Social Entrepreneurship and Bricolage

Taking stock and looking ahead

Alain Fayolle, Frank Janssen, Séverine Le Loarne-Lemaire, Adnane Maalaoui, Alain Fayolle, Frank Janssen, Séverine Le Loarne-Lemaire, Adnane Maalaoui

• Publisher: Routledge
• Year: 2020
• Print ISBN: 9780367208578
• eBook ISBN: 9780429558795
• Edition: 1
• Topic: Business
• Subtopic: Business General
• Index: Business

This book provides new insights into how the concept of bricolage is used to foster research on social entrepreneurship.

The contributors assess the relevance of the concept from a theoretical point of view, questioning the concept and its relationships with similar concepts or theories, like those of effectuation and improvisation; use the concept of bricolage to study processes by which social entrepreneurs make their business grow; and investigate the diversity of social entrepreneurial situations and, as a consequence, the variety of forms (and effects) of bricolage practices.

The primary objective of this book is thus to shed light on bricolage in social entrepreneurship, especially at the intersection of different levels of analysis and in different contexts. It takes stock of existing research at the intersection of both concepts and looks at future research avenues. This book was originally published as a special issue of Entrepreneurship and Regional Development.

The merits and limits of making do: bricolage and breakdowns in a social enterprise

Florian Ladstaetter, Andreas Plank and Andrea Hemetsberger

ABSTRACT

Despite growing literature on social entrepreneurship there is scarce research on how potentially conflicting social and economic objectives manifest on a micro-level and affect everyday management of social enterprises. Applying a strategy as practice perspective we identify sources of, and responses to, temporary and complete breakdowns in Die Bäckerei, a social enterprise that epitomizes bricolage behaviour. We find that diverging interpretations of the organization’s identity eventually result in diverging standards for evaluating performance and lead to breakdowns. We discuss why bricolage is both a source of and a solution to temporary breakdowns and show how practitioners mobilize the hybrid organizational identity as an additional and equally important practice to respond to temporary breakdowns. Furthermore, in the circumstance of complete breakdown the social enterprise has to engage in identity work finding a new situational balance between its social and economic objectives and competing logics. Finally, we show how breakdowns lead to an extension of the social enterprise’s repertoire and discuss how the combination of the social mission and bricolage behaviour enables the organization to eschew path dependency, mobilize alternative resources, and build improvisational strategy.

1. Introduction

Social enterprises are characterized by pursuing a dual mission of financial sustainability and social purpose (Doherty, Haugh, and Lyon 2014). Due to this dual mission social enterprises often are confronted with conflicting, and partly competing, commercial and social logics as well as conflicting demands of stakeholder groups (Battilana et al. 2012; Bridgstock et al. 2010; Pache and Santos 2013). Social enterprises therefore need to combine practices of traditional for-profit firms with the values and drive for social change of non-profit organizations (Battilana et al. 2012). The social and the commercial dimensions of social enterprises are inextricably linked. As a result, social enterprises ‘embed within the boundaries of one organization multiple and inconsistent goals, norms, and values, creating contradictory prescriptions for action’ (Smith, Gonin, and Besharov 2013, 408). This can lead to mission drift (Zahra et al. 2009), problems with stakeholder legitimacy (Nicholls 2009), financial problems (Tracey, Phillips, and Jarvis 2011) or various other tensions (Smith, Gonin, and Besharov 2013). Research has identified several ways in which social enterprises respond to competing demands. For example compromising, avoiding, defying and manipulating, compartmentalizing, or selective coupling of business and social logics are common practices among social enterprises (Doherty, Haugh, and Lyon 2014; Kraatz and Block 2008; Pache and Santos 2013). Inspired by research on organizational paradoxes, Smith, Gonin, and Besharov (2013) contend that social entrepreneurs must focus on bringing social and commercial demands together such that the conflict between them becomes productive. The argument is that the integration of opposing forces can inspire new, creative solutions, lead to increased organizational reflection and mindfulness, and ultimately add to organizational sustainability (Smith, Lewis, and Tushman 2011). Yet, while existing research regards the tension between the social and commercial dimensions as a key feature of social enterprises and highlights its potential for innovation and sustainability, we know very little about the everyday practical reality of social entrepreneurs in terms of their responses to these tensions (Smith, Gonin, and Besharov 2013). Our study addresses this void. We investigate how a social enterprise copes with conflicting objectives and logics in everyday practice.

Prior literature emphasizes that the theory-practice gap (e.g. Ghoshal 2005) in organizational and management research can be bridged by investigating the everyday practices of managers (e.g. Weick 2003; Whittington 1996, 2003). When things run smoothly in everyday practice, however, researchers might only get limited insights into the micro-level manifestations of the conflict between social welfare logic and market logic. Instead we concentrate on the moments when things go wrong, when expectations are thwarted and conflicts occur (Sandberg and Tsoukas 2011). Therefore, we follow Sandberg and Tsoukas’s (2011) suggestion and seek to capture the logic of practice (i.e. the logic practitioners apply in everyday organizing) by investigating breakdowns (i.e. a moment when things do not work as anticipated; Sandberg and Tsoukas 2011) in a social enterprise. Thereby, we seek to answer the following research questions: How do social business tensions manifest in practice? How do practitioners respond to these tensions? Prior literature argues that combining contradictory objectives and logics are fundamental processes in social enterprises (Battilana and Dorado 2010; Mair and Marti 2006). To do this on an everyday basis requires a specific working style (e.g. Mair and Marti 2009). In this respect the concept of bricolage (Lévi-Strauss 1966) can be especially insightful to investigate how practitioners respond to social business tensions on a daily basis. Consequently, we put forth the following research question: What is the role of bricolage in the process of handling social business tensions on an everyday level?

To answer these questions, we discuss relevant literature on social entrepreneurship, bricolage, and strategy as practice. Following a case study approach, we further explore these questions in the context of the independent cultural centre Die Bäckerei. Our study provides novel insights into the nature and management of social business tensions and thereby contributes to effectively understanding social enterprises (see Smith, Gonin, and Besharov 2013).

2. Theoretical background

2.1. Social entrepreneurship and competing logics

While the concept of social entrepreneurship is well established in the fields of management and organization studies, it remains ambiguous and is mostly contrasted with conventional entrepreneurship (e.g. Dacin, Dacin, and Tracey 2011; Mair and Marti 2006). The main difference between social and conventional entrepreneurship lies in enterprises’ targets and distribution of profits. Social enterprises are deemed to have a central social mission and reinvest profits into that social endeavour while conventional enterprises commonly target profit maximization and distribute profits to shareholders or reinvest in commercial activities (Bacq and Janssen 2011). We follow Mair and Marti’s (2006) definition and understand social entrepreneurship as ‘a process involving the innovative use and combination of resources to pursue opportunities to catalyze social change and/or address social needs’. According to Bacq and Janssen (2011), social entrepreneurship research mainly replicated the evolution of its parent field entrepreneurship, and is still in its infancy as a unifying paradigm is missing and definitions proliferate.

Prior research on social enterprises found that social entrepreneurs hold leadership qualities (Thompson, Alvy, and Lees 2000) and are passionate about realizing their vision (Bornstein 2007). Dacin, Dacin, and Matear (2010) suggest that social entrepreneurs are more likely to pay attention to external resources and develop creative mechanisms to circumvent environmental barriers. Employing a critical perspective, Parkinson and Howorth (2008) found that social entrepreneurs in the U.K. are action-oriented with a focus on getting the job done. Entrepreneurial activity is firmly rooted in the here and now rather than aspirational of future outcomes. Additionally, British social entrepreneurs frame success in terms of recognition and resilience rather than performance (Parkinson and Howorth 2008). While much research on social enterprises has focused on social entrepreneurs’ personality traits and success stories, Dacin, Dacin, and Matear (2010) argue that further research into the missions, the organizational processes, and resources in social enterprises is much needed. Prior research into these issues highlights the challenges that social enterprises face when they try to combine social objectives and profitability (e.g. Mair and Marti 2006; Pache and Santos 2013). Due to a dual mission including social objectives and financial sustainability goals, social enterprises do not easily comply with conventional categories of private, non-profit or public organizations (Doherty, Haugh, and Lyon 2014). In this respect social enterprises are hybrid organizations that incorporate elements from different institutional logics (Battilana and Dorado 2010) – a market logic on the one hand and a social welfare logic on the other hand (Pache and Santos 2013). The dual mission and potentially conflicting logics that come with it impact how social enterprises recognize and exploit opportunities as value capture is either directly or indirectly tied to social value creation (Doherty, Haugh, and Lyon 2014). Innovative strategies, creative resource configurations and novel governance structures have been found to assist social enterprises in creating social value (e.g. Austin, Stevenson, and Wei-Skillern 2006; McCarthy 2012; Zahra et al. 2009). More specifically, innovation in social enterprises has been attributed to managing multiple stakeholders’ demands (Bridgstock et al. 2010), accumulating social capital (Evans and Syrett 2007), and combining resources in novel ways (Mair and Marti 2006). Successful social enterprises proactively create their value network of companies which share their social vision, develop resource strategies as integral parts of their business models, and integrate target groups into the social value network at an early stage, thereby facilitating value transfer (Mair and Schoen 2007). More generally, research argues that social enterprises operate within resource-scarce environments and therefore are forced to apply non-traditional resources in novel ways to address the social challenges within their mission (Di Domenico, Haugh, and Tracey 2010; Kickul, Griffiths, and Gundry 2010). As a consequence, recent research has emphasized the significance of bricolage style organizational processes and resources in social enterprises (e.g. Kickul, Griffiths, and Gundry 2010; Zahra et al. 2009).

2.2. Social entrepreneurship and bricolage

Mair and Marti (2006) argue that combining resources in new ways is a fundamental process for value creation in social enterprises. Originally introduced by Lévi-Strauss (1966), the concept of bricolage signifies ‘making do with what is at hand’. Rather than providing a clear definition Lévi-Strauss (1966) illustrates his ideas on bricolage through frequent changes in perspectives, addressing both the process of bricolage as well as the role of the bricoleur, and draws on comparisons of bricolage, craft, myth, play, and ...

Table of contents

• Cover
• Half Title
• Title Page
• Copyright Page
• Contents
• Citation Information
• Notes on Contributors
• Introduction: Researching bricolage in social entrepreneurship
• 1 The merits and limits of making do: bricolage and breakdowns in a social enterprise
• 2 Bricolage, effectuation, and causation shifts over time in the context of social entrepreneurship
• 3 Resource bricolage and growth of product and market scope in social enterprises
• 4 Bricolage and growth in social entrepreneurship organisations
• 5 Disclosing everyday practices constituting social entrepreneuring – a case of necessity effectuation
• 6 Catalyzing social innovation: is entrepreneurial bricolage always good?
• 7 Grassroots entrepreneurs and social change at the bottom of the pyramid: the role of bricolage
• Index