Studying Hybrid Organiza0ons From a Plural Perspec0ve Marie J. - - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

Studying Hybrid Organiza0ons From a Plural Perspec0ve

Marie J. Bouchard

Université du Québec à Montréal Centre de recherche sur les innova0ons sociales CRISES

6th EMES Conference, Louvain-la-Neuve, July 3-6 2017 Plenary session

INTRODUCTION

Hybrids are usually examined from an

• rganiza0onal perspec0ve
• Why do hybrid organiza0ons exist?
• How do hybrid organiza0ons func0on?
• How do they manage conflic0ng ins0tu0onal

demands?

• How do they response to stakeholders holding

contradictory views?

è How can we address such ques/ons from an ins/tu/onalist perspec/ve?

Analy0cal framework

• Ins0tu0onal dimensions of organiza0ons

– Poli0cal – historicised – dimensions (rules, norms, cogni0ve schemes)

• Organiza0onal dimensions of ins0tu0ons

– Mul0stakeholders arrangements (division of work and coordina0on)

• Social rela0onships

– Networks of collec0ve ac0ons, mo0vated by shared values and transforma0ve goals (promo0on of public good or rejec0on of public evil)

Hybrids and ins0tu0onal change

• Our perpec0ve is to look at hybrids through a social

innova0ons lens, as conribu0ng to social transforma0ons.

• Hybrids can be looked at as ins0tu0onal arrangements,
• r meso ins0tu0ons, such as territorial governance,

coconstruc0on of public policies,…

• In these, social movements and collec0ve ac0on

challenge exis0ng ins0tu0onal logics.

• They call for new social rela0onships, shi`s of power,

they ques0on exis0ng property and decision rights (workers, women, consumers, ci0zens…).

MULTIPLE CASE STUDY

Mul3ple Case Study on Governance of Solidarity Finance Ins3tu3ons (Bernier, Bouchard, Hafsi, Lévesque, Vézina, Zerdani, 2013)

Example of Hybrid Complex Organiza3on: Fonds de solidarité FTQ

Example of Hybrid Complex Organiza3on: Fondac3on CSN

Example of Mul3-level Governance in Complex Hybrid Organiza3on: Fonds de solidarité FTQ

Worker Union (FTQ)

General Council Unions Local Representa0ves

Fonds de solidarité FTQ

Board CEO Management Unionized workers (FTQ) 7 members Legal autonomy Legal autonomy Regional funds, Local funds, SME, Specialized funds General public shareholders Unionized shareholders

External stakeholders

Local Worker Unions

Par3cipa3ng enterprises Individual interest (return on investment)

Collec3ve interest (employment)

General Interest (Eco and social development)

7 elected members 4 independent members + Chair

Source: Lévesque et al. 2001 (updated 2014)

Hybrid Complex Organiza0on Governance : Organiza0onal Coordina0on

Combina0on of interests

– Mission of individual, collec0ve and general interest – Strategic orienta0ons with the objec0ve of long term sustainability of the financed organiza0ons without mission dri` – Extended concep0on of the trade: Counselling /educa0on /training / networking / territorial iden0ty – Decentralized governance: boards, commijees with decisional power, par0cipa0on of workers and of volunteers

Social actors

– Rela0vely tradi0onal instances +++ plurality of stakeholders – Role of stewardship but also of orienta0on and support (complexity perspec0ve)

Resources

– Dis0nc0ve prac0ces

• Clients as partners: financing +++ follow up, support and

counselling, accompaniment

• Employees and members: educa0on, training, capacity building
• Other organiza0ons: promo0on, networking, knowledge transfer

– Internal and external coordina0on

• Networks of people coming from the concerned milieux

(philanthropy)

• Networked organisa0ons (worker-unions funds)
• Networks of organiza0ons (CAP Finance: solidarity and responsible

investment network) – Legi0macy and reputa0on effects

• Trust in financed organiza0ons (philanthropy)
• Trust in the financial ins0tu0ons that are networked (CAP Finance)

Hybrid Complex Organiza0on Governance : Ins0tu0onal ‘regula0on’

Structural effects

– Fields of ac0vi0es (e.g. culture, alterna0ve financing) – Organiza0onal forms (e.g. coopera0ves, social economy, community associa0ons) – Territories (e.g. local, regional development)

Plural networks

– Linkages between economic and social actors at local, regional and ‘na0onal’ levels – Inter-ins0tu0onal liaisons:

• Other funds, government and public ins0tu0ons, worker unions,

social economy enterprises, community organiza0ons,…

Ins0tu0ons

– New sectoral models

• Solidarity model in the industry of risk capital
• Collec0ve governance culture in the ‘industry’ of philanthropy

(tens of thousands of decisional volunteers)

• Business model and social interven0on: at the crossing of

economic and social development

• Partnership, ‘concerta0on’, co-construc0on

Society

– Development of a movement

• Québec ‘model’ of development

– Financial ecosystem

• Inter-organiza0onal and inter-ins0tu0onal coordina0on
• Meta-governance: crossed governance, par0cipa0on to public

debate

• 2008 crisis: pa0ent finance lost less than voracious finance

– Interna0onalisa0on

• Export to other countries/ inspira0ons from other countries

CONCLUSION

To study hybrid organiza0ons from a plural perspec0ve

We need mul0ple lenses to look at: – Rela0onships with important components of the

• rganiza0onal environment : cogni0ve

perspec0ve – Professional dis0nc0ve competencies: resources perspec0ve – Similar or partner organiza0ons: transac0on costs perspec0ve – Interest : agency perspec0ve (nuances over- socializa0on of actors)

Coming back to the ques0ons…

• Why do hybrid organiza0ons exist?

– To respond to social aspira0ons and insufficiency of exis0ng

• rganiza0onal forms and ins0tu0onal arrangements (and regimes).
• How do they func0on/survive?

– In interac0on with ins0tu0onal and sociomaterial condi0ons as well as by accoun0ng for social rela0ons. – By hybridizing resources.

• How do they manage conflic0ng ins0tu0onal demands?

– With inclusiveness and nego0a0on. – But also through debate and innova0ve proposi0ons.

• How do they respond to stakeholders holding contradictory views?

– Through both organiza0onal and ins0tu0onal governance (e.g. hybridiza0on of individual, mutual and general interest).

THANK YOU

References:

Bernier, L., M. J. Bouchard & B. Lévesque (2003), «Ajending to the general interest : New mechanisms for media0ng between individual, collec0ve, and general interests », Annals of Public and Coopera/ve Economics, vol. 74 no 3, p. 321-347. Bouchard, M.J. & D. Rousselière (2015), «Do Hybrid Organiza0onal Forms of the Social Economy have a Greater Chance of Surviving? An Examina0on of the Case of Montreal», Voluntas, 2016, vol. 27, no4, pp. 1894-1922. DOI 10.1007/ s11266-015-9664-1 Fondac0on (2016), 6e Rapport de développement durable. Fonds de solidarité (2017), Le cycle de vie d’une ac/on: hjps://www.fonds`q.com/fr-ca/a-propos/qui-sommes-nous.aspx Lévesque, B., P. R. Bélanger, M. J. Bouchard, M. Mendell, A. Lavoie, C. Gendron et R. Rouzier (2001), Le Fonds de solidarité des travailleurs du Québec (FTQ), Nouvelle gouvernance et capital de développement, Montréal, Centre de recherche sur les innova0ons sociales. Ramboarisata, L., M. J. Bouchard, B. Lévesque, L. Bernier, T. Hafsi, M. Vézina et T. Zerdani (forthcoming), La gouvernance des entreprises collec/ves (publiques et d’économie sociale) et la prise en compte d’objec/fs d’intérêt collec/f et général. Une approche plurielle, Montréal, Centre de recherche sur les innova0ons sociales. Zerdani, T. et M. J. Bouchard (2015), «Réseau de la finance solidaire et responsable au Québec. Co-construc0on d’un champ ins0tu0onnel dans l’écosystème d’économie sociale et solidaire», Revue Interven/ons économiques, 54 | 2015 : hjp://interven0onseconomiques.revues.org/2727