Opening the ‘black box’: Organisational Adaptation and Resistance to institutional isomorphism in a prime-led employment services programme

IF 2.9 4区 管理学 Q1 PUBLIC ADMINISTRATION
J. Rees, Rebecca Taylor, C. Damm
{"title":"Opening the ‘black box’: Organisational Adaptation and Resistance to institutional isomorphism in a prime-led employment services programme","authors":"J. Rees, Rebecca Taylor, C. Damm","doi":"10.1177/09520767221118490","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"The UK’s Work Programme (2012-18) was a major employment services programme, inspired by new public management principles. A relatively small number of directly commissioned ‘prime providers’ were paid by the central Government largely according to the number of job-outcomes their service users achieved but were given a ‘black box’ to design their own services and subcontracting arrangements. Drawing on an empirical study of subcontracted service providers, and focusing on those from the third sector, the paper shows that within this prime-led commissioning model, subcontractors came under sustained pressure to adjust their operational practices. We draw on institutional isomorphism to show that isomorphic pressures were experienced because of both the design and implementation of the Work Programme. Although there were strong pressures pushing towards convergence, however, the different starting positions of subcontractors meant that these changes were not entirely deterministic and some attempts at resistance were observed amongst third sector providers. Their diverse institutional contexts, including positioning and wider interest in the field, shaped how they navigated and responded to isomorphic pressures, ultimately mitigating homogenisation. The paper contributes a more sophisticated understanding of the ways in which provider organisations experience, interpret and respond to structural pressures within an evolving quasi-market. The findings have implications for public service reform programmes featuring quasi-markets that are intended to encourage innovation and a diversity of provision, particularly when promoting mission-led, third sector organisations (TSOs).","PeriodicalId":47076,"journal":{"name":"Public Policy and Administration","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":2.9000,"publicationDate":"2022-08-17","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"1","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Public Policy and Administration","FirstCategoryId":"91","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1177/09520767221118490","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"管理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"PUBLIC ADMINISTRATION","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 1

Abstract

The UK’s Work Programme (2012-18) was a major employment services programme, inspired by new public management principles. A relatively small number of directly commissioned ‘prime providers’ were paid by the central Government largely according to the number of job-outcomes their service users achieved but were given a ‘black box’ to design their own services and subcontracting arrangements. Drawing on an empirical study of subcontracted service providers, and focusing on those from the third sector, the paper shows that within this prime-led commissioning model, subcontractors came under sustained pressure to adjust their operational practices. We draw on institutional isomorphism to show that isomorphic pressures were experienced because of both the design and implementation of the Work Programme. Although there were strong pressures pushing towards convergence, however, the different starting positions of subcontractors meant that these changes were not entirely deterministic and some attempts at resistance were observed amongst third sector providers. Their diverse institutional contexts, including positioning and wider interest in the field, shaped how they navigated and responded to isomorphic pressures, ultimately mitigating homogenisation. The paper contributes a more sophisticated understanding of the ways in which provider organisations experience, interpret and respond to structural pressures within an evolving quasi-market. The findings have implications for public service reform programmes featuring quasi-markets that are intended to encourage innovation and a diversity of provision, particularly when promoting mission-led, third sector organisations (TSOs).
打开“黑盒子”:组织适应和抵制一个主要主导的就业服务项目中的制度同构
英国的工作计划(2012-18)是一个主要的就业服务计划,受到新的公共管理原则的启发。少数直接委托的“主要提供者”由中央政府主要根据其服务用户实现的工作成果的数量支付报酬,但给予“黑匣子”来设计自己的服务和分包安排。通过对分包服务提供商的实证研究,并将重点放在第三部门的分包服务提供商身上,本文表明,在这种以主体为主导的调试模式下,分包商面临着调整其运营实践的持续压力。我们利用机构同构来表明,由于《工作方案》的设计和执行,都经历了同构压力。尽管有强大的压力推动趋同,但是,分包商不同的起始位置意味着这些变化并非完全确定,并且在第三部门供应商中观察到一些抵制的企图。他们不同的机构背景,包括在该领域的定位和更广泛的兴趣,塑造了他们如何驾驭和应对同构压力,最终减轻了同质化。本文对供应商组织在不断演变的准市场中体验、解释和应对结构性压力的方式提供了更复杂的理解。研究结果对以准市场为特征的公共服务改革计划具有启示意义,这些计划旨在鼓励创新和提供多样化,特别是在促进以使命为主导的第三部门组织(tso)时。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
Public Policy and Administration
Public Policy and Administration PUBLIC ADMINISTRATION-
CiteScore
11.30
自引率
6.50%
发文量
18
审稿时长
12 weeks
期刊介绍: Public Policy and Administration is the journal of the UK Joint University Council (JUC) Public Administration Committee (PAC). The journal aims to publish original peer-reviewed material within the broad field of public policy and administration. This includes recent developments in research, scholarship and practice within public policy, public administration, government, public management, administrative theory, administrative history, and administrative politics. The journal seeks to foster a pluralistic approach to the study of public policy and administration. International in readership, Public Policy and Administration welcomes submissions for anywhere in the world, from both academic and practitioner communities.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信