Regulation as a force for hybrid organization: evidence from the Bonneville Power Administration (1980–2012)

Abstract

PurposeThis case study highlights state-logic influence on hybrid organizations and institutionally complex environments through acts of regulation (and deregulation).Design/methodology/approachThis study presents a 30-year narrative case focused on the significant social achievements of the Bonneville Power Administration within the Northwest United States. It combines the analysis of historical documentation, annual reports issued by the organization and interviews with firm management to observe the wax and wane of regulatory influence through time.FindingsThe presented case suggests two ways regulation projects state-logic influence onto hybrid organizations. First, it imposes a “floor” level of baseline social activity that must be met despite pressure from market logic stakeholders. Second, it imposes formal administrative procedures that require interaction with, and often approval from, key social stakeholders. Administrative procedures provide a series of public forums used to promote additional social resource allocation in excess of baseline regulatory mandates.Research limitations/implicationsA narrative case covering a 30-year period will by necessity have to prioritize breadth of analysis over depth. This is a limitation of the analysis presented, but it also provides an opportunity to observe the oscillating impact of state and market-logic influence through time.Originality/valueThe study findings have several implications for the growing accounting literature on institutional complexity and hybrid organization. First, the authors highlight the ways regulation shapes institutionally complex spaces and, as a result, the hybrid organizations formed within those environments. Second, the exogenous nature of regulatory mandates indicate hybrid firms could emerge as both a voluntary and an involuntary adaptation to institutionally complex environments. Finally, this study highlights opportunities to further one’s understanding how state logics influence hybrid organizations through the study of state-owned enterprises (SOEs).

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

“…Other scholars believe that compromise between conflicting values and logic can be achieved in several ways. Convery and Kaufman (2022) propose the concept of "involuntary hybridity" as a response to complex institutional pressures. Ferry and Slack (2022) show the emergent conflictual tensions between social and economic logic and the need to balance these logics through.…”

“…The papers of this AAAJ special issue scrutinise different contexts of hybrid organisations and activities to interpret these inter-linkages. Consider Convery and Kaufman (2022) scrutinising Bonneville Power Administration, a hybrid energy marketing agency that combines constitutive-level choices of regulation with collective and individual choices of strategising, through the interplay of logics of state intervention and market orientation, and how this has evolved over time. Moreover, consider Sargiacomo and Walker's (2022) discussion of the hybridity of a disaster governance case in which public value creation was significantly conditioned but also influenced by the ability of actors from different levels and professions to communicate their choices.…”

“…Mixing values can be related to multiple objectives. Some AAAJ special issue articles relate to “public benefit” objectives and private benefits in the case of benefit corporations (Baudot et al , 2022), market and social objectives in a federal power administration (Convery and Kaufman, 2022), financial, social and environmental objectives in social housing companies (Maine et al , 2022), short- and long-term humanitarian activities (Sargiacomo and Walker, 2022), the goals of cost-efficiency and the needs of individual childcare (Schrøder et al , 2022), and the mission of “care” and the value of “public service” with “efficiency” (Moriniére and Georgescu, 2022). Other articles demonstrated the existence of and tensions between the multiplicity of institutional logics, such as economic and social logics (Ferry and Slack, 2022); the logics of calculating the long-term social and economic impacts of preventive social investments (Kastberg Weichselberger and Lagström, 2022); regulatory/bureaucratic, market and service logics in the case of information and communication technology (ICT) service providers (Maran and Lowe, 2022); community, public and market logics in the case of public and private partnership (PPP) policies (Stafford and Stapleton, 2022) and healthcare (medical), administrative and political-institutional logics (Rautiainen et al , 2022).…”

“…The study on the Great Exhibition emphasises the emancipatory potential of counter (dialogic) accounting to serve pluralism better and give a democratic voice to marginalised stakeholders (Ferry and Slack, 2022). The study on power administration illustrates how state regulation also imposes formal administrative procedures that require interaction and agreement with social stakeholders (Convery and Kaufman, 2022). Furthermore, legitimisation strategies are connected to different types of accountabilities.…”

“…They have been conceptualised through hybridity as enacting three forms of value creation in hybrid organisations: mixing, compromising and legitimising. Mixing refers to the process of combining previously created or existing value categories with the aim of creating innovative variants, blends and layers of value (Convery and Kaufman, 2022; Rautiainen et al , 2022). Compromising concerns the governance of competing, contradicting and even conflictual values in hybrid arrangements through the reconciliation of different value propositions, owners and constituencies (Moriniére and Georgescu, 2022; Schrøder et al , 2022).…”