SCIENCE ARTICLE
Entrepreneurial Orientation in Non-Governmental Organizations: A Comparative Case Study Approach
More details
Hide details
1
Instytut Ekonomiczno-Społeczny, Katedra Edukacji i Rozwoju Kadr, Uniwersytet Ekonomiczny w Poznaniu, Poland
Submission date: 2025-02-27
Final revision date: 2025-05-08
Acceptance date: 2025-07-12
Online publication date: 2025-08-13
Publication date: 2025-08-16
Corresponding author
Joanna Schmidt
Instytut Ekonomiczno-Społeczny, Katedra Edukacji i Rozwoju Kadr, Uniwersytet Ekonomiczny w Poznaniu, Poland
Management 2025;(1):908-926
KEYWORDS
JEL CLASSIFICATION CODES
TOPICS
ABSTRACT
Research background and purpose:
Entrepreneurial Orientation (EO) has been extensively studied in the context of for-profit enterprises but remains underexplored in the non-profit sector. Non-governmental organizations (NGOs), operating under increasing financial and institutional constraints, require innovative strategies to ensure sustainability and impact. This study aims to examine how EO is implemented in NGOs, particularly in relation to sustainability, financial independence, and strategic scalability. It explores the specific dimensions of EO—innovativeness, proactiveness, risk-taking, autonomy, and competitive aggressiveness—and their role in shaping NGO strategies and outcomes.
Design/methodology/approach:
A qualitative comparative case study method was used, analyzing five Polish NGOs with varying levels of entrepreneurial engagement. Data were collected through semi-structured interviews, organizational reports, and field observations. The analysis focused on identifying how EO dimensions manifest in different organizational contexts and how mechanisms such as social franchising and cross-sector collaboration contribute to organizational resilience and growth.
Findings:
The results indicate that NGOs with higher levels of EO – particularly those actively engaging in innovation, partnerships, and diversified funding – demonstrate stronger adaptability and long-term sustainability. Organization A, in particular, stands out for its use of social franchising, extensive collaboration, and financial innovation. Conversely, NGOs with limited EO tend to rely on traditional funding and operate with lower strategic autonomy, making them more vulnerable to external pressures.
Value added and limitations:
This study contributes to EO theory by extending its application to the NGO sector and identifying social franchising as a distinct EO mechanism tailored to mission-driven contexts. It offers practical insights for NGO leaders and policymakers on integrating entrepreneurial strategies without compromising social objectives. The main limitations lie in the qualitative scope, regional focus (Poland), and pre-pandemic data collection period. These findings provide a foundation for future research using quantitative and cross-country methods to further investigate EO in non-profit environments.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
Supported by funds granted by the Minister of Science of the Republic of Poland under the ‘Regional Initiative for Excellence’ Programme for the implementation of the project ‘The Poznań University of Economics and Business for Economy 5.0: Regional Initiative – Global Effects (RIGE)’.
REFERENCES (33)
1.
Austin, J., Stevenson, H., & Wei-Skillern, J. (2006). Social and commercial entrepreneurship: Same, different, or both? Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 30(1), 1-22.
2.
Bacq, S., & Janssen, F. (2011). The multiple faces of social entrepreneurship: A review of definitional issues based on geographical and thematic criteria. Entrepreneurship & Regional Development, 23(5-6), 373-403.
3.
Borzaga, C., & Defourny, J. (2001). The emergence of social enterprise. Routledge.
4.
Castillo-Villar, F. R., Cavazos-Arroyo, J., & Castillo-Villar, K. K. (2025). Entrepreneurial orientation in social entrepreneurship: A systematic literature review and research agenda. Sustainability, 17(3), 816.
https://doi.org/10.3390/su1703....
5.
Covin, J. G., & Slevin, D. P. (1989). Strategic management of small firms in hostile and benign environments. Strategic Management Journal, 10(1), 75-87.
6.
De Beule, F. (2023). Entrepreneurial orientation and the tension of goal orientation on social enterprise scaling. Academy of Management Proceedings, 2023(1), 18009.
https://doi.org/10.5465/amproc....
7.
Defourny, J., & Nyssens, M. (2010). Conceptions of social enterprise and social entrepreneurship in Europe and the United States: Convergences and divergences. Journal of Social Entrepreneurship, 1(1), 32-53.
8.
Dees, J.G. (1998). The Meaning of “Social Entrepreneurship”. The Kauffman Center for Entrepreneurial Leadership. Kansas City, MO and Palo Alto, CA.
9.
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.
10.
Eikenberry, A. M., & Kluver, J. D. (2004). The marketization of the nonprofit sector: Civil society at risk? Public Administration Review, 64(2), 132-140.
11.
Knight, G. A. (1997). Cross-cultural reliability and validity of a scale to measure firm entrepreneurial orientation. Journal of Business Venturing, 12(3), 213-225.
12.
Kurniawan, K., & Iskandar, Y. (2024). Research dynamics in social entrepreneurial orientation: A bibliometric analysis based on citations and publications. Buletin Poltanesa, 25(1), 52–60.
https://doi.org/10.51967/tanes....
13.
Livne-Tarandach R., Hawbaker B., Boren B. L., & Jones C. 2015. Qualitative comparative analysis. In K.D. Elsbach, & R.M. (Eds.), Handbook of qualitative organizational research: Innovative pathways and methods (pp. 156-167). NY: Routledge.
14.
Lumpkin, G. T., & Cogliser, C. C., & Schneider, D. R. (2009). Understanding and measuring autonomy: An entrepreneurial orientation perspective. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 33(1), 47-69.
15.
Lumpkin, G. T., & Dess, G. G. (1996). Clarifying the entrepreneurial orientation construct and linking it to performance. Academy of Management Review, 21(1), 135-172.
16.
Lumpkin, G. T., & Dess, G. G. (2001). Linking two dimensions of entrepreneurial orientation to firm performance: The moderating role of environment and industry life cycle. Journal of Business Venturing, 16(5), 429-451.
17.
Mair, J., & Martí, I. (2006). Social entrepreneurship research: A source of explanation, prediction, and delight. Journal of World Business, 41(1), 36-44.
18.
Mair, J., & Martí, I. (2009). Entrepreneurship in and around institutional voids: A case study from Bangladesh. Journal of Business Venturing, 24(5), 419-435.
19.
Miller, D. (1983). The correlates of entrepreneurship in three types of firms. Management Science, 29(7), 770-791.
20.
Miller, D., & Friesen, P. H. (1982). Innovation in conservative and entrepreneurial firms: Two models of strategic momentum. Strategic Management Journal, 3(1), 1-25.
21.
Morris, M. H., Webb, J. W., & Franklin, R. J. (2011). Understanding the manifestation of entrepreneurial orientation in the nonprofit context. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 35(5), 947-971.
22.
Mulgan, G. (2006). The process of social innovation. Innovations: Technology, Governance, Globalization, 1(2), 145-162.
23.
Nicholls, A. (2010). The legitimacy of social entrepreneurship: Reflexive isomorphism in a preparadigmatic field. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 34(4), 611-633.
24.
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.
25.
Provan, K. G., & Kenis, P. (2008). Modes of network governance: Structure, management, and effectiveness. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 18(2), 229-252.
26.
Sagawa, S., & Segal, E. (2000). Common interest, common good: Creating value through business and social sector partnerships. California Management Review, 42(2), 105-122.
27.
Shafna, A. M., Kodithuwakku, K.A.S.S., & Kumar, S. (2023). Social entrepreneurial orientation of non-governmental non-profit organizations. AMC Indian Journal of Entrepreneurship, 6(2–3), 8-30.
https://doi.org/10.17010/amcij....
28.
Spinelli, S., & Birley, S. (1996). Toward a theory of conflict in the franchise system. Journal of Business Venturing, 11(5), 329-342.
29.
Tracey, P., & Jarvis, O. (2007). Toward a theory of social venture franchising. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 31(5), 667-685.
30.
van Tulder, R., Seitanidi, M. M., Crane, A. & Brammer, S. (2016) Enhancing the Impact of Cross-Sector Partnerships. Four Impact Loops for Channeling Partnership Studies, Journal of Business Ethics, 135(1), 1-17.
31.
Widiastuti, H., Pratama, M. R. A., & Utami, E. R. (2024). The role of social entrepreneurship orientation, social capital, and social innovation in Village-Owned Enterprises (VOE) performance: A study in Yogyakarta Province. Journal of Accounting and Investment, 25(2), 479–497.
https://doi.org/10.18196/jai.v....
32.
Yi, R., Cao, Y., & Lyu, B. (2024). Social entrepreneurship orientation and corporate dual performance:A serial mediation model. South African Journal of Business Management, 55(1), a4434.
https://doi.org/10.4102/sajbm....
33.
Yunus, M. (2008). Creating a world without poverty: Social business and the future of capitalism. PublicAffairs.