We propose a novel approach to theorizing hybridity in public and nonprofit organizations. The concept of hybridity is widely used to describe organizational responses to changes in governance, but the literature seldom explains how hybrids arise or what forms they take. Transaction cost and organizational design literatures offer some solutions, but lack a theory of agency. We use the institutional logics approach to theorize hybrids as entities that face a plurality of normative frames. Logics provide symbolic and material elements that structure organizational legitimacy and actor identities. Contradictions between institutional logics offer space for them to be elaborated and creatively reconstructed by situated agents. We propose five types of organizational hybridity – segmented, segregated, assimilated, blended, and blocked. Each type is theoretically derived from empirically observed variations in organizational responses to institutional plurality. We develop propositions to show how our approach to hybridity adds value to academic and policy-maker audiences.

VIVIEN LOWNDES AND CHRIS SKELCHERMulti-organizational partnerships are now an important means of governing and managing public programmes. They typically involve business, community and not-for-profit agencies alongside government bodies. Partnerships are frequently contrasted with competitive markets and bureaucratic hierarchies. A more complex reality is revealed once partnerships as an organizational form are distinguished from networks as a mode of social co-ordination or governance. Data from studies of UK urban regeneration partnerships are used to develop a four-stage partnership life cycle: pre-partnership collaboration; partnership creation; partnership programme delivery; and partnership termination. A different mode of governancenetwork, market or hierarchy -predominates at each stage. Separating organizational form from mode of governance enables a richer understanding of multiorganizational activity and provides the basis from which theory and practice can be developed. The key challenge for partnerships lies in managing the interaction of different modes of governance, which at some points will generate competition and at other points collaboration.

cooperate to achieve common goals, working across boundaries in multisector relationships.. for collaborative leadership in the public sector. There has been increasing research into coordination of public organizations, collaboration between them both within the public sector and bringing public and . Working Across Boundaries: Barriers, Enablers, Tensions and. Working Across Boundaries: Value, Innovation and Partnership. notions of collaborative public management have tended to dominate Christensen and removal of policy contradictions, or the brining together of a range of services in one. How leaders from across public services can work together better. Working Across Boundaries. Collaboration in Public Services. Helen Sullivan, Chris Skelcher. Working Across Boundaries Enlarge. Hardcover 288 pages. PDF Collaborative futures Available in the National Library of Australia collection. Author: Sullivan, Helen Helen C. Format: Book xii, 271 p.: ill. 23 cm. Helen Sullivan -Google Scholar Citations commissioned this literature review on partnership working in public services,. Working across boundaries: Collaboration in public services, Basingstoke. Working across boundaries: collaboration in public services / Helen. By Helen Sullivan in Collaboration, public policy, UK. In the UK collaboration between governments, businesses and teh voluntary and community sectors is Mar 24, 2015.

This paper investigates the relationship between representative democracy and governance networks at a theoretical level. It does so by offering four conjectures and their implications for theory and practice. The incompatibility conjectures rests on the primacy of politics and sees governance networks as a threat. The complementarity conjecture presents governance networks as a means of enabling greater participation in the policy process and sensitivity in programme implementation. The transitional conjecture posits a wider evolution of governance forms towards network relationships. The instrumental conjecture views governance networks as a powerful means through which dominant interests can achieve their goals. Illustrative implications for theory and practice are identifi ed, in relation to power in the policy process, the public interest, and the role of public managers. The heuristic potential of the conjectures is demonstrated through the identifi cation of an outline research agenda. PROBLEMATICS OF DEMOCRACY AND NETWORKSAcademics, policy-makers and public managers across Europe are devoting considerable attention to the problem of understanding, infl uencing and working through governance networks. We use the term ' governance network ' to describe public policy-making and implementation through a web of relationships between government, business and civil society actors. The order of the words ' governance ' and ' network ' is important here. Our usage -governance network -emphasizes that the network relationships we are considering are specifi cally those concerned with governance, that is the articulation, resolution and realization of public values in society. The alternative (and more usual) word order -network governancewe see as being a higher level concept associated with a particular mode of societal organization, which is usually contrasted with market and hierarchy. Governance networks are associated with new systems for public policy deliberation, decision and implementation ( Pierre and Peters 2000; Koppenjan and Klijn 2004 ). They are based on interdependencies, but not necessarily equity, between public, private and civil society actors. They move beyond the institutionalized peak bargaining of corporatism to more dispersed, fl exible and, in some cases, transparent modes of agenda setting, policy-making and implementation. Governance networks are often