Publications-Theses
Article View/Open
Publication Export
-
題名 資源效應：社會企業如何轉化資源以回應制約
Resource Effectuation: Converting resources for responding constraints in social enterprises作者 賴會欣
Lai, Hui-Hsin貢獻者 蕭瑞麟
Hsiao, Ruey-Lin
賴會欣
Lai, Hui-Hsin關鍵詞 社會企業
劣勢創新
資源延展效應
資源拮抗效應
資源槓桿效應
Social enterprise
Resource conversion
Stretching effect
Antagonistic effect
Leveraging effect日期 2022 上傳時間 1-Jul-2022 16:32:45 (UTC+8) 摘要 社會企業要平衡使命與獲利，在解決社會問題的同時有穩定收入能支持營運，但多數社會企業面臨資源匱乏的情境，包含少資源、負資源與亂資源，如何能夠生存下來並持續推動使命，成了重要的課題。隨創理論強調在劣勢下要能善用手邊資源進行創新，然而，資源在過程中如何轉化並產生創新價值，是過去研究較少討論的。本論文透過研究茶籽堂、甘樂文創、鮮乳坊三個案例，分析其中制約、資源轉化過程與隨創成果，進而調查如何讓資源產生多元的效果、如何處理負資源，以及如何解決系統性問題。觀念上，本研究提出了資源水平延展與垂直延展的原則、複數拮抗資源的轉化，以及資源槓動系統的過程。實務上，本研究提供三個資源轉化的作法，包含資源延展效應、資源拮抗效應、資源槓桿效應。如此，制約之於社會企業不再是阻力，而是為資源注入新能量的助力。
Social enterprises should find a way to balance mission and profit, while solving social problems. However, most social enterprises suffered a range of constraints, such as confronting insufficient resources, negative resources and sophisticated problems. The survival of social enterprises is a premise to sustain their social mission. To survive in disadvantageous circumstances, prior theories on bricolage suggests that resources making-do could prompt creative resolutions. However, how resources are converted and how their values are recreated are less-explored in the previous research. This study examines three social enterprises supported by the coroporate citizenship project in DBS, including the cases of Cha Tzu Tang, CAN (Cultural Art and Nature) and Pure Milk. The goal is to analyze constraints facing these social enteprises and inspect patterns of resource conversion so as to explore new practices of bricolage. Theoretically, this research investigates how to effectuate resources for multiple uses, how to convert negative resources for new values, and how to resolve systemic problems by leveraging limited resources. It elaborates the horizontal and vertical stretching of resources, the conversion of antagonistic resources, and the leveraging of inadequate resources. Practically, this research suggests three creative approaches to resource deployment. Stretching effect facilitates resource expansion for multiple applications. Antagonistic effect encourages the converion of negative resources in order to support creative resolutions. Leveraging effect attempts to identify the least resistance path so that minimum resources could generate maximum influences. By so doing, constraints could be considered less as a pessimistic resistance, but more of a generative resource. The key to adversary innovation thus lies in injecting new capacity into mobilized resources to create wealth.參考文獻 中文文獻胡哲生、陳志遠、吳秉恩，2009，「社會企業本質、任務與發展」，《創業管理研究》，第4期，1-28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期，第4卷，85-105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期，第1卷，139-178頁。蕭瑞麟，2017，《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，2019，《服務隨創：少力設計的邏輯思維》，台北：五南書局學術專書。蕭瑞麟、徐嘉黛，2020，「境隨心轉：服務隨創中的認知轉移與資源轉換」，《組織與管理》，即將發表。蕭瑞麟、歐素華、吳彥寬，2017，「逆勢拼湊：化資源制約為創新來源」，《中山管理評論》，第1期，第25卷，219-268頁。蕭瑞麟、歐素華、陳煥宏，2019，「負負得正：相依性如何促成負資源轉換」，《組織與管理》，第12卷，第1期，第127-171頁。蕭瑞麟、歐素華、陳蕙芬，2014，「劣勢創新：梵谷策展中的隨創行為」，《中山管理評論》，第2期，第22卷，323-367頁。英文文獻Acar, O. A., Tarakci, M., & van Knippenberg, D. 2019. Creativity and innovation under constraints: A cross-disciplinary integrative review. Journal of Management, 45(1): 96-121.Andersen, O. J. 2008. A bottom-up perspective on innovations: Mobilizing knowledge and social capital through innovative processes of bricolage. Administration & Society, 40(1): 57-78.Baker, T. 2007. Resources in play: Bricolage in the toy store(y). Journal of Business Venturing, 22(5): 694-711.Baker, T., & Nelson, R. E. 2005. Creating Something from Nothing: Resource Construction through Entrepreneurial Bricolage. Administrative Science Quarterly, 50(3): 329-366.Battilana, J., Sengul, M., Pache, A.-C., & Model, J. 2014. Harnessing productive tensions in hybrid organizations: The case of work integration social enterprises. Academy of Management Journal, 58.Child, C. 2020. Whence paradox? Framing Away the potential challenges of doing well by doing good in social enterprise organizations. Organization Studies, 41(8): 1147-1167.Ciambotti, G., & Pedrini, M. 2021. Hybrid harvesting strategies to overcome resource constraints: Evidence from social enterprises in Kenya. Journal of Business Ethics, 168(3): 631-650.Combs, J. G., Ketchen Jr, D. J., Ireland, R. D., & Webb, J. W. 2011. The role of resource flexibility in leveraging strategic resources. Journal of Management Studies, 48(5): 1098-1125.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.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.Deephouse, D. L. 2000. Media reputation as a strategic resource: An integration of mass communication and resource-based theories. Journal of Management, 26(6): 1091-1112.Delmestri, G., & Greenwood, R. 2016. How Cinderella became a queen. Administrative Science Quarterly, 61: 507-550.Desa, G. 2012. Resource mobilization in international social entrepreneurship: Bricolage as a mechanism of institutional transformation. Entrepreneurship: Theory & Practice, 36(4): 727-751.Desa, G., & Basu, S. 2013. Optimization or bricolage? Overcoming resource constraints in global social entrepreneurship. Strategic Entrepreneurship Journal, 7(1): 26-49.Di Domenico, M., Tracey, P., & Haugh, H. 2009. The dialectic of social exchange: Theorizing corporate-social enterprise collaboration. Organization Studies, 30(8): 887-907.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.Dutton, J. E., Roberts, L. M., & Bednar, J. 2010. Pathways for positive identity construction at work: Four types of positive identity and the building of social resources. Academy of Management Review, 35(2): 265-293.Eisenhardt, K. M. 1989. Building theories from case study research. Academy of Management Review, 14(4): 532–550.Fox, J. R., Park, B., & Lang, A. 2007. When available resources become negative resources: The effects of cognitive overload on memory sensitivity and criterion bias. Communication Research, 34(3): 277-296.Garud, R., & Karnøe, P. 2003. Bricolage versus breakthrough: Distributed and embedded agency in technology entrepreneurship. Research Policy, 32(2): 277-300.Garud, R., Schildt, H. A., & Lant, T. K. 2014. Entrepreneurial Storytelling, Future Expectations, and the Paradox of Legitimacy. Organization Science, 25(5): 1479-1492.Gibbert, M., Hoegl, M., & Välikangas, L. 2007. In praise of resource constraints. Sloan Management Review, 48(3): 15-17.Greenwood, R., & Hinings, C. R. 1993. Understanding strategic change: The contribution of archetypes. Academy of Management Journal, 36(5): 1052-1081.Hamel, G., & Prahalad, C. K. 1993. Strategy as stretch and leverage. Harvard Business Review, 71(2): 75-84.Hockerts, K. 2015. How Hybrid Organizations Turn Antagonistic Assets into Complementarities. California Management Review, 57(3): 83-106.Kliewe, T., Marquardt, P., & Baaken, T. 2009. Leveraging organizational resources by creative coupling: An evaluation of methods for intellectual asset identification. Journal of Knowledge Globalization, 2(2): 1-23.Lounsbury, M., & Glynn, M. A. 2001. Cultural entrepreneurship: Stories, legitimacy, and the acquisition of resources. Strategic Management Journal, 22(6/7): 545–564.Molecke, G., & Pinkse, J. 2017. Accountability for social impact: A bricolage perspective on impact measurement in social enterprises. Journal of Business Venturing.Morecroft, J. D. W. 1988. System dynamics and microworlds for policymakers. European Journal of Operational Research, 35: 301-320.Orlikowski, W. J. 2000. Using technology and constituting structures: A practice lens for studying technology in organizations Organization Science, 11(4): 404–428.Orlikowski, W. J. 2002. Knowing in practice: Enacting a collective capability in distributed organizing. Organization Science, 13(3): 249-273.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.Pettigrew, A. M. 1987. Context and action in the transformation of the firm. Journal of Management Studies, 24(6): 649-670.Pettigrew, A. M. 1990. Longitudinal field research on change: Theory and practice. Organization Science, 1(3): 267-292.Quelch, J. B., & Kenny, D. 1994. The logic of product-line extensions. Harvard Business Review, 72(6): 60-60.Reuschl, A. J., Deist, M. K., & Maalaoui, A. 2022. Digital transformation during a pandemic: Stretching the organizational elasticity. Journal of Business Research, 144: 1320-1332.Rosso, B. D. 2014. Creativity and constraints: Exploring the role of constraints in the creative processes of Research and Development Teams. Organization Studies, 35(4): 551-585.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.Seelos, C., & Mair, J. 2017. Innovation and Scaling for Impact: How Effective Social Enterprises Do It. Redwood City, California: Stanford University Press.Senge, P. M. 1990. The Fifth discipline: The art and practice of the learning organization. New York: Doubleday/Currency.Shane, S. 2000. Prior knowledge and the discovery of entrepreneurial opportunities. Organization Science, 11(4): 448-469.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.Smets, M., Jarzabkowski, P., Burke, G. T., & Spee, P. 2015. Reinsurance trading in Lloyd’s of London: Balancing conflicting-yet-complementary logic in practice. Academy of Management Journal, 58(3): 932-970.Sonenshein, S. 2014. How organization foster the creative use of resources. Academy of Management Journal, 57(3): 814-848.Sunduramurthy, C., Zheng, C., Musteen, M., Francis, J., & Rhyne, L. 2016. Doing more with less, systematically? Bricolage and ingenieuring in successful social ventures. Journal of World Business, 51(5): 855-870.Taggar, S. 2002. Individual creativity and group ability to utilise individual creative resources: A multi level model. Academy of Management Journal, 45(2): 315-330.Tasavori, M., Kwong, C., & Pruthi, S. 2018. Resource bricolage and growth of product and market scope in social enterprises. Entrepreneurship & Regional Development, 30(3/4): 336-361.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.Whittington, R. 2006. Completing the practice turn in strategy research. Organization Studies, 27(5): 613-634.Zott, C., & Huy, Q. N. 2007. How entrepreneurs use symbolic management to acquire resources. Administrative Science Quarterly, 52(1): 70-105. 描述 碩士
國立政治大學
科技管理與智慧財產研究所
109364204資料來源 http://thesis.lib.nccu.edu.tw/record/#G0109364204 資料類型 thesis dc.contributor.advisor 蕭瑞麟 zh_TW dc.contributor.advisor Hsiao, Ruey-Lin en_US dc.contributor.author (Authors) 賴會欣 zh_TW dc.contributor.author (Authors) Lai, Hui-Hsin en_US dc.creator (作者) 賴會欣 zh_TW dc.creator (作者) Lai, Hui-Hsin en_US dc.date (日期) 2022 en_US dc.date.accessioned 1-Jul-2022 16:32:45 (UTC+8) - dc.date.available 1-Jul-2022 16:32:45 (UTC+8) - dc.date.issued (上傳時間) 1-Jul-2022 16:32:45 (UTC+8) - dc.identifier (Other Identifiers) G0109364204 en_US dc.identifier.uri (URI) http://nccur.lib.nccu.edu.tw/handle/140.119/140717 - dc.description (描述) 碩士 zh_TW dc.description (描述) 國立政治大學 zh_TW dc.description (描述) 科技管理與智慧財產研究所 zh_TW dc.description (描述) 109364204 zh_TW dc.description.abstract (摘要) 社會企業要平衡使命與獲利，在解決社會問題的同時有穩定收入能支持營運，但多數社會企業面臨資源匱乏的情境，包含少資源、負資源與亂資源，如何能夠生存下來並持續推動使命，成了重要的課題。隨創理論強調在劣勢下要能善用手邊資源進行創新，然而，資源在過程中如何轉化並產生創新價值，是過去研究較少討論的。本論文透過研究茶籽堂、甘樂文創、鮮乳坊三個案例，分析其中制約、資源轉化過程與隨創成果，進而調查如何讓資源產生多元的效果、如何處理負資源，以及如何解決系統性問題。觀念上，本研究提出了資源水平延展與垂直延展的原則、複數拮抗資源的轉化，以及資源槓動系統的過程。實務上，本研究提供三個資源轉化的作法，包含資源延展效應、資源拮抗效應、資源槓桿效應。如此，制約之於社會企業不再是阻力，而是為資源注入新能量的助力。 zh_TW dc.description.abstract (摘要) Social enterprises should find a way to balance mission and profit, while solving social problems. However, most social enterprises suffered a range of constraints, such as confronting insufficient resources, negative resources and sophisticated problems. The survival of social enterprises is a premise to sustain their social mission. To survive in disadvantageous circumstances, prior theories on bricolage suggests that resources making-do could prompt creative resolutions. However, how resources are converted and how their values are recreated are less-explored in the previous research. This study examines three social enterprises supported by the coroporate citizenship project in DBS, including the cases of Cha Tzu Tang, CAN (Cultural Art and Nature) and Pure Milk. The goal is to analyze constraints facing these social enteprises and inspect patterns of resource conversion so as to explore new practices of bricolage. Theoretically, this research investigates how to effectuate resources for multiple uses, how to convert negative resources for new values, and how to resolve systemic problems by leveraging limited resources. It elaborates the horizontal and vertical stretching of resources, the conversion of antagonistic resources, and the leveraging of inadequate resources. Practically, this research suggests three creative approaches to resource deployment. Stretching effect facilitates resource expansion for multiple applications. Antagonistic effect encourages the converion of negative resources in order to support creative resolutions. Leveraging effect attempts to identify the least resistance path so that minimum resources could generate maximum influences. By so doing, constraints could be considered less as a pessimistic resistance, but more of a generative resource. The key to adversary innovation thus lies in injecting new capacity into mobilized resources to create wealth. en_US dc.description.tableofcontents 論文目錄聲明頁 I感謝誌 II中文摘要 III英文摘要 IV圖目錄 VIII表目錄 IX壹、緒論 10第一節 研究動機 10一、實務動機 11二、理論動機 12第二節 研究目標 13一、分析制約的回應 14二、分析資源轉化 14三、分析隨創結果 15第三節 預期效應 15一、預期理論貢獻 16二、預期實務啟發 16三、論文章節佈局 17貳、文獻回顧 19第一節 專有名詞定義 19一、定義社會企業相關名詞 19二、定義隨創中的資源轉化 21第二節 資源拼湊觀點 23一、資源拼湊：無中生有 24二、象徵性行動：營造合法性 25三、資源建構：轉換價值 26第三節 資源巧用觀點 28一、資源延展效應 28二、資源拮抗效應 30三、資源槓桿效應 32第四節 資源轉化觀點 34一、資源轉化過程 34二、制約的角色 35三、理論缺口 36參、研究方法 37第一節 脈絡分析法 37第二節 案例選擇與理論取樣 39第三節 分析架構設計 41第四節 資料分析步驟 43第五節 資料蒐集過程 45肆、研究發現 50第一節 星展銀行的社會影響力 50一、倡議 51二、培育 51三、整合 56第二節 茶籽堂：資源的延展效應 58一、苦茶油的挑戰 59二、茶籽堂的制約 60三、茶籽堂的契機 62四、資源延展效應 63五、隨創結果 67第三節 甘樂文創：資源的拮抗效應 68一、三峽社區的挑戰 68二、甘樂文創的制約 70三、甘樂文創的契機 71四、資源拮抗效應 72五、隨創結果 75第四節 鮮乳坊：資源的槓桿效應 77一、酪農業的挑戰 77二、鮮乳坊的制約 78三、鮮乳坊的契機 81四、資源槓桿效應 82五、隨創結果 85伍、討論 87第一節 學術貢獻 87一、隨創理論的貢獻 87二、社會企業觀念的貢獻 90第二節 實務啟示 93一、資源的延展效應 93二、資源的拮抗效應 93三、資源的槓桿效應 94第三節 研究限制與未來建議 94一、資源效應的多樣性研究 95二、衝突邏輯與資源關係研究 95三、社會企業的複合研究 95陸、結論 96參考文獻 98中文文獻 98英文文獻 99 圖目錄圖 1：分析架構之設計─資源轉化過程 42圖 2：苦茶籽的資源水平延展（本研究整理） 64圖 3：茶籽堂的包裝設計 66圖 4：苦茶籽的資源垂直延展（本研究整理） 67圖 5：三角湧人文之旅 75圖 6：化解拮抗效應的作法（本研究整理） 75圖 7：酪農業惡性循環圖（本研究整理） 83圖 8：資源槓桿之良性循環圖（本研究整理） 84 表目錄表 1：隨創文獻中兩派資源運用論點摘要（本研究整理） 22表 2：星展銀行Sparks微電影內容整理 46表 3：田野調查採訪表格 48表 4：歷屆星展臺灣社企獎勵金得主 52表 5：社企流的重要事件（本研究整理） 55 zh_TW dc.format.extent 6957099 bytes - dc.format.mimetype application/pdf - dc.source.uri (資料來源) http://thesis.lib.nccu.edu.tw/record/#G0109364204 en_US dc.subject (關鍵詞) 社會企業 zh_TW dc.subject (關鍵詞) 劣勢創新 zh_TW dc.subject (關鍵詞) 資源延展效應 zh_TW dc.subject (關鍵詞) 資源拮抗效應 zh_TW dc.subject (關鍵詞) 資源槓桿效應 zh_TW dc.subject (關鍵詞) Social enterprise en_US dc.subject (關鍵詞) Resource conversion en_US dc.subject (關鍵詞) Stretching effect en_US dc.subject (關鍵詞) Antagonistic effect en_US dc.subject (關鍵詞) Leveraging effect en_US dc.title (題名) 資源效應：社會企業如何轉化資源以回應制約 zh_TW dc.title (題名) Resource Effectuation: Converting resources for responding constraints in social enterprises en_US dc.type (資料類型) thesis en_US dc.relation.reference (參考文獻) 中文文獻胡哲生、陳志遠、吳秉恩，2009，「社會企業本質、任務與發展」，《創業管理研究》，第4期，1-28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期，第4卷，85-105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期，第1卷，139-178頁。蕭瑞麟，2017，《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，2019，《服務隨創：少力設計的邏輯思維》，台北：五南書局學術專書。蕭瑞麟、徐嘉黛，2020，「境隨心轉：服務隨創中的認知轉移與資源轉換」，《組織與管理》，即將發表。蕭瑞麟、歐素華、吳彥寬，2017，「逆勢拼湊：化資源制約為創新來源」，《中山管理評論》，第1期，第25卷，219-268頁。蕭瑞麟、歐素華、陳煥宏，2019，「負負得正：相依性如何促成負資源轉換」，《組織與管理》，第12卷，第1期，第127-171頁。蕭瑞麟、歐素華、陳蕙芬，2014，「劣勢創新：梵谷策展中的隨創行為」，《中山管理評論》，第2期，第22卷，323-367頁。英文文獻Acar, O. A., Tarakci, M., & van Knippenberg, D. 2019. Creativity and innovation under constraints: A cross-disciplinary integrative review. Journal of Management, 45(1): 96-121.Andersen, O. J. 2008. A bottom-up perspective on innovations: Mobilizing knowledge and social capital through innovative processes of bricolage. Administration & Society, 40(1): 57-78.Baker, T. 2007. Resources in play: Bricolage in the toy store(y). Journal of Business Venturing, 22(5): 694-711.Baker, T., & Nelson, R. E. 2005. Creating Something from Nothing: Resource Construction through Entrepreneurial Bricolage. Administrative Science Quarterly, 50(3): 329-366.Battilana, J., Sengul, M., Pache, A.-C., & Model, J. 2014. Harnessing productive tensions in hybrid organizations: The case of work integration social enterprises. Academy of Management Journal, 58.Child, C. 2020. Whence paradox? Framing Away the potential challenges of doing well by doing good in social enterprise organizations. Organization Studies, 41(8): 1147-1167.Ciambotti, G., & Pedrini, M. 2021. Hybrid harvesting strategies to overcome resource constraints: Evidence from social enterprises in Kenya. Journal of Business Ethics, 168(3): 631-650.Combs, J. G., Ketchen Jr, D. J., Ireland, R. D., & Webb, J. W. 2011. The role of resource flexibility in leveraging strategic resources. Journal of Management Studies, 48(5): 1098-1125.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.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.Deephouse, D. L. 2000. Media reputation as a strategic resource: An integration of mass communication and resource-based theories. Journal of Management, 26(6): 1091-1112.Delmestri, G., & Greenwood, R. 2016. How Cinderella became a queen. Administrative Science Quarterly, 61: 507-550.Desa, G. 2012. Resource mobilization in international social entrepreneurship: Bricolage as a mechanism of institutional transformation. Entrepreneurship: Theory & Practice, 36(4): 727-751.Desa, G., & Basu, S. 2013. Optimization or bricolage? Overcoming resource constraints in global social entrepreneurship. Strategic Entrepreneurship Journal, 7(1): 26-49.Di Domenico, M., Tracey, P., & Haugh, H. 2009. The dialectic of social exchange: Theorizing corporate-social enterprise collaboration. Organization Studies, 30(8): 887-907.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.Dutton, J. E., Roberts, L. M., & Bednar, J. 2010. Pathways for positive identity construction at work: Four types of positive identity and the building of social resources. Academy of Management Review, 35(2): 265-293.Eisenhardt, K. M. 1989. Building theories from case study research. Academy of Management Review, 14(4): 532–550.Fox, J. R., Park, B., & Lang, A. 2007. When available resources become negative resources: The effects of cognitive overload on memory sensitivity and criterion bias. Communication Research, 34(3): 277-296.Garud, R., & Karnøe, P. 2003. Bricolage versus breakthrough: Distributed and embedded agency in technology entrepreneurship. Research Policy, 32(2): 277-300.Garud, R., Schildt, H. A., & Lant, T. K. 2014. Entrepreneurial Storytelling, Future Expectations, and the Paradox of Legitimacy. Organization Science, 25(5): 1479-1492.Gibbert, M., Hoegl, M., & Välikangas, L. 2007. In praise of resource constraints. Sloan Management Review, 48(3): 15-17.Greenwood, R., & Hinings, C. R. 1993. Understanding strategic change: The contribution of archetypes. Academy of Management Journal, 36(5): 1052-1081.Hamel, G., & Prahalad, C. K. 1993. Strategy as stretch and leverage. Harvard Business Review, 71(2): 75-84.Hockerts, K. 2015. How Hybrid Organizations Turn Antagonistic Assets into Complementarities. California Management Review, 57(3): 83-106.Kliewe, T., Marquardt, P., & Baaken, T. 2009. Leveraging organizational resources by creative coupling: An evaluation of methods for intellectual asset identification. Journal of Knowledge Globalization, 2(2): 1-23.Lounsbury, M., & Glynn, M. A. 2001. Cultural entrepreneurship: Stories, legitimacy, and the acquisition of resources. Strategic Management Journal, 22(6/7): 545–564.Molecke, G., & Pinkse, J. 2017. Accountability for social impact: A bricolage perspective on impact measurement in social enterprises. Journal of Business Venturing.Morecroft, J. D. W. 1988. System dynamics and microworlds for policymakers. European Journal of Operational Research, 35: 301-320.Orlikowski, W. J. 2000. Using technology and constituting structures: A practice lens for studying technology in organizations Organization Science, 11(4): 404–428.Orlikowski, W. J. 2002. Knowing in practice: Enacting a collective capability in distributed organizing. Organization Science, 13(3): 249-273.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.Pettigrew, A. M. 1987. Context and action in the transformation of the firm. Journal of Management Studies, 24(6): 649-670.Pettigrew, A. M. 1990. Longitudinal field research on change: Theory and practice. Organization Science, 1(3): 267-292.Quelch, J. B., & Kenny, D. 1994. The logic of product-line extensions. Harvard Business Review, 72(6): 60-60.Reuschl, A. J., Deist, M. K., & Maalaoui, A. 2022. Digital transformation during a pandemic: Stretching the organizational elasticity. Journal of Business Research, 144: 1320-1332.Rosso, B. D. 2014. Creativity and constraints: Exploring the role of constraints in the creative processes of Research and Development Teams. Organization Studies, 35(4): 551-585.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.Seelos, C., & Mair, J. 2017. Innovation and Scaling for Impact: How Effective Social Enterprises Do It. Redwood City, California: Stanford University Press.Senge, P. M. 1990. The Fifth discipline: The art and practice of the learning organization. New York: Doubleday/Currency.Shane, S. 2000. Prior knowledge and the discovery of entrepreneurial opportunities. Organization Science, 11(4): 448-469.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.Smets, M., Jarzabkowski, P., Burke, G. T., & Spee, P. 2015. Reinsurance trading in Lloyd’s of London: Balancing conflicting-yet-complementary logic in practice. Academy of Management Journal, 58(3): 932-970.Sonenshein, S. 2014. How organization foster the creative use of resources. Academy of Management Journal, 57(3): 814-848.Sunduramurthy, C., Zheng, C., Musteen, M., Francis, J., & Rhyne, L. 2016. Doing more with less, systematically? Bricolage and ingenieuring in successful social ventures. Journal of World Business, 51(5): 855-870.Taggar, S. 2002. Individual creativity and group ability to utilise individual creative resources: A multi level model. Academy of Management Journal, 45(2): 315-330.Tasavori, M., Kwong, C., & Pruthi, S. 2018. Resource bricolage and growth of product and market scope in social enterprises. Entrepreneurship & Regional Development, 30(3/4): 336-361.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.Whittington, R. 2006. Completing the practice turn in strategy research. Organization Studies, 27(5): 613-634.Zott, C., & Huy, Q. N. 2007. How entrepreneurs use symbolic management to acquire resources. Administrative Science Quarterly, 52(1): 70-105. zh_TW dc.identifier.doi (DOI) 10.6814/NCCU202200651 en_US
