Search results

The term “bureaucracy” is becoming increasingly relevant in discussion of schools, especially as they grow bigger and organizationally more complex. This study of 48 elementary schools in Ontario attempted to account for interschool variation in bureaucratization, particularly as it was associated with leader behavior. Hall's scales were used to measure perceived degree of bureaucratization; the LBDQ‐XII to measure leader behavior. It was found that leader behavior is the biggest single determinant of level of bureaucratization. Contrary to the traditional view, size of school is inversely related to level of bureaucratization. Although some 25 per cent of interschool variation in bureaucratization was not accounted for by the variables studied it seems clear that “as goes the principal, so goes the school.”

Because job training is so consequential for the success of individual workers, firms, and national economies, understanding the determinants of training differentials is crucial. This study investigates whether PT (professional/technical) workers receive more training than do manual workers and how the training gap varies under different organizational contexts. I contend that the occupational impact on job training is contingent upon organization bureaucratization and institutionalization. Using the 1996 National Organizational Survey, I find that PT core organizations are more likely to supply formal training to their PT core workers than are manual core organizations to manual core workers. The gap in obtaining formal training between PT core workers and manual core workers expanded when I compared highly bureaucratized PT core organizations with highly bureaucratized manual core organizations. PT core organizations also invested much more money in the training of PT core workers than manual core organizations did to manual core workers, provided that the comparison was among organizations with high levels of bureaucratization or low levels of institutionalization. I conclude that researchers need to investigate organizational contexts to fully explain training differentials among workers.

Unequal social conditions that provide people with unequal opportunities to live healthy lives are considered unjust and associated with “health inequity”. Governing power is impacting people's lives through laws, policies and professional decisions, and can be used intentionally to combat health inequity by addressing and changing people's living- and working conditions. Little attention is paid to how these ways of exercising governing power unintentionally can structure further conditions for health inequity. In this paper, the authors coin the term “governance determinants of health” (GDHs). The authors' discussion of GDHs potential impact on health inequity can help avoid the implementation of governing strategies with an adverse impact on health equality. This paper aims to discuss the aforementioned objective.

The authors identify Governance Determinants of Health, the GDHs. GDHs refer to governance strategies that structurally impact healthcare systems and health equality. The authors focus on the unintended, blind sides of GDHs that maintain or reinforce the effects of socioeconomic inequality on health.

The power to organize healthcare is manifested in distinct structural approaches such as juridification, politicalization, bureaucratization and medical standardization. The authors explore the links between different forms of governance and health inequalities.

The authors' discussion in this article is innovative as it seeks to develop a framework that targets power dynamics inherent in GHDs to help identify and avoid GDHs that may promote unequal access to healthcare and prompt health inequity. However, this framework has limitations as the real-world, blurred and intertwined aspects of governing instruments are simplified for analytical purposes. As such, it risks overestimating the boundaries between the separate instruments and reducing the complexity of how the GDHs work in practice. Consequently, this kind of theory-driven framework does not do justice to the myriad of peoples' complex empirical practices where GDHs may overlap and intertwine with each other. Nevertheless, this framework can still help assist governing authorities in imagining a direction for the impacts of GDHs on health equity, so they can take precautionary steps to avoid adverse impacts.

The authors develop and explore – and demonstrate – the relevance of a framework that can assist governing authorities in anticipating the impacts of GDHs on health inequity.

This article reviews the historical development of the treatment of religious organizations in journals centered on religion.

The article asks four questions: (1) Are religious organizations different from other kinds of organizations? (2) What factors produce differences or similarities between religious and other organizations? (3) Are religious organizations different from each other?

Differences from other kinds of organizations are based in beliefs/theology. But there is a constant concern with the bureaucratization of religious organizations as they are subject to general organizational influences such as scale and geographical dispersion. However, it is argued that these general influences emanate from belief systems. We suggest the need for a renewed attention to a comparative organizations perspective in organization theory – one that appreciates the similarities and differences between sectors and within sectors.

Not only are there differences between religious and nonreligious organizations, but there are also substantial differences between religious organizations. There are also similarities between religious and nonreligious organizations, as well as similarities between religious organizations. The way forward for both the study of religious organizations and organizational theory in general is to look for explanations for these similarities and differences.

The rational organization has long been an important tool in public administration (Weber, 1968; Simon, 1964; Alkadry, 2003). It is often identified with positive characteristics such as objectivity, expertise, efficiency, fairness and formalization. However, these same positive characteristics can contribute to a “darker side” of rational organizations. Hummel (1994) articulates this as a “bureaucratic experience” resulting from the interaction between administrators and bureaucracy, while others articulate it as the “organization man” experience. In this article, a conceptual model of the relationship between organizational rationalization and administrator experiences is developed. This model is tested using a survey of front-line administrators and a structural equation model of the relationships between these two concepts. The article concludes with a discussion of alternatives to technical rationality.

This article aims to review the latest developments of the higher education sector in China since the mid‐1990s by focusing on the expansion of university education.

It is argued that while massification of higher education is an important indication of the progress in China's higher education system, the quest for world‐class universities indicates China's ambition to earn international reputation in higher education sector compatible with its increasing economic power.

The driving force of these two developments is from the state, which demonstrates the dominant role of the Chinese government in higher education policy and administration. However, the ambitious state constitutes both a driving force and a constraint for China's higher education. The strengthening administrative control accompanied by the financial benefits from the government has led to bureaucratization of China's universities. China's world‐class pursuit necessitates a fundamental change of the existing pattern of relationship between the state and university and university governance model.

The strategic plan to build up world‐class universities shows that China is not satisfied with the quantitative growth of its higher education, but is seeking to achieve a breakthrough in quality higher education.

The paper explains how China's desire to achieve world class status within the area of higher education is being achieved.

This chapter questions the contribution of bureaucratic organization to the core missions of the modern university. Although perfectly fit for the execution of peripheral functions, teaching and research do not thrive in such an environment. This accommodation failure has much to do with the many ways the marketplace has crept into our thinking about the function of education and the value of new discovery. Relevant external forces only exacerbate these tendencies. The prospects for emancipation include a resurgence of individuality, perhaps carried by the possibilities of technology which reverses its current capability to standardize and commodify. A more fundamental rethinking of post-secondary education may be needed.

An important feature of the political economy of 18th century Bengal was a system of land revenue administration characterized by a complex set of patrimonial arrangements that had developed out of hundreds of years’ experience with a series of foreign and indigenous rulers. The East India Company’s (EIC) administration of this fiscal system during the 18th and 19th centuries shows one path toward the development of modern capitalism in the imperial context. In an effort to extract resources and consolidate political power, the EIC bureaucratized elements of Bengal’s patrimonial order. The EIC carried out this process in part through the creation of property rights and contract enforcement institutions in the fiscal system.

The purpose of this paper is to provide an overview of the issues involved in managerial control and managerial identity in relation to the idea of a post‐bureaucratic organization. In addition it introduces the papers in this special issue.

The paper identifies the increasing complexity of issues of managerial control and managerial identity that arise from the idea of a post‐bureaucratic organization and post‐bureaucratic working practices, such as flex‐work and project management.

The paper suggests that the form and nature of managerial control and managerial identity are constantly evolving and in a state of flux as a consequence of processes of (de)bureaucratization and (re)bureaucratization.

The paper raises important questions about the nature of management in post‐bureaucratic work environments and challenges the behaviourist competencies approach to developing managers.

Teacher resignation and transfer is a widely observed phenomenon, both in Australia and overseas. The Victorian state education system is no exception. The reasons for teachers resigning or transferring are varied, but in the main have been accepted by school administrators (both at the central and school level) as a problem inherent to all school systems. The effects however, on students and their education, can be significant. This paper reports the findings of research carried out in Victoria which linked the organisation of individual schools with a teacher's willingness to leave that school. The results indicate strong support for the central hypothesis and thus have important implications for the school administrator. It should, however, be recognised that the findings are not prescriptive in nature; but if taken into account may go some way to improving the conditions under which teachers work and students learn.