Building bridges between organizational identity and hybridity. A mechanism-based approach.
Keywords
No Thumbnail Available
Authors
Issue Date
2020-07-07
Language
en
Journal Title
Journal ISSN
Volume Title
Publisher
Abstract
This research focuses on the relationship between the concepts of organizational identity and hybridity. An organization is regarded as a hybrid organization when two or more institutional logics coexist in that organization. Institutional logics are regarded as “(…) the socially constructed, historical patterns of cultural symbols and material practices, including assumptions, values, and beliefs, by which individuals and organizations provide meaning to their daily activity, organize time and space, and reproduce their lives and experiences” (Thornton, Ocasio, & Lounsbury, 2012, p. 2). The relation between both concepts is investigated in the context of two Dutch museums. To do so, the following research question was formulated: ‘What are the mechanisms that explain how hybridity and organizational identity are related in the cases under research?’
This research aimed to bring about a theoretical contribution that describes and explains the mechanisms between organizational identity and hybridity. This aim resulted in qualitative research that was both deductive and inductive. The representation of the existing concepts of hybridity and organizational identity was investigated according to a deductive research approach. The anticipated mechanism, claims on resources, was investigated according to an inductive research approach. To gather data, two case studies were conducted at two Dutch museum organizations. To analyze the collected data, template analysis was used.
The findings of the research provided clues that the mechanism claims on resources explain how the concepts of hybridity and organizational identity are related. The data provided clues for a four-phase cycle that repeats over time. In the first phase, the representation of multiple institutional logics (hybridity) inform claims on organizational resources. These claims challenge resources that are valuable according to the notion of the identity of an organization in phase two. In phase three, the data provided clues that the organizations under research started to find alignment between the challenged notion of identity and the actual claims on resources. When alignment is found, the fourth phase takes off. In this phase, the uncovered alignment between the claims on resources and the notion of organizational identity is reflected in the representation of hybridity: the uncovered alignment re-informs the representation of hybridity. Overall, the findings provide clues for a reciprocal relationship between organizational identity and hybridity over time. This relationship is characterized by claims on resources that change over time.
Future research should focus on using mechanism-based research approaches to understand how hybridity is related to other concepts in business administration (e.g. organizational structure). Another suggestion for future research concerns the adoption of a longitudinal research strategy to falsify the uncovered theory. Third, the research on the mechanisms between organizational identity and hybridity should be expanded to other sectors of organizational life to get an understanding of whether the uncovered theory is generalizable.
Description
Citation
Supervisor
Faculty
Faculteit der Managementwetenschappen