Exploring Constitutional Hybridity

Alexius, Susanna; Furüsten, Staffan

doi:10.1007/978-3-319-95486-8_1

Cited by 7 publications

(15 citation statements)

References 49 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…The first dimension deals with who the proprietor of the organization is (Alexius & Furusten, 2019;Billis, 2010b;Dahl & Lindblom, 1953;Grossi et al, 2017;Perry & Rainey, 1988;Wamsley & Zald, 1973). In the private sector, organizations are commonly owned by private shareholders.…”

Section: Ownershipmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Public and private sector organizations differ with regard to funding: private organizations generate their funding through earnings from commercial activities and public organizations receive money government has levied through taxation (Alexius & Furusten, 2019;Anheier & Krlev, 2015;Billis, 2010b;Fottler, 1981;Grossi et al, 2017;Perry & Rainey, 1988;Wamsley & Zald, 1973). Hence, this is the continuum between 100% governmental appropriation and 100% private funding.…”

Section: Fundingmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…This dimension deals with the organization's main purpose or organizational priorities and their translation into strategy (Alexius & Furusten, 2019;Anheier & Krlev, 2015;Billis, 2010b;Grossi et al, 2017;Joldersma & Winter, 2002;. This is the continuum between a strategic focus on administration and the service of public benefits and one on profits and dividends to shareholders.…”

Section: Strategic Orientationmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…A first version of the multidimensional model was mostly based on classic studies on the differences between public and private organizations (Bozeman, 1987;Dahl & Lindblom, 1953;Fottler, 1981;Hood, 1991;Jacobs, 1992;Lane, 1994;Perry & Rainey, 1988;Rainey, 1997;Rainey & Chun, 2007;Wamsley & Zald, 1973). Since then, more literature has become available that deals explicitly with hybrid organizations and their dimensions (e.g., Alexius & Furusten, 2019;Anheier & Krlev, 2015;Battilana & Lee, 2014;Billis, 2010b;Brandsen & Karré, 2021;Johanson & Vakkuri, 2018;Mair et al, 2015;Powell et al, 2019;. Insights from this literature have been added to the model.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 3 more Smart Citations

The Thumbprint of a Hybrid Organization—A Multidimensional Model for Analysing Public/Private Hybrid Organizations

Karré

2022

Public Organiz Rev

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Hybridity has become a widely-used concept in public management theory and practice. Yet, there is limited insight in what constitutes a hybrid organization. This article argues that it is not enough to say an organization is hybrid; you need to say how an organization is hybrid, as organizations can mix the characteristics of state and market on several dimensions and with differing intensities. They all have, as it were, a distinctive hybrid thumbprint, which can influence an organization’s performance and hence the quality of its service provision. Therefore, a model is presented to visualize this unique thumbprint.

show abstract

Section: Ownershipmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Fundingmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Strategic Orientationmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

The Thumbprint of a Hybrid Organization—A Multidimensional Model for Analysing Public/Private Hybrid Organizations

Karré

2022

Public Organiz Rev

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Thirdly, extant studies on hybrid ownership in the International Business (IB) domain have taken a fixed approach to conceptualizing hybrid ownership by simply categorizing ownership as simply hybrid or not hybrid. While the acknowledgment of such qualitative differences between hybrids and non-hybrids is valuable, it runs the risk of overgeneralizing the internal heterogeneity among hybrid organizations (Shepherd, Williams & Zhao, 2019;Alexius & Furusten, 2018;Battilana, Besharov, Mitzinneck, 2017). Against this backdrop, there is still a paucity of research proposing a thorough conceptual framework that deconstructs the intraorganizational attributes of hybrid organizations, and their FDI implications, particularly in the context of CBAs.…”

Section: Research Background and Rationale Of The Studymentioning

confidence: 99%

Hybrid ownership structures and cross-border acquisition completion of emerging market firms: An institutional and signalling theory perspective

Ogbuigwe¹

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Over the last decade, cross-border acquisitions (CBAs) have emerged as one of the most significant engines through which emerging market firms (EMFs) carry out foreign investments. Yet, emerging market acquirers (EMAs) terminate a significant percentage of initiated CBAs before completion. Compared to the 18 percent termination rate of CBAs involving acquirers from developed economies (DEs), CBAs by EMAs have a 33 percent termination rate. Scholars attribute the higher CBA termination by EMAs to the dual hurdle of 'liability of origin' and 'liability of foreignness' arising from direct government involvement and institutional voids in emerging economies. Although extant research provides in-depth insights into why EMAs have higher CBA termination rates than developed economies acquirers, they fall short in exploring how EMAs can navigate these challenges. Hence, in this study, I aim to investigate ownership based solutions to the institutional challenges affecting the CBA completion of EMAs. A striking phenomenon in the foreign investment of EMFs is that a firm's ownership matters. Pioneering ownership-based studies reveal that state-owned enterprises (SOEs) and private-owned enterprises (POEs) experience distinct interactions with home and host countries leading to diverse foreign investment challenges and strategies. Government regulatory discretion combined with capital market imperfection in emerging markets means that SOEs are privileged in accessing government support. In contrast, POEs lack direct government support and seek to establish and leverage political ties to survive. This need for sustained firm government relationships and the gradual pro-market reforms in many emerging economies catalyse hybrid ownership structures among EMFs where state and private owners coexist in one organization. However, this emergence of hybrid ownership structures and their implications for EMFs' foreign investment activities are under-investigated in the international business domain. Building on the new institutional theory and the signalling theory, I argue that hybrid ownership structures can act as signals through which external stakeholders evaluate and confer legitimacy on EMAs during the CBA process. My conceptualization emphasizes the mixture of unique resources brought into hybrid organizations by both SOEs and POEs. Accordingly, I assert that as hybrid organizations incorporate elements prescribed by both SOEs and POEs, they are likely to project at least partial appropriateness to a broader set of institutional referents. As a result, hybrid ownership structures confer legitimacy-enhancing benefits, resource-enhancing benefits, and operational autonomy benefits that position EMAs to simultaneously navigate the home and host institutional challenges in CBAs ultimately increasing the completion likelihood. In addition to proposing a direct effect of hybrid ownership on CBA completion, I develop novel varieties of hybrid ownership structures that categorize variations in the internal configurations of hybrid organizations as typology, degree, and nature of hybridization. I carry out further investigation on how the hybrid ownership effect might vary with these varieties of hybrid ownership structures. Subsequently, I identify top executives' political connection, target industry political sensitivity, and host country regulatory quality as contingences to the effect of hybrid ownership on CBA completion of EMAs. Analysing a dataset of 838 CBAs by Chinese firms between the years 2008 to 2017, the results from this study demonstrate that acquirers with hybrid ownership structures are more likely to complete CBAs than nonhybrid acquirers. Moreover, while the hybridization effect varied with the degree of hybridization, the results did not provide conclusive evidence for the nature of hybridization. The result also reveals that top executives' political connection and the host country regulatory quality present differing interactions with the hybrid ownership effect relative to the hybrid organization's typology. With these findings, I contribute to the literature on EMFs' CBA completion by demonstrating that hybrid ownership structures benefit from their different owners' resources to overcome challenges in CBAs. I also contribute to the conceptualization and implication of hybrid ownership for EMFs strategic outcomes. I find that the benefits of hybrid ownership differed with the controlling shareholder's identity and the degree of hybridization in a hybrid organization. Furthermore, by examining the boundary conditions of top executives' political connection, target industry political sensitivity, and host regulatory quality, I provide insights into how intra-organizational attributes and external factors shape the significance of ownershipstructures in EMFs foreign investment.

show abstract

Hybrid organizations: a classification within economic sectors

Pilon,

Mansurov

2024

Humanit Soc Sci Commun

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Commonly identified economic sectors include the private, public, and nonprofit sectors. However, many types of organizations overlap, exhibiting characteristics of hybridity between different economic sectors. Hence, classifying organizations that display these overlapping characteristics creates confusion. Considering this confusion, this interdisciplinary study aims to develop a more complete conceptual model of economic sectors that integrates hybridity. This article does so by integrating the institutional logics of ownership and funding to categorize the different types of hybrid organizations, while using the Canadian context to anchor the study. The developed typology is useful as it positions hybrid organizations along economic sector lines.

show abstract

Exploring Constitutional Hybridity

Cited by 7 publications

References 49 publications

The Thumbprint of a Hybrid Organization—A Multidimensional Model for Analysing Public/Private Hybrid Organizations

The Thumbprint of a Hybrid Organization—A Multidimensional Model for Analysing Public/Private Hybrid Organizations

Hybrid ownership structures and cross-border acquisition completion of emerging market firms: An institutional and signalling theory perspective

Hybrid organizations: a classification within economic sectors

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About