![Sample our Economics, Finance,Business & Industry journals, sign in here to start your access, latest two full volumes FREE to you for 14 days]({"type":"image" , "src" : "/sda/5931/TOC-Subject-Sample-2021-Economics-Finance-Business-Industry.jpg"})
Abstract
In the organizational context of social enterprises, the viability of the primary social mission is put to the test when the founder leaves the organization. Yet the literature has remained silent on this important stage in the life of a social enterprise. We address this gap by conducting in‐depth case studies in the unexplored setting of India. Based on multiple interviews, field observations and archival data, we develop insights into the significance of “social entrepreneur centrality” in social enterprise founder succession, discuss its consequences, and review the effects of contextual influences. Contributions to social entrepreneurship research and practice are discussed.
Notes
1. The legal form of social enterprises can vary on a spectrum from traditional, subsidized nonprofit organizations to for‐profit corporate companies (Alter Citation2004). What distinguishes social enterprises from traditional nonprofit organizations is their “entrepreneurial orientation” (Sullivan Mort, Weerawardena, and Carnegie Citation2003; Weerawardena and Sullivan Mort Citation2006), which includes characteristics of innovativeness, proactiveness and risk‐taking (Lumpkin and Dess Citation1996; Miller Citation1983). Social enterprise innovativeness has been well documented in the literature (Austin, Stevenson, and Wei‐Skillern Citation2006; Dees Citation1998; Nicholls Citation2008). Social enterprise proactiveness can translate into a market orientation that leads to identifying market opportunities (Catford Citation1998; Dees Citation1998; Sullivan Mort, Weerawardena, and Carnegie Citation2003; Thompson, Alvy, and Lees Citation2000), and engaging in the continuous production of goods and/or services that generate earned‐income (Gras and Mendoza‐Abarca Citation2014). Finally, social entrepreneurs are not risk averse—they “tolerate risks” (Peredo and McLean Citation2006, p. 64) or even act “boldly without being limited by resources currently at hand” (Dees Citation1998, pp. 3–4).
2. Since we are not dealing with family firms, we do not consider familial succession.
3. The GLOBE research project is a cross‐cultural study of leadership, societal culture, and organizational culture, spanning more than 60 countries and 700 organizations (House et al. Citation2004).
4. Available from the authors upon request.
5. From more recent organizational documents, we learned that in May 2014, Shubhasis Pattnaik took over from Joe Madiath as CEO and Executive Director of Gram Vikas. Pattnaik joined the social enterprise after twelve years as a consultant at Infosys Ltd, an Indian multinational corporation headquartered in Bangalore, which provides business consulting, information technology, software engineering and outsourcing services. Madiath still sits on the board as a Founding Member.
Additional information
Notes on contributors
Sophie Bacq
Sophie Bacq is an assistant professor of entrepreneurship & innovation at Northeastern University D'Amore‐McKim School of Business.
Frank Janssen
Frank Janssen is a professor of entrepreneurship at the Louvain School of Management, Université catholique de Louvain, Belgium.
Christine Noël
Christine Noël is a project controller at Oxfam Germany.