Governing & managing hybridity

Why and how do the hybrid forms of ownership, institutional logics, and competing value-creation mechanisms sometimes contradict and collide while at other times, via collaboration between public, private, and civil society actions, promote important societal aims?

Scope, mission and relevance of the SIG ‘Governing and Managing Hybridity’

Governance forms in-between public and private spheres are becoming more common and extremely influential in society. Likewise, scholarly attention for hybridity, hybrid governance, hybrid organizations and hybrid professionalism has increased. The aim of this SIG is to join researchers from traditionally separate areas of study to have an open debate on governing and managing hybridity in society, aimed at dealing with complex societal issues. In modern institutional life, hybrids, hybrid governance and hybridity appear in many forms (Billis, 2010; Christensen & Lægreid, 2010; Emery & Giauque, 2014; Van Gestel, Denis & Ferlie, 2015; Anheier & Krlev, 2015; Johanson & Vakkuri 2017, Vakkuri & Johanson 2020).Consider the following aspects:

• Mixed ownership between public and private actors at different levels of society in the pursuit for  politically driven goals while using business logics and operating on markets (Hansman 1996; Thynne 2011). In this context several terms are used, such as state-owned enterprises (SOEs), municipally-owned enterprises, public enterprises, government-owned companies, local corporations, government-sponsored enterprises, holdings of the government, and type 2 and 3 agencies (Grossi, Papenfuß & Tremblay 2015). Existing research on SOE reforms has so far focused mostly on the central government, although the number of SOEs is larger at the sub-national level. Moreover, the scarce international research is fragmented in different disciplines and groups.
• Goal incongruence and competing institutional logics between the logic of profit-seeking vis-à-vis the logic of effectiveness (Reay & Hinings 2009; Pache & Santos 2013), i.e. providing social impact for society and citizens while at the same time “doing well by doing good” (Kreps & Monin 2011). Examples include organisations using business logics supplementing or replacing the public and the professional provision of health care services (Noordegraaf, 2007) and of higher education (Dudau et al. 2018, Habersam et al. 2018). Hybridity has also emerged as an important factor in the governance and management of third sector organizations (Brandsen et al. 2005; Brandsen 2010), such as non-profits as well as the distinguishing characteristic of various types of social enterprises (Defourny & Nyssens 2018) that combine social welfare and economic logics (Battilana & Lee, 2014; Doherty et al., 2014; Ebrahim et al. 2014; Karré, 2018; Mair et al. 2015).
• Multiplicity of funding arrangements between the public and private actors, including investors and financiers, e.g. several types of public –private partnerships (PPP), or PFI arrangements in financing public service delivery (Hodge & Greve 2007).
• Public and private forms of financial and social control, including regulatory control of the markets, professional self-control and customer-driven market control within a single system of service delivery, e.g. multi-faceted control and audit systems of organizations operating on professional clan control and customer-driven satisfaction logics (Power 1997; Kickert 2001; Kelly 2005; Jordana & Levi-Faur 2004).

An interesting question is what are the consequences of this type of development? Governance deficits and a lack of accountability have led to discussions about which models, mechanisms, instruments and processes public authorities could use to ensure the effective, efficient and sustainable provision of public services (Osborne 2007; Verhoest et al. 2012). The design and effects of governance reforms and governance issues such as high-performing management structures are of special importance. What about the third sector, i.e. the realm of non-profits and other voluntary organizations? Hybridity can be seen as a result of a layering or sedimentation process of steering mechanisms such as traditional public administration, new public management and new public governance joining public, private and third sector activities. Hybridity exists also in the sense of values, identities, processes, actions, activities and practices where the agents are real people, whether they are executives, managers, policy officials or professional workers. Politicians, public and business managers, street-level workers, and professionals, moreover, work together throughout hybrid settings. It is important to explore the links between institutional structures, logics and the people in different contexts and settings of hybridity.

There is an important research gap concerning the role and impacts of hybridity on the design, strategies, value creation, performance, measurement and evaluation of the modern service delivery systems (Grossi et al. 2017). In this SIG, we observe a need for understanding and theorizing hybridity as a space in between governments and markets that is populated by institutional activities at different levels. We seek understanding addressing micro, meso and macro levels of hybrid governance and levels of government: hybrid organisations, compilations of organisations, industries and policies, hybrid professions, and systems which seek the simultaneous advancement of public policy goals and business aims with the use of both public and private resources. Furthermore, the mission of SIG is to explore, both theoretically and empirically, the most important limitations, complications and paradoxes in hybrid governance, but also the strengths and important potentials of innovative forms of hybrid governance.

The SIG aims at coordinating the fairly dispersed research discussion on hybridity in the public management community. This would be an important opportunity, not only for existing members and researchers of the IRSPM community, but also for new potential members of the community.

Founding members’ committee: Wouter van Dooren, Adina Dudau, Giuseppe Grossi, Marieke van Genugten, Philip Karré, Jan-Erik Johanson, Mirko Noordegraaf, Matti Skoog, Harald Torsteinsen, Jarmo Vakkuri

SIG panel Chairs: Marieke van Genugten, Giuseppe Grossi, Philip Karré, Jan-Erik Johanson, Ulf Papenfuss, Jarmo Vakkuri

Contact persons: Jan-Erik Johanson (Jan-Erik.Johanson @ tuni.fi) & Jarmo Vakkuri (Jarmo.Vakkuri @ tuni.fi)