Presentation on theme: "Managing Contradictory Goals: A Longitudinal Study of a Social Enterprise Meaning Meeting April 23, 2009 Wendy K. Smith University of Delaware Marya L."— Presentation transcript:
Managing Contradictory Goals: A Longitudinal Study of a Social Enterprise Meaning Meeting April 23, 2009 Wendy K. Smith University of Delaware Marya L. Besharov Cornell University
Issues for Feedback Is our emerging model interesting? What theoretical gaps can our model address? What additional data can we collect?
Agenda Digital Divide Data: A social enterprise Opportunity to study managing contradictory goals Emerging model of managing contradictory goals over time Potential contributions and next steps
Digital Divide Data: A Social Enterprise DDD Vision and Mission “Digital Divide Data's vision is to create better futures for disadvantaged people in the developing world.” "Digital Divide Data's mission is to provide growth opportunities for our staff and high quality services to our customers through sustainable technology-related enterprises."
Digital Divide Data: A Social Enterprise (cont.) SOCIAL: 402 employees, 214 ‘graduates’, >10x average salary FINANCIAL: $1.5 M in revenues, 30% operating margin
Social Enterprises: A Growing Phenomenon Social enterprise – an organization that tries to achieve a social mission through a profit- generating business operation AKA: hybrid, fourth sector, not just for profit, sustainable business, green business, impact business Social enterprises are growing in number B-Corp: 190 members; $1B in revenues; 42,000 users Business Alliance for Local Economies: 20,000 members Investors Circle: $130M invested in ‘impact’ businesses Social Venture Network: 500 members Business for Social Responsibility: 250 members
Social Enterprises: Multiple Contradictory Goals Social mission and financial performance Both goals are strategically critical to the success of the social enterprise Contradictions across the social enterprise Selection and socialization (Battilana & Dorado 2009) Motivation and incentives (Besharov 2008) Identity (Foreman & Whetten 2002) Growth strategy (Leonard, Epstein, & Smith 2007) Funding sources (Chertok, Hamaoui, & Jamison 2008)
Managing Contradictory Goals Contradictory goals pervasive in organizations Social vs. financial Explore vs. exploit Learning vs. performance Effectively managing contradictory goals is critical to organizational performance (Cameron & Levine 2006; Eisenhardt & Westcott 1988; Gitell 2004; Murnighan & Conlon 1991; Osono, Shimizu, & Takeuchi 2008; Smith & Tushman 2005; Sundaramurthy & Lewis 2003)
Managing Contradictory Goals: Prior Research and Open Questions Prior research has explored strategies for managing contradictory goals involving: Org. structures (O’Reilly & Tushman 2008; Smith & Tushman 2005) Cognition/framing (Gilbert 2006; Jarzabkowski & Sillince 2007) Identity (Fiol, Pratt, & O’Connor 2009; Pratt & Foreman 2000) Issue crafting (Sonenshein 2006) Culture (Gibson & Birkenshaw 2004) Change (Seo, Putnam, & Bartunek 2004) Other? Open questions: How do strategies emerge and evolve over time? How do different domains relate to one another?
Research Question How does a social enterprise simultaneously manage social and financial goals? How manage contradictory goals over time? How manage contradictory goals across multiple domains?
Methods Longitudinal case study Digital Divide Data Inductive, building theory from case study data (Edmondson & McManus 2007; Eisenhardt 1989; Siggelkow 2007) Initial data collected 13 interviews CEO (3), NA management (2), Asia management (2), Board Chair (1), Operators (4), External consultant (1) Archival data Board agendas and minutes, articles, annual reports, org charts Additional data to be collected Interviews and observation Asia and North America
Initial Analysis Individually examine interviews and board packets Where are the tensions between social and financial? How do these tensions change over time? How are senior leaders managing these tensions? What strategic issues are being raised? What decisions are senior leaders making? Create tables/lists Interesting tensions over time How senior leaders managed these tensions Explore patterns Compare analyses with one another
Preliminary Model of Managing Contradictions Over Time 2001-20032004-20062007-2009 DifferentiationIntegration Three methodological strategies Domains of action Issues raised Decision patterns Establish the Social Mission Solidify the Business Plan Seek Support for Both
Domain: HR Practices 2001-20032004-20062007-2009 Establish the Social Mission Solidify the Business Plan Seek Support for Both Key Tradeoffs Operator Hiring (disadvantaged vs. skilled) Disadvantaged quotasPerformance criteriaPre-operator training Management Capacity (local (Asia) vs. NA) Expats shadow localsHire local quality mgmtLocal management training Compensation (‘consume the mission’ vs. competitive salary) NA mgmt volunteersExpand & fundraise for NA mgmt Revenues fund NA mgmt
Domain: Growth Strategy 2001-20032004-20062007-2009 Establish the Social Mission Solidify the Business Plan Seek Support for Both Key Tradeoffs New Products (low skill vs. high margin) Low skill workHigh margin workTrainable high margin work New Offices (underserved vs. productive) Open two new offices to expand mission Seek profitability in current offices Plan future profitable growth to expand social mission
Domain: Governance 2001-20032004-20062007-2009 Establish the Social Mission Solidify the Business Plan Seek Support for Both Key Tradeoffs Board of GovernorsNo Board Rely on friends, family Create BoardExpand Board Create local advisory groups Mix of social/financial All US based members Mix of social/financial Add local (Asia) members (social vs. financial background) (local vs. NA based)
Domain: External Partnerships 2001-20032004-20062007-2009 Establish the Social Mission Solidify the Business Plan Seek Support for Both Key Tradeoffs Funding (donors vs. investors, earned revenues) Mostly donorsEarned revenues cover operations Cultivate socially oriented investors Strategic Partners (NGO vs. for-profit) Primarily NGOsEstablish for-profit partnerships Establish social enterprise partnerships Cultivate relationship with for-profit ‘mentor’ Partner with for- profit ‘mentor’ For-profit mentor adopts socially responsible practices
Methodological Strategy 2: Issues Raised Focus on strategic issues raised as a measure of attention allocation (Dutton & Dukerich 1991) Categorize issues Financial: P&L, operations, sales, management responsibility Social: Fundraising, social metrics, social mission Both: HR, governance, growth, accounting, budget Identify pattern of issue attention allocation over time
Issue Attention Allocation 20012004 2006 2009 Establish the Social Mission Solidify the Business Plan Seek Support for Both
Methodological Strategy 3: Decision Patterns What type of decisions are made in each time period? Synergies Incorporate and address both goals Reduces conflict, promotes creativity (Rothenberg 1979; Eisenhardt & Westcott 1989; Osono 2008) Trade-offs Privilege either social or financial Hard to make inconsistent trade-offs (Louis & Sutton 1991)
Decision Patterns: March 2005 IssuesDecisions 1.Board Expansion Financial vs. social background Local (Asia) vs. NA members 1.TRADE-OFFS Add social background – social Add local member – social 2.Operator Hiring Disadvantaged vs. Productive 2.SYNERGY Train disadvantaged and hire most skilled 3.Management Compensation Consume mission vs. pay competitive salary Fund salary w/ revenues vs. donations 3.TRADE-OFFS Pay competitive salaries – financial Pay management through revenues – financial 4.Management Capacity Local vs. NA management 4.TRADE-OFFS Transfer more responsibility to Asia – social
Managing Contradictions Over Time Integration Potential Contributions Approach to managing contradictory goals evolves over time Pattern evident across multiple domains Differentiation precedes integration Integration involves both synergies and trade-offs 2001-20032004-20062007-2009 Differentiation Establish the Social Mission Solidify the Business Plan Seek Support for Both Outstanding Questions What explains transitions from one phase to another? Are some domains leading or lagging? Does differentiation enable integration? What explains differences between synergy and trade-off decisions?
A Concluding Thought Differentiate in order to integrate - a meta-theme? Pattern evident across organizational phenomena/theories: Diversity – Ely & Thomas 2001 Innovation – Gilbert 2006; Smith 2005; Andriopoulos & Lewis Forthcoming Identity – Besharov 2008; Fiol, Pratt, & O’Connor 2009 Mindfulness – Weick, Sutcliffe, & Obstfeld 1999; Langer 1989 Others?