Korean small business review (중소기업연구)

The Korean Association of Small Business studies (한국중소기업학회)
권호 표지
DOI QR코드

DOI QR Code

A Study on the Pursuit of Social and Economic Values in Social Enterprises as Hybrid Organizations

혼합조직으로서의 사회적 기업의 사회적 가치와 경제적 가치 추구 특성에 관한 연구

  • Park, Ji-Hoon (School of Business, Hanyang University) ;
  • Seo, Ribin (Department of Industrial and Management Engineering, Pohang University of Science and Technology)
  • 박지훈 (한양대학교 경영대학) ;
  • 서리빈 (포항공과대학교 산업경영공학과)
  • Received : 2021.06.07
  • Accepted : 2021.07.14
  • Published : 2021.09.30
⟨ Previous Next ⟩

Abstract

Organization and management scholars have researched social enterprises as hybrid organizations. However, research on the organizational uniqueness of social enterprises as hybrids is limited, especially comparing their organizational characteristics with other traditional types of organizations. Thus, this study attempted to compare social enterprises with traditional for-profit and not-for-profit organizations in the aspect of their organizational hybridity by using the data of the Social Value Survey. The results showed that the orientation of social enterprises in pursuing dual values is weaker than the other two types of organizations. Meanwhile, the results revealed that the extent to which an organization operates for realizing dual values is strongest in social enterprises among the three types of organizations. These findings add to the understanding of social enterprises' organizational hybridity in organization and management studies.

조직이론을 포함한 경영관리 및 기업가정신 연구 영역의 연구자들은 혼합조직으로서 사회적 기업이 갖는 특성을 가정하여 사회적 기업의 행태 및 성과에 관한 다양한 연구를 진행하고 있다. 하지만 기존 관련 연구들이 가정하고 있는 사회적 기업의 이중가치, 즉 경제적 가치와 사회적 가치 추구 특성에 관한 근원적 연구는 부족하다고 판단된다. 이에 본 연구는 기존 조직이론 및 경영관리 문헌에 기반하여 혼합조직으로서의 사회적 기업이 갖는 이중가치 추구 특성을 일반 영리기업, 비영리조직과 비교 분석하였다. 실증 분석을 위해 한국의 사회적 기업과 영리기업, 비영리조직을 대상으로 조사된 '사회적 가치 서베이' 자료를 활용하였으며, 이들 세 유형의 조직이 가지고 있는 '이중가치 추구 지향성'과 '이중가치 실현을 위한 조직운영'의 강도를 측정하여 비교하였다. 분석 결과 '이중가치 통합 지향'은 세 유형의 조직 중 사회적 기업이 가장 약한 것으로 나타났으며, '이중가치 실현을 위한 조직운영'과 관련하여서는 세 유형의 조직 중 사회적 기업이 가장 균형적으로 실행하고 있는 것으로 나타났다. 본 연구는 한국의 사회적 기업을 대상으로 한 실증분석을 통해 기존 관련 연구들이 가정했던 사회적 기업의 조직 혼합성을 영리기업, 비영리조직과 비교하여 보여주었다는 점에서 함의를 가진다.

Keywords

Acknowledgement

본 연구는 사회적가치연구원(CSES, Center for Social value Enhancement Studies)의 지원을 받아 수행된 연구임.

References

  1. 정선희.조상미(2018), "하이브리드 요인이 사회적기업 성과에 미치는 영향: 사회적기업가 정신의 매개효과를 중심으로", 「사회적기업연구」, 제11권, 제3호, pp. 125-161. https://doi.org/10.32675/ses.2018.11.3.005
  2. 조희진.장용석(2016), "사회적 기업의 지속 가능성과 사회적 기업가정신", 「한국정책학회보」, 제25권, 제4호, pp. 329-358.
  3. 황정윤.장용석(2017), "사회적 기업 지원의 딜레마: 정부보조금, 약인가 독인가", 「한국정책학회보」, 제26권, 제2호, pp. 225-257.
  4. Austin, J., H. Stevenson, and J. Wei-Skillern(2006), "Social and commercial entrepreneurship: Same, different, or both?", Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, Vol.30, No.1, pp. 1-22. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-6520.2006.00107.x
  5. Battilana, J. and S. Dorado(2010), "Building sustainable hybrid organizations: The case of commercial microfinance organizations", Academy of Management Journal, Vol. 53, No.6, pp. 1419-1440. https://doi.org/10.5465/AMJ.2010.57318391
  6. Battilana, J. and M. Lee(2014), "Advancing research on hybrid organizing: Insights from the study of social enterprises", Academy of Management Annals, Vol.8, No.1, pp. 397-441. https://doi.org/10.5465/19416520.2014.893615
  7. Battilana, J., M. Lee, J. Walker, and C. Dorsey(2012), "In search of the hybrid ideal", Stanford Social Innovation Review, Vol.10, No.3, pp. 50-55.
  8. Battilana, J., M. Sengul, A.-C. Pache, and J. Model(2015), "Harnessing productive tensions in hybrid organizations: The case of work integration social enterprises", Academy of Management Journal, Vol.58, No.6, pp. 1658-1685. https://doi.org/10.5465/amj.2013.0903
  9. Besharov, M. L. and W. K. Smith(2014), "Multiple institutional logics in organizations: Explaining their varied nature and implications", Academy of Management Review, Vol.39, No.3, pp. 364-381. https://doi.org/10.5465/amr.2011.0431
  10. Brandsen, T. and P. M. Karre(2011), "Hybrid organizations: No cause for concern?", International Journal of Public Administration, Vol.34, No.13, pp. 827-836. https://doi.org/10.1080/01900692.2011.605090
  11. Dacin, M. T., P. A. Dacin, and P. Tracey(2011), "Social entrepreneurship: A critique and future directions", Organization Science, Vol.22, No.5, pp. 1203-1213. https://doi.org/10.1287/orsc.1100.0620
  12. Dacin, P. A., M. T. Dacin, and M. Matear(2010), "Social entrepreneurship: Why we don't need a new theory and how we move forward from here", Academy of Management Perspectives, Vol.24, No.3, pp. 37-57.
  13. Doherty, B., H. Haugh, and F. Lyon(2014), "Social enterprises as hybrid organizations: A review and research agenda", International Journal of Management Reviews, Vol.16, No.4, pp. 417-436. https://doi.org/10.1111/ijmr.12028
  14. Ebrahim, A., J. Battilana, and J. Mair(2014), "The governance of social enterprises: Mission drift and accountability challenges in hybrid organizations", Research in Organizational Behavior, Vol.34, pp. 81-100. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.riob.2014.09.001
  15. Glynn, M. A.(2008), "Beyond constraint: How institutions enable organizational identities", in Greenwood, R., C. Oliver, K. Sahlin, and R. Suddaby (Eds.), The sage handbook of organizational institutionalism, Thousand Oaks, CA, Sage, pp. 413-430.
  16. Ismail, A. and B. Johnson(2019), "Managing organizational paradoxes in social enterprises: Case studies from the MENA Region", Voluntas: International Journal of Voluntary and Nonprofit Organizations, Vol.30, No.3, pp. 516-534. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11266-018-00083-3
  17. Jay, J.(2013), "Navigating paradox as a mechanism of change and innovation in hybrid organizations", Academy of Management Journal, Vol.56, No.1, pp. 137-159. https://doi.org/10.5465/amj.2010.0772
  18. Lewis, M. W.(2000), "Exploring paradox: Toward a more comprehensive guide", Academy of Management Review, Vol.25, No.4, pp. 760-776. https://doi.org/10.5465/AMR.2000.3707712
  19. Lok, J.(2010), "Institutional logics as identity projects", Academy of Management Journal, Vol.53, No.6, pp. 1305-1335. https://doi.org/10.5465/AMJ.2010.57317866
  20. Mair, J. and I. Marti(2006), "Social entrepreneurship research: A source of explanation, prediction, and delight", Journal of World Business, Vol.41, No.1, pp. 36-44. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jwb.2005.09.002
  21. Pache, A.-C. and F. Santos(2013), "Inside the hybrid organization: Selective coupling as a response to competing institutional logics", Academy of Management Journal, Vol. 56, No.4, pp. 972-1001. https://doi.org/10.5465/amj.2011.0405
  22. Park, J.-H.(2020). "Chasing two rabbits: How social enterprises as hybrid organizations manage paradoxes", Asian Business & Management, Vol.19, No.4, pp. 407-437. https://doi.org/10.1057/s41291-019-00065-3
  23. Poole, M. S. and A. H. Van de Ven(1989), "Using paradox to build management and organization theories", Academy of Management Review, Vol.14, No.4, pp. 562-578. https://doi.org/10.5465/AMR.1989.4308389
  24. Quinn, R. E. and K. S. Cameron(1988), Paradox and transformation: Toward a theory of change in organization and management. Ballinger, Cambridge, MA.
  25. Saebi, T., N. J. Foss, and S. Linder(2019), "Social entrepreneurship research: Past achievements and future promises", Journal of Management, Vol.45, No.1, pp. 70-95. https://doi.org/10.1177/0149206318793196
  26. Santos, F., A.-C. Pache, and C. Birkholz(2015), "Making hybrids work: Aligning business models and organizational design for social enterprises", California Management Review, Vol.57, No.3, pp. 36-58. https://doi.org/10.1525/cmr.2015.57.3.36
  27. Short, J. C., T. W. Moss, and G. T. Lumpkin(2009), "Research in social entrepreneurship Past contributions and future opportunities", Strategic Entrepreneurship Journal, Vol.3, No.2, pp. 161-194. https://doi.org/10.1002/sej.69
  28. Smith, S. R.(2010). "Hybridization and non-profit organizations: The governance challenge", Policy & Society, Vol.29, No.3, pp. 219-229. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.polsoc.2010.06.003
  29. Smith, W. K. and M. L. Besharov(2019), "Bowing before dual gods: How structured flexibility sustains organizational hybridity", Administrative Science Quarterly, Vol.64, No.1, pp. 1-44. https://doi.org/10.1177/0001839217750826
  30. Smith, W. K., M. Gonin, and M. L. Besharov(2013), "Managing social-business tensions: A review and research agenda for social enterprise", Business Ethics Quarterly, Vol.23, No.3, pp. 407-442. https://doi.org/10.5840/beq201323327
  31. Smith, W. K. and M. W. Lewis(2011), "Towarda theory of paradox: A dynamic equilibrium model of organizing", Academy of Management Review, Vol.36, No.2, pp. 81-403.
  32. Tracey, P., N. Phillips, and O. Jarvis(2011), "Bridging institutional entrepreneurship and the creation of new organizational forms: A multilevel model", Organization Science, Vol.22, No.1, pp. 60-80. https://doi.org/10.1287/orsc.1090.0522