This chapter explores some of the existing evidence and contested positions around the contrasts and comparisons between managing within the confines of organisations, as opposed to managing between organisations in forms of collaboration. Researchers and practitioners come to various conclusions on the key questions relating to the extent to which managing in collaborative forms of governance requires a unique form of management or not, and if so, the skills and competencies middle managers need to be effective in this form of management. Figure 6.1 suggests that these can be crudely mapped across a spectrum of positions from those who see it as broadly the same, those who judge it to be not quite the same, and those who see it as definitely different.

The school of thought that considers that management in the two forms of governance is different, takes the view that this stems from broadly contextual reasons relating to the form, structure and purposes inherent in the respective contexts. The consequence being that the management and behaviour of middle managers needs to be different. O’Toole and Meir (2010: 324) underscore this perspective in their observation that:

The broad conclusions of my own research also consider that the central concerns and activities of management in each of the respective settings are fundamentally different, primarily because of the focus of management in the respective forms as illustrated in Figure 6.2. Middle manager's tasks and functions within their organisations revolve around human resource management and financial budgeting set within the boundaries of defined professionally based departments. In public service agencies, purposes and roles are often defined by statute, systems of accountability and performance management are prescribed through hierarchical structures, and power relationships and status are widely acknowledged.