Search

Public-Private Partnerships (PPPs) are an important form of hybrid organization that may, if properly designed and managed, generate innovative solutions to complex problems by combining different institutional logics. Using data from a comparative case study of the creation of two PPPs in the Italian healthcare sector, we draw on ideas from business model design and organizational hybridity to explore how complexity can be managed inside PPPs and how this drives the creation of value for stakeholders. We link the literature on hybrid organizations with the one on business models by looking at the organizational mechanisms and processes that are implemented in PPP project governance, assets and processes. We go on to develop a theoretical model showing how effective business model design can help to bridge different logics and create value for stakeholders in the creation and operation of PPPs. This article is protected by copyright. All rights reserved.

In this paper, we present the results of a study of the loss of institutional trust following a merger. Specifically, we focus on how issues of organizational identity and identification processes contributed to the loss of institutional trust among a group of employees of Citigroup after its creation through the merger of Citicorp and Travelers. Our study makes two important contributions. First, we propose and demonstrate empirically that institutional trust, like interpersonal trust, can be identity-based. Second, adopting a narrative approach to organizational identity, we explore institutional trust in a post-merger context, highlighting how institutional trust is initially undermined after a merger by the ambiguity of the new organization's identity; and how later, once the identity of the new organization becomes less ambiguous, institutional trust can continue to be undermined by the absence of employees' identification with the new organization, especially among those who were highly-identified with their legacy organizations.

Inter-organizational collaboration has been linked to a range of important outcomes for collaborating organizations. The strategy literature emphasizes the way in which collaboration between organizations results in the sharing of critical resources and facilitates knowledge transfer. The learning literature argues that collaboration not only transfers existing knowledge among organizations, but also facilitates the creation of new knowledge and produce synergistic solutions. Finally, research on networks and interorganizational politics suggests that collaboration can help organizations achieve a more central and influential position in relation to other organizations. While these effects have been identified and discussed at some length, little attention has been paid to the relationship between them and the nature of the collaborations that produce them. In this paper, we present the results of a qualitative study that examines the relationship between the effects of interorganizational collaboration and the nature of the collaborations that produce them. Based on our study of the collaborative activities of a small, nongovernmental organization (NGO) in Palestine over a four-year period, we argue that two dimensions of collaboration – embeddedness and involvement – determine the potential of a collaboration to produce one or more of these effects.

Farmer et al.'s (1997) consideration of upward influence strategies is a welcome addition. It reaffirms that there is more to power in organizations than formal authority and develops a typology of forms of upward influence. Farmer et al. remind us that the webs of influence that characterize organizations are not defined by the organization chart, but grow out of complex and multidimensional relationships that are negotiated and re-negotiated over time. Who can do what, when, is an empirical question that depends on history, personal skill, and organizational dynamics. Said another way, while the formal hierarchy is one measure of an actor's ability to influence outcomes, it is nor the only measure, not even the most important one. Farmer et al. (1997) add to the discussion of influence in organizations by linking a typology of upward influence strategies-hard, soft, and rational-to some of the conditions associated with their use. Several characteristics of the subordinate and of the subordinate-supervisor relationship are proposed to explain the subordinate's choice of an influence strategy, including 'dispositional influences or individual differences, relational influences involving perceptions of target power, the quality of the relationship between the influence agent and the target, demographic factors, and opportunities to exercise influence'. However, the study is limited by the underdeveloped conceptualization of power. The study focuses primarily on the characteristics and resources of the individual, and while this conception of power is not wrong, it is limited. A more developed, multidimensional view of power is necessary as a foundation for further working the area (e.g. Clegg, 1989; Hardy, 1994; Lukes, 1974). Upward influence is certainly affected by the personal characteristics and resources of the individuals involved, but it is also an organizational phenomenon, a fact that the conception of power used by researchers should reflect. A more complex and developed view of power will provide the necessary tools to disentangle the complex fabric of power and influence in organizations.

While many aspects of the collaborative process have been discussed in the management literature, the connection between collaboration and the dynamics of institutional fields has remained largely unconsidered. Yet, collaboration is an important arena for inter–organizational interaction and, therefore, a potentially important context for the process of structuration upon which institutional fields depend. In this paper, we argue that institutionalization and collaboration are interdependent; institutional fields provide the rules and resources upon which collaboration is constructed, while collaboration provides a context for the ongoing processes of structuration that sustain the institutional fields of the participants.