This article examines the nature and role of hybrid organizations (those which are part public, part private) as coordinating mechanisms that facilitate public sector and private sector interaction. The study examines 250 public, private, and hybrid R&D organizations to determine their structural, environmental, and behavioral differences. Environmental and behavioral differences are found to be significant and consequential in terms of the usefulness of hybrids as coordinating mechanisms.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
Andrews, F.M. (1979). Scientific productivity: The effectiveness of research in groups of six countries. New York: Cambridge University Press.
2.
Blume, S.S. (1974). Behavioral aspects of research management: A review. Research Policy, 3, 40-76.
3.
Birr, U. (1957). Pioneering in industrial research: The story of the G.E. research lab. Washington, D.C.: Public Affairs Press.
4.
Bozeman, B. (1984). Dimensions of publicness: An approach to public organization theory. In B. Bozeman & J. Straussman (Eds.), New directions in public administration (pp. 46-64). New York: Brooks-Cole.
5.
Crow, M. (1985). The effects of publicness on organizational performance: A comparative study of R&D laboratories. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Syracuse University, Syracuse.
6.
Crow, M., & Emmert, M. (1984). Interorganizational management of R&D: Unviersity-industry relations and innovation. In B. Bozeman, M. Crow, and A. Link (Eds.), Strategic Management of Industrial R&D (pp. 187-200). Lexington, MA: Lexington Books.
7.
Dupree, A.A. (1957). Science in the federal governments: A history of policies and activities to 1940. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
8.
Friedman, R., & Friedman, R. (1984, Winter). Managing the organized research unit. Educational Record, pp. 27-30.
9.
Gill, K. (Ed.). (1985). Government research directory (3rd ed.). Detroit: Gale Research Company.
10.
Lachman, R. (1985). Public and private sector differences: CED's perceptions of their role environment. Academy of Management Journal, 28, 671-680.
11.
Loveless, S. (1985). Sector, status, structure and performance: A comparison of public and private research units. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Syracuse University, Syracuse.
12.
Nelkin, D. (1972). The university and military research. Ithaca, New York: Cornell University Press.
13.
Pfeffer, J., & Salancik, G.R. (1978). The external control of organizations. New York: Harper and Row.
14.
Pondy, L. (1969). The effects of size, complexity and ownerhsip on administrative intensity. Administrative Science Quarterly, 14, 47-61.
15.
Press, C. (Ed.). (1983). Industrial Research Laboratories of the U.S. 18th ed.New York: R.R. Bowker.
16.
Rainey, H.G. (1983). Public agencies and private firms: Incentive structures, goals and individual roles. Administration and Society, 15, 207-243.
17.
Rainey, H.G., Backoff, R., & Levine, C. (1976). Comparing Public and Private Organizations. Public Administration Review, 36, 233-244.
18.
Ruscio, K. (1983, April). The changing context of academic science: University-industry relations in biotechnology and the public policy implications. Paper presented at the meeting of the American Society for Public Administration, New York.
19.
Scheffe, H.H. (1959). The analysis of variance. New York: Wiley.
20.
Smith, B.L., & Karlesly, J.J. (1977). The state of academic science: The universities in the nation's research effort. New Rochelle, NY: Change Magazine Press.
21.
Thompson, J.D. (1967). Organizations in action. New York: McGraw-Hill.
22.
Watkins, M.M. & Ruffner, J.A. (Eds.). (1984). Research center directory (9th Ed.). Detroit: Gale Research Company.
