Indiana University-Purdue University Indianapolis (IUPUI) / This dissertation argues that the Edison Institute (presently known as The Henry Ford in Dearborn, Michigan) survived internal and external challenges through the evolution of the Ford family’s leadership and the organization’s funding strategy. Following Henry Ford’s death, the museum complex relied upon the Ford Foundation and the Ford Motor Company Fund as its sole means of philanthropic support. These foundations granted the Edison Institute a significant endowment, which it used to sustain its facilities in conjunction with its inaugural fundraising program. Navigating a changing legal, corporate, and philanthropic landscape in Detroit and around the world, the Ford family perpetuated Henry Ford’s legacy at the Edison Institute with the valuable guidance of executives and staff of their corporation, foundation, and philanthropies. Together they transitioned the Edison Institute into a sustainable and public nonprofit organization by overcoming threats related to the deaths of two generations of the Ford family, changes in the Edison Institute’s administration and organizational structure, the reorganization of the Ford Foundation, the effects of the Tax Reform Act of 1969, and legal complications due to overlap between the Fords’ corporate and philanthropic interests. The Ford family provided integral leadership for the development and evolution of the Edison Institute’s funding strategy and its relationship to their other corporate and philanthropic enterprises. The Institute’s management and funding can be best understood within the context of philanthropic developments of the Ford family during this period, including the formation of the Ford Foundation’s funding and concurrent activity.   This dissertation focuses on the research question of how the Edison Institute survived the Ford family’s evolving philanthropic strategy to seek a sustainable funding and management structure. The work examines its central research question over multiple chapters organized around the Ford family’s changing leadership at the Edison Institute, the increase of professionalized managers, and the Ford’s use of their corporation and philanthropies to provide integral support to the Edison Institute. In order to sustain the Edison Institute throughout the twentieth century, it adapted its operations to accommodate Henry Ford’s founding legacy, its legal environment, and the evolving practice of philanthropy in the United States.

Indiana University-Purdue University Indianapolis (IUPUI) / Linking the new institutionalism to entrepreneurial orientation (EO), my dissertation investigates institutional forces and entrepreneurial forces—two contradicting types of forces—as main effects and moderating effects upon practices and performance of organizations embedded in the institutional duality. The case chosen observes unique hybrid funders that this study collectively calls social investment funders (SIF), which integrate philanthropy and venture capital investment to create and implement a venture philanthropy model for a pursuit of their mission. A theoretical framework is developed to propose regulative and normative pressures from two dominant institutions governing SIFs. Original data collected from 146 organizations are scrutinized by moderated multiple regressions for two empirical studies: Study 1 for effects on SIFs’ venture philanthropy practices, and Study 2 for effects on SIFs’ social and financial performance. Multiple imputations, diagnostic analyses, and several post hoc analyses are also conducted for robustness of data and results from multiple regression analyses. Results from these analyses find that EO and venture capital institutional forces both enhance SIFs’ venture philanthropy practices. A hypothesis postulated for a negative relationship between the nonprofit status and venture philanthropy practices is also supported. Results from moderated regression analyses, along with a subgroup and EO subdimension analyses, confirm a moderating effect between EO and the nonprofit status, i.e., a regulative institutional pressure. A positive relationship is found in EO- financial performance, but not in EO-social performance. While support is lent to hypotheses posited for a social/financial performance relationship with donors’/investors’ demand for social outcomes, and with the management team’s training in business, the overall results remain mixed for Study 2. Nonetheless, this dissertation appears to be the first study to theorize and test EO as a micro-level condition enabling organizations to strategically shape and resist institutional pressures, and it reinforces that organizations’ behavior is not merely a product of their passive conformity to environmental forces, but of the agency, also. As such, this study aims to contribute to scholarly efforts by the “agency camp” of the new institutionalism and EO, answering a call from the leading scholars of both EO (Miller) and the new institutionalism (Oliver).