隨著社會議題日益廣泛，及政府角色不再被賦予太多期望，許多非營利組織為求永續，紛紛在組織內部推動變革，希望透過自身營利的創造，幫助更多弱勢族群同時提供更多相關工作機會。此外針對社會議題的解決也促使許多創業家以社會使命為核心創業，造成同時兼具社會使命及商業利益的混合型組織近年來蓬勃發展，而其中又以社會企業最為代表性。
現有的文獻已證實人力資源管理的重要性其對組織發展的影響力，針對營利組織與非營利組織人力資源管理探討及理論架構已相當成熟，並透過許多案例佐證。在社會企業領域，多半文獻也開始探討在雙重使命下，混合型組織所面臨到的挑戰與困難，但仍缺乏足夠案例實際挖掘人力資源管理在社會企業中的具體實踐。
因此本研究針對台灣社會企業進行案例研究，探討在兩者截然不同的需求上組織如何透過人力資源管理手法制定其招募方針及社會化策略，也指出在不同類型的混和型組織中這些做法亦不盡相同以追求最佳效果。

As the social issue getting wider, and people begin not to anticipate any effective solutions provided by the government, in order to sustain, a lot of non-profit sectors want to promote an organization transformation. Hope that through the profit generate by themselves, they can help more people who are in need, and create more job opportunities to the disadvantaged or disabled group. Furthermore, in terms of these social issues, lots of entrepreneurs begin to find a business model to well solve them. Under this trend, more and more hybrid organizations with both social and commercial mission are established. The social enterprise (SE) is the typical type.
Existed literatures have already proven how important the human resource management (HRM) is, and how it can influence the organizational development in the commercial enterprise and non-profit sector. However, in the SE filed, most of research begin to discuss what kind of challenge and tensions they encountered but still few to conduct empirical research inside the organization.
In this study, we conducted 13 interviews in six Taiwanese SEs, explore the HRM system inside the organizations and try to find out how they strike a balance between the two extreme logics. In addition, discuss the different implementation between various types of hybrid organizations. Finally try to conclude the HRM bundles inside these target cases.

 

Abstract i
摘要 ii
1. Introduction 1
2. Literature review 2
2.1Conceptualizing hybrid organization and social enterprise 2
2.2 HRM in SEs 3
2.3 HRM Tensions and challenge inside SEs 4
3. Methodology 6
3.1 Data collection 6
3.2 Data Analysis 8
4. Discussion 8
4.1 Typology of hybrid organization 8
4.1.1 Organic hybrids 8
4.1.2 Enacted hybrids 11
4.2 Hiring practice in the hybrid organization 12
4.2.1 Hiring practice in organic hybrids 12
4.2.2 Hiring Practice in Enacted hybrids 15
4.3 Socialization in Hybrid Organization 18
4.3.1 Socialization in Organic hybrids 19
4.3.2 Socialization in Enacted hybrids 21
5. Conclusion 23
5.1 Hiring practice in SEs 23
5.2 Socialization in SEs 24
5.3 Contribution to theory 25
5.4 Limitation and Future Research Directions 25
6. Reference 26

1. Adkins, C. L. (1995). Previous work experience and organizational socialization: A longitudinal examination. Academy of Management Journal, 38, 839–862.
2. Aldrich, H. E., & Ruef, M. (2006). Organizations evolving. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
3. Austin, J., Stevenson, H. and Wei-Skillern, J. (2006). Social and commercial entrepreneurship: same, different or both? Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 30, pp. 1–22.
4. Battilana, J., & Dorado, S. (2010). Building sustainable hybrid organizations: The case of commercial microfinance organizations. Academy of Management Journal, 53, 1419–1440.
5. Battilana, J., & Lee, M. (2014). Advancing research on hybrid organizing— Insights from the study of social enterprises. Academy of Management Annals, 8, 397–441.
6. Besharov, M., & Smith, W. (2014). Multiple logics in organizations: Explaining their varied nature and implications. Academy of Management Review, 39, 364–381.
7. Billis, D. (2010). Towards a theory of hybrid organizations. In Billis, D. (ed.), Hybrid Organizations and the Third Sector. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan, pp. 46–69
8. Borzaga, C. and Solari, L. (2001). Management challenges for social enterprises. In Borzaga, C. and Defourny, J. (eds), The Emergence of Social Enterprise. Basingstoke: Routledge, pp. 333–349.
9. Bourdieu, P. (1977). Outline of a theory of practice. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
10. Brandsen, T. and Karré, P.M. (2011). Hybrid organizations: no cause for concern. International Journal of Public Administration, 34, pp. 827–836.
11. Brest, P. (2012). A decade of outcome-oriented philanthropy. Stanford Social Innovation Review, 10, 42–47.
12. Bridgstock, R., Lettice, F.M., Özbilgin, M.F. and Tatli, A. (2010). Diversity management for innovation in social enterprises in the UK. Entrepreneurship & Regional Development, 22, pp. 557–574.
13. Bromley, P., & Meyer, J. W. (2014). They are all organizations’: The cultural roots of blurring between the nonprofit, business, and government sectors. Administration & Society.
14. Campbell, D. (2012). Employee selection as a control system. Journal of Accounting Research, 50, 931–966.
15. Dees, J.G. (1998). Enterprising non-profits. Harvard Business Review, 76, pp. 55–67.
16. Doherty, B., Haugh, H., & Lyon, F. (2014). Social enterprises as hybrid organizations: A review and research agenda. International Journal of Management Reviews, 16(4), 417-436.
17. Dukerich, J. M., Kramer, R. M., & Parks, J. M. 1998. Identity in organizations: Building theory through conversations. In D. Whetten & P. Godfrey (Eds.), Identity in organizations: Building theory through conversations: 245–256. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
18. Ebrahim, A. (2003b). NGOs and organizational change: Discourse, reporting and learning. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
19. Ebrahim, A., Battilana, J., & Mair, J. (2014). The governance of social enterprises: Mission drift and accountability challenges in hybrid organizations.Research in Organizational Behavior, 34, 81-100.
20. Eikenberry, A. M., & Kluver, J. D. (2004). The marketization of the nonprofitsector: Civil society at risk? Public Administration Review, 64, 132–140
21. Elsbach, K. D. (1999). An expanded model of organizational identification. In B. M. Staw & R. I. Sutton (Eds.), Research in organizational behavior, vol. 21: 163– 200. Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.
22. Feldman, D. (1976). A contingency theory of socialization. Administrative Science Quarterly, 21: 433–452.
23. Feldman, D. C. (2002). When you come to a fork in the road, take it: Career indecision and vocational choices of teenagers and young adults. In D. C. Feldman (Ed.), Work careers: A development perspective: 93–125. San Francisco: Jossey Bass.
24. Frumkin, P. (2002). On being nonprofit. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
25. Galaskiewicz, J., & Barringer, S. N. (2012). Social enterprises and social categories. In B. Gidron & Y. Hasenfeld (Eds.), Social enterprises: An organizational perspective (pp. 47–70). New York, NY: Palgrave Macmillan.
26. Glynn, M. A. (2000). When cymbals become symbols: Conflict over organizational identity within a symphony orchestra. Organization Science, 11: 285–298.
27. Go´mez, L. (2009). Time to socialize. Journal of Business Communication, 46(2): 179–207.
28. Goffman, E. (1961). Asylums: essays on the social situation of mental patients and other inmates. Garden City, NY: Doubleday, Anchor Books.
29. Goffman, E. (1961). Asylums. Garden City, NY: Anchor.
30. Heimer, C. A. (1999). Competing institutions: Law, medicine, and family in neonatal care. Law and Society Review, 33: 17–66
31. Higgins, M. C. (2005). Career imprints: Creating leaders across an industry. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
32. Hwang, H., & Powell, W. W. (2009). The rationalization of charity: The influences of professionalism in the nonprofit sector. Administrative Science Quarterly, 54, 268–298.
33. Jay, J. (2013). Navigating paradox as a mechanism of change and innovation in hybrid organizations. Academy of Management Journal, 56, pp. 137–159.
34. Jones, G. (1986). Socialization tactics, self-efficacy, and newcomers’ adjustments to organizations. Academy of Management Journal, 29: 262–279.
35. Mair, J., & Hehenberger, L. (2014). Front-stage and backstage convening: The transition from opposition to mutualistic coexistence in organizational philanthropy. Academy of Management Journal, 57(4), 1174–1200.
36. Mair, J., Mayer, J., & Lutz, E. (2014). Navigating institutional plurality: Organizational governance in hybrid organizations. Organization Studies
37. Marquis, C., & Tilcsik, A. (2013). Imprinting: Toward a multilevel theory. Academy of Management Annals, 7, 195–245.
38. OED (2010). Oxford English Dictionary. Oxford: Oxford University Press
39. Pache, A.C. and Santos, F. (2012). Inside the hybrid organization: selective coupling as a response to competing institutional logics. Academy of Management Journal, 56, pp. 972–1001.
40. Powell, W. W., Gammal, D. L., & Simard, C. (2005). Close encounters: The circulation and reception of managerial practices in the San Francisco bay area nonprofit community. In G. Czarniawska & Sevo´n (Eds.), Global ideas: How ideas, objects and practices travel in the global economy (pp. 233–258). Copenhagen: Liber & Copenhagen Business School Press.
41. Ruef, M. (2000). The emergence of organizational forms: a community ecology approach. Journal of Sociology, 106, pp. 658–714.
42. Saks, A. M., & Ashforth, B. E. (1997). A longitudinal investigation of the relationships between job information sources, applicant perceptions of fit, and work outcomes. Personnel Psychology, 50: 395–426.
43. Salamon, M.L., Sokolowski, W.S. and List, R. (2003). Global Civil Society: An Overview. Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins Center for Civil Society Studies.
44. Scott, W. R., & Meyer, J. (1991). The organization of societal sectors: Propositions and early evidence. In P. J. DiMaggio & W. Powell (Eds.), The new institutionalism in organizational analysis: 108–142. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
45. Selznick, P. (1949). TVA and the grass roots: A study of politics and organization. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.
46. Selznick, P. (1957). Leadership in administration: A sociological interpretation. Evanston, IL: Pew Peterson and Co.
47. Smith, S.R. (2010). Hybridization and non-profit organizations. Policy & Society, 29, pp. 219–229.
48. Stinchcombe, A. L. (1965). Social structure and organizations. In J. G. March (Ed.), Handbook of organizations: 142–193. Chicago: Rand McNally.
49. Teasdale, S. (2012). What’s in a name? Making sense of social enterprise discourses. Public Policy and Administration, 27, pp. 99–119.
50. Tuckman, H. T., & Chang, C. F. (2006). Commercial activity, technological change and nonprofit mission. In W. W. Powell & R. Steinberg (Eds.), The nonprofit sector: A research handbook (pp. 629–644). New Haven, CN: Yale University Press.
51. Wanberg, C. R. (Ed.). (2012). The Oxford handbook of organizational socialization. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
52. Weisbrod, B.A. (1988). The non-profit mission and its financing. Journal of Policy Analysis and Management, 17, pp. 165–174.
53. Weisbrod, B.A. (1997). The future of the non-profit sector: its entwining with private enterprise and government. Journal of Policy Analysis and Management, 17, pp. 175– 194.
54. Wilson, F. and Post, J.E. (2013). Business models for people, planet (& profits): exploring the phenomena of social business, a market-based approach to social value creation. Small Business Economics, 40, pp. 715–737.
55. Wolfe Morrison, E. (2002). Newcomers’ relationships: The role of social network ties during socialization. Academy of Management Journal, 45: 1149–1160.
56. Young, D. R., & Salamon, L. M. (2002). Commercialization, social ventures, and for-profit competition. In L. M. Salamon (Ed.), The state of nonprofit America. Washington, DC: Brookings Institution Press.
57. Zilber, T. (2002). Institutionalization as an interplay between actions, meanings, and actors: The case of a rape crisis center in Israel. Academy of Management Journal, 45: 234–254.