Abstract
This chapter focuses on governance challenges in mutually owned insurance companies. We analyze the variation in how hybrids organize themselves and discuss why mechanism for institutionalization is not always in place. A comparative approach was chosen to study how democracy is expressed and the ownership governance system is organized in two Swedish insurance companies with a long history, where Folksam was always a mutual and Skandia only recently became a mutual. Departing from imprinting theory (Stinchcombe, Social Structure and Organizations. In Handbook of Organizations, ed. J.P. March, 142–193. Chicago: Rand McNally, 1965), the findings suggest that institutional conditions at the time of their establishment as mutuals may have imprinted governance practices in these mutuals that persist beyond the founding phase.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Notes
- 1.
The concept of constitutional hybridity has been used in political science to define nations that borrow features from various systems of government. An example is Ghana’s 1992 constitution, a hybrid arrangement that combines some features of the US presidential system and British Westminster systems of government (Van Gyampo and Graham 2014).
References
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.
Alexius, S., and L. Löwenberg. 2018. Shaping the Consumer – A Century of Consumer Guidance. In Organizing and Reorganizing Markets, ed. N. Brunsson and M. Jutterström. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Association of Mutual Insurers and Insurance Cooperatives in Europe (AMICE). 2015. United in Diversity. The European Mutual Insurance Manifesto 2014.www.amice-eu.org.
Battilana, J., and S. Dorado. 2010. Building Sustainable Hybrid Organizations: The Case of Commercial Microfinance Organizations. Academy of Management Journal 53: 1419–1440.
Battilana, J., and M. Lee. 2014. Advancing Research on Hybrid Organizing. Academy of Management Annals 8 (1): 397–441.
Billis, D. 2010. Towards a Theory of Hybrid Organizations. In Hybrid Organizations and the Third Sector: Challenges for Practice, Theory and Policy, ed. D. Billis, 46–69. New York: Palgrave Macmillan.
Boltanski, L., and L. Thévenot. 2006 [1991]. On Justification: Economies of Worth. Princeton: Princeton University Press.
Braun, V., and V. Clarke. 2006. Using Thematic Analysis in Psychology. Qualitative Research in Psychology 3 (2): 77–101.
Brunsson, N. 1994. Politicization and “Companyization”. Management Accounting Research 5: 323–335.
Czarniawska, B. 2014. Storytelling: A Managerial Tool and Its Local Translation. In Global Themes and Local Variations in Organization and Management. Perspectives on Glocalization, ed. G.S. Drori, M.A. Höllerer, and P. Och Walgenbach. London: Routledge.
Denis, J.-L., E. Ferlie, and N. Van Gestel. 2015. Understanding Hybridity in Public Organizations. Public Administration 93: 273–289.
DiMaggio, P.J., and W. Powell. 1983. The Iron Cage Revisited. Institutional Isomorphism and Collective Rationality in Organizational Fields. American Sociological Review 48: 147–160.
Edelman, L. 1992. Legal Ambiguity and Symbolic Structures: Organizational Mediation of Civil Rights Law. American Journal of Sociology 97 (6): 1531–1576.
Folksam. 1946. Årsredovisning och förvaltningsberättelse (Annual Report).
———. 2012. Slutrapport. Parlamentariska kommittén. Förändrade styrelser och ett utvecklat kundinflytande.
Furusten, S. 2013. Institutional Theory and Organizational Change. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar Publishing.
Grip, G. 2008. Folksam 1908–2008. Vol. 1: Försäkringsrörelsen. Stockholm: Informationsförlaget.
Grossi, G., and A. Thomasson. 2015. Bridging the Accountability Gap in Hybrid Organizations: The Case of Copenhagen. Malmö Port. International Review of Administrative Sciences 81: 604–620.
Meyer, J.W., and B. Rowan. 1977. Institutionalized Organizations: Formal Structures as Myth and Ceremony. American Journal of Sociology 83: 340–363.
Powell, W., and P.J. DiMaggio. 1991. The New Institutionalism in Organizational Analysis. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.
Rose, N. 1999. Powers of Freedom: Reframing Political Thought. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Skelcher, C., and S.R. Smith. 2015. Theorizing Hybridity: Institutional Logics, Complex Organizations and Actor Identities: The Case of Non-Profits. Public Administration 93: 433–448.
Spear, R. 2004. Governance in Democratic Member-Based Organizations. Annals of Public and Cooperative Economics 75: 33–59.
Stinchcombe, A.L. 1965. Social Structure and Organizations. In Handbook of Organizations, ed. J.P. March, 142–193. Chicago: Rand McNally.
The Economist. 2003. Misbehaviour in Sweden: Skandal. December 4.
Teorell, J. 1998. Demokrati eller fåtalsvälde. Om beslutsfattande i partiorganisationer. Uppsala: Acta universitatis upsaliensis.
Van Gyampo, R.E., and E. Graham. 2014. Constitutional Hybridity and Constitutionalism in Ghana. Africa Review 6: 138–150.
Westphal, J.D., and E. Zajac. 2001. Explaining Institutional Decoupling: The Case of Stock Repurchase Programs. Administrative Science Quarterly 46: 202–228.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2019 The Author(s)
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Sardiello, T., Alexius, S., Furusten, S. (2019). Governance Structures in Customer-Owned Hybrid Organizations: Interpreting Democracy in Mutual Insurance Companies. In: Alexius, S., Furusten, S. (eds) Managing Hybrid Organizations. Palgrave Macmillan, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-95486-8_4
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-95486-8_4
Published:
Publisher Name: Palgrave Macmillan, Cham
Print ISBN: 978-3-319-95485-1
Online ISBN: 978-3-319-95486-8
eBook Packages: Business and ManagementBusiness and Management (R0)