Reframing organizations: structural and cultural perspectives

Public Administration Issues

Bolman and Deal describe the manner and extent to which theater plays a role in both the organizational structure of and processes within contemporary business organizations. That discussion is simultaneously enlightening and frightening, particularly as it relates to the apparent sham that fundamental organizational processes appear to be, to a great degree.

Organizational Structure as Theater

Using prestigious institutions of higher learning as the example, the authors describe the extent to which respected universities emphasize the creation and maintenance of external impressions in their organizational structure. In that respect, organizational culture and values as well as the stated objectives and missions of organizations are formulated, one could argue, for manipulative purposes rather than for intrinsic or genuine purposes. Organizational components and strategic plans are conceived substantially in relation to the public impression they generate about the institution rather than to enable the organization to pursue and achieve self-defined objectives. That discussion raises certain rather obvious questions: Is there a way of determining when organizational structure is excessively determined or dictated by the need to cerate "theater"? How can organizations committed to substance over form compete against organizations that have no qualms maximizing the value of theater over substantive structural value?

Organizational Processes as Theater

The concept of theater in organizational structure and processes is frightening enough in connection with institutions of higher learning and contemporary business organizations. However, that concept is even more ominous when one considers its application to political institutions and processes, although the authors only make a passing reference to this issue in connection with the purpose and structure of government agencies (p. 301).

Even a casual observer of American politics over the last several years would recognize the theater to which Bolman and Deal refer as it applies to organizational processes. IN Congress, for example, elected representatives devote tremendous effort to the theatrical aspects of portraying themselves as open-minded, desirous of compromise with political opponents, consistency with their prior statements and campaign promises, and (especially) commitment to principles of good faith in general. Unfortunately, it seems that the theater of political processes have come to completely dominate the political processes through which elected representatives are supposed to represent the wishes of their constituents. In particular, the influence of professional lobbyists has thoroughly undermined the political processes articulated in the U.S. Constitution and political representatives, all while elected officials maintain the theater of the formal political process. They routinely rely on obfuscating language to hide the fact that their actions on Capital Hill contradict their promises to constituents; and they make a tremendous show of civility in public while resorting to intellectually dishonest attacks on political opponents. One question raised by the application of the authors' concept of theater in processes is: Is there a "tipping point" beyond which the reliance on theater over substance forces meaningful reform and change in organizations and political institutions?