Common usage of the term bureaucracy is pejorative. To most people, bureaucracy is synonymous with red tape, rigid rules, autocratic superiors, and alienated and apathetic employees. But organizations of any size, including schools, have bureaucratic structures because they need appropriately designed formal procedures and hierarchical structures to prevent chaos and promote efficiency. Two conflicting views of the consequences of bureaucracy emerge from the literature. Some studies demonstrate that structure alienates and frustrates, whereas other research finds structure increases satisfaction and innovation. This study is consistent with an earlier attempt to reconcile these two theoretically opposing perspectives by creating and testing a new construct termed enabling structure. Evidence is mounting that schools can be designed with formalized procedures and hierarchical structures that help rather than hinder.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
Adler, P. S. (1993). The “learning bureaucracy”: New United Motors Manufacturing Incorporated. In B. M. Staw & L. L. Staw (Eds.), Research in organizational behavior (Vol. 12, pp. 111-194). Greenwich, CT: JAI.
2.
Adler, P. S. (1999). Building better bureaucracies. Academy of Management Executive, 13, 36-49.
3.
Adler, P. S. , & Borys, B. (1996). Two types of bureaucracy: Enabling and coercive. Administrative Science Quarterly, 41, 61-89.
4.
Aiken, M. , & Hage, J. (1968). Organizational interdependence and intra-organizational structure. American Sociological Review, 33, 912-930.
5.
Anderson, J. G. (1968). Bureaucracy in education. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins Press.
6.
Arches, J. (1991). Social structure, burnout, and job satisfaction. Social Work, 36(3), 202-206.
7.
Bandura, A. (1997). Self-efficacy: The exercise of control. New York: Freeman.
8.
Bass, B. M. , & Avolio, B. J. (1994). Introduction. In B. M. Bass & B. J. Avolio (Eds.), Improving organizational effectiveness through transformational leadership (pp. 1-10). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
9.
Bennis, W. , & Nanus, B. (1985). Leaders: The strategies for taking charge. New York: Harper & Row.
10.
Blau, P. M. (1955). The dynamics of bureaucracy. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
11.
Blau, P. M. , & Scott, W. R. (1962). Formal organizations: A comparative approach. San Francisco: Chandler.
12.
Capper, C. (1993). Educational administration in a pluralistic society. Albany: State University of New York Press.
13.
Coleman, J. S. (1974). Power and structure of society. New York: Norton.
14.
Covey, S. R. (1990). The seven habits of highly effective people: Restoring the character ethic. New York: Simon & Schuster.
15.
Craig, T. (1995). Achieving innovation through bureaucracy. California Management Review, 38(10), 8-36.
16.
Damanpour, F. (1991). Organizational innovation. Academy of Management Journal, 34, 555-591.
17.
De Dreu, C. , & Van De Vliert, E. (1997). Using conflict in organizations. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
18.
DiPaola, M. F. , & Hoy, W. K. (2001). Formalization, conflict, and change: Constructive and destructive consequences of conflict in schools. International Journal of Educational Management, 15, 238-244.
19.
Etzioni, A. (1961). A comparative analysis of complex organizations. New York: Free Press.
20.
Etzioni, A. (1975). A comparative analysis of complex organizations (Rev. ed.). New York: Free Press.
21.
Ferguson, K. E. (1984). The feminist case against bureaucracy. Philadelphia: Temple University Press.
22.
Goddard, R. D. , Tschannen-Moran, M., & Hoy, W. K. (in press). Teacher trust in students and parents: A multilevel examination of the distribution and effects of teacher trust in urban elementary schools. Elementary School Journal.
23.
Gouldner, A. (1954). Patterns of industrial bureaucracy. New York: Free Press.
24.
Hage, J. , & Aiken, M. (1970). Social change in complex organizations. New York: Random House.
25.
Halpin, A. W. (1959). The leader behavior of school superintendents. Chicago: Midwest Administrative Center.
26.
Hirschhorn, L. (1997). Reworking authority: Leading and following in a post-modern organization. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
27.
Hoy, W. K. , Blazovsky, R., & Newland, W. (1983). Bureaucracy and alienation: A comparative analysis. Journal of Educational Administration, 21, 109-121.
28.
Hoy, W. K. , & Miskel, C. G. (2001). Educational administration: Theory, research, and practice (6th ed.). New York: McGraw-Hill.
29.
Hoy, W. K. , & Sweetland, S. R. (2000). School bureaucracies that work: Enabling, not coercive. Journal of School Leadership, 10, 525-541.
30.
Hoy, W. K. , & Tschannen-Moran, M. (1999). Five faces of trust: An empirical confirmation in urban elementary schools. Journal of School Leadership, 9, 184-208.
31.
Isherwood, G. , & Hoy, W. K. (1973). Bureaucracy, powerlessness, and teacher work values. Journal of Educational Administration, 9, 124-138.
32.
Jackson, S. , & Schuler, R. S. (1985). A meta-analysis and conceptual critique of research on role ambiguity and role conflict in work settings. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 36, 17-78.
33.
Kakabadse, A. (1986). Organizational alienation and job climate. Small Group Behavior, 17, 458-471.
34.
Larson, C. L. (1997). Is the land of oz an alien nation? A sociopolitical study of school community conflict. Educational Administration Quarterly, 33, 312-350.
35.
Leithwood, K. , & Duke, D. L. (1999). A century’s quest to understand school leadership. In J. Murphy & K. S. Louis (Eds.), Handbook of research on educational administration (pp. 45-72). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
36.
Martin, J. , & Knopoff, K. (in press). The gendered implications of apparently gender-neutral theory: Rereading Weber. In E. Freeman and A. Larson (Eds.), Ruffin lecturess series: Business ethics and women’s studies (Vol. 3). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
37.
Merton, R. (1957). Social theory and social structure. New York: Free Press.
38.
Michaels, R. E. , Cron, W. L., Dubinsky, A. J., & Joachimsthaler, E. A. (1988). Influence of formalization on the organizational commitment and work alienation of salespeople and industrial buyers. Journal of Marketing Research, 25, 376-383.
39.
Mintzberg, H. (1979). The structuring of organizations. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.
40.
Mintzberg, H. (1989). Mintzberg on management. New York: Free Press.
41.
Moeller, G. H. , & Charters, W. W., Jr. (1966). Relation of bureaucratization to sense of power among teachers. Administrative Science Quarterly, 10, 444-465.
42.
Nyberg, D. (1993). The varnished truth: Truth telling and deceiving in ordinary life. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
43.
Rizzo, J. , House, R., & Lirtzman, S. (1970). Role conflict and ambiguity in complex organizations. Administrative Science Quarterly, 15, 150-163.
44.
Rousseau, D. M. (1978). Characteristics of departments, positions, and individuals: Contexts for attitudes and behavior. Administrative Science Quarterly, 23, 521-540.
45.
Scott, W. R. (1998). Organizations: Rational, natural, and open systems (4th ed.). Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.
46.
Senatra, P. T. (1980). Role conflict, role ambiguity, and organizational climate in a public accounting firm. Accounting Review, 55, 594-603.
47.
Senge, P. M. (1990). The fifth discipline: The art and practice of the learning organization. New York: Doubleday.
48.
Sweetland, S. R. , & Hoy, W. K. (2000). School characteristics and educational outcomes: Toward an organizational model of student achievement in middle schools. Educational Administration Quarterly, 36, 703-729.
49.
Sweetland, S. R. , & Hoy, W. K. (in press). Varnishing the truth in schools: Principals and teachers spinning reality. Journal of Educational Administration.
50.
Von Krogh, G. , Ichijo, K., & Nonaka, I. (2000). Enabling knowledge creation. New York: Oxford University Press.
51.
Weber, M. (1947). The theory of social and economic organizations (A. M. Henderson & T. Parsons, Trans.). New York: Free Press.
