Published Online:

Hybrid organizations must sustainably attend to multiple goals embedded in different institutional spheres. Past research has highlighted the value for hybrids in recruiting board members representing different logics to avoid attentional drifts; yet, diverse boards have also been prone to conflicts that occasion attentional lapses, thereby jeopardizing these organizations’ pursuit of multiple goals. We draw on a longitudinal comparative case study of five work integration social enterprises with institutionally diverse boards to uncover an integrative model of hybrid governance consisting of a protective board structure and relational leadership processes that, together, prevent distracting cognitive and emotional conflicts and foster attentional engagement of both the board and senior managers to multiple goals. The protective board structure prevents shifts in board composition and ensures the enshrined representation of the organization’s logics. Relational leadership processes—which help board members relate to each other, with the organization’s mission, and with senior managers—include enculturation processes (i.e., interventions to reduce the cognitive and emotional gap between institutionally diverse board members) and bridging processes (i.e., interventions to facilitate communication and alignment between the board and senior managers in the decision-making process). These findings contribute to research on hybrid organizations, board governance, and organizational attention.


  • Almandoz, J. 2014. Founding teams as carriers of competing logics: When institutional forces predict banks’ risk exposure. Administrative Science Quarterly, 59: 442–473. Google Scholar
  • Ashforth, B. E., & Reingen, P. H. 2014. Functions of dysfunction: Managing the dynamics of an organizational duality in a natural food cooperative. Administrative Science Quarterly, 59: 474–516. Google Scholar
  • Bacq, S., Janssen, F., & Kickul, J. 2011. Governing for impact and performance within social entrepreneurial ventures: The mediating role of organizational capabilities. Frontiers of Entrepreneurship Research, 31: 629–643. Google Scholar
  • Battilana, J., Besharov, M., & Mitzinneck, B. 2017. On hybrids and hybrid organizing: A review and roadmap for future research. In R. GreenwoodC. OliverT. B. LawrenceR. E. Meyer (Eds.), The SAGE handbook of organizational institutionalism, vol. 2: 128–162. London, U.K.: SAGE Publications. Google Scholar
  • Battilana, J., & Casciaro, T. 2021. Power, for all: How it really works and why it’s everyone’s business. New York, NY: Simon and Schuster. Google Scholar
  • Battilana, J., & Dorado, S. 2010. Building sustainable hybrid organizations: The case of commercial microfinance organizations. Academy of Management Journal, 53: 1419–1440.LinkGoogle Scholar
  • Battilana, J., & Lee, M. 2014. Advancing research on hybrid organizing – Insights from the study of social enterprises. Academy of Management Annals, 8: 397–441.LinkGoogle Scholar
  • Battilana, J., Obloj, T., Pache, A. C., & Sengul, M. 2022. Beyond shareholder value maximization: Accounting for financial/social tradeoffs in dual-purpose companies. Academy of Management Review, 47: 237–258.LinkGoogle Scholar
  • Battilana, J., Sengul, M., Pache, A. C., & Model, J. 2015. Harnessing productive tensions in hybrid organizations: The case of work integration social enterprises. Academy of Management Journal, 58: 1658–1685.LinkGoogle Scholar
  • Battilana, J., & Yen, J. 2022. Purpose and power in corporations: Are more democratic forms of organizing better suited to the pursuit of multiple purposes? [Working Paper]. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University. Google Scholar
  • Besharov, M., & Mitzinneck, B. 2021. Heterogeneity in organizational hybridity: A configurational, situated, and dynamic approach. In M. BesharovB. Mitzinneck (Eds.), Organizational hybridity: Perspectives, processes, promises, vol. 69: 3–25. Bingley, U.K.: Emerald Publishing. Google Scholar
  • Besharov, M. L. 2014. The relational ecology of identification: How organizational identification emerges when individuals hold divergent values. Academy of Management Journal, 57: 1485–1512.LinkGoogle Scholar
  • Besharov, M. L., & Smith, W. K. 2014. Multiple institutional logics in organizations: Explaining their varied nature and implications. Academy of Management Review, 39: 364–381.LinkGoogle Scholar
  • Boivie, S., Bednar, M. K., Aguilera, R. V., & Andrus, J. L. 2016. Are boards designed to fail? The implausibility of effective board monitoring. Academy of Management Annals, 10: 319–407.LinkGoogle Scholar
  • Bruneel, J., Clarysse, B., Staessens, M., & Weemaes, S. 2020. Breaking with the past: The need for innovation in the governance of nonprofit social enterprises. Academy of Management Perspectives, 34: 209–225.LinkGoogle Scholar
  • Bruneel, J., Moray, N., Stevens, R., & Fassin, Y. 2016. Balancing competing logics in for-profit social enterprises: A need for hybrid governance. Journal of Social Entrepreneurship, 7: 263–288. Google Scholar
  • Cappellaro, G., Tracey, P., & Greenwood, R. 2020. From logic acceptance to logic rejection: The process of destabilization in hybrid organizations. Organization Science, 31: 415–438. Google Scholar
  • Cho, T. S., & Hambrick, D. C. 2006. Attention as the mediator between top management team characteristics and strategic change: The case of airline deregulation. Organization Science, 17: 453–469. Google Scholar
  • Costanzo, L. A., Vurro, C., Foster, D., Servato, F., & Perrini, F. 2014. Dual‐mission management in social entrepreneurship: Qualitative evidence from social firms in the United Kingdom. Journal of Small Business Management, 52: 655–677. Google Scholar
  • Crucke, S., & Knockaert, M. 2016. When stakeholder representation leads to faultlines. A study of board service performance in social enterprises. Journal of Management Studies, 53: 768–793. Google Scholar
  • Cyert, R. M., & March, J. G. 1963. A behavioral theory of the firm. Malden, MA: Blackwell. Google Scholar
  • DARES Analyses. 2011, March 10. L’insertion par l’activité économique en 2008. Retrieved from Google Scholar
  • DesJardine, M. R., Shi, W., & Marti, E. 2023. The corporate opportunity structure for shareholder activism: How activist hedge funds exploit board demographic diversity. Organization Science. Forthcoming. Google Scholar
  • DiMaggio, P., & Powell, W. W. 1983. The iron cage revisited: Institutional isomorphism and collective rationality in organizational fields. American Sociological Review, 48: 147–160. Google Scholar
  • Ebrahim, A., Battilana, J., & Mair, J. 2014. The governance of social enterprises: Mission drift and accountability challenges in hybrid organizations. Research in Organizational Behavior, 34: 81–100. Google Scholar
  • Edmondson, A. C., & McManus, S. E. 2007. Methodological fit in management field research. Academy of Management Review, 32: 1155–1179. Google Scholar
  • Eisenhardt, K. M. 1989. Building theories from case study research. Academy of Management Review, 14: 532–550.LinkGoogle Scholar
  • Eisenhardt, K. M., & Graebner, M. E. 2007. Theory building from cases: Opportunities and challenges. Academy of Management Journal, 30: 25–32. Google Scholar
  • Forbes, D. P., & Milliken, F. J. 1999. Cognition and corporate governance: Understanding boards of directors as strategic decision-making groups. Academy of Management Review, 24: 489–505.LinkGoogle Scholar
  • Friedland, R., & Alford, R. R. 1991. Bringing society back in: Symbols, practices, and institutional contradictions. In W. W. PowellP. DiMaggio (Eds.), The new institutionalism in organizational analysis: 232–263. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press. Google Scholar
  • Gaba, V., & Greve, H. R. 2019. Safe or profitable? The pursuit of conflicting goals. Organization Science, 30: 647–667. Google Scholar
  • Glynn, M. A. 2000. When cymbals become symbols: Conflict over organizational identity within a symphony orchestra. Organization Science, 11: 285–298. Google Scholar
  • Greenwood, R., Raynard, M., Kodeih, F., Micelotta, E. R., & Lounsbury, M. 2011. Institutional complexity and organizational responses. Academy of Management Annals, 5: 317–371.LinkGoogle Scholar
  • Greve, H. R. 2008. A behavioral theory of firm growth: Sequential attention to size and performance goals. Academy of Management Journal, 51: 476–494.LinkGoogle Scholar
  • Gümüsay, A. A., Smets, M., & Morris, T. 2020. “God at work”: Engaging central and incompatible institutional logics through elastic hybridity. Academy of Management Journal, 63: 124–154.LinkGoogle Scholar
  • Henderson, R. 2020. Reimagining capitalism in a world on fire. New York, NY: Public Affairs Press. Google Scholar
  • Hugues, J. M. 2007. Observatoire 2006 des entreprises d’insertion. Paris, France: CNEI. Google Scholar
  • Huse, M. 1993. Relational norms as a supplement to neo-classical understanding of directorates: An empirical study of boards of directors. Journal of Socio-Economics, 22: 219–240. Google Scholar
  • Huse, M. 1994. Board-management relations in small firms: The paradox of simultaneous independence and interdependence. Small Business Economics, 6: 55–72. Google Scholar
  • Jourdan, J. 2018. Institutional specialization and survival: Theory and evidence from the French film industry. Strategy Science, 3: 408–425. Google Scholar
  • Kraatz, M. S., & Block, E. S. 2008. Organizational implications of institutional pluralism. In R. GreenwoodC. OliverR. SuddabyK. Sahlin-Andresson (Eds.), The SAGE handbook of organizational institutionalism: 243–275. London, U.K.: SAGE Publications. Google Scholar
  • Lau, D. C., & Murnighan, J. K. 1998. Demographic diversity and faultlines: The compositional dynamics of organizational groups. Academy of Management Review, 23: 325–340.LinkGoogle Scholar
  • Li, J., & Hambrick, D. C. 2005. Factional groups: A new vantage on demographic faultlines, conflict, and disintegration in work teams. Academy of Management Journal, 48: 794–813.LinkGoogle Scholar
  • Luciano, M. M., Nahrgang, J. D., & Shropshire, C. 2020. Strategic leadership systems: Viewing top management teams and boards of directors from a multiteam systems perspective. Academy of Management Review, 45: 675–701.LinkGoogle Scholar
  • Mair, J., Mayer, J., & Lutz, E. 2015. Navigating institutional plurality: Organizational governance in hybrid organizations. Organization Studies, 36: 713–739. Google Scholar
  • Mair, J., & Wolf, M. 2021. Hybrid organizations as sites for reimagining organizational governance. In G. Donnelly-CoxM. MeyerF. WijkströmR. List (Eds.), Research handbook on nonprofit governance: 311–326. Northampton, U.K.: Edward Elgar Publishing. Google Scholar
  • Mari, C., & Meglio, O. 2013. Planning data collection in longitudinal field research: Small and not so small practical issues. In M. E. HassettE. Paavilainen-Mäntymäki (Eds.), Handbook of longitudinal research methods in organizational and business studies: 295–317. Northampton, MA: Edward Elgar. Google Scholar
  • Mitzinneck, B. C., & Besharov, M. L. 2019. Managing value tensions in collective social entrepreneurship: The role of temporal, structural, and collaborative compromise. Journal of Business Ethics, 159: 381–400. Google Scholar
  • Nicolini, D., & Korica, M. 2021. Attentional engagement as practice: A study of the attentional infrastructure of healthcare chief executive officers. Organization Science, 32: 1273–1299. Google Scholar
  • Ocasio, W. 1997. Towards an attention-based view of the firm. Strategic Management Journal, 18: 187–206. Google Scholar
  • Ocasio, W. 2011. Attention to attention. Organization Science, 22: 1286–1296. Google Scholar
  • Ocasio, W., & Joseph, J. 2018. The attention-based view of great strategies. Strategy Science, 3: 289–294. Google Scholar
  • Ocasio, W., & Radoynovska, N. 2016. Strategy and commitments to institutional logics: Organizational heterogeneity in business models and governance. Strategic Organization, 14: 287–309. Google Scholar
  • Pache, A. C., & Santos, F. 2010. When worlds collide: The internal dynamics of organizational responses to conflicting institutional demands. Academy of Management Review, 35: 455–476.LinkGoogle Scholar
  • Pache, A. C., & Santos, F. 2013a. Inside the hybrid organization: Selective coupling as a response to competing institutional logics. Academy of Management Journal, 56: 972–1001.LinkGoogle Scholar
  • Pache, A. C., & Santos, F. 2013b. Embedded in hybrid contexts: How individuals in organizations respond to competing institutional logics. Research in the Sociology of Organizations, 39: 3–35. Google Scholar
  • Pache, A. C., & Santos, F. 2021. When worlds keep on colliding: Exploring the consequences of organizational responses to conflicting institutional demands. Academy of Management Review, 46: 640–659.LinkGoogle Scholar
  • Pache, A. C., & Thornton, P. H. 2020. Hybridity and institutional logics. In M. L. BesharovB. C. Mitzinneck (Eds.), Organizational hybridity: Perspectives, processes, promises, vol. 69: 29–52. Bingley, U.K.: Emerald Publishing. Google Scholar
  • Post, C., & Byron, K. 2015. Women on boards and firm financial performance: A meta-analysis. Academy of Management Journal, 58: 1546–1571.LinkGoogle Scholar
  • Ramus, T., Vaccaro, A., & Berrone, P. 2021. Time matters! How hybrid organizations use time to respond to divergent stakeholder demands. Organization Studies, 42: 1529–1555. Google Scholar
  • Ramus, T., Vaccaro, A., & Brusoni, S. 2017. Institutional complexity in turbulent times: Formalization, collaboration, and the emergence of blended logics. Academy of Management Journal, 60: 1253–1284.LinkGoogle Scholar
  • Rerup, C. 2009. Attentional triangulation: Learning from unexpected rare crises. Organization Science, 20: 876–893. Google Scholar
  • Sadeh, L. J., & Zilber, T. B. 2019. Bringing “together”: Emotions and power in organizational responses to institutional complexity. Academy of Management Journal, 62: 1413–1443.LinkGoogle Scholar
  • Santos, F., Pache, A. C., & Birkholz, C. 2015. Making hybrids work: Aligning business models and organizational design for social enterprises. California Management Review, 57: 36–58. Google Scholar
  • Selznick, P. 1949. TVA and the grass roots: A study in the sociology of formal organization. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press. Google Scholar
  • Serres, C., Hudon, M., & Maon, F. 2022. Social corporations under the spotlight: A governance perspective. Journal of Business Venturing, 37: 106192. Google Scholar
  • Smets, M., Jarzabkowski, P., Burke, G., & Spee, P. 2015. Reinsurance trading in Lloyd’s of London: Balancing conflicting-yet-complementary logics in practice. Academy of Management Journal, 58: 932–970.LinkGoogle Scholar
  • Smith, W. K., & Besharov, M. L. 2019. Bowing before dual gods: How structured flexibility sustains organizational hybridity. Administrative Science Quarterly, 64: 1–44. Google Scholar
  • Thatcher, S. M., & Patel, P. C. 2012. Group faultlines: A review, integration, and guide to future research. Journal of Management, 38: 969–1009. Google Scholar
  • Thornton, P. H., & Ocasio, W. 1999. Institutional logics and the historical contingency of power in organizations: Executive succession in the higher education publishing industry, 1958-1990. American Journal of Sociology, 105: 801–844. Google Scholar
  • Thornton, P. H., Ocasio, W., & Lounsbury, M. 2012. The institutional logics perspective: A new approach to culture, structure, and process. Oxford, U.K.: Oxford University Press. Google Scholar
  • Toubiana, M., & Zietsma, C. 2017. The message is on the wall? Emotions, social media and the dynamics of institutional complexity. Academy of Management Journal, 60: 922–953.LinkGoogle Scholar
  • Tracey, P., Phillips, N., & Jarvis, O. 2011. Bridging institutional entrepreneurship and the creation of new organizational forms: A multilevel model. Organization Science, 22: 60–80. Google Scholar
  • Tuggle, C. S., Schnatterly, K., & Johnson, R. A. 2010. Attention patterns in the boardroom: How board composition and processes affect discussion of entrepreneurial issues. Academy of Management Journal, 53: 550–571.LinkGoogle Scholar
  • Van Maanen, J., & Schein, E. H. 1979. Toward a theory of organizational socialization. In B. M. Staw (Ed.), Research in organizational behavior, 1: 209–264. Greenwich, CT: JAI Press. Google Scholar
  • Veltrop, D. B., Hermes, N., Postma, T., & de Haan, J. 2015. A tale of two factions: Why and when factional demographic faultlines hurt board performance. Corporate Governance, 23: 145–160. Google Scholar
  • Wagenschwanz, A. M., & Grimes, M. G. 2021. Navigating compromise: How founder authenticity affects venture identification amidst organizational hybridity. Journal of Business Venturing, 36: 106085. Google Scholar
  • Westphal, J. D., & Milton, L. P. 2000. How experience and network ties affect the influence of demographic minorities on corporate boards. Administrative Science Quarterly, 45: 366–398. Google Scholar
  • Zilber, T. B. 2002. Institutionalization as an interplay between actions, meaning and actors: The case of a rape crisis center in Israel. Academy of Management Journal, 45: 234–254.LinkGoogle Scholar
Academy of Management
  Academy of Management
  100 Summit Lake Drive, Suite 110
  Valhalla, NY 10595, USA
  Phone: +1 (914) 326-1800
  Fax: +1 (914) 326-1900