Advertisement

Quality & Quantity

, Volume 53, Issue 3, pp 1565–1585 | Cite as

Dusk for the pyramid-shaped bureaucracy: examining the shape of the U.S. federal bureaucracy in the twenty first century

  • Seejeen ParkEmail author
Article
  • 48 Downloads

Abstract

The pyramid-shaped hierarchy was the most popular structure for the federal bureaucracy for most of the twentieth century. However, major management reform movements in the late twentieth century, such as new public management, reinventing government, and the national performance review, embrace the common theme of criticizing the traditional bureaucracy. If these efforts to fix the bureaucracy had achieved their anticipated results, the contemporary federal bureaucracy would have become a flattened-pyramid hierarchy with an increased span of control. The current article investigates the structure of the federal bureaucracy from the early 2000s to the present. The findings indicate that the federal bureaucracy is not pyramid shaped but instead is an inverse-calabash shape. In addition, little evidence was found of an increased span of control in the federal bureaucracy. In sum, the goal of the management reforms for changing the structure of the bureaucracy was not fulfilled.

Keywords

Federal bureaucracy Span of control Pyramid hierarchy Management reform 

References

  1. Blau, P.M.: The hierarchy of authority in organizations. Am. J. Soc. 73, 453–467 (1968)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Blau, P.M., Heydebrand, W.V., Stauffer, R.E.: The structure of small bureaucracies. Am. Soc. Rev. 31, 179–191 (1966)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Blau, P.M., Schoenherr, R.A.: The Structure of Organizations. Basic Books, New York (1971)Google Scholar
  4. Bozeman, B., Scott, P.: Bureaucratic red tape and formalization: untangling conceptual knots. Am. Rev. Public Adm. 26, 1–17 (1996)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Breul, J.D., Kamensky, J.M.: Federal government reform: lessons from clinton’s “reinventing government” and Bush’s “management agenda” initiatives. Public Adm. Q. 68, 1009–1026 (2008)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Carzo, R., Yanouzas, J.N.: Effects of flat and tall organization structure. Adm. Sci. Q. 14, 178–191 (1969)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Cohen, M.P.: Practitioner’s perspective—have we missed the boat on planning? Public Adm. Q. 70, S227–S228 (2010)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Cummings, L.L., Berger, C.J.: Organization structure: how does it influence attitudes and performance? Organ. Dyn. 5, 34–49 (1976)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Dalton, D.R., Todor, W.D., Spendolini, M.J., Fielding, G.J., Porter, L.W.: Organization structure and performance: a critical review. Acad. Manag. Rev. 5, 49–64 (1980)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Donaldson, L.: The contingency theory of organizational design: challenges and opportunities. In: Burton, R.M., Håkonsson, D.D., Eriksen, B., Snow, C.C. (eds.) Organization Design: The Evolving State-of-the-Art, pp. 19–40. Springer, Boston (2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Dunleavy, P., Margetts, H., Bastow, S., Tinkler, J.: New public management is dead—long live digital-era governance. J. Public Adm. Res. Theory 16, 467–494 (2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Dunn, W.N., Miller, D.Y.: A critique of the new public management and the neo-Weberian state: advancing a critical theory of administrative reform. Public Organ. Rev. 7, 345–358 (2007)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Golembiewski, R.T.: Od perspectives on high performance: some good news and some bad news about merit pay. Rev. Public Pers. Adm. 7, 9–26 (1986)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Gruening, G.: Origin and theoretical basis of new public management. Int. Public Manag. J. 4, 1–25 (2001)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Hall, R.H.: The concept of bureaucracy: an empirical assessment. Am. J. Soc. 69, 32–40 (1963)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Hood, C., Peters, G.: The middle aging of new public management: into the age of paradox? J. Public Adm. Res. Theory 14, 267–282 (2004)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Ivancevich, J.M., Donnelly, J.H.: Relation of organizational structure to job satisfaction, anxiety-stress, and performance. Adm. Sci. Q. 20, 272–280 (1975)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Kaufman, H.: Major players: bureaucracies in american government. Public Adm. Q. 61, 18–42 (2001)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Keren, M., Levhari, D.: The optimum span of control in a pure hierarchy. Manag. Sci. 25, 1162–1172 (1979)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Kernaghan, K.: The post-bureaucratic organization and public service values1. Int. Rev. Adm. Sci. 66, 91–104 (2000)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Light, P.C.: Thickening Government: Federal Hierarchy and the Diffusion of Accountability. Brookings Institution Press, Washington, DC (1995)Google Scholar
  22. Light, P.C.: The True Size of Government. Brookings Institution Press, Washington, DC (1999)Google Scholar
  23. Light, P.C.: A Workforce at Risk: the State of the Federal Public Service Revisited. Brookings Institution Center for Public Service, Washington, D.C. (2002)Google Scholar
  24. Light, P.C.: A Government Ill Executed: the Decline of the Federal Service and How to Reverse It. Harvard University Press, Cambridge (2008)Google Scholar
  25. Maier, M.: Confronting the (f)laws of the pyramid: challenger’s legacy for leadership and organizational development. Public Adm. Q. 21, 258–293 (1997)Google Scholar
  26. Meier, K.J., Bohte, J.: Span of control and public organizations: implementing luther gulick’s research design. Public Adm. Rev. 63, 61–70 (2003)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Merton, R.K.: Bureaucratic structure and personality. Soc. Forces 18, 560–568 (1940)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Mintzberg, H.: The Structuring of Organization: A Synthesis of the Research. Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs (1979)Google Scholar
  29. NPR: From Red Tape to Results: Creating a Government that Works Better and Costs Less: Report of the National Performance Review. Times Books, New York, N.Y. (1993)Google Scholar
  30. Olsen, J.P.: Maybe it is time to rediscover bureaucracy. J. Public Adm. Res. Theory 16, 1–24 (2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. OPM: Pay and leave: general schedule overview. (2017b). https://www.opm.gov/policy-data-oversight/pay-leave/pay-systems/general-schedule/. Accessed 3 February 2017
  32. Osborne, D., Gaebler, T.: Reinventing Government. Addison-Wesley, Reading (1992)Google Scholar
  33. Osborne, D., Peter, P.: Banishing Bureaucracy: the Five Strategies for Reinventing Government. Addison-Wesley, Reading (1997)Google Scholar
  34. Ouchi, W.G., Dowling, J.B.: Defining the span of control. Adm. Sci. Q. 19, 357–365 (1974)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Page, E.C.: Farewell to the Weberian state? Classical theory and modern bureaucracy. Zeitschrift für Staats- und Europawissenschaften 4, 485–504 (2003)Google Scholar
  36. Park, S., Berry, F.: Successful diffusion of a failed policy: the case of pay-for-performance in the US federal government. Public Manag. Rev. 16, 763–781 (2014)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Pollitt, C.: Bureaucracies remember, post-bureaucratic organizations forget? Public Adm. 87, 198–218 (2009)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Porter, L.W., Lawler, E.E.: Properties of organization structure in relation to job attitudes and job behavior. Psychol. Bull. 64, 23–51 (1965)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Porter, L.W., Lawler, I.E.E.: The effects of “tall” versus “flat” organization structures on managerial job satisfaction. Pers. Psychol. 17, 135–148 (1964)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Ruekert, R.W., Walker, O.C., Roering, K.J.: The organization of marketing activities: a contingency theory of structure and performance. J. Mark. 49, 13–25 (1985)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Rutherford, A.: Reexamining causes and consequences: does administrative intensity matter for organizational performance? Int. Public Manag. J. 19, 342–369 (2016)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Ryu, S., Christensen, R.K.: Organization performance in turbulent environments: the contingent role of administrative intensity in Hurricane Rita. Am. Rev. Pub. Adm., 0275074018799487 (2018).  https://doi.org/10.1177/0275074018799487
  43. Sager, F., Rosser, C.: Weber, wilson, and hegel: theories of modern bureaucracy. Public Adm. Rev. 69, 1136–1147 (2009)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Simon, H.A.: The proverbs of administration. Public Adm. Rev. 6, 53–67 (1946)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Thompson, V.A.: Bureaucracy and innovation. Adm. Sci. Q. 10, 1–20 (1965)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Thompson, F.J., Riccucci, N.M.: Reinventing government. Ann. Rev. Pol. Sci. 1, 231–257 (1998)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Urwick, L.F.: The manager’s span of control. Harv. Bus. Rev. 34, 39–47 (1956)Google Scholar
  48. Weber, M.: The Theory of Social and Economic Organization. Oxford University Press, New York (1947)Google Scholar
  49. Whitford, A.B.: The hierarchical consequences of reinvention: evidence from the American bureaucracy. J. Manag. Hist. 16, 59–74 (2010)Google Scholar
  50. Worthy, J.C.: Organizational structure and employe morale. Am. Soc. Rev. 15, 169–179 (1950)CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature B.V. 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Public AdministrationKwangWoon UniversitySeoulKorea

Personalised recommendations