DIFFERENTIATING PUBLIC AND PRIVATE ORGANIZATIONS

Description of Topic

Scholars continue to debate the extent to which public and private organizations actually differ (Rainey 1997). Researchers have developed a variety of frameworks for highlighting different aspects of organizational structures and processes (Dahl and Lindblom 1953; Benn and Gaus 1983; Lan and Rainey 1992; Perry and Rainey 1988; Mitnick 1980). Others have delineated the traits or characteristics that are unique to public organizations and that focus on rules and job formalization, hierarchy, inefficient degree of bureaucratization (Pugh, Hickson, and Hinings 1969; see also Meyer 1982), and greater amounts of red tape (Bozeman 1993; Rainey, Pandey, and Bozeman 1995). Some investigations yield evidence that public organizations are more rule-oriented and inefficient (Perry and Porter 1982; Warwick 1975), while others suggest the opposite (Bozeman and Rainey 1998; Rainey, Pandey, and Bozeman 1995; Perry and Rainey 1988).

Traditionally, public organizations have multiple conflicting goals, serve multiple constituencies, and are not tied to market incentives. Some have argued that these factors have led to inflexible, bureaucratic structures coupled with particularist personnel practices (Bozeman 1987; Meyer 1982; Pearce, Branyiczki, and Bigley 1997). Such organizations are characterized by rigid rule structures, formalized job guidelines and responsibilities, formal means of communication, clear division of labor and hierarchical control, civil service systems, inflexible reward systems, strict reporting requirements, regulations, and constraints (Weber 1947; Meyer 1982; Perry and Porter 1982; Rainey 1983; Perry and Rainey 1988; Robertson and Seneviratne 1995). By comparison, private-sector organizations are driven primarily by market preferences, which dictate flexibility and responsiveness in both process and outcomes for survival. In theory then, private-sector organizations are likely to be less encumbered by rules and regulations. In addition, organizational effectiveness is more readily measured in terms of efficiency and profitability in private-sector organizations (Bozeman 1987 and 1993).

Nevertheless, there has been a dearth amount of material on the learning transfer offered by both sectors of the industry. This study intends to identify the difference of the private and public sector in their transfer of learning through training.

 

Significance of the Study

This study will be focusing on the comparison of learning through training of both private and public sectors in Malaysia. This study will primarily benefit both the youth and the leaders of both public and private sectors. The youth, especially those intent on a career in the either public or private industries will find out what is expected of them by the two, what future the industries has for them, and what they have to do to be competitive career-wise, in this type of industry.  As for the leaders, this study will show if their expectations and goals can be met by future batches of graduates.  Through feedback, they would be able to voice out their concerns regarding the quality of graduates and help the universities cope with their demands and the ever-changing needs of the industry.            Moreover, educators can gain from this study, as they find the connection between how they have designed their curriculum and what are the actual needs of the public and private sectors.  In that way, they would be able to make immediate changes, if necessary, or continued improvement of their programs, through further studies.  Any deficiencies in training can then be addressed by both the academe and the industry so that there won’t be any shortages in that field.

Finally, this study would benefit future researchers in the field of the public administration, business administration, education, and the social sciences since it depicts the future of the publicly and privately owned businesses and corporations and its varying effects to many sectors of society.