The Impact of Hybrid Government Organizations to County Human Resources Initiatives
The characteristics of hybrid-type of government organizations can be deciphered as not aligning with local county lines possessing characteristics of both government and private sectors performing a singular function such as hospice, fire or flood protection, or recreation and are funded by tax levies.
Though there are several literatures of scholarly works which argue on the benefits of this kind of organization, the study will be focused on the problems which may be instigated by such organizations in relation to human resources functions. The discussion then will shift further than the current and most popular topic of how to control hybrid organizations and address constituent satisfaction.Hypothesis
Hybrid-type governmental organizations decrease effectiveness of county human resources initiatives. Significance of the Study Hybrid governmental organizations are topics of great debate over what constitutes the organization let alone the effects on other organizations within the government. Census reports have shown an increase in special districts (from of hybrid government) ranging from 31-849 (Cigler Ervin 1995). As these organizations tend to grow larger, it is the responsibility of the human resources manager to research and determine courses of action to mitigate impacts or take advantage of successes.
Subsequently, this study will provide an instrument for managers to garner knowledge in the topic of hybrid organizations and effects on human resources operations. As the topic is not well researched the significance of this study increases and may very well spark the interest of human resources offices.The Emergence of Hybrid Organizations
Koppell (2003) says that hybrid-type of organizations have become an interesting subject tackled by public administration scholars as this type of organization is an increasingly common feature of the governmental landscape (p.3). Karre (2010) says that hybrid organizations are not a new phenomenon as it traces its roots back in the 1700s, the era in which the first hybrid organization existed, the Dutch West-Indian Company or the British East India Company (Hybridity and Hybrid Organizations, para. 2). The rise of hybrid firms can be explicated as the result of a direct endeavour to manage and comply with the requirements of environmental uncertainty and episodic motions.
There are many distinctions pertaining to hybridization as organizational arrangements which utilize, particularly non-market, non-bureaucratic arrangements including joint ventures, strategic alliances and other forms of collaborations. Although there is no basic consensus on how to signify organizational hybrids, their definitions converge on the conceptual ground stating that they are combinations of disparate elements- structural or institutional-that represent modes of more of less formal adaptation to environmental uncertainty (Hasenfeld, 2009). A distinct and potent chapter in the proliferation of hybrid-type of governments can be rooted from the aftermath of the terrorist attacks in the World Trade Center and the Pentagon. Koppell (2003) says, after the 911 tragedy, the attention was shifted on the failure of the private firms charged with securing Americas aviation system (p. 1). The incident then forced the Bush administration to assume the responsibility for screening passengers and their luggage, a function being mobilized low-paid employees of private security firms hired by individual airlines (Koppell, 2003, p.1).
Koppell (2003) adds that the development was quite striking inasmuch as President George W. Bush followed in the tradition of Ronald Reagan, calling for a smaller federal government and increased responsibility for the private sector (p. 1). Such incident then was followed by a proposal that a government corporation be established to preventing another devastating scenario which can cause the lives of millions of people (Koppell, 2003).
It is in this inefficiency issue that the government was able to formulate a contingency plan of engaging into a new class of hybrid organizational structure which has been existing since early 1990s and conceptualized in the late 1980s. A hybrid organization is defined as a body that functions in both the public sector and the private sector, simultaneously accomplishing public duties and developing commercial market activities aiming at the common good (Edwards, 2008).
Majority of hybrids are considered to be privately-owned and profit-seeking businesses which generally charged fees for the services they render, allowing them to cover the cost of their operations and are exempted from many of the laws and regulations that apply to government agencies which give them the freedom and flexibility to pursue organizational goals and objectives (Koppell, 2003).
For Karre (2010), a hybrid organization is a distinctive kind of organization that operates in a multicultural environment. Both definitions pointing at hybridity of a certain body conjure with the concept of combining the interface of the public and private sector. At present, people rely on hybrid organizations for waste, housing and security purposes.
A particular kind of hybrid organizations is the government corporations. Government corporations are legal entities established by a government to carry out commercial activities on behalf of certain owners of government. They are usually deemed to be a relevant part of the state. Koppell (2003) adds that hybrid-type of organizations are the institutions which appear like private firms when it comes to form and function, except that their funding , ownership and control structures are under public jurisdiction.
In this conception, the issue of bureaucratic control to government corporations appear in the picture and escalates the idea that this form of organizations are less likely to satisfy their principals preferences and therefore are less efficient than government agencies. As such is said because basic connotation regarding quasi-government is that it is mixture of both a part of government and a commercial enterprise which posits ba significant synergy impacts and risks (Edwards, 2008).
Quasi-governments are controversial in nature for they are a complex entities which are divided into quasi-official agencies government-sponsored enterprises, federally-funded research and development corporations agency-related non-profit organizations venture capital funds congresssionally-chartered non-profit organizations, and instrumentalities of indeterminate character (Kosar, 2008).
A whole range of hybrid organizations usually operate in between three coordinating mechanisms which are the government, profit, and non-profit aspects and the organizations success among the three is difficult to decipher as state or market, profit or non-profit, public or private, or as governmental or non-governmental (van Tulder van der Zwart, 2006). The confusion in the organizational success is due to societal complexity and the complicated issues between commercial success and public good and the internal complexity of the hybrid-type of structure particularly the human resource.
Amid the vague confusion in the effectiveness of this type of organization, it is said that most relevant hybrid organizations perceived as businesses do not function in an environment entirely reliant on market principles. It has been recorded by the scholars in both the enterprise and public administration that though the mechanisms of the hybrid organizations are somewhat controversial, the organizations represent a large part-two-thirds or more-of the whole economy (van Tulder van der Zwart, 2006).
Karre (2010) has rendered several reasons behind the increase in the number of hybrid organizations amid the concurrent conflicts on their structures and they are as follows
Erosion of authority
Autonomization
Re-introduction of market forces
Speed of change
Lack of funding
Karre (2010) adds that the given factors are representations of the weak and synergy effects sprouting from combining public and commercial duties which bring about the risk of unfair competition and the notion that market activities could oust public activities.
Politically speaking, the current popularity of the quasi-government option can be identified to at least four major elements in according to Kosar (2008) and these are
The current controls on the federal budget process that persuade agencies to establish new sources of revenues.
The desire of advocates coming from agencies and programs to be exempted from central management laws, particularly statutory ceilings on personnel and compensation.
The modern appeal of generic, economic-focused values as the main basis for the development of a new public management.
The belief or knowledge that flexibility necessitates entity-specific laws and regulations, even at the cost of fewer accountability to representative institutions.
The emergence of hybrid organizations can be explained with the core competency theory. It is noted that the increasing competitive pressure instigates an organizations management to optimize the synchronization between entrepreneurial actions, the services provided and the competitive management of the hybrids. Core competencies can be primarily an organizations technical, capitalistic, public service and organizational capabilities.
Hybrid arrangements tend to violate the balance between public aims and private goals due to influencing factors that impact the structure of such organizations. The influencing factors dissolve entrepreneurial boundaries of the organizations and Picot, Reichwald, and Wigand (2008) say that they are
-average specificity of tasks
-High degree of uncertainty in the environment
-changes in the transaction conditions and atmosphere
-capitalism elements
As hybrid organizations tends to shift more on public service which is its basic mission, government organizations may instigate imbalance as they try to dissolve entrepreneurial tasks with the human resource or the manpower being confused whether to follow the value systems of public service or the systems of private sector. This factor affects the efficiency of organizations as they are not directed towards a straight and concrete function.
It has been said that they are some scholars who believe that hybrids are grounded on the mismatch between noble public service aim and the structural goals and mission of private organizations. But given this reason, high-task uncertainty seemed to be a complete justification for the presence of hybrids. High uncertainty is reflected on the unpredictable and frequent changes in the delivery of services in the governmental realm. As the risk becomes higher, it entails a hybrid arrangement of in which alliances are created to make the organizations efficient internally and externally.
The Governance of Hybrid Organizations
Hybrid forms of organizations engage private, public, for-profit, and non-profit elements with entrepreneurial, administrative and managerial orientations and such fusion reflects the basic changes in the aspect of institutional infrastructure of modern communities and creates uncertainties in the boundaries of the roles of government, business enterprises, and the modern civil society. The governance of hybrid organizations is directed on the search for the right balance between market principles and state regulation.
The increased presence of the hybrid-type of organizations are relative to the idea of reconciling profit optimization with social responsibility, generate commercial revenue to subsidize a certain public purpose, not holistically relying on tax revenue or an organization produced by businesses that aim to maximize the full potential of social benefit over than pecuniary returns.
The problems on the governance of hybrid organization arise from the presence of various rationales with underlying value dispositions which often result to vague objective functions different criteria or organizational performance leading to divergent evaluations the instability on the entrepreneurial and administrative orientations and complex reporting of legal requirements (Kosar, 2008).
The issues related with the quasi-agencies tend to be connected with their legal status. As the definition of hybrid organizations is that they are the fusion of private and government sectors, the organizations may find conflict in their interest to assert public and private status. Their search for that distinct kind of status is paired with the presumption of permitting considerable autonomy from regular lines of accountability to managerial agencies such as the General Accounting Office.
Quasi or hybrid agencies may sometimes be highly political and subject to pressures not different from that encountered by regular executive agencies. As the constitutional paradigm model of management applied by hybrid agencies remains still at the basis of laws and accountability structures, the highest value in this public law model of management is the political accountability for the execution of governmental power. In this model, the President is the chief manager of the laws on general management and the budget operations.
The application of this type of unitary executive structure, combined with the authority and accountability hooked on hierarchical figure, was a theory upholding the President as the chief manager of the administrative system wherein governmental and private sectors cooperated with obedience but were held legally distinct in the interests of protecting the rights of the citizens against any arbitrations from the government or the administration.
The organizations which do not partake in the executive arm of the government, but having the attributes of governmental status were viewed with suspicion as aberrations violating the constitution lurking between the public and private sectors. These values of management applied by the hybrid agencies were challenged in the 1960s by the emergence of new management theory or the public choice theory which found its expression in the election of political leaders who are committed to market principles over public service aims (Kosar, 2008). The supporters of this new kind of entrepreneurial management paradigm pursued their values, concepts and perspectives of international management within the rubric of NPM and domestically as part of the National Performance Review (NPR).
The NPM critics argue that the centrality of public law is outplayed by the centrality of economic axioms the focus of management, once the citizen, is now the customer and departmental integration as the norm is displaced by agency dispersion and managerial autonomy (Kosar, 2008).
Many scholars believe that the governance of hybrid organizations is deeply impacted by applied paradigms which are in conflict due to varying principles and beliefs regarding the thin line between providing public service and providing services pointed at capitalistic aims and goals. Apart from the given reason, the confusion between commercial hierarchy and public common structure entails a more critical view of the human resource which constitutes a certain hybrid organization. It is recorded that the issues in the governance of hybrid forms of organizations are cemented on the conceptualization that such forms of organizations are dichotomous in nature.
Karre (2010) says that Dichotomy depicts the established fact that the cultural patterns of state and market are seen to oppose each other in terms of organizational structure, aims, and laws and there seems to be no room for any compromise (Governance Issues, para. 1). The uncertainty existing among hybrid organizations is supported by studies and research in the United States which reflected that quasi-public structures are commonly difficult for legislators to control because their governance is sidetracked by the confusion between the application of corporate and public authorities (Koppell, 2003).
According to Kosar (2010), the dichotomous approach to hybridity says that the problems connected with the hybrid-type of organizations include
Role conflicts
Centrifugal tendencies such as the notion that hybrid subcultures are ripping the organization apart.
Loyalty conflicts because of double binds.
Conflicts due to the negligence of hybrid organizations in doing tasks which do not generate more money.
Conflicts because of highly-complex conflicting responsibilities.
However, there are some characteristics which hybrid-type of organizations possess that sets them apart from the traditional organizations which have the same goals. Though there are uncertainty and decreased confidence in the efficiency of hybrid government organizations, they are directed on producing experimental investments in new business strategies without worrying on the potential economic return and they practice openness to both in their services and processes which make it easier for other organizations to venture on alternative strategies in various areas with potentially massive benefit for the public.
Management of the Hybrid Organizations
The set-up of hybrid organizations, in which several sovereign organizations are being fused together to pursue common interests, eventually lead to value pluralism (Karre, 2010). Public administration scholars have long viewed that there is a finite question regarding the management of hybrid organizations for they are long been surrounded by conflicting paradigms.
It is said that the structure and management of hybrid organizations are basically grounded on the innate desire of organizational leadership of the governmental and private sector to search for a maximum autonomy in matters of policy and operations (Kosar, 2008).
Hybrid organizations, though they possess some of the advantages such as tax support and other public and governmental characteristics, have indeed attracted critics in terms of their efficiency and the capacity to beneficially merge public service with private aims. Human resources questions arise through the disparities in the structure of hybrid organizations.
The legal characteristics of hybrid organizations conjure with their mission to implement public policy functions commonly assigned to executive departments and agencies. The preference for the hybrid organizations has been inclined with the designation of administrative responsibilities to newly established independent organizations or to the hybrid-type of organizations having the distinct characteristics of public and private sectors. There is a growing concern on the structure of this type of organizations also known as quasi-governments because there is an uncertainty with its democratic governance.
The relationship between the burgeoning quasi-governments to elected and appointed officials posit the question on to whom are the hybrid government organizations accountable and how is the public interest being protected over and against the interest of the private sector. This query is supported by the fact that there is a definitional irregularity in the discussion of quasi-governments.
It is already evident that the scholars are at one in declaring that the traditional tools for holding executive agencies accountable to any circumstances such as the budget and general management laws, are not that applicable in most of instances, often making hybrid organizations acquire their own freedom to continue institutional courses which may or may not conform to the public interest as defined by the nationss elected leadership (Kosar, 2008).
Koppell (2003) says, an expert of the General Accounting Office (GAO) testified before the Congress concerning the agencys survey of possible structures of the new security agency and said that the screening of performance and accountability would improve under the jurisdiction of a government corporation and that certain entity would be more flexible and less bureaucratic than a federal agency (p. 1).
Under the New Public Management (NPM) movement which gained its popularity in the 1980s that the fusion of governmental and private sectors is seriously critiqued based on the knowledge that the governmental and private sectors differ from each other essentially and are subject to the same, economic and behavioural norms and practices (Kosar 2008).
The structure and control of hybrids is based on the basic action of splitting the responsibility between two entities. Quasi-governments do not merely transfer policy responsibility from a traditional executive agency to a specific hybrid organization. The concept of implementer and a regulator are the two entities in which the implementer is deemed to be the deliverer of goods and services and utilize market-oriented mechanisms like loan guarantees or direct investments to be able to accomplish public policy goals and the regulator serves to maintain a specific hybrid organization as an effective substitute for a government agency (Koppell, 2003, p. 142).
In the concept of implementer and regulator, the regulation, structure, and control of hybrids are validated by a feature or deformation in which market goals overtake public interest and neglects pure public service for the sake of capitalistic gains. The deformation in the market entails the intervention of government to be able to make the services offered by organizations highly beneficial to the society. In the aspect of government regulation, it is already assumed that the government is the regulator of rules and regulations while the governed entity or body is a hybrid organization.
It is written that in that in Wilson and Rachal argument, it was declared that controlling hybrid institutions is more difficult than handling private organizations (Koppell, 2003). The presumption was basically because private organizations had their own set of concrete boundaries and operational limitations whereas with the public institutions, they had a vast and widening roles to play, internal and external interconnections, and their level of jurisdiction is far greater than private organizations.
Following the 1977 argument of Wilson and Rachal, the effectiveness of inta-governmental regulation has gained relevance in the field of public administration for two reasons and according to Koppell (2003) they are
-The increase in federal reliance on state and local government for program implementation.
-The utilization of hybrid organizations has put a premium on governments ability to ensure performance through regulation because otherwise, public policy goals may go unaccomplished.
According to Wilson and Rachal, they are inherent difficulties in the intra-government regulation and in applying the difficulties in the realm of hybrid organizations, Koppell
(2003) says that Wilson and Rachal have these crucial points
1. The mentioned scholars overstate that regulators of hybrid organizations do not have the power to cut off funds. In this scenario, both Wilson and Rachal overshadowed the fact that there are regulators which have been efficient in their undertakings even if they fall short of the ability to cut off funds. Also, some of the regulators have the necessary tools including the coherent set of operational instruments that show authority and power to enforce regulations or contractual agreements.
2. In the subject of the competing goals, the dilemma on competing goals is said to be more acute for hybrid organizations in which most of the vexing problems of competing aims are certainly grounded on profit or finance. Wilson and Rachal agreed that the mutual independence seems to be more problematic in the hybrids due to their potential political power. The political capacity of hybrids is what gives them the edge to undermine their regulators and stimulate the problem on the means of control.
It is noted that the two factors mentioned by Wilson and Rachal make hybrid-type of organizations appear to be more susceptible and vulnerable to difficulties of intragovernmental regulation (Koppell, 2003).
The onset of the New Public Management movement sidetracked by the actions towards the privatization or governmental agencies and programs is considered to be reigning orthodoxy in the field of public administration. It is in this movement that the search for the reinvention of some executive branch of the government in which they are combined with corporate style and entrepreneurial structures has been of high regard due to the noted strengths of the entrepreneurial management mixed with social or public service.
It is recorded that the strength of the entrepreneurial management evident in numerous hybrid organization can be found on the flexibility it renders to managers to be able to improve their performance and consequently, the performance of their agencies. The definition of performance in the concept of entrepreneurship is commonly measured in the output derived from the quality of their work or the results of their efficiency tests rather than in conformance to process regulations (Kosar, 2008). This thought translates to the need of risk-taking by managers to be able to reach improved performance.
Organizational Structure of Hybrids
It is said that the human resource management in the hybrid form of organizations may either be in the form of divisional or centralized pattern in which there is a greater concern on functional support and economies of scale. As it is noted that no structure is without difficulties, the human resource structure of hybrid organizations has become a critical landscape to be debated by scholars due to the era of knowledge explosion and the effects of rapid globalization to public administration and the field of human resource management.
It is in the era of globalization that the existence of hybrid form of organization is justified and made imperfect due to various kind of organizations structure which have sprouted to conjure with the massive and tight competition within the market and the governmental services. The hybrid concept applied by agencies is a vivid representation of how they confront todays needs with the merging of various concepts, structure, and components to be applied particularly in the aspect of human resource.
The current organizational designs applied by hybrid organizations in the human resource functions are by far considered to be functional or divisional and what is commonly noted as the hybrid collaboration of the two (Molander Winterton, 1994). According to Molander and Winterton (1994), employees and activities are grouped together according to their function and the coordination efforts of different quasi-independent operations are at the top of the functional structure (p. 20).
With the functional organization structure, all human knowledge, information and skills are consolidated which render a valuable depth of knowledge for hybrid organizations. This organizational design is mostly effective when an in-depth expertise is crucial and when efficiency is strongly relevant in meeting organizational goals when a particular organization needs to be controlled and coordinated through vertical hierarchy.
In this structure, the control is exercised from the top commonly by a senior management group drawn from the operating functions and these people are not necessarily in a position to think corporately, but are destined to represent their own function and partake in the organizational matters such as budget allocation (Molander Winterton, 1994, p. 21).
Figure I. Functional Organization Structure (Molander and Winterton, 1994, p. 21)
The strength of the functional structure lies in its promotion of economy of scale within functions and this scale results when all employees are located in the same place and can share facilities. The main drawback of this organizational design is that it does not conjure with the dynamic environment of public administration and entreprise because innovation is slow and managers are commonly not adept to environmental changes due to poor coordination.
The second type of organizational design is the divisional structure commonly tagged as constituting of strategic business units (Daft, 2009). It is in this divisionalized structure of organization that the form of grouping activities is larger and is according to productservices or output. Compared with the functional organization design, it is noteworthy enough that the coordination in this model takes place within divisions (Molander Winterton, 1994).
It is said that the divisional structure offers many advantages for the traditional form. The divisional or product structure enables efficient production because major and crucial decisions are brought nearer to the point of action and this scenario relieves top management time for more strategic and crucial matters. In addition to this strategic movement, profit responsibility and is assigned to divisions which lets the organizations top activities to be evaluated separately and this kind of assessment is an important aid on how to allocate investments responsibly.
Figure II. Divisional Organization Structure (Molander Winterton, 1994, p. 22)
The divisional structure has the capacity to be responsive to the needs of production units and create a more ready response to the recognition and satisfaction of the dynamic and changing needs of the customers a critical element in the organizations survival (Molander Winterton, 1994). Adding to the strengths of this organizational design, it is viewed that the divisional design is much more appropriate in a severely changing environment that needs to adapt in the dynamic preferences of the society.
One main drawback of this organizational design is that there may not always be a vivid superior ground on which to establish divisions due to many consequences of divisionalization. For instance, divisionalization may entail poor coordination and even open competition among the separate divisions dealing with the same clients or consumers. In addition, the divisionalization in a certain organization may instigate conflicts concerning the allocation of new investment and other organizational matters such as the utilization and funding of shared central services.
Also, division-type of structure maybe subjected to poor coordination as divisions themselves may grow too large and highly diversified with the result that such divisions can n longer present an appropriate grouping of activities or services around a monotype business area.
The hybrid form of government agencies take into account the merger of different structures or designs as it is pointed towards the creation of public goods with tax revenue and the regulation of businesses to be able to prevent the profiteering from harming citizens. One type of mixed structure incorporates various types of logics of grouping activities side by side. The onset of hybrid organizational structures are mainly due to the fact that the many firms combine the advantages of both the functional and divisional to come up with hybridity as an answer to environmental uncertainties and challenges.
The mixed or hybrid structure combines the characteristics of both organizational designs in which there is a decentralization and centralization of functions.
As the hybrid structure of organizations uses both the divisional and functional paradigms alongside different models of structures, the human resource management scheme is quite challenged by the requirements of this type of structure.
Koppell (2003) says that the hybrid or mixed structure is a complicated structure and one that is more vexing than traditional agencies. This notion supports the fact that hybrid organizations are more difficult to manage in terms of accountability and control. In comparing hybrid organizations to traditional government agencies in the domains of export promotion, housing and international development, it has been argued that hybrid-type of government agencies are harder to control due to the fact that they are existing like independent organizations and not as extensions of administrative agencies (Koppell, 2003).
Figure III. The Mixed Organization Structure (Molander and Winterton, 1994, p. 23)
In addition to the assessment of hybrid institutions, Koppell (2003) argues that hybrids are intrinsically less reactive on political preferences of those in authority. Hybrids also continue to explicate that as policy tools, may seem unfit for some tasks and risks. The hybrid or mixed structure poses a lot of uncertainties especially for the employees who would have to live through the complexity of the management and the doubtful logic behind the establishment of hybrid organization.
Another term for the hybrid structure is the matrix structure. In this distinct form of of hybrid structure, multiple command system is exercised accompanied by characteristics of both the functional and divisional organizational designs. In this design, functional specialization and product or divisional structures are combined (Hitt, Ireland, Hoskisson, 2008). An organization which utilizes a matrix structure faces drawbacks arising from the having two types of structures existing simultaneously which render staff and employees two bosses and make them work under the jurisdiction of two chains of commands.
One of these two chains of command can either be functional or divisional and while the other chain of command is a horizontal overlay that mixes staff from different divisions or functional arena into a business project or endeavour to be led by a project of group manager who has an expertise in the teams preferred area of specialization. There is also the delegation of authority at the matrix level which can help in motivating and developing managers in below the senior level and may in fact offer the additional motivation which sources out from working in teams (Child, 1984).
The concept of the matrix structure is to avoid the risks and weaknesses of both the functional and divisional forms by means of improved information processing that eases the task of providing essential and technical information among the members of the hybrid organizations. One of the consequences of the matrix management is that it is costly due to complicated chains of command as well as time consuming. With this kind of structure , it said that fixing responsibility is often more difficult than in the conventionalized agencies and the personnels involved often experienced issues concerning conflicting loyalties.
Direct of line reporting relationships
Staff or dotted-line relationship
Figure IV. Line and Staff Reporting Relationships in Hybrid Organizations( Molander Winterton, 1994, p.24)
The Impact of Hybridization to Human Resource
Investing in the future and continuing to recruit or retain strong personnel is a major role of the human resources strategic plan. The economy will eventually turn around and organizations must have competent and competitive employees on staff in order to insure financial success. Losey, Meisinger, Ulrich (2005) titled Section Five of their book Rethink Organizations as Capabilities not Structures (p. 195) and identified that HR functions have become more of a holistic approach to the effectiveness and efficiency of an organization.
With the downturn of the economy and the slow progression upward, we must rethink how we operate and bring innovative thinking into every aspect of our organization. Brazeel and Well state, There has never been a more pressing time for HR professionals and leaders to develop a long term workforce strategy for their organizations (2009, p. 2). The question is evident then, how can human resources managers invest in an employee that is providing a county service, yet is not under the control of the county or aligned with the county strategic plan
Hybrid governmental organizations have the inherent structure that does not allow the ability to specifically define boundaries of service as they often cover multiple counties and portions of those surrounding larger more built up counties. Under this structure tracking tax dollar execution is almost void and many believe the creation of these organizations is to operate below the surface and provide a smoke screen for government activities that otherwise would come under greater public scrutiny (Janiskee, 2004, p. 92).
Others, however, believe that these hybrid organizations are a tool that helps meet the needs of the citizen located in the complex local bureaucracy. Daniel Elazar states that these organizations are attempting to maintain local autonomy vis a vis the machinations of state and federal governments (1987, p. 119).
Lorch adds to this discussion by stating, Government by special district is government by bits and pieces-fragmented government. (2001, p. 258). Even at the national level these organizations have sprung up, as the President has utilized organizations like Fannie Mae and the National Park Foundation to implement public policy (Moe, 2001).
Regardless of the reason and purpose of the hybrid government, the phenomenon or assumption exists that they are government organizations. Furthermore, as these organizations provide a service to the community they have the potential to impact the strategic plan of the county human resources offices or divisions. As such, this provides the perfect opportunity to conduct research in order to ascertain the extent of this impact.
Challenges in the Hybrid Organizations
Critics are at one in proposing that hybrid organizations in existing with various orgainzational designs or structure basically breached the wall that divides the governmental and private sectors. This action is not just being done for the sake of managerial convenience , but as a matter of policy making government entrepreneurs forge a web of public and private partnerships.
It has been an already accepted fact that the debate between the competing management paradigms is over relevant issues such as the legitimacy and usage of the quasi government or hybrid government agencies and is likely to become a finite issue within the subject of entrepreneurship and public administration (Kosar, 2008). Given this conception, human resource managers are continually being confronted with issues concerning the application of corporate law, legal paradigms, workforce performance, and the blurred image of public service as it ventures with capitalism.
As the issue on hybridity of government agencies tend to cross the boundaries between public and private sectors, traditional public law and entrepreneurial paradigms tend to express attitudes that send quasi-government at odds.
With the conflicting issues regarding the hybrid-type of organizations, human resource are at risk when it comes to work efficiency. It is said that apart from the issue aggravating the complicated environment of organizations, employees in the hybrid landscape suffer from the vagueness of role and objectives in the workplace. Child (1984) affirms this grueling fact by stating that it is not clear how roles can be further specified without threatening the flexibility that is one of the main advantages of the hybrid system.
Aside from stress and threat, employees succumb themselves to the tight and rigid atmosphere that comes with the presence of bureaucracy (Child, 1984). Bureaucratism and the multiplication of hierarchies entail massive paperwork and employees are often left with no choice but to themselves with the demands of industrial conflict and suffers the consequences of being under the jurisdiction of the merger of public and private agencies.
The hybridity of government agencies are at odds due to conflicting parties which continue to divulge on the consequences sprouting from the fusion of governmental and private sectors. Kosar (2008) imparts his view on this oddity by saying that those advocating entrepreneurial management tend to put high value on managerial flexibility and the setting of numerical performance standards. In addition, Kosar (2008) declares that many critics and scholars do not believe in principle to hierarchical leadership structures and focus on the desirability of change and managerial risk-taking.
Contrasting this scenario, supporters of the public law approach to the management validates the fact that the main goal of government management is to implement the laws passed by Congress and not necessarily to maximize performance or to satisfy clients or customers (Kosar, 2008).
The conflicting issues on hybrid agencies makes the workplace complicated for the employees who happen to be under the authority of public and private sectors. Child (1984) says that employees in the hybrid or mixed structures often suffer from the threat of occupational identity and are getting stressed out from the critical requirements of hybrid organizations. According to Child (1984), other sources of anxiety derive from the conflict that reporting to more than one superior can engender, and from the ambiguity about what is expected and predicted which the fluidity of the matrix form tends to advocate.
Human Resource Initiatives in Hybrid Organizations
The human resource management is grounded on its main purpose to manage the constituents or the people who run an organization just as organizations must efficiently and effectively manage their capital, physical and information resources (York, 2009). As organizations must recruit, select, and retain qualified people to do relevant tasks, the human resource department establishes initiatives that may indirectly or directly contribute to the ongoing challenges being met by the hybrid-type of organizations.
Within the rubric of the conflicting relationship between public agencies and private sector under the modern public administration structure, came the idea of the compromise between the two separate entities affecting the human resource initiatives such as recruiting, hiring, retaining, and performance grading.
Armstrong (2000) provides distinct barriers to the implementation of human resource strategies and initiatives (p. 97) and these are
Employees tend to be hostile to initiatives if they are perceived to be in conflict with the organizations identity
2. Employees view an initiative as a threat to career growth and flourishment.
3. There are inconsistencies in the achievement of public service goals done through corporate mechanisms.
4. Bureaucratic culture that leads to inertia
5. Employees perceived fairness of a certain initiatives
Other major barriers which according to Armstrong (2000) should be confronted and by human resource strategist in a certain hybrid environment (p. 98) include
failure to understand the strategic necessities of the organization with the result that human resource strategic initiatives are viewed as irrelevant or even counterproductive
inadequate evaluation of the governmental and corporate environmental factors that affect the organization as a whole
the establishment of ill-predicted and unimportant initiatives, possibly because they are current fads or because there has been an ill-digested analysis of best measures or mechanisms that are not suited for the requirements of the hybrid organization
the selection of certain initiative in isolation without considering its public and corporate implications and their impact to the other areas of human resource practice and without trying to ensure that a coherent and holistic approach is adopted
failure to acknowledge practical dilemmas of getting the initiative accepted by all concerned and of embedding it as normal routines of hybrid agency
inability to convince top management to support the initiatives
inability to reach ownership among line managers
inability to acquire the understanding and acceptance of employees
failure to understand the necessity to create supporting procedures for the initiative such as performance management to support performance pay
failure to identify that the initiative will create new demands on the commitment and skills of the line managers who may have to play a crucial part in implementing it such as the skills in setting objectives, rendering feedback and helping to prepare and implement personal development plans in performance management procedures
failure to ensure that the resources such as people, finance and time which are required for the implementation of the initiative will be available
failure to monitor and assess the implementation of the initiative and to take adept remedial measure if things are going against what have been planned.
The factors mentioned above are in line with the pursuit of human resource managers for efficiency in hybrid county government organizations as they struggle to comply with the ongoing stiff and tight competition in both the corporate and public administration landscape. The challenges are what come along with the massive changes in the employment practices of county hybrid organizations.
The chief among the recent changes in the employment scheme of the organizations include increased use of temporary, part-time, and seasonal employment and the increased hiring of exempt employees also known as the nonstandard work arrangements (NSWAs) that have incurred criticisms from a variety of groups including labor economists, lawyers and advocates of workers rights (Condrey Perry, 2005).
The NSWAs are a set of arrangements which have their own positive and negative impact to direct costs, flexibility, productivity, recruitment, ease of discharge and legal risks and measures. Some of the benefits of the use of NSWAs include the flexibility to balance work with other commitments such as responsibility to family, school and to other employments.
Even though it is already noted that the NSWAs are able to impact the hybrid government agencies through the flexible work hours, promotion of family-friendly workplaces, preservation of institutional knowledge and information and the sharing of expertise, the utilization of the nonstandard work arrangements are not without glitches that challenge the workforce of the hybrid organizations.
It is recorded that government institutions which utilize nonstandard work arrangements are confronted with legal issues and criticisms by the worker rights community. It is noted that there is a growing apprehension among many within the community that a dual labor market sources out from the use of the NSWAs. Condrey and Perry (2005) say that in some instances, worker rights may become secondary to workforce flexibility from an employers view.
As the hybrid government agencies pursue their mission to promote changes in the organizations culture, professional development and business practices, necessary plans must be developed in order to address the challenges and provide possible solutions for every organizational glitch. Planned actions for recruitment, hiring, and retention as well as for internal resources management, quality of life, workforce and professional development should be given equal focus (Pynes, 2004).
It is recommended that hybrid agencies will be able to become successful in their endeavour amid the ongoing conflict behind the presence of hybrid organizations by making their training and career development programs completely integrated with the organizations strategic focus and human resource system.
The pursuit for the right kind of KSAOC or the knowledge, skills, abilities, and other characteristics should be accompanied by a strategic human resource management that goes beyond the confides of proper administrative functions and is directed towards increasing organizational revenues or profits, achieving business outcomes, improving the overall image of the hybrid organization as well as improving the holistic performance of individuals, teams or organizational units.
As it is written that the emergence and growth of hybrid government organizations are viewed as either a symptom of a decline in the democratic system of governance or as a harbinger of a new and creative management period in which the principles and knowledge of market behaviour are harnessed for the overall well being of the state, it is then suggested that a strategic human resource plan that tries to put into compromise both the corporate and public administration landscape should be executed and supported by the constituents of the two to be able to benefit the workforce.
Conclusion
The emergence of the hybrid-type of government agencies are not without glitches and issues that impact their workforce. Taking cues from the scholars perspectives on hybrid organizations, it can be said that such type of organization is the direct outcome of the pursuit to find an ideology or pattern that is aiming at public service productivity through the utilization of public administration and corporate paradigms.
Overall, two basic conflicts arise from the fusion of both paradigms one is focusing on the utilization of public law in which hybridity of organizations is an act of violation and the second views corporate and entrepreneurial law as taking advantage of the nobility of public service and as having a negative impact to the efficiency of the labor force in the hybrid organizations. In addition, some scholars view both paradigms as not having the capacity to compromise and reach a point of balance that creates a picture of the workforce working smoothly under one distinct system.
Hybrid organizations serve to incorporate all the advantages of other organizational designs to make the organization function efficiently and effectively while fulfilling the needs of the public and reaching their organizational goals. Even with this noble aim, it can be said that the workforce and the human resource initiatives are being sacrificed in the hybrid structure for they should are being affected with diversity of the workplace and challenges imposed by being run by two paradigms and landscapes.
Recommendation
Based from what has been observed of the hybrid type of government organizations, the following recommendations are provided in line with the pursuit to lessen or even eradicate the extent of impact of hybrid systems to the workforce.
The human resource management must adhere to a unilateral system flow wherein employees can operate smoothly under a unified jurisdiction.
The human resource management must render the employees clear and vivid roles and objectives so that they will not be confused with the fusion of government and private sectors.
The human resource management should pursue those in the higher positions concerning the effective implementation of the human resource initiatives.
A fair and just employment scheme must be established. There is a need for an employment scheme that does not sacrifice workers rights over corporate advantages.
The human resource management should be equipped with all the necessary information regarding the scope, limits and boundaries of hybridization so that employees will be properly oriented concerning the kind of environment they will be working on.
A friendly working environment should be given to employees so that they will not be that affected with bureaucratic elements in all of its forms.
Categories:
0 comments:
Post a Comment