Hybrid Organizations – What’s in a Name?

Abstract Judging from the steep rise in number of publications in organizational sociology and management studies about “hybrid organizations”, it would seem as if this is either something new or something that has grown in importance in the past decades. In this article, we make a thorough attempt to provide the concept a proper anchoring in sociology and organization studies. We demonstrate that hybridity – meaning that organizations combine two or more purposes, governance forms, or logics – is both a well-known and a natural feature of organizations. But we also demonstrate that the sociological understanding of society as composed of differentiated spheres or subsystems, and the blurring of boundaries between these spheres in the past half a century (described as postmodernity, late modernity or indeed “liquid modernity”) raises the relevance of the concept “hybrid organizations”. We therefore argue that “hybrid organizations” is neither a tautological nor redundant concept but is highly relevant to a range of studies of how organizations handle multiple goals, interests, and governance modes by interpreting and respecifying logics on the overall societal level. Thus, organizations can both suffer from hybridity and make it an asset in renewal and adaptation.

Authors

Institutions

Publication Details

Journal
Journal of Organizational Sociology
Published
2024-09-06
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1515/joso-2024-0005
Citations
5
Primary Topic
Management and Organizational Studies
Type
article
Field-Weighted Citation Impact
3.37
Controls
|||
ALL TIME
JAN
FEB
MAR
APR
MAY
JUN
JUL
AUG
SEP
OCT
article

Hybrid Organizations – What’s in a Name?

Anna Thomasson, Olof Hallonsten
5 citations
Journal of Organizational Sociology
Management and Organizational Studies
3.37
article

Hybrid Organizations – What’s in a Name?

Anna Thomasson, Olof Hallonsten
article en
5 citations

Abstract

Abstract Judging from the steep rise in number of publications in organizational sociology and management studies about “hybrid organizations”, it would seem as if this is either something new or something that has grown in importance in the past decades. In this article, we make a thorough attempt to provide the concept a proper anchoring in sociology and organization studies. We demonstrate that hybridity – meaning that organizations combine two or more purposes, governance forms, or logics – is both a well-known and a natural feature of organizations. But we also demonstrate that the sociological understanding of society as composed of differentiated spheres or subsystems, and the blurring of boundaries between these spheres in the past half a century (described as postmodernity, late modernity or indeed “liquid modernity”) raises the relevance of the concept “hybrid organizations”. We therefore argue that “hybrid organizations” is neither a tautological nor redundant concept but is highly relevant to a range of studies of how organizations handle multiple goals, interests, and governance modes by interpreting and respecifying logics on the overall societal level. Thus, organizations can both suffer from hybridity and make it an asset in renewal and adaptation.

Journal of Organizational SociologyVol. 3(1)
Copenhagen Business School (DK), Lund University (SE)
Openalex Percentile: Top 7%
Management and Organizational Studies
3.37
AI Navigator

Ask Laika to Summarize, Analyze, and Connect papers live on the map.

Summarize Papers & Methodologies

Extract key findings, datasets, and comparative methods across publications.

Benchmark Rankings & Visual Analytics

Rank top research institutions, authors, funders, topics, and journals by Field-Weighted Citation Impact (FWCI) and paper volume with instant charts.

Connect Distant Disciplines

Bridge topological clusters on the map to find hidden collaborative intersections.

Hybrid Organizations – What’s in a Name? — Anna Thomasson, Olof Hallonsten · Journal of Organizational Sociology (2024) | TGRS Research Map | TGRS