Skip to main content Accessibility help
×
Home
Hostname: page-component-8bbf57454-lxvzl Total loading time: 0.333 Render date: 2022-01-21T21:42:02.623Z Has data issue: true Feature Flags: { "shouldUseShareProductTool": true, "shouldUseHypothesis": true, "isUnsiloEnabled": true, "metricsAbstractViews": false, "figures": true, "newCiteModal": false, "newCitedByModal": true, "newEcommerce": true, "newUsageEvents": true }

4 - Organizational structure and public service performance

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  05 July 2014

Rhys Andrews
Affiliation:
Cardif University
Richard M. Walker
Affiliation:
The University of Hong Kong
George A. Boyne
Affiliation:
Cardiff University
Gene A. Brewer
Affiliation:
University of Georgia
Get access

Summary

Introduction

Organizational structures provide the pervasive foundation for achieving coordination and control within an organization, influencing and being influenced by a host of different inputs, outputs and outcomes. One of the key functions for public managers is therefore the creation and maintenance of activities that can provide structural support for a host of other characteristics that are central to the pursuit of organizational goals, such as values and routines (O’Toole and Meier 1999). The relationship between structure and performance is thus a timeless concern for students of public management. Indeed, some might say it constitutes the foremost object of the theory and practice of bureaucracy. Woodrow Wilson (1887) claimed that ‘philosophically viewed’ public administration was chiefly concerned with ‘the study of the proper distribution of constitutional authority’ (213). Classical organizational theorists regarded bureaucratic structure, and its relationship with decision making and behaviour, as key to understanding organizational effectiveness (e.g. Gulick and Urwick 1937; Simon 1976; Weber 1947).

Organizational structure comprises two main sets of characteristics. First, the broad ‘structural’ features that define the physical milieu in which organization members interact, such as the overall size of an organization and the ratio of administrators to production workers. Second, the ‘structuring’ activities managers undertake in order to deliberately shape the behaviour of organization members, such as the relative decentralization of decision making and the specialization of job tasks (Dalton et al. 1980). Although ‘structural’ characteristics are likely to influence organizational outcomes in the public sector, public managers have far less discretion than their private sector counterparts over these elements of organizational structure.

Type
Chapter
Information
Public Management and Performance
Research Directions
, pp. 89 - 109
Publisher: Cambridge University Press
Print publication year: 2010

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Anderson, Stuart. 1995. ‘Organizational status and performance: the case of the Swedish pharmacies’, Public Administration, 73, 2, 287–301.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Andrews, Rhys, Boyne, George A., Law, Jennifer, and Walker, Richard M.. 2009. ‘Centralization, organizational strategy and public service performance’, Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 19, 1, 57–80.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Andrews, Rhys, and Martin, Steve. 2010. ‘Regional variations in public service outcomes: the impact of policy divergence in England, Scotland and Wales’, to appear in Regional Studies (DOI: 10.1080/00343400903401592).CrossRef
Ashmos, Donde P., Duchon, Dennis, and McDaniel, Reuben R. Jr. 1998. ‘Participation in strategic decision-making: the role of organizational predisposition and issue interpretation’, Decision Sciences, 29, 1, 25–51.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Benkhoff, B. 1997. ‘Ignoring commitment is costly: new approaches establishing the missing link between commitment and performance’, Human Relations, 50, 701–26.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Boreham, N. C., Shea, C. E., and Macway-Jones, K.. 2000. ‘Clinical risk and collective competence in the hospital emergency department in the UK’, Social Science & Medicine, 51, 1, 83–91.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Boyne, George A. 1992. ‘Local government structure and performance: lessons from America’, Public Administration, 70, 3, 333–57.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Boyne, George A., and Meier, Kenneth J.. (2009) ‘Burdened by bureaucracy? Determinants of administrative intensity in public service organizations’, unpublished manuscript, available from authors.
Bozeman, Barry M. 2000. Bureaucracy and Red Tape. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.Google Scholar
Braadbaart, Okke, Eybergen, Neils van, and Hoffer, Jan. 2007 ‘Managerial autonomy: does it matter for the performance of water utilities?’, Public Administration and Development, 27, 2, 111–21.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Burns, Danny, Hambleton, Robin, and Hoggett, Paul. 1994. The Politics of Decentralisation. Houndmills: Macmillan.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Burt, Ronald S. 2004. ‘Structural holes and good ideas’, American Journal of Sociology, 110, 2, 349–99.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Campbell, John P., Bownas, David A., Peterson, Norman G., and Dunnette, Marvin D.. 1974. ‘The measurement of organizational effectiveness: a review of the relevant research and opinion’, Report Tr-71–1 (Final Technical Report). San Diego: Navy Personnel Research and Development Center.
Carter, Nancy M., and Cullen, John B.. 1984. ‘A comparison of centralization/decentralization of decision making concepts and measures’, Journal of Management, 10, 2, 259–68.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cheung, Francis W. M., and Cheng, Yin C.. 2002 ‘An outlier study of multilevel self-­management and school performance’, School Effectiveness and School Improvement, 13, 3, 253–90.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dalton, Dan R., Todor, William D., Spendolini, Michael J., Fielding, Gordon J., and Porter, Lyman. 1980. ‘Organizational structure and performance: a critical review’, Academy of Management Review, 5, 1, 49–64.Google Scholar
Dawson, Sandra. 1996. Analysing Organisations. Basingstoke: Macmillan.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dewar, Robert D., Whetten, David A., and Boje, David. 1980. ‘An examination of the reliability and validity of the Aiken and Hage scales of centralization, formalization, and task routineness’, Administrative Science Quarterly, 25, 1, 120–8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Downs, Anthony. 1967. Inside Bureaucracy. Boston: Little, Brown and Company.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fiedler, Fred E., and Gillo, Martin W.. 1974. ‘Correlates of performance in community colleges’, Journal of Higher Education, 45, 9, 672–81.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fuchs, Thomas, and Wossman, Ludger. 2007. ‘What accounts for international differences in student performance? A re-examination using PISA data’, Empirical Economics, 32, 433–46.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Glisson, Charles A., and Martin, Patricia Y.. 1980. ‘Productivity and efficiency in human service organizations as related to structure, size and age’, Academy of Management Journal, 23, 1, 21–37.Google Scholar
Goodsell, Charles T. 1985. The Case for Bureaucracy: A Public Administration Polemic, 2nd edn. Chatham, NJ: Chatham House Publishers.Google Scholar
Gulick, Luther, and Urwick, Lindall (eds.). 1937. Papers on the Science of Administration. New York: Columbia University.
Hackman, J. Richard, and Lawler, Edward E.. 1971. ‘Employee reactions to job characteristics’, Journal of Applied Psychology, 55, 3, 259–86.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hackman, J. Richard, and Oldham, Greg. 1976. ‘Motivation through the design of work: test of a theory’, Organizational Behavior and Human Performance, 16, 250–79.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hage, Jerald, and Aiken, Michael. 1967. ‘Relationship of centralization to other structural properties’, Administrative Science Quarterly, 12, 1, 72–93.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hage, Jerald, and Aiken, Michael. 1969. ‘Routine technology, social structure, and organizational goals’, Administrative Science Quarterly, 14, 3, 366–76.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hall, R. H. 1982. Organizations: Structure and Process, 3rd edn. Englewood Cliffs, NJ; London: Prentice-Hall.Google Scholar
Holland, Thomas P. 1973. ‘Organizational structure and institutional care’, Journal of Health and Social Behavior, 14, 3, 241–51.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hoque, Kim, Davis, Simon, and Michael Humphreys, M. 2004. ‘Freedom to do what you are told: senior management team autonomy in an NHS trust’, Public Administration, 82, 2, 355–75.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jensen, Michael C., and Meckling, William H.. 1976. ‘Theory of the firm: managerial behaviour, agency costs and ownership structure’, Journal of Financial Economics, 3, 4, 305–60.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kelly, John E. 1992. ‘Does job re-design theory explain job re-design outcomes?’, Human Relations, 45, 8, 753–74.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Khandwalla, P. N. 1977. The Design of Organizations. New York: Harcourt Press.Google Scholar
Kirkpatrick, Ian, Ackroyd, Stephen, and Walker, Richard M.. 2005. The New Managerialism and Public Service Professions: Change in Health, Social Services and Housing. Houndmills: Palgrave.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kuvaas, Bard. 2008. ‘A test of hypotheses derived from self-determination theory among public sector employees’, Employee Relations, 31, 1, 39–56.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
La Porta, Rafael, De-Silanes, Florencio Lopez, Shleifer, Andrei, and Vishny, Robert. 1999. ‘The quality of government’, Journal of Law Economics and Organization, 15, 1, 222–79.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lee, Kwang-soo, Chun, Kee-hong, and Lee, Jung-Soo. 2008. ‘Reforming the hospital service structure to improve efficiency: urban hospital specialization’, Health Policy, 87, 1, 41–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lipsky, Michael. 1980. Street-level Bureaucracy: Dilemmas of the Individual in Public Services. New York: Russell Sage Foundation.Google Scholar
Mancini, Dominic J., Secklov, Guy, and Stewart, John F.. 2003. ‘The effects of structural characteristics on family planning performance in Cote d’Ivoire and Nigeria’, Social Science & Medicine, 56, 10, 2123–37.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Martin, Patricia Y., and Segal, Brian. 1977. ‘Bureaucracy, size and staff expectations for client independence in halfway houses’, Journal of Health and Social Behavior, 18, 4, 376–90.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Maynard-Moody, , Stephen, Michael Musheno, and Palumbo, Dennis. 1990. ‘Street-wise social policy: resolving the dilemma of street-level influence and successful implementation’, Western Political Quarterly, 43, 4, 833–48.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Maynard-Moody, Stephen, and Musheno, Michael. 2003. Cops, Teachers and Counsellors: Stories from the Front Lines of Public Service. University of Michigan Press.Google Scholar
McMahon, J. Timothy. 1976. ‘Participative and power-equalized organizational systems’, Human Relations, 29, 3, 203–14.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Meier, Kenneth J., and Bohte, John. 2000. ‘Ode to Luther Gulick: span of control and organizational performance’, Administration and Society, 32, 2, 115–37.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Miles, Raymond E., and Snow, Charles C.. 1978. Organizational Strategy, Structure and Process. New York: McGraw-Hill.Google Scholar
Miller, Gary. 1992. Managerial Dilemmas: The Political Economy of Hierarchy. New York: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mintzberg, Henry. 1979. The Structuring of Organizations. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.Google Scholar
Molnar, Joseph J., and Rogers, David L.. 1976. ‘Organizational effectiveness: an empirical comparison of the goal and system resource approaches’, Sociological Quarterly, 17, 4, 401–13.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Morgeson, F. P., and Humphrey, S. E. . 2006. ‘The work design questionnaire (WDQ): developing and validating a comprehensive measure for assessing job design and the nature of work’, Journal of Applied Psychology, 91, 6, 1321–39.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Moynihan, Donald P., and Pandey, Sanjay K.. 2005. ‘Testing how management matters in an era of government by performance management’, Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 15, 3, 421–39.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Niskanen, William A. 1971. Bureaucracy and Representative Government. Chicago: Aldin.Google Scholar
O’Toole, Laurence J., Jr., and Meier, Kenneth J.. 1999. ‘Modelling the impact of public management: implications of structural context’, Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 9, 4, 505–26.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ouchi, William G. 1980. ‘Markets, bureaucracies and clans’, Administrative Science Quarterly, 25, 1, 129–41.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Parker, S. K. 1998. ‘Enhancing role breadth self-efficacy: the role of job enrichment and other organizational interventions’, Journal of Applied Psychology, 83, 6, 835–52.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pfeffer, Jeffrey, and Salancik, Gerrard. 1978. The External Control of Organizations: A Resource Dependence Perspective. New York: Harper & Row.Google Scholar
Pugh, D. S., Hickson, D. J., Hinings, C. R., MacDonald, K. M., C. Turner, and T. Lupton. 1963. ‘A conceptual scheme for organizational analysis’, Administrative Science Quarterly, 8, 2, 289–315.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pugh, D. S., Hickson, D. J., C. R. Hinings, and C. Turner. 1968. ‘Dimensions of organization structure’, Administrative Science Quarterly, 13, 1, 65–105.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rainey, Hal G. 1989. ‘Public management – recent research on the political context and managerial roles, structures and behaviors’, Journal of Management, 15, 2, 229–50.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Riccucci, Norma M. 2005. How Management Matters: Street-level Bureaucrats and Welfare Reform. Washington, DC: Georgetown University Press.Google Scholar
Richardson, Hettie A., Vanderberg, Robert J., Blum, Terry C., and Roman, Paul M.. 2002. ‘Does decentralization make a difference for the organization? An examination of the boundary conditions circumscribing decentralized decision-making and organizational financial performance’, Journal of Management, 28, 2, 217–44.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Richter, F. D., and Tjosvold, Dean. 1980. ‘Effects of student participation in classroom decision-making on attitudes, peer interaction, motivation, and learning’, Journal of Applied Psychology, 65, 1, 74–80.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rizzo, John R., House, Robert J., and Lirtzman, Sidney I.. 1970. ‘Role conflict and ambiguity in complex organization’, Administrative Science Quarterly, 15, 2, 150–63.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schmid, Hillel. 2002. ‘Relationships between organizational properties and organizational effectiveness in three types of nonprofit human service organizations’, Public Personnel Management, 31, 377–95.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Simon, Herbert A. 1976. Administrative Behavior: a Study of Decision-making Processes in Administrative Organization, 3rd edn. London: Macmillan.Google Scholar
Starbuck, William H., and Nystrom, P. C. (eds.). 1981. Handbook of Organizational Design: Volume 1: Adapting Organizations to their Environments. Oxford University Press.
Tannenbaum, Arnold S. 1962. ‘Control in organizations: individual adjustment and organizational performance’, Administrative Science Quarterly, 7, 2, 236–57.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Taylor, Frederick W. 1911. The Principles of Scientific Management. New York: Harper & Bros.Google Scholar
Tullock, Gordon. 1965. The Politics of Bureaucracy. Washington, DC: Public Affairs Press.Google Scholar
Verhoest, Koen. 2005. ‘Effects of autonomy, performance contracting, and competition on the performance of a public agency: a case study’, Policy Studies Journal, 33, 2, 235–58.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Weber, Max. 1947. The Theory of Social and Economic Organizations. Glencoe, IL: The Free Press.Google Scholar
Whetten, David A. 1978. ‘Coping with incompatible expectations: an integrated view of role conflict’, Administrative Science Quarterly, 23, 2, 254–71.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wilson, Woodrow. 1887. ‘The study of administration’, Political Science Quarterly, 2, 197–222.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wolf, Patrick J. 1993. ‘A case survey of bureaucratic effectiveness in US cabinet agencies: preliminary results’, Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 3, 2, 161–81.Google Scholar
Wood, B. Dan, and Waterman, Richard W.. 1994. Bureaucratic Dynamics: The Role of Bureaucracy in Democracy. Boulder, CO: Westview Press.Google Scholar
7
Cited by

Send book to Kindle

To send this book to your Kindle, first ensure no-reply@cambridge.org is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about sending to your Kindle.

Note you can select to send to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be sent to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

Available formats
×

Send book to Dropbox

To send content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about sending content to Dropbox.

Available formats
×

Send book to Google Drive

To send content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about sending content to Google Drive.

Available formats
×