Reading
Meyer, J. W., & Rowan, B. (1977). Institutionalized organizations: Formal structure as myth and ceremony. American Journal of Sociology, 83(2), 340.
Background
John Meyer is an emeritus professor of sociology at Stanford University. Early in his career he studied schools and school systems from an organizational perspective, and his more recent work applies ideas from organizational theory to the world as a whole. Brian Rowan did his doctoral work with Meyer at Stanford and is now a professor of education at the University of Michigan. These two sociologists were part of a group of scholars who formulated the “new institutionalism,” a refined approach to how organizations are influenced by one another and the broader field.
The Meyer and Rowan article is a classic of organizational theory, and one of the few to draw on examples from education. Their main argument is that there is a decoupling of what actually happens within an organization from many of its formal structures. These formal structures are developed to reflect those of similar organizations in the field (isomorphism) and thus an organization gains the confidence of its constituencies and the broader public. In the years since this article’s publication, organizations generally, and school systems in particular, have become more transparent and porous, and thus this decoupling is less prevalent. Nevertheless, the institutions (and the myths that perpetuate them) continue to have a powerful influence over organizations.
Questions
- What are rationalized institutional rules? What is institutionalization?
- On page 355, the authors state:
Two very general problems face an organization if its success depends primarily on isomorphism with institutionalized rules. First, technical activities and demands for efficiency create conflicts and inconsistencies in an institutionalized organization’s efforts to conform to the ceremonial rules of production. Second, because these ceremonial rules are transmitted by myths that may arise from different parts of the environment, the rules may conflict with one another. These inconsistencies make a concern for efficiency and tight coordination and control problematic. (p. 355)
There is a lot in this paragraph. Interpret it in layperson’s terms, using examples from your organization.
- According to the authors, there are four ways that organizations partially resolve inconsistencies between ceremonial elements and day-to-day activities. Describe these four and choose examples from your organization to illustrate two of them.
- The authors aver that organizations can more fully resolve the tension between the ceremonial and day-to-day through decoupling and the logic of confidence. Describe how this works and provide one example from your organization.
Reading
Lipsky, M. (1993). The rationing of services in street-level bureaucracies. In F. Fischer & C. Sirianni (Eds.), Critical studies in organization and bureaucracy. Philadelphia, PA: Temple University Press.
Background
Michael Lipsky first introduced the idea of the street-level bureaucrat in 1969, and these ideas were subsequently built upon by Lipsky and others, notably Richard Weatherley. The core idea is that public employees who interact directly with the citizenry exercise discretion when they implement policies, and that a number of factors influence how this implementation occurs. Lipsky’s experience as a professor at MIT, as a program officer for the Ford Foundation, and now as a fellow at a public policy think-tank have informed his evolving perspective on how street-level bureaucrats implement policy.
The work of Lipsky and others on street-level bureaucracy is nested within a larger body of work on policy implementation in general. This field has evolved from a perspective on policy implementation as a wholly rational act (people do what the policy says) to a much more nuanced perspective (people interpret and adapt policy at every step of the process).*
Questions
- Define and provide examples of street-level bureaucrats.
- Describe the factors that influence the rationing of services.
- What conditions might cause a street-level bureaucrat to shift from merely exercising discretion to committing fraud?
- Describe the role that routines play in the rationing of services. How does this manifest itself in schools and universities?
Reading
Frederickson, H. G., & Smith, K. B. (2003). The public administration theory primer (Ch. 5 Theories of Public Management). Boulder, CO: Westview Press.
Background
Until the past decade or so, individuals who aspired to careers in the public sphere or with non-profit organizations typically pursued degrees in public administration. This path largely has been supplanted by degrees in public policy and in business, particularly the MBA. Nevertheless, there are a number of unique characteristics of these types of organizations that inform how they are managed, and they warrant examination as an extension of, and in contrast to, what we have been reading about commercial firms.
Frederickson and Smith’s book surveys the range of theories that have been applied in understanding public organizations; we will focus in Chapter 5 on the particular challenges of management. In this chapter you will encounter many familiar scholars, such as Taylor and Weber, and I encourage you to pause each time that you do and recount what you learned from their respective work.
Questions
- The authors describe public management as “…the formal and informal processes guiding human interaction toward public organizational objectives.” (p. 98). Unpack this sentence, defining each term, and provide examples from your own organization. E.g., “Informal processes include…” “In my school, examples of informal processes are…”
- The authors indicate that the principles of scientific management “soon colonized government.” (p. 99). Provide examples of this.
- Contrast Theory X with Theory Y and relate these two theories to the work of Taylor and of Weber.
- Examine Table 5.1 (p. 104). Choose at least 5 of the characteristics, and describe, for your organization, whether managerial or group controls represent the primary approach to managing each of the characteristics.
- Contrast scientifically verifiable principles with doctrines.
- The authors list a number of enduring questions regarding management (p. 112). One question they ask is “What…are the circumstances under which political responsiveness is more important than neutral competence and professional expertise?” How would Weber answer this question?
- The authors state the for many management theorists, the devil is BUREAUCRACY. Referring to Table 5.2 (p. 113), describe how the contemporary principles embody this vilification of bureaucracy.
- Describe some of the challenges of managing non-profits (the authors cite Smith and Lipsky here).
*Best title ever:
Pressman, J. L., & Wildavsky, A. (1984). Implementation: How great expectations in Washington are dashed in Oakland; or, Why it’s amazing that federal programs work at all. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.
