special work teams (SWT), as a new form of a temporary organization, have widely emerged in local governance during the last decade. This evolution is a response to the adaptive strategies employed by local governments in the face of their changing environments. Scholars tend to argue that SWT is one type of the deliberative and cooperative organs (DCOs). They have demonstrated the internal operating mechanisms of SWTs. However, we need to explore the differences between SWTs and DCOs, while we should shed light on the generation logic of SWTs from the macro perspective. This article argues that SWTs represent a crucial addition to the formal hierarchical organization of party and government organs, assuming the existing organizational structure remains fundamentally unchanged. We demonstrate that there are both commonalities and differences between SWTs and DCOs. These two kinds of organizations are set up for similar institutional reasons and they share some basic characteristics and sources of legitimacy. However, they differ in terms of functions, structures, membership, performance evaluation mechanisms, and survival. SWTs can be studied as a new type of informal organization, addressing the limitations inherent in traditional DCOs, which are often characterized as “deliberative but not decisive” and “deliberative but not executive.”

Based on a field survey of all SWTs in City A, we find that the establishment of local SWTs in the local government is driven by a combination of external pressures and internal needs. Following their establishment, SWTs display significant differences in terms of types, specifically manifested by being categorized into various subtypes based on two dimensions: functional types and structural types. The functional types of SWTs can be categorized as decision-making and coordinating, decision-making and supervisory, supervisory and executive, and comprehensive, while their structural types can be categorized as loose, closed, or mixed. Meanwhile, the operating mechanisms, including the human and financial resource allocations, the division of duties, and the performance evaluations, differ among these various subtypes of SWTs. These differences among SWTs are primarily influenced by their specific settings and the characteristics of the missions (especially the mission objectives and the urgency of the mission) that they confront.

As for the differences in organizational changes, the survival of all SWTs varies from short term, medium term, and long term to changes in the formal organizations. These differences are influenced by a multitude of factors in the internal and external organizational environments, particularly the clarity of governance mandates and changes in the attention of local governments. Additionally, the efficiency of SWTs and the window of opportunity for their legitimacy, provided by broader institutional reforms, are shown to be indispensable.

The emergence and significant heterogeneity in the development of SWTs highlight the resilience of local governance in adapting to changing environments, reflecting the evolving nature of governance tasks and the blurring of boundaries between conventional and non-conventional roles. This article can enhance our understanding of local governments' institutional autonomy and adaptability by broadening theoretical discussions on public organizations and intergovernmental relations.