The Importance of the Owner Relationship in Shaping Hybrid Organizations

  • Anna ThomassonEmail author


The focus of this chapter is the relationship between owners and hybrid organizations with focus on public-private hybrid constellation and corporations owned by local governments. These companies are hybrids since they are governed as private profit-oriented companies but provide public services and incorporate public values. The main takeaway from the analysis in the chapter is that two dimensions, one formal and one informal, define the relationship between the owners and their companies. The formal relationship is here mainly referring to the relationship as defined by the legal framework and existing regulations, while the informal relationship is referring to the dialogue between the owners and the companies that occurs as a complement to the latter dimension. The formal relationship mainly reflects market values, while in order for the democratic values to be protected, the informal dimension is crucial.


Public-private hybridity Owner relations Governance Local government corporations Mission drift 


  1. Aguilera, R.V. 2005. Corporate Governance and Director Accountability: An Institutional Comparative Perspective. British Journal of Management 16: 39–53. Scholar
  2. Alexius, S., and J. 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. Scholar
  3. André, R. 2010. Assessing the Accountability of Government-Sponsored Enterprises and Quangos. Journal of Business Ethics 97 (2): 271–289. Scholar
  4. Bovens, M. 2009. Public Accountability. In The Oxford Handbook of Public Management, ed. F. Ewan, L.E. Lynn Jr., and C. Pollitt. Oxford: Oxford Handbooks.Google Scholar
  5. Deloitte. 2016. Regionsstryrelsen uppsynsplikt. Revionsrapport.Google Scholar
  6. Donaldson, L., and J.H. Davies. 1991. Stewardship Theory or Agency Theory: CEO Governance and Shareholder Returns. Australian Journal of Management 16 (1): 49–65.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Eisenhardt, K.M. 1989. Agency Theory: An Assessment and Review. Academy of Management Review 14 (1): 57–75. Scholar
  8. Erlingsson, G., M. Fogelgren, F. Olsson, A. Thomasson, and R. Öhrvall. 2014. Hur styrs och granskas kommunala bolag? Erfarenheter och lärdomar från Norrköpings kommun. Centre for Municipality Studies (CKS), Linköping University, Report no. 2014:6.Google Scholar
  9. Fama, E.F. 1980. Agency Problems and the Theory of the Firm. Journal of Political Economy 88 (2): 288–307. Scholar
  10. Gedajlovic, E.R., and D.M. Shapiro. 1989. Management and Ownership Effects. Evidence from Five Countries. Strategic Management Journal 19 (6): 533–553.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Grossi, G., C. Reichard, A. Thomasson, and J. Vakkuri. 2017. Performance Measurement of Hybrid Organisations: Emerging Issues and Future Research Perspectives. Public Money and Management 37 (2): 379–386. Scholar
  12. Grossi, G., and A. Thomasson. 2015. Bridging the Accountability Gap in Hybrid Organizations: The Case of Malmö-Copenhagen Port. International Review of Administrative Science 81 (3): 604–620. Scholar
  13. Hodges, R. 2012. Joined-up Government and the Challenges to Accounting and Accountability Researchers. Financial Accountability and Management 28 (1): 26–51. Scholar
  14. Knutsson, H., and A. Thomasson. 2017. Exploring Organizational Hybridity from a Learning Perspective. Qualitative Research in Accounting and Management 14 (4): 430–447. Scholar
  15. Luke, B. 2010. Examining Accountability Dimensions in State-Owned Enterprises. Financial Accountability and Management 26 (2): 134–162. Scholar
  16. Sands, V. 2006. The Right to Know and Obligation to Provide: Public–Private Partnerships, Public Knowledge, Public Accountability, Public Disenfranchisement and Prison Cases. UNSW Law Journal 29 (3): 334–341.Google Scholar
  17. SCB. 2011. Offentligt ägda företag 2010. Statistics Sweden, Statistical Report, OE 27 SM 1101.Google Scholar
  18. SFS. 2005:551. Aktiebolagslagen (Swedish Companies Act).Google Scholar
  19. ———. 2017:725. Kommunallagen (Swedish Municipal Act).Google Scholar
  20. Shaoul, J., A. Stafford, and P. Stapleton. 2012. Accountability and Corporate Governance of Public–Private Partnerships. Critical Perspectives on Accounting 23: 213–229. Scholar
  21. Stattin, D. 2007. Kommunal aktiebolagsrätt: Bolagsrätt och bolagsstyrning för kommun- och landstingsägda bolag. Solna: Nordstedts Juridik AB.Google Scholar
  22. Svärd, O. 2016. Företagare eller politiker? En studie av styrelsearbete i kommunala bostadsbolag. Göteborg: University of Gothenburg. Dissertation.Google Scholar
  23. Thomasson, A. 2009. Navigating in the Landscape of Ambiguity: A Stakeholder Approach to the Governance and Management of Hybrid Organizations. Lund: Lund Business Press.Google Scholar
  24. ———. 2013. Styrning av offentligt ägda bolag. Lund: Studentlitteratur.Google Scholar
  25. Thynne, I. 1994. The Incorporated Company as an Instrument of Government: A Quest for a Comparative Understanding. Governance: An International Journal of Public Administration 7 (1): 59–82. Scholar

Copyright information

© The Author(s) 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.School of Economics and ManagementLund UniversityLundSweden
  2. 2.School of Public AdministrationGothenburg UniversityGothenburgSweden

Personalised recommendations