Loading...
|
Please use this identifier to cite or link to this item:
https://nccur.lib.nccu.edu.tw/handle/140.119/156107
|
| Title: | 邏輯衝突：社會企業如何以反向思維形成策略回應
Conflict Logics: How Social Enterprises Formulate Strategic Response through Contrarian Thinking |
| Authors: | 郭咨宜
Kuo, Tzu-Yi |
| Contributors: | 蕭瑞麟
Hsiao, Ruey-Lin
郭咨宜
Kuo, Tzu-Yi |
| Keywords: | 邏輯衝突
社會企業
策略回應
逆向邏輯
社會創新
Logic conflict
Social enterprises
Strategic response
Contrarian logic
Social Innovation |
| Date: | 2024 |
| Issue Date: | 2025-03-03 15:43:01 (UTC+8) |
| Abstract: | 社會企業必須在社會使命與商業利益之間取得平衡，融合這兩種看似矛盾的元素。若側重任一方，往往會在實踐過程中引發爭議與挑戰。過往研究多聚焦於社會企業如何解決內部的邏輯衝突，卻忽略其所處的市場競爭環境。這種衝突來自於兩種對立的運作邏輯：「商業邏輯」以市場競爭為核心，追求效率與利潤成長；「社會邏輯」則優先考量社會影響與公益價值，關注弱勢群體需求。這兩者的矛盾，使社會企業在發展過程中必須在競爭與價值堅持之間尋找平衡點。由於社會企業通常面臨資金、人才與資源的限制，相較於市場上的強勢競爭者處於劣勢，如何在回應市場競爭的同時，兼顧邏輯衝突，並找到生存與發展的立足點，成為社會創新亟待探索的關鍵議題。本論文以臺灣社會企業「鮮乳坊」為案例，探討其如何應對主流乳品廠的競爭策略，並分析其商業模式與傳統社會組織運作方式的衝突。透過追溯這些衝突，本研究進一步挖掘鮮乳坊的回應策略，並觀察到其如何運用「逆向邏輯」來化解邏輯衝突。在理論貢獻上，本研究拓展社會創新理論的視角，解析社會企業如何透過逆向邏輯來化解社會使命與商業利益間的衝突。同時，本研究延展邏輯衝突理論，將討論範疇從組織內部的價值衝突擴展至市場競爭環境，說明社會企業如何在強勢企業的制約下，運用逆向邏輯回應挑戰，突破既有產業框架。在實務應用上，本研究提供一套可行的實踐方法，指出社會企業若要化解邏輯衝突，需先識別衝突類型，再深入分析其根源，最終透過逆向操作突破既有市場規則，轉化競爭劣勢為創新優勢。透過此方法，社會企業不僅能在商業競爭中生存，更能實現社會使命，創造雙重價值。本研究指出，逆向邏輯的核心力量，在於將劣勢轉化為突破口，翻轉市場規則，開創新的價值空間。當挑戰成為社會創新的契機，真正的變革便不止於市場，而是重塑社會創新的格局。
Social enterprises must balance their social mission and commercial viability, integrating these seemingly contradictory elements. An overemphasis on either aspect can create operational challenges and strategic tensions. While prior research has focused on resolving internal logical conflicts, it has largely overlooked the role of market competition in shaping these tensions. These conflicts arise from two opposing logics: ‘commercial logic,’ which prioritizes market competition, efficiency, and profitability, and ‘social logic,’ which emphasizes social impact and public value. The inherent tension between these logics forces social enterprises to negotiate a balance between competitiveness and value-driven commitments. Given their limited access to capital, talent, and resources, they often operate at a disadvantage against dominant market players. Thus, a key challenge in social innovation is how social enterprises can simultaneously respond to competitive pressures, manage logic conflicts, and secure a sustainable position in the market. This study examines BetterMilk Co., a Taiwanese social enterprise, as a case study to explore how it competes with mainstream dairy producers. It analyzes conflicts between its business model and traditional nonprofit frameworks, identifying how the social enterprise leverages contrarian logic to navigate these tensions and sustain its market presence. This research expands the discourse on social innovation theory by illustrating how social enterprises use contrarian logic to reconcile tensions between social mission and commercial success. It also extends logic conflict theory, shifting the focus from intra-organizational conflicts to market-driven tensions, demonstrating how social enterprises challenge industry norms and dominant players through strategic contrarian approaches. This study offers a systematic framework for resolving logical conflicts, emphasizing three key steps: identifying conflict types, analyzing their root causes, and employing contrarian strategies to challenge conventional market rules. By transforming competitive disadvantages into innovation-driven advantages, social enterprises can thrive in commercial markets while advancing their social mission. Contrarian logic enables social enterprises to convert structural disadvantages into strategic advantages, reshape market dynamics, and create new value ecosystems. When challenges are reframed as opportunities, transformation extends beyond the marketplace, reshaping the broader landscape of social change and innovation. |
| Reference: | 中文文獻
林雅萍，2022，「融合邏輯：創新再脈絡的轉譯過程」，《中山管理評論》，第30卷，第5期，899-946頁
王仕圖、官有垣、林家緯、張翠予，2010，「工作整合型社會企業的角色與功能－台灣與香港的比較分析」，《人文社會科學研究》，第4卷，第2期，106-130頁。
翁晶晶、謝英哲，2019，「績效薪資改革的盲點：制度邏輯的新視角」，《中山管理評論》，第27卷，第1期，139-178頁。
胡哲生、張子揚，2009，「社會企業創業議題：社會創新與管理融入」，《創業管理研究》，第4卷，第4期，85-105頁。
蔡依倫、高明瑞，2013，「制度變遷與組織型態創設：身心障礙者社會企業的浮現歷程研究」，《中山管理評論》，第21卷，第2期，339-368頁。
蕭瑞麟，2020，(第五版)《不用數字的研究：質性研究的思辨脈絡》，台北：五南學術原創專書系列。
蕭瑞麟，2020，(第二版)《服務隨創：少力設計的邏輯思維》，台北：五南學術原創專書系列。
陳蕙芬，2015，「柔韌設計：化機構阻力為創新助力」，《中山管理評論》，第1期，第23卷，13-55頁。
陳隆輝、薛昭義、黃子明，2018，「社會企業商業模式關鍵成功因素之研究」，《中山管理評論》，第26卷，第3期，381-414頁。
英文文獻王仕圖、官有垣、林家緯、張翠予. 2010. 工作整合型社會企業的角色與功能－台灣與香港的比較分析. 《人文社會科學研究》, 4卷2期: 106-130.
林雅萍. 2022. 融合邏輯：創新再脈絡的轉譯過程. 《中山管理評論》, 30卷5期: 899-946.
胡哲生、張子揚. 2009. 社會企業創業議題：社會創新與管理融入. 《創業管理研究》, 4卷4期: 85-105.
泰帕爾. 2008. 《芬蘭的 100 個社會創新》. 台北: 天下雜誌.
翁晶晶、謝英哲. 2019. 績效薪資改革的盲點：制度邏輯的新視角. 《中山管理評論》, 27卷1期: 139-178.
陳隆輝、薛昭義、黃子明. 2018. 社會企業商業模式關鍵成功因素之研究. 《中山管理評論》 26卷3期 381-414.
陳蕙芬. 2015. 「柔韌設計：化機構阻力為創新助力」. 《中山管理評論》, 第1期(第23卷): 13-55頁。.
蔡依倫、高明瑞. 2013. 制度變遷與組織型態創設：身心障礙者社會企業的浮現歷程研究. 《中山管理評論》, 21卷2期 339-368.
蕭瑞麟. 2020. 《不用數字的研究：質性研究的思辨脈絡》. 台北: 五南學術專書系列.
蕭瑞麟、歐素華、蘇筠. 2017. 「逆強論: 隨創式的資源建構過程」. 《台大管理論叢》, 第 27 卷，第 4 期: 1-32 頁.
英文文獻
Almandoz, J. 2014. Founding teams as carriers of competing logics: When institutional forces predict banks’ risk exposure. Administrative Science Quarterly, 59(3): 442-473.
Battilana, J., & Dorado, S. 2010. Building sustainable hybrid organizations: The case of commercial microfinance organizations. Academy of Management Journal, 53: 1419-1440.
Besharov, M. 2019. Innovation and scaling for impact: How effective social enterprises do it. Administrative Science Quarterly, 64(2): NP19-NP21.
Boone, C., Özcan, S., & Li, J. 2022. How are competing logics combined in managerial teams? The impact of branch founding team hybridity on the growth of Islamic Bank Branches in Turkey, 2002–19. Journal of Management Studies, 59(6): 1460-1492.
Bouquet, C., & Birkinshaw, J. 2008. Managing power in the multinational corporation: How low-power actors gain influence. Journal of Management, 34(3): 477-508.
Child, J., & Smith, C. 1987. The context and process of organizational transformation: Cabury Limited in its sector. Journal of Management Studies, 24(6): 565-593.
Cornelissen, J., Akemu, O., Jonkman, J., & Werner, M. 2021. Building character: The formation of a hybrid organizational identity in a social enterprise. Journal of Management Studies, 58(5): 1294-1330.
Dahan, N. M., Doh, J. P., Oetzel, J., & Yaziji, M. 2010. Corporate-NGO Collaboration: Co-creating New Business Models for Developing Markets. Long Range Planning, 43(2–3): 326-342.
Dalpiaz, E., Rindova, V., & Ravasi, D. 2016. Combining logics to transform organizational agency: Blending industry and art at Alessi. Administrative Science Quarterly, 61(3): 347-392.
Denzin, N. K., & Lincoln, Y. S. (Eds.). 1994. Handbook of Qualitative Research. London: Sage.
Di Domenico, M.-L., Haugh, H., & Tracey, P. 2010. Social bricolage: Theorizing social value creation in social enterprises. Entrepreneurship: Theory & Practice, 34(4): 681-703.
Gladwell, M. 2013. David and Goliath: Underdogs, misfits, and the art of battling giants. New York: Little, Brown and Company.
Greer, C. R., & Ireland, T. C. 1992. Organizational and financial correlates of contrarian human resource investment strategy. Academy of Management Journal, 35(5): 956-984.
Gümüsay, A. A., Smets, M., & Morris, T. 2020. ‘God at Work’: Engaging central and incompatible institutional logics through elastic hybridity. Academy of Management Journal, 63(1): 124-154.
Hargadon, A. B., & Douglas, Y. 2001. When innovations meet institutions: Edison and the design of the electric light. Administrative Science Quarterly, 46(3): 476-514.
Heese, J., Krishnan, R., & Moers, F. 2016. Selective regulator decoupling and organization's strategic responses. Academy of Management Journal, 59(6): 2178-2204.
Hodgson, D., Paton, S., & Muzio, D. 2015. Something old, something new?: Competing logics and the hybrid nature of new corporate professions. British Journal of Management, 26(4): 745-759.
Lee, M., & Jay, J. 2015. Strategic responses to hybrid social ventures. California Management Review, 57(3): 126-148.
Liu, W., Kwong, C. C. Y., Kim, Y.-A., & Liu, H. 2021. The more the better vs. less is more: Strategic alliances, bricolage and social performance in social enterprises. Journal of Business Research, 137: 128-142.
Lounsbury, M. 2007. A tale of two cities: Competing logics and practice variation in the professionalizing of mutual funds. Academy of Management Journal, 50(2): 289-307.
Malhotra, N., Zietsma, C., Morris, T., & Smets, M. 2021. Handling resistance to change when societal and workplace logics conflict. Administrative Science Quarterly, 66(2): 475-520.
Marquis, C., & Lounsbury, M. 2007. Vive la resistance: Competing logics and the consolidation of U.S. community banking. Academy of Management Journal, 50(4): 799-820.
Oliver, C. 1991. Strategic responses to institutional processes. Academy of Management Review, 16(1): 145-179.
Orlikowski, W. J. 2000. Using technology and constituting structures: A practice lens for studying technology in organizations Organization Science, 11(4): 404–428.
Pache, A.-C., & Santos, F. 2013. Inside the hybrid organization: Selective coupling as a response to competing institutional logics. Academy of Management Journal, 56(4): 972-1001.
Perkmann, M., & Spicer, A. 2014. How emerging organizations take form: The role of imprinting and values in organizational bricolage. Organization Science, 25(6): 1785-1806.
Pettigrew, A. M. 1987. Context and action in the transformation of the firm. Journal of Management Studies, 24(6): 649-670.
Porter, M. E. 1985. Competitive advantage: Creating and sustaining superior performance. New York: Free Press.
Powell, E. E., & Baker, T. 2014. It's what you make of it: Founder identity and enacting strategic responses to adversity. Academy of Management Journal, 57(5): 1406-1433.
Ramus, T., Vaccaro, A., & Brusoni, S. 2017. Institutional complexity in tubulent times: Formalisation, collaboration and the emergence of blended logics. Academy of Management Journal, 60(4): 1253-1284.
Reay, T., & Hinings, C. R. 2009. Managing the rivalry of competing institutional logics. Organization Studies, 30(6): 629-652.
Salvato, C., & Rerup, C. 2018. Routine regulation: Balancing conflicting goals in organizational routines. Administrative Science Quarterly, 63(1): 170-209.
Santos, F. M., Pache, A.-C., & Birkholz, C. 2015. Making hybrids work: Aligning business models and organizational design for social enterprises. California Management Review, 57(3): 36-58.
Serafeim, G. 2022. Purpose and Profit: How Business Can Lift Up the World: HarperCollins Leadership.
Shaheen, I., Azadegan, A., & Davis, D. F. 2023. Resource scarcity and humanitarian social innovation: Observations from hunger relief in the context of the COVID-19 pandemic. Journal of Business Ethics, 182(3): 597-617.
Shu, E., & Lewin, A. Y. 2016. A resource dependence perspective on low-power actors shaping their regulatory environment: The case of Honda. Organization Studies, 38(8): 1039-1058.
Thornton, P. H. 2002. The rise of the corporation in a craft industry: Conflict and conformity in institutional logics. Academy of Management Journal, 45(1): 81-101.
Tracey, P., & Phillips, N. 2016. Managing the consequence of organizational stigmatization: Identity work in a social enterprise. Academy of Management Journal, 59(3): 740-765.
Vaara, E., & Whittington, R. 2012. Strategy-as-practice: Taking social practices seriously. Academy of Management Annals, 6(1): 285-336.
York, J. G., Hargrave, T. J., & Pacheco, D. F. P. 2016. Converging winds: Logic hybridisation in the Colorado wind energy field. Academy of Management Journal, 59(2): 579-610. |
| Description: | 碩士
國立政治大學
科技管理與智慧財產研究所
111364103 |
| Source URI: | http://thesis.lib.nccu.edu.tw/record/#G0111364103 |
| Data Type: | thesis |
| Appears in Collections: | [科技管理與智慧財產研究所] 學位論文
|
Files in This Item:
| File |
Description |
Size | Format | |
|---|
| 410301.pdf | | 14439Kb | Adobe PDF | 0 | View/Open |
|
All items in 政大典藏 are protected by copyright, with all rights reserved.
|
