e-mail in government: not post-bureaucratic but late-bureaucratic organizations

Available online at www.sciencedirect.com

Government Information Quarterly 25 (2008) 429–447

E-mail in government: Not post-bureaucratic butlate-bureaucratic organizations

Albert Jacob Meijer ⁎

Utrecht School of Governance, Bijlhouwerstraat 6, 3511 ZC Utrecht, The Netherlands

Available online 4 March 2008

Abstract

Empirical research provides evidence that electronic communication does not change governmentagencies into post-bureaucratic organizations. Structuration Theory is used to explore the interactionbetween e-mail use, communication patterns of civil servants, and two bureaucratic characteristics:formalization and hierarchy. Previous research suggested that the use of e-mail leads to lessformalization and less hierarchy, but empirical research in three bureaucratic organizations in theNetherlands leads to different conclusions. First, the use of e-mail leads to informal formalization: thestyle of communication is more informal but the content focuses less on personal issues and emphasizesefficient recordings of agreements. Second, the use of e-mail leads to hierarchical horizontalization:horizontal contacts take a more central position in bureaucratic organizations but these horizontalcontacts are tightly linked to vertical structures. The result of the interaction between e-mail andgovernment bureaucracy is horizontal communication directly linked to vertical structures. Electroniccommunication turns government agencies into late-bureaucratic organizations.© 2007 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

Keywords: Electronic communication; Bureaucracy; Formalization; Hierarchy

1. Introduction

The relation between e-mail and organization has been studied widely and intensively.Studies have highlighted that e-mail replaces other media, forms an addition to them, and leads

⁎ Fax: +31 30 2537200.E-mail address: [email protected].

0740-624X/$ - see front matter © 2007 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.doi:10.1016/j.giq.2007.05.004

mailto:[email protected]

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.giq.2007.05.004

430 A.J. Meijer / Government Information Quarterly 25 (2008) 429–447

to new patterns of communication in organizations (Fulk & DeSanctis, 1995; Hinds & Kiesler,1995; Kock, Lynn, Dow & Akgün, 2006; Sproull & Kiesler, 1991). Most of this researchmakes no distinction between corporate and government organizations. However, theformalized and hierarchical character of government organizations seems to be at odds with thecharacteristics of a medium that enables informal and horizontal communication. One can askwhether government organizations lose these traits when civil servants transform organizationsthrough the use of e-mail. Literature about corporate organizations suggests that electronicmedia transform these organizations in post-bureaucracies (Fulk & DeSanctis, 1995; Hinds &Kiesler, 1995). Key characteristics of post-bureaucracies are horizontal coordination andsteering through influencing network interactions. We do not know whether electronic mediahave the same influence on government organizations. One can pose the question whetherelectronic media have the same influence on government. Are government entities becomingpost-bureaucratic organizations?

The effects of the use of e-mail on the structure of government organizations warrant specialattention because representatives of the people need to be able to hold these accountable.Public oversight depends on the ability of political representatives to control the functioning ofbureaucracies and steer bureaucratic outputs (Behn, 2001; Bovens, 1998). Bureaucracy is akey element in the chain of political and hierarchical control through which democraticoversight over government is ensured. Civil servants are controlled by public managers; theseare controlled by political appointees which, in their turn, are held accountable by repre-sentatives. If the use of e-mail results in a lack of accountability in government bureaucracies,civil servants escape the chain of democratic control.

Systematic empirical research concerning the effects of e-mail on government organizationsis needed to understand these transitions in government organizations. This paper presents afirst exploration of this issue on the basis of interviews with a limited number of respondents.The paper deals with the following research question: Does the use of e-mail changegovernment agencies into post-bureaucratic organizations? Structuration Theory and Bureau-cracy Theory are used to analyze interactions between the use of e-mail and characteristics ofgovernment organizations. The use and the effects of e-mail were investigated in threegovernment bureaucracies in the Netherlands: the Royal Navy, a local government (which waspromised anonymity), and the National Bank. Theories from the domains of PublicAdministration and Information Systems are combined with this empirical research tounderstand transitions in bureaucratic organizations.

2. Conceptual framework

2.1. Structuration Theory and new medium studies

There has been a long debate about the effects of information and communicationtechnologies (ICTs) on organizations (for an overview, see Taylor, Groleau, Heaton & VanEvery, 2001; Williams & Edge, 1996). Traditional perspectives include a techno-deterministicperspective (i.e. organizational structures and cultures change because of the use of

431A.J. Meijer / Government Information Quarterly 25 (2008) 429–447

technologies) and a voluntaristic perspective (i.e. organizations choose how to use tech-nologies to fit their specific situation). A sophisticated perspective on the interrelation betweentechnology and organization has been developed on the basis of Giddens' (1984) StructurationTheory (Jones & Karsten, 2003; Orlikowski, 1992; Orlikowski, Yates, Okamura & Fujimoto,1995). Structuration Theory poses that the introduction of ICTs in organizations has to bestudied as a process of institutional change. ICTs have certain properties, but these propertiesare enacted by employees who use ICTs in a specific institutional context. A simplified versionof this Structuration perspective is used for studying the relation between e-mail andbureaucratic organization (see Fig. 1).

The bottom part of the figure highlights the interrelations between use of e-mail andcommunication patterns of civil servants. Arrow A indicates that civil servants will adapt theuse of e-mail to their communication patterns. At the same time, however, these commu-nication patterns are influenced by the introduction of the new medium (arrow B). Theavailability of e-mail offers new opportunities for communication and hence leads to shifts incommunication patterns.

The top part of the figure shows the interrelations between the communication patterns ofcivil servants and the characteristics of bureaucratic organization. Arrow C highlights theinfluence of bureaucratic organization on the communication patterns of civil servants. Thesepatterns can be attributed to bureaucratic rules stipulating how to communicate in varioussituations. At the same time, bureaucratic only exists because civil servants communicate in acertain way (arrow D). Changes in their communication patterns will lead to changes inbureaucratic organization.

In this framework, e-mail is not an empty container. Technologies have certain charac-teristics, and the characteristics of communication media are a central tenet of the so-called“new medium studies” (Deibert, 1997; Hutchby, 2001, 2003). These studies highlight the waymedia structures communication by facilitating certain forms of interactions while hinderingother forms. The concept of “affordance” plays a key role in these studies. Sellen and Harper

Fig. 1. Interrelation between use of e-mail and characteristics of bureaucratic organizations.


(2002) wrote: “An affordance refers to the fact that the physical properties of an object makepossible different functions for the person perceiving or using that object.”

The following affordances of e-mail have been highlighted in various researches (Sproull &Kiesler, 1991; Trevino, Daft & Lengel, 1990):

1. text oriented (although increasingly images are used in messages);2. asynchronous (no direct feedback required);3. one-to-many (easy to send one message to a very large group);4. inexpensive (compared to telephone or paper mail); and5. instant memory (since all messages are, at least temporarily, stored).

New medium studies, however, highlight that these affordances do not determine outcomes.The outcome should be conceptualized as the results of affordance, the context of use andindividual choices. This makes this theoretical approach compatible with Structuration Theory,although new medium studies do not emphasize that the context of use also changes in the useof technology.

2.2. Bureaucracy Theory

The (institutional) context of e-mail used in this study is formed by bureaucraticorganizations and Bureaucracy Theory is the body of theory that has been developed about thisinstitutional context. Colloquially, the term bureaucracy refers to an organization that isrigidly devoted to the details of administrative procedures. In this paper, however, bureaucracyis used in the Weberian sense. Weber developed his ideal type of a bureaucracy and indicatedthat a core assumption of bureaucracy is that it obeys its ruler. In democratic societies, the ruleof bureaucracies is a political appointee (a minister or a secretary or their local equivalents)who is held accountable by a parliament of representatives. Optimal bureaucracies shouldresult in effective and efficient organizations, and furthermore these organizations should bereliable (Weber, 1968). Bureaucratic structures are formed according to the followingprinciples (Perrow, 1986; Zuurmond, 1994):

1. hierarchy (clear division of competencies in vertical positions);2. centralization (bureaus are organized in a single line of command);3. formalization (work processes are documented in an impersonal form);4. specialization (specific job descriptions and good education); and5. standardization (task execution according to fixed rules).

This paper focuses on the changes in two of the above mentioned principles: hierarchy andformalization. The reason for this limitation is pragmatic as an evaluation of the impact of e-mail on all these principles would require a book rather than a research paper. There is also asubstantial rationale for this limitation—previous research (Frissen, 2003; Meijer, 2002; Stasz& Bikson, 1986; Van den Hooff, 1997) has indicated that the use of e-mail leads to lesshierarchical and less formal organizations.


Formalization in the Weberian bureaucracy means that personal matters and execution oftasks need to be strictly separated (Perrow, 1986; Weber, 1968). Weber also emphasizes thatthe results of work processes need to be documented. Schriftligkeit is an importantcharacteristic of bureaucracies, and written documents play a key role in control in and overthese organizations (Zuurmond, 1994). Public officials can be called to account, andbureaucracies can demonstrate their functioning on the basis of written documents.

Formalization also plays an important role in literature on organizational analysis anddesign. In his influential work on Organizational Theory, Scott (2003) defines formalstructures as the norms and communication patterns that are meant to function independentfrom individuals. Individuals are replaceable. In contrast, informal structures are based onpersonal characteristics and relations between individuals. On the basis of their well-knownHawthorne experiments, Roethlisberger and Wilson (1939) equate formal structures to the“logic of costs and efficiency” and informal structures as the “logic of emotions.” Selznick(1957) highlights the reduction of organizational dependency on personal characteristics byroutinizing supervision and externalizing discipline and incentives.

Three key aspects can be identified in these discussions of formalization. First is the dividebetween work and private interests. Employees should not use their positions for improvingtheir personal situations since the domains of work and private interest are to be separated. Asecond aspect refers to the style of communication. Formalized communication contains astyle of writing that is non-personal and anticipates the use of documents in other contexts.Finally, a third aspect relates to the type of contact between employees in an organization.Formalization means a reduction in personal and relational elements of coordination and anemphasis on objectively documenting decisions, discussions, and work processes.

Hierarchy is another key principle and, as formulated by Max Weber (1968), is the systemof vertical positioning of functions in organizational structures. Vertical lines play a crucial rolein bureaucratic organizations since they ensure control and accountability. Hierarchy ingovernment is crucial for the chain of command from citizens to representatives to politicalleaders to civil servants (Strøm, 2000). Through hierarchy, abuse of power and corruption ingovernment can be prevented, and the activities of civil servants can be steered into thedirection of political objectives.

In the organizational sciences hierarchy is generally acknowledged as a crucial aspect oforganizations since it enables coordination, steering, and control (Mintzberg, 1983;Tannenbaum, Kavcic, Rosner, Vianello & Wieser, 1974). Vroom (1969) emphasizes thathierarchical channels for processing information enable organizations to solve problemsquickly and communication between every individual in an organization would generate acommunication overload. One could even say that hierarchy has become one of the dominantcharacteristics of bureaucratic organizations (Wilensky, 1967). The omnipresent organigrams(organizational charts) stress, above all, hierarchical relations in organizations.

Hierarchy can be conceptualized in three aspects. A first aspect of hierarchy concerns thelimitation of the autonomy of employees. Autonomy can broadly be described as the degree offreedom in making decisions, but also in gathering information and executing organizationaltasks (Harley, 1999). Second, hierarchy structures communication patterns in organizations(Schofield & Alt, 1983). Communication takes places within an organizational unit, and the


head of this unit is the only one who communicates with other units. The hierarchy as means tostructure communication is shown in Fig. 2.

A third aspect of hierarchy is its function as a funnel for information from the bottom of theorganization to its top (Van Thijn & Cardoso Ribiero, 2004). Employees inform their managersabout their work and other relevant developments. These managers collect information fromall their employees and inform political appointees. An adequate hierarchy should result inbringing relevant information to those in charge of the organization.

Formalization and hierarchy are well-established but in the last decade various researchershave been arguing that that these characteristics of bureaucratic organizations are losing theircentral position in coordinating activities of members of these organizations. They stipulatethat bureaucratic organizations are turning into post-bureaucratic organizations with lowerdegrees of formalization and hierarchy and coordination through informal, horizontalnetworks (Fulk & DeSanctis, 1995; Hekscher & Donellon, 1994; Hinds & Kiesler, 1995).According to their argument, the use of information and communication technologies plays animportant role in this transition.

2.3. Hypotheses

The Structuration Theory framework brings together discussions about the use of in-formation and communication technologies and characteristics of organizations. Although thisframework stresses that outcomes of processes of change are unpredictable, the framework canbe used to trace dominant – but not deterministic – outcomes of these processes. What is theoutcome of the confrontation of e-mail and government bureaucracy?

Let us look at the expected effects of e-mail on the degree of formalization of governmentbureaucracies. Explorative research suggests that the distinction between work and privateinterest may become blurred with the use of e-mail compared with communication throughpaper documents since employees use e-mail not only for work-related communication, butalso for private communication (Frissen, 2003; Meijer, 2002). Various researchers have alsoconcluded that the style of e-mail communication is much more informal than the style ofwritten documents since conventions that guide communication through paper documents donot apply as strictly to communication through e-mail (Ball, 1991; Burgess, Jackson &Edwards, 2005; Murray, 1988; Ngwenyama, 1998, p. 11; Taylor, Fieldman & Lahlou, 2005;

Fig. 2. Communication follows hierarchical lines.


Yunus, 2005). Finally, personal style becomes more important in e-mail communication at thecost of less systematically and objectively documenting work processes (Landry, 2000). Onthe basis of this overview, the following hypothesis is proposed:

H1. The outcome of the changes triggered by the use of e-mail in government bureaucracies isa lower degree of formalization than before the introduction of this medium.

Now we will examine the anticipated effects of e-mail on the degree of hierarchy ofgovernment organizations. The use of e-mail is expected to raise the level of individual control,and this results in a drop of the degree of hierarchy since managers have fewer opportunities tosteer the behavior of their employees (Hinds & Kiesler, 1995). Additionally, new e-mailcommunication patterns take the form of networks and result in a limitation of the role ofhierarchy in structuring organizational communication (Sproull & Kiesler, 1991; Van denHooff, 1997). The third aspect of hierarchy was the information funnel. E-mail can be expectedto form a barrier to this funnel of information because of the horizontal communicationpatterns (see also Thaens, 2001). On the basis of this overview, the following hypothesis isproposed:

H2. The outcome of the changes triggered by the use of e-mail in government bureaucracies isa lower degree of hierarchy than before the introduction of this medium.

The lower degrees of formalization and hierarchy are key characteristics of post-bureaucratic organizations (Fulk & DeSanctis, 1995; Hekscher & Donellon, 1994). This paperpresents new empirical work to test the two propositions. The design of this research ispresented in the next section.

3. Research design

The research was carried out in line with the interpretative research tradition in informationsystems research (Walsham, 2006). The combination of qualitative and quantitative researchpresented in this paper focused on creating an in-depth understanding of how e-mail is actuallyused by office workers in bureaucratic organizations. The research focused on e-mailcommunication from the perspective of civil servants to reconstruct the changes theyexperience in their work environment in bureaucratic organizations.

The research was explorative, and three cases were selected for the empirical research. Thecases differed in the level of government, the level of autonomy from central departments, andthe policy domain. The idea behind this unique case design was to get a broad understanding ofthe changes in government bureaucracies (George & Bennett, 2006). The following three caseswere selected: the Headquarters of the Royal Navy, the Administrative Department of a localgovernment (which requested anonymity), and the National Bank.

In line with the interpretative tradition, a combination of research methods was used tostudy e-mail practices in the three organizations. The conceptualizations of formalization andhierarchy presented in the conceptual framework guided the data collection and resulted inspecific questions for the empirical research (see Table 1).

Table 1Questions for empirical research

Bureaucratic characteristic Specific questions

Formalization Are work and private interests separated?Is the style of communication formal or informal?Are formal and informal communication separated?

Hierarchy What is the degree of autonomy of employees?To what extent does communication follow hierarchical lines?Are superiors informed about the work of their subordinates?


The specific research method varied per case because access to the contents of the messageswas problematic in the Royal Navy and the National Bank.

• The research consisted of extensive semistructured interviewing with civil servants withdifferent hierarchical and functional positions in the organizations. Nine civil servants wereinterviewed at the Royal Navy, 13 respondents in the local government, and 8 respondentsat the National Bank, which made a total of 14 managers and 16 employees. Respondentswere selected on the basis of maximum variation since that fits this type of explorativestudy. Positions varied from secretaries to directors to Web masters to lawyers to IT auditors.

• To enhance the reliability of the research, the content of 1522 e-mail messages of a group of13 civil servants in the local government were analyzed. This analysis focused on formaland informal use of language and e-mail patterns in terms of CCs forwards, BCCs, etc.

• In the Royal Navy, seven civil servants registered their e-mail communication during a periodof several days. They indicated whether this communication was task related or personal.

• In each organization, one or two interviews were held with IT experts to obtain informationabout the e-mail facilities at the organization.

• A total of 16 documents concerning e-mail facilities and policies were studied in all threeorganizations.

The original objective of the study was to track and explain differences between bu-reaucratic organizations. However, an analysis of the three cases showed very similar changesin communication patterns with the introduction of e-mail, and hence also similar effects onthe degree of formalization and the hierarchy of organizations. Therefore, the research findingsare presented collectively. The results are presented according to the two bureaucratic cha-racteristics and the specific questions that were formulated for each of them.

4. Empirical results: formalization

4.1. Are work and private interests blurring?

Does the use of e-mail result in blurring the distinction between task-related and privatecommunication? Quantitative (though limited) evidence comes from the research at the Royal


Navy. The respondents' registrations indicate that e-mail is used for personal communication inless than 10% of the messages. These findings were confirmed through qualitative research.Seventy percent of the respondents indicated that they make limited use of e-mail for privatecommunication. Some respondents emphasized that limited private use is acceptable. One said:“I also call my wife from the office when I go home. Organizations should allow for limitedprivate use of email.” Thirty percent of the respondents make regular use of it. Anotherrespondent reported that: “A great part of my personal life (…) is conducted through work email.”

It is possible to question these answers since they are based on self-reporting. Use of e-mailfor personal communication could be seen as undesirable behavior, and therefore respondentsmight be inclined to downplay this type of e-mail use. The content analysis at the localgovernment, however, does not show a gap between self-reporting and actual messages andgave no reason to question the self-reports. Of 100 sample messages, five contained contentwhich could be considered private.

Another possible blur of work and private interests is that employees use their private e-mailaccounts for work-related communication. A large majority of the respondents at the threeorganizations have an e-mail account at home and a minority of them occasionally open this e-mail box at work. Private e-mail accounts are hardly used for work-related communications.Some respondents indicated that they e-mail documents to their private accounts so they canwork on these documents at home.

4.2. Informal style of communication?

Does the use of e-mail result in a more informal style of communication? This part of theresearch is complicated to present since these changes in style are difficult to translate intoEnglish while they concern distinctions that are specific to the Dutch language. The distinctionbetween a formal and an informal you provides an example. This distinction does not exist inEnglish, whereas it plays an important role in Dutch interactions.

Eighty percent of the respondents confirmed that the style of communication in e-mailmessages is more informal than in written documents. Nearly all respondents in the threeorganizations highlighted the informal heading. Written documents generally start with “ToWhom it May Concern,” whereas e-mail messages usually open with “Hi John.” E-mailmessages end with “Bye, Tim” instead of a formal “Best regards, Dr. T. Limber.” This examplealso shows that first names are used instead of professional titles and formal abbreviations ofpositions in bureaucratic organizations.

E-mail messages in all three organizations are written is a sloppier manner. Rules ofgrammar are applied in a loose sense and the respondents do not make as much of an effort toformulate messages precisely. Some respondents highlighted that they do no use capitals andwrite e-mail messages as telegrams. Other respondents indicated that they tolerate spellingerrors in e-mail that they would not tolerate in written documents. Many respondents, however,emphasized that this does not mean that “anything goes.” One respondent reported that, “I findquality important: no spelling errors and no yuppie language.”

A few respondents emphasized that external e-mail messages are written in the same formalmanner as written document. A respondent indicated that the e-mail message he once wrote to


the President of the National Bank was as formal as an internal memo. Two respondentsindicated that, in the end, their messages are still relatively formal in style. They stressed thatthey have been trained to write in a certain way and they do not find it easy to suddenly changetheir style. One of these respondents recounted that, “My daughters always tell me that I writevery formal email messages.”

Some respondents emphasized that the style of communication in e-mail message is closerto oral communication than to written communication. They emphasize that they writemessages in the same way as they would speak to people. One respondent indicated that arapid exchange of messages makes this type of communication feel like a conversation. Heclaimed that, “Email is similar to the telephone.”

4.3. Mixing formal and informal communication?

Do personal and task-related communications become intertwined in e-mail communica-tion? Nearly 90% of the respondents indicated that personal and task-related communicationsare not mixed. To the contrary, e-mail is used almost exclusively for work-relatedmatters. Somerespondents indicated that e-mail contacts are more informal than communication throughwritten documents. One respondent observed that, “In email you can easily write somethingsuch as, “That was quite an emotional meeting!” Another respondent stresses that relativelyunimportant issues – still nice to know – are more easily communicated through e-mail.

Some respondents in all three organizations commented that the use of e-mail leads to moreprecise communication since agreements which were formerly not documented are now writtendown and kept in an electronic memory. One respondent said that, “Previously, we would not havemade minutes of minor meetings. Now the outcomes of these meetings are recorded.” Anotherrespondent affirmed this saying, “The CC-option is used to inform others about agreements.”

A few respondents highlighted that contacts are less personal and only related to theexecution of tasks. One respondent claimed that, “Sending email messages is easier thanwalking to someone's office and, therefore, email leads to less face-to-face and telephonecontact. In oral contacts personal matters are discussed. E-mail messages only contain work-related communication.” Another respondent stressed that contacts through e-mail are moreefficient but lose their personal touch. Some respondents reported that e-mail is not useful forcommunicating emotions. One reason why they do not include emotional statements in their e-mail messages is that these messages can be forwarded. Another reason is that emotionalstatements in e-mail can easily be misinterpreted. One observed that, “In sensitive matters Iprefer using the telephone.”

5. Empirical results: hierarchy

5.1. Decline in autonomy?

Civil servants were asked whether e-mail enhanced their autonomy in the execution oftasks, in the management of information and communication, and in decision making. The


results are shown in Table 2 (the scores reflect the number of positive answers minus thenegative answers divided by the number of respondents: “1”means that all respondents see anincrease in autonomy, “−1” means that all respondents see a decrease in autonomy).

The table shows that a substantial number of respondents see a positive effect of e-mail ontheir autonomy in information and communication management. The qualitative researchconfirms these findings. Several respondents highlighted that access to information is easierthrough e-mail. One respondent explained that, “I can request all sorts of information andthey'll send it to me.”

Other respondents indicated that their autonomy in communication is increased. They candecide at what time they want to communicate and, more importantly, with whom they want tocommunicate. One respondent indicated that he also finds it important that he has a largerdegree of autonomy in choosing the style of communication. Many respondents stressed thatthey have a large degree of autonomy in managing information. One respondent lauded hisautonomy saying, “There are no rules that indicate how I should structure the storage ofemail.”

The table also shows a positive effect of e-mail on employee autonomy in executing tasks.Three out of 10 respondents see a positive effect. In the qualitative research most respondentsemphasized that e-mail does not change the contents of their tasks but their autonomyincreases in terms of temporal and spatial autonomy. They can decide when and where toexecute the task. One respondent said, “You do not get disturbed. You can decide when to doyour job.” Another respondent added, “You can work where you want. I sometimes work athome.” Other respondents highlighted that additional opportunities to communicate withoutside contacts increases their autonomy in executing tasks.

E-mail has a limited positive effect on employee autonomy in decision making. Mostrespondents stressed that decision making in bureaucratic organizations is bound by formalrules and formal responsibilities. A minority of the respondents saw a positive effect. Theyemphasized that decisions are made according to formal rules but indicated that e-mailincreases their autonomy in preparing these decisions. One respondent indicated that employeeautonomy has been increased for small budget purchases (up to a thousand euros).

There were no significant difference in the perceptions of the effect e-mail has on autonomybetween employees and managers. Most managers evaluated the changes in autonomy ashaving positive effects. One manager commented that, “Managers must not control everythingand must not even want to control their employees all the time. Trusting people is the way tomotivate them.” Another manager added, “Employee autonomy has been strengthened and

Table 2Impact of e-mail on autonomy of civil servants

Autonomy in information andcommunication management

Autonomy in tasks Autonomy indecision making

Royal Navy (n=9) 0.4 0.0 0.0Local government (n=13) 0.3 0.4 0.2National Bank (n= 8) 0.4 0.4 0.1Total (N=30) 0.4 0.3 0.1


this undermines hierarchy. (…) That is a good thing. (…) If they do not do their jobs correctly,we should hire better people.” Only one manager disagreed, concluding that employee auto-nomy has attained unacceptable levels.

5.2. Is hierarchy less important for structuring communication?

Does e-mail make employees skip hierarchical positions in their communication morefrequently and/or does e-mail make them communicate more directly with employees in otherdepartments? The results are shown in Table 3 (the scores reflect the number of positiveanswers minus the negative answers divided by the number of respondents: “1” means that allrespondents indicate that they communicate more directly with employees in otherdepartments, “−1” means that all respondents indicate that they communicate less directlywith employees in other departments).

Most respondents in all three organizations indicated that it is easier to contact personshigher up in the hierarchy. One respondent reported, “Employees find it easier to send an emailto the head of their department or to one of the directors.” Employees indicated that theysometimes skip hierarchical positions in their e-mail communication, whereas they would notskip them in other written documents.

More significantly, respondents stressed that horizontal communication is facilitated. Oneaffirmed that, “Before the introduction of e-mail, a memo would pass the head of mydepartment and the head of another department before it would finally end up on theaddressee's desk. Secretaries channeled the communication. Now I can send the messagedirectly to the addressee.” Another respondent emphasized that – in contrast with the situationin the past – e-mail communication is more related to the expertise of employees than to theirformal positions.

Generally, heads of departments are informed through CCs. One respondent said that, “If Ithink there may be problems in the coordination I send a CC to the head of my department. If Ithink the issue is harmless, I don't.” The answers also reflected strategic considerations insending a CC to the head of a department. One respondent stressed that, “If problems arise, Ican say that he could have known because I did send him a CC.”

Most managers valued the increase in horizontal communication as a positive development.One manager specifically highlighted that he is glad that his employees follow horizontal linesbecause it enables him to steer on key issues. Only one manager objected to the new commu-nication patterns. He claimed that, “Email creates confusion in hierarchical organizations… It

Table 3Impact of e-mail on communication patterns

Deviation from hierarchical lines

Royal Navy (n=9) 0.6Local government (n=13) 0.5National Bank (n=8) 0.8Total (N=30) 0.6


is an anarchistic medium which confounds formal procedures.” Most managers valuehorizontal communication but emphasize that they should receive a CC to be able to monitorcommunication.

5.3. Limited information to the top of the organization?

Respondents were asked whether they keep their managers better informed managers abouttheir work because of e-mail communication. The results are shown in Table 4 (the scoresreflect the number of positive answers minus the negative answers divided by the number ofrespondents: “1” means that all respondents indicated that they keep their managers betterinformed, “−1” means that all respondents indicated that they do not keep their managers aswell informed).

Most respondents indicated that they keep their managers better informed because they sendCCs. The respondents from the Royal Navy form an exception to the general perception thatmanagers are better informed. The most probable explanation is that the Royal Navy, as amilitary organization, puts greater emphasis on directly informing superiors than the otherorganizations. The added value of sending CCs is then less notable. Testing this explanationrequires more systematic research into the specific effects of e-mail on military organizations.The qualitative analysis yielded information about the variety of opposing positions taken bythe respondents: why e-mail makes managers less informed, why it does not have any effect,and why it makes them better informed. The minority of respondents who answered that theirmanagers are not as well informed stressed that managers lose their central position and cannotkeep track of all the communication. One respondent pointed out that, “Our bosses don't knowhalf of what goes on through email.” Another respondent emphasized that communication isfaster and does not pass the manager's desk. A third respondent indicated that his (older) bossdoes not feel comfortable with e-mail as a communication technology.

Quite a few respondents indicated that e-mail does not have any effect on the informationmanagers receive. One respondent downplayed the role e-mail plays in his employmentsaying, “My boss is the assistant-director. E-mail does not make him better or worse informedabout my work. He gets his information through meetings and not through email.” Onemanager stressed that what he knows about the work his employees do depends on what theytell him and not on the communication technology they use.

A substantial group of respondents indicated that they are of the opinion that their managersare better informed, mainly because of CCs. One respondent observed that, “I send many CC's

Table 4Impact of e-mail on informing managers

Do employees inform managers better?

Royal Navy (n=9) 0.000Local government (n=13) 0.615National Bank (n=8) 0.600Total (N=30) 0.433


to my manager to keep him informed. This saves me from having to report my activities to himevery week.” Some respondents see CC's as an important precondition for coordination. Onewrote, “Managers need to be informed through CC's to enable them to intervene.” Mostmanagers also indicated that they feel they are better informed about their employees' work.Information overload is not considered to be a problem. Said one, “You can get the main thrustof a message in 2 seconds. After that you can delete messages. I also put unread messages inmy folders so they are available for later reading.”

The analysis of e-mail communications within local government confirms that CCs areimportant (see Table 5). One fifth of the messages are received through CCs, and for thesuperiors, this is nearly one out of four messages. Subordinates sent slightly more messagesthan superiors.

6. Analysis: testing the hypotheses

6.1. Testing the informalization hypothesis

We have seen that e-mail challenges existing conventions governing the division betweenwork and private matters. E-mail is used for some private matters, and this type of use isgenerally accepted. This shows a shift in communication patterns. At the same time, however,civil servants emphasize that work-related and private communication should be separated andthey strive for this separation. This can be seen as a reproduction of bureaucratic characteristicsin the way e-mail is used.

Additionally, the style of communication is modified by the use of e-mail. The style ofwriting is sloppier and less formalized than in written documents. This shows how com-munication patterns and bureaucratic characteristics are challenged by the new medium. Theactual use of the medium, however, is still fairly bureaucratic. And when it comes to importantcommunication, the formal style of communication that is a hallmark of bureaucraticorganizations is reproduced in e-mail messages.

Finally, e-mail is used for formalizing contacts in bureaucratic organizations. Agreementsare recorded in e-mail messages to ensure that they are not misunderstood and so that they maybe retrieved at a later stage. This shows how the use of e-mail is conditioned by thecharacteristics of bureaucratic organizations. At the same time, communication patterns arechallenged by the medium and the degree of formalization rises.

Table 5CCs within local government (percentage of total number of messages)

CCs received CCs sent

Superiors 23 13Subordinates 17 15Total 20 14


These processes of structuration are similar in shape and outcome in the three bureaucraticorganizations I investigated. This brings us to the research hypothesis. The following hypo-thesis was formulated:

H3. The outcome of the changes triggered by the use of e-mail in government bureaucracies isa lower degree of formalization than before the introduction of this medium.

There was mixed support for this proposition. E-mail is used for private communication butto a limited extent, e-mail enhances an informal style of communication, but also formalizesthe content of communications. These findings seem to point at a paradoxical effect: the styleof communication is becoming more informal whereas the content becomes formalized. Onecan label this outcome as informal formalization: the style of communication is more informalbut the content focuses less on personal issues and emphasizes efficient recordings ofagreements.

6.2. Testing the horizontalization hypothesis

E-mail challenges the notion of hierarchy by enhancing employee autonomy in informationand communication management and in executing tasks. The new medium facilitates access toinformation, lets employees communicate with a wider network of contacts, gives themautonomy in managing information, and enables them to choose when and where they want todo their work. At the same time, employee autonomy is still limited by formal decision-makingprocedures. New forms of autonomy are limited by existing convention based on thehierarchical nature of bureaucratic organizations. Interesting processes of structuration aretaking place in the preparation of decisions. Autonomy is strengthened and may challengeformal procedures.

Communication patterns deviate from hierarchical lines and thus challenge institutionalstructures. The tree as format for intra-organizational communication is increasingly in-adequate as horizontal communication becomes more important. This horizontal commu-nication, however, takes place in the shadow of hierarchy, and managers are informed aboutimportant communications through a CC. Hierarchy does not become superfluous in con-ditioning communication but takes on a different role.

The new medium enables employees to continuously inform their managers about theirwork. Hierarchy conditions this type of e-mail usage and, at the same time, hierarchy takes adifferent form. The cycle of control is shortened and managers are informed on a continuousbasis.

These processes of structuration in the three aspects of hierarchy are similar in shape andoutcome in the three bureaucratic organizations I investigated. This brings us to the researchhypothesis.

H4. The outcome of changes triggered by the use of e-mail in government bureaucracies is alower degree of hierarchy than before the introduction of this medium.

The empirical research provides mixed support for this proposition. The research indicatedthat in all three organizations e-mail enables communication which deviates from hierarchical


lines. The respondents also indicated that their autonomy is enhanced. This indicates that theoutcome of changes triggered by the use of e-mail in government bureaucracies is moreindividual control and less central steering. At the same time, these changes do not mean thatmanagers lose control. Most respondents indicated that through e-mail managers are betterinformed about what they are doing. CCs are important. This means that there is less centralsteering but more central monitoring. This paradoxical effect can be labeled as hierarchicalhorizontalization. Horizontal contacts take a more central position in bureaucraticorganizations, but these horizontal contacts are tightly linked to vertical structures.

7. Conclusions and lessons learned

On the basis of these findings, we can now answer the research question: Does the use of e-mail change government agencies into post-bureaucratic organizations? In the findings, thecontours of a new type of organization can be recognized. This organization deviates from theformal bureaucratic organizations as described byWeber but also reflects its key traits. There isless ex ante control, but civil servants enable monitoring by their managers by keeping theminformed with CCs. Managers survey e-mail messages and intervene when they feel their inputis needed. The formalization of previously informal communications facilitates both verticaland horizontal control. The conclusion is that the use of e-mail does not change governmentagencies into post-bureaucratic organizations. The resulting organizational form is a hybridcombination of bureaucratic and network forms.

Orlikowski's (1992) perspective on the interplay between technology and organization wasused to interpret the results and the emerging type of organization. One can conclude that theuse of e-mail reflects the properties of government organizations. The emphasis on recordmaking and informing managers results from the bureaucratic nature of government. Theintroduction of e-mail also challenges the properties of government organizations. Bureau-cracy is not reproduced but shifts to a new form of coordination. This emerging form oforganization results from the interplay between organizational and technological propertiesand the way these properties are combined in the context of use.

A first lesson from this research is that e-mail definitely has a different effect on the structureof government bureaucracies than the large scale information systems studied by Zouridis(2000), Zuurmond (1994), and Fountain (2001). E-mail does not enhance bureaucracy.Although the rise of the new form of coordination cannot be attributed only to the use of e-mail, affordances of e-mail facilitate the functioning of this new type of organization. Threeaffordances of e-mail were specifically relevant in this specific context: asynchronicity, instantmemory, and one-to-many communication. These affordances trigger the change from abureaucratic organization to a “network in the shadow of hierarchy” (cf. Scharpf, 1994).Asynchronicity is required for loose couplings. In a network organization, civil servants needto interact with many other people inside and outside the organization. Instant memory isneeded for reliable contacts between civil servants in the absence of hierarchical relations.One-to-many communication is required to keep managers and other contacts informed andthus keep the network together.

Table 6Comparing types of bureaucracy

Bureaucracy Late-bureaucracy Post-bureaucracy

Coordination Predominantly vertical Horizontal and vertical Predominantly horizontalRole of formalization Vertical accountability Vertical and horizontal

accountabilityNo important role

Management control Command and control Monitoring Network interactions


A second lesson concerns the practical implications for the flexibility and accountability ofgovernment organizations. A key characteristic of the new form of coordination is the linkagebetween vertical and horizontal coordination. The informal formalization (recording agree-ments in an informal style) plays a crucial role in this linkage. This linkage is not new, per se, butnow extends both vertically and horizontally with coordination documented in e-mail mes-sages. Horizontal communication is directly linked to vertical structures through CCs. Publicmanagers monitor their employees' messages and intervene when needed. E-mail facilitatesthese linkages and enables bureaucratic organizations to be both flexible and accountable.

The final and most important lesson of this research is that government agencies do notchange into post-bureaucratic but into late-bureaucratic organizations. The autonomy of civilservant grows and coordination takes place in horizontal networks, typified by reciprocalpatterns of communication and exchange (Powell, 1990). However, these post-bureaucraticorganizations function in the shadow of hierarchy. Hierarchical and network forms ofcoordination are directly coupled through formalized electronic communications. This conceptof the late-bureaucratic organization is based upon the idea of radicalized modernity aspresented by Giddens (1990); Beck, Giddens & Lash, (1994). Bureaucracy is not surpassed butradicalized. Formalization has expanded and now encompasses communication that waspreviously considered to be informal, and hierarchy extends its control to day-to-dayoperations in organizations. Continuous monitoring replaces systems of ex ante command andex post control. The differences between bureaucracies, late-bureaucracies, and post-bu-reaucracies are shown in Table 6.

Weber (1968) has called our attention to the central role of bureaucracy in public admin-istration. This organizational form is being transformed under the influence of electroniccommunications. Studying these transformations is crucial for our scientific and pragmaticunderstanding of modern government. The concept of late-bureaucracy that was formulated onthe basis of this empirical research sheds a new light on these transitions of modern govern-ment organizations, advances the scientific understanding of government organizations, andhelps in designing and managing better governments.

References

Ball, R. R. (1991). The effects of electronic mail on organisational structure. Proceedings of the InternationalConference on Information Technology in the Workplace (pp. 49−53).

Beck, U., Giddens, A., & Lash, S. (1994). Reflexive modernization: Politics, tradition and aesthetics in the modernsocial order. Oxford: Blackwell.


Behn, R. D. (2001). Rethinking democratic accountability. Washington DC: Brookings Institution Press.Bovens, M. A. P. (1998). The quest for responsibility: Accountability and citizenship in complex organizations.

Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Burgess, A., Jackson, T. W., & Edwards, J. (2005). Email training significantly reduces email defects. International

Journal of Information Management, 25, 71−83.Deibert, R. D. (1997). Parchment, printing and hypermedia. New York: Columbia University Press.Frissen, V. (2003). De digitalisering van de werkvloer: De integratie van ICT in dagelijkse werkprocessen

[Digitization at the Workfloor: The integration of ICT in routine business processes]. In P. Ester (Ed.), ICT,arbeid en organisatie (ICT, labour and organization) Den Haag: Reed Business Information.

Fountain, J. E. (2001). Building the virtual state. Information technology and institutional change.Washington DC:The Brookings Institute.

Fulk, J., & DeSanctis, G. (1995). Electronic communication and changing organizational forms. OrganizationScience, 6, 337−349.

George, A. L., & Bennett, A. (2006). Case studies and theory development in the social sciences. Cambridge MA:MIT Press.

Giddens, A. (1984). The constitution of society: Outline of the theory of structure. Berkeley CA: University ofCalifornia Press.

Giddens, A. (1990). The consequences of modernity. Stanford CA: Stanford University Press.Harley, B. (1999). The myth of empowerment: Work organization, hierarchy and employee autonomy in

contemporary australian workplaces. Work, Employment and Society, 13, 41−66.Hekscher, C., & Donnellon, A. (Eds.). (1994). The post-bureaucratic organization. New perspectives on

organizational change. Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications.Hinds, P., & Kiesler, S. (1995). Communication across boundaries: Work, structure, and use of communication

technologies in a large organization. Organization Science, 6, 373−393.Hutchby, I. (2001). Conversation and technology. From the telephone to the Internet. Cambridge (UK): Polity.Hutchby, I. (2003). Affordances and the analysis of technologically mediated interaction: A response to Brian

Rappert. Sociology, 37, 581−589.Jones, M., & Karsten, H. (2003). A review of Structuration Theory in information systems research. Research

papers in management studies Cambridge: University of Cambridge.Kock, N., Lynn, G. S., Dow, K. E., & Akgün, A. E. (2006). Team adaptation to electronic communication media:

Evidence of compensatory adaptation in new product development teams. European Journal of InformationSystems, 15, 331−341.

Landry, E. M. (2000). Scrolling around the new organization: The potential for conflict in the on-line environment.Negotiation Journal, 16, 133−142.

Meijer, A. J. (2002). De doorzichtige overheid. Parlementaire en juridische controle in het informatietijdperk[Transparent government. Parliamentary and legal control in an Information Age]. Delft: Eburon.

Mintzberg, H. (1983). Structures in fives. Designing effective organizations. Englewood Cliffs: Prentice Hall.Murray, D. (1988). Computer mediated communication: Implication for ESP. English for Specific Purposes, 7,

3−18.Ngwenyama, O. K. (1998). Groupware, social action and organizational emergence: On the process dynamics of

computer mediated distributed work. Accounting Management and Information Technology, 8, 127−146.Orlikowski, W. J. (1992). The duality of technology: Rethinking the concept of technology in organizations.

Organization Science, 3, 398−427.Orlikowski, W. J., Yates, J., Okamura, K., & Fujimoto, M. (1995). Shaping electronic communication: The

metastructuring of technology in the context of use. Organization Science, 6, 423−444.Perrow, C. (1986). Complex organizations: A critical essay. New York: Random House.Powell, W. W. (1990). Neither market nor hierarchy: Network forms of organization. Research in Organizational

Behavior, 12, 295−336.Roethlisberger, F. J., & Wilson, W. J. (1939). Management and the worker. Cambridge (MA): Harvard University

Press.


Scharpf, F. W. (1994). Games real actors could play: Positive and negative coordination in embedded negotiations.Journal of Theoretical Politics, 6, 27−53.

Schofield, N., & Alt, J. (1983). The analysis of relations in an organization. Quality and Quantity, 17, 269−279.Scott, W. R. (2003). Organizations: Rational, natural and open systems, 5th edition Upper Saddle River: Prentice

Hall.Sellen, A. J., & Harper, R. H. R. (2002). The myth of the paperless office. Cambridge: MIT Press.Selznick, O. (1957). Leadership in administration. A sociological interpretation. Berkeley: University of

California Press.Sproull, L., & Kiesler, S. (1991). Connections. New ways of working in the networked organization. Cambridge

(Massachusetts): The MIT Press.Stasz, C., & Bikson, T. K. (1986). Computer-supported cooperative work: Examples and issues in one federal

agency. Proceedings of the 1986 ACM Conference on Computer-Supported Cooperative Work (pp. 318−324).Strøm, K. (2000). Delegation and accountability in parliamentary democracies. European Journal of Political

Research, 37, 261−289.Tannenbaum, A. S., Kavcic, B., Rosner, M., Vianello, M., & Wieser, G. (1974). Hierarchy in organizations.

Washington DC: Jossey-Bass.Taylor, H., Fieldman, G., & Lahlou, S. (2005). The Impact of a threatening e-mail reprimand on the recipient's

blood pressure. Journal of Managerial Psychology, 20, 43−50.Taylor, J. R., Groleau, C., Heaton, L., & Van Every, E. (2001). The computerization of work. A communication

perspective. Thousand Oaks (California): Sage Publications.Thaens, M. (2001). ICT en ministeriële verantwoordelijkheid: Verbinding en betekenis [ICT and ministerial

responsibility: Linkages and meanings]. Onderzoeksprogramma Internet en openbaar bestuur.Trevino, L. K., Daft, R. L., & Lengel, R. H. (1990). Understanding manager's media choices: A symbolic

interactionist perspective. In J. Fulk & C.W. Steinfield (Eds.), Organizations and Communication Technology(pp. 71−94). Newbury Park: Sage.

Van den Hooff, B. J. (1997). Incorporating electronic mail: Adoption, use and effects of electronic mail inorganizations. Amsterdam: Cramwinckel.

Van Thijn, E., & Cardoso Ribeiro, T. (2004). De informatie-paradox; een blinde vlek in het openbaar bestuur [Theinformation paradox: A blind spot in public administration]. Utrecht (NL): Lemma.

Vroom, V. H. (1969). Industrial social psychology. In G. Lindzey & E. Aronson E (Eds.), Handbook of socialpsychology (pp. 196−268). Reading (Massachusetts): Addison-Wesley.

Walsham, G. (2006). Doing interpretive research. European Journal of Information Systems, 15, 320−330.Weber, M. (1968). Economy and society: An outline of interpretive sociology. New York: Bedminister Press.Wilensky, H. L. (1967). Organizational intelligence. Knowledge and policy in government and industry. New

York: Basic Books.Williams, R., & Edge, D. (1996). The social shaping of technology. Research Policy, 25, 865−899.Yunus, H. (2005). E-mail communication in a distance learning programme and its implication to language teaching

and learning. Internet Journal of e-Language Learning & Teaching, 2, 26−45.Zouridis, S. (2000).Digitale disciplinering, Over ICT, organisatie, wetgeving en het automatiseren van beschikkingen

[Digital discipline. ICT, organization, lawmaking and automating government decision]. Delft: Eburon.Zuurmond, A. (1994). De Infocratie, Een theoretische en empirische heroriëntatie op Weber’s ideaaltype in het

informatietijdperk [The infocracy. A theoretical and empirical re-orientation on Weber’s idealtype in theInformation Age]. Delft: Eburon.

Albert Jacob Meijer (1967) studied chemistry at the University of Nijmegen and communication science atWageningen University in the Netherlands. In November 2002, Meijer received his PhD at Erasmus UniversityRotterdam for a thesis on parliamentary and legal accountability in the Information Age. Since 2002, Meijer worksat the Utrecht School of Governance as an assistant professor. He teaches public administration and policysciences at the bachelor and master level. He does research on public accountability, on informatization in publicadministration, and on the use e-mail by government organizations.

e-mail in government: not post-bureaucratic but late-bureaucratic organizations

Documents