We also found that proper accountability can be

We also found that proper accountability can be jeopardized because of the accountability
system. In all forums, there were double roles as account holders, and account givers were the
same actors. These double roles make accountability problematic in the hybrid organization
as actors are justifying, rewarding and sanctioning their own conduct (e.g. Hodge and Greve,
2007 ). This finding implies that there is a need to develop theoretical models describing the
formation and functioning of biased horizontal accountability models in hybrids. The word
bias refers to judges judging their cases in horizontal accountability systems. The public –
private partnership literature talks about self-monitoring ( Shaoul et al. , 2012 ), but current
theories of dual accountability roles in hybrids are in a nascent state. By proposing a biased
horizontal accountability system, we sought to challenge the notion of accountability systems
that is in line with the traditional definitions of accountability (e.g. Bovens, 2006 ). As a
concept, the biased accountability system does two things:
(1) It criticizes previous conceptual frameworks of accountability that do not consider
dysfunctional accountability systems.
(2) It highlights in the hybrid context the relevance of the following of old Latin phrase
used in legal doctrine: Nemo judex in causa sua (no one is the judge in his own cause).
In the hybrid, an attempt was to prevent or mitigate the problems relating to double roles by
using clear standards of performance that were set beforehand. Clear standards are a good
practice in hybrids ( Forrer et al. , 2010 ). However, the accountability system included several
scenarios in which risks and opportunities materializing the operational environment open
up possibilities to refute the performance criteria, allowing new performance standards to be
adopted. This indicates that we should have dynamic horizontal accountability models that
examine how horizontal accountability systems are dismantled and generated again as a part
of risk management procedures in a hybrid context. The possible dynamic nature of
accountability in hybrids emphasizes what Grossi and Thomasson (2015) stated when they
argued that the way in which the accountability system is used affects the ability to bridge
the accountability gap existing in hybrids. If the accountability system is dismantled all the
time, the accountability gap will probably increase as it becomes uncertain who is
accountable and for what in hybrid activities. Moreover, setting clear criteria for performance
as a good practice suggested by Forrer et al. (2010) may not be sufficient if there is a
possibility of negotiating new performance criteria whenever circumstances change.
Dynamic accountability models attempt to challenge the theoretical notion that the system
is stable because accountability is otherwise challenging to attain according to blame-
avoidance literature showing how changing organizational structures complicates
accountability (e.g. Hood, 2011 ).