This research was conducted to find out how a hybrid organization concept can be applied to various types and scopes of organizations. There are several things becoming the main focus in this hybrid organization research, namely to find out the extent to which the development of hybrid organizations in its practice when implemented and to find out what types of logic are used by various organizations in implementing hybrid organizations. The findings of the study showed that the concept of hybrid organizations has developed widely in the theory and practice of managing an organization. The concept of hybrid organizations has even been used by several sectors/fields of organizations, including small business organizations, construction projects, social enterprises, government companies, and even universities. This research concludes that the concept of a hybrid organization can be applied to various types & lines of organization because it is generally translated into the same concept in its application. However, some differences are characterized by the use of logic that each organization has that underlies the application of the hybrid organizational concept.

1. Addae, A. E. (2018). Pathways to sector selection: A conceptual framework for social enterprises. Nonprofit Management and Leadership, 28(3), 349–365. https://doi.org/10.1002/nml.21297
2. Al Taji, F. N. A., & Bengo, I. (2018). The Distinctive Managerial Challenges of Hybrid Organizations: Which Skills are Required? Journal of Social Entrepreneurship, 10(3), 328–345. https://doi.org/10.1080/19420676.2018.1543724
3. Alexius, S., & Furusten, S. (2019). Enabling Sustainable Transformation: Hybrid Organizations in Early Phases of Path Generation. Journal of Business Ethics, 165(3), 547–563. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-018-04098-0
4. Ambos, T. C., Fuchs, S. H., & Zimmermann, A. (2020). Managing interrelated tensions in headquarters–subsidiary relationships: The case of a multinational hybrid organization. Journal of International Business Studies, 51(6), 906–932. https://doi.org/10.1057/s41267-020-00307-z
5. Bassi, A. (2014). David Billis: Hybrid Organizations and the Third Sector: Challenges for Practice, Theory and Policy. Nonprofit Policy Forum, 5(2), 395–401. https://doi.org/10.1515/npf-2014-0015
6. Battilana, J., & Lee, M. (2014). Advancing Research on Hybrid Organizing—Insights from the Study of Social Enterprises. Academy of Management Annals, 8(1), 397–441. https://doi.org/10.5465/19416520.2014.893615
7. Battilana, J., Besharov, M., & Mitzinneck, B. (2017). On Hybrids and Hybrid Organizing: A Review and Roadmap for Future Research. The SAGE Handbook of Organizational Institutionalism, 128–162. https://doi.org/10.4135/9781446280669.n6
8. Bauwens, T., Huybrechts, B., & Dufays, F. (2019). Understanding the Diverse Scaling Strategies of Social Enterprises as Hybrid Organizations: The Case of Renewable Energy Cooperatives. Organization & Environment, 33(2), 195–219. https://doi.org/10.1177/1086026619837126
9. Bergfeld, A., Plagmann, C., & Lutz, E. (2020). Know Your Counterparts: The Importance of Wording for Stakeholder Communication in Social Franchise Enterprises. VOLUNTAS: International Journal of Voluntary and Nonprofit Organizations, 32(1), 104–119. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11266-020-00289-4
10. Bertot, J. C., Jaeger, P. T., Gorham, U., et al. (2013). Delivering e-government services and transforming communities through innovative partnerships: Public libraries, government agencies, and community organizations. Information Polity, 18(2), 127–138. https://doi.org/10.3233/ip-130304
11. Besharov, M. L., & Smith, W. K. (2014). Multiple Institutional Logics in Organizations: Explaining Their Varied Nature and Implications. Academy of Management Review, 39(3), 364–381. https://doi.org/10.5465/amr.2011.0431
12. Bornstein, D. (2007). How to Change the World: Social Entrepreneurs and the Power of New Ideas, 2nd ed. Oxford University Press.
13. Bovaird, T. (2004). Public-Private Partnerships: from Contested Concepts to Prevalent Practice. International Review of Administrative Sciences, 70(2), 199–215. https://doi.org/10.1177/0020852304044250
14. Boyfield, K., Goldsmith, S., & Eggers, W. D. (2006). Governing by Network: The New Shape of the Public Sector. Economic Affairs. Wiley. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-0270.2006.00641_4.x
15. Brandsen, T., van de Donk, W., & Putters, K. (2005). Griffins or Chameleons? Hybridity as a Permanent and Inevitable Characteristic of the Third Sector. International Journal of Public Administration, 28(9–10), 749–765. https://doi.org/10.1081/pad-200067320
16. Buccino, G., & Mele, S. (2019). The hybrid organizations: a systematic literature review. European University Network on Entepreneurhip. https://doi.org/10.13140/RG.2.2.22482.17604
17. Caperchione, E., Demirag, I., & Grossi, G. (2017). Public sector reforms and public private partnerships: Overview and research agenda. Accounting Forum, 41(1), 1–7. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.accfor.2017.01.003
18. Chadegani, A. A., Salehi, H., Yunus, M. M., et al. (2013). A Comparison between Two Main Academic Literature Collections: Web of Science and Scopus Databases. Asian Social Science, 9(5). https://doi.org/10.5539/ass.v9n5p18
19. Chaves Júnior, L. R., Freitag, M. S. B., & McNally, J. J. (2024). Learning practices in social entrepreneurship: a cross-cultural comparison of non-profit organizations in Canada and Brazil. International Entrepreneurship and Management Journal. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11365-024-00985-3
20. Cheah, S. L., Yoneyama, S., & Ho, Y. (2019). Performance management of public–private collaboration in innovation. Creativity and Innovation Management, 28(4), 563–574. https://doi.org/10.1111/caim.12343
21. Daft, R. L. (2011). The Leadership Experience. Available online: https://pengalamanpangayoman.wordpress.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/10/leadership-experience-2008.pdf (accessed on 5 March 2024).
22. Dalpiaz, E., Rindova, V., & Ravasi, D. (2016). Combining Logics to Transform Organizational Agency. Administrative Science Quarterly, 61(3), 347–392. https://doi.org/10.1177/0001839216636103
23. Denis, J., Ferlie, E., & Van Gestel, N. (2015). Understanding hybridity in public organizations. Public administration, 93(2), 273–289. https://doi.org/10.1111/padm.12175
24. 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. https://doi.org/10.1111/ijmr.12028
25. Donahue, J. D., Zeckhauser, R. J., & Breyer, S. (2012). Collaborative Governance. https://doi.org/10.1515/9781400838103
26. Dufays, F., & Huybrechts, B. (2016). Where do hybrids come from? Entrepreneurial team heterogeneity as an avenue for the emergence of hybrid organizations. International Small Business Journal: Researching Entrepreneurship, 34(6), 777–796. https://doi.org/10.1177/0266242615585152
27. Egger, M., Smith, G. D., & Phillips, A. N. (1997). Meta-analysis: Principles and procedures. BMJ, 315(7121), 1533–1537. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.315.7121.1533
28. Evers, A. (2005). Mixed Welfare Systems and Hybrid Organizations: Changes in the Governance and Provision of Social Services. International Journal of Public Administration, 28(9–10), 737–748. https://doi.org/10.1081/pad-200067318
29. Ferilli, S., & Esposito, F. (2013). A Logic Framework for Incremental Learning of Process Models. Fundamenta Informaticae, (4), 413-443. https://doi.org/10.3233/FI-2013-951
30. Foster, W., & Bradach, J. (2005). Should nonprofits seek profits? Harvard Business Review, 83(2), 92-100,148.
31. Gamble, E. N., Parker, S. C., & Moroz, P. W. (2019). Measuring the Integration of Social and Environmental Missions in Hybrid Organizations. Journal of Business Ethics, 167(2), 271–284. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-019-04146-3
32. García-Peñalvo, F. J. (2016). La tercera misión. Education in the Knowledge Society (EKS), 17(1), 7–18. https://doi.org/10.14201/eks2016171718
33. Gillett, A., Loader, K., Doherty, B., et al. (2018). An Examination of Tensions in a Hybrid Collaboration: A Longitudinal Study of an Empty Homes Project. Journal of Business Ethics, 157(4), 949–967. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-018-3962-7
34. Giosi, A., & Caiffa, M. (2020). Political connections, media impact and state-owned enterprises: an empirical analysis on corporate financial performance. Journal of Public Budgeting, Accounting & Financial Management, 33(3), 261–288. https://doi.org/10.1108/jpbafm-12-2019-0188
35. Glynn, M. A., & Abzug, R. (2002). Institutionalizing identity: symbolic isomorphism and organizational names. Academy of Management Journal, 45(1), 267–280. https://doi.org/10.2307/3069296
36. Gore, O., McDermott, I., Checkland, K., et al. (2018). Discretion drift in primary care commissioning in England: Towards a conceptualization of hybrid accountability obligations. Public Administration, 98(2), 291–307. https://doi.org/10.1111/padm.12554
37. Gough, D., Thomas, J., & Oliver, S. (2019). Clarifying differences between reviews within evidence ecosystems. Systematic Reviews, 8(1). https://doi.org/10.1186/s13643-019-1089-2
38. Granados, M. L., & Rosli, A. (2019). ‘Fitting In’ vs. ‘Standing Out’: How Social Enterprises Engage with Stakeholders to Legitimize their Hybrid Position. Journal of Social Entrepreneurship, 11(2), 155–176. https://doi.org/10.1080/19420676.2019.1604405
39. Granados, M. L., Mohamed, S., & Hlupic, V. (2017). Knowledge management activities in social enterprises: lessons for small and non-profit firms. Journal of Knowledge Management, 21(2), 376–396. https://doi.org/10.1108/jkm-01-2016-0026
40. Grossi, G., & Thomasson, A. (2015). Bridging the accountability gap in hybrid organizations: the case of Copenhagen Malmö Port. International Review of Administrative Sciences, 81(3), 604–620. https://doi.org/10.1177/0020852314548151
41. Gulbrandsen, M. (2011). Research institutes as hybrid organizations: central challenges to their legitimacy. Policy Sciences, 44(3), 215–230. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11077-011-9128-4
42. Gulbrandsen, M., Thune, T., Borlaug, S. B., et al. (2015). Emerging hybrid practices in public–private research centres. Public administration, 93(2), 363–379. https://doi.org/10.1111/padm.12140
43. Haigh, N., & Hoffman, A. J. (2012). Hybrid organizations: The Next Chapter in Sustainable business. Organizational Dynamics, 41(2), 126-134. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.orgdyn.2012.01.006
44. Haigh, N., & Hoffman, A. J. (2014). The New Heretics. Organization & Environment, 27(3), 223–241. https://doi.org/10.1177/1086026614545345
45. Haigh, N., Walker, J., Bacq, S., et al. (2015). Hybrid Organizations: Origins, Strategies, Impacts, and Implications. California Management Review, 57(3), 5–12. https://doi.org/10.1525/cmr.2015.57.3.5
46. Hall, A. (2006). Public-private sector partnerships in an agricultural system of innovation: Concepts and challenges. International Journal of Technology Management & Sustainable Development, 5(1), 3–20. https://doi.org/10.1386/ijtm.5.1.3/1
47. Henderson, F., Reilly, C., Moyes, D., et al. (2017). From charity to social enterprise: the marketization of social care. International Journal of Entrepreneurial Behavior & Research, 24(3), 651–666. https://doi.org/10.1108/ijebr-10-2016-0344
48. Jacobsen, D. I. (2021). Motivational Differences? Comparing Private, Public and Hybrid Organizations. Public Organization Review, 21(3), 561–575. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11115-021-00511-x
49. Jongbloed, B. (2015). Universities as Hybrid Organizations. International Studies of Management & Organization, 45(3), 207–225. https://doi.org/10.1080/00208825.2015.1006027
50. Justice, J. B., & Skelcher, C. (2009). Analysing Democracy in Third‐Party Government: Business Improvement Districts in the US and UK. International Journal of Urban and Regional Research, 33(3), 738–753. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-2427.2009.00855.x
51. Kahar, I. A. (2018). Learning Organization as One of the Factors Driving Organizational Change (A Review of Higher Education Libraries in North Sumatra) (Indonesian). Available online: https://digilib.unimed.ac.id/id/eprint/212/1/TABULARASA%20VOL%2005%20NO%202%20DES%202008Irawaty%20Kahar.pdf (accessed on 8 March 2024).
52. Karré, P. M. (2022). The Thumbprint of a Hybrid Organization—A Multidimensional Model for Analysing Public/Private Hybrid Organizations. Public Organization Review, 23(2), 777–791. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11115-021-00598-2
53. Kickert, W. J. M. (1997). Public Governance in the Netherlands: An Alternative to Anglo‐American ‘Managerialism.’ Public Administration, 75(4), 731–752. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-9299.00084
54. Kicová, E., & Poniščiaková, O. (2021). Specifics in strategic management of non-profit organizations in the globalization process. SHS Web of Conferences, 92, 02027. https://doi.org/10.1051/shsconf/20219202027
55. Kimura, R. (2021). What and How Hybrid Forms of Christian Social Enterprises Are Created and Sustained in Cambodia? A Critical Realist Institutional Logics Perspective. Religions, 12(8), 604. https://doi.org/10.3390/rel12080604
56. Kitchenham, S. C. (2007). Guidelines for performing systematic literature reviews in software engineering. Technical Report, Ver. 2.3 EBSE Technical Report. EBSE. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1016/j.infsof.2013.07.010
57. Komatsu Cipriani, T., Deserti, A., Kleverbeck, M., et al. (2020). Business models & social innovation: mission-driven versus profit-driven organisations. International Review of Applied Economics, 34(5), 541–566. https://doi.org/10.1080/02692171.2020.1781066
58. Koppell, J. G. S. (2001). The Politics of Quasi-Government. Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/cbo9780511490989
59. Krøtel, S. M. L., & Villadsen, A. R. (2015). Employee turnover in hybrid organizations: the role of public sector socialization and organizational privateness. Public administration, 94(1), 167–184. Https://doi.org/10.1111/padm.12211
60. Kumar Hota, P., Manoharan, B., Rakshit, K., et al. (2022). Hybrid organization deconstructed: A bibliographic investigation into the origins, development, and future of the research domain. International Journal of Management Reviews, 25(2), 384–409. https://doi.org/10.1111/ijmr.12314
61. Liberati, A., Altman, D. G., Tetzlaff, J., et al. (2009). The PRISMA statement for reporting systematic reviews and meta-analyses of studies that evaluate healthcare interventions: explanation and elaboration. BMJ, 339(jul21 1), b2700–b2700. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.b2700
62. Lusiani, M., Vedovato, M., & Pancot, C. (2019). Governance and accounting practices in hybrid organizations: Insights from a sixteenth-century charity in Venice. Accounting History, 24(3), 444–463. https://doi.org/10.1177/1032373219856714
63. Lutfim, S. (2022). Analysis of the Implementation of Work Culture Values in BPSDMD Environment Towards NTB Corporate (Indonesian). DIKSI: Jurnal Kajian Pendidikan Dan Sosial, 3(1), 111–124. https://doi.org/10.53299/diksi.v3i1.171
64. Mair, J., Mayer, J., & Lutz, E. (2015). Navigating Institutional Plurality: Organizational Governance in Hybrid Organizations. Organization Studies, 36(6), 713–739. https://doi.org/10.1177/0170840615580007
65. Mair, J., Mayer, J., Lutz, E., et al. (2015). Navigating Institutional Plurality: Organizational Governance in Hybrid Organizations. Group for Organizational Studiesuropean, 36(6). https://doi.org/10.1177/0170840615580007
66. Mangen, C., & Brivot, M. (2014). The challenge of sustaining organizational hybridity: The role of power and agency. Human Relations, 68(4), 659–684. https://doi.org/10.1177/0018726714539524
67. Marshall, G. (2009). What Got You Here Won’t Get You There: How Successful People Become Even More Successful. Academy of Management Perspectives, 23(3), 103–105. https://doi.org/10.5465/amp.2009.43479273
68. Matinheikki, J., Aaltonen, K., & Walker, D. (2019). Politics, public servants, and profits: Institutional complexity and temporary hybridization in a public infrastructure alliance project. International Journal of Project Management, 37(2), 298–317. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijproman.2018.07.004
69. Pache, A.-C., & Santos, F. (2007). Inside The Hybrid Organization: Selective Coupling as A Response to Competing Institutional Logics. Discrete Mathematics, 307(1), 115–118
70. Pandey, M., Bhati, M., Shukla, D. M., & Qureshi, I. (2021). Resourcing and value creation: A case of sharing economy model at the base of the pyramid. In: Sharing Economy at the Base of the Pyramid: Opportunities and Challenges. Springer, Singapore. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-16-2414-8_9
71. Peng, H. (2019). Organizational ambidexterity in public non-profit organizations: interest and limits. Management Decision, 57(1), 248–261. https://doi.org/10.1108/md-01-2017-0086
72. Raharjo, H., & Eriksson, H. (2017). Exploring differences between private and public organizations in business excellence models. International Journal of Operations & Production Management, 37(12), 1795–1816. https://doi.org/10.1108/ijopm-09-2015-0593
73. Reynolds, N., & Holt, D. (2021). Sustainable development and profit? A sensemaking perspective on hybrid organisations and their founders. Business Strategy and the Environment, 30(4), 2147–2159. https://doi.org/10.1002/bse.2737
74. Robbins, S. P., & Timothy A, J. (2011). Course Case Map for Organizational Behavior. Available online: https://www.etcases.com/media/clnews/15108071121394384931.PDF (accessed on 8 February 2024).
75. Sampong, P. N. (2015). Hybridities in TSOs: ambiguities and challenges. A case study on venture capitalism. Available online: http://157.138.7.91/handle/10579/5731 (accessed on 9 March 2024).
76. Sargiacomo, M., & Walker, S. P. (2020). Disaster governance and hybrid organizations: accounting, performance challenges and evacuee housing. Accounting, Auditing & Accountability Journal, 35(3), 887–916. https://doi.org/10.1108/aaaj-12-2019-4323
77. Sarku, R., van Slobbe, E., Termeer, K., et al. (2021). Tracing Hybridity in the Provision of ICT-Enabled Agricultural Weather Information Services in Ghana. Journal of Agricultural & Food Information, 1–31. https://doi.org/10.1080/10496505.2021.1874388
78. Schildt, H., & Perkmann, M. (2016). Organizational Settlements. Journal of Management Inquiry, 26(2), 139–145. https://doi.org/10.1177/1056492616670756
79. Schmaltz, M. S. (2010). The Power of Unreasonable People: How Social Entrepreneurs Create Markets that Change the World,by J. Elkington and P. Hartigan. Journal of Nonprofit & Public Sector Marketing, 22(2), 152–153. https://doi.org/10.1080/10495140903550759
80. Schoon, M., York, A., Sullivan, A., et al. (2016). The emergence of an environmental governance network: the case of the Arizona borderlands. Regional Environmental Change, 17(3), 677–689. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10113-016-1060-x
81. 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. https://doi.org/10.17010/amcije/2023/v6i2-3/173335
82. Siwale, J., Kimmitt, J., & Amankwah-Amoah, J. (2021). The Failure of Hybrid Organizations: A Legitimation Perspective. Management and Organization Review, 17(3), 452–485. https://doi.org/10.1017/mor.2020.70
83. Skelcher, C. (2005). Jurisdictional Integrity, Polycentrism, and the Design of Democratic Governance. Governance, 18(1), 89–110. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-0491.2004.00267.x
84. Smith, S. R. (2010). Hybridization and nonprofit organizations: The governance challenge. Policy and Society, 29(3), 219–229. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.polsoc.2010.06.003
85. Smith, W. K., & Besharov, M. L. (2017). Bowing before Dual Gods: How Structured Flexibility Sustains Organizational Hybridity. Administrative Science Quarterly, 64(1), 1–44. https://doi.org/10.1177/0001839217750826
86. Suryanto, D., Subroto, B., & Andayani, W. (2017). Employee Perceptions of the Effect of Employee Competence and Job Satisfaction on Organizational Performance with the Government Internal Control System and Organizational Values as Moderating Variables (Study at the Directorate General of Taxes within the East Java Regional Office I Surabaya) (Indonesian) Jurnal Ilmiah Administrasi Publik, 3(2), 109–121. https://doi.org/10.21776/ub.jiap.2017.003.02.4
87. Tarus, T. K., Kinyua, L., & Muriithi, J. (2023). Influence of social innovation on organizational effectiveness of non-profit organizations: A case of gotabgaa international in the United States of America. The University Journal, 5(1), 1–12. https://doi.org/10.59952/tuj.v5i1.128
88. Vassallo, J. P., Prabhu, J. C., Banerjee, S., et al. (2019). The Role of Hybrid Organizations in Scaling Social Innovations in Bottom‐of‐the‐Pyramid Markets: Insights from Microfinance in India. Journal of Product Innovation Management, 36(6), 744–763. https://doi.org/10.1111/jpim.12504
89. Vickers, I., Lyon, F., Sepulveda, L., et al. (2017). Public service innovation and multiple institutional logics: The case of hybrid social enterprise providers of health and wellbeing. Research Policy, 46(10), 1755–1768. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.respol.2017.08.003
90. Villani, E., Greco, L., & Phillips, N. (2017). Understanding Value Creation in Public‐Private Partnerships: A Comparative Case Study. Journal of Management Studies, 54(6), 876–905. https://doi.org/10.1111/joms.12270
91. von Kutzschenbach, M., & Daub, C. H. (2020). Digital transformation for sustainability: A necessary technical and mental revolution. In New Trends in Business Information Systems and Technology: Digital Innovation and Digital Business Transformation. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-48332-6_12
92. Waring, J., & Bishop, S. (2018). Transforming professional and service user identities in the heterotopian ‘hybrid spaces’ of public–private partnerships. Policy & Politics, 46(4), 663–679. https://doi.org/10.1332/030557318x15333033267699
93. Wright, M., Wood, G. T., Cuervo-Cazurra, A., et al. (2022). State Capitalism and the Firm. The Oxford Handbook of State Capitalism and the Firm, 3–24. https://doi.org/10.1093/oxfordhb/9780198837367.013.1
94. Zainullah, Z., Mudana, I. W., & Maryati, T. (2020). The role of student organizations in fostering the value of social solidarity between students in the faculty of law and social sciences, ganesha university of education (Indonesian). Jurnal Pendidikan Sosiologi Undiksha, 2(1), 32–43. https://doi.org/10.23887/jpsu.v2i1.28047
95. Zasa, F. P., Patrucco, A., & Pellizzoni, E. (2021). Managing the Hybrid Organization: How Can Agile and Traditional Project Management Coexist? Research-Technology Management, 64(1), 54–63. https://doi.org/10.1080/08956308.2021.1843331
96. Zhu, Y., Tang, R. W., & Xing, K. (2022). Effective coordination and innovation-facilitating role of science parks: The place-based approach with paradoxical outcomes. Australian Journal of Management, 48(1), 171–195. https://doi.org/10.1177/03128962221098134
97. Zollo, L., Pellegrini, M. M., Faldetta, G., et al. (2022). How to combine multiple identities and gaining stakeholders legitimacy in hybrid organizations? An organizational design response. Journal of Management and Governance, 27(4), 1189–1222. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10997-022-09644-7