Sage Journals: Discover world-class research

Abstract

We examined a new type of hybrid organization—an Israeli private-public organization created during COVID-19 to serve older adults and schoolchildren—and the effects of its hybrid nature on its organizational culture. Using the results of 18 interviews, 10 direct observations, and the insights of Schein’s iceberg model, we determined that the relationships within the organization were characterized by widespread mistrust among members, influenced by the director’s authoritarian and unsupportive leadership style. This case study illuminates the complicated sustainability of the organizational culture in a hybrid organization combining features of adhocracy and bureaucracy. Based on the findings, we make practical and theoretical suggestions for overcoming the weaknesses of hybrid organizations.

Plain language summary

A new type of bureaucracy in Israeli public administration

The present study sheds light on a new, hybrid organizational structure in society, created to support the community during COVID-19. This study examined an Israeli private-public Israeli organization serving older adults and schoolchildren during COVID-19.

Keywords

hybrid organizations COVID-19 organizational culture adhocracy bureaucracy

Introduction

The COVID-19 pandemic resulted in many changes, disruptions, and innovations in various areas of life worldwide. One of the innovations in Israel was the creation of a new type of hybrid organization whose goal was to protect the elderly and schoolchildren in the wake of the failure of the government’s bureaucracy to do so (Atmor et al., 2023). Its structure included both bureaucratic and ad hoc features (Tun et al., 2020). The goal of this study is to examine the effects of its hybrid nature on its organizational culture.

This research is theoretically innovative in that it highlights the weaknesses of the hybrid organization. In contrast, to date, most studies have characterized this new format as dynamic, responsive and innovative (Denhardt & Denhardt, 2015; Hockerts, 2015; Pacharoen, 2019; Robinson, 2015; Tun et al., 2020). Moreover, this case study illuminates the complicated organizational structure of a hybrid organization, which combines features of adhocracy and bureaucracy. There has been limited discussion of this type of structure in the literature (Battilana et al., 2012, 2015; Moskovich, 2023; Moskovich & Binhas, 2025).

Based on the findings, we can learn how to avoid a dysfunctional hybrid organizational structure. In addition, we can determine how to build a better organization that maintains the necessary aspects of regulation, hierarchy, and supervision, but is also dynamic and capable of promoting ad-hoc projects.

Moreover, we demonstrate the link between an organization’s structure and its conflictual culture. Using Schein’s (2010) iceberg model, we analyze the layers of the organization by distinguishing between the overt and covert layers.

Accordingly, our research questions are:

RQ1: What are the features of this new type organization?

RQ2: How can we explain the reasons for the new structure?

RQ3: How did the hybrid structure affect the organizational culture in this case study?

Literature Review

Hybrid Organizational Structure in Society

Local governments must cope with complicated problems when providing local services with the participation of national authorities (Tun et al., 2020). To do so, they often establish hybrid organizations that combine characteristics of the private and public sectors (Glynn et al., 2020). This structure is built of networks of local and governmental organizations, enabling rapid response and tailored interventions for urban problems (Lowatcharin et al., 2019). Smart cities rely on managers with diverse skills to provide the sophisticated solutions they need. Hybrid organizations that combine urban planners, policymakers, and researchers are often touted as a means of accomplishing these goals (Secinaro et al., 2021; Tun et al., 2020).

Hybrid organizations can be defined as a mixture of several configurations (Moskovich, 2022, 2023), often a combination of private for-profit, nonprofit organizations, and other civic groups. The structure is the outcome of the mergers and acquisitions of several organizations (Pache & Santos, 2010, 2013). This new structure gives the organization flexibility by including both national and local groups (Pacharoen, 2019), and members of civil society (Denhardt & Denhardt, 2015; Robinson, 2015). Moreover, the hybrid organization can become more profitable and adaptable. This aim can be achieved by finding better markets that enable the firm to grow and prosper (Hockerts, 2015).

Studies on hybrid organizations highlight various models that integrate different types of organizations with social goals (Battilana et al., 2012; Battilana & Lee, 2014). These structures blend diverse institutional logics with cultural components, including entrepreneurial visions, diverse teams, complementary practices, inter-organizational ties, and a commitment to learning (Yaari et al., 2021). A culture of continuous learning—characterized by inquiry, teamwork, experimentation, and openness—is particularly relevant to our study (Senge, 1994). Developing such a culture requires fostering diverse thinking, encouraging risk-taking, and building tolerance.

The ability of hybrid organizations to be dynamic and responsive improves their ability to survive by accommodating themselves to outside forces. On the other hand, the complicated structure creates internal conflicts (Battilana & Dorado, 2010; Moskovich, 2023; Raynard, 2016; Van Wijk et al., 2019). This was the case for kibbutz industries designed as a compromise between the communal nonprofit that preserved the original socialist ideology of the kibbutz and the new trend of privatization and business orientation (Moskovich, 2022, 2023).

These tensions demand flexible, creative management strategies to maintain coherence (Litrico & Besharov, 2019; Pache & Santos, 2013; Yaari et al., 2021). At the same time, it is essential to establish stability through dynamic organizational characteristics (Pinz et al., 2024). This balance can be achieved by prioritizing goals, cultivating a strong organizational identity, and aligning HR, governance, and performance systems to support cultural integration. Moreover, reinforcing core values such as a focus on the customer and integrity can establish a better work environment and reduce tensions and conflicts (Hedda & Kani, 2023; Svensson & Seifried, 2017). Creating an organizational culture that evolves requires factors such as team dynamics, social connectivity, and a sense of shared purpose. Organizational cultures that succeed in doing so can become more successful in achieving their goals for society (Arena et al., 2023), and challenge traditional organizational models and assumptions.

One form of such organizations is private-public partnerships, which have proven successful in various parts of the world. For example, in Bangladesh, the government addressed the energy crisis by collaborating with private stakeholders and investors (Zhang & Shahid, 2024). This partnership, which began in the 1990s, has grown over the years, helping to solve significant problems with greater dynamism and creativity derived from the private sector (Batjargal & Zhang, 2021, 2022). This trend has become common globally because such solutions are quicker and more cost-effective for governments, while also providing more business and investment opportunities.

Another hybrid structure is the combination of bureaucracy and adhocracy (Mintzberg, 1979; Weber, 1968). While bureaucracy is characterized by a clear hierarchy, regulation, duties, and structure, adhocracy is unstable and dynamic, without regulation or permanent employees; rather, the employees are hired by the project. In adhocracies, the staff is professional, but the aims and products are temporary. Combining the two formats involves bringing professionals into the bureaucracy (Weber, 1968).

Public organizations need to accommodate to the changing environment to became more innovative and efficient. To do so, bureaucracy often adopts features from adhocracy, resulting in a model that is very different from the classical Weberian model (Lindquist & Buttazzoni, 2021). Some researchers refer to this new format as “post-bureaucracy,” given its reliance on a network of several organizations that operate on the basis of temporary projects with multidivisional expertise, instability, and constant adaptation to changes (Dunford et al., 2007; Fiol & Romanelli, 2012).

The Organizational Culture

The organizational culture is the glue that holds people together (Ouchi, 1981). First defined by Pettigrew (1979), he and others saw in managerial activity the basis for the human interactions that create and mold the culture (Deal & Kennedy, 1982; Ouchi, 1981). Other researchers also considered the impact of ordinary workers on the nature of the organizational culture (Moskovich, 2023). Schein (1999, pp. 373–374) defined organizational culture as a pattern of shared basic assumptions that the group learns as it solves its problems by adapting to external pressures and creating internal integration. Having determined that these solutions have worked well enough to be considered valid, they are then taught to new members as the correct way to perceive, think, and feel in relation to these problems.

Schein (2010) also developed the iceberg model, which distinguishes between the overt and covert layers of an organization’s culture. Whereas the overt layers consist of patterns of behavior, language, and symbols that can be seen, discovering the covert layers—norms, values, and basic assumptions—is more difficult (Moskovich, 2023). For example, research on a construction organization using Schein’s iceberg model found that the organizational culture is a blend of shared and autocratic decision-making, with a preference for teamwork and collaboration over individualism and competitiveness. The findings also indicate that employees believe in the inherent goodness of people, fostering trust, autonomy, risk-taking, and experimentation. These beliefs promote the harmonious functioning of the organization, which can thrive in such circumstances (Alankarage et al., 2024).

Similarly, a study examining the relationship between performance and organizational culture using Schein’s model found that when employees are committed to the organization and share its values and norms, it enhances organizational performance, worker morale, consistency, adaptability, effective communication, and a sense of belonging and commitment to the organization (Coghlan, 2021). This positive climate is linked directly to the leadership style in the organization (Moskovich, 2023). When the leader is positive, emotionally intelligent, attentive to employees, and adapts his/her leadership style to employees’ various situations in what is referred to as transformational leadership, the organization is more effective (Akpa et al., 2021; Bagga et al., 2023; Ntalakos et al., 2022).

Recent research in organizational culture indicates a connection between economic behavior and organizational leadership. The leaders’ attitudes affect the organizational culture (Eisenbeiss, 2012; Eisenbeiß & Giessner, 2012). Organizations that create positive, harmonious cultures combine high levels of employee participation and leader-employee coordination. Workers report satisfaction and identification with their work and feel committed to it (Kaplan & Norton, 2000; Ritter & Gemünden, 2004). Managers who share knowledge with their workers develop trust, a transparent flow of information and coordination with them. In contrast, managers who deny their workers knowledge create mistrust (Al-Alawi et al., 2007; Pfeffer & Veiga, 1999). Managers’ dishonest behavior and exploitative working conditions damage these relationships and create a culture of mistrust, as Marx (1887) contended. For example, when the kibbutz industry in Israel suffered losses, the managers needed to cut salaries and benefits. Their actions caused considerable resentment, which was a sharp contrast with the early period in the kibbutz industries, during the 1960s when relationships were more harmonious and familial (Moskovich, 2018; Moskovich & Achouch, 2013, 2015). The crisis in the kibbutz movement forced the kibbutzim to privatize their industries and the culture became more hierarchical, which was quite different from its socialist origins (Moskovich, 2023).

Kunda (2006) described a similar process in high-tech organizations. While managers and engineers enjoyed high salaries, staff members felt exploited. Working conditions were also the cause of conflict in taxi companies. Here the conflict was rooted in the different motivations of the owners and their drivers. The owners of the companies wanted to make money, so they demanded long working hours from their drivers, who were paid poorly and had few benefits. The outcome of these exploitive conditions was high turnover rates (Bedi, 2016; Borowiak, 2019; Moskovich, 2022).

Healthcare Organizations

Our study focuses on a new type of hybrid organization in the healthcare industry. Multiple studies highlight that bureaucratic features such as formal procedures, administrative rigidity, impersonality, and hierarchical separation are major factors in healthcare organizations. They also note that these factors, which exist in private and public healthcare systems, can hurt the quality of service and reduce the trust between patients and staff. For example, a study in Nigerian public hospitals indicated that the rigid division of labor in them did not improve the quality of care and often obstructed it (Kuye & Akinwale, 2021). Similarly, Abadia and Oviedo (2009) illustrated how Colombian patients, despite being insured, were frequently denied service by their insurers and healthcare providers who exploited bureaucratic loopholes to justify these refusals of care. As a result, patients often engaged in lengthy legal procedures that, while successful, provided solutions to their problems too late. Further research explored the internal dimension of bureaucracies, showing how hierarchical professional structures limit cross-group communication and erode institutional trust (Kuye & Akinwale, 2021).

The Healthcare System in Israel

The healthcare system in Israel is also characterized by a very high level of bureaucratization. By law, all Israelis must belong to one of four HMOs, which are allocated budgets by the Ministry of Finance. There is little transparency about how these budgets are determined, creating deep distrust among stakeholders (Cohen, 2011). Studies suggest that while bureaucracy may aim to ensure order, fairness, and efficiency in healthcare systems, in practice it often creates delays, alienation, heavy workloads, and inequities in the access to and quality of services (Weber, 1968).

COVID-19 in Israel

In late December 2019, the COVID-19 virus began to spread in China (Atmor et al., 2023). By mid-February 2020, the virus began to spread rapidly to other countries, and at the end of that month, the first patient was identified in Israel. The first COVID-19 wave began in Israel in earnest in March 2020 and ended in early August. The government imposed emergency regulations designed to maintain normal life in the face of the crisis and to prevent the spread of the virus. On July 23, 2020, the Law on Special Powers to Deal with the Corona Virus (“Temporary Order”), designed to replace the government’s use of emergency regulations, was enacted. This law granted the government certain powers including imposing closures of and restrictions on business activities, providing financial assistance to businesses, shutting down the education system and enabling distance learning and work. On the positive side, the government’s activities included the administering of vaccinations.

More directly relevant to our study, the government attended to the needs of the older adult population in out-of-home residential settings. In April 2020, the government developed a dedicated program for the elderly residing in out-of-home settings to ensure their protection against the virus and to provide them with necessary medical treatment (Atmor et al., 2023; State Comptroller, 2021). This program was the basis of our study. The project was managed by 28 experts from the Ministries of Health and Defense, along with nursing home directors (Atmor et al., 2023). The next step was to establish local centers throughout Israel, monitored by a central hub. These centers served 88,000 elderly people and young individuals with disabilities considered more vulnerable to COVID-19, in collaboration with government authorities responsible for healthcare, welfare, nursing homes, and immigration. The organization was structured as a bureaucracy with local branches across Israel and was supervised by the Ministry of Health and the pandemic-appointed project coordinator.

The specific organization under study operated in northern Israel. It employed a very diverse team of 18 workers, including Jews, Druze, Arabs, and non-Jewish immigrants from Russia. This center was managed by a senior manager who oversaw the center’s director, who in turn directly supervised the employees. The employees were also monitored and supervised by central government agencies.

Method

Research Design

The method used in this study was qualitative. Interpretive data collection and analysis were considered the best way to understand the organization’s culture, routines, norms, and values (Merriam, 2009). We initially conducted ethnographic interviews, engaging in open, free-flowing discussions with the interviewees. To supplement the information gathered, we also conducted semi-structured interviews to gain deeper insights into the employees’ personal experiences and analyze the operations of the organization. In the spirit of the phenomenological approach, the researchers learned from the individuals’ experiences about the environment in the organization (Creswell, 2007; Merriam, 2009; Moustakas, 1994).

The interviews were held in Hebrew, and took between 60 and 90 min to complete. The interviewees were asked questions about their work in the organization. All of the interviews were recorded and transcribed. The interviewees were informed of the purpose of the research and were told that their participation was voluntary, and that their identity would remain confidential. The employees were asked for their informed consent, which raised some ethical dilemmas (Allmark et al., 2009; Reid et al., 2018; Taquette et al., 2022).

The concept of informed consent is widely explored in the literature, particularly due to concerns surrounding privacy and confidentiality, which are especially significant in interview-based research (Corbin & Morse, 2003; Taquette et al., 2022). Ideally, participants should be aware of how their privacy will be protected before agreeing to being interviewed. This approach involves checking in with participants throughout the interview—for example, asking, “Is it okay if we continue with this subject?” (Allmark et al., 2009; Reid et al., 2018). Many interviews delve into sensitive subject matter, which can lead to emotionally charged interactions (Corbin & Morse, 2003; Hess, 2006). This emotional intensity has the potential to cause distress to the interviewees (Borbasi et al., 2005; Reid et al., 2018). The researcher needs to be concerned with the wellbeing and safety of the informants. Ensuring their confidentiality is one method for reducing their fears and minimizing their perceived risks about participating in the interviews (Cowburn, 2005; Faulkner, 2005; Taquette et al., 2022).

The employees we interviewed were willing to share information about what was happening at the branch. The information was given voluntarily, although the employees had concerns that sharing it might harm them. Therefore, they requested confidentiality and anonymity. Despite their concerns, they chose to speak out because they were extremely frustrated. Some had even been personally harmed by the manager’s abusive behavior (Reid et al., 2018). The researchers took precautions: they did not reveal the geographic location of the center and described the staff roles only in general terms, without mentioning any identifying details (Helgeland, 2005; Taquette et al., 2022).

Participants

Table 1 lists the background details of the 18 employees, 14 of whom were women, 16 of whom were 22 to 35, and 2 of whom were over 45. They were employed in the following positions: senior manager—responsible for the call-center employees; shift manager—responsible for the staff on her shift only; planning officer—responsible for the technical aspects of test samples; laboratory worker—responsible for monitoring the tests from the moment they were performed until they arrived at the laboratory; shift manager—responsible for assigning employees to their positions; and center employee—responsible for the phone calls and providing help to the samplers in the field.

Table 1.

The Interviewees’ Background Details.

Number	Role	Gender	Tenure	Age
1	Senior manager	F	12–24 months	45
2	Shift manager	M	12–24 months	46
3	Shift manager	F	6–12 months	32
4	Shift manager	F	12–24 months	38
5	Shift manager	F	6–12 months	40
6	Laboratory worker	F	Less than 6 months	26
7	Laboratory worker	M	12–24 months	30
8	Laboratory worker	F	6–12 months	25
9	Laboratory worker	F	Less than 6 months	22
10	Laboratory worker	F	6–12 months	30
11	Planning officer	F	6–12 months	28
12	Planning officer	F	12–24 months	26
13	Planning officer	F	12–24 months	32
14	Center employee	M	More than 24 months	24
15	Center employee	M	12–24 months	22
16	Center employee	F	6–12 months	28
17	Center employee	F	12–24 months	23
18	Center employee	F	6–12 months	24

The interview questions appear in the Appendix 1.

Interviews

Some interviews were conducted in the organization’s offices and others in a cafe or other public location such as a library, the lobby of the organization’s building, or a public park. The interviews were conducted in accordance with an interview protocol prepared in advance. The guidelines were based on a uniform core of questions, but the interviewees also had the freedom to address other issues as their narrative unfolded.

Observations

We also conducted 10 non-participant observations of the organization in 2020 to 2021, each lasting 4 hr. In this method, the researcher is present in the organization but does not interfere with its activities or interact with its employees (Sileyew, 2019). During our observations, the researcher took notes on what happened in the organization, focusing on informal behaviors. This analysis complemented the interviews. We created a database that included both formal reports, such as shift times and official duties, and informal events, such as human relations within the center and employees’ (non)compliance with managers’ requests.

Data Analysis

After transcribing the interviews and collecting the main impressions from the direct observations, we performed a content analysis. Recurring phenomena and significant quotes that addressed unique or shared feelings among the interviewees were identified. Based on these results, we constructed themes supported by quotes from different interviewees and observations. Our analysis was rooted in grounded theory (Strauss & Corbin, 2015), which allows themes to emerge from the data collected rather than trying to use the information to prove or disprove a preconceived hypothesis.

The study explored the overt and covert layers of Schein’s (2010) iceberg model. The research process was conducted in several stages. The first stage consisted of data collection from the center. The second stage was data analysis, which was accomplished through thematic analysis. This analytical process interpreted cultural topics (Strauss & Corbin, 2015; Yin, 2014) and subsequently applied the resulting conclusions to the evaluation of the interviews and direct observations. This step included the interpretive encoding of meaningful perceptions, beliefs, norms, and ethical codes from the center.

The themes were derived from Schein’s (1999, 2010) model. The overt layers included the activities of the center and its formal regulations. The covert layers involved the troubled relations between the manager and her employees. The third stage involved connecting the categories to organizational theory by analyzing the hybrid structure that affected the dysfunction of the center. This inductive process suggested causal explanations obtained through careful comparison of the data with cultural and managerial terms (Glaser & Strauss, 2014; Strauss & Corbin, 2015; Yin, 2014).

Findings

Overt Layers—The Obvious, Formal Regulations

There were several aspects of the overt layer of the organization: the activities the center had to undertake, the regulations governing these activities, and the criteria for selecting the employees.

The Center’s Activities

The workers in the center took saliva samples from elderly people staying at home, in schools, and other public institutions. Every day the workers were told the places they needed to visit and how many tests they needed to conduct. The workers visited these locations in teams of two to five. One of the workers said, “We take samples from households; we need to collect the samples and then send them to the lab.” Another worker mentioned that the samples must arrive in the lab within a limited period of time. Some of the team went to schools. There, the pressure was intense to provide test results quickly, as the schools were concerned that sick children would force them to stop teaching. Other workers took tests from private individuals who were isolated, as a service to the local clinic. One of the observers noted: “At the beginning of the coronavirus pandemic, there was a lot of pressure at the branch. There were many calls to collect samples from COVID-19 patients. It was difficult to keep up with the numerous tasks, and this created significant stress for all the employees on the shift.”

Formal Regulations

Punctuality was highly valued in the center, but it was not monitored, leading to significant tardiness. One explanation might be the temporary nature of the work. The shift managers often discussed the problem of constant delays but did not report to work punctually themselves. As a laboratory worker stated, “To come on time and to leave on time is not so important, as long as you arrive for your shift.” We also observed an occasion when only one worker was in the center, and the shift manager was missing. Another center employee remarked, “Nobody’s paying attention to this regulation, so I behave the same way.” According to a planning officer, “If you’re delayed, we smooth it over in the center.”

One of the new employees remarked that he was surprised to see the lack of organization within the branch: “Many times, a large number of staff members were missing, and it seemed there was not enough personnel to meet the demands. However, later on, several employees did show up—each arriving at a different time. I was quite shocked, as I had previously worked at a bank, where coming to work on time was strictly enforced.”

Selection Criteria

It was widely known that everyone who applied for a position was accepted. There was no formal selection process, and even unqualified candidates could be hired. Formally, candidates were required to undergo an interview, but some employees were not interviewed at all. One center employee stated, “Here, everyone is accepted regardless of their educational level. No disrespect, but this is the reality here.” Another center employee mentioned, “I am acquainted with the latest manager, so I was accepted without an interview and without submitting my current CV.” Another worker confirmed that there were no formal regulations—interviews might or might not be conducted, and CVs might not be required. One of the employees said, “I previously worked in a government office. Before I was hired, I had to take a government exam and then go through an interview. But here, the manager spoke with me briefly, and the very next day she told me to come in to work.”

Covert Layers

The cover layers of the organization involved informal regulations or norms that often contradicted the formal ones. We identified several aspects of these covert norms that contributed to the disfunction of the organization: troubled communication, non-compliance with regulations, toxic relationships, an inconsistent organizational climate, and manipulative behavior.

Troubled Communication

Workers in the center coordinated those conducting tests in various institutions. They communicated with planning officers about their shifts and ensured that the samples met health regulations. However, their telephone communications often involved loud shouting. Employees argued about shifts and disagreed with their work plans. Poor communication was also evident on WhatsApp, with rude and insulting remarks exchanged. A shift manager expressed frustration: “I was angry with the planning officers for not arriving at the household as expected; I shouted at them on the phone.” One of the shift managers recounted: “I asked one of the employees to report to the center, but he refused and told me he wasn’t feeling well and needed to go for tests. The shift manager replied, ‘I’ve already heard that excuse last week—maybe this time you can just tell me the truth and not make up stories.’ The employee responded, ‘I can’t show up for the evening shift. Ask someone else!’.” Direct observations also noted significant noise and shouting, with the shift manager displaying great anger toward a worker.

Noncompliance With Regulations

Workers in the center frequently disregarded organizational regulations. This disobedience was evident in incidents where employees arrived late for their shifts, failed to follow the center manager’s instructions, and engaged in activities such as watching TV or playing computer games during working hours. Such behavior became more pronounced when the senior manager is absent. A laboratory worker recalled, “Once, I found a colleague watching Netflix during work hours, completely engrossed in a movie.” Another employee arrived 3 hr late, attributing the tardiness to illness before leaving early. According to the personnel manager, “Punctuality and adherence to duties are lax across the center. Some employees even leave their shifts midway or neglect required reports.” Observations of the center gave the impression of chaos. One of the observers described the chaotic situation at the branch. When the manager was present, the employees pretended to work seriously, submitting reports and data to the Ministry of Health. However, when the manager was not around, some of the employees played computer games, while others watched Netflix movies. One of the lab workers added: “We had an agreed-upon signal — as soon as the manager arrived, we sent a message through WhatsApp to let everyone know she was coming, so they would stop all other activities.”

Toxic Relationships

Relationships between the workers and management in the center were marked by persistent resentment. The workers felt that the senior manager had been appointed due to personal connections rather than qualifications. This perception led to significant animosity and discontent among the staff. Observations at the center revealed widespread disappointment among workers who felt entitled to a fair process but instead perceived the senior manager as imposed upon them from above, generating further resentment. Workers viewed her as unfamiliar with the organization and unable to assert authority. Some actively sought her failure by disregarding her directives. A planning officer complained, “I felt targeted by her; she gave me inconvenient shifts.” Another employee criticized, “It’s absurd. Instead of promoting those who’ve built everything here, they brought in an outsider who’s made our lives miserable.” Another worker lamented, “It’s a shame that upper management doesn’t replace our incapable manager who fails to guide us.” Several workers believed urgent action was needed to replace the current manager, arguing, “Her salary is a waste of public funds.” One of the shift managers added: “It’s all favoritism and corruption. How is it possible that the manager has no proper training or education for such a senior position?”

Inconsistent Organizational Climate

The organizational climate at the center fluctuated depending on the presence of the senior manager. When she was present, the atmosphere was serious, and workers refrained from playing games or watching Netflix. However, this period was also marked by frequent complaints about working conditions and an unpleasant atmosphere. Workers often whispered, occasionally leading to heated exchanges between the shift manager and employees at various institutions. When not engaged in arguments, workers whispered while gossiping about the senior manager.

Conversely, in the absence of the senior manager, the climate became more relaxed. Workers played computer games, engaged in loud conversations, and exhibited a more casual demeanor. There was a noticeable lack of commitment to the workplace during these times. In one observation, a senior employee was found chatting with colleagues about personal matters such as his birthday and an upcoming trip to Turkey (second direct observation). Workers were often seen chatting, laughing, and taking personal phone calls (third direct observation).

Manipulative Behavior

The senior manager concealed the fact that she had known for a long time that the center would be closed soon. She did not share that information with the employees. Although strictly speaking, the law allows giving workers 30-days’ notice, given that they would have to find a new job, she could have been honest with them. She gave her workers vague answers and wanted to prevent them from looking for another workplace.

When one worker asked for a letter of recommendation, she blackmailed her, saying and that the center would not be able to operate without her, as she was so skilled. Thus, the senior manager flattered the worker so that she stayed in the center until she was fired. In another case, the manager behaved in a friendly way with an employee, but the next day she laid her off, without prior notice as required by law. The worker was completely surprised and unable to respond or to do anything about it. In yet another incident, one of the more experienced employees was told she would be promoted to the position of personnel manager and her salary would be increase. At that very time, the senior manager was interviewing other candidates. Finally, the position was given to an external candidate and the experienced employee did not receive a wage increase as promised. The interviewees talked about this manipulative behavior: “There is zero honesty in our senior manager.” A laboratory worker described how the manager refused to give her a recommendation latter. Another complained that “the senior manager promised me more money but nothing was done.”

Other interviewees described how the senior manager exploited her workers. As one of them stated, “She asks me to prepare her presentations; she takes the credit for herself without mentioning my contribution.” Another worker said that the senior manager did not make requests. Instead, she gave commands: “Do what I told you at once!”; “If a worker asked to switch her shift, the manager would ignore her request; maybe she is doing it on purpose.” Another worker said: “Here in this center the workers are exploited, and they are not paid properly!”

Summary

The overt and covert layers of this hybrid organization conflicted with one another, leading to a toxic, dysfunctional work environment. One of the leading explanations for these conflicts might be the transient and ambiguous nature of the organization. In such an environment, employees do not view their tenure as long-term, which affects their investment in social relationships within the organization. This transience influences the behavior of both employees and managers, who may prioritize short-term gains over a long-term commitment to the organization. As a result, employees feel manipulated, experience inequality, and regard the overall environment as unstable.

Ultimately, the leadership plays a crucial role in shaping the organizational culture. In this case, the managers’ approach to their work exacerbated the organization’s inherent shortcomings in several ways. First, there was a fundamental lack of trust among the employees and between them and the managers. Employees felt overly monitored and saw the organization as lacking clear rules or systematic processes. For instance, some employees were dismissed via email without prior notice. In such an environment, rumors spread faster than actual information, fostering widespread suspicion, apprehension, and uncertainty about the future.

Second, there was a sense of inequality. We observed disparities among the workers for no apparent reason. For example, those performing identical tasks did not receive the same salaries. Similarly, promotions favored certain sectors over others. Workers also described their hiring experiences as widely inconsistent. Some had formal interviews, while others were hired through personal connections with managers.

Third, there was a perception of dishonesty. Employees reported inconsistencies in communications from the management and manipulative behavior in various situations, contributing to discomfort among the workforce. Fourth, there was a sense of exploitation. Due to the lack of clear guidelines, employees felt that managers exploited their authority to serve their personal interests, such as claiming credit for the work of employees. This practice disempowers employees by minimizing their contributions. Fifth, an attitude of selfishness pervaded the organization. Due to its unstable nature, employees felt that personal interests often took precedence over the commitment to standardized daily activities, such as breaks and punctuality.

Discussion

We learn from the findings that the workers themselves determined what was desirable and proper. There were no guidelines or organizational codes that dictated policy. The lack of procedures led to interpersonal intrigues, tensions, and competition for power and influence (Abadia & Oviedo, 2009). For example, at some point, the organization decided to appoint a shift manager. The decision was made without any transparency. Similarly, certain employees were promised a higher salary without any regulated procedure for their promotion based on known criteria. The absence of a stable bureaucratic structure contributed to a more chaotic organizational culture (Weber, 1968). Moreover, the ambiguity of the organizational culture affected the relationship between the workers. This factor created an environment where workers felt they must constantly fight for their own survival, leading to interpersonal tensions (Battilana et al., 2015).

The literature has often touted hybrid organizations as dynamic and flexible, combining the best of bureaucracies and adhocracies. However, this hybrid organization that the Israeli government created to address the COVID-19 crisis that incorporated bureaucratic and ad hoc characteristics resulted in disjointed functioning that ultimately undermined the organization’s goals. While the flexibility of ad hoc programs avoids bureaucratic rigidity, it sacrifices essential organizational traits such as order, clarity, uniformity in hiring, transparency, task definition, and supervision (Mintzberg, 1979, 1983; Toffler, 1975). In our case, the amalgamation of bureaucratic and ad hoc features resulted in ambiguity and a lack of clarity. Regulations were unclear due to frequent changes mandated by government authorities. Bureaucracy has advantages and disadvantages. Reducing bureaucracy improves the speed of action and is therefore an advantage, but giving up on other bureaucratic characteristics creates chaos (Weber, 1968).

New challenges often prompt adaptive responses (Glynn et al., 2020). Governments often leverage non-public organizations, including hybrid or private entities, to deliver essential services to citizens (Lowatcharin et al., 2019; Secinaro et al., 2021). Hybrid models have been praised for their dynamic, flexible, and resilient nature (Battilana & Dorado, 2010; Battina et al., 2015; Moskovich & Binhas, 2025). However, other research has documented the ambiguity, internal tensions, and chaotic organizational environment that we found in our study (Battilana et al., 2012).

One explanation for our findings might be the healthcare setting of our study. These organizations are inherently bureaucratic due to their strict regulations and oversight (Abadia & Oviedo, 2009; Cesar & Oviedo, 2009; Kuye & Akinwale, 2021; Martina et al., 2023). The idea of a hybrid structure in such settings has received limited attention in the organizational literature. Most studies have focused on hybrid organizations that combine private and public organizations, or a mixture of various types of civil society organizations. They have not dealt in depth with attempts to combine the characteristics of bureaucracies and adhocracies. Such attempts might be doomed from the outset. Trying to build such a hybrid organization in a turbulent environment with unqualified staff or leaders creates a formula for failure.

The absence of a clear distinction between the overt and covert layers of the organizational culture—akin to Schein’s (2010) iceberg model—led to a gap between visible practices and the underlying organizational culture. The organization exhibited traits of authoritarian management, mistrust, inequality, exploitation, and lack of transparency. Employees saw it as unstable, lacking supportive leadership, and driven by personal rather than institutional interests (Alankarage et al., 2024; Arena et al., 2023). Instead, the center needed a reflective, transparent, and ethically grounded leadership to build trust, define boundaries, and combine flexibility with structure (Pinz et al., 2024).

Successful hybrid organizations depend on the ability to create a strong, coherent identity that bridges social and business logics. They balance the principles of adhocracy, such as flexibility, initiative, and adaptability, with bureaucratic elements such as order, fairness, and clear procedures. In this case, the lack of investment in human capital, training, and goal-setting did not promote organizational flexibility. Instead, it resulted in internal fragility and a sense of vulnerability among the employees (Yaari et al., 2021). This case illustrates how a temporary body born of an urgent need may erode and collapse—like a melting iceberg—when a weak and unstable culture overwhelms its original intentions (Alankarage et al., 2024; Arena et al., 2023).

The literature on the culture in hybrid organizations notes that they often lead to fragmented subcultures that may diverge or even conflict with one another (Arena et al., 2023; Hedda & Kani, 2023). In the absence of a coherent cultural strategy, employee groups develop their own behavioral codes grounded in suspicion, cynicism, and organizational survival tactics. “In hybrid environments, fragmented cultural logics evolve when identity, goals, and leadership are not aligned” (Pinz et al., 2024, p. 355). Instead of fostering a learning and collaborative culture—typically associated with effective hybrid organizations (Senge, 1994)—this organization developed a culture of avoidance, resistance, and disengagement, eroding cohesion, commitment, and identification with the organization.

Practical Implications

What can we learn from the findings of this study to improve the trust and relationships within such organizations? Suggestions for several practical steps emerge from the research. First, in organizations operating under conditions of uncertainty, managers should try to be transparent with employees by communicating as openly as possible about the organization’s activities. Even when managers themselves face uncertainty, sharing this feeling with employees will earn their trust and increase their sense of security and identification with the organization. In addition, creating support mechanisms for employees is essential. Employees should feel that, despite the temporary nature of the organization, managers recognize their presence, consider their needs, and acknowledge their contributions.

Second, the organization should set clear objectives, ensure direct communication between management and employees, and provide transparency regarding decision-making processes, hiring, promotion criteria, and organizational status. Promoting informal interactions between managers and employees and involving employees in decision-making processes can help reduce feelings of insecurity and suspicion. Given the temporary nature of such organizations, providing short-term incentives, professional recommendations, and opportunities for developing employees’ skills can enhance their sense of being valued. These initiatives signal to employees that they are acknowledged and supported, rather than merely being utilized for a limited period.

Limitations and Future Studies

Despite our contributions, our study has a number of limitations that open up avenues for future research. First, given that the center was a temporary entity established for a specific purpose during the COVID-19 pandemic, the findings may not fully reflect processes occurring in stable, long-term organizations. The organization’s temporary nature, combined with the dynamic and high-pressure environment of that period, might have influenced the behavioral patterns we observed. Therefore, the applicability of the findings should be assessed in other contexts as well. Second, the study relies on employees’ experiences and self-reports, which may introduce subjective biases, particularly in evaluating workplace relationships, interactions with management, and perceptions about the organizational culture. Third, while the use of interviews and observations provides an in-depth understanding of organizational processes, our study does not contain quantitative information that could validate the findings. Additionally, the absence of comparisons with similar organizations limits the generalizability of our insights. Fourth, the organization operated within a unique socio-economic reality in which many formal procedures were rapidly formulated without long-term planning. This context may have shaped the interpretation of the norms that emerged. Therefore, to determine whether the gaps between the explicit and implicit layers of organizational culture are unique to this organization or indicative of a broader phenomenon, further research is required in different organizational settings. For example, it would be interesting to examine hybrid urban organizations that have a positive organizational culture and identify the elements that influence the differences between them. In addition, it would be interesting to analyze what happened to the organization after COVID-19. If it survived, were there any positive developments that could help us learn about how such organizations deal with crises and survive?

Footnotes

Appendix 1

Initially, we conducted an ethnographic interview, during which the interviewees spoke freely and provided a wealth of information. To supplement the data, we then used a structured interview guided by these questions.

ORCID iD

Yaffa Moskovich

Funding

The authors received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

The authors declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Data Availability Statement

Data sharing not applicable to this article as no datasets were generated or analyzed during the current study.

References

Abadia

C. E.

Oviedo

D. G.

(2009). Bureaucratic itineraries in Colombia. A theoretical and methodological tool to assess managed-care health care systems. Social Science & Medicine, 68(6), 1153–1160.

Akpa

V. O.

Asikhia

O. U.

Nneji

N. E.

(2021). Organizational culture and organizational performance: A review of literature. International Journal of Advances in Engineering and Management, 3(1), 361–372.

Al-Alawi

A. I.

Al-Marzooqi

N. Y.

Mohammed

Y. F.

(2007). Organizational culture and knowledge sharing: Critical success factors. Journal of Knowledge Management, 11(2), 22–42.

Alankarage

Chileshe

Samaraweera

Rameezdeen

Edwards

D. J.

(2024). Diagnosing organizational BIM culture: A qualitative case study using Schein’s model. Journal of Management in Engineering, 40(3), 05024005.

Allmark

Boote

Chambers

Clarke

McDonnell

Thompson

Tod

A. M.

(2009). Ethical issues in the use of in-depth interviews: Literature review and discussion. Research Ethics, 5(2), 48–54.

Arena

Hines

Golden

J. J

. (2023). The three Cs for cultivating organizational culture in a hybrid world. Organizational Dynamics, 52(1), 100958.

Atmor

Moskovich

Liberman

(2023). Social solidarity during the pandemic: The Israeli experience. Israeli Studies Review, 38(1), 127–147.

Bagga

S. K.

Gera

Haque

S. N.

(2023). The mediating role of organizational culture: Transformational leadership and change management in virtual teams. Asia Pacific Management Review, 28(2), 120–131.

Batjargal

Zhang

(2021). Review of key challenges in public-private partnership implementation. Journal of Infrastructure, Policy and Development, 5(2), 1378. https://doi.org/10.24294/jipd.v5i2.1378

10.

Batjargal

Zhang

(2022). Review on the public-private partnership. Management Studies, 10(1), 1–11. https://doi.org/10.17265/2328-2185/2022.01.001

11.

Battilana

Dorado

(2010). Building sustainable hybrid organizations: The case of commercial microfinance organizations. Academy of Management Journal, 53(6), 1419–1440.

12.

Battilana

Lee

(2014). Advancing research on hybrid organizing – Insights from the study of social enterprises. Academy of Management Annals, 8(1), 397–441.

13.

Battilana

Lee

Walker

Dorsey

(2012). In search of the hybrid ideal. Stanford Social Innovation Review, 10(3), 51–55.

14.

Battilana

Sengul

Pache

A. C.

Model

(2015). Harnessing productive tensions in hybrid organizations: The case of work integration social enterprises. Academy of Management Journal, 58(6), 1658–1685.

15.

Bedi

(2016). Taxi drivers, infrastructures, and urban change in globalizing Mumbai. City & Society, 28(3), 387–410.

16.

Borbasi

Jackson

Wilkes

(2005). Fieldwork in nursing research: Positionality, practicalities and predicaments. Journal of Advanced Nursing, 51(5), 493–501.

17.

Borowiak

(2019). Poverty in transit: Uber, taxi coops, and the struggle over Philadelphia’s transportation economy. Antipode, 51(4), 1079–1100.

18.

Coghlan

(2021). Edgar Schein on change: Insights into the creation of a model. Journal of Applied Behavioral Science, 57(1), 11–19. https://doi.org/10.1177/0021886320924029

19.

Cohen

(2011). The power of expertise? Politician-bureaucrat interactions, national budget transparency and the Israeli Health Care Policy. Open University.

20.

Corbin

Morse

J. M.

(2003). The unstructured interactive interview: Issues of reciprocity and risks when dealing with sensitive topics. Qualitative Inquiry, 9(3), 335–354.

21.

Cowburn

(2005). Confidentiality and public protection: Ethical dilemmas in qualitative research with adult male sex offenders. Journal of Sexual Aggression, 11(1), 49–63.

22.

Creswell

J. W.

(Ed.). (2007). Qualitative inquiry and research design: Choosing among five traditions (2nd ed.). Sage.

23.

Deal

Kennedy

A. A.

(1982). Corporate cultures: The rites and rituals of corporate life. Addison-Wesley.

24.

Denhardt

J. V.

Denhardt

R. B.

(2015). The new public service revisited. Public Administration Review, 75(5), 664–672.

25.

Dunford

Palmer

Benveniste

Crawford

(2007). Coexistence of ‘old’ and ‘new’ organizational practices: Transitory phenomenon or enduring feature? Asia Pacific Journal of Human Resources, 45(1), 24–43.

26.

Eisenbeiss

S. A.

(2012). Re-thinking ethical leadership: An interdisciplinary integrative approach. Leadership Quarterly, 23(5), 791–808.

27.

Eisenbeiß

S. A.

Giessner

S. R.

(2012). The emergence and maintenance of ethical leadership in organizations: A question of embeddedness? Journal of Personnel Psychology, 11(1), 7–19.

28.

Faulkner

(2005). Inclusive and empowering. Mental Health Today, 31–33.

29.

Fiol

C. M.

Romanelli

(2012). Before identity: The emergence of new organizational forms. Organization Science, 23(3), 597–611. https://doi.org/10.1287/orsc.1110.0666

30.

Glaser

B. G.

Strauss

A. L.

(2014). The discovery of grounded theory: Strategies for qualitative research. Aldine.

31.

Glynn

A. M.

Hood

E. A.

Innis

B. D.

(2020). Taking hybridity for granted institutionalization and hybrid identification. Organizational Hybridity: Perspectives, Processes, Promises Research in the Sociology of Organizations, 69(1), 53–72.

32.

Hedda

Kani

(2023). Navigating the new norm: Studying organizational culture in the era of hybrid working [Thesis for master degree, Department of Business Studies Uppsala University].

33.

Helgeland

I. M.

(2005). ‘Catch 22’ of research ethics: ethical dilemmas in follow-up studies of marginal groups. Qualitative Inquiry, 11(4), 549–569.

34.

Hess

R. F.

(2006). Postabortion research: methodological and ethical issues. Qualitative Health Research, 16(4), 580–587.

35.

Hockerts

(2015). How hybrid organizations turn antagonistic assets into complementarities. California Management Review, 57(3), 83–106.

36.

Kaplan

S. R.

Norton

P. D.

(2000). The strategy–focused organization: How balanced scorecard companies thrive in the new business environment. Harvard Business School Press.

37.

Kunda

(2006). Engineering culture. Temple University Press.

38.

Kuye

O. L.

Akinwale

O. E.

(2021). Conundrum of bureaucratic processes and healthcare service delivery in government hospitals in Nigeria. Journal of Humanities and Applied Social Sciences, 3(1), 25–48.

39.

Lindquist

E. A.

Buttazzoni

(2021). The ecology of open innovation units: Adhocracy and competing values in public service systems. Policy Design and Practice, 4(2), 212–227. https://doi.org/10.1080/25741292.2021.1941569

40.

Litrico

J.-B.

Besharov

M. L.

(2019). Unpacking variation in hybrid organizational forms: Changing models of social enterprise among nonprofits, 2000–2013. Journal of Business Ethics, 159(2), 343–360.

41.

Lowatcharin

Crumpton

C. D.

Pacharoen

(2019). Intergovernmental relations in a world of governance: A consideration of international experiences, challenges, and new directions. Asia-Pacific Social Science Review, 19(4), 44–55.

42.

Marx

(1887). Capital (Vol I). Marxists Internet Archives. https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/download/pdf/Capital-Volume-I.pdf

43.

Merriam

S. B.

(2009). Qualitative research: A guide to design and implementation. Jossey-Bass.

44.

Mintzberg

(1979). The structuring of organizations: A synthesis of the research. Prentice-Hall.

45.

Mintzberg

(1983). Structures in fives: Designing effective organizations. Prentice Hall.

46.

Moskovich

(2018). Cultural transition in a kibbutz industry: From clan to hierarchical control attributes. Comparative Sociology, 17(6), 829–862.

47.

Moskovich

(2022). Hybridization in a kibbutz industry structure: An Israeli case study. International Journal of Sociology and Social Policy, 42(9/10), 777–794.

48.

Moskovich

(2023). Kibbutz industry: Cultural, hybrid structure and business strategy design. Routledge.

49.

Moskovich

Achouch

(2013). Cultural change in the Kibbutz Factory ‘Bereshit’(Genesis): An Israeli case study. International Journal of Organizational Transformation and Social Change, 10(1), 21–41.

50.

Moskovich

Achouch

(2015). Metamorphosis of a kibbutz industry: The life cycle of “Millennium Industry”– An Israeli case study. EuroMed Journal of Business, 10(2), 181–197.

51.

Moskovich

Binhas

(2025). Hybrid religious civil society organization, the Israeli case of “The Path Upwards”, lesson learned. International Journal of Sociology and Social Policy, 45, 51–66. https://doi.org/10.1108/IJSSP-06-2024-0286

52.

Moustakas

(1994). Phenomenological research methods. Sage.

53.

Ntalakos

Belias

Koustelios

Tsigilis

(2022). Organizational culture and group dynamics in the tourism industry. Hosted by The School of Hospitality and Tourism.

54.

Ouchi

W. G.

(1981). Theory Z: How American business can meet the Japanese challenge. Avon.

55.

Pache

A.-C.

Santos

(2010). When worlds collide: The internal dynamics of organizational responses to conflicting institutional demands. Academy of Management Review, 35(3), 455–476.

56.

Pache

A.-C.

Santos

(2013). Inside the hybrid organization: Selective coupling as a response to competing institutional logics. Academy of Management Journal, 56(4), 972–1001.

57.

Pettigrew

A. M.

(1979). On studying organizational cultures. Administrative Science Quarterly, 24(4), 570–581.

58.

Pfeffer

Veiga

J. F.

(1999). Putting people first for organizational success. Academy of Management Perspectives, 13(2), 37–48.

59.

Pinz

Englert

Helmig

(2024). Organizing logic multiplicity in hybrid organizations: The role of organizational culture. Nonprofit Management and Leadership, 35(2), 353–378.

60.

Raynard

(2016). Deconstructing complexity: Configurations of institutional complexity and structural hybridity. Strategic Organization, 14(4), 310–335.

61.

Reid

A. M.

Jeremy

Brown

J. M.

Smith

Alexandra

Cope

A. C.

Jamieson

(2018). Ethical dilemmas and reflexivity in qualitative research. Perspectives on Medical Education, 7(2), 69–75.

62.

Ritter

Gemünden

H. G.

(2004). The impact of a company’s business strategy on its technological competence, network competence and innovation success. Journal of Business Research, 57(5), 548–556.

63.

Robinson

(2015). From old public administration to the new public service: Implications for public sector reform in developing countries. UNDP Global Centre for Public Service Excellence. https://www.undp.org/sites/g/files/zskgke326/files/publications/PS-Reform_Paper.pdf

64.

Schein

E. H.

(1999). The corporate culture survival guide: Sense and nonsense about culture change. Jossey-Bass.

65.

Schein

E. H.

(Ed.). (2010). Organizational culture and leadership (4th ed.). Jossey-Bass.

66.

Secinaro

Brescia

Calandra

Biancone

(2021). Towards a hybrid model for the management of smart city initiatives. Cities, 116, 103278. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cities.2021.103278

67.

Senge

P. M.

(1994). The fifth discipline field book: Strategies and tools for building learning organization. Currency, Doubleday.

68.

Sileyew

K. J.

(2019). Research design and methodology. Cyberspace.

69.

State Comptroller. (2021). Special report: The State of Israel’s coping with the Covid-19 Pandemic. Author (Hebrew).

70.

Strauss

Corbin

(2015). Basics of qualitative research: Grounded theory procedures and techniques. Sage.

71.

Svensson

P. G.

Seifried

C. S.

(2017). Navigating plurality in hybrid organizing: The case of sport for development and peace entrepreneurs. Journal of Sport Management, 31(2), 176–190.

72.

Taquette

S. R.

Borges da Matta Souza

L. M.

da Matta Souza

(2022). Ethical dilemmas in qualitative research: A critical literature review. International Journal of Qualitative Methods, 21(1), 1–15. https://doi.org/10.1177/16094069221078731

73.

Toffler

(1975). Future shock. Hazel Watson & Viney.

74.

Tun

S. K. T.

Grichawat Lowatcharin

Crumptonc

C. D.

(2020). Responding to challenges in local governance: Comparing hybrid organizational responses in urban areas of Thailand and Myanmar and Peerasit Kamnuansilpa. Journal of Mekong Societies, 16(1), 1–23.

75.

Van Wijk

Zietsma

Dorado

de Bakker

F. G. A.

Martí

. (2019). Social innovation: Integrating micro, meso, and macro level insights from institutional theory. Business & Society, 58(5), 887–918.

76.

Weber

(1968). Economy and society (Vols I, II, III). Edited by Roth

Guenther

Wittich

Claus

. Bedminster Press.

77.

Yaari

Blit-Cohen

Savaya

(2021). Hybrid organizational culture: The case of social enterprises. Journal of Social Entrepreneurship, 12(2), 291–313. https://doi.org/10.1080/19420676.2019.1702581

78.

Yin

(2014). Case study research design and method. Sage.

79.

Zhang

Shahid

(2024). Enlightening Bangladesh: Navigating power sector challenges through PPP excellence. Journal of Infrastructure, Policy and Development, 8(3), 2529. https://doi.org/10.24294/jipd.v8i3.2529

Are Hybrid Organizations Always Beneficial?

Abstract

Plain language summary

Keywords

Introduction

Literature Review

Hybrid Organizational Structure in Society

The Organizational Culture

Healthcare Organizations

The Healthcare System in Israel

COVID-19 in Israel

Method

Research Design

Participants

Interviews

Observations

Data Analysis

Findings

Overt Layers—The Obvious, Formal Regulations

The Center’s Activities

Formal Regulations

Selection Criteria

Covert Layers

Troubled Communication

Noncompliance With Regulations

Toxic Relationships

Inconsistent Organizational Climate

Manipulative Behavior

Summary

Discussion

Practical Implications

Limitations and Future Studies

Footnotes

Appendix 1

ORCID iD

Funding

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

Data Availability Statement

References