Organizational factors that differentiate bureaucratic performance and effectiveness

Bureaucracies differ from one another primarily because of their different missions, values, and goals. Wilson (1991) adds also that bureaucracies vary because of their different organizational cultures and norms. Organizational culture is also addressed by Gomley et al. (2012), and described specifically in terms of motivating employees, promoting organizational commitment, and engendering cohesion. The differences between different bureaucracies may lead also to different performance measures, with some bureaucracies measurably outperforming others. Gomley et al. (2012) adds also that bureaucracies differ on measures like accountability, and the methods used to measure accountability. Specific differences among government bureaucracies include the methods by which they address crises, their assessments of costs and benefits, and their approaches to problem solving. Bureaucracies also differ on mundane and daily operational features, such as standard operating procedures and responses to routine situations.

Success measures can be based on financial management and other internal variables, or on external variables like client factors or legal issues. Even perceptions of accountability can be taken into account when measuring differences between bureaucratic success and overall effectiveness. Measuring effectiveness also has to do with identifying the organization's mission and determining how well the bureaucratic institution meets their stated mission. Avoiding arbitrary measures is important, as not all bureaucracies can be measured by the same standards. Some will have clearer financial goals, whereas others have broader philosophical goals. The mission of an organization will determine other factors in its structure, as well as having an impact on organizational culture. Other methods of measuring overall bureaucratic effectiveness include the lack of crises or effective crisis management; as well as the avoidance of bureaucratic inefficiencies. The effectiveness by which organizations garner support -- financial or otherwise -- also distinguishes one organization from another. Whether or not an organization is a government or private sector bureaucracy will have a strong bearing on their general differences. Bureaucracies may or may not need to interact with the media, but all will need to cultivate public relations expertise. Organizations will differ according to their approach to public relations.

Leadership is a key variable distinguishing one organization from another. Leadership styles will vary from one organization to another, again based on their overall goals and values. The policy tools used by various organizations will also impact leadership styles, and the ways leaders work with external organizations, the media, or elected officials in government. Gormley et al. (2012) note that coerciveness, directness, automaticity, and visibility are some of the core ways bureaucratic leaders may differ from one to another in their respective organizations. The same role might manifest differently between two different organizations, even when those two organizations share common core goals such as environmental protection or trade. Policy tools used by organizations also cause them to behave differently from one another, even when working within the same general sector. For example, contracting procedures, grant procedures, and information sharing are key points on which bureaucracies may disagree or differ. Some bureaucracies are larger and more diverse than others, warranting different leadership and operational methods. Leadership can change the character and organizational culture of any bureaucracy, and potentially even alter its mission and goals. Specific issues that distinguish one leader from another in a bureaucracy will range from personality traits to background and experience.

Other ways bureaucracies will differ include their access to financial and human resources, the methods of addressing constraints on those resources, and other resource management issues. Public resources will usually entail political constraints, which will also reveal the different ways organizations wield political power and connectivity. Some organizations will be perceived more positively by the general public or the constituents of one political party vs. The other. This would then impact the role that each political party plays in boosting funding or overall support for that bureaucratic organization. Moreover, its perception by the public and hence, by elected officials, might invite structural or goal changes. Changing educational policy, for instance, would result from the efficiencies or inefficiencies of the Department of Education. Changes in public policy will impact organizations differently, and in some cases, may impact only certain branches of one large bureaucracy. Because of their different goals, missions, and values, bureaucracies need to structure themselves individually and independently according to their needs. Ensuring effectiveness and removing the problems leading to deviance or inefficiency will require situational awareness, strong leadership, and a reassessment of organizational culture. The differences in bureaucratic agencies will lead to different responses to challenges, crises, and opportunities.

Short Answer 1: Working Relationships between Agencies

The working relationships between various government agencies are core components of their operations, and may have a bearing on leadership and organizational structure and culture. Wilson (1991) focuses more on the straightforward functional relationships between different agencies. Their common goals will necessitate functional collaboration, coordination of resources, and information sharing. This may be evident, for example, in Defense-related working relationships or the working relationships between the various branches of the criminal justice system. Both Wilson (1991) and Gormley et al. (2012) discuss the ways working relationships are critical for crisis management. Different models of constructing working relationships will also impact overall effectiveness and delivery of services.

The working relationships formed between executives of their respective agencies will be significantly different in character, tone, and methods than the working relationships among more nebulous bodies or departments. Executives deal with face-to-face interactions and their work will be more dependent on the development of communications strategies and long-term relationship development (Wilson, 1991). Wilson (1991) also points out that agency executives will often be more externally-focused than internally-focused, which has a strong bearing on their ability to carry out relationship development goals. Gormley et al. (2012) likewise note the differences between working relationships formed and executed by the top-level managers and those between other levels of the organizational hierarchy. Differences in their levels of autonomy are also discussed in the Gormley et al. (2012) book, as well as the net measures of efficiency and success.

Both Wilson (1991) and Gormley et al. (2012) discuss the ways working relationships between agencies help them to pool resources and share information, as well as anticipate and address crises. Moreover, both books offer insight into the pitfalls agencies face as they deal with structural problems and problems related to internal organizational culture. When internal problems or inefficiencies affect external performance measures, working relationships can be significantly damaged. Crisis management remains a core function of organizational leaders, as they seek to improve the working relationships they cultivate with partners.

Short Answer 2: The Street-Level Bureaucrat

Coined by Michael Lipsky, the term "street-level bureaucracy" or "street-level bureaucrat" refers to the human resources implicated in the execution of organizational goals. Street-level bureaucrats are the individuals who most directly and closely work with the members of the public, often by interacting directly with the public as representatives of an organization. As "front-line" operators, as Gormley et al. (2012) calls them, street-level bureaucrats contend with their own set of organizational constraints and challenges. The role of the street-level bureaucrat is evident in terms of bureaucratic policies, goals, and strategies, as well as the relationship between the public and the bureaucracies that serve it.