the inquiry into the relationships between bureaucracy and ict

1

The Inquiry into the Relationships between Bureaucracy and ICT

(Information and Communication Technology)

Abstract

This study examines the relationship between bureaucracy and information and communication

technology (ICT). As ICT has developed, it has changed people’s everyday lives and enhanced

organizational effectiveness. Few studies have analyzed how bureaucracy influences and intervenes the

impact of ICT on organizations. Therefore, this study focuses on exploring the complicated relationships

between bureaucracy and ICT in public organizations.

First, this study analyzes how ICT influences the effectiveness of bureaucratic organizations as short-term

outputs—utilization, time-saving and decision quality—and the structural changes of bureaucracy as

long-term outcome—such as centralization, de-red tape, and de-sectarianism.

Second, this study analyzes how bureaucratic characteristics—such as hierarchy (hierarchy of authority),

technical competence (technically competent participants), and red tape (procedural devices for work

situations or rule governing behavior of positional incumbents), which are concepts that have been

discussed by Max Weber, Carl Friedrich, and Robert Merton—influence and intervene IS’s impact on

effectiveness and structural changes in bureaucracy.

The analysis is based on survey data collected from civil service officers, and the results will contribute

to clarifying the relationship between bureaucracy and ICT.

Keyword: Bureaucracy, Information Technology, ICT’s Impact

2

The Inquiry into the Relationships between Bureaucracy and ICT

(Information and Communication Technology)

1. Introduction

As information communication technology (ICT) has advanced, it has influenced every aspect of

human life. Advances in the fields of telecommunications, information, and knowledge management have

been catalysts in the structural revolution in given society that has affected almost every sphere of social

life.

Information technology (IT) is regarded as a method for improving managerial efficiency in public and

private organizations (Moon & Bretschneider, 2002). Especially, IC has influenced and changed the

bureaucracy. The pressures generated by technological progress are helping to transform old bureaucratic

structures and corresponding processes (Argyriades, 2010, p. 290). Zuurmond and Snellen (1997) argued

that through ICT, bureaucracies are being replaced by infocracies, which have different structures, less

hierarchy, and greater decentralization, contrasted with the Weberian ideal type bureaucratic structure.

Such an argument is based on technological determinism. As technological determinism has many

meanings, it is difficult to create a clear definition to address all of aspects of it. Generally, technological

determinism assumes that only technology can advance the development of society. Edge (1998) defined

technological determinism as technology having a necessary and determinate “impact” upon work,

economic life, and society as a whole; thus, only technological change produces social and organizational

change.

However, such technological determinism dismisses the social and humane power in organizations and

society. The social or organizational power can construct the technology, i.e., social determinism about

technology, contrasted with technological determinism. Hence, if we accept the social determinism about

technology, we should pay the attention to the social and human factors shaping or directing the

technology. Even though technology is a key factor of change in organization and society, it is also a

byproduct of human action and reaction. Zack and McKenney (1995) argued that since communication

through ICT is a social process, hence, in order to better understand the organizational change by

technology, we must understand how existing structures and social contexts influence patterns of

communication. With holding more balanced views, Murphie and Potts (2003) believed that the

relationship between technology and society cannot be reduced to an exact cause-and-effect formula;

rather, technology and society are interrelated.

3

Such arguments from social constructionism also apply to bureaucracy in public organization.

Technology and bureaucratic organization cannot be regarded as separate beings. Social settings shape

technologies, and the reverse is also true (Williams & Edge, 1996). Change by (information) technology

occurs under a social context embedded in bureaucracy, which leverages the direction of (information)

technology’s influence on bureaucracy. Kernaghan and Gunraj (2004) acknowledged that the use of ICT

in public organizations tends to lead to certain changes in those organizations, but they argued that the

nature and extent of the changes is greatly influenced by technological, political, and other forces (p. 528).

Moreover, Moon and Bretschneider (2002) demonstrated endogeneity between bureaucratic

characteristics and ICT innovativeness through the simultaneous interactive relationships of reciprocal

causality between red tape and ICT innovativeness—perceived red tape affects the level of ICT

innovativeness and vice versa.

Our study explores the relationship between bureaucracy and ICT, in particular, information systems (IS)

among bureaucracy in Korea. First, we analyzed how ICT influences the effectiveness of bureaucratic

organizations as short-term outputs—utilization, time-saving and decision quality—and the structural

changes of bureaucracy as long-term outcome—such as centralization, de-red tape, and de-sectarianism.

Second, we analyze how bureaucratic characteristics such as hierarchy, technical competence, and red

tape influence and intervene the organizational effectiveness and structural changes which have initiated

by ICT in bureaucratic organization.

2. Theoretical Background: Technology and Bureaucracy

1) Bureaucracy and Technology

Bureaucracy is a popular term that has a variety of ambiguous and overlapping definitions. Bureaucracy

is an organizational prototype. According to Max Weber (1958), the ideal type bureaucratic organization

exhibits characteristics such as precision, speed, unambiguity, knowledge of the files, and continuity; thus,

it enjoys technical superiority over other forms of organization (p. 214).

Additionally, ideal type of bureaucracy has the characteristics such the hierarchy, rule-based operation,

and technical competence. First, bureaucracy maintains the principle of office hierarchy with graded

authority—a firmly ordered system of super- and subordination in which there is a supervision of the

lower offices by the higher ones (p.197). In a fully bureaucratic organization, the office hierarchy is

4

monocratically organized. Hierarchy is a kind of centralization, and centralization is the extent to which

decision making authority is dispersed or concentrated in an organization (Pfeffer, 1981).

Second, bureaucracy generally follows rules that are stable, comprehensive, and learned. Officials in a

bureaucracy possess the knowledge of these rules. Contrasted with patrimonialism, management in

modern public administration does not regulate matters with consideration for each case; rather, it treats

matters abstractly. Calculable rules are a paramount feature of modern bureaucracy and are desirable for

the development of capitalism. The more complicated and specialized modern culture becomes, the

greater the demand for impersonal and objective experts (p.216).

Red tape is a negative byproduct of rule-based bureaucracy. Red tape is a set of procedural

characteristics of an organization that reflect structural, cultural, and environmental factors (Bozeman

2000: Moon & Bretschneider, 2002). Rosenfeld (1984) defined red tape as guidelines, procedures, forms,

and government interventions that are perceived as excessive, unwieldy, or pointless in relationship to

decision making or implementation of decisions (p. 603). Bozeman (2000) defined red tape as rules,

regulations, and procedures that remain in force and entail a compliance burden but do not advance the

legitimate purposes the rules were intended to serve (p. 12). The term red tape is derived from the 17th-

century English bureaucratic practice of tying official documents with a reddish tape. More recently, red

tape has become synonymous with procedures, rules, and regulations that often lead to feelings of

alienation on the part of the public (Bozeman & Crow, 1991, p.31).

Third, bureaucracy is managed by specialized officers who have technical competence and have

received expert training. In a bureaucracy, appointment to an office and subsequent employment is solely

based on technical competence. In particular, bureaucracy is” the exercise of control on the basis of

knowledge” (Weber, 1947, p. 339). Weber believed that those having the technical competence in

bureaucracy bring about positive output such as greater efficiency.

In organizational studies, technology has been identified in terms of technical complexity (Woodward,

1965), operations technology and variability (Hickson, Pugh, & Pheysey, 1969), and interdependence

(Thompson, 1967). In organizational settings, technology, as an agent of change, leads to changes within

an organization. Technology systems play a key role in creating organizational structures.

For example, Woodward's (1965) classical work describes how technological complexity based on a

production system—unit based (small), mass based (large), and continuous based processes—influence

structural characteristics such as number of management levels, range of control, ratio of managers to

subordinates, worker skill, and overall structure.

5

However, in contrast to Woodward’s “technological imperative,” later research by Hickson, Pugh, and

Pheysey (1969) found that there is little evidence between technology and structure. Instead, they

suggested that organizational size is the main determinant of organizational structure.

Although there have been many studies over relationships between technology and organization, few

have questioned the relationships between long-lived bureaucracy—bureaucratic organization—and

technology. There are different views about the relationships between bureaucracy and ICT.

On one hand, Taylan (2010) believed that technology conflicted with bureaucracy: ICT has transformed

traditional bureaucratic organizations by making them hierarchical and centralized, so they are inefficient

and uncompetitive. On the other hand, some studies have argued that there is no conflict between ICT and

bureaucracy because they share the same values—mechanical rationalization. Lee (1984) explained that

the computerization of a bureaucratic process is the ultimate form or organizational rationalization. The

computer can be the idealization of Weber’s dictum to eliminate “love, hatred and all purely personal,

irrational and emotional elements from the organization’s procedures” (p. 298). In the next section, we

will review the existing research on ICT and bureaucratic organizations.

2) Technology’s Impact on Bureaucratic Organization

(1) ICT’s impact on Bureaucracy in terms of Efficiency and Effectiveness

One of the myths of an information-based society is that increases organizations’ efficiency (quantitative

factor) and effectiveness (qualitative factor). ICT integration in public organizations aims at their low-

entrepreneurial ethos to induce higher effectiveness. Moreover, ICT offers the efficiency through storing,

accessing, combining, and retrieving large amounts of information more quickly, selectively, accurately,

and inexpensively (Dewett & Jones, 2001). ICT may also affect the decision making by increasing the

number of decision makers through improved communication channels (Heintze & Bretschneider, 2000).

Our analysis analyzed whether or not information system enables the bureaucracy to utilize the

information, save the time and make the more enhanced decision making. (See Figure 1).

(2) Deconstructing the Hierarchical Centralized Structure

IT reshapes the basic structure of bureaucracy. Leavitt and Whisler (1958) and Heintze and

Bretschneider (2000) predicted that ICT should decrease the number of middle managers by permitting

top managers to communicate with workers at lower levels. However, Wynne and Otway (1983) argued

that ICT increases the number of middle managers because it increases the complexity of organizations,

6

requiring more middle managers as coordinators. In a survey of 155 city governments, Pinsonneault and

Kraemer (1997) found that ICT was both positively and negatively associated with the size of the middle

management workforce.

Such structural change is accompanied by changes to the authority and power structure: centralization or

decentralization. There are conflicting views concerning whether or not ICT centralizes or decentralizes

authority structures. Taylan (2010) explained that ICT requires flattened, flexible, decentralized

organizations. In the other hand, ICT opens possibility for centralized decision power. Daft (2004)

mentioned five main impact from ICT on organization: decrease of staff in the organization, increasing

decentralization, improving internal coordination, improving inter-organizational cooperation and better

outsourcing. Also Mintzberg (1983) describes the influential role of information technology on

organizational centralization. If we see the information as a source of power, we can predict that

traditional information holders, who are usually the employers at lower level of organization, may lose

such information power if the top of organizational hierarchies directly control and collect the information

through ICT.

However, third views that acknowledge both centralization and decentralization are persuasive. Dewett

and Jones (2001) explained that ICT centralizes organizations by enabling upper managers to manage

more information more efficiently and quickly, endowing them with greater decision power. They added

that ICT also creates the decentralization by enabling lower- and middle-level managers to obtain

information about their organization’s overall situation and issues, allowing them to be more globally

optimized in their work. On the topic of federated organizational structure, Keen (1990) argued that

telecommunications can be employed to permit simultaneous centralization and decentralization,

permitting organizations to reap the benefits of both organizational forms.

(3) Decreasing Red Tape (i.e., De-red tape)

ICT is generally believed to decrease red tape and regulation. The OECD (2007) stated, “In terms of

administrative simplification tools there is a trend towards greater use of electronic and web-based

platforms to support traditional tools such as one-stop shops.” (p.4). The Red Tape Reduction

Commission's Recommendations Report released by The Treasury Board of Canada Secretariat

recommends enhancing the use of electronic services and increasing the use of electronic single windows

for information on regulatory requirements for reducing compliance costs and benefit.

Welch and Pandey (2006) showed that the use of ICT (i.e., intranet) is associated with a reduction in red

tape. Moreover, on the basis of the technology-push hypothesis, Moon and Bretschneider (2002)

demonstrated that an organization with a high level of ICT innovativeness decreases the level of red tape.

7

(4) Beyond Sectarianism: Toward Active Information Sharing

Information tends to flow faster across organizations with horizontal—rather than vertical—

organizational structure. Such information streams tend to remove or reduce boundaries between and

within organization.

After distinguishing traditional street-level bureaucracy from the system-level bureaucracy that has

emerged with the Information Age, Bovens and Zouridis (2002) pointed out that ICT in the public sector

changed organizational boundaries from strict to fluid, both within and between organizations. Dewett

and Jones (2001) argued that perhaps the most fundamental benefit from the use of ICT in organizations

is the ability to link and enable employees within and between functions and divisions (p.321).

Hence, ICT promotes information sharing and work collaboration within organizations, overcoming the

sectarianism, one of traditional cultures of bureaucracy.

3) Bureaucracy’s Response and the Impact on ICT

None of the aforementioned studies mentioned bureaucracy’s response to ICT. We argue that

bureaucracy is not passive agent but active one, which means that bureaucracy, can act from an

independent position to influence the affects of ICT. Moreover, such argument bases on the assumption

that the relationship between ICT and bureaucracy is not unilateral from ICT to bureaucracy but the

interactive one between them. In the same vein, Moon and Bretschneider (2002) argued that previous

studies did not consider the interdependence between red tape—i.e., one of bureaucratic characteristics—

and ICT innovativeness.

Bureaucracy is social things or contexts that influence the effectiveness and structure coming from ICT.

Zack and McKenney (1995) suggested that social context is an important explanatory variable to

determine the effects and outcomes of ICT. Hence, in the following section, we speculate how hierarchy,

red tape, and technical competence as social force can affect and intervene the impact of ICT on

organizational effectiveness and structural change.

Hierarchy can influence the effects of ICT in multiple ways. For example, traditional hierarchy structure

acts as a barrier to sharing and disseminating information. Kernaghan and Gunraj (2004) explained that

while the use of ICT predisposes public organizations to share and disseminate information, vertical

departmentalism acts as obstacle to information utilization and dissemination.

8

Red tape decreases the innovative effectiveness of organizations by creating an organizational climate

that reduces motivation or by breaking the internal processes related to adoption of innovation (Bozeman

& Crow, 1991). Through empirical study, Welch and Pandey (2006) hypothesized that greater levels of

red tape will negatively affect intranet technology implementation—in terms of reliance and information

quality—in public organizations. Yu and Bretschneider (1998) reported that red tape negatively

influences ICT innovativeness. However, on the basis of the demand-pull hypothesis, Moon and

Bretschneider (2002) suggested an alternative view that red tape may create an incentive for change in

organizations: the stronger the perception of red tape (particularly by top managers), the greater the

motivation to seek alternative technological solutions. Therefore, they suggested that the perception of red

tape is a facilitating factor rather than a constraining factor for new technology. Similarly, Pandey and

Bretschneider (1997) found that red tape produced an organizational demand for new ICT.

Technical competence may facilitate the acceptance of ICT use. According to Lee (2010), the more

bureaucracy understands a task, the more they accept and utilize ICT.

4) Analytical Model

To analyze the relationship between bureaucracy and ICT, based on above discussions, we set up an

analytical model as shown in <Figure 1>. We set up six test propositions that explore the bureaucracy’s

impact on the organizational effectiveness as output, i.e., short-term impact, and structural change as

outcome, i.e., long-term impact, in bureaucratic organizations.

In test proposition 1, we explore the quality of ICT and bureaucracy’s impact on the organization

effectiveness. In test proposition 1-1, we explore the impact of the quality of ICT on three organizational

outputs: utilization of ICT, time savings, and the quality of decision making. It is expected that ICT has a

positive influence on these outputs. Next, in test proposition 1-2, we test how both the enhanced quality

of ICT and three bureaucratic attributes—hierarchy, red tape, and technical competence—influence the

organizational effectiveness. From Proposition 1-3, we examine whether or not the bureaucratic attributes

intervene, i.e., moderating effects, the impact of ICT on organizational effectiveness.

In test proposition 2, we examine how the quality of ICT, organizational effectiveness from ICT, and

bureaucracy have impact on structural changes in bureaucratic organizations, such as centralization, de-

red tape and de-sectarianism. First, we analyze the effects of both the enhanced quality of ICT (test

proposition 2-1) and the organizational effectiveness from ICT (test proposition 2-2) on the structural

9

change in bureaucracy. In test proposition 2-3, we examine the bureaucratic characteristics’ impact on

structural changes in bureaucracy, along with the quality of ICT and its effectiveness. From test

proposition 2-4, we examine whether or not the bureaucratic attributes moderate the impact of ICT and

effectiveness on structural change in bureaucracy.

<Figure 1> Analytical Model

3. Sample & Measures

This study uses survey data collected from civil servants in 13 government organizations. The survey

was conducted from September 16, 2008 to October 9, 2008. After 569 questionnaires were distributed,

323 were returned (57% response rate). Twelve cases involving inadequate responses were removed,

10

leaving 311 responses for the analysis. The sample consisted of 161 males (51.8%) and 150 females

(48.2%).

The questions measured the degree of agreement or disagreement about the statement by using a 5-point

Likert scale from 1 (strongly disagree) to 5 (strongly agree). All statements were related to ICT,

particularly knowledge management systems (KMS), a kind of IS, used by civil offices. KMS include

functions for e-mail, groupware, intranet, message boards, online-community, and the creation of a

knowledge database. <Table 1> shows the ten variables that were measured by more than two statements,

which we composited by averaging the mean scores.

<Table 1> Variables and Measurement

Variables Question Statement

Quality of

Information

System

QG1. The IS is designed for ease of use / QG2. We can easily fix the errors in IS / QG3. I can

easily do work that I want to do using the IS / QG4. The operation of the IS is stable / QG6. The

IS is customizable and well equipped to work / QG7. The IS was developed with consideration of

input from workers / QG8. IS consider and change itself by request from users

ICT Utilization QF1. When I review existing projects, I utilize the KMS first

QF2. When I review on-going projects, I utilize the KMS first

Time Saving QD1. The KMS has saved time when performing a task

QD4. The KMS has saved time collecting information on a related task

Quality of

Decision

QO1. After introducing the KMS, there were increases in the speed of decision making related

with tasks

QO4. After launching the KMS, there were enhancements in the quality of decision making

Hierarchy QK11. I ask for my superior’s opinion, even if I am exclusively responsible for a task

QK5. At our affiliated organization, I have too much of discretion when performing tasks

(Reversed)

Red Tape QK15. Our organization has many laws and procedures that govern the work

QK16. Our organization performs tasks according to predetermined procedures and laws

Technical

Competence

QJ1. I can clearly identify problems and suggest alternatives related to my work

QJ2. I have thorough knowledge of the laws and regulations related to my responsibilities

Centralization QO22. After the KMS was introduced, it provided opportunities for making decisions according

to individuals’ independent judgment. (Reversed)

QO23. After the KMS was introduced, it was possible to make work-related decisions without

conferring with superiors (Reversed)

De-red tape QO25. After using the KMS, the procedures and regulations related to tasks decreased

QO26. After using the KMS, the unnecessary procedures and regulations related to tasks

decreased

De -

sectarianism

QO27. After using the KMS, there were increases in information sharing between organizational

units

QO28. After using the KMS, there were decreases in the time required to exchange information

with other departments

11

4. Empirical Analysis of Relationships

1) Output: Organizational Effectiveness from ICT

To examine the statistical significance and explanation power of the determinants for organizational

effectiveness from ICT, such as the utilization of ICT, effects of time savings and improved decision

quality after introducing ICT, ordinary least square (OLS) regression models were used for estimation.

Proposition 1-1, which concerns the ICT’s effect on short-term outcomes, was tested by regressing the

system utilization in Model 1, the time savings in Model 3, and the decision quality in Model 5 on quality

of ICT. The result from the regression analysis is shown in <Table 2>.

Based on the adjusted R², two models explained 11.5%, 13.4%, and 000% of the variance in the

dependent variables. Moreover, the F-value in Models 1 and 3 appears significant, but it does not in

Model 5. Moreover, the coefficient of independent variable, i.e., quality of ICT, revealed its significance

in Models 1 and 3 but not in Model 5. These results suggest that the quality of ICT influences the

utilization and time savings (technical) but not the quality of decision making (managerial).

Proposition 1-2, which concerns the additional and independent explanation power of bureaucratic

characteristics such as hierarchy, red tape and technical competence was tested by regressing system

utilization in Model 2, time savings in Model 4, and decision quality in Model 6 on the aforementioned

three bureaucratic variables after controlling for the quality of ICT.

Based on R², the independent variables explained 48.7% of the variance in Models 2 and 4, and 5.6% in

Model 6. Regarding change in R², there was, to a large extent, an increase in R² (37.2% in Model 2, 35.3%

in Model 4, and 5.3% in Model 6) when adding bureaucratic variables to Models 1, 3, and 5. Those

changes signify the important role of bureaucratic characteristics in determining the organizational

effectiveness from ICT. Moreover, bureaucratic characteristics’ significant impact on dependent variables

remained when controlling for the quality of ICT. In particular, in Models 2 and 4, the standardized beta

coefficients demonstrated that bureaucracy’s technical competence has more explanation power than the

quality of ICT does. The results from R² change and the coefficients imply that bureaucracy plays a

significant role in creating the effectiveness from ICT in public organizations.

From the significance of the coefficients of the independent variables, it implies that as the quality of

ICT increases, there is a greater possibility of enhanced system utilization, time savings, and improved

12

decision making. Among the bureaucratic variables, hierarchy had a negative impact on time savings but

not on the quality of decision making. Red tape also negatively influenced both dependent variables.

However, the technical competence of bureaucracy positively increased the organizational effectiveness

from ICT in terms of system utilization and time savings. Such contrasting effects imply that bureaucratic

characteristics have different effects—some attributes increase the impact of ICT, whereas other

decreases it.

Moreover, three independent bureaucratic variables in Model 4 possess different statistical explanatory

power; According to standardized regression coefficients, technical competence explains the variance

more than hierarchy and red tape. It suggests that there are some crucial attribute among bureaucratic

characteristics to influence ICT on structural change.

When compared to the coefficients in Models 2, 4, and 6, technical competence influenced the system

utilization and time savings but did not impact on decision-making quality. This implies that the

significant role of bureaucratic characteristics may depend on the dimension of ICT effectiveness.

In short, we confirm that in public organization, quality of ICT and bureaucratic characteristics influence

the organizational effectiveness from ICT. The power and significance of the three bureaucratic

characteristics changes according to the dimension of the dependent variables.

We expected that the bureaucratic characteristics would influence technology’s impact on the

organizational effectiveness from ICT while not affecting it directly. The moderating role of bureaucratic

characteristics between ICT and its’ effectiveness is based on the assumption that bureaucratic variables

change the direction and degree of ICT’s impact on effectiveness. In the other words, the impact of ICT

on organizational effectiveness depends on bureaucracy.

In proposition 1-3, to understand the moderating effect of the three bureaucratic characteristics, we

examined the significance of their moderating effects on the quality of ICT and the dependent variables

by adding interaction terms in Models 2, 4, and 6. We observed the significant effects of thee interaction

terms in the regression analysis: ① quality of ICT × hierarchy = utilization (Coefficient = -.221, P-value

< .01), ② quality of ICT × red tape = utilization (Coefficient = -.360, P-value < .01), and ③ quality of

ICT × red tape = time savings (Coefficient = -.256, P-value < .05).

Since it is hard to interpret those three significant interaction terms in regression model, we created

<Figure 2>, <Figure 3>, and <Figure 4>. <Figure 2> shows the moderating effect of hierarchy and

<Figure 3> and <Figure 4> show the moderating effect of red tape. To create the figures, we divided the

respondents into two groups based on mean score, that is, those who scored higher than the mean and

13

2.863

3.244

2.519

3.298

2.40

2.50

2.60

2.70

2.80

2.90

3.00

3.10

3.20

3.30

3.40

Worse system Better system

Utiliz

atio

n

ICT

Stronghierarc

hy

Weakhierarc

hy

those who scored lower. Then, we calculated how each group on the x-axis has different scores for the

dependent variables on the y-axis. Those scores vary according to each moderating group.

Figure 2: Quality of ICT × Hierarchy→Utilization Figure 3: Quality of ICT × Red tape →Utilization

Figure 4: Quality of ICT × Red tape→ Time saving

According to <Figure 2>, <Figure 3>, and <Figure 4>, we know that quality of ICT increases ICT

utilization; however, those effects change according to degree of hierarchy and red tape. Even if a better

system increases the utilization of that system, a weak hierarchy and low red tape will facilitate such

effects. Conversely, a strong hierarchy and high red tape could obstruct the ICT’s impact on

organizational effectiveness. Fore example, <Figure 4> shows that lower level of red tape, contrasting

with higher level of red tape, facilitates the effects of ICT on time savings.

Moderating effect means that the effect of X on Y depends on the value of M (Moderator). We

confirmed that hierarchy and red tape have served as moderators that reduce the positive effects of quality

of ICT on organizational effectiveness as output.

2.688

3.044

2.599

3.403

2.40

2.60

2.80

3.00

3.20

3.40

3.60


Utiliz

atio

nICT

Highred

tape

Lowred

tape

2.688

3.243

2.599

3.359

2.40

2.60

2.80

3.00

3.20

3.40

3.60


Tim

e-S

avin

g

ICT

Highred

tape

Lowred

tape

14

2) Outcome: Structural Change in Bureaucracy by ICT

To test Propositions 2-1 and 2-2, we examined technology and its effect in determining the structural

change in bureaucracy. We regressed three dependent variables—centralization, de-red tape, and de-

sectarianism—on the quality of ICT and organizational effectiveness from ICT in Models 7, 9, and 11, as

shown in <Table 3>. Model 7 shows that the higher the quality of ICT, the more centralized the

organization, which is consistent with argument from Mintzberg (1983) and Daft (2004). Second, the

enhanced quality of decision making decreases the degree of centralization while reducing red tape and

sectarianism.

To confirm Proposition 2-3, we test the additional power of the three bureaucratic characteristics in

Models 8, 10, and 12 after controlling for the quality of ICT and its effects. There was a slight increase in

R² (1.5 % in Model 8, 13.8% in Model 10, and 6.3% in Model 12) when the bureaucratic variables were

added to each previous model. Even this slight change in variance indicates the bureaucratic

characteristics paly little significant role in structural changes in bureaucratic organizations.

Hierarchy decreased the positive effect of de-red tape and de-sectarianism from ICT. Such result

implied that bureaucracies tend to maintain their own inherent attributes, such as red tape and

sectarianism. Moreover, the largest standardized beta coefficients of hierarchy in Model 10 demonstrate

that the hierarchy can block structural changes from ICT.

However, technical competence in Model 12 increased de-sectarianism. This is an interesting finding in

that hierarchy decreases structural change while technical competence increases it.

Furthermore, the significance of bureaucratic attributes changes according to the dimension of structural

change; technical competence increases de-sectarianism but not centralization or de-red tape. Hierarchy

only affects de-red tape.

In short, we observed that the quality of ICT, the organizational effectiveness from ICT, and

bureaucratic attributes influence structural changes within public organization. Also, different

bureaucratic attributes have the different impact on structural changes. Moreover, the statistical

significance and explanation power of bureaucracy can vary according to the dimensions of the structural

change.

To test Proposition 2-4, we explored that the three bureaucratic characteristics would intervene the

relationships between the quality of ICT and structural change. To check the moderating role of

15

2.788

3.442

3.0133.022

2.70

2.80

2.90

3.00

3.10

3.20

3.30

3.40

3.50


Ce

cn

traliz

atio

n

ICT

Stronghierarc

hy

Weakhierarc

hy

bureaucratic characteristics in the quality of ICT’s impact on structural change, we examined the

significance of the interaction terms by adding them into Models 8, 10, and 12. Then, we observed the six

logical and significant interaction terms in the regression analysis: ① quality of ICT × hierarchy =

centralization (coefficient = .444, P-value < .01), ② quality of ICT × de-red tape = centralization

(coefficient = -.425, P-value < .01), ③ quality of ICT × technical competence = centralization (coefficient

= .322, P-value < .01), ④ quality of ICT × hierarchy = de-red tape (coefficient = -.270, P-value < .01), ⑤

quality of ICT × technical competence = de-red tape (coefficient = -.171, P-value < .5), ⑥ quality of ICT

× hierarchy = de-sectarianism (coefficient = -.468, P-value < .01).

To shows the moderating effect in figure, we make <Figure 5> to <Figure 10>. According to <Figure 5>,

a strong hierarchy facilitates the positive effect of quality of ICT on centralization. This suggests that the

inherent centralized attributes embedded in a bureaucracy produce such a result. From <Figure 6>,

<Figure 7>, the centralization brought about by better ICT increases under weak red tape and lower

technical competence. In other words, excessive red tape and high technical competence reduce potential

centralization caused by ICT.

According to <Figure 8> and <Figure 9>, the de-red tape occurs more in organizations with weak

hierarchy and lower technical competence than in those with a strong hierarchy and high technical

competence, even under the same conditions of quality of ICT. Moreover, as the quality of ICT enhances,

weaker hierarchy or low technical competence increases the de-red tape effect, while stronger hierarchy

or higher competence decreases this effect. This implies that the impact direction of the quality of ICT

largely depends on the degree of hierarchy and technical competence.

According to <Figure 10>, the de-sectarianism effect from ICT depends on the degree of hierarchy:

under a strong hierarchy, the quality of ICT decreases the positive effect of de-sectarianism, whereas

under weak hierarchy, it increases the positive effect of de-sectarianism.

Figure 5: Quality of ICT × Hierarchy →Centralization Figure 6: Quality of ICT × Red tape →Centralization

3.115 3.154

2.817

3.214

2.80

2.85

2.90

2.95

3.00

3.05

3.10

3.15

3.20

3.25


Ce

ntra

liza

tion

ICT

Highred

tape

Lowred

tape

16

2.758

3.1713.146

3.267

2.60

2.70

2.80

2.90

3.00

3.10

3.20

3.30


Ce

ntra

liza

tion

ICT

Hightechnical

competence

Lowtechnical

competence

2.758

2.913

3.1463.221

2.60

2.70

2.80

2.90

3.00

3.10

3.20

3.30


De-re

d ta

pe

ICT

Hightechnical

competence

Low lowtechnical

competence

Figure 7: Quality of ICT × Technical competence →Centralization Figure 8: Quality of ICT × Hierarchy →De red tape

Figure 9: Quality of ICT × Technical competence →De red tape Figure 10: Quality of ICT × Hierarchy → De-sectarianism

In short, even if the quality of ICT has a positive impact on centralization, de-red tape, and de-

sectarianism, such effects partially or largely depend on bureaucratic attributes. Hierarchy can increase

the effects of ICT on centralization and decrease the effects of ICT on de-red tape and de-sectarianism. As

the quality of ICT increases, weaker hierarchy facilitates the positive change in de-red tape and de-

sectarianism, whereas stronger hierarchy constrains those changes. The red tape decreases the positive

effects on ICT on centralization. Higher technical competence decreases the positive impact of ICT on

centralization and de-red tape.

2.813

2.487

3.279 3.320

2.40

2.50

2.60

2.70

2.80

2.90

3.00

3.10

3.20

3.30

3.40


De-re

d ta

pe

ICT

Stronghierarc

hy

Weakhierarc

hy

3.363

2.853

3.165

3.518

2.70

2.80

2.90

3.00

3.10

3.20

3.30

3.40

3.50

3.60


De-se

cta

rianism

ICT

Stronghierarc

hy

Weakhierarc

hy

17

<Table 2> ICT versus Bureaucracy on System Effectiveness

ICT Utilization Time Savings Decision Quality

Model 1 Model 2 Model 3 Model 4 Model 5 Model 6

B(SE) Beta B(SE) Beta B(SE) Beta B(SE) Beta B(SE) Beta B(SE) Beta

(Constant) 1.805(.198) .349 (.372)***

1.796(.197)*** .895 (.374)** 3.385(.161)***

4.627(.386)***

Quality of ICT .411 (.065) *** .339 .249 (.051)*** .206

.445(.064)*** .366 .282

(.051)***

.232 .053(.053) .057 .033(.053) .035

Hierarchy - - -.057 (.050) -.046 - - -.087 (.051)* -.071 - - -.129(.052)** -.138

Red rape - - -.014 (.069) -.008 - - -.12 (.070)* -.071 - - -.253(.072)*** -.197

Technical

competence

- - .648 (.044)*** .625

- - .624

(.044)***

.598 - - .004(.045) .005

F-Value 40.244** 72.576*** 47.809*** 72.598*** 1.023 4.547***

Adjusted R² .112 .480 .131 .480 .000 .044

R² .115 .487 .134 .487 .003 .056

R² Change - .372 - .353 - .053

Note: P-value * <.1, **<.05, ***<.01

<Table 3> ICT versus Bureaucracy on Structural Change

Centralization De-redtape De-sectarianism

Model 7 Model 8 Model 9 Model 10 Model 11 Model 12

B(SE) Beta B(SE) Beta B(SE) Beta B(SE) Beta B(SE) Beta B(SE) Beta

(Constant) 4.360 (.334)*** 3.642 (.609)*** 1.628 (.322)*** 2.712 (.541)*** 1.280 (.290)*** 2.295 (.510)***

Quality of ICT .228 (.073)*** .182 .214 (.074)*** .170 .032 (.070) .026 .034 (.065) .028 -.007 (.063) -.006 .004 (.062) .004

ICT Utilization -.056 (.066) -.054 .010 (.077) .010 -.035 (.064) -.035 -.083 (.069) -.082 .032 (.057) .034 -.037 (.065) -.040

Time Saving -.075 (.067) -.072 -.003 (.077) -.003 -.098 (.064) -.098 -.147 (.068)*** -.147 -.016 (.058) -.017 -.090 (.064) -.096

Quality of

Decision

-.448 (.072)*** -.330 -.420 (.074)*** -.310 .502 (.070)*** .380 .460 (.066)*** .349 .562 (.063)*** .457 .523 (.062)*** .426

Hierarchy .100 (.069) .079 -.449 (.061)*** -.364 -.281 (.058)*** -.244

Red rape .117 (.095) .067 .105 (.085) .062 -.034 (.080) -.022

Technical

competence

-.145 (.088) -.134 .117 (.079) .112 .158 (.074)** .162

F-Value 11.964*** 7.670*** 13.756*** 17.680*** 20.201*** 16.136***

Adjusted R² .124 .131 .141 .274 .199 .255

R² .135 .151 .152 .290 .209 .272

R² Change .015 .138 .063

Note: P-value * <.1, **<.05, ***<.01

18

5. Conclusion and Implication

After accepting the arguments of social determinism about rechnology, we assumed that not only

technology but also bureaucracy influences the technological output and structural outcome in

bureaucratic organizations. To validate the relationships between bureaucracy and ICT, we examined how

technological and bureaucratic factors influence the organizational effectiveness from ICT (short-term

output) and structural change in bureaucracy (long-term output).

From our analysis of the empirical data, we can say that an ICT’s quality influences ICT utilization and

time savings. Moreover, in structural change in bureaucracy, higher quality of ICT enables bureaucratic

systems to become more centralized. Improved decision making coming from ICT decreases the degree

of centralization while reducing red tape and sectarianism. These results confirm the assumption of

technological determinism in which technology plays a key role in determining the attributes and changes

in organizations and society.

Second, analysis shows that not only quality of ICT but also bureaucratic characteristics influence the

organizational effectiveness. Additionally, three factors—the quality of ICT, the organizational

effectiveness from ICT, and bureaucratic attributes—have an impact on the structural changes caused by

ICT in bureaucratic organizations. In effectiveness from ICT, after controlling the quality of ICT,

hierarchy and red tape had a negative impact on time savings. Moreover, red tape also negatively

influenced the quality of decision making. However, the technical competence of bureaucracy positively

increased the system utilization and time savings. In structural change, hierarchy decreased the positive

effect of de-red tape and de-sectarianism coming from ICT whereas technical competence increased the

positive effect of de-sectarianism. Those findings confirm the validity of social determinism about ICT

issues, i.e., explanation power of bureaucratic characteristics in our case.

Third, we know that the explanation power and significance of the three bureaucratic characteristics

changes according to the dimensions of the dependent variables. This means that all the significance of

bureaucratic characteristics did not always influence ICT effectiveness and structural change. Each

bureaucratic attribute has an area in which it can be most effective.

Fourth, the bureaucratic attributes were found to have contrasting effects on effectiveness of ICT and

structural change. For example, hierarchy decreased structural changes, whereas technical competence

increased them.

Fifth, bureaucratic characteristics did not only directly influence the organizational effectiveness and

structural change but also they intervened the relationships between the quality of ICT and the

effectiveness/structural change. According to the test of the moderating effects, we confirmed the

19

bureaucratic attributes take a role of context variables that change the direction and degree of

technology’s impact on effectiveness and structural change. In effectiveness from ICT, hierarchy and red

tape as moderators reduce the positive effects of quality of ICT on organizational effectiveness whereas

technical competence facilitates such effects. In structural change, hierarchy can increase the positive

effects of ICT on centralization and decrease the positive effects of ICT on de-red tape and de-

sectarianism. The red tape decreases the positive effects on ICT on centralization. Higher technical

competence decreases the positive impact of ICT on centralization and de-red tape.

The above findings demonstrate that technology and bureaucracy have significant influence the

effectiveness and structural change from ICT. Those results suggest that there are significant interactive

relationships between technology and bureaucracy, because well designed technology—e.g., quality of

ICT in our case—increases the organizational effectiveness from ICT and structural changes in

bureaucracy, whereas some bureaucratic attributes reduce or facilitate some of those effects. This is

reason why we pay attention to the bureaucracy.

Reference

Argyriadesm, D. 2010. From bureaucracy to debureaucratization? Public Organization Review, 10:275–

297

Blau, P. M., Falbe, C. M., McKinley, W. & Tracey, P. K. 1976. Technology and organization in

manufacturing. Administrative Science Quarterly, 21, 20–40.

Bovens, M. & Zouridis, S. 2002. From street-level to system-level bureaucracies: How information and

communication is transforming administrative discretion and constitutional control. Public

Administration Review, 62(2): 174-184.

Bozeman, B. 2000. Bureaucracy and red tape. Upper Saddle River, N.J.: Prentice-Hall.

Bozeman, B & Crow, M. 1991. Red tape and technology transfer success in government laboratories.

Journal of Technology Transfer, 16:29–37.

Daft, R. 2004. Organizational theory and design. Mason, Ohio: Thomson South-Western, (2004)

Dewett, T. & Jones, G. R. 2001. The role of information technology in the organization: a review, model,

and assessment. Journal of Management, 27: 313–346.

Edge, D. 1988. The social shaping of technology. Edinburgh PICT working paper No.1. Edinburgh

University.

20

Heintze, T. & Bretschneider, S. 2000. Information technology and restructuring in public organizations:

does adoption of information technology affect organizational structures, communications, and

decision making? J-PART, 10(4):801-830.

Hickson, D., Pugh, D. & Pheysey, D. 1969. Operations technology and organizational structure: An

Empirical reappraisal. Administrative Science Quarterly, 14: 378-397.

Keen, P. G. W. 1987. Telecommunications and organizational choice. Communication Research, 14(5):

588-606.

Kernaghan, K. & Gunraj, J. 2004. Integrating information technology into public administration:

Conceptual and practical considerations. Canadian Public Administration, 47(4): 525-546

Leavitt, H.H. & Whisler, T.I. 1958. Management in the 1980's. Harvard Business Review, 36(6): 41-48.

Lee, C. 2010. Empirical studies of use and determinants of information technology in bureaucracy.

Comparing the individual, organizational and technological factors. Korean Journal of Public

Administration, 44(2): 221-260.

Lee, R. M. 1984. Bureaucracies, bureaucrats and information technology. European Journal of

Operational Research , 18: 293-303.

Mintzberg, H. 1983. Structure in fives: designing effective organizations. Englewood Cliffs: Prentice Hall.

Moon, M. J. & Bretschneider, S. 2002. Does the perception of red tape constrain IT innovativeness in

organizations? Unexpected results from a simultaneous equation model and implications. Journal

of Public Administration Research and Theory, 12 (2): 273–91.

Murphie, A. & Potts, J. 2003. Culture and technology. London: Palgrave.

OECD. 2007. Cutting red tape: National strategies. Policy Brief, January: 1-8.

Pfeffer, J. 1981. Power in organizations. Boston: Pitman.

Pandey, S. & Bretschneider, S. 1997. The impact of red tape's administrative delay on public

organizations' interest in new information technology. JPART, 7:113-130.

Pinsonneault, A. & Kraemer, K. L. 1997. Middle management downsizing: An empirical investigation of

the impact of information technology. Management Science, 43(5): 659-679.

Rosenfeld, R.A. 1984. An expansion and application of Kaufman's model of red tape: The case of

community development block grants. The Western Political Quarterly, 37:603-620.

Pandey, S. K. & Scott, P. G. 2002. Red tape: A review and assessment of concepts and measures. Journal

of Public Administration Research and Theory, 12:553–580.

Taylan, O. 2010. The strategic role of an organization in developing a modern information system.

Journal of Naval Science and Engineering, 6(3): 25-39.

Thompson, J. 1967. Organizations in action. New York: McGraw-Hill.

21

Yu, P. & Bretschneider, S. 1998 Executive perceptions of innovativeness in information management.

Korean Review of Public Administration, 3:179-213.

Zack, M. H., & McKenney, J. L. 1995. Social context and interaction in ongoing computer-supported

management groups. Organization Science, 6 (4): 394–422.

Zuurmond A. & Snellen, I. T. 1997. From bureaucracy to infocracy: Towards management through

information architectures. In A. Taylor, I. M. Snellen and A. Zuurmond, eds. Beyond BPR in

Public Administration: Institutional Transformation in an Information Age. Amsterdam: IOS Press.

Welch, E. & Pandey, S. 2006. E-Government and bureaucracy: toward a better understanding of intranet

implementation and its effect on red tape. JPART, 17: 379-404.

Weber, M. 1958. Bureaucracy. In H. H. Gerth and Wrighr Mills. (translated). From Max Weber: Essays

in sociology. New York: A Galaxy Book.

Weber, M. 1947 Max Weber: The theory of social and economic organization. Translated by A. M.

Henderson & Talcott Parsons. NY: The Free Press.

Williams, R. & Edge, D. 1996. The social shaping of technology. Research Policy, 25: 856-899.

Woodward, J. 1965. Industrial organization: theory and practice. Oxford: University Press.

Wynne, B. & Otway, H. J. 1983. Information technology, power and managers. Office, Technology and

People, 2: 43-56.

the inquiry into the relationships between bureaucracy and ict

Documents