Theory and Reorganization

1. Theory and Reorganization A Closer Look at Reorganization

2. Introduction • Recall that efforts to comprehensively reorganize bureaucracy tend to be grounded in efforts to pursue any one of three important, but conflicting values: Representativeness, Neutral Competence, and Executive Leadership. • Naturally, when we deviate from one value and toward another, there will be winners and losers. • When different structures determine who gets what and how, then naturally it follows that structure is a matter of politics or entrenching the interests of one group over another.

3. History • During the early days of the reform movement in the late 19th and early 20th Century, many reformers considered the policy decisions made by agencies as reflecting the desires of narrow interests. • By the 1930s, reformers sought to restructure the executive branch so that power would be structured with high-level executive officials who could serve broader interests. • The products of these efforts were the Brownlow Report (1937) and two Hoover Commissions that sought to expand executive authority in administration (but see revisionist critique).

4. Administrative Reorganization • The reorganization debate centers around those who favor centralization and those who favor decentralization. • The most extreme model of comprehensive and centralized administrative reorganization would take all power over administrative policy and place it in the hands of the president who would be attentive to “broader publics.” • What are the benefits of a “decentralized approach?” • Are the benefits of centralization illusory?

5. Theory and Reorganization • Recall that the dominant organizational theories are represented by structural approaches and open systems approaches. • Structural approaches are affiliated with the orthodox or classical view of public administration theory and so reorganization is part and parcel to the effective administration of government policies in this view. • Open systems approaches differ fundamentally from structural approaches in a number of different ways, so how might these deviations from the orthodox approach change how we think about reorganization?

6. The Environment • An open systems approach emphasizes an organization’s interactions with its environment and how that interaction shapes and influences the way organizations function. • How might these interactions lead to the call for comprehensive reorganization? How might they stymie efforts to comprehensively reorganize? • If we peer into the “black box” of an organization, how might other factors influence an organization’s interaction with its environment and, thus, the usually failed efforts to reorganize?

7. Reorganization and Politics • Whatever the case, reorganization is difficult and, contrary to conventional wisdom, is unlikely to produce the results that we associate with these proposals. • March and Olsen (1983) come from a tradition that fundamentally differs from approaches grounded in orthodox administrative theory and those grounded in empirical reality. • Instead of asking how to reorganize, they wonder why we hold fast to ideas of reorganization despite the lack of evidence showing that reorganization is successful and requires the expenditure of scare political capital.