How social entrepreneurs’ attention allocation and ambidextrous behavior enable hybrid organization

Abstract

Purpose This paper aims to explore the social entrepreneurs’ attention allocation and their resource action that lead to hybrid organization using the paradox theory. Paradox theory deepens understandings of the varied nature, dynamics and outcomes of entrepreneurial tensions. This study explores the systematic effects of internal and external attention on both economic and social performance. Design/methodology/approach First, theoretically, hypotheses linking different attention allocations to ambidextrous behavior and entrepreneurial performance were formulated. Subsequently, the empirical studies based on Chinese social entrepreneurship were conducted to test the hypotheses. Findings The study provides support to the hypotheses showing that external attention is linked to resource acquisition and social performance, while internal attention is linked to resource acquisition and strategic human resource management and thus these ambidextrous behaviors promote both social and economic performance. Furthermore, normal pressure moderates the relations between internal attention and strategic human resource management only. Research limitations/implications The research measures entrepreneurs’ attention with questionnaire rather than psych test. Also, static data rather than longitudinal research is designed to test the hypotheses. Practical implications Deeper understanding of the attention of social entrepreneurs and resource action can help entrepreneurial outcomes and can potentially contribute to paradox and tension management by entrepreneurial practitioners in China. Originality/value Social entrepreneurs’ different attention allocation and related entrepreneurial ambidextrous behavior processes are linked to paradoxical thinking for the first time. The findings of this research can potentially enhance social entrepreneurship paradoxical thinking aimed at preventing mission drift.

Conceptualising active management of paradoxical tensions in corporate sustainability: A systematic literature review

“…Hahn et al (2014) and Sharma and Jaiswal (2018), integrating each other, described three kinds of cognitive frames that decision‐makers adopt to manage sustainability tensions: the business frame, the business case frame and the paradoxical frame. The paradoxical frame seems the most suitable for understanding and managing the contrasting positions that determine the paradoxical tensions without assuming that one position prevails over the other (Busch et al, 2020; Hunoldt et al, 2020; Vallaster et al, 2021; Waldman & Bowen, 2016; Zheng et al, 2020).…”

“…Zheng et al (2020) considered HRM as an internal means to foster employees' organisational identity that, together with the acquisition of external resources, helps harmonise social and economic performance. Similarly, Stahl et al (2020) argued that the HRM's contribution goes beyond financial performance and shareholder value maximisation as it aims to meet the demands of a diverse group of internal and external stakeholders who, otherwise, might have different economic, social and environmental interests and, thus, generate tensions.…”

“…Among the resources that have aroused the interest of researchers at both the individual and organisational levels, ambidexterity is considered to be the most relevant individual and organisational skill in addressing conflicting objectives and then, thus in managing tensions (e.g., Ciasullo et al, 2020; Edwards, 2021; Maine et al, 2021; Zheng et al, 2020).…”

Open and social: portraying the resilient, social and competitive, upcoming enterprise

“…, 2021). In this respect, hybrid organizations therefore need to align their multi-stakeholder approach effectively (Zheng et al. , 2020) with a clear in-house orientation toward achieving profits and social objectives alike, as well as building resilience (Chui, 2020; Lee et al.…”

“…From this perspective, co-creation between multiple (both internal and external) stakeholders institutes varied and innovative ways of doing, organizing, and framing and knowing, making the hybrid organization more resilient in the face of market and societal disruptions (Bonomi et al, 2021). In this respect, hybrid organizations therefore need to align their multi-stakeholder approach effectively (Zheng et al, 2020) with a clear in-house orientation toward achieving profits and social objectives alike, as well as building resilience (Chui, 2020;Lee et al, 2021). Despite the burgeoning research on social innovation, organizational hybridization (i.e.…”