The reinvention laboratories created as part of the National Performance Review represent a novel approach to strategic change in the federal government. In assigning an important role to middle management in the design and implementation of new work technologies, the lab program contrasts with more conventional approaches to change in which top management is dominant. This study examines the viability of the generative model that the lab program represents as a means of inducing agencies to employ postbureaucratic organizing principles. A conclusion is that although a variety of factors will affect the degree of success achieved, the model holds promise as a means of achieving strategic change in public organizations.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
Arnold, P.
(1998). Making the managerial presidency: Comprehensive reorganization planning, 1905-1996. Lawrence: University Press of Kansas.
2.
Barzelay, M.
(1992). Breaking through bureaucracy: A new vision for managing in government. Berkeley: University of California Press.
3.
Beer, M.
, Eisenstat, R., & Spector, B. (1990). The critical path to corporate renewal. Boston: Harvard Business School Press.
4.
Bennis, W.
, & Nanus, B. (1985). Leaders: The strategies for taking charge. New York: Harper & Row.
5.
Bourgeois, L.
, & Brodwin, D. (1984). Strategic implementation: Five approaches to an elusive phenomenon. Strategic Management Journal, 5, 241-264.
6.
Chandler, A.
(1962). Strategy and structure: Chapters in the history of the American enterprise. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
7.
Debt Collection Improvement Act of 1996, Pub. L. No. 104-134, § 31001, 110 Stat. 1321-1358 (1996).
8.
Gore, A.
(1993, May 1). Letter to heads of departments and major agencies (Copy provided by the National Performance Review). Washington, DC: Government Printing Office.
9.
Hart, S.
(1992). An integrative framework for strategy-making processes. Academy of Management Review, 17, 327-351.
10.
Kanter, R.
, Stein, B., & Jick, T. (1992). The challenge of organizational change: How companies experience it and leaders guide it. New York: Free Press.
11.
Kettl, D.
(1998). Reinventing government: A fifth-year report card. Washington, DC: Brookings Institution.
12.
Kochan, T.
, & Useem, M. (Eds). (1992). Transforming organizations. New York: Oxford University Press.
13.
Marcus, A.
(1988). Implementing externally induced innovations: A comparison of rule-bound and autonomous approaches. Academy of Management Journal, 31(2), 235.
14.
Mintzberg, H.
, & Waters, J. (1985). Of strategies, deliberate and emergent. Strategic Management Journal, 24, 934-948.
15.
Mohrman, A. M., Jr.
, Mohrman, S. A., Ledford, G. E., Jr., Cummings, T. G., Lawler, E. E., III, & Associates. (1989). Large-scale organizational change. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
16.
Nadler, D.
(1988). Organizational frame-bending: Types of change in the complex organization. In R. Kilmann, T. Covin, and Associates (Ed.), Corporate transformation: Revitalizing organizations for a competitive world. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
17.
Nadler, D.
, Shaw, R., Walton, A., & Associates. (1995). Discontinuous change: Leading organizational transformation. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
18.
Nadler, D.
, & Tushman, M. (1995). The challenge of discontinuous change. In D. Nadler, R. Shaw, A. Walton, & Associates (Eds.), Discontinuous change: Leading organizational transformation. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
19.
Nutt, P.
, & Backoff, R. (1992). Strategic management of public and third sector organizations: A handbook for leaders. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
20.
Rainey, H.
(1991). Understanding and managing public organizations. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
21.
Ring, P.
, & Perry, J. (1985). Strategic management in public and private organizations: Implications of distinctive contexts and constraints. Academy of Management Review, 10(2), 276-286.
22.
Rowe, L.
, & Boise, W. (Eds.). (1973). Organizational and managerial innovation: A reader. Pacific Palisades, CA: Goodyear.
23.
Schein, E.
(1992). Organizational culture and leadership. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
24.
Shrivastava, P.
, & Grant, J. (1985). Empirically derived models of strategic decision-making processes. Strategic Management Journal, 6, 97-113.
25.
Tichy, N.
(1983). Managing strategic change: Technical, political, and cultural dynamics. New York: John Wiley.
26.
U.S. Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS)
. (1995). Simplifying rulemaking in APHIS: Report on the first year. Washington, DC: Author.
27.
U.S. Federal Supply Service (FSS), Northeast and Caribbean Region
. (1997). The president’s quality award program 1997 application (Copy provided by the New York regional office). New York: Veterans Benefits Administration.
28.
U.S. General Accounting Office (GAO)
. (1996). Management reform: Status of agency reinvention lab efforts (GGD-96-69). Washington DC: Government Printing Office.
29.
U.S. National Performance Review (NPR)
. (1993). Report of the National Performance Review: Creating a government that works better and costs less. Washington, DC: Government Printing Office.
30.
U.S. National Performance Review (NPR)
. (1998). What is a reinvention lab? Retrieved November 3, 1998, from the World Wide Web: http://www.napawash.org/waiver/labs/whatisalab.html
31.
U.S. Public Buildings Service (PBS)
. (1995). Rocky Mountain Lease Laboratory. (Copy provided by the Denver Regional Office). Denver, CO: Author.
32.
Van de Ven, A.
, Angle, H. L., & Poole, M. S. (Eds.) (1989). Research on the management of innovation: The Minnesota studies. New York: Harper & Row.
33.
Wilson, J.
(1973). Notes toward a theory of innovation. In L. Rowe & W. Boise (Eds.), Organizational and managerial innovation: A reader. Pacific Palisades, CA: Goodyear.
34.
Wilson, J.
(1989). Bureaucracy: What government agencies do and why they do it. New York: Basic Books.
35.
Yin, R.
(1994). Case study research: Design and methods (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
36.
Zaltman, G.
, Duncan, R., & Holbek, J. (1973). Innovations and organizations. New York: John Wiley.
