Search results

Heritage assets (HAs) are important goods or properties that define a country’s culture, history, and identity. Public sector entities are the primary custodians of a nation’s heritage properties; however, many local museums and historic houses are managed by private not-for-profit (NFP) organisations that essentially act to conserve these heritage places.

Through a documentary analysis, this chapter aims to investigate the points of convergence and the differences between accounting policies for governmental heritage and private NFP organisations.

The study demonstrates that even private NFP entities present the same characteristics as public sector ones in the accounting of heritage goods and that there are certain accounting standards being equally applicable; therefore, the accounting policies for governmental heritage are in accordance with the accounting policies for NFP organisations such as museums, art galleries, charities, churches, for their heritage goods.

An examination of the commonalities and differences between performance management practices in the public and private sector.

A literature review of 100 publications in international academic journals over the last 20 years.

The chapter develops a framework which links the dimensions of the public/private-distinction (ownership, funding, control and type of goals) to the design and use of performance management systems (PMS). This framework subsequently informs a literature review, which can be summarised as follows: Multi-dimensionality of the PMS is core in both public and private sector organisations, but quite many private sector papers point to a financial focus at the top of the PMS, while public sector organisations show a broad variety of performance indicators, including those on societally relevant goals. In addition, a link between the PMS and strategies can be found in the public and the private sector, but the match between different strategies and PMS design is more elaborated in the private sector. These findings are largely in accordance with our expectations. The review also finds support for the assumption that performance information in public sector organisations is primarily used for external accountability reasons, while internal managerial control is the main purpose in private firms. The use of performance information is quite intensive and mostly functional in both sectors, which does not meet our expectations. Overall, the differences between performance management practices in the public and private sector are less stringent than expected.

Due to limited evidence about the importance of performance-related pay systems and no evidence about targeting in both sectors, a more focused literature review on these issues would be desirable.

Mutual learning between both sectors, for example the public sector can learn from the private sector on how to link strategy to the PMS and the private sector can learn from the public sector about serving a multitude of stakeholders in the PMS.

A comprehensive review of performance management practices in the public and private sector.

There is no single way of achieving business success. The concept of knowledge management (KM) builds on the existing management practices, integrating them into a philosophy for improving performance. This paper aims to understand the various dimensions of KM and how they differ in public and private sector organizations in India. It also attempts to identify the dimensions where one sector is better than the other and areas needing improvement.

The paper uses a sample comprising 16 private and public sector organizations. A convenient sampling scheme was used. The extent of KM practices was evaluated with respect to dimensions, namely process, leadership, technology, culture and measurement.

The paper empirically shows that private sector organizations fare better statistically on all dimensions compared to public sector organizations. Although the private sector is ahead of the public sector on the raw mean scores of various dimensions, it has still a long way to go as the scores are below four on a scale of five. The scores are just satisfactory and there is further scope for improvement.

The study uses a sample of four public sector organizations and the findings may lack generalization. Therefore, it would be interesting to verify the findings using a larger sample size.

The paper can serve as a best practice document for public and private sector organizations interested in adopting KM for improving performance.

The paper tries to bring forth concern areas for KM in Indian public and private sector organizations.

This research paper comparatively reviews online accountability practices in public, private and nonprofit organizations, using the hospital industry as a case of analysis.

The authors conducted a quantitative content analysis of 240 US hospital websites, sampled from the 2016 American Hospital Association (AHA) database. Online Accountability Practices (OAP) instrument was utilized, and it included five dimensions as follows: accessibility, engagement, performance, governance and mission.

There were statistically significant differences in online accountability practices among the three sectors. Nonprofit organizations were leading the way in their overall online accountability practices. They were more likely to score higher on engagement, performance and mission dimensions. We explain this finding through the prism of multiple accountabilities, guided by the stakeholder theory. Private organizations had the lowest scores on every online accountability dimension, except for accessibility. Consistent with previous literature, private organizations were more likely to make information accessible in the online sphere, but not necessarily meaningful or reliable for evaluating organizational performance. Public organizations had the strongest scores within the governance dimension, placing importance on disclosing organizational leadership and sharing information on their governance structures.

This project contributes to theory building on accountability in the online environment. It argues that the distinction between two forms of accountability (functional and holistic) is applicable in the online environment, while accessibility and performance dimensions of online accountability closely align with the functional (hierarchical) form of accountability, and a more holistic approach to accountability includes dimensions like engagement, governance and mission. In addition, this project is the first of its kind to apply the stakeholder theory to accountability practices in three sectors of the economy and how the stakeholder theory provides guidance as a basis of understanding the forms of accountability (functional and holistic) that are most likely aligned with organizations in three sectors of the economy.

The results of this study point to a number of implications for hospital patients, families, hospital administration, healthcare professionals and policymakers. These implications can be broadly divided into two groups as follows: policy implications and management implications. Policy implications pertain to the national dialog and interorganizational deliberations of sector-wide policy to enrich accountability practices; while management implications are concerned with local, intraorganizational discussions among administrators and organizational leaders on formulating specific strategies and tactics.

This research paper contributes to empirical studies on organizational accountability in the online environment. It enriches our understanding of how organizations in different sectors present themselves to the public.

While the term “entrepreneurship” is not exclusively a private sector phenomenon, it is usually associated with private sector business activity and more specifically with small to medium enterprises. However, over the last two decades it has appeared in the public administration literature with increasing frequency. The recent research in public sector entrepreneurial activity makes an exploratory comparative analysis of the key components that are applicable from private sector entrepreneurship timely as the topic is emerging as an area of academic inquiry and research. The purpose of this paper is to provide a comparative analysis of private and public sector entrepreneurship using an analytical model from private and public sector entrepreneurship.

A clear understanding of the research issues involved requires an appreciation of the nexus between private sector entrepreneurship and the more limited research field of public sector entrepreneurship. The paper identifies and examines the historical and evolutionary research on entrepreneurship as a basis for analysis of public and private sector entrepreneurship.

The paper provides a comprehensive analysis that highlights key similarities, differences or a combination between public and private sector entrepreneurship and develops an existing model and framework for a systematic approach to the public sector entrepreneurial process.

Based on this exploration, new insights about public sector entrepreneurship are developed, practical implications for public sector entrepreneurs on how to approach public sector entrepreneurship more systematically and effectively are presented and opportunities for further research are identified.

This paper aims to explore the financial and non-financial accountability disclosure patterns of state-owned enterprises (SOEs), as hybrid organizations.

Adopting the hybridity concept and resorting to stakeholder theory, this paper works on a comparison between the accountability disclosure patterns of hybrid and private organizations operating in the same industry. European national news agencies are selected as units of analysis and an extensive web content analysis is performed on three categories of information.

SOEs are found to disclose a broader spectrum of information than private organizations, and differences between them have been found. Nevertheless, both financial and non-financial disclosures are underdeveloped in the two organizational types.

This paper illustrates how hybridity explains SOEs’ accountability disclosure patterns. Results could not be complemented through information on disclosure through alternative channels. Future studies are encouraged to perform simultaneous comparisons among hybrid, public and private organizations, as well as considering industry specifics.

As web accountability disclosure helps to address the demands of distant stakeholders, efforts are needed to enhance SOEs’ web accountability disclosures and not to undermine democratic accountability relationships.

This paper contributes to the ongoing debate on the accountability mechanisms and style of SOEs. Using a framework for hybrid organizations provides an understanding of how SOEs, as hybrid organizations, disclose information for accountability. In turn, this allows, and then promotes, the investigation of social phenomena by conceiving hybridity as a standalone institutional space.

This study examines unexplored horizontal accountability types between public, private and third sector actors within a hybrid organization. The case organization was applying a novel alliance model to generate service paths for heterogeneous clientele consuming cultural, educational, health and social services. It was first to do so in Finland.

This research is on a case study that used documents and interviews to examine the design of the horizontal accountability. The descriptive analysis focused on identifying what type of formal accountability system was designed (i.e. who is the account holder, and who is accountable and for what and why).

An imbalanced accountability system was identified because accountability obligations were unevenly distributed between public, private and third sector actors. The private sector was the most accountable for performance, and the third sector (i.e. voluntary sector) was the least accountable. As account holders, the public, private and third sector actors were judging their conduct as account providers. This created a biased horizontal accountability system. The hybrid's accountability system was dynamic because the contracts made to establish the hybrid included opportunities to change horizontal accountability if future changes to the external environment affect too drastically the potential to achieve the hybrid's goals.

Three new concepts are proposed for studying dysfunctional accountability systems: dynamic, biased and horizontally imbalanced accountability.

The purpose of this paper is to examine the results of an empirical exploration of the relationship between learning transfer climates and organizational innovation. Additionally, factors associated with learning transfer climate that could account for innovation in Korean public and private organizations have been explored.

This study relies on quantitative data obtained from two survey questionnaires. The sample consists of 390 employees working for seven private and five public organizations; further, each employee has completed at least one training program within a one-year period.

Results of the study demonstrate that private, rather than public organizations, have significantly higher mean scores for all five learning transfer climate variables and for perceived organizational innovation. The results of multiple regression analyses reveal that openness to change and performance coaching have common and significant impacts on perceived innovation in both private and public organizations. However, the other three variables (i.e., transfer effort-performance expectations, performance-outcomes expectations, and performance self-efficacy) have varied effects on perceived innovation depending on organizational type. Specifically, transfer effort-performance expectations has a relatively meaningful impact on perceived innovation in public organizations. Performance-outcomes expectations and performance self-efficacy have relatively meaningful effects on perceived innovation in private organizations.

The sample for this study consists of employees solely from Korean organizations. Therefore, further studies encompassing a greater sampling variety are required to determine the generalizability of these results. In addition, this study is limited to an investigation of the possible differences between public and private organizations with respect to their learning transfer climates and innovation. In studies to follow, researchers can further investigate these relationships in segmented organizations.

The results of this study will assist human resource practitioners to promote innovation effectively and efficiently based on organizational type.

This paper analyses the differences between private and public sector organisations in Denmark in relation to the penetration of holistic management models, how companies achieve excellent results and the empirical weight structure of the European Foundation for Quality Management (EFQM) excellence model. The results show that the penetration of holistic management models is greater among public organisations. Furthermore private and public organisations do not achieve excellent results in the same way. Private companies put higher emphasis on the systems dimension whereas public organisations put higher emphasis on the people dimension. In relation to the empirical weight structure of the EFQM excellence model two significant differences were found. Private companies put higher emphasis on the criteria “leadership” and “policy and strategy” than public organisations.

Inter-organisational governance is an important enabler for information processing, particularly in relationships undergoing digital transformation (DT) where partners depend on each other for information in decision-making. Based on information processing theory (IPT), the authors theoretically and empirically investigate how governance mechanisms address information asymmetry (uncertainty and equivocality) arising in capturing, sharing and interpreting information generated by digital technologies.

IPT is applied to four cases of public–private relationships in the Dutch infrastructure sector that aim to enhance the quantity and quality of information-based decision-making by implementing digital technologies. The investigated relationships are characterised by differing degrees and types of information uncertainty and equivocality. The authors build on rich data sets including archival data, observations, contract documents and interviews.

Addressing information uncertainty requires invoking contractual control and coordination. Contract clauses should be precise and incentive schemes functional in terms of information requirements. Information equivocality is best addressed by using relational governance. Identifying information requirements and reducing information uncertainty are a prerequisite for the transformation activities that organisations perform to reduce information equivocality.

The study offers insights into the roles of both governance mechanisms in managing information asymmetry in public–private relationships. The study uncovers key activities for gathering, sharing and transforming information when using digital technologies.

This study draws on IPT to study public–private relationships undergoing DT. The study links contractual control and coordination as well as relational governance mechanisms to information-processing activities that organisations deploy to reduce information uncertainty and equivocality.