Biased by design – the case of horizontal accountability in a hybrid organization

Abstract

PurposeThis study examines unexplored horizontal accountability types between public, private and third sector actors within a hybrid organization. The case organization was applying a novel alliance model to generate service paths for heterogeneous clientele consuming cultural, educational, health and social services. It was first to do so in Finland.Design/methodology/approachThis research is on a case study that used documents and interviews to examine the design of the horizontal accountability. The descriptive analysis focused on identifying what type of formal accountability system was designed (i.e. who is the account holder, and who is accountable and for what and why).FindingsAn imbalanced accountability system was identified because accountability obligations were unevenly distributed between public, private and third sector actors. The private sector was the most accountable for performance, and the third sector (i.e. voluntary sector) was the least accountable. As account holders, the public, private and third sector actors were judging their conduct as account providers. This created a biased horizontal accountability system. The hybrid's accountability system was dynamic because the contracts made to establish the hybrid included opportunities to change horizontal accountability if future changes to the external environment affect too drastically the potential to achieve the hybrid's goals.Originality/valueThree new concepts are proposed for studying dysfunctional accountability systems: dynamic, biased and horizontally imbalanced accountability.

Accounting, performance and accountability challenges in hybrid organisations: a value creation perspective

“…State-owned enterprises are an example of the compromising logic in hybrid organisations and the respective problems and complications that may arise between distinct owners' interests (Mahoney et al , 2009; Bruton et al , 2015). Furthermore, forms of compromising can be applied to different types and levels of accountabilities that may exist within intra-organisational or inter-organisational settings (Rajala and Kokko, 2022). Even a performance measurement exercise is a compromise of multiple rationalities enacted in hybrid organisations.…”

Balancing unity and diversity in a not-for-profit inter-organizational partnership through lateral accountability mechanisms

“…With increasing use of inter-organizational partnership arrangements (given governments' funding preferences for the provision of public services), the literature has started to recognize the importance of the lateral dimension of accountability (Acar et al , 2008; Cäker and Nyland, 2017; Hansson and Longva, 2014; Hodges, 2012; O'Dwyer and Boomsma, 2015; Rajala and Kokko, 2021; Romzek et al , 2012).…”

“…Cäker and Nyland (2017) stress the need to examine lateral/horizontal accountability in their exploration of the accountability processes in a municipal joint venture. Rajala and Kokko (2021) argue for the importance of lateral/horizontal accountability in their study of accountability systems in a cross-sectoral alliance of public, for-profit and NFPs.…”

“…One of the challenges for accountability and accountability mechanisms in inter-organizational partnerships is their role in managing the unity–diversity tension (Saz-Carranza and Ospina, 2011), the tension arising in such partnerships between ensuring the coordination and commonality of decisions and actions towards collective partnership goals, while also preserving and leveraging the diversity and differential strengths of individual partners. This challenge points to the importance of inter-organizational accountability, also termed lateral/horizontal accountability and internal/partnership accountability (Acar et al , 2012; Agyeman et al , 2019; Cäker and Nyland, 2017; O'Dwyer and Boomsma, 2015; Rajala and Kokko, 2021).…”

“…The first contribution is that by examining how inter-organizational partnership accountability is operationalized at the NSP, the study addresses Hodges' (2012, p. 42) concern that “we seem to know relatively little at present of what routes of accountability are adopted in practice to support collaborative working”, as well as addressing accounting scholars' calls for more research into lateral accountability (Agyemang et al , 2019; Cäker and Nyland, 2017; Cordery et al , 2019; Kilfoyle and Richardson, 2015; O'Dwyer and Boomsma, 2015). These latter calls have been based on recognition of the importance of lateral accountability in partnerships through which individual members are accountable to each other and the partnership as a collective (Acar et al , 2008; Romzek et al , 2012, 2014; Rajala and Kokko, 2021).…”