Switching From Corporate to Nonprofit Work: Career Transitions of Commercially Imprinted Managers

Abstract

Despite an increasing number of executives who transition from for-profit to not-for-profit organizations, our understanding of how commercially imprinted managers navigate the new setting remains limited. We collected data in the form of biographical interviews and observations with managers who had previously held a leading position in a commercial company and moved to work for a not-for-profit organization. We offer a typology of three responses that commercially imprinted managers used and identify conditions related to individuals’ biographies that facilitate the use of such responses, including social sector engagement, hybridity in previous job positions, international exposure, volunteering, and a diverse network.

Keywords

hybrid organizations careers career transition nonprofit management institutional logics

Introduction

Career shifts from the private to the nonprofit sector have become more common since more and more managers are searching for “purpose” and “meaning” in their professional lives and choose to join organizations with a strong social mission (Schlosser et al., 2017). For such “bridgers”—for-profit managers turned not-for-profit executives—the transition can be fraught with challenges. Similarly, not-for-profit organizations increasingly hire employees with working experience in profit-driven companies to support their efforts to professionalize (Hwang & Powell, 2009), as “executive’s knowledge and leadership are desperately needed” in the nonprofit sector (Simms & Luke, 2009, p. 26).

While some research on the reasons for such career changes exists (e.g., Schlosser et al., 2017), our understanding of how managers cross such institutional boundaries in the course of their career remains limited (Vinkenburg & Weber, 2012). Specifically, our knowledge of how managers who have previously worked in the commercial sector navigate the new not-for-profit context characterized by different institutional logics remains scarce. Some managers smoothly adapt to the new context and navigate the new institutional setting by interacting seamlessly with their fellow managers, employees, and other stakeholders—all with an imprinting different from their own (Battilana et al., 2019), while others fail. An understanding of how commercially imprinted managers turn into “pluralist” managers (Besharov, 2014; Pache & Santos, 2013) is needed to ensure that the expectations of both the career changers and their employing organizations are met.

The ability to constructively deal with more than one institutional logic at play (Battilana & Dorado, 2010; Besharov & Smith, 2014; Sanders & McClellan, 2014) seems to be crucial for career changers. Scholars have acknowledged the importance of biographical origins, including exposure to various institutional settings or even generational experiences (Cohen & Duberley, 2015) as contributing to how an individual’s past experiences are reflected in her present attitudes, choices, and behavior, thereby influencing career changes (Powell & Colyvas, 2008; Suddaby et al., 2012). However, little attention has been given to the influence of such imprinting in career transitions (Dobrev & Merluzzi, 2018; Marquis & Tilcsik, 2013)—an overlooked factor that we argue to play an important role in managers’ responses to the presence of multiple institutional logics. Hence, we study the biographical origins of different repertoires of commercially imprinted managers’ responses to new and at times competing institutional logics.

Our analysis draws on 35 biographical interviews of commercially imprinted career changers and extensive observational data collected in a German not-for-profit (“Alpha”). Our research is motivated by the following questions: How do commercially imprinted managers transition to a not-for-profit job? Which biographical origins facilitate the ability to develop effective responses to multiple, potentially conflicting institutional logics in the not-for-profit setting? We find that commercially imprinted managers navigate the new context either by replicating their “home” logic or by customizing or blending multiple logics. Previous exposure to multiplicity, namely, the length of social sector engagement (other than work), substantial work experience in hybrid settings, international exposure, volunteering, or a diverse network, facilitates the ability of commercially imprinted managers to customize or blend different institutional logics.

Our article offers the following contributions. First, we highlight the microprocesses of how commercially imprinted managers, in different ways, make use of their commercial home logic in the not-for-profit context. Second, our research extends the present understanding of the role of imprinting and previous experience with multiplicity as antecedents for how managers deal with the new not-for-profit context. Third, our analysis elucidates how biographical diversity and the corresponding ability to navigate diverging institutional logics present a skill that can be an important resource for organizations.

Managing Multiple Logics in Not-For-Profit Organizations

Not-for-profit organizations are confronted with the challenge that they pursue a social mission while ensuring operational efficiency, a solid bottom line, and oftentimes income generation through market-based activities. This combination locates not-for-profit organizations at the interface of two institutional environments with different—sometimes conflicting—institutional logics (Battilana & Lee, 2014). Institutional logics (Thornton et al., 2012) per se legitimate organizational forms and managerial practices (Greenwood et al., 2010); they help actors to cope with ambiguity and to frame possible solutions to salient problems (Tracey et al., 2011). In other words, a dominant institutional logic provides prescriptions and guidance for decision-making as well as for acting, thereby also reflecting a specific ideology (Cohen & Duberley, 2015).

Existing literature outlines clear differences with respect to the commercial and social institutional logic. Whereas the commercial logic is traditionally associated with competitive market orientation and profit maximization (Fitzgerald & Shepherd, 2018), the social logic is organized around altruistic and pro-social incentives (Miller et al., 2012), values (Eikenberry, 2009), and goals (Tracey et al., 2011). The nonprofit sector is very diverse; in some organizations, the social logic is dominant (e.g., a grassroots or self-help groups), whereas other organizations are characterized by a stronger commercial logic (e.g., large charitable institutions).

Commercially imprinted managers who are hired by not-for-profit organizations may face difficulties to adapt to the new context with multiple, co-existing logics. For example, Smith and colleagues (2017) show in their study of newcomers in the health care sector that a negative discrepancy between injunctive and descriptive logics (i.e., when the prevailing logics did not match what newcomers thought they ought to be) decreased organizational identification and perceived organizational trustworthiness.

Coexistence and simultaneous enactment of multiple logics leads to ambivalent prescriptions for behavior and actions of organizational members (Greenwood et al., 2010, 2011). In the absence of “ready-to-wear models” (Battilana & Dorado, 2010), managers need to develop solutions for managing their employees to navigate such multiplicity. Moreover, a combination of logics triggers conflicts and tensions among the members of the organization (Battilana & Lee, 2014; Greenwood et al., 2011; Pache & Santos, 2010). A failure to balance tensions can escalate to being locked-in to the status quo (Jay, 2013), and even paralyze the organization (Pache & Santos, 2010), negatively influencing its performance (Santos et al., 2015). Thus, an ability to constructively deal with multiple logics is seen as a crucial prerequisite for individuals working in not-for-profit organizations (Besharov & Smith, 2014; Sanders & McClellan, 2014), especially for their managers (Smith et al., 2013).

The Role of Imprinting

Why is it that some commercially imprinted managers smoothly navigate multiplicity while others fail to accustom themselves in the new work environment? Pache and Santos (2013) differentiate between five types of individual responses to conflicting institutional logics in not-for-profit organizations, that is, ignorance, compliance, resistance, combination, or compartmentalization. Taking a theoretical perspective, Smith et al. (2013) propose a paradoxical leadership model that highlights three meta-skills for attending to competing demands: acceptance, differentiation, and integration. In practical terms, Voronov and colleagues (2013) suggest that “individual actors themselves might need to be fluent at responding to the demands imposed by conflicting logics” (p. 1565). Similarly, Besharov (2014) emphasizes the role of pluralist managers, who emphasize both economic and societal values and develop integrative solutions by, for example, promoting products that meet both social and business criteria.

Recently, researchers have also started to examine the antecedents for individuals’ ability to deal with various types of tensions related to, for example, cultural diversity in work contexts. For example, Keller and colleagues (2017) showed in a sample of Chinese and American employees how culture and conditions interact to shape whether individuals are able to frame tensions as paradoxes and apply a paradoxical mindset for addressing them. Similarly, recent theoretical work proposes that individuals who have accumulated cultural tools from different social class contexts are particularly well suited to understanding and bridging social class-based cultural differences within groups (Martin & Côté, 2019). Exposure to a single versus multiple logics may present a similar diversity dynamic and resource among individuals. Battilana and Dorado (2010) in turn promote a “tabula rasa” strategy to develop pluralist managers, that is, prioritizing the hiring of young graduates not steeped in any specific logic and designing socialization policies that help the organization to develop behaviors to strike the desired balance between the social and commercial logic. Obviously, such an approach is not suitable for managers with substantial work experience.

Although scholars have acknowledged the importance of biographical origins of individuals (Powell & Colyvas, 2008; Suddaby et al., 2012), little attention has been given to the influence of imprints in the process of career transitions (Dobrev & Merluzzi, 2018; Marquis & Tilcsik, 2013). The seminal paper by Marquis and Tilcsik (2013) advances a three-part definition of imprinting that emphasizes

(1) brief sensitive periods of transition during which the focal entity exhibits high susceptibility to external influences; (2) a process whereby the focal entity comes to reflect elements of its environment during a sensitive period; and (3) the persistence of imprints despite subsequent environmental changes. (p. 195)

Lee and Battilana (2013) argue that whether individuals have become directly imprinted (through personal work experience) or indirectly imprinted (through parental work experiences or professional education) influences their ability to incorporate and integrate different logics. Other studies have also found that an individual’s professional background as well as past experiences (Besharov & Smith, 2014; Pache & Santos, 2013) may lead them either to segregate and adhere to the social or the commercial side of an organization (Glynn, 2000; Pache & Santos, 2010) or to integrate and represent both sides (Golden-Biddle & Rao, 1997).

Apart from education and past work experience other factors may also influence an individual’s imprinting. According to Thornton and colleagues (2012), an individual may be imprinted with a given logic through the experience of their parents, partners, or friends. Moreover, leisure or volunteer activities, in areas such as arts, politics, or environmental protection, introduce individuals to different sets of institutional cues (Pache & Santos, 2013). The formative effect of the first job also plays a role, especially when the duration of employment and the consequent degree of embeddedness in the job are high (Dobrev & Merluzzi, 2018).

Despite the growing importance of career trajectories that expose individuals imprinted with a single logic to multiple competing logics, we lack a systematic analysis of the “repertoire of individuals’ responses to competing institutional logics, as well as the determinants of these responses” (Pache & Santos, 2013, p. 5). This is the gap that our research addresses. Specifically, we investigate how commercially imprinted managers navigate multiple logics after a career change to the social sector and how their past experiences help explaining their ability to bridge different institutional logics.

Method

We collected data on managers who had transitioned from the for-profit to the not-for-profit context through interviews and extended observations. As a thorough understanding of managerial responses “requires attending to both language and actions performed by actors on a day-to-day basis” (Voronov et al., 2013, p. 1573), we observed the behavior of 32 commercially imprinted individuals in a not-for-profit organization (“Alpha”).

Interviews

We conducted 35 biographical interviews (see Supplementary Material 1) between January and December 2017. We selected managers with considerable experience in a top management position who had changed to a leading position in a not-for-profit organization. We purposefully selected managers who had changed workplace only recently (less than 2 years ago; 15 individuals) and others who shifted their careers some time ago (between 3 and 20 years ago; on average, 8 years ago; 21 individuals).

Each interview lasted approximately 40 to 60 min and was based on an interview guide covering topics such as educational and career path as well as career transitions and the perception of those transitions. We inquired about motivations for their sector change, how they perceived their previous career and made sense of it with respect to their current assignment. We asked about their experiences with different institutional settings and whether and how they had changed or adapted their leadership style and their day-to-day behavior. We engaged into a broad conversation about their life and covered interests and hobbies, personal and professional networks. The sampling technique was based on contacts from our own network as well as snowball sampling (contacts of interviewees). Wherever possible we conducted face-to-face interviews (12) and alternatively, telephone interviews (23).

Observations

We observed how various organizational members with different degrees of commercial imprint participated in the various organizational change and strategy development processes at Alpha. Alpha is a German not-for-profit organization with approximately 120 paid employees and 3,500 active volunteers. While the organization is governed by its volunteer board of directors, its headquarter is characterized by a high level of professionalism and business-like working style. Most newly hired employees previously worked in business. One of the authors supported Alpha for 10 years in various external advisory roles; one author got in touch with Alpha in November 2016; the third author had no relationship to the organization. This composition of the author team allowed us to deal constructively with potential biases. Over a period of 18 months (from November 2016 to August 2018), two authors accompanied the revision of Alpha’s strategy, with one author taking an observational stance. Besides regular contact with the organization, we participated in a total of 18 workshops, and team as well as board meetings. In addition, there was an intensive exchange of emails, and we conducted a number of phone calls with individual members of Alpha. In total, we collected 176 h of observational data in 18 workshops and meetings at Alpha. Our data sources comprise emails, minutes of meetings, documents (such as drafts and the final version of the new strategy), slides, as well as our notes on observations (more information provided as Supplementary Material 2).

Data Analysis

We organized our coding using MAXQDA qualitative analysis software (Richards, 2005). First, we analyzed our observations of managerial responses, that is, behaviors, actions, and abilities of managers to smoothly carry out complex activities or job functions. We observed these responses in different events and settings in the context of Alpha’s organizational development process. Second, we examined the self-reflections of our interview partners. We divided our 35 interview partners into different groups, namely, strong, moderate, and weak commercial imprint. We determined the degree of commercial imprint according to their educational background and their tenure in a profit-driven company and clustered the individuals in three different groups: (a) weak commercial imprint; individuals with an experience in commercial companies of shorter than 3 years and multidisciplinary education; (b) moderate commercial imprint, individuals with a minimum of 3 years in private companies and a business degree; (c) strong commercial imprint includes individuals with a minimum of 5 years commercial work experience and a business degree.

We then analyzed how the interview partners talked about their biographies and career paths, including their past positions and their experiences with changing to the not-for-profit sector. Also, many of our interviewees mentioned how their (diverse) network had influenced them.

We divided our data analysis into two stages. During the first stage, we relied on notes, on observations, documents, emails, and PowerPoint slides related to the organizational development process at Alpha as well as transcripts of interviews. We started with descriptive and open coding of each document to identify first-order codes. At this inductive stage, our analysis was guided by broad questions focusing on the practices, actions, and behaviors of individuals. As we compared recurrent first-order codes, we identified different empirical themes which formed the basis for identifying second-order themes. At this stage, analytical tools such as memoing, sorting, as well as visually mapping relationships between codes facilitated our discussions and helped us to agree upon the emerging second-order themes. Then, we performed axial coding (Strauss & Corbin, 1990) and started moving back and forth between the emerging data and theoretical literature (Eisenhardt, 1989; Gioia et al., 2012). This step enabled us to progressively abstract from the data and distill sets of second-order themes into distinct aggregate dimensions, that is, three types of managerial responses. We discovered how biographical origins facilitate acquiring the ability to use certain responses. We repeated the same analytical procedure to analyze the interview data.

Figure 1 gives an example of our coding and the remaining coding is included as Supplementary Material 3.

Figure 1.

Example of a code-aggregation diagram. Conditions related to individuals’ biographies and past experiences influencing use of individual responses to multiple institutional logics. The remaining code-aggregation diagrams are provided as supplementary material.

Managers’ Responses to Multiple Institutional Logics

We identify three responses (replicating, customizing, and blending) to logic multiplicity commercially imprinted managers eventually develop in a new position in the not-for-profit sector.

Replicating

The first response, replicating the commercial logic, refers to commercially imprinted managers implementing commercial logic concepts to the new context without adapting them and framing their experiences in the new context using commercial concepts that they know well. In many instances, our participants re-enacted the commercial logic that had guided their actions in their previous working environment. For example, one of Alpha’s board members summarized his perspective on leadership in a not-for-profit organization: “This is all like the family business I own. I lead this organization just like our business—it’s the same challenges” (Obs#1). Similarly, a senior marketing manager with a strong commercial imprint replicated the concept of measuring (short-term) performance goals which can be associated with the commercial logic:

[In industry] there was a given time frame; people were driven by ambitious goals. This is something that I want to introduce here together with the board . . . to set ambitious goals, which is something that has not been common here so far. This new approach irritates people. Sometimes they are skeptical. They react with “we won’t be able to achieve this ever; this is not possible,” while in a private sector environment the reactions are more “wow, this is ambitious, but let’s try.” (I#5)

Another interviewee describes the process of her career transition as follows:

It often happens that people show a certain arrogance and think changing to a new sector will be pretty easy, and after three months they are shocked because it turns out not to be that easy. Sometimes respect for the work done in the nonprofit sector is lacking—I have seen that many times. And then changing sectors does not work. Those are the examples of the bull in the china shop that lead to situations where a whole team was destroyed or the whole organization suffered as they hired somebody who did not have the necessary sensitivity. And then there is also the concept of an enemy in people’s heads. For example, for somebody who studied social work, somebody who studied business is the natural enemy. That can be really dangerous. (I#22)

Some managers expressed difficulties adjusting to the new nonprofit reality: “I had a clear imprint from industry, which I could not change that easily” (I#12).

Customizing

The second response, customizing the use of institutional logics, refers to managers who actively use multiple logics and adapt their use of institutional logics to the context. They are able to strategically apply one or the other logic in an authentic manner by adapting their rhetoric, vocabulary, as well as behaviors and actions situationally to stakeholders’ dominant logic. We observed this ability especially in meetings with a diverse audience such as Alpha’s board meetings. Reflecting their professional background, one group of board members was rather receptive to arguments underpinned by the commercial logic, whereas the others tended to stress points clearly associated with the social logic. An Alpha manager used different words and even different body language when talking to different audiences. In conversations with volunteers (imprinted with the social logic), she used inviting and open gestures. In contrast, in meetings with commercial stakeholders, her body language was restrained, and her vocabulary related to managerial terms (Obs#4). When asked to reflect on this type of behavior, she replied, “With our volunteers, it’s important to acknowledge their service—to show them the impact their work has on the lives of children. With the board, I can be the former consultant-lady” (Obs#4). Alpha’s managing director customized the use of logics in each case adapted to the respective target group. For example, he purposefully addressed a numbers-oriented audience with data-based arguments: “We want to show you these numbers, keeping in mind the question: do we want to head in this direction?” (Obs#12). Like a chameleon, he adapted his language and behavior to the situation at hand. One of our interviewees also highlighted how an understanding of different logics has helped her to customize the use of institutional logics. She mentioned that from her point of view a prerequisite is “. . . the willingness to deal with someone else’s reality” (I#16).

Blending

The third response, blending multiple logics, refers to managers who, through both their language and actions, bridge gaps between diverse stakeholders rhetorically, spice the commercial logic with elements and concepts typically associated with, for example, the social logic, identify a common purpose, and unite different stakeholders by integrating potentially contradicting concepts and goals. In doing so, they were able to resolve the discrepancy and paradoxes inherent in contexts characterized by multiple institutional logics. The wording of Alpha’s strategic goals included short-term performance objectives as the means to achieve social impact: “We maximize sales for the well-being of children” (Obs#10 and 12). Another example of the blending of multiple logics is a headline in a document prepared in the context of the strategy process that combines performance ambitions with the social objective: “Activate more people worldwide for children’s rights and for Alpha” (Doc#1). An interviewee elaborated how he learned to blend logics:

Sometimes it is very clear that there are very different standpoints. I think it is important to develop an understanding that there are common goals that are beneficial for everybody and to highlight the commonalities rather than the differences [social logic]. Then you have to operationalize your ideas and define what the concrete points and next steps are [commercial logic]. (I#31)

We observed one of our interviewees combining logics, for example, when she stated, “Next to the commercial and the financial objectives, which clearly follow business logic, we always have an ideological goal . . . we always have to consider both sides.” Consequently, she argued in a workshop that “we have to define not only financial, but also social impact KPIs” (Obs#11). These examples demonstrate her ability to blend multiple logics. Furthermore, during a workshop, we observed the ability of Alpha’s managing director to combine a management by objectives approach [commercial logic] with a participatory leadership approach addressing the concerns of all employees [social logic]. While he defined clear goals and targets, at the same time he praised the contributions of lower-level employees and invited them to contribute their expertise at a strategy workshop (Obs#9, 10, 12).

The Origins of Managers’ Responses to Logics Multiplicity

The three types of managerial responses we identified indicate a different capacity to navigate multiple institutional logics. While some also adopted the new social logic by blending both, others simply replicated the commercial logic they had become imprinted with in earlier career stages to the new setting (Table 1). Interestingly, in our sample, some individuals who had made the transfer to a not-for-profit career many years ago did not customize their behavior or language. Rather, their managerial repertoire largely remained limited to concepts associated with their commercial home logic (Table 1). In contrast, others almost immediately started to customize and blend logics. The responses can also be understood as stages on a learning curve—from replicating to customizing—that individuals are likely to pass through when they change the sector and are confronted with a new institutional logic. Our analysis, however, also shows that a strong commercial imprint renders it difficult to adapt to the new context: “It is rather difficult to get rid of an imprint that has developed over 20 years. This does not happen overnight” (I#34).

Table 1.

Past Experiences and Individual Responses to Multiple Institutional Logics for Commercially Imprinted Managers.

Extent of imprint	Interviewee no.	Education (other than business studies)	Long nonprofit sector experience (>5 years)	Hybridity in prior job positions	International exposure	Diverse network	Voluntary work	Individual responses to multiple institutional logics
Strong commercial imprint	#2		>5				x	Replicating
	#5					x		Customizing
	#8		>8		x	x		ReplicatingCustomizing
	#9	Chemistry		x			x	ReplicatingCustomizing
	#12	Law					x	ReplicatingCustomizing
	#15	IT	9		x	x		Replicating
	#18					x	x	Blending
	#19	Law and history						-
	#20	Law						Replicating
	#21	Law						Replicating
	#23	IT, media man.	3y		x			ReplicatingCustomizing
	#24	Art, culture, business communication				x	x	ReplicatingBlending
	#26		11	x			x	ReplicatingBlending
	#27	International relations	10y	x		x		CustomizingBlending
	#31		8	x		x		CustomizingBlending
	#34				x		x	Customizing
	#35						x	Replicating
Moderate commercial imprint	#3		15y			x		Customizing
	#4	Engineering	10					ReplicatingBlending
	#6		20				x	Customizing
	#7	Theology			x	x		CustomizingBlending
	#10	Philosophy and international relations	6.5		x	x		ReplicatingBlending
	#11			x	x			CustomizingBlending
	#22	Tourism	6y	x				ReplicatingCustomizing
	#25		7					Replicating
	#29	Math		x				ReplicatingBlending
	#30	Sociology and politics	14	x	x		x	ReplicatingCustomizing
	#32	International relations, politics, economics, law, and history		x				ReplicatingCustomizing
	#33		7	x				Customizing
Weak commercial imprint	#1	Social pedagogy	5			x		ReplicatingBlending
	#13	Politics		x	x			Replicating
	#14	Journalist, geography, politics, psychology		x	x	x		Customizing
	#16	Geography, civil rights, economics, and politics		x		x		CustomizingBlending
	#17	Law and systemic consulting	6	x		x	x	Customizing
	#28	Philosophy, political science, law, and history	15			x		Customizing

Individuals in our sample who have become imprinted by other logics in addition to the commercial logic during their career path were more likely to develop responses such as customizing the use of institutional logics or blending multiple logics. Some managers with a strong commercial imprint also customized and blended logics quickly after their job transition to the not-for-profit sector. To explore this puzzle in depth, we clustered managers according to the extent of their commercial imprint and assigned the responses each of them used. For example, despite their strong commercial imprint, Interviewees 5, 8, 12, and 34 customized institutional logics and Interviewees 18, 26, and 31 engaged in blending multiple logics (see Table 1).

In our analysis, we identified five conditions that relate to an individual’s approach to dealing with multiple institutional logics after a sector change: (a) length of social sector engagement, (b) hybridity in previous job positions, (c) international exposure, (d) volunteering, and (e) diverse network. Our findings on potential relations between those conditions and the ability to use different types of individual responses to multiple institutional logics are illustrated in Figure 2.

Figure 2.

Conditions related to individuals’ biographies and past experiences and their influence on the ability to employ individual responses to multiple institutional logics.

Experiences with multiple institutional logics made in a previous professional context can be seen as a “direct experience” that enhances the ability to use different individual responses. Personal experiences might not always be transferable to a professional context, but they can foster the ability to use different individual responses as well.

The length of engagement in the social sector seems to enable various individual responses. Those interviewees who had previously spent considerable time in a context characterized by multiple institutional logics (e.g., I#8 more than 8 years or I#26 11 years) used individual responses such as customizing the use of institutional logics and even blending multiple logics, despite their strong commercial imprint (see Table 1). A chief marketing officer of a humanitarian aid organization with a strong commercial imprint displayed the response of customizing: “In not-for-profit organizations you have to be careful not to overwhelm people with very fast-paced change initiatives” (I#8). This statement shows how he is fully aware of the otherness of the social logic, and how he adapts his actions accordingly.

The second condition that emerged from our data is what we refer to as hybridity in previous job positions. Some interviewees with strong commercial imprint had nonetheless held “hybrid job roles” in the past, that is, they had dealt with multiple logics. Interestingly, they displayed the ability to customize the use of institutional logics and blend multiple logics. A cofounder of a social venture had a strong commercial imprint since he had previously worked in a consultancy company. However, he had been responsible for green energy issues and thus exposed to the environmental logic. For him, both logics can be aligned:

I do not have the feeling that I turned my back on the private sector; on the contrary, I am part of the private sector . . . this is where I can employ my skill set in the best way, and it can be completely aligned with my mission. (I#29)

Past experience in dealing with multiple institutional logics seems to have prepared him for his new role.

The third condition, international exposure, for example, through living abroad, seems to develop the ability to employ a repertoire of various individual responses, especially the response customizing the use of institutional logics. One reason might be that international experience provides an individual with an appreciation for other languages, norms, and values. For example, the experience of a chief marketing officer of a humanitarian aid organization who spent 3 years in Mexico and Chile demonstrates how awareness of cultural differences and sensitivity to different sets of norms and values helped her in the new not-for-profit context:

The cultural dimension should not be underestimated. You have to be aware that you are dealing with a different sub-culture. You have to understand, how does this sub-culture work? How are messages understood there? Without this awareness and knowledge, you won’t reach your goals. (I#8)

A high degree of international exposure seems to provide individuals with the experience to deal with unfamiliar norms, values, and behaviors. A founder and CEO of a social enterprise with a strong commercial imprint from her 12 years in a telecommunication company and had also lived in Croatia, Australia, and France provided her initial impressions after changing to the social sector:

That was a completely different world [. . .] It was a huge difference. Also, the people whom I met were from completely different life realities—compared to the people I had worked with before. I was the super alien. People had lots of prejudices toward me as it is obvious where I came from. I have the classic corporate imprint. I went through a massive transformation. (I#34)

She acknowledges the need to customize:

I adapt, which I see as a capability. As we want to achieve something together, I have to speak a language that is understood by my conversation partner. Those are different language codes; they have become part of my habitus to speak this kind of language. (I#34)

The fourth condition, the experience of volunteering while working, exposes commercially imprinted managers to a very different logic. A founder and CEO of a social venture that prepares executives to change from the private to the not-for-profit sector highlights the importance of volunteering as it provides managers with the opportunity to experience what it means to work in the not-for-profit sector:

We have one part on intercultural communication, but more importantly, we tell them “and now try it out on your own: start volunteering!” I think it’s really important to experience how meetings take place in the nonprofit sector, how decisions are taken, how people discuss with each other. You have to experience it on your own; it is hard to describe it. Or how to deal with volunteers and how to manage the tensions between full-time staff and volunteers. If you have volunteered yourself, you can understand that much better. (I#22)

Some of our interviewees with a strong commercial imprint had done voluntary work in the past and were able to customize the use of institutional logics and blend multiple logics:

In the area of fundraising, I have to consider the volunteers. If they do not like certain measures such as fundraising on the street, I cannot just do it; instead, I have to engage and discuss with them. We always have to consider other stakeholders, the public and the volunteers. Thus, decisions are complex. (I#2)

The fifth condition, the diverse network of the commercially imprinted managers, in our study facilitated the development of a repertoire of different individual responses and prepared them for customizing institutional logics. We refer to having a diverse network as exposure to and experience with logics other than the logic one has been imprinted with through close friends and acquaintances from different social classes and professional or cultural backgrounds. A diverse network indicates openness and interest in different perspectives as well as a willingness to deal with other types of realities. The chief marketing officer of a humanitarian aid organization whose strong commercial imprint resulted from his business studies and 15 years of experience in the telecommunications sector described his network as

Broad and very international, consisting of people from very different fields and diverse spheres, not only from companies, but also people, that are active in the cultural sector or even in other areas. . . . It is a colorful mix of people and I am proud that many of those friendships have lasted over many years already. (I#8)

His diverse network may have fostered the development of his ability to customize the use of institutional logics. A senior marketing manager with a strong commercial imprint resulting from 20 years in the automotive sector changed to the very different context of a humanitarian aid organization: “there are huge differences, the mentality, how the work is done, it is a completely different culture.” He was able to adapt to the new environment, in no small part due to his diverse network:

My personal experiences also comprise some decades of acting on stage in the area of cabaret, political cabaret, comedy and carnival with performances, singing and all these things. I believe this [kind of experience] has left its mark on me . . . It also helps me in the job context, in particular in difficult situations and discussions, where viewing the situation with a bit of humor helps to relieve stress. (I#5)

A diverse network played a role in enabling this senior manager to develop the ability to use various responses.

Discussion

We started with the premise that managers are carriers of institutional logics (Lee & Battilana, 2013). When managers change to a context characterized by a new logic or multiple logics, they are confronted with different belief systems, different languages, and different prescriptions for appropriate behavior. Our findings extend the present understanding of how such career transitions can succeed and how commercially imprinted managers can handle and benefit from the multiplicity of logics present.

Contributions to Academic Knowledge

Individualized Responses to New Institutional Logics

Our study offers insights into the challenges and microprocesses of how commercially imprinted managers carry and make use of their home logics in not-for-profit organizations. Previous research has indicated that individuals carry organizational routines and experiences from previous to future positions and often—but not always—tend to replicate them in their new settings (Dobrev & Merluzzi, 2018). We extend the nascent understanding of how actors enact, draw on, and benefit from multiple institutional logics (Battilana & Dorado, 2010; Dahlmann & Grosvold, 2017) by elaborating upon three types of individual responses—replicating, customizing, and blending. In so doing, we show how macro-level logics connect to individual behavior in the workplace. We advance our understanding of the role of individual actors in bridging different logics and embracing the dissonance that comes with combining them (Estrin et al., 2016; Jay, 2013; Smith & Lewis, 2011). Our analysis shows how managers who blend multiple logics are likely to “dance nimbly” between different institutional settings, to translate their home logic to another institutional domain (McPherson & Sauder, 2013) and to synthesize multiple logics, whereas others display a restricted repertoire of responses (Lawrence et al., 2011; Pache & Santos, 2013), or are still learning how to handle and benefit from multiple logics. In so doing, we contribute to the growing literature of how individuals strategically blend multiple, sometimes ambiguous, and contested institutional logics to minimize conflict within their local context (Bresnen et al., 2019). Our findings specifically highlight the role of conditions related to an individual’s biography and past experiences that affect the ability to flexibly respond to multiple logics (Voronov et al., 2013) and engage in creative efforts to combine them in their new roles.

The Role of Imprinting

Among other potential influencing conditions such as personality, personal identity, or social ties (Creary et al., 2015; Day & Harrison, 2007; Wry & York, 2017), we focus on differences in individual biographies and past experiences and argue that those differences in the career trajectory can partially explain variations in how managers respond to multiple institutional logics in not-for-profit organizations. Our findings suggest that commercial imprinting cannot easily be “undone” through exposure to and experience with other logics, in our setting, the social logic. While Battilana and Dorado (2010) emphasize the importance of socialization for individuals with no or little work experience when joining organizations characterized by multiple institutional logics, we show the limits of such socialization efforts. Some of our respondents did not acquire the ability to customize the use of institutional logics, despite being exposed to those logics over a long period of time.

It has been argued that past work experience (Lee & Battilana, 2013) as well as education (e.g., business versus social work degree; Dunn & Jones, 2010; Schleef, 2006) are sources for an individual’s imprint. Those managers who experienced ambiguity associated with multiple meanings, for example, in a diverse network or during a stay abroad in a very different culture, were able to more easily adapt their communication style and behavior to the new context. On the contrary, commercially imprinted individuals without experiences of dealing with ambiguity mainly re-enacted their home logic when they were confronted with a context with differing belief systems and norms for appropriate behavior. Based on our findings, we argue that the effect of professional experiences (on the ability to use different individual responses) is stronger compared with the effect of personal experiences (Lee & Battilana, 2013; Wry & York, 2017). We extend this literature by arguing that experiences with multiplicity such as international exposure, volunteering, or having a diverse network might also affect the type and intensity of an individual’s imprint, and thus influence the ability to blend multiple institutional logics.

Biographical Diversity as a Resource

We argue that managers’ ability to blend and combine multiple logics can be a valuable resource for organizations. Managers who can blend logics act as boundary spanners and help to bridge gaps between different institutional fields and thus contribute to balancing and ultimately overcoming tensions that might otherwise paralyze organizations (Besharov & Smith, 2014; Pache & Santos, 2010). Our findings illustrate how career transitions of commercially imprinted managers to not-for-profit organizations may represent a resource for those organizations, if such a career transition results in the development of “pluralist managers” (Besharov, 2014). Biographical diversity is thus a valuable form of diversity that can foster managers’ abilities much like functional diversity when appropriately recognized and managed (Post, 2015; Vinkenburg & Weber, 2012).

Moreover, our findings extend the work of Martin and Côté (2019) to another context. While they identify a blending strategy whereby social class transitioners are able to “deploy their toolkit broadly across cultural boundaries . . . in ways that facilitate increased sensitivity, inclusion, and mutual understanding” (Martin & Côté, 2019, p. 23), our findings are grounded in career changes from the private sector to a not-for-profit organization. Based on our empirical analysis, we develop a model of how biographical diversity influences whether commercially imprinted managers adapt after a change in the not-for-profit sector.

Practical Implications

Our study offers insights for human resource (HR) managers in not-for-profit sectors as it specifically identifies characteristics of professional biographies and careers that influence the ability of individuals to use and blend divergent logics. We focused on conditions related to individuals’ biographies and past experiences which were transparently observable in the CVs and self-accounts of our interview partners. Our findings thus offer guidance for HR professionals for selecting, socializing, and further training managers especially in the not-for-profit sector but also in other contexts characterized by multiple institutional logics. Recruiters need to pay attention to the exposure to different institutional logics evidenced by the person’s biography when recruitment involves a sector change. Similarly, career counselors may benefit from our findings when supporting executives planning for a sector change. Namely, our findings suggest pointers for counseling on whether such a career shift is realistic, and what it takes to succeed in a new institutional context. An awareness of the learning curve involved in the ability to employ and benefit from multiple logics can also be helpful for those counseling or managing individuals who have undergone a sector change. Our findings also suggest that leadership training exposing managers for different institutional settings can be helpful for the development of leadership skills.

Limitations and Future Research

Our study suffers from several limitations, as we focus on career transitions in Germany and collected our observational data in one organization. While our unique, long-term data access allowed for an in-depth understanding of how managers adapted to the new working context over time, our design suffers from a lack of generalizability. Institutional logics also differ in different types of the not-for-profit organizations. Future research should explore how commercially imprinted managers adapt in settings with different mixes of institutional logics. Not-for-profit organizations run by the church, for example, may involve a third, religious institutional logic.

Our study suggests that “pluralist managers” represent a pivotal resource for not-for-profit organizations. It would be worthwhile to investigate in future research if the impact (or magnitude) of the commercial imprint on individuals can be partially explained by personality traits, or social ties. Continuing from our findings, it would be worthwhile to study how individuals with a single imprint adapt to environments in which one—albeit different—logic is dominant. Also, a study of individuals who return to the private sector after an episode in a not-for-profit organization could reveal important insights into logics imprinting. These “unsuccessful” career transitions might, at least partly, be explained by a lack of ability to enact multiple logics.

Another set of interesting questions that deserves further attention relates to how career changers define success for themselves, for example, failing with commercial logic might mean winning with social logic, and vice versa, or how shifting and multiple logics in organizations may interact with an individual’s calling which is aligned only with one logic.

Research Data

sj-docx-1-nvs-10.1177_08997640221115649 – Supplemental material for Switching From Corporate to Nonprofit Work: Career Transitions of Commercially Imprinted Managers

Supplemental material, sj-docx-1-nvs-10.1177_08997640221115649 for Switching From Corporate to Nonprofit Work: Career Transitions of Commercially Imprinted Managers by Elisabeth Niendorf, Karin Kreutzer and Marjo-Riitta Diehl in Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly

Research Data

sj-docx-2-nvs-10.1177_08997640221115649 – Supplemental material for Switching From Corporate to Nonprofit Work: Career Transitions of Commercially Imprinted Managers

Supplemental material, sj-docx-2-nvs-10.1177_08997640221115649 for Switching From Corporate to Nonprofit Work: Career Transitions of Commercially Imprinted Managers by Elisabeth Niendorf, Karin Kreutzer and Marjo-Riitta Diehl in Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly

Research Data

sj-docx-3-nvs-10.1177_08997640221115649 – Supplemental material for Switching From Corporate to Nonprofit Work: Career Transitions of Commercially Imprinted Managers

Supplemental material, sj-docx-3-nvs-10.1177_08997640221115649 for Switching From Corporate to Nonprofit Work: Career Transitions of Commercially Imprinted Managers by Elisabeth Niendorf, Karin Kreutzer and Marjo-Riitta Diehl in Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly

This article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License (http://www.creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/) which permits any use, reproduction and distribution of the work without further permission provided the original work is attributed as specified on the SAGE and Open Access pages (https://us-sagepub-com-s.web.bisu.edu.cn/en-us/nam/open-access-at-sage).

Footnotes

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Funding

The author(s) received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

ORCID iD

Karin Kreutzer

Supplemental Material

Supplemental material for this article is available online.

Author Biographies

Karin Kreutzer is Professor of Social Business and Director of the Impact Institute at EBS University. She held a visiting position at the Institute for Social Innovation at ESADE Business School and received her doctorate from the University of St.Gallen. Her research focuses on how organizations create social impact. This work deals with multiplicity and processes of identity change in organizations, and investigates phenomena such as managerialism and cross-sector social partnerships.

Marjo-Riitta (Maikki) Diehl is Associate Professor of Management and Organization at Aalto University School of Business in Finland. She previously served as Vice Dean Research and Professor of Organizational Behavior at EBS Business School in Germany. She received her PhD at London School of Economics and Political Science (UK) in 2006. Her research focuses on issues of organizational justice and fairness at work, managerial work and gender and women’s leadership.

Elisabeth Niendorf is Lecturer, Trainer and Project Manager at the Academy of German Cooperatives. She received her doctorate from EBS University, Germany. Her research focuses on social entrepreneurship including the development and scaling of innovative sustainable social business models, leadership challenges in hybrid organisations and the role of microfinance in SME development and poverty reduction.

References

Battilana

Dorado

(2010). Building sustainable hybrid organizations: The case of commercial microfinance organizations. Academy of Management Journal, 53(6), 1419–1440.

Battilana

Lee

(2014). Advancing research on hybrid organizing—Insights from the study of social enterprises. The Academy of Management Annals, 8(1), 397–441.

Battilana

Pache

A.-C.

Sengul

Kimsey

(2019, April). The dual-purpose playbook. Harvard Business Review, 2–11.

Besharov

M. L.

(2014). The relational ecology of identification: How organizational identification emerges when individuals hold divergent values. Academy of Management Journal, 57(5), 1485–1512.

Besharov

M. L.

Smith

W. K.

(2014). Multiple institutional logics in organizations: Explaining their varied nature and implications. Academy of Management Review, 39(3), 364–381.

Bresnen

Hodgson

Bailey

Hassard

Hyde

(2019). Hybrid managers, career narratives and identity work: A contextual analysis of UK healthcare organizations. Human Relations, 72, 1341–1368.

Cohen

Duberley

(2015). Three faces of context and their implications for career: A study of public sector careers cut short. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 91, 189–202. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jvb.2015.10.006

Creary

S. J.

Caza

B. B.

Roberts

L. M.

(2015). Out of the box? How managing a subordinate’s multiple identities affects the quality of a manager-subordinate relationship. Academy of Management Review, 40(4), 538–562.

Dahlmann

Grosvold

(2017). Environmental managers and institutional logics. Business Ethics Quarterly, 27(2), 263–291.

10.

Day

D. V.

Harrison

M. M.

(2007). A multilevel, identity-based approach to leadership development. Human Resource Management Review, 17(4), 360–373.

11.

Dobrev

S. D.

Merluzzi

(2018). Stayers versus movers: Social capital and early career imprinting among young professionals. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 39(1), 67–81.

12.

Dunn

M. B.

Jones

(2010). Institutional logics and institutional pluralism: The contestation of care and science logics in medical education, 1967–2005. Administrative Science Quarterly, 55(1), 114–149.

13.

Eikenberry

A. M.

(2009). Refusing the market. Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 38(4), 582–596.

14.

Eisenhardt

K. M.

(1989). Building theories from case study research. Academy of Management Review, 14(4), 532–550.

15.

Estrin

Mickiewicz

Stephan

(2016). Human capital in social and commercial entrepreneurship. Journal of Business Venturing, 31(4): 449–467.

16.

Fitzgerald

Shepherd

(2018). Emerging structures for social enterprises within nonprofits: An institutional logics perspective. Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 47(3), 474–492.

17.

Gioia

D. A.

Corley

K. G.

Hamilton

A. L.

(2012). Seeking qualitative rigor in inductive research. Organizational Research Methods, 16(1), 15–31.

18.

Glynn

M. A.

(2000). When cymbals become symbols: Conflict over organizational identity within a symphony orchestra. Organization Science, 11(3), 285–298.

19.

Golden-Biddle

Rao

(1997). Breaches in the boardroom: Organizational identity and conflicts of commitment in a nonprofit organization. Organization Science, 8(6), 593–611.

20.

Greenwood

Diaz

A. M.

S. X.

Lorente

J. C.

(2010). The multiplicity of institutional logics and the heterogeneity of organizational responses. Organization Science, 21(2), 521–539.

21.

Greenwood

Raynard

Kodeih

Micelotta

E. R.

Lounsbury

(2011). Institutional complexity and organizational responses. The Academy of Management Annals, 5(1), 317–371.

22.

Hwang

Powell

W. W.

(2009). The rationalization of charity: The influences of professionalism in the nonprofit sector. Administrative Science Quarterly, 54, 268–298.

23.

Jay

(2013). Navigating paradox as a mechanism of change and innovation in hybrid organizations. Academy of Management Journal, 56(1), 137–160.

24.

Keller

Loewenstein

Yan

(2017). Culture, conditions and paradoxical frames. Organization Studies, 38(3–4), 539–560.

25.

Lawrence

Suddaby

Leca

(2011). Institutional work: Refocusing institutional studies of organization. Journal of Management Inquiry, 20(1), 52–58.

26.

Lee

Battilana

(2013). How the Zebra got its stripes: Imprinting of individuals and hybrid social ventures (Harvard Business School Working paper No. 14-005). Harvard Business School.

27.

Marquis

Tilcsik

(2013). Imprinting: Toward a multilevel theory. Academy of Management Annals, 7(1), 193–243.

28.

Martin

S. R.

Côté

(2019). Social class transitioners: Their cultural abilities and organizational importance. Academy of Management Review, 44, 618–642.

29.

McPherson

C. M.

Sauder

(2013). Logics in action: Managing institutional complexity in a drug court. Administrative Science Quarterly, 58(2), 165–196.

30.

Miller

T. L.

Grimes

M. G.

McMullen

Vogus

T. J.

(2012). Venturing for others with heart and head: How compassion encourages social entrepreneurship. Academy of Management Review, 37(4), 616–641.

31.

Pache

A.-C.

Santos

(2010). When worlds collide: The internal dynamics of organizational responses to conflicting organizational demands. Academy of Management Review, 35(3), 455–476.

32.

Pache

A. C.

Santos

(2013). Embedded in hybrid contexts: How individuals in organizations respond to competing institutional logics. Research in the Sociology of Organizations, Institutional Logics in Action, 39(B), 1–35.

33.

Post

(2015). When is female leadership an advantage? Coordination requirements, team cohesion, and team interaction norms. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 36(8), 1153–1175. https://doi-org.library.myebs.de/10.1002/job.2031

34.

Powell

W. W.

Colyvas

J. A.

(2008). Microfoundations of institutional theory. In Greenwood

Oliver

Suddaby

Sahlin-Andersson

(Eds.), The SAGE handbook of organizational institutionalism (pp. 276–298). SAGE.

35.

Richards

(2005). Handling qualitative date: A practical guide. SAGE.

36.

Sanders

M. L.

McClellan

J. G.

(2014). Being business-like while pursuing a social mission: Acknowledging the inherent tensions in US nonprofit organizing. Organization, 21(2), 68–89.

37.

Santos

Pache

A.C.

Birkholz

(2015). Making hybrids work: Aligning business models and organizational design for social enterprises. California Management Review, 57(3), 36–58.

38.

Schleef

D. J.

(2006). Managing elites: Professional socialization in law and business schools. Rowman & Littlefield.

39.

Schlosser

McPhee

D. M.

Forsyth

(2017). Chance events and executive career rebranding: Implications for career coaches and nonprofit HRM. Human Resource Management, 56(4), 571–591.

40.

Simms

Luke

(2009, January). Fulfill the dream of leading a nonprofit. Harvard Business Review, pp. 1–26.

41.

Smith

L. G. E.

Gillespie

Callan

V. J.

Fitzsimmons

T. W.

Paulsen

(2017). Injunctive and descriptive logics during newcomer socialization: The impact on organizational identification, trustworthiness, and self-efficacy. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 38(4), 487–511.

42.

Smith

W. K.

Lewis

M. W.

(2011). Toward a theory of paradox: A dynamic equilibrium model of organizing. Academy of Management Review, 36(2), 381–403.

43.

Strauss

Corbin

(1990). Basics of qualitative research: Grounded theory procedures and technique. SAGE.

44.

Suddaby

Viale

Gendron

(2012, October). Institutional reflexivity: The role of the individual in institutional work [Conference session]. Meiji University, Tokyo, Japan.

45.

Thornton

P. H.

Ocasio

Lounsbury

(2012). The institutional logics perspective. Oxford University Press.

46.

Tracey

Phillips

Jarvis

(2011). Bridging institutional entrepreneurship and the creation of new organizational forms: A multilevel model. Organization Science, 22(1), 60–80.

47.

Vinkenburg

C. J.

Weber

(2012). Managerial career patterns: A review of the empirical evidence. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 80(3), 592–607.

48.

Voronov

De Clercq

Hinings

C. (Bob)

. (2013). Institutional complexity and logic engagement: An investigation of Ontario fine wine. Human Relations, 66(12), 1563–1596.

49.

Wry

York

J. G.

(2017). An identity-based approach to social enterprise. Academy of Management Review, 42(3), 437–460.

Supplementary Material

Please find the following supplemental material available below.

For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.

For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.

0.00 MB

0.03 MB

0.02 MB

0.16 MB