Leersamenvatting BICS: Artikelen
Week 1
Christensen and Laegried (2011)
Complexity and Hybrid Public Administration—Theoretical and Empirical Challenges
Reforms complement or supplement old ones rather than replacing hem. This means
more complexity. The balance between autonomy (NPM) and control (post-NPM)
creates hybridity: some parts of an organization focusing on autonomy, others on
control. This gives both complexity, tension and flexibility.
First, NPM made everything more autonomous and specialized. Post-NPM then
‘edited’ NPM and made everything more integrated and focused on control. This also
gives strong cultural complexity, because the norms and values diverse through NPM
and should be one again through post-NPM.
This article defines hybridity as potential tension or inconsistency between
diverse structural or cultural elements in an organization. Hybrid organizations
combine different tasks, values, and organization forms. This can produce unstable
trade-offs and tensions.
Reform processes are influenced by three factors: polity features, historical institutional
context, and environmental pressure. Polity factors can be tight with strong hierarchical
control, or loose with a lot of potential influence (for a reform). The historical institutional
context means the organization develops norms and values over time, which influence
a reform. This culture can be homo- or heterogenous. The last factor is environmental
pressure. This can be from the technical environment (about efficiency and production)
or from the institutional environment (about organizational structure and internal
culture). A danger from the institutional environment is an ‘empty’ reform that looks
good and increases legitimacy, but doesn’t actually help.
These three reform factors have a dynamic relationship. In the best case,
political and administrative leaders will make a reform that balances control and
autonomy, and receive support from different stakeholders which increases its
legitimacy. The cultural norms and values will support the reform. In the worst case,
hierarchical design of complexity can be involved in complex negotiations, a resistant
culture and employees, and counter-myths, which result in a lot of incoherent hybridity.
1
Week 1
Christensen and Laegried (2011)
Complexity and Hybrid Public Administration—Theoretical and Empirical Challenges
Reforms complement or supplement old ones rather than replacing hem. This means
more complexity. The balance between autonomy (NPM) and control (post-NPM)
creates hybridity: some parts of an organization focusing on autonomy, others on
control. This gives both complexity, tension and flexibility.
First, NPM made everything more autonomous and specialized. Post-NPM then
‘edited’ NPM and made everything more integrated and focused on control. This also
gives strong cultural complexity, because the norms and values diverse through NPM
and should be one again through post-NPM.
This article defines hybridity as potential tension or inconsistency between
diverse structural or cultural elements in an organization. Hybrid organizations
combine different tasks, values, and organization forms. This can produce unstable
trade-offs and tensions.
Reform processes are influenced by three factors: polity features, historical institutional
context, and environmental pressure. Polity factors can be tight with strong hierarchical
control, or loose with a lot of potential influence (for a reform). The historical institutional
context means the organization develops norms and values over time, which influence
a reform. This culture can be homo- or heterogenous. The last factor is environmental
pressure. This can be from the technical environment (about efficiency and production)
or from the institutional environment (about organizational structure and internal
culture). A danger from the institutional environment is an ‘empty’ reform that looks
good and increases legitimacy, but doesn’t actually help.
These three reform factors have a dynamic relationship. In the best case,
political and administrative leaders will make a reform that balances control and
autonomy, and receive support from different stakeholders which increases its
legitimacy. The cultural norms and values will support the reform. In the worst case,
hierarchical design of complexity can be involved in complex negotiations, a resistant
culture and employees, and counter-myths, which result in a lot of incoherent hybridity.
1
