "bridging profit and service" should be added to the list of factors that define the entrepreneurial process. In doing so, she calls for caution when extending to social entrepreneurial ventures' findings on research regarding business ventures, and for more research exploring the impact of this factor on the entrepreneurial process.

Social innovations are urgently needed as we confront complex social problems. As these social problems feature substantial interdependencies among multiple systems and actors, developing and implementing innovative solutions involve the re-negotiating of settled institutions or the building of new ones. In this introductory article, we introduce a stylized three-cycle model highlighting the institutional nature of social innovation efforts. The model conceptualizes social innovation processes as the product of agentic, relational, and situated dynamics in three interrelated cycles that operate at the micro, meso, and macro levels of analysis. The five papers included in this special issue address one or more of these cycles. We draw on these papers and the model to stimulate and offer guidance to future conversations on social innovations from an institutional theory perspective.