International Journal of Public Administration

ISSN: 0190-0692 (Print) 1532-4265 (Online) Journal homepage: http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/lpad20

Public–Private Partnership (PPP) as an

Interdependent Form (I-Form) Organization

Sami Ullah Bajwa, Naveda Kitchlew, Khuram Shahzad & Khaliq Ur Rehman

To cite this article: Sami Ullah Bajwa, Naveda Kitchlew, Khuram Shahzad & Khaliq Ur Rehman
(2017): Public–Private Partnership (PPP) as an Interdependent Form (I-Form) Organization,
International Journal of Public Administration, DOI: 10.1080/01900692.2017.1298610

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/01900692.2017.1298610

Published online: 24 Mar 2017.

Submit your article to this journal

Article views: 44

View related articles

View Crossmark data

Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at

http://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=lpad20

Download by: [University of Newcastle, Australia] Date: 28 March 2017, At: 09:09
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF PUBLIC ADMINISTRATION
http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/01900692.2017.1298610

Public–Private Partnership (PPP) as an Interdependent Form (I-Form)

Organization
Sami Ullah Bajwa, Naveda Kitchlew, Khuram Shahzad, and Khaliq Ur Rehman
Management Department, School of Business and Economics, University of Management and Technology, Lahore, Pakistan

ABSTRACT KEYWORDS
As “public–private partnership” (PPP) is becoming a popular model among states, the debate concern- Public–private partnerships;
ing how to make it more successful is accelerating. Based on insights from contemporary organization organization theory; public
administration;
theory (OT), the present article suggests that instead of taking PPP as “partnership” between private and interdependent form of
public sector partners, it is rather more beneficial to construe it as inter-dependent form (I-Form) organization
organization. Subsequently, it identifies three types of interdependencies, faced by PPP-based I-Form
organizations, and furnishes a model—comprising of initial and external conditions, and interplay of
internal factors—that could enable smooth functioning and performance of I-Form organization.

Introduction of interdependencies among internal groups, and fur-

Recurring debate regarding public–private partnerships
(PPPs) postulates them as partnerships between public
and private sector organizations, where private sector
partner has opportunistic tendencies (Bult-Spiering &
Dewulf, 2008) and in return government sector has to
impose strict control to safeguard its interests (Pongsiri,
2002, 2003). Based on this assumption, scholars have
suggested bureaucratic management model for improv-
ing functioning and performance of PPPs (Kjaer, 2009;
Walker & Boyne, 2006; Yang & Holzer, 2006). This
article suggests that PPP is not a partnership rather a
new organization in itself. It is an interdependent form
(I-Form) organization that embraces two dominant
groups, representing public and public sector partners,
which are different in their characteristics but depen-
dent on each other for achievement of their respective
and collective interests and goals.
The new conception (i.e., I-Form organization) is
important and opportune because, in view of the
dynamic and uncertain environment in which PPPs
perform, bureaucratic models have little to offer
(Morgan, 2006; Daft et al., 2010). Taking PPPs as
I-Form organization highlights the opportunity to capi-
talize on “interdependence” of its two internal groups,
and providing supportive management approaches so
that a shared understanding among organizational
members is instigated and an organization is enabled
to perform in uncertain and complex milieu.
Accordingly, this article explains three different types
nishes a model of external and internal conditions for
enhancing performance of PPPs.
Public–private partnerships as interdependent form
(I-Form) organization
The way states can engage in economic activities has
witnessed different trends during the last three decades;
for instance, increasing privatization in developed and
developing countries, shrinking size of public bureau-
cracies in OECD countries, shift of outsourcing of
goods and services from public sector to private sector,
and an increasing tendency toward more competition
in segments which were previously dominated by pub-
lic enterprises (Robinson, 2004). Among others, PPP
model is outcome of this trend. It is refinement of the
private financing initiatives for provision of public ser-
vices that started in the early 1990s; and is defined as
“provision of public assets and services through the
participation of the government and private sector
partner(s)” (Grimsey and Lewis, 2005).
Literature on PPP performance abounds that PPP is
a marriage/partnership of two parties (one public, and
second private) that have conflicting interests. While
private sector gets into PPP arrangement for profit
maximization, risk mitigation, and reduced transaction
cost (Välilä, 2005), the interests of public sector include
minimizing current expenditures in budget, and cover-
ing inefficiency of public sector; for example,

CONTACT Sami Ullah Bajwa sami.bajwa@umt.edu.pk Room #5. Management Department, School of Business and Economics, University of
Management and Technology, C-II Johar Town, Lahore, Pakistan.
© 2017 Taylor & Francis Group, LLC
2 S. U. BAJWA ET AL.
Figure 1. A comparison of traditional approach of PPP and new perspective, based on application of OS view, conceptualizing PPP
as interdependent form (I-Form) of organization.
production cost (Parker & Hartley, 2003). The conflict
between interests of both partners primarily stem out of
the reason that private sector partner is considered to
have opportunistic tendencies of profit maximization
(Ahwireng-Obeng & Mokgohlwa, 2002) and therefore
government sector partner has to impose control
mechanisms to protect its interests. It is further sug-
gested that these conflicts could be mitigated and per-
formance of PPP could be improved through detailed
planning including clear targets, responsibilities, time
lines, and robust evaluation mechanisms.
As it can be observed, the above-described approach
of augmenting performance of PPP is mechanical and
bureaucratic in its conception. Precise plans, detailed
rules, and overreaching control mechanism, however,
do not support innovation, organizational learning, and
hence performance of an organization which is operat-
ing in a complex and dynamic business environment
(Morgan, 2006; Daft et al., 2010). Owing to the involve-
ment of large number of stakeholders and changing
external conditions, PPPs perform in dynamic and
uncertain environment. Detailed plans and bureau-
cratic control of one partner over other have therefore
little to offer to improve performance of PPPs.
Learning from advancements in organization the-
ory, however, brings novel way of thinking about PPP
and its performance. To begin with, it underscores
that both the public and private sectors’ partners in
PPP not only bring their interests but unique char-
acteristics as well; the conflict in PPPs therefore could
also be because of difference in characteristics of
public and private sector partners. Furthermore,
instead of construing it a partnership, between gov-
ernment (organization A) and private sector player
(organization B), it could be seen as if a new organi-
zation (organization C) has emerged by amalgama-
tion of two organizations. This newly formed
organization, however, would have two distinct and
dominant collations in it, one coming from private
partner, whereas other from public sector. These col-
lations would be different in their characteristics, yet
interdependent on each other for their performance
and respective mutual gains.
A PPP, therefore, is suggested to be an organization
which is characterized by interdependence of represen-
tatives of two major groups (public and private) and
hence can be labeled as I-Form of organization. The
interdependence in I-Form organization connotes “the
extent to which the organization’s task requires its mem-
bers to work with one another” (Mohr, 1971). The inter-
dependencies are thus inevitable and inextricable
reliance on each other for achieving one’s task in
organization.
An individual’s task in an organization can be better
understood as manifestation of one’s pursuit of inter-
ests in organizations. Gareth Morgan (2006) suggests
that there could be three types of interests for organiza-
tional members, namely, task interests, career interests,
and extramural interests. Task interests are concerned
with the performance of individuals at the workplace in

Figure 2. Framework of key processes of interdependent form of organization, under given initial conditions, leadership, design, and
management approach.
terms of achieving goals and performing duties
assigned by an organization (Samson & Daft, 2009). A
finance manager’s task interest would be to best utilize
the finances of the company, whereas a salesperson
would aim to complete his task of selling the assigned
volumes. With achievement of task interests, indivi-
duals aim to pursue their ambition of progressing in
their career and hence strive for the career interests.
They also have their unique personalities, views, pre-
ferences, etc., which shapes their extramural interest in
the organization. Fulfillment of these three interests is
essentially constrained by and dependent upon interac-
tion and support from other members or in certain
cases collations of organization. The Morgan’s (2006)
taxonomy of interests, thus, explicates that three types
of interests could beget three types of interdependen-
cies, namely (a) task interdependencies, (b) career
dependencies, and (c) extramural interdependencies.
Since employees representing public and private
groups in I-Form organization share respective
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF PUBLIC ADMINISTRATION 3
common background, it is more likely that they will
tend to associate them with other colleagues coming
from the same background and company (Cooke &
Szumal, 1993). Resultantly, the boundaries between
both groups (public and private) inside the organiza-
tion become stronger; and dependencies of individuals
turn into collective dependencies of members of one
group on the other group (Walter, Lechner, &
Kellermanns, 2007).
While career and extramural interdependencies
have more relational gradient, task interdependen-
cies entail procedural outlay. Furthermore,
Mintzberg’s (2005) idea of “coupling” explains how
three types of coupling (pooled coupling, sequential
coupling, and reciprocal coupling) may shape the
task interdependencies of two groups in an I-Form
organization. In pooled coupling, activities of orga-
nizations are divided into discrete organizational
unit. The failure to perform by one unit in this
case would not affect the performance of other
4 S. U. BAJWA ET AL.
units, though overall organizational goal will not be
achieved. In sequential coupling, a chain of activities
prevails, where activity of one unit proceeds subse-
quent to the output of the other units. Finally in
reciprocal coupling, mutual exchange relationship
exists whereby output of one unit is delivered to
the next unit(s) and after processing the receiving
unit(s) sends the output of initial unit back for
further work on it (Thompson, 2011).
In an I-Form organization, public and private
groups greatly depend on each other for fulfillment
of their unique interests, making it either sequential
or reciprocal coupling of work. Failure or low per-
formance of one group (public or private) leads to
low performance of the other. It is therefore bene-
ficial for both groups to foster good working colla-
boration with each other. Accordingly, instead of
detailed rules and control mechanisms, effective
performance of an I-Form organization would
require supportive conditions which could enable
shared understanding of both groups and lead
toward high performance.
Supportive conditions for effective
performance of an I-Form organization
I-Form organizations are vulnerable to extreme level
of conflicts, ambiguity of purpose, and lack of col-
laboration among its two key employee groups,
representing public and private sectors. On the
other hand, these two groups are also highly inter-
dependent on each other for not only organizational
but their personal (career and extramural) interests.
Communication flow, trust, small-win approach,
and tactical solutions could bring the desired shared
understanding among these two groups. The inter-
play of these factors, however, is also dependent on
initial conditions of an I-Form organization (forma-
tion stage) as well as leadership and management
approaches. The most favorable management
approaches for effective performance are thinking
in terms of system dynamics, polycentrism, and
pluralism.
Significance of initial conditions (at the formation
phase of an interdependent organization)
Literature on collaborative forms of organizations
accord with complexity theory in its assumption that
initial conditions of the partnership, or in other words,
formative affairs of interdependent organizations, are
crucial for setting the course of future of such organi-
zations (Bryson, Crosby, & Stone, 2006). The initial
conditions can encourage collaboration among key
constituencies of organization and may also hinder
them on the other hand. For instance, if somehow
relations between the two or more parent organiza-
tions, that combine together to form an interdependent
form organization, are bitter and hostile, likelihood of
their positive and cordial relationships in newly made
organization can rarely be expected. On the other hand,
in case of partnership of two or more organizations
which share positive views and somewhat good work-
ing relationships between them, there are much higher
chances that in newly formed organization the level of
trust and relationship with other would be much more
productive and strong (Child, 2001). Role of power-
balance and prehistory of both organizations, at forma-
tion stage, would thus be important in setting the
future course of an I-Form of organization.
Balance of power
Number of scholars have pointed out the potential
problem of imbalance between power of stakeholders
in collaborative form of organizations (Ansell & Gash,
2008; Tett, Crowther, & O’Hara, 2003). On similar
lines, Morgan (2006) has noted that “power—which
one already has” is important source of power in any
relation. If at the start of partnership, one or more key
partners or stakeholders have much high power in
comparison with the other, the collaborative process
will be vulnerable to be manipulated by the actors
which have relatively high power in organization.
Nevertheless, power imbalance between partner orga-
nizations and hence their representatives in the newly
formed organizations is a common thing to be expected.
This imbalance in power would greatly impact the col-
laborative processes of the interdependent organization
(Albert, Gunton and Day 2003; Imperial, 2005). The
difference in relative power also has impact on the will-
ingness to resolve conflicts with negotiation (Gray, 1989;
Ren, Gray, & Kim, 2009) and would augment the ten-
dency to attempt to purse aims and goals independent to
each other. Therefore, these organizations need to deal
with this complex issue in a cogent manner.
Prehistory of cooperation and antagonism
Another important factor that can expedite or
impede collaboration among stakeholders is prehis-
tory of the stakeholders in terms of antagonism and
cooperation (Margerum, 2002). The social psychol-
ogy of the I-Form organization has huge impact in
setting up culture of mutual trust and cooperation
or disrespect and “us versus them” mentality. If
organizations, which are venturing together to
make a new interdependent organization, have a

history of collaborative experiences, their likelihood
of forming alliances and easily becoming a team
would be much higher than those organizations
which have traditionally been antagonist in their
dealing with their stakeholders. In such situations,
the collaboration among internal stakeholders could
be achieved by increasing the intensity of interde-
pendence between each other so that the rival and
clashing group could understand that their own
performance and success depends on each other
and the only way to succeed is to start cooperating
with each other. Organization may also consciously
take steps to augment the level of trust and social
coherence among stakeholders.
External conditions significant for performance of
I-Form organizations
In addition to the initial conditions, following two
conditions are highly influential on performance of
I-Form organizations.
Facilitative leadership
Overwhelming literature supports the significance of
leadership in developing the culture of an organiza-
tion and effecting the relationship and work style of
employees (Saarikoski, 2000; Lasker & Weiss, 2003;
Margerum, 2002, etc.). Although different working
units and individuals themselves settle the issues at
formative stage of an organization through the pro-
cess of forming, storming, norming, and performing
stages of group development; the facilitative role of
leadership cannot be over emphasized (Imperial,
2005). Leadership sets ground rules, instigates
trust, and builds a culture of mutual gains.
Moreover, leadership is also important for empow-
ering and involving various individuals and groups
in organizations; thereby partially dealing with the
above issue of power imbalance. In case of interde-
pendent organization, the most critical role is of
leadership and therefore choice of right leaders for
steering such organization is essential for perfor-
mance and survival of interdependent organizations.
Management approach
Following three management approach are more con-
ducive for effective performance of I-Form
organizations.
Heightened need of coordination: Thinking in terms of
system paradigm. Interdependence between the ele-
ments of components is the basic assumption of system
theory of organization. The high need of
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF PUBLIC ADMINISTRATION 5
interdependencies in an organization calls for coordi-
nation as basic element of organizational functionality
and performance. Since each component of a system is
envisaged to perform its specific role in system theory,
the interdependence not only emphasizes the depen-
dence and hence need for coordination among intra-
organizational and interorganizational units but also
connotes the degree of dependency among execution
of various work-roles. Coordination here is construed
as degree to which various activities of the members of
the organization are coherent and consistent
(Georgopoulos & Mann, 1972; Lawrence et al., 1967).
As per system theory, the whole performance is out-
come of the role-system and thus organizations exist
and survive only if their members perform as per
assigned roles. Therefore, a bare-minimum level of
coordination among its members is essential for an
organization to perform, and performance will keep
on increasing as coordination increases beyond the
minimum requirement (Lawrence et al., 1967). In case
of interdependent organizations, the need and hence
requisite at a bare-minimum level of coordination will
be much higher than the less/non-interdependent
organizations.
Proponents of system theory advocate the signifi-
cance of “constitutive” model in contrast to traditional
“sum-mative” conceptualization of organizations.
While sum-mative model assumes that outcome of
whole is result of additive effort of its parts, the con-
stitutive model explicates that outcome of whole is
“super additive” (Miller, 1965) result of the efforts of
system component. In perspective of system theory,
I-Form of organization would call increased coordina-
tion and synergetic efforts of its components and mem-
bers to achieve “super additive” outcome, or in other
words, performance of the organization.
Thinking in terms of polycentricism. Extant literature
is available in both business studies as well public
administration theory on the problem of silos and
intra- and interorganizational power struggle. While
theorists and practitioners are already concerned with
inadequacy of contemporary solutions of the perennial
problems of insufficient coordination and pursuit of
narrow self-interests at the expense of organizational
success, their challenge has gone manifold with genesis
of new forms of organization that need to work in
collaboration with each other for implementation of
joint initiatives. While business studies identify such
organizational forms as network organizations, it is
more commonly referred as horizontal management
in public administration theory (Peters, 1998). The
major problem, however, with both these streams is
6 S. U. BAJWA ET AL.
conviction to epistemological assumption of the need of
hierarchy. Much of the traditional theory in both public
and business administration streams assume Weberian
conception of hierarchy as necessary condition for the
effective performance. The Weberian school of thought
would thus suggest the need for more detailed rules,
regulations, policies, and unambiguous hierarchy for
effective performance of an interdependent organiza-
tion (Brown, 2013). Increasing dynamism in environ-
ment that interdependent organization are faced with,
however, brings into light the inefficiency and failure of
hierarchical models in coping with the complex and
unstable environmental forces.
Polycentricism view of public administration, mainly
propagated by Vincent Ostrom (among others), offers
admissible alternate view. Polycentricism offers princi-
ple of organization for a constituency having multiple
social, political, and/or financial centers. In terms of
competencies, polycentricism signifies the importance
of an attitude which is open and flexible toward various
competing paradigms, cultures, and practices (Rhodes,
2000). More specifically, it propels the ability of indivi-
duals to interpret phenomena not merely in one’s own
cultural background but also in appreciation and accep-
tance to see relative occurrence in preview of whole
context. The emphasis on whole context dovetails with
the above noted implication of thinking in terms of
system paradigm.
Thinking in terms of organizations as pluralistic sys-
tems. Combining the above two conceptual stances
along with concept of pluralism offers more compre-
hensive picture of the type of interdependencies that
an I-Form organization would be facing. Pluralism is
a political science concept that characterizes a model
of governance where traditional authoritarian ten-
dencies are undermined by interplay of different sta-
keholder groups that would have to compete with
each other, exercise power, and bargain to get their
share in relative power of organizational landscape.
Pluralistic frame of reference is pertinent for inter-
dependent organizations because such form of orga-
nization characterizes the plural nature of interests,
conflicts, and power structures in organizations
(Schneider & Somers, 2006).
Cornerstone of pluralistic frame is manager’s ability
to appreciate the fact that divergence of interests, con-
flicts, power struggle, and politics are inevitable part of
the organizational life. The manager needs to under-
stand that pursuit of individual interests is integral to
organizational landscape and that a right level of con-
flict increases the potential of an organization (Weick,
2012). Managers would also have to be skillful in
managing and creating a balance between interests of
key stakeholders. For an I-Form organization, man-
ager’s competencies to operate in pluralistic environ-
ment are essential for effective performance.
Organizational design
Organizational design and processes are backbone of
any organization. It influences hierarchy, working rela-
tionships, team orientation, collaborative, and/or com-
peting employee attitudes and ultimately outcomes of
the organization (Daft, 2009). Most important dimen-
sion of design for an I-Form organization is ground
rules and procedures which set system for interaction,
and hence interdependencies, and provide legitimacy to
them. Who should be included in which types of orga-
nizational decisions, how tasks will be performed, and
how employee performance would be appraised are
central features of design that can effect collaboration
and joint accomplishments of the tasks (Albert,
Gunton, & Day, 2003) in an interdependent form of
organization.
Internal factors, significant for performance of
I-Form organization
Under the aforementioned conditions, following five
internal factors interplay to enable or to impede per-
formance of I-Form organizations.
Communication flow
If a partnership, having interdependent and bi-polar
stakeholders, has to unleash itself as an organization,
communication flow will be the most important factor.
Given that groups, forming the interdependent organi-
zation, are coming from diverse—if not clashing—
background, dialogue is necessary to know each other’s
working styles, norms, interests, reservations, compe-
tencies, and explore the possibility of becoming a team.
Some theorists suggest that face-to-face communication
is more important channel of communication, as it is
more suitable to breakdown stereotypes and is less
prone to communication barriers. However, communi-
cation and its importance need to be comprehended at
more abstract level. Where entire processes and perfor-
mance of organization are heavily influenced by sense-
making of organizational members, the communication
is major source of influencing employee cognitive
frames, which in result make sense of organizational
phenomena. In other words, communication channels
and frequency is important for enabling employees of
interdependent organizations to make better sense of

the organizational phenomenon and perform accord-
ingly. Communication is also pivotal for trust building
and promoting shared understanding (Plummer &
FitzGibbon, 2004).
Trust building
Lack of trust has long been an issue in the collaborative
and partnership-based ventures (Weech-Maldonado &
Merrill, 2000). To perform the I-Form organization not
only requires negotiation for initiating a collaborative
culture but also necessitates strong prevalence of trust
among internal stakeholder (Glasbergen & Driessen,
2005). Drawing on prisoner’s dilemma analogy of game
theory, the importance of trust among key stakeholder
for the outcome of I-Form of organizations can easily be
underscored. Especially in situations where prehistory of
antagonism exists, the trust comes out to be the most
important and crucial factor for collaborative process
(Murdock, Wiessner, & Sexton, 2005) and hence effective
performance of interdependent organization.
Shared understanding
When stakeholders are coming from different back-
grounds, especially from two different genres as public
and private sector could be, I-Form of organization
would be in dire need of the shared understanding.
The shared understanding enables collaboration, collec-
tive sense (Tett et al., 2003) and makes the organiza-
tional goals as “common mission” (Roussos & Fawcett,
2000). Organizations are defined as goal-directed enti-
ties where group of people work with each other to
pursue common as well as individual goals. Therefore
an agreement and perusal of collective goals is a neces-
sary condition for all organizations in general and
interdependent organizations in particular. The shared
understanding is also a necessary condition for align-
ment of the core values of the organization (Heikkila &
Gerlak, 2005).
Small-win approach
Achievements of individuals and groups provide them
motivation and may encourage employee’s tendency of
being more innovative and creative. As noted by Stacy
(2005); Stacey and Griffin (2005), the final outcomes of
the organization are guided by positive-feedback loops
where outcome of small events correspond with the
other factors and provides lead to the future course of
actions. Accordingly, one way to encourage collabora-
tion and performance orientation, it seems opportune
for I-Form of organizations to breakdown the work in
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF PUBLIC ADMINISTRATION 7
small tasks allowing organizational members to see
concrete results in shorter time of span (Chrislip &
Larson, 1994). These small-win opportunities could be
named as “intermediate outcomes” that can provide
positive-feedback loop into collaborative process, for
building commitment, trust, and common vision
among employees (Vangen & Huxham, 2003).
Tactical solutions for effective performance of
interdependent organizations
The foremost tactical solution for effective performance
of interdependent organizations is to foster personal
relationship among partner managers so that personal
level of trust and commitment with each other gets
augmented. Moreover, organization should encourage
and provide platform for enhanced communication
across horizontal and vertical spheres of organization
(Santos & Eisenhardt, 2005). The communication
among managerial partners strengthens personal ties
and creates parallel relationships to anchor supplemen-
tary alliances (Koopman & Wierdsma, 1998).
The second solution involves organizational strate-
gies to change the structure of coupling relationship, as
explained above. If organizations are successful in
changing reciprocal coupling to pool or at least sequen-
tial coupling, the daunting task of coordination will
become far less complex (Wimsatt & Griesemer, 2007).
Conclusion
Even the name, PPP, suggests that in mainstream lit-
erature it is conceptualized as a “partnership” between
public and private parties. This conception has guided
scholars to study behavior, interests, and conflicts
between private and public partners; and extend
bureaucratic model of management is most pertinent
business model for effective performance of such initia-
tives. The present article has furnished that “partner-
ship” conception, and vis-à-vis suggested that
bureaucratic model of management is flawed, in the
face of dynamic and complex business environment
being faced by PPP-based organization. Furthermore,
it is suggested that a boarder level of analysis lead us
toward conceptualizing PPP as an organization in itself.
When private and public sector form partnership for
any initiative, a new organization gets emerged. This
organization includes employee groups coming from
private as well as public partner, which not only differ
in their interests but also in characteristics. Despite this
difference, both the groups are interdependent for their
respective individual and mutual gains.
8 S. U. BAJWA ET AL.
Based on this interdependence feature, this article
has termed PPPs and I-Form organizations.
Furthermore, it has underscored that “interdepen-
dence” of these groups presents an opportunity to
create cohesiveness and shared understanding in an
I-Form organization, which in combination with sup-
portive management approach enables the organization
to deliver under uncertain conditions.
The performance of I-Form organization depends on
interplay of three broader set of factors. First, power-
balance and prehistory of both partners in terms of
antagonism is decisive to set future course of action of
the organization. Second, a management approach char-
acterized by system thinking, pluralism, and polycentri-
cism is essential to create an enabling culture in the
organization. Finally, flow of communication, mutual
trust, small-win approach, and some tactical solutions
create the shared understanding between both interde-
pendent groups of I-Form of organization. Enabled with
these management approaches, this shared understand-
ing lead PPP-based I-Form organization to deliver in
complex and dynamic business environment.
References
Ahwireng-Obeng, F., & Mokgohlwa, J. P. (2002).
Entrepreneurial risk allocation in public-private infrastruc-
ture provision in South Africa. South African Journal of
Business Management, 33(4), 29–39.
Albert, K. H., Gunton, T. I., & Day, J. C. (2003). Achieving
effective implementation: An evaluation of a collaborative
land use planning process. Environments- A Journal of
Interdisciplinary Studies, 31(3), 52–68.
Ansell, C., & Gash, A. (2008). Collaborative governance in
theory and practice. Journal of Public Administration
Research and Theory, 18(4), 543–571. doi:10.1093/jopart/
mum032
Brown, R. (2013). Understanding industrial organizations:
Theoretical perspectives in industrial sociology. New York,
NY: Routledge.
Bryson, J. M., Crosby, B. C., & Stone, M. M. (2006). The
design and implementation of cross-sector collaborations:
Propositions from the literature. Public Administration
Review, 66(s1), 44–55. doi:10.1111/puar.2006.66.issue-s1
Bult-Spiering, M., & Dewulf, G. (2008). Strategic issues in
public-private partnerships: An international perspective.
UK: John Wiley & Sons.
Child, J. (2001). Trust: The fundamental bond in global
collaboration. Organizational Dynamics, 29(4), 274–288.
doi:10.1016/S0090-2616(01)00033-X
Chrislip, D. D., & Larson, C. E. (1994). Collaborative leader-
ship: How citizens and civic leaders can make a difference
(Vol. 24). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass Inc Pub.
Cooke, R. A., & Szumal, J. L. (1993). Measuring normative
beliefs and shared behavioral expectations in organiza-
tions: The reliability and validity of the Organizational
Culture Inventory. Psychological Reports, 72(3c), 1299–
1330. doi:10.2466/pr0.1993.72.3c.1299
Daft, R. L. (2009). Principles of management. South-Western,
Cengage Learning india Pvt. Limited.
Daft, R. L., Murphy, J., & Willmott, H. (2010). Organization
theory and design. India: Cengage Learning.
Georgopoulos, B. S., & Mann, F. C. (1972). The hospital as an
organization. In Patients, physicians, and illness (pp. 304).
New York, NY: Macmillan.
Glasbergen, P., & Driessen, P. P. (2005). Interactive planning
of infrastructure: The changing role of Dutch project man-
agement. Environment and Planning C: Government &
Policy, 23(2), 263–277. doi:10.1068/c0441
Gray, B. (1989). Collaborating: Finding common ground for multi-
party problems. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass Publishers.
Grimsey, D., & Lewis, M. K. (2005, December). Are public
private partnerships value for money? Evaluating alterna-
tive approaches and comparing academic and practitioner
views. Accounting Forum, 29(4), 345–378. Elsevier.
doi:10.1016/j.accfor.2005.01.001
Heikkila, T., & Gerlak, A. K. (2005). The formation of large-
scale collaborative resource management institutions:
Clarifying the roles of stakeholders, science, and institu-
tions. Policy Studies Journal, 33(4), 583–612. doi:10.1111/
psj.2005.33.issue-4
Imperial, M. T. (2005). Using collaboration as a governance
strategy lessons from six watershed management pro-
grams. Administration & Society, 37(3), 281–320.
doi:10.1177/0095399705276111
Kjaer, A. M. (2009). Governance and the urban bureaucracy.
Theories of Urban Politics, 2, 137–152.
Koopman, P. L., & Wierdsma, A. F. M. (1998). Participative
management. In Anderson, Ones, Sinangil, and
Viswesvaran (Eds.) Personnel psychology. Handbook of
work and organizational psychology (Vol. 3, pp. 297–324).
Milton Park, UK: Psychology Press Books.
Lasker, R. D., & Weiss, E. S. (2003). Broadening participation
in community problem solving: A multidisciplinary model
to support collaborative practice and research. Journal of
Urban Health, 80(1), 14–47. doi:10.1093/jurban/jtg014
Lawrence, P. R., Lorsch, J. W., & Garrison, J. S. (1967).
Organization and environment: Managing differentiation
and integration (pp. 1976). Boston, MA: Division of
Research, Graduate School of Business Administration,
Harvard University.
Margerum, R. D. (2002). Evaluating collaborative planning:
Implications from an empirical analysis of growth manage-
ment. Journal of the American Planning Association, 68(2),
179–193. doi:10.1080/01944360208976264
Miller, J. G. (1965). Living systems: Basic concepts. Behavioral
Science, 10(3), 193–237. doi:10.1002/(ISSN)1099-1743
Mintzberg, H. (2005). The five basic parts of the organization. In
Classics of organization theory, 6th edition, (PP-219–230),
Cengage Learning, India.
Mohr, L. B. (1971). Organizational technology and organiza-
tional structure. Administrative Science Quarterly, 16, 444–
459. doi:10.2307/2391764
Morgan, G. (2006). Images of organization. Thousand Oaks, CA:
Sage.
Murdock, B. S., Wiessner, C., & Sexton, K. (2005).
Stakeholder participation in voluntary environmental
agreements: Analysis of 10 Project XL case studies.
Science, Technology & Human Values, 30(2), 223–250.
doi:10.1177/0162243904266104

Parker, D., & Hartley, K. (2003). Transaction costs, relational
contracting and public private partnerships: A case study
of UK defence. Journal of Purchasing and Supply
Management, 9(3), 97–108. doi:10.1016/S0969-7012(02)
00035-7
Peters, B. G. (1998). Managing horizontal government: The
politics of co-ordination. Public Administration, 76(2),
295–311. doi:10.1111/padm.1998.76.issue-2
Plummer, R., & FitzGibbon, J. (2004). Some observations on
the terminology in cooperative environmental manage-
ment. Journal of Environmental Management, 70, 63–72.
doi:10.1016/j.jenvman.2003.10.005
Pongsiri, N. (2002). Regulation and public-private partner-
ships. International Journal of Public Sector Management,
15(6), 487–495. doi:10.1108/09513550210439634
Pongsiri, N. (2003). Public-private partnerships in Thailand: A
case study of the electric utility industry. Public Policy and
Administration, 18(3), 69–90. doi:10.1177/
095207670301800306
Ren, H., Gray, B., & Kim, K. (2009). Performance of inter-
national joint ventures: What factors really make a differ-
ence and how? Journal of Management, 35(3), 805–832.
Rhodes, R. A. (2000). Governance and public administration.
In Pierre (Ed.) Debating governance: Authority, steering
and democracy (pp. 54–90). Oxford, UK: Oxford
University Press.
Robinson, W. I. (2004). A theory of global capitalism: Production,
class, and state in a transnational world. Baltimore, MD: JHU
Press.
Roussos, S. T., & Fawcett, S. B. (2000). A review of collaborative
partnerships as a strategy for improving community health.
Annual Review of Public Health, 21(1), 369–402. doi:10.1146/
annurev.publhealth.21.1.369
Saarikoski, H. (2000). Environmental impact assessment
(EIA) as collaborative learning process. Environmental
Impact Assessment Review, 20(6), 681–700. doi:10.1016/
S0195-9255(00)00059-7
Samson, D., & Daft, R. L. (2009). Fundamentals of manage-
ment. Melbourne, Australia: Cengage Learning Australia.
Santos, F. M., & Eisenhardt, K. M. (2005). Organizational
boundaries and theories of organization. Organization
Science, 16(5), 491–508. doi:10.1287/orsc.1050.0152
Schneider, M., & Somers, M. (2006). Organizations as com-
plex adaptive systems: Implications of complexity theory
for leadership research. The Leadership Quarterly, 17(4),
351–365. doi:10.1016/j.leaqua.2006.04.006
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF PUBLIC ADMINISTRATION 9
Stacey, R. (Ed.). (2005). Experiencing emergence in organiza-
tions: Local interaction and the emergence of global patterns.
London, UK: Routledge.
Stacey, R. D., & Griffin, D. (2005). A complexity perspective
on researching organizations: Taking experience seriously.
London, UK: Taylor & Francis.
Tett, L., Crowther, J., & O’Hara, P. (2003). Collaborative
partnerships in community education. Journal of
Education Policy, 18(1), 37–51. doi:10.1080/
0268093032000042191
Thompson, J. D. (2011). Organizations in action: Social
science bases of administrative theory (Vol. 1). New
Brunswick, NJ: Transaction publishers.
Välilä, T. (2005). How expensive are cost savings? On the
economics of public-private partnerships. EIB Papers, 10
(1), 95–119.
Vangen, S., & Huxham, C. (2003). Nurturing collaborative
relations Building trust in interorganizational collabora-
tion. The Journal of Applied Behavioral Science, 39(1), 5–
31. doi:10.1177/0021886303039001001
Walker, R. M., & Boyne, G. A. (2006). Public management
reform and organizational performance: An empirical
assessment of the UK Labor government’s public service
improvement strategy. Journal of Policy Analysis and
Management, 25(2), 371–393. doi:10.1002/pam.20177
Walter, J., Lechner, C., & Kellermanns, F. W. (2007).
Knowledge transfer between and within alliance partners:
Private versus collective benefits of social capital. Journal of
Business Research, 60(7), 698–710. doi:10.1016/j.
jbusres.2007.01.026
Weech-Maldonado, R., & Merrill, S. B. (2000). Building part-
nership with the community: Lessons from the Camden
health improvement learning collaborative. Journal of
Healthcare Management, 45, 189–205.
Weick, K. E. (2012). Making sense of the organization: The
impermanent organization (Vol. 2). NJ: John Wiley & Sons.
Wimsatt, W. C., & Griesemer, J. R. (2007). Reproducing
entrenchments to scaffold culture: The central role of
development in cultural evolution. In Roger Sansom and
Robert N. Brandon (Eds.) Integrating evolution and
development: From theory to practice (pp. 227–323).
Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Yang, K., & Holzer, M. (2006). The performance–trust
link: Implications for performance measurement. Public
Administration Review, 66(1), 114–126. doi:10.1111/
puar.2006.66.issue-1