Hybrids in making: Developing a processual perspective on hybridization of organizations

Abstract

This dissertation develops a processual perspective to examine how hybrid organizations respond to institutional complexity. It conceptualizes hybridization not as a static outcome, but as an emergent, dynamic, and recursive process shaped by the interaction of institutional logics, organizational strategies, and the contextual conditions in which organizations are embedded. Grounded in institutional logics theory, the study explores how organizations manage multiple, often conflicting logics—namely market, bureaucratic, and community logics. Market logic emphasizes competition and efficiency; bureaucratic logic emphasizes regulation, hierarchy, and public accountability; and community logic emphasizes participation, solidarity, and the creation of social value. The research analyzes how the centrality and compatibility of these logics shape organizational identity, governance, and decision-making. Drawing on Besharov and Smith's (2014) framework, it interprets how logic configurations—whether symmetric or asymmetric—create different forms of institutional complexity and shape the strategic responses available to organizations. Empirically, the study is based on two longitudinal qualitative case studies from Türkiye. The first case, Pluto, is a private-sector-supported social innovation platform characterized by asymmetric logic configuration, where market logic dominates and community logic remains largely symbolic. The second case, Alpha, is a large city hospital operated through a public-private partnership, situated in a symmetric configuration where both bureaucratic and market logics are central and continuously negotiated. These contrasting cases allow for a comparative understanding of how hybridization unfolds under different institutional logic configurations and in emerging market contexts. A key theoretical contribution of the dissertation is the development of a five-stage hybridization process model: (i) Logic Integration, (ii) Hybrid Governance, (iii) Hybrid Decision-Making, (iv) Structural Hybridization, and (v) Legitimacy Formation. The model outlines how hybridization evolves over time, encompassing discursive, structural, and operational dimensions. It also identifies three recursive feedback mechanisms which are (i) Tensions, (ii) Identity work, and (iii) Stakeholder pressures that continuously shape and redefine the hybrid form. This model moves beyond static typologies and instead presents hybridization as a fluid, evolving process that reflects the organization's embeddedness in contested institutional environments. Through this model, the dissertation distinguishes between two different hybridization trajectories. In asymmetric settings, hybridization tends to be driven by a dominant logic (e.g., market logic), with weaker logics compartmentalized or symbolically incorporated. This can produce legitimacy challenges and hinder deeper structural integration, as seen in the Pluto case. In symmetric settings, such as Alpha, hybridization is negotiation-driven and requires more balanced governance structures that enable ongoing compromise between equally influential logics. These findings emphasize that logic centrality and compatibility are not fixed properties but unfold dynamically as organizations respond to tensions, adapt governance, and construct hybrid identities over time. The dissertation contributes to institutional theory by integrating perspectives on logic multiplicity and organizational responses—such as buffering, selective coupling, symbolic alignment, and compartmentalization—while highlighting the importance of context-sensitive and temporally situated hybridization. It demonstrates that hybridization in emerging market contexts like Türkiye is particularly shaped by institutional fluidity, regulatory ambiguity, and informal coordination mechanisms, which require organizations to blend formal structures with relational strategies. Methodologically, the study employs a dual-level qualitative analysis, combining theory-driven coding on logic centrality and compatibility with interpretive coding inspired by the Gioia methodology. Through semi-structured interviews, field observations, media reports, and internal documents were analyzed. This approach allowed for a rich, grounded theorization that remained sensitive to both empirical detail and theoretical abstraction. In practical terms, the findings provide actionable insights for managers and policymakers engaged in the design and operation of hybrid organizations—particularly in contexts involving cross-sectoral collaboration such as social enterprises and public private partnerships. Key recommendations include the creation of participatory governance structures, the strategic use of boundary-spanning roles, and the integration of informal communication with formal accountability mechanisms to manage competing stakeholder demands. Finally, the dissertation outlines several future research directions. These include; ethnographic and longitudinal studies that capture micro-level practices and ethical dilemmas in hybrid organizing; comparative analyses of sectoral configurations and their impact on hybrid forms; exploration of new hybrid fields, such as social finance or green economies; and investigation of settings where hybridization does not occur despite logic multiplicity. Together, these avenues will further refine hybrid theory and extend its application across diverse institutional environments. This dissertation offers a theoretically grounded, empirically rich, and contextually sensitive framework for understanding the formation and evolution of hybrid organizations. It invites scholars to rethink hybridization as a temporally unfolding and structurally embedded process—particularly in complex and institutionally plural contexts.