Environments for Self-Management OrganizationsAuthor(s): Richard ChackerianSource: Public Administration Review, Vol. 37, No. 2 (Mar. - Apr., 1977), pp. 193-194Published by: Wiley on behalf of the American Society for Public AdministrationStable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/974334 .

Accessed: 15/06/2014 23:05

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at .http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp

.JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range ofcontent in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new formsof scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.

.

Wiley and American Society for Public Administration are collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve andextend access to Public Administration Review.

http://www.jstor.org

This content downloaded from 62.122.79.31 on Sun, 15 Jun 2014 23:05:58 PMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

193

Developments in

PUBLIC ADMINISTRATION FREMONT J. LYDEN, Editor

ENVIRONMENTS FOR SELF-

MANAGEMENT ORGANIZATIONS

Organizational participation by workers is a major theme in American administrative literature. Participatory ideas, coming into focus with the Hawthorne studies, and acquiring new momentum in the 1960s in response to the counter culture movement, are now a regular part of management concern in most large organizations. But one question is seldocn confronted in discussions of worker participation: how should participatory arrangements relate to the demands of an organiza- tion's environment? Ichak Adizes' cross-national study of self-management is relevant to this question, because it indicates how particular participatory systems within organizations are dependent on particular types of social and cul- tural environments ("On Self-Management" in Self-Management: New Dimensions to Democracy, Ichak Adizes and Elisabeth Mann Borgise (eds.) (Santa Barbara: ABC Press, 1974), pp. 1-37).

Adizes sees two forms of participation, "com- munity" and "enterprise," in his analysis of participative systems in Norway, Peru, Germany, Israel, and the United States and Yugoslavia. The United States and Norway tend toward the enter- prise end, and Yugoslavia and Israel are at the community end of the continuum. In Adizes' terms, a community is a group of people living in close association, having equal rights in deter- mining their goals and course of action, and sharing the output of their efforts according to rules predetermined by them. Labor is both the producing input and the owner of the results of its work. An enterprise is "... an organization which conglomerates labor, capital and natural resources and is primarily geared towards the achievement of economic results... ." Labor ... "is mainly an input to the production process and as such is treated as a commodity that has a price in the market. The economic rewards for work done are

determined mainly via the market mechanism as perceived by management." In an enterprise the center of decision making is management, not labor. It is a management function to represent the long-run interests of the organization, in part by assuring profit margins large enough to attract the necessary labor and capital required for future operations. Labor is essentially an outside interest, though one with which management must deal through some sort of bargaining mechanism.

The enterprise-community distinction has im- portant implications for the type of worker participation that is regarded as functional for the organization. Where the enterprise form prevails, participation is largely directed at increasing the level of individual "realization" (or self-actualiza- tion) in a single organization. "... In the United States and Norway the scope of participation is mostly limited to one's working time and place,. .." and in some instances participation is really limited to job enlargement, group tasks, or, even more narrowly, to profit sharing. By contrast, in the community-oriented system in Yugoslavia, "Participation extends from matters related to work, to the cultural and political life of the worker, and even to the management of the homes and the neighborhoods he lives in." In other words, the worker's participation in the factory is regarded as a base for participation in the political system and one element of a larger participatory system, which includes all major social, political, and economic institutions.

The two models also differ substantially in the distribution of ultimate legal prerogatives. In the pure enterprise type, legal prerogatives are exclu- sively in the hands of management. In the com- munity models of Yugoslavia and Israel these prerogatives are in the hands of labor. In Norway, Peru, and Germany a system of "co-determina- tion" has developed where such management prerogatives are shared by management and labor. Enterprise systems also tend to have strict legal and symbolic differentiation of labor and manage-

MARCH/APRIL 1977

This content downloaded from 62.122.79.31 on Sun, 15 Jun 2014 23:05:58 PMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

PUBLIC ADMINISTRATION REVIEW PUBLIC ADMINISTRATION REVIEW

ment, a top-down pattern of legal authority for decision and appointment, and relatively perma- nent tenure in management positions. In commu- mity systems, differentiation of labor and manage- ment is less strict, legal authority for decision and appointment rises from the bottom, and manage- ment tenure is based on periodic elections.

These differences between enterprise and community types are reflected in the substantial differences in the magnitude of participation encouraged for the general membership. For the enterprise type, such participation is largely limited to determining means for achieving managerially established policies and goals. In the community type the general membership role in goal and policy decisions is more dominant.

It appears, then, that the pattern of organiza- tional participation possible depends heavily upon the organization's accepted role in the larger society. In countries such as the United States where the enterprise model prevails, participation is necessarily limited by the segmental role of work institutions in the larger society. By and large, work places are not seen as vehicles for meeting the full range of human needs, but as providing certain specific services or goods to the larger society. Their success and survival depend largely upon the efficiency and effectiveness with which they are perceived to have provided services or goods.

If this perception applies equally to public sector organizations, it has important implications for the American public service. The evidence is that it does so apply, that government also is seen as the provider of specific services to the society, and its efficiency in doing so is the primary factor in the society's appraisal of it. In this context, what are the real boundaries of worker participa- tion in the public bureaucracy? Is there the discretion that seems to be assumed in contempo- rary management movements? A recent issue of the Public Administration Review devoted substantial attention to management by objectives (MBO). The opening piece by Jong S. Jun defines MBO "as a process whereby organizational goals and objec- tives are set through the participation of organiza- tional members in terms of results expected" ("Management by Objectives in the Public Sec- tor," Public Administration Review, Vol. 36 (January/February 1976), p. 3). If the industrial model fits the public service in the United States, how extensive can participation be in setting objectives?

ment, a top-down pattern of legal authority for decision and appointment, and relatively perma- nent tenure in management positions. In commu- mity systems, differentiation of labor and manage- ment is less strict, legal authority for decision and appointment rises from the bottom, and manage- ment tenure is based on periodic elections.

These differences between enterprise and community types are reflected in the substantial differences in the magnitude of participation encouraged for the general membership. For the enterprise type, such participation is largely limited to determining means for achieving managerially established policies and goals. In the community type the general membership role in goal and policy decisions is more dominant.

It appears, then, that the pattern of organiza- tional participation possible depends heavily upon the organization's accepted role in the larger society. In countries such as the United States where the enterprise model prevails, participation is necessarily limited by the segmental role of work institutions in the larger society. By and large, work places are not seen as vehicles for meeting the full range of human needs, but as providing certain specific services or goods to the larger society. Their success and survival depend largely upon the efficiency and effectiveness with which they are perceived to have provided services or goods.

If this perception applies equally to public sector organizations, it has important implications for the American public service. The evidence is that it does so apply, that government also is seen as the provider of specific services to the society, and its efficiency in doing so is the primary factor in the society's appraisal of it. In this context, what are the real boundaries of worker participa- tion in the public bureaucracy? Is there the discretion that seems to be assumed in contempo- rary management movements? A recent issue of the Public Administration Review devoted substantial attention to management by objectives (MBO). The opening piece by Jong S. Jun defines MBO "as a process whereby organizational goals and objec- tives are set through the participation of organiza- tional members in terms of results expected" ("Management by Objectives in the Public Sec- tor," Public Administration Review, Vol. 36 (January/February 1976), p. 3). If the industrial model fits the public service in the United States, how extensive can participation be in setting objectives?

Peter F. Druker in another article in the same PAR symposium suggests that, through the partici- patory process of objective setting in MBO, conse- quences will be to increase "responsibility and commitment within the organization; [and] ... make possible self-control on the part of mana- gerial and professional people" ("What Results Should You Expect? A Users' Guide to MBO," Public Administration Review, Vol. 36 (January/ February 1976), p. 18), It is fair to ask, if the cul- tural and political enviornment of the community organization is not present, can there be "self-con- trol" in a public bureaucracy? Perhaps the con- temporary emphasis in the management literature on self-control and development is misleading and frustration-producing, colliding as it does with the enviornment of public bureaucracies which demands efficiency in the production of specific public boals and services.

The policy role of administration in the public sector is recognized in the United States. But the idea that the public bureaucracy could, or should, have autonomy in defining its mission has never been seriously discussed. Widely accepted doc- trines of accountability and responsibility have always required that public bureaucracies act primarily in the interests of the citizenry at large, as these interests are externally defined. The ideals of public service and selflessness would appear to be largely incompatible with worker participation in the civil service.

Significantly, Adizes' discussion of the com- munity organization is limited to the non-govern- mental sector. An intriguing analysis would be the doctrine of self-management in the Yugoslavian public service.

Richard Chackerian Florida State University

CITIZEN PARTICIPATION

IN BUDGETING

More than ten years have gone by since Congress mandated "maximum feasible participa- tion" of the poor in OEO-sponsored Community Action Programs. Most government agencies now try, in one way or another, to include citizen participation in their policy decisions. Some have been at least moderately successful, especially

Peter F. Druker in another article in the same PAR symposium suggests that, through the partici- patory process of objective setting in MBO, conse- quences will be to increase "responsibility and commitment within the organization; [and] ... make possible self-control on the part of mana- gerial and professional people" ("What Results Should You Expect? A Users' Guide to MBO," Public Administration Review, Vol. 36 (January/ February 1976), p. 18), It is fair to ask, if the cul- tural and political enviornment of the community organization is not present, can there be "self-con- trol" in a public bureaucracy? Perhaps the con- temporary emphasis in the management literature on self-control and development is misleading and frustration-producing, colliding as it does with the enviornment of public bureaucracies which demands efficiency in the production of specific public boals and services.

The policy role of administration in the public sector is recognized in the United States. But the idea that the public bureaucracy could, or should, have autonomy in defining its mission has never been seriously discussed. Widely accepted doc- trines of accountability and responsibility have always required that public bureaucracies act primarily in the interests of the citizenry at large, as these interests are externally defined. The ideals of public service and selflessness would appear to be largely incompatible with worker participation in the civil service.

Significantly, Adizes' discussion of the com- munity organization is limited to the non-govern- mental sector. An intriguing analysis would be the doctrine of self-management in the Yugoslavian public service.

Richard Chackerian Florida State University

CITIZEN PARTICIPATION

IN BUDGETING

More than ten years have gone by since Congress mandated "maximum feasible participa- tion" of the poor in OEO-sponsored Community Action Programs. Most government agencies now try, in one way or another, to include citizen participation in their policy decisions. Some have been at least moderately successful, especially

MARCH/APRIL 1977 MARCH/APRIL 1977

194 194

This content downloaded from 62.122.79.31 on Sun, 15 Jun 2014 23:05:58 PMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions