Managing Institutional Complexity in Public Sector Reform: Hybridization in Front‐line Service Organizations

Fossestøl, Knut; Breit, Eric; Andreassen, Tone Alm; Klemsdal, Lars

doi:10.1111/padm.12144

Cited by 116 publications

(123 citation statements)

References 54 publications

(148 reference statements)

Supporting

Mentioning

120

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…These articles include those on: Norwegian labour and welfare reform (Fossestol et al. ); higher education reforms in Sweden, the UK, and the Netherlands (Teelken ); and reforms in Scotland and Ireland (McDermott et al. ).…”

Section: An Outline Of the Articlesmentioning

confidence: 99%

Understanding Hybridity in Public Organizations

Denis

Ferlie

Gestel

2015

Public Administration

260

245

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This article explores and extends the concept of hybridity to understand current changes in public services organizations, notably as seen from an organizational studies perspective. The notion of hybridity has become more important, given that the public sector increasingly blurs with other sectors and more social actors. Previous reliance on the use of ideal‐types in characterizing public services reforms has masked expanding heterogeneity. We here move beyond the (i) conventional focus on structural hybridity to consider (ii) institutional dynamics, (iii) social interactions, and (iv) new identities and roles in public services. Based on these four dimensions of hybridity, we review alternative theoretical frameworks. We suggest that bringing together work from the neighbouring disciplines of public administration and organization studies may improve our understanding of public services hybridity and outline a future research agenda.

show abstract

Section: An Outline Of the Articlesmentioning

confidence: 99%

Understanding Hybridity in Public Organizations

Denis

Ferlie

Gestel

2015

Public Administration

260

245

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…While for some scholars the co-existence of logics and the necessity to deal with different institutionalized demands -even if through compartmentalization -is sufficient to constitute hybridity (e.g., Fossestøl et al, 2015;Skelcher & Smith, 2015;Pache & Santos, 2013a), for others a certain mixing of elements is required (e.g., Battilana & Lee, 2014). Yet another group of scholars see complexity as a "precondition for hybridity, meaning that hybridity always implies some form of complexity" (Christensen, 2014, p. 163; see also Brandsen & Karré, 2011).…”

Section: Conceptual Background: Different Forms Of Hybriditymentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Waldorff, Reay, & Goodrick, 2013), in labor and welfare administration (e.g., Fossestøl, Breit, Andreassen, & Klemsdal, 2015), or in the identities of public-sector employees (e.g., Meyer & Hammerschmid, 2006). While the focus of attention has mostly been on organizational design and specific organizational phenomena, it has rarely been extended to the institutional framework -that is, to the question of how hybridity may affect the very architecture of the state and of public administration more broadly.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Institutional Hybridity in Public Sector Reform: Replacement, Blending, or Layering of Administrative Paradigms

Polzer¹,

Meyer

Höllerer

et al. 2016

Research in the Sociology of Organizations

102

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Abstract. Despite an abundance of studies on hybridization and hybrid forms of organizing, scholarly work has failed to distinguish consistently between specific types of hybridity. As a consequence, the analytical category has become blurred and lacks conceptual clarity. Our paper discusses hybridity as the simultaneous appearance of institutional logics in organizational contexts, and differentiates the parallel co-existence of logics from transitional combinations (eventually leading to the replacement of a logic) and more robust combinations in the form of layering and blending. While blending refers to hybridity as an 'amalgamate' with original components that are no longer discernible, the notion of layering conceptualizes hybridity in a way that the various elements, or clusters thereof, are added on top of, or alongside, each other, similar to sediment layers in geology. We illustrate and substantiate such conceptual differentiation with an empirical study of the dynamics of public sector reform. In more detail, we examine the parliamentary discourse around two major reforms of the Austrian Federal Budget Law in 1986 and in 2007/2009 in order to trace administrative (reform) paradigms. Each of the three identified paradigms manifests a specific field-level logic with implications for the state and its administration: bureaucracy in Weberian-style Public Administration, market-capitalism in New Public Management, and democracy in New Public Governance. We find no indication of a parallel co-existence or transitional combination of logics, but hybridity in the form of robust combinations. We explore how new ideas fundamentally build on -and are made resonant with -the central bureaucratic logic in a way that suggests layering rather than blending. The conceptual findings presented in our article have implications for the literature on institutional analysis and institutional hybridity.

show abstract

“…This article focuses on structural hybridity; while identity and role hybridity are also studied elsewhere, for example within the welfare and health sector (cf. Denis et al ; Fossestøl et al ; McDermott et al ). The growing literature on collaborative public management has tended to treat networks as distinct from hierarchies, but recent research has shown that when actors organize to reach policy goals in practice, traces from both organizing principles are present (McGuire ; McDermott et al ).…”

Section: Designing Collaborative Disaster Management: Hierarchy Netwmentioning

confidence: 99%

Disaster Management Collaboration in Turkey: Assessing Progress and Challenges of Hybrid Network Governance

Hermansson

2015

Public Administration

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Managing disasters generally demands multiorganizational collaboration and collaborative skills. In Turkey, observed shortcomings in disaster management collaboration prompted a reorganization of the disaster management system that led to the emergence of a centralized hybrid network. The network governance literature generally heralds decentralized organization and shared network governance, which facilitate collaboration by maximizing trust and legitimacy and minimizing power imbalances. Through the use of 24 semi-structured interviews, this article's objective is to assess the applicability of prior theoretical assumptions regarding interorganizational collaboration in a political-administrative context different from that in which they were originally developed. The study contributes to the theoretical discussion about how political-administrative system attributes might influence interorganizational disaster management collaboration. The results suggest that 'tailor-fitting' interorganizational network designs to the political-administrative culture can be beneficial for collaborative disaster management. Furthermore, results suggest that more effort should be devoted to examining cases where actors manage to overcome barriers to collaboration despite challenging institutional and political-administrative landscapes.

show abstract

Managing Institutional Complexity in Public Sector Reform: Hybridization in Front‐line Service Organizations

Cited by 116 publications

References 54 publications

Understanding Hybridity in Public Organizations

Understanding Hybridity in Public Organizations

Institutional Hybridity in Public Sector Reform: Replacement, Blending, or Layering of Administrative Paradigms

Disaster Management Collaboration in Turkey: Assessing Progress and Challenges of Hybrid Network Governance

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About