‘We are this hybrid’: Members’ search for organizational identity in an institutionalized public–private partnership
| Author | Stefanie C. Reissner |
| DOI | http://doi.org/10.1111/padm.12333 |
| Published date | 01 March 2019 |
| Date | 01 March 2019 |
SYMPOSIUM ARTICLE
‘We are this hybrid’: Members’search for
organizational identity in an institutionalized
public–private partnership
Stefanie C. Reissner
Newcastle University Business School,
Newcastle University, Newcastle upon
Tyne, UK
Correspondence
Stefanie C. Reissner, Newcastle University
Business School, Newcastle University,
5 Barrack Road, Newcastle upon Tyne NE1
4SE, UK.
Email: stefanie.reissner@newcastle.ac.uk
There has been significant scholarly interest in organizational
hybridity, the combination of multiple institutional logics in one
entity. However, the extant research has mainly studied the impli-
cations for organizations and individuals, neglecting the challenges
for organizational members as a collective. To mitigate, this article
examines how members of a British institutionalized public–private
partnership grapple with the question of what their organization
may be, highlighting the confusion they are experiencing and their
attempts to overcome it. Drawing on the concept of organizational
identity (theorized as the outcome of collective sensemaking), the
analysis identifies two mechanisms that recursively connect the
organization and its members. Relational positioning draws on pos-
sible configurations of institutional logics and associated identity
resources while discursive framing captures members’hopes and
expectations. The main contribution of this article is a better
understanding of collective sensemaking in hybrid organizations in
the light of institutional complexity.
1|INTRODUCTION
Despite keen scholarly interest in hybridity in the public sector (e.g., Brandsen and Karré 2011; Buffat 2014; Denis
et al. 2015; Skelcher and Smith 2015; Krøtel and Villadsen 2016), its implications for organizations and individuals
have been studied largely separately. One strand of literature examines hybrid organizations through institutional
logics (Battilana and Dorado 2010; Jay 2013), the ‘frames of reference that condition actors’choices for sensemak-
ing, the vocabulary they use to motivate action, and their sense of self and identity’(Thornton et al. 2012, p. 3). In
hybrid organizations, multiple such logics are combined, which are the state logic characterized by citizen ownership
and public service and the market logic dominated by shareholder ownership and managerial control (Billis 2010).
Such logics can be combined differently (Battilana and Lee 2014; Skelcher and Smith 2015), leading to ambiguity
and tension (Greenwood et al. 2011; Jay 2013). Another strand examines the impact of such institutional complexity
Received: 13 October 2016 Revised: 28 February 2017 Accepted: 28 March 2017
DOI: 10.1111/padm.12333
© 2017 The Author. Public Administration © 2017 John Wiley & Sons Ltd
48 wileyonlinelibrary.com/journal/padm Public Administration. 2019;97:48–63.
on professionals. Research in the health sector, for instance, establishes that individuals are often deeply challenged
by the introduction of managerial practices (Schott et al. 2014; Croft et al. 2015; McGivern et al. 2015; Spyridonidis
et al. 2015).
While these levels of analysis have been connected (Hebson et al. 2003; Rondeaux 2006, 2014; Buffat 2014),
there remains limited recognition of the interplay between the organizational and collective levels through sense-
making, the negotiation of joint meanings (Weick 2001). Organizations are made up of a heterogeneous group of
individuals, their members, who enact the organization based on their interpretations and understandings (Weick
1995). Such interconnectedness is central to institutional logics (Thornton and Ocasio 2008) but the extant research
has favoured the organizational level, neglecting members’perspectives (Denis et al. 2015; Bevort and Sud-
daby 2016).
Hence, this article examines the generation of organizational identity (OI), members’shared understanding of
who they are as an organization (Albert and Whetten 1985), theorized here as the outcome of collective sensemak-
ing (Fiol 1991). OI connects the organization and its members recursively: (1) While negotiating OI, members draw
on identity resources (Dhalla 2007), including institutional logics (Glynn 2008), to ensure that their understanding of
the organization matches its purpose and external expectations. (2) Once negotiated, OI shapes how members enact
the organization (Cornelissen et al. 2007).
Specifically, this article focuses on how institutional complexity (the ambiguity and tension inherent in hybridity;
Greenwood et al. 2011; Fossestøl et al. 2015) affects members as they seek to establish what their organization
may be. It is set in a British institutionalized public–private partnership (iPPP) called NorthService Ltd (all names are
pseudonyms), an independent legal entity created by local authority NorthCouncil (public partner) and publicly listed
firm ServiceCom plc (private partner). NorthService Ltd is an extreme case of public–private hybrid organization and
therefore a fruitful setting for examining the negotiation of OI in the midst of ambiguity and tension. The article is
guided by the following two questions: (1) What are the challenges that iPPP members face when negotiating OI?
(2) What are the mechanisms through which they seek to overcome them?
The findings indicate that a significant challenge for members is a lack of clarity of what their organization may
be. While understanding the premise of iPPPs, they struggle to negotiate what this means in practice. NorthService
members’sensemaking is captured in four coexisting accounts, reflecting different conceptualizations of iPPPs. The
two sensemaking mechanisms identified are (1) relational positioning by which members compare NorthService
Ltd’s form with those of the partners and their respective logics, and (2) discursive framing that captures their
expectations, allowing them to express what organization they seek to enact. The main contribution of this article is
a better understanding of collective sensemaking in hybrid organizations in the light of institutional complexity,
highlighting members’difficulties in enacting such entities.
2|THEORY
2.1 |Hybrid organizations, institutional logics and associated challenges
A drive towards efficiency in the public sector (Diefenbach 2009) has led to the creation of iPPPs (Marques and
Berg 2011). They are independent legal entities (Borys and Jemison 1989), formed as strategic partnerships or joint
ventures between a public and a private organization (Skelcher 2005) with both partners having authority and influ-
ence (Vining et al. 2014). iPPPs combine contradictory elements that are central and persistent and they can there-
fore be classed as hybrid organizations (see Battilana and Lee 2014). Since the label ‘hybrid’has been applied to
various kinds of public–private cooperation (Denis et al. 2015; Skelcher and Smith 2015), its use in iPPPs warrants
further exploration.
Organizational hybridity has been widely theorized in terms of institutional logics (e.g., Jay 2013; Pache and
Santos 2013; Skelcher and Smith 2015; for alternative theorizations see Ashworth et al. 2013; Denis et al. 2015) in
REISSNER 49
To continue reading
Request your trial