Variations and Dynamics of Hybridity in Different Types of Hybrid Organizations

  • Staffan FurustenEmail author
  • Sven-Olof Junker


This study investigates characteristics of three types of hybrid organizations—business cooperatives, mutual companies and state-owned enterprises—and explores to what extent hybrid organizations’ original social mission still guides their respective affairs. The study is based on various types of data, and the overall approach is qualitative and explorative. It finds that organizational legacy plays an important role in managerial texts communicated by hybrid organizations in response to expectations on social responsibility. Legacy seems to be of particular strategic importance for business cooperatives and mutual companies when organizational, justifying their position as ‘different’ to ordinary corporations. State-owned enterprises seem to be less dependent on legacy for building legitimacy. The political order forces these hybrids to adopt new goals in line with current governmental goals and hence be more forward-looking like ordinary limited corporations.


Institutional conditions Dynamics Organizational legacy Social responsibility 


  1. Alexius, Susanna, and Jenny Cisneros Örnberg. 2015. Mission(s) Impossible? Configuring Values in the Governance of State-Owned Enterprises. International Journal of Public Sector Management 28 (4/5): 286–306.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Alexius, S., M. Gustavsson, and T. Sardiello. 2017. Profit-Making for Mutual Benefit: The Case of Folksam 1945–2015. Score Working Paper Series 2017:2.Google Scholar
  3. Battilana, Julie, and Matthew Lee. 2014. Advancing Research on Hybrid Organizing–Insights from the Study of Social Enterprises. The Academy of Management Annals 8 (1): 397–441.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Bromley, Patricia, and John W. Meyer. 2015. Hyper-Organization: Global Organizational Expansion. New York: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Brunsson, Nils. 1994. Politicization and ‘Companyization’—On Institutional Affiliation and Confusion in the Organizational World. Management Accounting Research 5 (3): 323–335.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Doherty, Bob, Helen Haugh, and Fergus Lyon. 2014. Social Enterprises as Hybrid Organizations: A Review and Research Agenda. International Journal of Management Reviews 16 (4): 417–436.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Foster, William M., Diego M. Coraiola, Roy Suddaby, Jochem Kroezen, and David Chandler. 2017. The Strategic Use of Historical Narratives: A Theoretical Framework. Business History 59 (8): 1176–1200.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. March, James G. 1976. The Technology of Foolishness. In Ambiguity and Choice in Organizations, ed. James G. March and P. Olsen Johan, 69–81. Bergen: Universitetsforlaget.Google Scholar
  9. Mena, Sébastien, Jukka Rintamäki, Peter Fleming, and André Spicer. 2016. On the Forgetting of Corporate Irresponsibility. Academy of Management Review 41 (4): 720–738.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Michie, Jonathan, Joseph R. Blasi, and Carlo Borzaga, eds. 2017. The Oxford Handbook of Mutual and Co-Owned Business. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  11. Premfors, Rune. 1998. Reshaping the Democratic State: Swedish Experiences in a Comparative Perspective. Public Administration 76 (1): 141–159.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Rainey, Hal G., and Young H. Chun. 2005. Public and Private Management Compared. In The Oxford Handbook of Public Management, ed. Ewan Ferlie, Laurence E. Lynn Jr., and Christopher Pollitt. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  13. Sjöstrand, Sven-Erik, and Karl-Olof Hammarkvist. 2012. Bilaga 5, ‘Om ägarstyrning i statligt ägda företag’. In Ekonomisk värde och samhällsnytta – förslag till en ny statlig ägarförvaltning. SOU 2012:14.Google Scholar
  14. Stebbins, Robert A. 2001. Exploratory Research in the Social Sciences. Vol. 48. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Strandqvist, K. 2018. Managing in Limbo – The Case of a Swedish State Owned Bank. Working Paper. Stockholm: Score.Google Scholar
  16. Suddaby, Roy, and William M. Foster. 2016. History and Organizational Change. Journal of Management 43 (1): 19–38.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© The Author(s) 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.ScoreStockholm UniversityStockholmSweden
  2. 2.Stockholm School of EconomicsStockholmSweden

Personalised recommendations