Understanding and managing business—development hybrids: an institutional logics case analysis

Abstract

There are growing numbers of business-development hybrids that combine a commercial orientation with an intent to deliver development goals. Yet, within development studies research to date, there has been limited conceptualization of these organizations. Borrowing from the extensive literature in other disciplines, this paper argues that the concept of institutional logics can be used as a basis for understanding business-development hybrids. The lens of institutional logics is used to analyze two hybrid case studies of 'impact sourcing' that outsource IT work to disadvantaged groups in Pakistan and India. Synergies between business and development logics were managed by combining those logics, but tensions between the two required techniques of compromising or decoupling the logics. Organizations also managed the logics by presenting a more business-oriented face to clients and a more development-oriented face to workers, by protecting their development logic from commercial pressures, and by seeking to institutionalize both logics. Implications are considered for practice and for future development research.

Online freelancing and impact sourcing: Examining the inclusive development potential of online service work in the Philippines

“…Tanjay accommodates two colleges whose graduates tend to leave the community to find jobs elsewhere in the Philippines or abroad because of the lack of local employment opportunities (respondent #36, October 3, 2015). The choice of Tanjay aligns with the location choices of impact‐sourcing ventures studied by Madon and Sharanappa (2013), Malik et al (2016), and Heeks et al (2020).…”

The Hybridity of Inclusive Innovation Narratives Between Theory and Practice: A Framing Analysis

“…This has significant implications as theoretical models usually influence how development policy and interventions are designed and implemented (Bryden et al 2017;Godin 2017). For instance, multi-stakeholder partnerships may be hindered by actors who adhere to different logics with varying normative assumptions and values when perceiving a problem or solution (Heeks et al 2020;Levidow and Papaioannou 2017;Osei-Amponsah et al 2018). A study of development co-operation between Brazil and Ghana revealed that within the partnership, Brazil's government was concerned with low tillage conservation agriculture, while, in contrast, the Ghanaian government was keen on a pathway that led to a highly mechanised agriculture (Cabral 2016).…”

Managing competing institutional logics in governance of public-sector entities in Tanzania

“…As a result, recent studies show strategies that organizations employ to respond to the demands originating from multiple logics (Greenwood et al , 2011; Lepori and Mantauti, 2020; Pache and Santos, 2013; Reay and Hinings, 2009; Rozenfeld and Scapens, 2021; Safari et al , 2020). Strategies identified in the prior studies include replacement or acceptance (Cheung et al , 2020; Greenwood and Suddaby, 2006; Thornton, 2002; Thornton and Ocasio, 1999; Thornton et al , 2012), selective coupling (Mair et al , 2015; Pache and Santos, 2013; Rozenfeld and Scapens, 2021; Woldesenbet-Beta and Storey, 2019), compartmentalization (Bullinger et al , 2015; Greenwood et al , 2011), decoupling (Alexius and Grossi, 2018; Heeks et al , 2020) and balancing or compromising (Battilana and Dorado, 2010; Bullinger et al , 2015; Heeks et al , 2020; Kraatz and Block, 2008; Pache and Santos, 2010; Reay and Hinings, 2009).…”

“…However, in this case, there is a possibility that actors simply accept new logic but continued to act in accordance with the old logic (Khan et al , 2007; Townley, 2002). Organizations may also manage conflicting demands by combining practices from competing institutional logics (Heeks et al , 2020; Pache and Santos, 2013; Rozenfeld and Scapens, 2021). This strategy, commonly referred to as “selective coupling,” involves combining “competing logics in a systematic fashion by selectively coupling, at the organizational level, intact elements drawn from each logic” (Pache and Santos, 2013, p. 973).…”

“…In relation to decoupling strategy, prior research suggests that PSEs exposed to the competing logics of bureaucratic and market governance tend to seek legitimacy through market-based decoupling responses as well as organization-based decoupling (Alexius and Grossi, 2018). It is evidenced where an organization “decouples the symbolic endorsement of one logic from the operational practices of the other logic” (Heeks et al , 2020, p. 35). Competing logics may also be managed by balancing conflicting demands (Bullinger et al , 2015; Heeks et al , 2020; Kraatz and Block, 2008; Pache and Santos, 2010).…”