hybrideorganisaties.nlGovernance-issues
The dichotomous approach
The dichotomous approach is the mainstream approach towards hybrid organizations in the Dutch discussion. Our world is understood as being dichotomous: cultural patterns of state and market are seen to oppose each other, and no compromise is possible. Starting from this dichotomous approach, one can argue that only two ideal types of organizations are possible, which are mostly labelled as task- versus market organizations. Task organizations on the one hand receive their tasks and means from a principal who decides about their output. Market organizations on the other hand have no clear principal but plural external relations. They are free to chose which goods or services to produce and to who to sell those.
One can also state that there is a fundamental difference between task and market organizations when it comes to their cultural orientations and value systems. Task organizations are driven (to use the terms introduced by Jane Jacobs) by a guardian syndrome, whereas market organizations are driven by a commercial syndrome. The first culture is associated with values such as discipline, hierarchy, loyalty and fatalism, whereas the latter culture is linked to values such as competition, initiative, entrepreneurship, efficiency and productivity.
These opposing core values insinuate that hybridity can only yield dangers and tensions. That is why dichotomous thinkers argue that public and private should be strictly separated. According to them, hybridity is the cause for a whole range of problems such as:
1. Role conflicts
2. Centrifugal tendencies (i.e. hybrid subcultures ripping the organization apart)
3. Loyalty conflicts due to double binds
4. Conflicts due to hybrid organizations neglecting tasks which do not generate much money.
5. Conflicts due to the combination of conflicting responsibilities.
Such a world view normally leads to the formulation of avoidance strategies based on negative values.
Approaches beyond the dichotomy
But there are also voices that are critical towards the exclusion of hybrid forms based on the dichotomous approach. They argue that hybrid organizations (providing they are adequately steered) can be viable and that hybridity can also have positive effects on organizational culture. They do not see cultural heterogeneity as a problem but as a solution to several dilemmas:
1. Increased communication Hybrids can function as interpreters between public and private cultures because they contain them both. Good communication with the private sector can tell the public sector much about the possible reactions on new legislation. And the private sector can try to influence legislation by communicating with the public one. This helps to reduce transaction costs.
2. Increased expertise In hybrid organizations experts from the public and the private realm combine their expertise.
3. Prevention of perverse effects Hybridity can avoid extreme bureaucratization and marketization.
4. Increased societal support In hybrid organizations public and private meet and decisions are made collectively. That leads to the increase in societal support for these decisions.
Limitations of both approaches
Both approaches seem to have their limitations. Additional research is needed to determine how to maximise the positive and to minimalise the negative effects of hybridity. Please have a look at the publications in the publications section of this website, where you can find texts attempting to answer these questions.
