The Meaning and Value of Mutuality

Abstract

Mutuality, as a term, remains poorly defined and inconsistently used in practice-based and academic literature. It captures both a particular business form (i.e. the mutual), as well as a particular business ethos. Adopting an interpretivist lens, this research draws on thirty-six semi-structured interviews with senior managers and executives working within UK financial services to explore what mutuality means to them and where they feel its value lies. This thesis contributes to the mutuality literatures by addressing two research questions: “What does ‘mutuality’ mean to informants?” (and its associated sub-question around factors that can affect the extent of mutuality exhibited), and “Where does mutuality’s value lie in the minds of informants?”
Coding and matrix displays were used to thematically analyse informant responses, with Agency, Stakeholder and Stewardship Theories employed to discuss and explain findings. While all three theories are important in explaining responses, Stewardship Theory is particularly helpful in explaining the nature of the contracting relationship with key stakeholders.
Deriving meaning from mutuality relies on the individual having consciously entered into the “covenantal relationship” to uphold and protect the mutuality ideology, which appears to be based around: collective benefit, member ownership, customer focus and social purpose. In terms of value, there is a perceived benefit to customers that results from the different ways corporate decisions factor in profit and timeframe to achieve positive customer outcomes. There is an “other-regarding” element implied and expected from the business, the individual member (or principal) and the employee (or agent).
When viewed through an Agency Theory lens, there appears to be a wide variety of conflicts of interest between different member (i.e. principal) groups. But when a Stewardship Theory lens is applied, these conflicts of interest can be viewed more as duties of care towards fellow members and towards future generations of members. In this way, the mutual structure extends the relevance of stewardship behaviours, which are often confined within existing literature to management, onto members as well. That is, stewardship can also be considered from a member perspective. These findings have the potential to inform policy and practice-based debates around the modern public corporation and the concept of ownership, as well as having potential implications for the way stewardship is factored into accounting and reporting.