Organization’s publicness : a stimulant or de-stimulant of development

(1)

Organization’s Publicness –

A Stimulant or De-Stimulant of Development

Renata Przygodzka^*

Keywords: organization, publicness, development Słowa kluczowe: organizacja, publiczność, rozwój

Synopsis: Th e article undertakes an attempt to determine whether organisation publicness is a virtue which supports or hampers its development. Th e theoretical concepts of publicness have constituted the primary subject of the conveyed examination. Further, the methods of publicness measurement have been presented. Th e reasoning with regard to the infl uence of publicness as one of the more important organisation virtues upon its development have been conveyed in the light of the above. Th e examinations conveyed by Danish public institutions point to the fact that the higher degree of publicness hampers organisation development. Th ere exists the need for the verifi cation of the aforementioned thesis within the application of Polish conditions.

Introduction

One of the more important characteristics which diff erentiates organisations between each other, is the issue of their publicness. It considerably infl uences the issue of the diff erentiation of public institution from the private ones. What needs to be underlined is the fact that public organisations also vary between each other and their behaviour is oft en determined with the level of publicness.

Th e aforementioned trait should be presented within the research presented by such authors as: B. Bozeman, M. Antonsen, T.B. Jorgensen, S.M. Goldstein, or M. Naor and may possess signifi cant implications for the correctness of the functioning of the Polish public organisations (administrations, higher education institutions, hospital research units, uniformed forces of the public authorities etc.). Considering the frequently underlined low eff ectiveness of these organisations as well as the need for the reformation and rationalisation of the various areas of their activity, what is important is the diagnosis of both external as well as internal conditions, within which the function of public organisations. Th is means that there exists the need for the visible determination of coeffi cients, from which the level of publicness is dependant and to what extent does this level infl uence organisation behaviours.

Th e aforementioned issue has yet not been mirrored within the Polish literature and despite the fact that the research conveyed within the other countries show that from the point of view of the functioning of public organisations as well as public

* Dr hab. Renata Przygodzka, associate professor, Jagiellonian University.

(2)

management, this aspect is a very important one. Considering the above, the aim of this article is the attempt to diagnose the relations between publicness as well as its level and between the capability of the organisation for the development understood as the ability for the introduction of changes which allow for the obtainment of the introduction of improving effi ciency and operation eff ectiveness. Th e article has been pre- pared on the basis of subject literature studies mainly on the basis of the foreign ones.

Publicness and its concepts

Th e literature distinguishes three main concepts of organisation publicness i.e. the generic concept, the ownership concept as well as the “dimensional” concept [Scott, Falcone, 1998, pp. 126–145]. Th e generic concept underlines the meaning of the dif- ferences between public and private organisations at the same time suggesting that the management functions, organisation processes as well as managerial values are as the matter of fact similar in both types of organisations and are of the universal character, since they have to face similar limitations and expectations. Th e ownership concept places signifi cant accent upon public and private organisations, which is expressed in their ownership. While private organisations constitute the ownership of companies and stakeholders, public organisations belong to the society. In connection to the above private and public organisations are subject to varied control mechanisms. In the fi rst case such function is performed by the market on the other hand – by the political mechanism. Th e main weakness of the aforementioned approach is the fact that, with its application, it is hard to classify organisations of the mixed ownership structure [Bozeman, Bretschneider, 1994].

One of the most widely applied defi ning and classifi cation approaches is the approach which takes into the consideration the dimensions of publicness. Th e basis of this approach is the assumption that publicness is not determined by a single visual characteristic. Bozeman proved that public and private organisations may be described by the four dimensions of publicness i.e. by ownership, aims, fi nancing and control [Bozeman, 1987]. Th e organisations are characterised by a lower or greater level of publicness depending on this type of dimensions. Th is means that some of them may be more “public” when some of the enumerated dimensions have been listed, or they more be considered to be more “private” when taking others into the consideration. As it had been underlined by Boyne [2002], it is also possible that organisations, which are characterised by the private ownership and private funding may be more public when considering some issues in comparison to the organisations which are formally owned by the public sector. Th is is, amongst others, dependant upon the degree within which its economical activity writes into the government policy.

Th e main advantage of the analysed approach is the fact that this allows not only to consider the organisation of the so-called “clean type” but also the organisation of the mixed type of ownership, i.e. private or non-profi t type of organisations or public organisations acting with the aim of the generating of the economical benefi t. Th us applying the aforementioned approach Fottler [1981] diff erentiates four types of organisations:

(3)

– Strictly private organisations, which operate with the aim of generating profi t, corrected by the market mechanism;

– Private owned non-profi t organisations, which function thanks to charity grants and donations, public grants, but established independently from the infl uence of national authorities and legislation;

– private quasi public organisations, i.e. organisations established by the legisla- tive authority, equipped with the limited monopoly for the manufacturing and provision of specifi c goods or services;

– public organisations, i.e. government as well as local authority owned, agencies established by law and authority in order to gather taxes and render public services.

Also Perry and Rainer [1988, pp. 195–197] in the attempt of the execution of the organisation typology on the basis of its ownership, fi nancings well as the method of control, underline their variety (tab. 1). What is more important, they express the idea that the proposed by them division is not of the dichotic character and it is not always unambiguous.

Tab. 1. Organisation typology with respect to their ownership structure, fi nancing as well as the method of control execution (Typologia organizacji ze względu na strukturę właścicielską, źródła fi nansowania oraz sposób kontroli)

Organisation Ownership Financing Control

Offi ces public public democracy

National corporations public private democracy

Companies fi nanced with the application of public funding

private public democracy

Regulated companies private private democracy

Government companies public public market

Public owned companies public private market

Government contractors private public market

Private companies private private market

Source: adapted from: [Perry, Rainer, 1988, p. 196].

Th e notion of publicness, within the Polish literature has been publicised by B. Kożuch.

She understands it as the set of specifi c characteristics which diff erentiate public and private organisations. Publicness perceived with the application of this type of defi nition, is presented in four dimensions, i.e. in specifi c relations with the surrounding world, diff er- entiated goals, structure as well as values [Kożuch, 2004, pp. 89–96]. Th e constitute the consequence of ownership, fi nancing sources as well as the method for the execution of control over organisation functioning.

Th e specifi c relations with the surroundings are infl uenced by the defi nitely larger complexity (various social groups and organisations constitute the receivers of various goods and public services), greater openness to the infl uence from the outside, less

(4)

stabile surroundings (frequent changes of the political situation) as well as the lower pressure from the direction of competitors (public organisations operate upon specifi c markets, usually monopolist ones or oligo-monopolists).

From the private organisations public organisations are also diff erent with the specifi c set of goals. Th e are most oft en of the group character, are connected to particular categories, such as justice, responsibility as well as they are quite oft en not unambiguous and imprecise, what is the consequence of both susceptibility to politics as well as the diff erentiation of the needs of various stakeholders.

Th e third area of the presentation of publicness is the organisational structure.

Within public organisations it is of the decisive more formal the fact which is proved by the strictly determined procedures of the decision undertaking processes, which lead to low fl exibility of these processes as well as to low degree of disposition for the undertaking of risk. In connection to the above it may be stated that the trait of the public organisations is undoubtedly larger bureaucracy as well as signifi cantly lower autonomy of managers in comparison with private institutions.

Public organisations are characterised by the very specifi c system of manager values. Th e research conveyed throughout the years and by various steams have proved that the hierarchy of public institution manager values above all encompasses the lower meaning of material motivation, more frequent orientation towards the activity of public interest as well as the necessity which stems from the specifi c process of decision undertaking – the lower engagement into organisation type of activities.

Apart from the appointed characteristics which are stem from the issue of publicness, public organisations are undoubtedly diff erent from private organisations with the fi nancing method, with the method of activity controlling as well as with their functions. Th e decisive majority of public organisations, within its activity, applies public property as well as is fi nanced from public funds. Th erefore they are subject to diff erent control mechanisms, which above all is of the political character, not market and in connection to the above to the larger extent public institutions are prone to various confl icts, the basis of which is responsibility towards the tax payers as well as the users of public goods and services. Th is fact stems from the detailed conditions of public organisation functioning, and especially from:

– the monopolist position typical to various organisations;

– fulfi lment of regulative functions;

– infl uence upon the quality of life through the provision of goods and public services;

– imposing of taxes and obligations aimed at the collection of funds etc.

Th e conveyed research proves that there exists a dependence between the publicness and between organisation types. Th erefore it may be assumed that the level of publicness possesses infl uence upon organisation behaviours its relations with the surrounding world, disposition to innovation, structure fl exibility the ability for the ad- aptation to the changing environment. Th is thesis is connected not only to the diff erences between public and private organisations but is also true with respect to public organisations. Th e research conveyed by Antonsen and Jorgensen [1997] proves that public organisations are diff erent between each other with the level of publicness and

(5)

that there are several reasons, which determine this level. Th is is above all proved by the fact that certain services constitute public value and that they should be provided by organisations established by authorities, and that should be provided by non-profi t organisations and that the services should be free of charge for the citizens (since they are expensive but indispensable from the social point of view) and fi nally that these services are the part of the social well-being. What is also important and what is also underlined by Vandenabeele [2008], has and what been discovered by Antonsen and Jorgensen is the relation between the high level of publicness and various organisation characteristics, which may be applied in the process public organisation identifi cation including their problems.

The methods of publicness measurement

Since the level of publicness infl uences the characteristics and behaviour of public organisations, therefore the measurement of this level may be of great signifi cance in terms of learning valours, especially in the context of their functioning in Poland. It is widely known that the organisations from the public sector in the vast majority are characterised with the low degree of effi ciency, which is infl uenced by various reasons (e.g. political, economical, legal, public management, cultural, religious etc. constitute the above). Th e improvement of eff ectiveness is expected within the reforms of the public fi nance management, in the process of implementation of the new methods of public management in the process of making of the market mechanisms widely avail- able etc. [Przygodzka, 2008]. Undoubtedly the susceptibility of public organisations to changes shall be determined with the level of publicness. Th erefore the question arises:

in what manner is this publicness to be measured?

As it had already been pointed out from amongst the presented concepts of publicness, the one which takes into the consideration the largest number of organisations, is the concept of the dimensions (fi elds) of publicness, therefore ownership, aims, fi - nancing and control. Th e process of classifi cation to public, private or non-profi t organisations with the application of this criteria usually do not arise any doubts and the measurement is of the quantifi ed type of character. Th e second fi eld, i.e. the aims, is connected to the tasks which should be realised by the organisation. Since the aims of public organisations are not always precise, therefore their measurement may also gen- erate doubts. Depending on the type of organisation, and above all upon the specifi cs of its activity the rate of successfulness of the execution of aims may be assessed. For instance, Goldstein and Naor [2004] within the hospitals subject to their measurement are measured with the degree of engagement into the process of new doctor schooling.

Th e third fi eld is connected with the fi nances of the organisation. Th e main fi nancing source within the public organisations are taxes, whereas in the case of private organisation – consumer payments constitute the above. Th e measurement within the aforementioned fi eld may be executed for instance on the example of the share of public funding within organisation fi nances. Th e fourth fi eld – control, mirrors the level of infl uence, which is imposed by the political forces upon the given organisation or the

(6)

authority with respect to the market or economical forces. Private organisations for instance, which completely execute work health and safety standards or natural environment protection plant may stem to be more public in comparison with government agencies which ignore such policies. Th e process of publicness measurement within the aforementioned fi eld is also determined with the specifi cs of the operation of the given organisation. Goldstein and Naor for instance, with respect to the researched hospitals have determined two types of control: the fi rst one connected to regulations standard for each organisation (for instance in the case of employment) and the second one – which stems from political limitations (Ex. from the scope of public responsibility, the quality of rendered services, the scope of application of ethic standards, taking part within the process of rendering of the free of charge services).

Antonsen and Jorgensen proposed an interesting approach to the issue of publicness [1997]. Th ey have taken those organisations, within their research, which activity is connected to the provision of public goods and service as well as with the regu- lation of activity of other organisations ex. higher education institutions, research and development institutions, culture and art institutions, regulatory agencies, infrastruc- ture companies. Despite the huge diff erences, these organisations possess one com- mon feature only, they are public organisations created on the basis of formal and legal criteria, therefore they are owned by the government, and in the vast majority are fi nanced by the National Treasury and controlled by the proper resorts. Th e research does not include organisations which are owned by the government as well as local authority administration, with the consideration of their political and management-control functions. Th e aim of the aforementioned research and development was the presentation of the infl uence of publicness onto the behaviour of public organisations, the level of publicness has been determined on the basis of the assessment of various reasons “of being public” executed by the same organisations. It has turned out that the awareness of the importance of the existence of public goods and services and their provision by public institutions is the most important. Th e fi nancing of services with the application of taxes has also been assessed as important, but not indispensable from the social point of view. Th e capability for the payment for services and their provision as the integral part of social well being, has been assessed considerably lower. Re- searched participants have therefore assessed the importance of such aspects as [An- tonsen, Jorgensen, 1997, p. 340]:

– public services are the general public value and as such should not be provided by the private sector;

– public services should be provided by competent and authorised public organisations;

– public services should be provided by non-profi t public organisations;

– citizens should not pay for public services;

– citizens do not have to pay for public services;

– public services are the portion of social well being;

– the advantages from the fact of manufacturing are the eff ect of the scale eco- nomy;

– organisation is public due to such tradition.

(7)

Based upon the answers gathered to the paced questions the division into two groups has been executed, the so-called organisations characterised with the high and low level of publicness. Th e fi rst group take into consideration those, which as the very important have considered four or more from the provided six questions. Th ose which pointed to the importance of two last questions or/and one of the fi rst six, have been classifi ed to the latter group. As the consequence, publicness has been determined on the basis of quantitative features (the number of reasons) as well as quality (types of reasons). Th e level of publicness determined in such manner has become the factor independent within the latter research, which analysed the behaviour of organisations with regard to the level of their publicness.

Publicness and organisation development

In order for the each of the organisation, including public organisation, to be able to effi ciently and eff ectively function has to react to the tendencies which occur within its vicinity. Such tendencies usually stem from various factors, oft en of the political, economical, technological, psychological, social or cultural nature. Reacting to the dy- namic behaviours of the surrounding world requires the organisation to be considerably fl exible, and above all to be able to effi ciently manage changes, which should lead to the process of mastering and development. Th e huge complexity of organisms, which undoubtedly is an organisation, causes for the determination of the number of areas within which actions of the development type of character may be undertaken [Filipo- wicz 2008, pp. 96–97]. Th erefore, the particular meaning is gained by the ability of the complex management of change within an organisation. Th is ability requires the specifi c level of engagement and competence of the manager staff , which especially in the case of public organisations, should be aware of the specifi cs of aims functioning mechanisms of such organisations. What has to be remembered is that the development of public organisation should be expressed with the higher level of meeting of public de- mands with, at the same time rational application of resources applied in the process of that need fulfi lment.

Th e need for the increase of rationalisation and eff ectiveness of operation of public organisations in many countries, has become one of the most important traits in the process of their reformation. Th is was connected to the fact of the implementation of various instruments and management methods into these organisations, which are typical for business type of organisations. It has turned out in practice that not all of the organisations to the same extent are prone to changes. In the search of the reasons for the occurrence of that occurrence it is Antonsen and Jorgensen that are most frequently quoted, who have proved that the level of institution publicness constitutes a signifi - cant barrier in the process of public organisation reformation. Th e conveyed research proved that organisations at the high level of publicness to the large extent are prone to politic and ministry control and as the consequence possess the smaller capability for independent management. As a consequence they are less prone to the introduction of changes, especially from the area of New Public Management. Contrary to the

(8)

organisations described above – organisations which possess the lower degree of publicness are much more open, fl exible and willing for the application of new solutions.

Th is creates certain consequences, both theoretical (the theory of chance, new institu- tionalism) as well as empirical.

Conclusions

Organizations, also those public ones, are diff erent, with the level of publicness between each other. Th is level on the other hand is the resultant of the four basic factors, i.e. ownership, goals, fi nancing and control. In addition what can also be taken into the consideration are the relations with the surroundings, the specifi c structure or manager motivation. Th e diversifi ed dimensions require taking into the consideration of various characteristics, therefore they may be of quantitative and qualitative character.

Access to information or unreliable information may also constitute substantial barrier.

Th is article, though not covering all aspects of the impact of organisation publicness upon its development, on the basis of research conveyed in Denmark allow to make the claim that the high level of publicness constitute the destimulating factor in the process Th erefore one of the fi rst steps in the process of implementation of changes within the organisation should be the determination of the degree of publicness and upon such basis the undertaking of the attempt for the elimination or decreasing of the importance of the factors which determine the level of publicness of organisation development.

Polish public organisations require serious reforms. In the light of the above it may be assumed that the eff ectiveness of their implementation will be dependant upon their level of publicness. Th anks to such fact organisations may become more prone to pos- itive changes. It seems that the proper step within the aforementioned direction is signifi cant democratisation of public life at the same time increasing the scope of responsibility.

References:

1. Antonsen M., Jorgensen T.B., (1997), Th e ‘Publicness’ of Public Organizations, „Public Administration”, vol. 75.

2. Boyne G.A., (2002), Public and Private Management. What’s the Diff erence?, „Journal of Management Studies”, vol. 39.

3. Bozeman B., (1987), All Organizations are Public: Bridging Public and Private Organizational Th eories, Jossey-Bass, San Francisco.

4. Bozeman B., Bretschneider S., (1994), Th e “Publicness Puzzle” in Organizations Th eory: A Test of Alter- native Explanations of Diff erences Between Public and Private Organizations, „Journal of Public Admi- nistration Research and Th eory”, vol. 4.

5. Filipowicz G., (2008), Rozwój organizacji poprzez rozwój efektywności pracowników, Ofi cyna a Wolters Kluwer business, Kraków.

6. Fottler M.D. (1981), Is Management Really Generic?, „Academy of Management Review”, vol. 1.

7. Goldstein S.M., Naor M., (2005), Linking Publicness to Operations Management Practices: A Study of Quality Management Practices in Hospitals, „Journal of Operation Management”, vol. 23.

(9)

8. Kożuch B., (2004), Zarządzanie publiczne. W teorii i praktyce polskich organizacji, Wydawnictwo PLA- CET, Warszawa.

9. Perry J.L., Rainey H.G., (1988), Th e Public-Private Distinction in Organization Th eory: A Critique and Research Strategy, „Academy of Management Review”, No. 13.

10. Przygodzka R., (2008), Efektywność sektora publicznego, „Optimum. Studia Ekonomiczne”, nr 4.

11. Scott P.G., Falcone S., (1998), Comparing Public and Private Organizations: An Exploratory Analysis of Free Frameworks, „American Review of Public Administration”, No. 28.

12. Vandenabeele W., (2008), Demography, Perception of Public Values and Degree of Publicness an Antece- dents and Correlates of Individual Public Service Motivation in Flemish Government, Paper for the pub- lic values workshop, Copenhagen, 28^th-31^st of May.

Publiczność organizacji – stymulator czy destymulator rozwoju

Streszczenie

Jedną z istotnych cech różniących organizacje między sobą jest ich publiczność. Zasadniczo pozwala ona na odróżnianie organizacji publicznych i prywatnych. Należy jednak podkreślić, że organizacje publiczne także różnią się między sobą, a ich zachowania są często zdeterminowane poziomem publiczności.

Prawidłowość powyższa, wykazana w badaniach m.in. takich autorów, jak: B. Bozeman, M. Antonsen, T.B. Jorgensen, S.M. Goldstein, czy M. Naor, może mieć ważne implikacje dla poprawy funkcjonowania polskich organizacji publicznych (administracji, uczelni, szkół, jednostek badawczych szpitali, służb mundurowych itp.). Z uwagi na często podkreślaną niską efektywność tych organizacji oraz potrzebę reformowania i usprawniania różnych obszarów ich działalności istotne jest diagnozowanie zarówno zewnętrznych, jak i wewnętrznych warunków, w jakich funkcjonują organizacje publiczne. Oznacza to, że istnieje potrzeba wyraźnego określenia czynników, od których zależy poziom publiczności i ustalenia, w jakim stopniu poziom ten wpływa na zachowania organizacji.

Powyższy problem nie znalazł jak dotychczas należnego mu miejsca w polskiej literaturze, chociaż badania prowadzone w innych krajach wskazują, że z punktu widzenia funkcjonowania organizacji publicznych oraz zarządzania publicznego aspekt ten jest bardzo ważny. Celem artykułu jest więc próba zdiagnozowania relacji pomiędzy publicznością i jej poziomem a zdolnością organizacji do rozwoju rozumianego jako zdolność do wdrażania zmian pozwalających na osiąganie coraz wyższej sprawności i efektywności działania.

Każda organizacja, w tym także organizacja publiczna, by mogła skutecznie i efektywnie funkcjonować, musi reagować na tendencje występujące w jej otoczeniu. Tendencje te wynikają zazwyczaj z różnorodnych przesłanek, często natury politycznej, ekonomicznej, technologicznej, psychologicznej, społecznej, kulturalnej itp. Reagowanie na dynamiczne zachowania otoczenia wymaga od organizacji znacznej elastyczności, a przede wszystkim umiejętnego zarządzania zmianą, która prowadzić powinna do doskonalenia, czyli rozwoju. Ogromna złożoność organizmu, którym niewątpliwie jest organizacja, sprawia, że obszarów, w jakich można podejmować działania o charakterze rozwojowym, jest bardzo wiele. Stąd też szczególnego znaczenia nabiera umiejętność kompleksowego zarządzania zmianą w organizacji. Umiejętność ta wymaga określonego poziomu zaangażowania i kompetencji kadry menedżerskiej, która – zwłaszcza w organizacjach publicznych – powinna być świadoma specyfi ki celów i mechanizmów funkcjonowania tych organizacji. Należy bowiem pamiętać, że rozwój organizacji publicznej powinien wyrażać się w coraz wyższym poziomie zaspokajania potrzeb publicznych, przy jednoczesnym racjonalnym wykorzystywaniu zasobów wykorzystywanych w tym celu.

(10)

Potrzeba zwiększenia racjonalizacji i efektywności działania organizacji publicznych w wielu krajach, stała się jedną z ważniejszych przesłanek ich reformowania. Polegało ono na implementowaniu do tych organizacji instrumentów i metod zarządzania typowego dla organizacji biznesowych. W praktyce jednak okazało się, że nie wszystkie organizacje w jednakowym stopniu są podatne na zmiany. Poszukując przyczyn zjawiska, Antonsen i Jorgensen wykazali, że istotną barierą w reformowaniu organizacji publicznych jest poziom ich publiczności. Z przeprowadzonych przez nich badań wynikało, że organizacje o wysokim poziomie publiczności w większym stopniu poddane są politycznej i resortowej kontroli i w konsekwencji mają mniejszą zdolność do samodzielnego zarządzania. W konsekwencji są znacznie mniej podatne na wprowadzanie zmian, zwłaszcza z obszaru Nowego Zarządzania Publicznego. W przeciwieństwie do nich organizacje charakteryzujące się mniejszym poziomem publiczności są znacznie bardziej otwarte, elastyczne i skłonne do stosowania nowych rozwiązań.

Rodzi to pewne konsekwencje, zarówno teoretyczne (teoria przypadku, nowy instytucjonalizm), jak i empiryczne.

Przeprowadzone rozważania, choć nie wyczerpują wszystkich aspektów oddziaływania publiczności organizacji na jej rozwój, na podstawie wyników badań prowadzonych w Danii pozwalają na stwierdzenie, że wysoki poziom publiczności jest destymulatorem rozwoju organizacji.

Polskie organizacje publiczne wymagają poważnych reform, można więc założyć, że skuteczność ich wdrażania zależeć będzie od poziomu publiczności. Dlatego też jednym z pierwszych kroków wprowadzania zmian w organizacji powinno być określenie stopnia jej publiczności i na tej podstawie podjęcie próby wyeliminowania bądź też zmniejszenia wagi czynników determinujących poziom publiczności. Dzięki temu organizacje mogą stać się bardziej podatne na pozytywne zmiany. Wydaje się, że właściwym krokiem w tym kierunku jest znaczna demokratyzacja życia publicznego przy jednoczesnym zwiększeniu zakresu odpowiedzialności.