|
Whereas the literature on governance has been dominated by structural theories, more recent literature underscores the importance of human conditions in governance (Kezar and Eckel, 2004). Birnbaum (1985-1989) focuses on the bureaucratic, political, collegial, and symbolic models. These models characterize the university as a bureaucracy, collegial system, political system, and organized anarchy, altogether reinforcing structural and human condition elements of governance but as separate
models. The result of an integration of the bureaucratic model with the political, collegial, and symbolic models is the cybernetic model.
As an exploratory study, the researcher reviewed and applied theory following data analysis to help illustrate presidential decision making in KCTCS. For this reason, the models and associated elements applicable to the findings of this study are explored in the following sections. Altogether, these models outlined in How College Work: The Cybernetics of Academic Organization and Leadership (Birnbaum, 1988) are used to frame the findings of this study.
Structural Model
Birnbaum (1988) outlines the characteristics of a bureaucracy, which include the following: (a) systematic coordination of the work of many individuals designed to increase efficiency; (b) reliance on rules, regulations, and written job descriptions; (c) formal division of labor; and, (d) increased specialization.
A symbol of a bureaucracy is the organizational chart that communicates levels of authority and lines of communication and coordination. Flat charts are those with few levels, resulting in clearer communication; whereas, tall charts are those with more levels and hence, more distortion in the flow of communication. Thus, the structure of an organization impacts how functional areas interact with one another, which refers to the extent to which two parts of an organization are tightly or loosely coupled. Where an office or position is located on the organizational chart signals the level of importance of that area. So, compliance with rules and regulations is reinforced by the hierarchy evoked in the organizational chart, such that activities of lower level offices or positions are supervised by the next higher level of office or position. That being said, the offices or
positions higher on the organizational chart maintain a greater level of influence than those on the lower level. Still, Birnbaum (1988) contends that there is no perfect structure, and that every structure provides certain benefits to the organization but also makes other benefits more difficult to obtain.
In addition to the organizational chart, bureaucracies are also driven by rules, regulations, and written job descriptions. These documents guide behavior, which increases organizational certainty (Birnbaum, 1988). In particular, these documents outline how to handle decisions that occur on a regular basis. More specifically, written job descriptions dictate who is responsible for various tasks. This formal division of labor prevents duplication and makes it possible for people to specialize in a particular area.
According to Birnbaum (1988), “Together they know more and are more efficient in dealing with issues within their specific spheres of interest than would be two people who shared the same general knowledge about both areas” (p. 112).
Birnbaum (1988) contends that institutions have become more administratively centralized as a result of requirements to rationalize budgets and funding, implement equitable processes and procedures, and advocate to powerful external agencies. While institutions have become more administratively centralized, increased faculty specialization and decreased administrative control at the local level have resulted in decentralization of educational decision making, which in turn leads to continued reduction in administrative authority. Thus, the result of centralized administrative decision making is a reduction in administrative authority, whereby schools or departments become the locus of decision making (Birnbaum, 1988).
Based on the characteristics of bureaucracies, Birnbaum (1988) suggests that leadership is most effective if activities and procedures are viewed as legitimate. This can be achieved through tradition or charisma. People accept activities from someone because that is how it has always been done or because they accept the personal authority of the leader. Leaders can also create a control system whereby people accept activities from someone because they are consistent with the rules and norms that all people in the organization accept. Moreover, the value of bureaucratic leadership is delegation of authority. The trustees or president are not responsible for all of the work of the organization. Instead, responsibilities are assigned to a particular position, the right to make decisions or expend funds is granted to that position, and the person in this position is held accountable.
Altogether, bureaucratic organizations are rational organizations, meaning “…there is some conscious attempt to link means to ends, resources to objectives, and intentions to activities” (Birnbaum, 1988, p. 113). While bureaucratic procedures may appear to pose barriers to people in the organization, they also have the complimentary function of limiting administrative discretion. Leaders delegate responsibilities, and with that authority in decision making. The characteristics of bureaucracies create for the outside world an image of regularity and stability that proves beneficial for their existence.
Do'stlaringiz bilan baham: |
