Research Paper Organizational Culture in the Activities of Social

Research Paper

Organizational culture in the activities of social entrepreneurship entities

Accepted 1st June, 2020

ABSTRACT

Organizational culture is understood in a very diverse way (as a system of values and norms of activity specific for a given company, a set of basic assumptions contributing to adaptation in a new environment or a set of unwritten rules, filling the gap between what is written and what is happening in the organization, a set of norms and social values that make the entity take action, the atmosphere in the company, the management method). Different approaches to organizational culture, as well as its importance for the success of the organization meant that the study attempted to assess the impact of organizational culture on the functioning of social entrepreneurship. The purpose of the study is to indicate the main processes of organizational culture, the absorption of which in the functioning of social entrepreneurship entities would strengthen the efficiency of the actions taken. The accepted research hypothesis is to verify the assumption about the need to use these processes in the activities of such entities. Halina Sobocka–Szczapa Key words: Social economy, organizational culture, social entrepreneurship Social Academy of Sciences in Łódź, entities, competitiveness of social entrepreneurship entities. Department of Economics, 90-113 Łódź, ul.Sienkiewicza 9, Poland. JEL Classification: L1; Market Structure; Firm Strategy; and Market Performance; E-mail: [email protected] A1; General Economics.

INTRODUCTION epistemological and methodological sphere1. Organizational culture, perceived as an extremely complex In connection with the above, the purpose of the study is problem, taking into account the values professed by to indicate the main activities envisaged for organizational people, their thinking and behavior patterns, and mainly culture, the absorption of which in the functioning of social mutual relations and cooperation methods (Walczak, entrepreneurship entities, would strengthen their 2012), is an important instrument supporting the efficiency competitiveness or would help increase the efficiency of and effectiveness of the organization's functioning. Its implemented goals and intentions. The wide range of the inclusion in the processes of managing organizations, phenomenon of social exclusion in Poland, referring not especially social entrepreneurship, is associated with only to jobseekers, but also to national minorities, women, building the market value of the organization, which is a among them especially single mothers, homeless, former consequence of the correct/skilful use of human capital prisoners, chronically ill (primarily mentally ill), children (Glińska-Neweś, 2007; Gach, 2007; Walczak, 2009). It from pathological families and others, forcing the search for should also be emphasized that the cultural approach to innovative solutions in the field of socio-occupational organizational management, especially the organization of integration of risk groups. The research hypothesis of the social entrepreneurship, should result in the search for new study is to indicate the need to take into account ways of understanding organization and economic life, which affects the placement of these processes within the 1This kind of view was expressed by Ł. Sułkowski, considering range of social sciences and humanities, especially in the the possibility of dealing with culture in management (Sułkowski, 2012). Journal of Business & Economic Management; Szczapa. 212

organizational culture as a determinant of including such 1981), because its elemental components are evolving entities in activities, a kind of specific approach (values, norms and cultural patterns), educated and conditioning the implementation of assumptions and widespread in a given social community, which in relation mission of their functioning. to organizational culture is an organization3. Japanese psychologists also emphasize the role of values as an important element of organizational culture, describing it The concept of organizational culture as a “conglomerate of attitudes, values, behaviors and beliefs, passed down from generation to generation” Organization culture is a concept that was widespread (Sobocka-Szczapa et al., 2019). primarily in the 1980s and 1990s. In the management of Organizational culture is, therefore, most often defined as business entities, this is a particularly important concept, a set of social norms and values that affect an individual's because it takes into account value systems and operating undertaking of certain activities. These activities are standards that are specific to the enterprise and manifest in carried out at a given time and in a specific space and are the form of so-called artifacts (Tarnawa, 2015)2. related to interpersonal relationships. On this basis, it can Organizational culture can be analyzed in two ways. On be concluded that each enterprise has a specific the one hand, it can be presented as a set of fundamental organizational culture, which consists of symbols / assumptions that have been shaped by a given group and artifacts, consciously built, norms and values, having an contribute to adaptation in the new environment making unconscious nature and fundamental assumptions, which integration within the organization possible. On the other are often unnoticed. These elements shape a specific hand, it can be presented as a set of unwritten but followed atmosphere / climate and also build interpersonal relations rules that allow to fill the gap between what is written and (employee – employee, employee – manager), as well as what takes place in the organization (Kopczewski et al., indicate how to respond to changes that occur in the 2012). organization and in its immediate environment (Jasińska, In the literature on the subject, a large variety of 2015). One of the most popular models of organizational definitions of organizational culture is observed. Due to culture, which took into account the above elements, this, their division into numerical, historical, normative, differing in durability and visibility, is the model developed psychological, structuralist and genetic definitions by E. Schein (Figure 1). appeared (Kosiorek, 2013). Generally, organizational Owing to the organizational culture, an enterprise can culture can be defined as the usual / traditional way of function and integrate its members properly, especially by thinking and taking action, which must be learned by new implementing strategic management, which, combined with people and at the same time accepted by them at least in the organizational culture, enables the absorption of part, if they want to become a member of the organization. changes resulting both from globalization processes and in At the same time, the term culture can also be defined to the immediate environment. It is assumed that strategic what extent the hierarchy of goals of a formal nature is management allows the generation of completely new manifested in the minds of individuals in the organization, opportunities (Wojtowicz, 2004a), which requires support as well as in the behaviors they undertake. In addition, of organizational culture, especially in the context of the full important definitions of organizational culture include involvement of employees and managers in achieving the those developed by M. Pęcharski, Z. Szeloch and J. Pająk. organization's long-term fundamental goals. It can be These formulated concepts emphasize the importance of assumed that the organizational culture in this situation is a organizational culture as a certain level of conscious tool for the organization to achieve success, with the participation of employees in the functioning of the observed dependencies being feedback. Organizational organization and in achieving its social goals, a set of social culture is also what allows for harmonious management of norms and value systems that affect the behavior of the the enterprise, because it affects many management individual and are important for the purposes of the subprocesses, and above all, process management, organization, as well as a set of values, norms, as well as production as well as human resource management. This is man's ways of thinking and behavior in an organization, enabled by organizational culture functions that are both which make it possible to shape a pattern of behavior, external and internal4. thanks to which it is possible to form the image of an enterprise and people operating in it (Otręba, 2012). There is therefore no doubt that organizational culture is one of The concept of entrepreneurship the most complex and ambiguous terms, the meaning of which is also constantly expanding and changing (Williams, Entrepreneurship – a concept that is very complex and can be defined in many ways. It is often combined with an effective way of thinking, the ability to make independent 2 A. Wojtowicz also wrote about it, who developed the structure of artifacts, as well as divided norms and values into perceived 3Ł. Sułkowski wrote about such elementary ingredients (Sułkowski, 2002). and declared (Wojtowicz, 2004). 4H. Wyrębek wrote more widely on this topic (Wyrębek, 2012). Figures Journal of Business & Economic Management; Szczapa. 213 Diagram 1. E. Schein's organizational culture model

Artifacts Visible and made aware

Standards and values Partly visible and made aware

Quite invisible Assumptions and unconscious

FigureSource 1:: Ownst E. Schein'sudybased organizational on (Tarnawa, culture 2015). model. Source: Ownstudybased on (Tarnawa, 2015).

decisions, as well as rational action or obtaining benefits. It occurring alongside work, land and capital (Van Praag and can also be identified with the optimal organization of Cramer, 2001). economic resources, willingness to take risks, and When presenting only selected definitions of innovation (Popowskaed, 2015). In this context, entrepreneurship, it should be emphasized that there are entrepreneurship in a broad sense includes activities many more6, which results from the selection of features carried out by organizations5. J. Schumpter also described that affect the adopted approach. This is a consequence of the phenomenon of entrepreneurship by negating routine their diverse nature. This is the reason for the possibility of and bureaucracy, opposing them with "creative analyzing entrepreneurship in three contexts (attitudes, destruction" (Schumpeter, 1995). Whereas Drucker (1992), behaviors/activities, processes) (Łochnicka, 2016), all of in his definition, emphasized the importance of scientific which relate to the process of managing organizations and foundations as a means to achieve the goal in practical the functions implemented by this management, which activities, that is, entrepreneurship. Griffin (2009) defined focus on its resources (human, material, financial) (Siuta- entrepreneurship as a complex process involving the Stolarska and Siuta-Brodzińska, 2011). An entrepreneurial organization and conducting of business activity through organization has the opportunity to achieve success on the prism of taking the associated risk. It is also worth many levels (Białasiewicz, 2008), resulting from many quoting here two definitions of Polish Authors, B. Piasecki interrelated conditions (economic, socio – cultural, political and B. Kożuch. The first of them, emphasizing the and legal), which, as a result of the occurrence of real importance of the complexity of this process, defines circumstances, can very often hinder undertaking entrepreneurship as a process of analyzing the chances of entrepreneurial activities, which most often concerns creation and development of an enterprise, methods of managers' attitudes (Mikeszajkina, 2018). financing it, creativity and innovation in creating new products or services, and accepting the risks it entails. In the opinion of this author, entrepreneurship is also taking The concept of social entrepreneurship up this challenge (Piasecki, 2003), whereas A. Kożuch describes entrepreneurship as initiating projects to meet Social entrepreneurship is one of the dimensions of the needs of recipients as well as to generate profits. An entrepreneurship. An important distinguishing feature in extremely important supplement in this case is the this case is the motive of this entrepreneurship, namely inclusion of observed feedback in the definition of the sensitivity to people, their deficiencies and difficulties problem, that is, the creation by the entrepreneurship of (Glinka and Gudkova, 2011). At the same time, it should be the organization of human entrepreneurship (Kożuch and emphasized that considerations on social entrepreneurship Dyndalewicz, 2004). In economics, entrepreneurship is are similar to the directions of analyzes of the defined as a form of work or as a factor of production, co- entrepreneurship research area, that is, they deal with the person of a social entrepreneur and his behavior,

5This entrepreneurial context appeared in the definitions of F. H. Knight and J. 6More definitions can be found in the publications of Ł. Sułkowski, G. Schumpeter, as well as other Authors (Knight, 2006; Schumpeter, 1960; Ignatowski and J. Sułkowska and D. Łochnicka (Sułkowski et al., 2017; Casson, 1982). Łochnicka, 2016). Journal of Business & Economic Management; Szczapa. 214

competences and motivations, the impact of social goal of making profit is the dominant factor in identifying entrepreneurship on society and the economy, and specific entrepreneurship as a social entrepreneurship. conditions and circumstances with which they have been Social entrepreneurship is an element of the social dealing with social entrepreneurs (Zeyen and Beckmann, economy, in which the basic value is participation in work 2011). In general, however, it can be assumed that social and obtaining on this basis economic independence and entrepreneurship is one of the ways of openness to cooperation with others (social integration). implementing/undertaking business activity, which in this Social exclusion and inequalities are to be reduced not by case combines social and economic goals. For this reason, financial transfers but by changing the conditions of access the widest definition of social entrepreneurship also refers to the labor market. They are to build a sense of to socially oriented innovation (Chell et al., 2010). This participation in the life of communities and local innovation is a peculiar core of this phenomenon, enabling development. Such a reorientation of social policy also the taking of actions and processes aimed at identifying, requires a new definition of the area of social economy defining and using market opportunities, increasing (Boni, 2007). society's wealth (creating new ventures) or managing As compared with other European Union countries organizations in an innovative way (Zahra et al., 2009) . (especially those that have recently found themselves in the Mair and Martí (2006) also pointed to three different ways EU), Poland has considerable achievements in the field of in which researchers understand social entrepreneurship. social economy. This is evidenced by the content of legal The first way of perceiving this phenomenon is to look for acts that affect the modern vision of activating people at alternative financial strategies for initiatives (e.g. not-for- risk of exclusion, in which forms of help and support are profit) or management programs that create social value. used, the purpose of which is to include the individual in The second way is to take account of business practices the mainstream of the local community by the possibility of socially involved in cross – sectoral partnership in the providing work. Undoubtedly, this variant of social policy analysis. Finally, the third way is to consider mitigating will affect the dynamic development of social work in the social problems and catalyzing social change (Mair, Marti, coming years. Important “points of support” for the Polish 2006). In contrast, in Poland, social entrepreneurship is model of social economy are: entrepreneurship and analyzed in two ways (Daniele, 2007; Leś, 2008; commitment, subsidiarity and solidarity, responsibility and Wygnański, 2009, Rymsza, 2010; Kaźmierczak, 2007). First, – aboveall – care for the social economy as a mechanism of changes under the influence of transformations and new empowerment of persons, institutions and communities. trends in existing organizations are emphasized, which Pluralism in the area of social economy is also important, results in the appearance of new entrepreneurial dynamics consisting in the parallel operation of institutions derived in them. However, the second approach indicates the from the so-called the old social economy of the “third emergence of new types of production and service sector” and those that are emerging as completely new organizations. entities (e.g. social cooperatives) (Frączek and Wygnański, Social entrepreneurship can also be defined through the 2008). prism of social enterprises as the effect of social Important from the point of view of the social economy entrepreneurship and social entrepreneurs who identify a model functioning in Poland is the broad approach to its stable and unfair balance that causes exclusion, functions and social enterprises operating within it. In marginalization or suffering of certain groups of people. addition to the obvious and most frequently mentioned Observed at that time, the search for inspiration to solve functions – in particular regarding integration within the the problem and start a business creates a friendly labor market - other functions, such as the provision of ecosystem that ensures a better future for selected groups public services, mutual services, open market services, the (Martin and Osberg, 2007). provision of public goods and community development Similarly to traditional entrepreneurship, also in the case activities are no less important. local, as well as commercial of social entrepreneurship one can distinguish several and production activities, the profits of which are allocated types, namely the type gathering members of the local to social purposes (Frączek and Wygnański, 2008). community, operating on a small scale, the type of social Based on the idea of solidarity, the social economy innovator, operating on a slightly larger scale, and the type assumes that those who have succeeded (individuals, of social engineer, identified with the entrepreneur, institutions) should support those who are just at the operating on the largest scale (Zahra et al., 2009; Smith and beginning of the road. The social economy is therefore Stevens, 2010). social in so far as it finds social support. This is determined Regardless of the above – mentioned ways of analyzing by the attitude of public opinion, decision makers, and defining social entrepreneurship, the dimension and businessmen (including representatives of financial mode of operation subordinated to the implementation of institutions), and – perhaps above all – people directly tasks that enable counteracting various types of exclusion interested. Therefore, the “new” social economy should be and, in most cases, lack of subordination of activities to the seen primarily through the prism of entrepreneurship understood as readiness and the ability to take Journal of Business & Economic Management; Szczapa. 215

responsibility for one's fate, as well as through the prism of institutions for the sake of being a sovereign entity capable civic involvement, that is, assuming responsibility for the of undertaking activities in the public sphere, activities community (Frączek, Wygnański, 2008). Therefore, it consistent with the mission and decision of the members seems that the key concept in the case of social economy is and founders of the organization, “responsibility”, which should mean actions for the greatest 3). communities have a chance to acquire the skills of possible independence and economic sovereignty, that is, independent formulation of development strategies based making efforts so that specific individuals, organizations or on individual resources, as well as realize true self- communities can make sovereign decisions more than government and strive for the well-being of citizens. before, as to the purpose and form of your business. Therefore, the social economy is primarily a specific To change the model of social policy, and thus the approach of individuals and institutions to social reality. development of social entrepreneurship, one could use the Social economy activities, as already mentioned, rely flexicurity model, which is an integrated strategy of heavily on solidarity and cooperation. These principles are simultaneously increasing the flexibility and security of the the fundamental foundations not only for the Polish model labor market (Kryńska, 2007; Philips and Eamets, 2007). In of social economy, but also a determinant of its functioning this case, flexibility means smoothly changing changes in in other countries. They are also the opposite of the professional life of a person. Security is understood as particularism and competition. In addition, such social job security. In the context of social entrepreneurship, it economy principles should include (Frączek, Wygnański would be important to implement modern social security ed., 2008): systems as one of the four pillars of the flexicurity model, enabling the combination of income support measures with 1). entrepreneurship and commitment understood as a the need to create conditions that guarantee mobility and willingness to take responsibility for your fate; adaptability of labor resources. Relating this problem to 2). subsidiarity, meaning the division of labor and people at risk of exclusion may contribute to increasing responsibility in the area of performing public tasks, and their propensity to participate in professional activity, taking into account in the social economy activities the especially due to the promotion of gender equality and the fullest possible inclusion in the planning, implementation creation of a climate of trust and dialogue, which are the and impact assessment processes of the persons and main elements of the model, recorded in European Union communities for whom they are conducted; documents. The inclusion of people at risk of exclusion 3). prudence and responsibility, which make the should also include in the provisions for counteracting gaps effectiveness of solving social problems dependent on the in the skills and opportunities of professional work ability to understand the complex reasons for taking resources, as well as supporting activities enabling this type actions in the framework of the social economy; important of limitation. At the same time, it should be emphasized that in this case is a sense of responsibility for one's actions, social partners play an extremely important role in shaping both directly and indirectly, and implementing the flexicurity model, including 4). independence and empowerment, which means that representatives of social economy entities, that is, those activities in specific areas of the market, based on who implement social entrepreneurship. They are something more than a desire to profit, can be an effective primarily responsible for creating social benefits for all mechanism for recovering and protecting sovereignty and labor market actors, especially those at risk of exclusion subjectivity for individuals, institutions and communities. (Rymsza, 2005; Grotkowska et al., 2005; Kryńska, 2008, Surdykowska, 2007; Czerwińska, 2008; Kryńska, 2008; Including the above principles in activities undertaken Frączek, 2008). within the framework of the social economy means that: The idea of implementing flexicurity in Poland has unfortunately failed. Nevertheless, the anticipated actions 1). individuals participating in them have a chance to for the introduction of this model were reflected in other abandon the position of the client of social transfers, as well actions related to the functioning of the labor market as the chance to become an independent unit, able to take (Kryńska, 2009). The key to this is the diversity of care of the fate of themselves and their loved ones; it management forms and the organization of networks of results from the possibility, and at the same time, of having institutions supporting the social economy sector. The basic to earn income from work, which in turn means regaining legal changes strengthening the position of this sector dignity, which has its source in making independent choices should lead to a reduction in bureaucracy related to the about one's fate, creation of entities, reduction of formal requirements, 2). organizations have the chance to acquire the ability to clarification of the rules for participation and employment skillfully raise funds for their own activities, which may of people at risk of social exclusion in individual forms of result in complete independence from the preferences of social enterprises and financial relations (Kaźmierczak and public and private sponsors; in this way it is possible to Rymsza, 2005). The access of social economy institutions to avoid the situation of continuing the activities of public public funds also needs to be improved (simplification and Journal of Business & Economic Management; Szczapa. 216

adaptation to the needs and capabilities of entities), which people with low qualifications) and the large scale of mainly concerns investment financing options (Rymsza, hidden unemployment in agriculture, unequal access to 2006). Access to public funds should be verified on the work, especially people from high risk groups, as well as no basis of social benefits provided by social entrepreneurship use of instruments supporting the economic activity of entities. To increase the significance of the economic effects people from these groups and focusing social policy of the activities of social entities, many changes should be primarily on material assistance7. These factors influenced made to the financial system in entities of the social the wide range of social exclusion, not only for jobseekers, economy sector, and above all, it would be necessary to but also for national minorities, women, especially single abolish the "by-nature" of economic activity in relation to mothers, homeless, former prisoners, chronically ill statutory activities and reduce the amount of initial capital (primarily mentally ill), and children from families for capital companies (Juraszek- Kopacz et al., 2008). This pathological. Potentially one of the most effective strategies will reduce the barrier of “learned helplessness” and claim may be the activity of social entrepreneurship entities, attitudes that play an important role in the activities of which, through a system of socio-educational, therapeutic social economy entities. and rehabilitation measures, and employment assistance, The purpose of the study is to indicate the main activities can restore excluded people a sense of social participation envisaged for organizational culture, the absorption of and make them aware of the need and need to use civic which in the functioning of social entrepreneurship entities, rights, and prepare them for taking individual would strengthen their competitiveness or would help responsibility for one's fate. increase the efficiency of implemented goals and intentions. Let's look at the types of social entrepreneurship entities The wide range of the phenomenon of social exclusion in operating in Poland8. Poland, referring not only to jobseekers, but also to national minorities, women, among them especially single mothers, Social Cooperative: It is an entity created directly on the homeless, former prisoners, chronically ill (primarily initiative of socially excluded people. This group (minimum mentally ill), children from pathological families and others, 5 people) jointly develops the statute of the cooperative forcing the search for innovative solutions in the field of and brings it to life. In addition, the initiators choose the socio-occupational integration of risk groups. The research area of activity. hypothesis of the study is to indicate the need to take into account organizational culture as a determinant of A social company9: It is a form of doing business that including such entities in activities, a kind of specific offers an innovative view on the employment of socially approach conditioning the implementation of assumptions excluded people, because it includes economic calculations and mission of their functioning. in its activities. Specialists manage the social company. A social company may be created by associations with legal personality or foundations within the scope of their MATERIALS AND METHODS statutory activities.

The research method adopted assumes substantive analysis of selected items of literature on the subject, taking into Cooperative: Is a form of social enterprise.Works on account the issues of organizational culture, general principles. entrepreneurship, with particular emphasis on social entrepreneurship and social economy entities, especially Social enterprise: Is a private, autonomous entity that social enterprises operating in various legal forms. On the provides products or services to a wider community whose 10 basis of the presented literature on the subject, a synthesis founder or manager is a group of citizens . This category of organizational culture processes necessary for includes any type of profit-oriented but income-oriented implementation has been made, which may affect the initiative. This approach is characteristic of the American quality of the objectives pursued in social entrepreneurship economy, in which the concept of social economy does not organizations. As the basis for assessing the scale of social exist. This approach is different from the one we face in entrepreneurship in Poland, the study takes into account the latest statistical data from the websites of the Ministry of Family, Labor and Social Policy. 7H. Sobocka-Szczapa wrote more on this subject (Sobocka-Szczapa, 2010). 8 An extensive description of social entrepreneurship entities can be found in the publication of H. Sobocka - Szczapa (Sobocka - Szczapa, 2010). ANALYZES AND RESEARCH RESULTS 9The assumptions for the bill were based on the experience of Social Firms UK, Social Firms Scotland and Forth Sector in Edinburgh, social companies that are Entities of social entrepreneurship in Poland members of FAF in Germany, standards developed by CEFEC (Conference of European Social Companies, Employment Initiatives and Social Cooperatives), The activity of social entrepreneurship entities in Poland is as well as the created and tested Hotel Training Center “Kłos”, based on the dual model of the social company (Firma, 2008). a consequence of certain specific conditions that concern: 10The basic features of a social enterprise were defined by J. Hausner, S. Mazur the occurrence of structural unemployment (mainly among and N. Laurisz (Hausner et al., 2007). Journal of Business & Economic Management; Szczapa. 217

Figure 2: Number of social enterprises by ownership forms at the end of March 2020.

Europe, where social enterprises are oriented towards When looking at the structure of social entrepreneurship social benefit11. entities, it should be emphasized that they are very diverse, although undoubtedly the dominant ones are those which, Non-governmental organizations (associations and enabling the full exercise of the right to work for excluded foundations): In many cases, these organizations use persons, undertake activities of an economic nature, that is, formulas characteristic of business entities to implement they constitute “hard” elements of the social economy. their statutory activities (social goals), but this is not Undoubtedly – it is in these entities that one can speak of necessarily related to employing representatives of groups the importance of organizational culture in achieving the at risk of social exclusion. Among the non-governmental objectives of undertaken activities. Therefore, statistical organizations since 2004, we are dealing with a new type, analysis will only apply to such entities. namely public benefit organizations. According to the obtained statistical data12, at the end of It should also be emphasized that in addition to the March 2020, there were 1169 social enterprises in total in entities that form the core of social entrepreneurship Poland, taking various legal forms (Figure 2). activities, there are also entities supporting these activities, It was observed that in Poland the most are social namely Social Integration Centers and Social Integration cooperatives and non-profit companies with o.o. In addition, Clubs, Vocational Activity Establishments, Occupational a significant number of social enterprises operated in the Therapy Workshops, Protected Work Establishments and form of foundations and associations. Individuals included Mutual Insurance Society. They organize the education entities operating in the form of a church legal entity (2), process, enabling the acquisition of professional skills, associations of associations (2) and cooperative of invalids retraining or improving professional qualifications and the (1). acquisition of other skills necessary for everyday life, as In addition, the location of social enterprises by well as employing / rehabilitating excluded persons, for voivodship was also diversified (Figure 3). The largest example due to disability (Kluczyńska and Sienicka, 2008; number of social entrepreneurship entities operated in the Kluczyńska and Sienicka, 2008a). Podkarpackie Voivodeship, while the smallest – in the Świętokrzyskie Voivodeship.

12Social Enterprise Database, Department of Social and 11J. Defourny, M. Nyssens and J. Kerlin wrote about these differences (Defourny, Nyssens, 2010; Kerlin, 2006). A. Pacut and H. Sobocka-Szczapa Solidarity Economy, Ministry of the Family, Labor and Social wrote more widely on this topic (Pacut, 2010, Sobocka-Szczapa, 2010). Policy – accessed on March 30, 2020 Journal of Business & Economic Management; Szczapa. 218

Figure 3: Number of social entrepreneurship entities by voivodeships at the end of May 2020. Source: Own study.

The number of individual organizational forms of social that are aimed at changing attitudes and behavior entrepreneurship according to regions was different (Table (Mroziewski, 2008). 1). And so: social cooperatives in the largest number Organizational culture primarily affects the formation of occurred in the Wielkopolskie Voivodeship, foundations internal entrepreneurship. This relationship is reversible, were located primarily in the Śląskie Voivodeship, while because in order to shape internal entrepreneurship and associations – in the Warmińsko – Mazurskie Voivodeship. introduce innovations, it is necessary to make some Also, non-profit companies in the largest number of changes in the organizational culture. Therefore, for an operated in the Podkarpackie Voivodship. Isolated forms of enterprise to be entrepreneurial, it must adapt to certain ownership of social enterprises, that is, cooperatives of values and rules that favor building entrepreneurship at the invalids, associations of associations and church legal appropriate level13. entities operated only in the following Voivodeships: An organization that wants to shape entrepreneurship Mazowieckie, Lubuskie and Kujawsko – Pomorskie. based on its organizational culture should pay attention to To summary, it should be emphasized that the scale of certain processes/phenomena that are a derivative of this activity of social entrepreneurship entities is very small. culture and reflect the level of entrepreneurship14. These They constitute only a fraction of a percentage among all processes are equally important in the case of business entities operating in Poland. However, it should also be noted that the number of such entities is 13However, not every organizational culture allows you to build systematically increasing, which may indicate the need for entrepreneurship. This usually applies to culture that focuses on their functioning. very traditional assumptions and does not allow it to introduce certain changes, innovations and modern technologies, or presents a negative attitude towards them (Laszuk, 2015). Organizational culture as an instrument to support the 14These are: customer focus and future-oriented solutions, activities of social entrepreneurship entities improving management at all levels, introducing a pro – entrepreneurial management process, identifying staff with the Organizational culture should allow social enterprise, bearing social, environmental and ethical entrepreneurship to guarantee the effectiveness of their responsibility, building pro – entrepreneurial work activities and competitiveness. It is generally assumed that organization, undertaking teamwork, using and building organizational culture in entrepreneurship should be based entrepreneurial capital, which allows to finance given ideas, a on undertaking measures of a long-term, gradual nature reward system, taking entrepreneurship measurements and focused on the formation of specific transformations internally (Laszuk, 2015). Journal of Business & Economic Management; Szczapa. 219

Table 1: Entities of social entrepreneurship by voivodeships and organizational forms at the end of March 2020.

Organizational forms of social enterprises

Voivodeships

profit

Social

entities

invalids

Non

associations

Church legal Church legal

Foundations

Associations

cooperatives

Associations of Associations

Cooperatives Cooperatives of companies l. l. companies c. l. l.

Dolnośląskie 14 0 16 4 0 11 0 Kujawsko-Pomorskie 18 0 16 6 0 14 2 Lubelskie 43 0 3 0 0 1 0 Lubuskie 65 0 16 2 1 1 0 Łódzkie 26 0 32 9 0 6 0 Małopolskie 21 0 9 5 0 15 0 Mazowieckie 34 1 13 10 1 8 0 Opolskie 30 0 2 4 0 0 0 Podkarpackie 42 0 15 11 0 107 0 Podlaskie 31 0 21 8 0 16 0 Pomorskie 40 0 11 1 0 2 0 Śląskie 37 0 43 12 0 51 0 Świętokrzyskie 8 0 8 4 0 4 0 Warmińsko-Mazurskie 37 0 14 19 0 11 0 Wielkopolskie 74 0 28 6 0 16 0 Zachodniopomorskie 30 0 1 2 0 0 0 Total 550 1 248 103 2 263 2

Source: Own study.

organizational culture functioning in social is a large diversity of human resources potential, whose entrepreneurship entities and shaping this behavior, in line with the entity's objectives, can often be entrepreneurship. We will try to show it in the table. The difficult to achieve. In social entrepreneurship and its phrase “beneficiary/stakeholder” in this case was used to entities, it is therefore necessary to take into account in the emphasize the importance of participating in the management of human resources, many problems, which departments of persons for whose support the entity was include organizational culture, which is a component of established (Table 2). intellectual capital, closely related to the intangible As shown in Table 2, increasing the participation of resources of each organization (Sobocka-Szczapa et al., employees of social entrepreneurship companies in every 2019). Elements and processes of organizational culture in process makes up the image of the organizational culture social entrepreneurship entities should bind and integrate functioning in it. Potentially, this kind of participation can company policy with human resource management policy. affect the integration of employees and their identification The types of organizational cultures selected from the with the goals and strategy of the organization. This literature, characterized by the subject should serve this supposition has already been confirmed early in many purpose15. Among the types of organizational cultures research projects (Sułkowski, 2012). Awareness of the developed by the Authors indicated, which are biopolar in occurrence of diverse stereotypes and behavioral patterns nature, that is, covering two variables (goals and values), allows the development of more tolerant, open and the most favorable from the point of view of the functioning consequently more effective organizations, conducive to of social entrepreneurship entities, it seems, are: human self – fulfillment and cooperation. Organizational culture directly influences human capital development strategies and values perceived by managers, indirectly 15 affecting their behavior, attitudes, and thus the actual The creators of the typology of organizational cultures organizational behavior of employees (Walczak, 2010). include R. Harrison, F. Trompenaars and Ch. Hampden-Turner. Such relationships are particularly important in social It seems that these authors have developed typologies that most entrepreneurship organizations, because in their case there reflect the needs of functioning social entrepreneurship entities (Harrison, 1972; F. Trompenaars, Ch. Hampden-Turner, 2002). Journal of Business & Economic Management; Szczapa. 220

Table 2: Processes reflecting organizational culture in shaping social entrepreneurship.

Organizational culture processes Actions to support social entrepreneurship Customer focus  assessment of the demand for the company's effects, taking into account the opinions of beneficiaries,  assessment of social benefits for beneficiaries, taking into account their opinions,

Improving leadership at all levels  verification of managerial competences including the methods of cooperation with beneficiaries,  the possibility of using the managerial competences of the beneficiaries,  establishment of an opinion-negotiating body to formalize the opinion-making process as a body complementing informal assessments,

Introduction of a pro entrepreneurial  participation of beneficiaries in the broadly understood decision-making process, management process  taking into account the phenomenon of beneficiaries' participation in all manifestations of the organization's functioning,  mandatory consideration of beneficiaries' proposals in making strategic decisions,  applying a democratic management style,

Identifying staff with a social enterprise  joint decision making,  developing an incentive system rewarding effects, depending on the capabilities of the beneficiaries,  developing a system taking into account the specificity of employees/beneficiaries,  developing a system enabling equal access to education processes,

Taking social, environmental and ethical  shaping relationships with employees on the basis of mutual agreement, enabling stress responsibility reduction, such as increasing satisfaction with the work performed,  transparency of the rules of conduct in the organization, based on mutual respect, especially the lack of manifestations of lying to the beneficiaries, offensive behavior towards them, evoking a sense of distrust,  no discrimination,  responsibility for accepted commitments,  transparency of information,  achieving sustainable profit while wisely shaping relationships with all stakeholders,  using the process of building dialogue with stakeholders to improve the company's development strategy,  building a competitive advantage strategy on the market based on ensuring lasting value for both shareholders and other stakeholders,  providing services and products in a way that does not degrade the natural and social environment,  taking ethical values into account in running a business,

Building a pro entrepreneurial work  work organization should be the result of conditions resulting from the predispositions organization and expectations of the beneficiaries,  implementation of broadly defined humanization of work,

Teamwork  correctly defining decision-making procedures that prevent the spread of responsibility,  balanced participation of team members, no phenomenon of “suppressing” minorities,  formulation and compliance with basic principles,  counteracting group polarization,

Using and building entrepreneurial  creating instruments supporting employee education processes, capital  supporting intellectual capital of beneficiaries,  promoting knowledge transfer, knowledge sharing,  promoting the use of knowledge and creating innovation,  raising funds for the implementation of plans,

Journal of Business & Economic Management; Szczapa. 221

Table 2: cont

Reward system  link with a properly constructed employee motivation system (transparency),  link to the rating system (transparent assessment rules),  taking into account the specific characteristics of organizations and beneficiaries,

Taking entrepreneurship measurements  using atypical measures based on observing the propensity of beneficiaries to undertake internally innovative activities,  measuring entrepreneurial intentions.

Source: Own study and based on: Adamik, Nowicki, 2012; Jakimiuk, 2016; Walczak, 2010; Sobocka - Szczapa et al., 2019; Sobocka - Szczapa, 2016).

a). people-oriented culture, developed by R. Harrison, arise during a joint creative process, which is characterized by a focus on meeting the needs of attitude towards authority is generated through patterns members of the organization, social consensus is preferred of creativity and development, and not as a result of within it, and interpersonal relations are based mainly on institutional arrangements, cooperation and sharing of experience; at the same time, ways of thinking and learning are holistic and process- the distance between the authorities is small, and the basis oriented, they are creative and inspiring, of formal rules are the habits and behavior patterns attitude towards employees is family – like, everyone is co established in the given environment, – creator, b). family culture, developed by F. Trompenaars and Ch. ways of changing depend on the guardians and have the Hampden-Turner, which is employee-oriented; in this type character of improvisation, tuned in the process, of organizational culture, close relations (family motivating and rewarding methods are based on mutual atmosphere) prevail, although in this case we deal with respect and are therefore widely accepted, hierarchy, which results from the existence of many levels criticism and conflict resolution rely on achieving of power; members of the organization usually act consensus and affects the improvement of adopted unanimously and in the mind of the leader; promotion often assumptions and goals. depends on seniority, less on achievements; the greatest punishment for an employee is exclusion from the family, The above attempt to verify the directions of activities that c). incubator culture, also developed by F. Trompenaars and allow applying the organizational culture in the activities of Ch. Hampden-Turner, characterized by a focus on personal social entrepreneurship entities, as well as the presentation fulfillment of man (self-realization); the main task of of the most beneficial - from the point of view of social members of the organization is to look for innovative entrepreneurship – types of organizational cultures that are solutions (emphasis on individualism), which helps acceptable in such organizations must be supplemented significantly strengthen social entrepreneurship; hierarchy with categories of artifacts, values and standards that in this type of organizational culture is kept to a minimum, should also be included as parameters for a properly primarily due to the lack of organizational structure, but functioning organization of this type. the roles of its individual members are important. Among the artifacts16, the most important seems to include in the activities of social entrepreneurship entities The types of organizational culture cited above are social communication patterns (verbal artifact), which may undoubtedly of the greatest importance for the functioning contribute to taking into account the expectations of of social entrepreneurship entities, because they enable beneficiaries as to the atmosphere prevailing in the them to achieve their goals and missions, which constitute organization. Among behavioral artifacts, it may be the basic premise of their functioning. In the most obvious important to focus on the rewards and punishments used, way, at the same time, they favor the implementation of because they reflect the social dimension of organizational culture processes, enabling the inclusion of entrepreneurship. Physical artifacts, which should be people threatened by social exclusion. For this reason, it included in the initial assumptions of the organization can also be included in the types of organizational culture being established, are undoubtedly of lesser importance. conducive to social entrepreneurship, a culture of interest, Norms and values of organizational culture that can which is based on the awareness of a common goal and - in contribute to the formation of social entrepreneurship in part - the culture of the community (Lisiecka, 1998), as well organizations of this type are more durable than artifacts, as clan culture or adhocracy culture (Cameron and Quinn, but at the same time more difficult to observe, and they can 2006). In these types of organizational culture (Harasim, be found in the company's stated goals (the problem of 2015):

16The division of artifacts was adopted by A. Wojtowicz (Wojtowicz, 2004, p. relations between employees are comprehensive and 166). Journal of Business & Economic Management; Szczapa. 222

achieving universal acceptance), a set of features for which also enable the organization's individual approach to the value or punish employees (the problem of accepting the issue of using its assumptions in the functioning of entities. beneficiaries' differences), management style (the best style It should be emphasized, however, that in creating social is democratic), or organizational structure features (the entrepreneurship in entities of this nature, organizational issue of information flow, issuing instructions, complicating culture can be of key importance for accomplishing the the organizational structure). mission of such organizations. Without organizational Generally, it can be stated that organizational culture in culture, it would be impossible to implement management many ways strongly influences social entrepreneurship. It processes or these processes would not have an adequate is extremely important, however, that it should uniquely degree of efficiency. Therefore, it is worth ensuring that the combine: firstly – the social dimension of functioning with organizational culture is appropriate, focused on many its economic foundations, and secondly – enabling conflict- goals and positively influencing the personnel functioning free activity for people at risk of exclusion. Therefore, within such an organization. Then she is able to properly thinking patterns that are conducive to building positive achieve her goals and develop on many levels. The relationships, behavior patterns, that is, the attitudes of diagnosis of organizational culture as a determinant of the organization members and symbols (e.g. work clothes, business success of the social entrepreneurship entity, decorative elements, slogans, used mental abbreviations) comparable to the role of the strategy (Michelman, 2007), are important (Dziwulski, 2014). means that it should be oriented to increase flexibility and innovation while reducing control. This is guaranteed by models characterized in the study, which, by focusing on Conclusions people in the organization, supporting teamwork and participation, as well as employee development, will The shaped way of communication between people, increase their involvement and allow to stabilize and/or observed norms and values, accepted patterns of thinking achieve a new level of efficiency or competitiveness. The and behavior of members of a given organization are condition of success is to adapt the leadership style to the consolidated in the form of its separate organizational type of organizational culture adopted in the entity's culture. It is therefore a creation of human individuals that activities, that is, an innovative approach to changes consciously and intentionally shape it, as a derivative of implemented in the organization of social their belonging to an organization. Its assumptions and entrepreneurship, which may be related to the need to foundations are passed on to new members, becoming manage innovation. members of the organization, and are also reflected in From the point of view of social entrepreneurship, relations, among others with clients, contractors, suppliers, institutional assistance, and above all financial support, is subcontractors, co-workers and groups of external also important, which undoubtedly contributes to its stakeholders. This means that culture is really shaped and development. This view was represented, among others, by co-created as a result of everyday events, which on the one S. A. Zahra, M. Wright and U. Stephan, L. M. Uhlaner and C. hand makes it very difficult to change the habits and Stride (Zahra, Wright, 2011; Stephan et al., 2015), which practices that have been preserved for years, and on the requires both greater state activity as well as greater other – means that it is possible to manage cultural change. financial resources, which limits the creation of larger At the same time, due to the fact that organizational culture social needs. Therefore, institutions can be a source of to a large extent generates the effectiveness of the resources needed in social entrepreneurship, but they can organization's operation based on modern development also motivate to undertake entrepreneurial activities in this factors, its absorption and taking into account the area. functioning of social entrepreneurship entities. Otherwise, Social entrepreneurship is a growing area of economies. barriers arising mainly from employee resistance The number and diversity of organizations that fall into this (reluctance, lack of patterns, lack of knowledge in the value sector is constantly increasing. Directions for further system, etc.) may arise in the implementation of intentions. research in this field are proposed (Austin, 2010). However, This is all the more important because generally – in the most important message of social entrepreneurship management sciences – an instrumental approach should be the implementation and offering of innovative dominates, emphasizing the need for conscious shaping of solutions that allow increasing social integration, organizational culture (Sułkowski, 2005), which in this case eliminating dysfunctional behaviors and affecting socio- is related to supporting social entrepreneurship. economic development. In general, therefore, organizational culture, being a phenomenon specific to each organization, built by the specificity of people who operate in a given enterprise. This REFERENCES kind of approach makes it particularly important for the activities of social enterprises and creating Adamik A, Nowicki M (2012). Etyka i Społeczna Austin JE (2010). entrepreneurship in them. Many organizational culture Trzy kierunki badań nad przedsiębiorczością społeczną. (in:) Mair J, contexts, which results from the diversity of definitions, Robinson J, Hockerts K, Przedsiębiorczość społeczna. Warszawa: Dom Journal of Business & Economic Management; Szczapa. 223

Wydawniczy Elipsa, p. 35. Spraw Publicznych, Analizy i Opinie No. 48, pp. 4-5. Białasiewicz M (2008). Przedsiębiorczość – pożądana kompetencja. Kerlin J (2006). Socialenterprise in the United States and Europe: Szczecin: Studia i Prace Wydziału Nauk Ekonomicznych i Zarządzania, Understanding and learning from the diferences. Voluntas, vol. 17, no No. 1, p. 9. 3, Springer, pp. 247-263. Boni M (2007). Konteksty ekonomii społecznej. Ekonomia Społeczna Kluczyńska J, Sienicka A (2008). Centrum Integracji Społecznej – Teksty, No. 1, p. 4. przedsiębiorstwo społeczne? Ekonomia Społeczna Teksty, No. 9, p. 4. Cameron K, Quinn R (2006). Kultura organizacyjna - diagnoza i zmiana. Kluczyńska J, Sienicka A (2008a). Zakład Aktywności Zawodowej jako Kraków: Oficyna Ekonomiczna. przedsiębiorstwo społeczne. Ekonomia Społeczna Teksty, No. 1, p. 4. Casson M (1982).TheEntrepreneuer. AnEconomicalTheory. New Jersey: KnightFH (2006). Risk, Uncertainty and Profit. New York: Dover Barnes& Noble Books. Publications. Chell E, Nicolopoulou K, Karatas-Ozkan M (2010). Socialentrepreneurship Kopczewski M, Pączek B, Tobolski M (2012). Istota kultury organizacyjnej and enterprise: International and innovationperspectives. London: w zarządzaniu przedsiębiorstwem produkcyjnym. (in:) R. Knosala Entrepreneurship&RegionalDevelopment,Vol. 22, p. 485. (ed.), Innowacje w zarządzaniu i inżynierii produkcji. Opole: Oficyna Czerwińska K (2008). Flexicurity jako koncepcja polityki społecznej i Wydawnicza Polskiego Towarzystwa Zarządzania Produkcją, p. 930. zatrudnienia. Warszawa: Polityka Społeczna No. 3, pp. 13-19. Kosiorek D (2013). Kultura doskonałości w zarządzaniu jakością, (in:) Daniele D (2007). Uwarunkowania prawne przedsiębiorstw społecznych: Falszewska S, Lachiewicz S, Nowicki M (ed.), Społeczne i organizacyjne przykłady z kilku krajów europejskich. (in:) Ekonomia Społeczna czynniki rozwoju przedsiębiorczości. Łódź: Wydawnictwo Politechniki Teksty, No. 8, Warszawa: FISE. Łódzkiej, p. 215. Defourny J, NyssensM (2010). Conceptions of socialenterprise and Kożuch A , Dyndalewicz A (2004). Ekonomika i organizacja socialentrepreneurship in Europe and the United States: Convergences przedsiębiorstwa. Białystok: Wyższa Szkoła Ekonomiczna. and divergences. Journal of SocialEntrepreneurship, t. 1, No. 1, pp. 32- Kryńska E (2007). Podstawowe cele i kierunki polityki rynku pracy w 53. dokumentach programowych Unii Europejskiej i Polski. (in:) DruckerPF (1992). Innowacja i przedsiębiorczość. Praktyka i zasady. Flexicurity w Polsce diagnoza i rekomendacje. Warszawa: Warszawa: Wydawnictwo PWE, pp. 8-24. Ministerstwo Pracy i Polityki Społecznej, pp. 13 et seq.. Dziwulski J (2014). Wpływ kultury organizacyjnej przedsiębiorstw na Kryńska E (2008). Partnerzy społeczni w tworzeniu modelu flexicurity w budowanie przewagi konkurencyjnej na rynku. Problemy Zarządzania, Polsce. Warszawa: Dialog No. 3. Finansów i Marketingu, No. 34, p. 285. Kryńska E (2008). Równowaga między elastycznością i bezpieczeństwem Firma (2008). Firma społeczna w projekcie ustawy, Magazyn KŁOS, na polskim rynku pracy. Jak osiągnąć flexicurity? (in:) A. Kamińska Kwartalnik No. 4(12) , p. 8. (ed.), Flexicurity – między elastycznością a bezpieczeństwem na rynku Frączek M (2008). Flexicurity jako podejście do polityki zatrudnienia w pracy. Warszawa: C. H. Beck, pp. 8-16. Unii Europejskiej – analiza i ocena. Kraków: Zarządzanie Publiczne No. Kryńska E (2009). Dalsze wdrażanie koncepcji flexicurityw Polsce – 4(6), pp. 33-53. wnioski i rekomendacje. (in:) Flexicurity w Polsce. Diagnoza i Frączek M, Wygnański JJ (ed.) (2008). Polski model ekonomii społecznej. rekomendacje. Warszawa: Ministerstwo Pracy i Polityki Społecznej, p. Zaproszenie do dyskusji. Warszawa: FISE, pp. 7, 15-16. 213. Gach D (2007). Relacje między kulturą a realizacją procesów zarządzania Laszuk M (2015). Proprzedsiębiorcza kultura organizacyjna jako główna wiedzą w organizacjach (cz. I), e – mentor No. 4/21/2007, pp. 48-52. determinanta występowania przedsiębiorczości wewnętrznej, (in:) Glinka B, Gudkova S (2011). Przedsiębiorczość. Warszawa: WoltersKluwer Maciejewski M, Pera B (ed.), Przedsiębiorczość w kontekście business, p. 18. globalnym. Przedsiębiorczość Międzynarodowa No. 1, p. 24. Glińska–Neweś A (2007). Kulturowe uwarunkowania zarządzania wiedzą Leś E (2008). Gospodarka społeczna, nowa gospodarka społeczna, w przedsiębiorstwie. Toruń: Dom Organizatora TNOiK. przedsiębiorstwo społeczne. (in:) Leś E (ed.), Gospodarka społeczna i GriffinRW (2009). Podstawy zarządzania organizacjami. Warszawa: przedsiębiorstwo społeczne. Wprowadzenie do problematyki. Wydawnictwo Naukowe PWN, pp. 730-731. Warszawa: Wydawnictwa Uniwersytetu Warszawskiego. Grotkowska G, Socha MW, Sztanderska U (2005). Elastyczność Lisiecka K (1998). Kultura przedsiębiorstwa jako czynnik ułatwiający zatrudnienia a bezpieczeństwo socjalne na rynku pracy. zarządzanie przez jakość. Warszawa: Problemy jakości No. 7. Doświadczenia Polski. Budapeszt: Międzynarodowa Organizacja Pracy. Łochnicka D (2016). Przedsiębiorczość pracownicza i jej wpływ na Harasim W (2015). Wpływ kultury organizacyjnej na zarządzanie efektywność organizacji. Łódź: Wydawnictwo Uniwersytetu kapitałem ludzkim w tworzeniu wartości dodanej organizacji. (in:) W. Łódzkiego, pp. 14-15, 16-22. Harasim (ed.) Zarządzanie wartościami niematerialnymi w erze Mair J, Martí L (2006). Socialentrepreneurshipresearch: A source of gospodarki cyfrowej. Warszawa: Wyższa Szkoła Promocji, Mediów i explanation, prediction, and delight. Journal of World Business, Vol. Show Businessu, p. 16. 41, p. 37. Harrison R (1972).Understanding Yoyr Organizations Character. Małecka–Łyszczek M, Wesołowski Z, (2008), Modele współpracy Cambridge: Harvard Business Review, pp. 119-128. podmiotów ekonomii społecznej z administracją publiczną, Ekonomia Hausner J, Laurisz N, Mazur S (2007). Przedsiębiorstwo społeczne – Społeczna Teksty, No. 5. konceptualizacja. (in:) Hausner J (ed.), Zarządzanie podmiotami Martin RJ, Osberg S (2007). Socialentrepreneurship: The case for a definiti. ekonomii społecznej. Kraków: MSAP, pp. 13-14. Spring: Stanford SocialInnovationReview, p. 33. Jakimiuk B (2016). Środowisko pracy jako obszar budowania poczucia Michelman P (2007). Iscorporateculturestillimportant? Cambridge: własnej wartości relacji z innymi. Lublin: AnnalesUniversitatisMariae Harvard Business Review No. 6. Curie-Skłodowska, vol. XXIX, No. 4. Mikeszajkina E (2018). Zarządzanie przedsiębiorcze w małych firmach. Jasińska J (2015). Zmiany w organizacjach. Sprawne zarządzanie, sytuacje Lublin: Wydawnictwo Politechniki Lubelskiej, pp. 38-39. kryzysowe i warunki osiągania sukcesu. Warszawa: Wydawnictwo Mroziewski M (2008). Koncepcja kreowania przedsiębiorczej kultury Frel, p. 84. organizacyjnej w podejściu normatywno – ewolucyjnym. Rocznik Juraszek-Kopacz B, Sienicka A, Zagrodzka T (2008). Ekonomizacja Naukowy Zarządzania, No. 3 – 4, p. 58. organizacji pozarządowych – wyzwania i szanse okiem praktyków. Odpowiedzialność Biznesu. (in:) Zakrzewska-Bielawska A (ed.), Ekonomia Społeczna. Teksty No. 10, pp. 30 et seq. Podstawy zarządzania, Warszawa: Oficyna WoltersKluwer, pp. 492- Kaźmierczak T (2007). Zrozumieć ekonomię społeczną. (in:) Kaźmierczak 534. T, Rymsza M (ed.), Kapitał społeczny. Ekonomia społeczna. Warszawa: Otręba R (2012). Sukces i autonomia w zarządzaniu organizacją szkolną. Fundacja Instytutu Spraw Publicznych. Warszawa: Wydawnictwo WoltersKluwer, p. 70. Kaźmierczak T, Rymsza M (2005). Aktywna polityka społeczna. Stan Pacut A (2010). Przedsiębiorczość społeczna w Polsce – problemy i obecny i szanse upowszechnienia koncepcji. Warszawa: Instytut wyzwania. Zarządzanie Publiczne, No. 4(14)/2010, Kraków:

Journal of Business & Economic Management; Szczapa. 224

Wydawnictwo Uniwersytetu Jagiellońskiego Trompenaars F, Hampden-Turner Ch (2002). Siedem wymiarów kultury. Philips K, Eamets R (2007). Approaches to flexicurity: EU models. Znaczenie różnic kulturowych w działalności gospodarczej. Kraków: Luxemburg: European Foundation for the Improvement of Living and Oficyna Ekonomiczna, p. 211. WorkingConditions.. Van Praag CM, CramerJS (2001). The Roots of Entrepreneurship and Piasecki B (2003).Przedsiębiorczość i zarządzanie. Warszawa: C. H. Beck, LabourDemand: Individualability and lowriskaversion. Amsterdam: pp. 34-35. Economica, No. 269, pp. 45-62. Popowska M (ed.) (2015). Przedsiębiorczość. Jej przejawy i szanse Walczak W (2009). Rola kapitału ludzkiego w procesie rozwijania rozwoju. Gdańsk: Wydawnictwo Politechniki Gdańskiej, p. 14. gospodarki opartej na wiedzy, (in:) KopycińskaD (ed.), Kapitał ludzki Rymsza M (2006). Bariery rozwoju przedsiębiorczości społecznej w Polsce jako czynnik przewagi konkurencyjnej. Szczecin: Uniwersytet w świetle kultury organizacyjnej III sektora. Ekonomia Społeczna. Szczeciński, pp. 188-189. Teksty, p. 8. Walczak W (2010). Zarządzanie wiedzą i kreowanie kapitału Rymsza M (2010). Rozwój sektora ekonomii społecznej w Polsce: między intelektualnego współczesnego przedsiębiorstwa, E-mentor nr 2(34). zatrudnieniem socjalnym i przedsiębiorczością społeczną., Warszawa: Williams R (1981). Culture. London: Fontana, pp. 10-11. Fundacja Instytutu Spraw Publicznych, Trzeci Sektor, No. 21. Wojtowicz A (2004) Istota i modele kultury organizacyjnej – przegląd Rymsza M (ed.). (2005). Elastyczny rynek pracy i bezpieczeństwo socjalne. koncepcji. Tarnów: Zeszyty Naukowe Małopolskiej Wyższej Szkoły Flexicurity po polsku? Warszawa: Instytut Spraw Publicznych. Ekonomicznej, No. 5, p. 166. Schumpeter JA (1960). Teoria rozwoju gospodarczego. Warszawa: Wojtowicz A (2004a). Kultura organizacyjna a proces zarządzania Wydawnictwo PWN, p. 60. strategicznego. Tarnów. Zeszyty Naukowe Małopolskiej Wyższej Schumpeter JA (2005).Kapitalizm, socjalizm i demokracja. Warszawa: Szkoły Ekonomicznej, No. 6, p. 139. Wydawnictwo PWN, p. 163. Wygnański JJ (2009). O ekonomii społecznej – podstawowe pojęcia, Siuta–Stolarska B, Siuta–Brodzińska M (2011). Rola przedsiębiorczości w instytucje i kompetencje. Szczecin: Stowarzyszenie Czas Przestrzeń zarządzaniu. Wrocław: Zeszyty Naukowe WSOWL No. 4, p. 400. Tożsamość. Smith BR, Stevens CE (2010). DifferentTypes of socialentrepreneurship: Wyrębek H (2012). Rola kultury organizacyjnej w zintegrowanych The role of geography and embeddedness on the measurement and systemach zarządzania przedsiębiorstwem. Siedlce: Zeszyty Naukowe scalin of socialvalue. Entrepreneurship&Regional Development, Vol. Uniwersytetu w Siedlcach, No. 93. 22, No. 6.12, pp. 578-582. Zahra SA, Gedajlovic E, Neubaum DO, Shulman JM (2009). A typology of Sobocka–Szczapa H (2010). Ekonomia społeczna w Polsce, Łódź: socialentrepreneurs: Motives, searchprocesses and ethicalchallenges. Społeczna Wyższa Szkoła Przedsiębiorczości i Zarządzania, pp. 5 et Journal of Business Venturing, Vol. 24 (5), p. 519. seq., 54 et seq. Zahra SA, WrightM (2011). Entrepreneurship’sNextAct, New York: Sobocka–Szczapa H (2016). Zarządzanie wiedzą w organizacji uczącej się. Academy of Management Perspectives, No. 25(4) , p. 145. (in:) Sułkowski Ł, Sobocka–Szczapa H, PrysińskiŁ (ed.), Finansowe i Zeyen A, Beckmann M (2011), SocialEntrepreneurship and organizacyjne aspekty kooperacji nauki i lokalnej przedsiębiorczości – InstitutionalLogics. Lueneburg: Centre for SustainabilityManagement, badania i analizy część II. Przedsiębiorczość i Zarządzanie T. XVII, Z. 9. p. 6. Łódź – Warszawa: Społeczna Akademia Nauk. Sobocka–Szczapa H, Banasiak A, Kamińska B (2019). Zarządzanie zasobami ludzkimi. Model 3D: wiedza – jakość – kultura organizacyjna. Łódź – Warszawa: Społeczna Akademia Nauk, p. 100. Stephan U, Uhlaner LM, Stride C (2015).Institutions and SocialEntrepreneurship: The Role of InstitutionalVoids, InstitutionalSupport, and InstitutionalConfigurations. Journal of International Business Studies, No. 46(3). Sułkowski Ł (2002). Procesy kulturowe w organizacjach. Koncepcja, badania i typologia kultur organizacyjnych. Toruń-Łódź: TNOiK, p. 47. Sułkowski Ł (2005). Epistemologia w naukach o zarządzaniu. Warszawa: PWE, pp. 149-155. Sułkowski Ł (2012). Kulturowe procesy zarządzania, Warszawa: Difin, pp. 59-60. Sułkowski Ł, Ignatowski G, Sułkowska J (2017). Przedsiębiorczość patriotyczna. (in:) Sułkowski Ł, Marjański A (ed.), Przedsiębiorczość w Cite this article as: dobie wyzwań rozwojowych. Przedsiębiorczość i Zarządzanie, T. XVIII, Z. 12, część I, Łódź – Warszawa: Społeczna Akademia Nauk, pp. 91 et Szczapa HS (2020). COVID-19: Organizational culture in the seq . activities of social entrepreneurship entities. J. Bus. Econ. Manag. Surdykowska B (2007). Dialog na rzecz elastyczności i bezpieczeństwa. 8(8): 211-224. Warszawa: Dialog no 4, pp. 22-27. Tarnawa A (2015). Kultura organizacyjna jako strategiczny zasób Submit your manuscript at http://www.academiapublishing.org/journals/jbem organizacji umożliwiający utrzymanie pozycji konkurencyjnej. (in:) Dymitrowski A, MałysŁ (ed.), Zarządzanie przedsiębiorstwem. Trendy i praktyka. Warszawa: Wydawnictwo Advertiva, pp. 12-13.