Adapting Government Structure: Implications for Positive ...€¦ · The Machine Bureaucracy As stated above, the American government has gravitated toward a preference for the machine

RUNNING HEAD: IMPLICATIONS FOR POSITIVE PUBLIC PERCEPTION 1

Adapting Government Structure: Implications for Positive Public Perception

Sara R. Shepherd

Queens University of Charlotte

IMPLICATIONS FOR POSITIVE PUBLIC PERCEPTION 2

Abstract

This paper explores two organizational designs: the machine bureaucracy, currently used by

most governments, and horizontal structure, currently used in many successful private

organizations. Research reveals that American government is using the vertical organizational

design, also known as the machine bureaucracy. This hierarchical, bureaucratic structure is said

to inhibit communication within the organization through its rigid rules, policies, norms, and

military-like chain-of-command. On the other hand, research also reveals that many large private

organizations are structured horizontally and are successful in innovation, employee engagement

and public perception. This paper explores the impact of bureaucratic structure on public

perception of the government and public agencies. It is theorized audiences likely have a

negative perception of government attributable to structure that could be improved by shifting

the structure to a more horizontal design that encourages employee agency. I also explore the

implication of improving public perception toward American government organizations as an

argument for horizontal structure. The intended audience for this project are government policy-

makers at the legislative level and others, such as Executive Directors, who have the power and

authority to develop and approve policies that support a horizontal organizational structure

within their particular government organization.

Key words: government, organizational design, organizational structure, Giddens’ Structuration

Theory, machine bureaucracy, horizontal structure, horizontal design, public perception,

communication, bureaucracy, hierarchy


Adapting Government Structure: Implications for Positive Public Perception

Today, more than ever, organizational design is essential to how functionable an

organization is and to what extent it allows employees the ability to communicate in a

way that produces successful outcomes. How the organization is designed is usually the

result of a formal process undergone internally with external feedback (Autry, 1996). The

current and historical preference in America is some form of a hierarchical structure, or

bureaucracy, in which authoritative positions are located at the top, beginning with one

person. For example, most organizations have a Chief Executive Officer (CEO) at the top

of the organizational chart and under the CEO are people who report upwards to that

person. This structure branches out and downward to those on the lowest branches, also

known as the ground level, whom are usually the people interacting with

consumers/customers on a daily basis.

One organization that latched largely onto the bureaucracy structure is America’s

government. The American government adopted the form of bureaucracy known as the

machine bureaucracy (Mintzberg, 1981). Since this design seems to draw largely on the

military structure needed in centuries past based on the society structure at those times, it

is possible that the machine bureaucracy is outdated for government organizations in

today’s society. Furthermore, within the hierarchical structure exist rules, policies and

procedures that are usually rigid and most are commonly applied without considering

context. This can be constrictive for communication, used to “exert control over member

behaviors”, can add more time to the development of messages and delay responsiveness


to the public, and can affect the construction of messages as information changes or is

removed as it moves up-and-down the vertical chain before reaching the intended

audience (Autry, 1996, p. 1). Most likely this is a result of how the information flows

through the hierarchical structure, leaving behind what can be too little information or

information that is too general. When this happens, I believe it could encourage the idea,

to the public, that the organization is not responsive and does not provide satisfactory

customer service.

In the following literature review, I will discuss in detail two organizational

designs, the machine bureaucracy and horizontal structures, as well as discuss Giddens

structuration theory. I will also compare and contrast the two organizational structures

with respect to employee agency, meaning the freedom or restrictions to do their job; and

I explore that perhaps removing restrictions on employees can positively affect customer

interaction and, thereby, public perception. If my research shows a relationship between

the aforementioned concepts, then it might be an effective strategy to persuade

government officials to adapt the structure of government. Additionally, research findings

garnered will contribute to scholarly academia by demonstrating the duality of structure

in relation to organizational design and the role it plays on interactions and public

perception. It may also have point to another area of study for scholars interested in

employee engagement and resistance to change might be affected by organizational

design. Another area of study that might intrigue scholars is the element of public

perception and how it could shape structure, as defined by Giddens. Lastly, the final

outcome of this project will be a thesis.

Literature Review


The Machine Bureaucracy

As stated above, the American government has gravitated toward a preference for

the machine bureaucracy. However, having been born out of the needs of the Industrial

Revolution, the machine bureaucracy can be thought of as old and outdated. The

operational characteristics of the machine bureaucracy are that of a hierarchy with

divided and specialized units of labor, inflexibility, rule-bound, and top-down in its

communication flow (Mintzberg, 1981). Essentially, the policies, rules and procedures

formalize behaviors and dictates actions (Mintzberg, 1981, p. 7). (This is important

because it is also included in the discussion about structuration theory, which explains

these policies, rules and behaviors as patterns of activity meaningful to those involved

and can be changed (Poole & McPhee, 2005)). Moreover, since government deals with

people who are human and not machines, the rigid structure of the machine bureaucracy

may prohibit the responsiveness needed in today’s society. Today, organizations may

need the flexibility to respond to unique situations that may not already have a procedure

established, and finding a formal, one-size-fits-all resolution is tough, if not impossible.

One of the most pivotal changes from decades past is the development of

ubiquitous technological devices and the way it has opened the doors for society to access

information; even extending to customer service. Today’s consumers expect to receive

quick and accurate services because the world we live in today is highly connected and

globalized through the advent of a plethora of digital technologies. This creates a society

that is very different from that of the ones 25, 15 and even 10 years ago and has affected

everyone from the personal level to the economic and political levels. Instead of the usual

Industrial Age thinking, companies need to recognize that we now live in a consumer-


driven “experience economy” and most are doing this (Solis, 2013; Yohn, 2014; Gobe,

2009). However, government organizations are still clinging to the rigid, vertical

structure of the machine bureaucracy, which seems to discount this change in customer

expectations. The effects of not adapting to a changing society may be what is trickling

down to affecting the employee’s agency, their ability to perform their job and, by

extension, to the customer who decides on their level of satisfaction based on their

interaction with staff (Gallup, 2009, p.4). When the results of the interaction are negative,

it is possible the public perception and image of the organization suffers through the

consumer’s communication to others in-person and/or via digital media platforms such as

Facebook and Twitter.

Furthermore, according to Mintzberg and Van der Heyden (1999), traditional

hierarchies are “vanishing” (p. 88). The machine bureaucracy emphasizes high

productivity and minimizing costs along with a mentality of replication meaning looking

to the past for similar situations to resolve issues (Mintzberg, 1981, p. 7). These

philosophies and mindsets result in a resistance to change, which may not benefit

government. However, assembly lines, such as vehicle production, are more appropriate

for this type of organizational design. Since government generally deals with people, it

needs a structure more suited to meeting the needs of a living organism that thinks

independently and freely; or, a structure that can adapt easily to varying situations.

As such, the machine bureaucracy could be less responsive to the demands of the

current society. Additionally, new ideology and expectations of the millennials (born

between 1982 and 2002) and Z generations (born in the mid-1990s through the 2010s or

from the early 2000s to around 2025) are shaking up the way in which organizations are


structured. These two generations have grown up in the era of digital technology and

technological advancements and the machine bureaucracy struggles to meet their needs

technologically. This is because it may be hard to adapt new technology in the rigid

structure of a bureaucracy. The machine bureaucracy also does not meet the needs of the

changing workforce as it has transitioned from low-wage, low-skilled factory jobs

prevalent in the1950s, to highly educated, knowledge-based service jobs seen now.

Society today has high-skill, high-specialized jobs, a result of the Third Wave or

technological age (Toffler, 1995). Some recent events have also highlighted inefficiencies

of the machine bureaucracy such as the 9/11 terrorist attacks and Edward Snowden’s

unauthorized disclosures.

So, why does government continue to use the machine bureaucracy as its

organizational design? One reason may be the origins as discussed above, which has

proven stable over time; a positive attribute. Not only is it stable, it accommodates the

underlying political pressure, which is the external feedback that influences the formation

of the current government design (Autry, 1996). Mintzberg (1981) also explains that

government agencies function well as a machine bureaucracy because it is subject to

many external controls (i.e. politics), “regardless of their other conditions” (p. 8).

However, it may be that these constraints (the aforementioned other conditions)

negatively affect employee agency and the ability to provide large volumes of positive

customer interactions.

For all of these reasons, the machine bureaucracy is no longer “fashionable”

(Mintzberg, 1981, p. 8). These characteristics discussed above imply that the current

structure impedes communication and employees’ agency. Granted, there are times when


employees can do the right thing; however, the bureaucratic structure can severely limit

the response, or deny the employee from responding at all. Any instance that denies

responsiveness or takes an inordinate amount of time for a response, are possibly what

the public remembers the most and could be fodder for an agency to have a negative

perception.

Now that some of the inefficiencies of a machine bureaucracy for government

organizational design have been discussed, I will compare that structure to horizontal

organizational design. In so doing, it will illuminate that the horizontal design allows

communication to flow more freely, which enables less-impeded employee agency and

could increase positive interactions with the public, thereby, public perception.

Horizontal Structure

First, I will define the horizontal structure. In the most basic theoretical terms, the

horizontal design would consist of only a handful of senior executives in traditional

support functions such as financial officers and personnel/human resources. These

individuals may form their own circle or could be incorporated into the other cross-

functional teams (permanently or on an as-needed basis) (Byrne, 1993). A crucial aspect

is that this group is not depicted in a physical (on paper) or psychological manner as

above or in a higher power position than everyone else. Since strict management levels

are removed, employees would most likely have ownership in the decision-making

process including management of people, time, resources, and performance evaluation

(Byrne, 1993). This might have an unintended result of affecting engagement and morale

most likely in a more positive way than in the hierarchical, bureaucratic structure. In the

bureaucratic structure, people are given clearly defined tasks with, possibly, little


feedback from the employee as to changes that could improve his or her job (Mintzberg,

1981).

Already, there are large corporations in America that are moving toward the

horizontal structure. Such companies as AT&T, DuPont, General Electric and Motorola

are realizing the vertical structure of a bureaucracy are not meeting their efficiency or

productivity needs (Byrne, 1993). The horizontal structure seems to allow employees to

focus on processes involved with delivering the product instead of worrying about the

office politics involved in the hierarchical structure such as requesting permission to

move forward with the task, or requesting permission to contact other people in different

departments within the organization. The horizontal structure could also promote feelings

of comradery (Byrne, 1993). One instrumental change seen in the horizontal design is

that of managing across (horizontal) instead of vertically as seen in the machine

bureaucracy and corporations (mostly private ones) are beginning to realize managing

across is more conducive than managing up-and-down (vertical) (Byrne, 1993;

Mintzberg, 1981).

Moreover, the horizontally designed organization would focus around processes

instead of the narrow-defined tasks, which is indicative of the hierarchical, bureaucratic

structure (Byrne, 1993). With the horizontal mind-set, it seems communication would

flow more freely and employees would have more agency to perform his or her job. This

could possibly improve or enhance how the public interacts with and perceives the

organization. Rules, policies and norms (these could be considered processes) might be

more flexible and fluid allowing employees to respond faster to customer’s needs (these

are the practices I mentioned earlier that will be explained in Giddens’ structuration


theory). This suggests the customer would be happy; and, hopefully, they will talk to

their friends about the positive experience who would talk to their network of friends and

so on; thereby, influencing the public perception of that company. Again, by public

perception, I am referencing the overall positive or negative image of that organization.

Additionally, public perception might also be influenced by the horizontal design

because it might create shared environment instead of the specialized expert. This type of

worker is indicative of the bureaucracy, where staff operation within silos or boundaries,

which may result in a narrow perspective on reaching the company’s goals. In the

horizontal design, everyone from all backgrounds would need to be involved in different

stages of the product delivery process. Thus, all employees understand the big picture of

the company’s vision and product and understand all the parts involved in bringing that

product to fruition. This perspective might promote a feeling of ownership in the

company and might remove physical and psychological barriers to communication,

which is prevalent in the bureaucratic structure (Byrne, 1993; Mintzberg, 1981). I think

this may positively affect employees in that they may feel more freedom to communicate

with each other because egos are less prevalent and no one fears for his or job.

Sometimes it seems this fear might impede communication to the extent that people do

not want to help each other for fear of being out-performed and resulting in job

termination (Byrne, 1993).

Overall, the main challenge for bureaucracy to adapt to the horizontal design is

the collaborative environment and how it works to change the narrow mind-set indicative

of the hierarchical, siloed structure where people are only focused on his or her own task

(Mintzberg, 1981). Collaboration tends to invite flexibility and a feeling of comradery,


which may have an unintended effect of changing engagement in a more positive

direction (Byrne, 1993). Finally, technology has changed society. Byrne (1993) writes,

“Heightened global competition and the ever increasing speed of technological change

have since altered the rules of the game and have forced corporate planners to seek new

solutions” (p. 79). This seems to imply that the bureaucratic, vertical structure is outdated

and needs to change with a changing society.

So, in discussing two contrasting organizational designs, I highlighted the

differences in structures and that they could change to help meet the needs of the

organization and the public. It could be that employee agency and duality of structure

(explained in the next section) are more aligned with the horizontal structure and this

might help public perception. Now, I will discuss Giddens’ Structuration theory as a way

to understand how organizational design comes into fruition through the duality of

structure.

Giddens’ Structuration Theory

Giddens developed the structuration theory in the 1960s when scholars were

interested in applying human behavior perspective of communication to how society is

structured (Poole & McPhee, 2005). Most of the studies at the time were focused on

social scientific communication and searching for causes of behavior and how it was

influenced externally and contextually (Poole & McPhee, 2005). As a result, the role of

social structure was often overlooked or its significance was dimmed in favor of focusing

on the chain-of-command relationships and communication, indicative of the bureaucracy

(Poole & McPhee, 2005; Mintzberg, 1981). Giddens argued an alternative view built on

other notable theorists of the time such as John Dewey, George Herbert Mead and Erving


Goffman (Poole & McPhee, 2005). These theorists focused on how human practices

influenced and structured society. The structuration theory posits that both social

structure and human action provide a framework that could explain individual behavior

and the development and effects of societal institutions such as the economy, religion and

government (Poole & McPhee, 2005). The emphasis of the theory is on the role of

processes in society and organizations and allows us to conceptualize communication as a

process as well and the theory encompasses stability and change (Poole & McPhee,

2005).

One of the most important concepts of the structuration theory is viewing the

organization as a system and providing a human aspect to it. Giddens theorizes that

systems are actually human practices and further defines practices as meaningful patterns

of activity. These practices, then, allow us to see the relationships to each other in a ‘big-

picture’ way within society and societal institutions such as the organization (Poole &

McPhee, 2005). Within the system, there are structures, which are the rules and resources

used in order to function or perform practices. Structure would be the rules and means

employees use in practices, or resources. For example, a state’s laws would be the

structure and it is made up of rules and resources. A rule could be formal like a specific

statute and a resource could be a computer system used to research laws in order to

respond to a customer. Additionally, a rule could be informal like norms or narratives that

guide people’s actions (Poole & McPhee, 2005). For example, if coming in to work late

is acceptable only if bringing food or drinks to share with the office. This tells a story, or

narrative, of what is acceptable behavior in that organization. The overarching idea is that

processes are central to the way society and organizations function and that they literally


create the structure (i.e. vertical or horizontal) because they guide behavior in that they

tell us how to act and what is appropriate and not appropriate (Poole & McPhee, 2005).

Structuration theory also posits that in order to keep the system working, it is

produced and reproduced by the people (employees) within it; a duality. The structure

would be the rules and resources and they are reproduced through using rules and

resources as intended. Giddens call this the duality of structure, a central idea of

structuration theory (Poole & McPhee, 2005). So here is where employee agency is

important. Duality of structure is the balance of employee agency and structure

interacting with each other. Structure changes when employees use rules and resources in

different ways than intended, ignore them or break the rules. Reproducing a structure

happens when people use the rules and resources in the accepted manner within the

organization. So, as the system is reproduced, issues may arise that cause something in

the system to change or transform. A transformation is merely the system evolving in a

new way. Central to my argument is that the system itself (meaning organizational

design) is the product of what employees do as they work through a duality of structures

that are both the conduit and result of actions (Poole & McPhee, 2005).

Duality of structures implies that organizations develop through ongoing

practices. Everytime an employee engages in a practice, the organization’s system is

reproduced. Another implication from Giddens’ theory is that organizations can change

through this duality. It may need to be done in small changes, and over time, but knowing

that rules, procedures, norms, policies, etc., comprise structure, I believe that through

changing practices organizations can change (Poole & McPhee, 2005). Structuration

theory seems to be useful for explaining how organizations can change. It focuses


attention on the relationship between structure and employee agency and points out that

structures are maintained and adapted through the exercise of agency.

This concludes the literature review section of this paper. Now, I will introduce the focus of the

research I would like to conduct via two research questions.

Research Questions: 1) How does the public currently perceive government

organizations?

2) Are these perceptions related to the current structure of government?

Method

This study will consist of a textual analysis of comments from consumers on a public

forum in order to explore the potential implications of government structure in customer

satisfaction and, thereby, public perception of the organization. The study will focus on 75-100

comments known as reports, collected from the public forum. All comments collected relate to

government interactions and will serve the purpose of answering both research questions.

According to McKee (2003), the "textual analysis is a way for researchers to gather

information about how other human beings make sense of the world...to understand the ways in

which members of various cultures and subcultures make sense of who they are, and how they fit

into the world..." (p. 224). The textual analysis is an effective way of assessing, comparing and

understanding media texts and is closely entrenched in structuralism (McKee, 2003, p. 224). A

textual analysis allows the researcher to explore relationships between concepts and provides

logical methodology strategies that have been proven valid over time. I hope to gain knowledge

in exploring the relationship between customer feedback (thus, public perception) and structure

of the government organization through Giddens’ Structuration Theory.


Procedure

In examining the comments, I will look for themes in words, phrases and meanings

conveyed in order to discover relationships between structure and perception. To define the

thematic relationships, I will use William Foster Owen’s research on thematic interpretation

(1984, pp. 274-287). According to Owen (1984), a theme is present when there are three

“criterion present: 1) recurrence, 2) repetition, and 3) forcefulness” (p. 275). Recurrence is when

at least two parts of communication have “the same meaning” even if different words are used

(Owens, 1984, p. 275). Repetition is just what it sounds like, the repeating of “certain words,

phrases and sentences”, which can be thought of as explicit language regardless of meaning

(Owens, 1984, p. 275). Forcefulness refers to the tone of voice, volume or dramatic pauses

including enlarged text, highlighted words, or other markings indicating a wish to emphasize the

communication (Owens, 1984). Basically, Owens (1984) posits that themes help us make sense

of relationships and help illuminate implications for elusive underlying themes that might be

present during interactions.

Sample

To conduct my research, I looked online for public forums related to government. I was

not able to find any, but found websites that provided a space for general complaints. I chose the

website Ripoff Report, which is an open forum for people to report scams and fraud, or review a

company, individual, service or product, or complain, vent or let others know that a business is

being unethical (whistleblowing). The staff for the website claim they do not hide reports, even

is a complaint is “satisfied”, but keep all comments (known as reports on the site) open and


available on the site indefinitely. The staff claim the comments are intact in order to preserve the

history of the company or individual named in the report.

The website allows searches by keyword terms and I used the search capabilities to

search for the terms government and DMV. DMV seemed to yield comments more precise to

government interaction and implications for the relationship between interaction, structure and

public perception. I will continue using this search term in order to yield more data to analyze

and use to propose research findings.

In collecting the data, I started with June 2016 and will continue in reverse calendar

months until I collect approximately 75-100 comments. I collected comments in their entirety,

including attachments (when provided) and comments from other website users or rebuttals from

people or the company(ies) named in the report. Additonally, I labeled each comment i.e.

comment #1, comment #2 and so on. Then, I highlighted the comments that seemed to reflect

decisions made based on structure i.e. rules, procedures or policies. By doing this, I will be able

to easily identify the comments in relation to the respective research questions.

Data Analysis

The selected comments will be analyzed using several thematic interpretation techniques

(Owens, 1984). Using the techniques postulated by Owens, I will analyze the comments for

recurring words, phrases and/or sentences that convey the same (recurring) meanings, even if the

same words are not use and I will also determine forcefulness, such as repetition, capitalization,

exclamation points, etc. From these analyses, I should be able to obtain the goal of this study,

which is to illuminate thematic relationships between interaction and public perception as well as

interaction and structure in order to draw conclusions about the role of the duality of structure


with interaction and its by-product, public perception (Owens, 1984; Giddens 1984). The

conclusions obtained could have implications for government to adapt its structure to one that

best fits the needs of the organization and its customer, the public; which might be the horizontal

structure described in the literature review.

Sample

I started with June 2016 and will continue in reverse calendar months until I collect

approximately 75-100 comments. I collected comments in their entirety, including attachments

(when provided) and comments from other website users or rebuttals from people or the

company(ies) named in the report. Then, I highlighted the comments that seemed to reflect

decisions made based on structure i.e. rules, procedures or policies. So far, I have collected 28

comments. Of those 28, one comment included an attachment (Comment #15) and four

comments included responses (Comment #19, Comment #20, Comment #25, and Comment

#28). Of the comments that included responses one received three responses (Comment #19),

one comment’s response was rebuttal by the named company (Comment #20), and two

comments received one general response each (Comment #25 and Comment #28).

I will provide further analysis of the comments including the words, phrases and/or

sentences that recur and the ways in which the thematic findings could be interpreted as forceful.

Research Findings

This study will consist of a textual analysis using thematic interpretation techniques of

approximately 75-100 comments collected from the public website Ripoff Report. The analysis

will use the sample and methodology previously described.


In the rest of this section, I will describe the comments in more detail, probably providing

the comment within this document in order to provide specific examples of the analysis.

Discussion

The goal of this study is to illuminate thematic relationships between interaction and

public perception as well as interaction and structure in order to draw conclusions about the role

of the duality of structure with interaction and its by-product, public perception (Owens, 1984;

Giddens 1984). The conclusions obtained could have implications for government to adapt its

structure to one that best fits the needs of the organization and its customer, the public; which

might be the horizontal structure described in the literature review. After analyzing the

comments, I will discuss themes that emerge.

Theme #1

For the remainder of this section, I will name and describe the themes that emerge.

Conclusion

This textual analysis of public comments has added to academic literature that explores the role

of duality of structure and organizational design and the impact on interactions and public

perception. A review of organizational design and structuration academic literature reveals that

this has been a topic of interest for researchers for at least a century. As society continues to

change, so will the need for continued research around organizational design and public

perception.

For the rest of this section, I will discuss implications garnered from the analysis and

research findings and the implications for continued scholarly research.


Project Benefits

If my research shows a relationship between the aforementioned concepts, then it might

be an effective strategy to persuade government officials to adapt the structure of government.

Additionally, research findings garnered will contribute to scholarly academia by demonstrating

the duality of structure in relation to organizational design and the role it plays on interactions

and public perception. It may also have point to another area of study for scholars interested in

employee engagement and resistance to change might be affected by organizational design.

Another area of study that might intrigue scholars is the element of public perception and how it

could shape structure, as defined by Giddens.

I will expand this section after I am finished collecting the data and propose research

findings.

Limitations

This study is purposefully limited in scope, as the goal is to thoroughly analyze multiple

comments that may provide a glimpse into a larger trend. However, the scope of the study may

also prove to be a limitation, because the website used to collect the data is potentially biased. In

addition, this study is subject to researcher bias. Being involved in the inner workings of multiple

state agencies predisposes this researcher to focus on organizational design and negative

thematic interpretations of the data. Some interpretations and language can also be interpreted

subjectively at times. This study potentially assumes that organizational design could be a

resolution to a negative image problem that government has based on the researcher’s

involvement (employment) with multiple government organizations Other limitations include a

lack of demographic data for the authors of each comment analyzed and a lack of knowledge


about the editorial process for the website (even though staff wrote on the website that the

comments are preserved as submitted by the author of the report/comment).

Recommendations for Further Research

I will be able to propose further studies after analyzing the data.


References

Abbott, A. (1988). The system of professions: An essay on the expert division of labour. Chicago:

Chicago University Press.

Archer, M.S. (1995). Realist social theory. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Archer, M.S. (2000). Being human: Problem of agency. Cambridge: Cambridge University

Press.

Autry, Roy H. (1996). What is organization design? A process for improving the probability that

an organization will be successful. Retrieved from http://www.inovus.com/organiza.htm

Balogun, J., & Johnson, G. (2005). From intended strategy to unintended outcomes: The impact

of change recipient sensemaking. Organization Studies, 26(11), 1573-1160.

Bastien, D.T., & McPhee, R.D. (1995). A study and extended theory of the structuration of

climate. Communication Monographs, 65(2), 87-109.

Byrne, John. (1993, December 20). The horizontal corporation. Business Week, 76-81. Retrieved

from http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/1993-12-19/the-horizontal-corporation.

Del Gallo, S. (2016, February 4). Closing the gap: Why government investment in a digital

presence is essential to positive public perception. [Blog]. Retrieved from

http://www.systemsalliance.com/who-we-are/insights/SAI_Blog/closing-the-gap-why-

government-investment-in-a-digital-presence-is-essential-to-positive-public-perception.

Deseve, Edward G. (2011, December 21). Regaining the public’s trust. Governing Magazine.

Retrieved from http://www.governing.com/columns/mgmt-insights/public-trust-

government-six-factors-change-perception.html.

Ferguson, D. (2009). Research brief: Understanding horizontal governance. Center for Literacy

of Quebec. Retrieved from

http://en.copian.ca/library/research/connectdots/uhg_brief/uhg_brief.pdf

http://www.inovus.com/organiza.htm

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/1993-12-19/the-horizontal-corporation

http://www.systemsalliance.com/who-we-are/insights/SAI_Blog/closing-the-gap-why-government-investment-in-a-digital-presence-is-essential-to-positive-public-perception

http://www.systemsalliance.com/who-we-are/insights/SAI_Blog/closing-the-gap-why-government-investment-in-a-digital-presence-is-essential-to-positive-public-perception

http://www.governing.com/columns/mgmt-insights/public-trust-government-six-factors-change-perception.html

http://www.governing.com/columns/mgmt-insights/public-trust-government-six-factors-change-perception.html

http://en.copian.ca/library/research/connectdots/uhg_brief/uhg_brief.pdf


Fretwell, L. (2015, March 21). The 4 most popular .gov websites aren’t mobile friendly.

Retrieved from http://www.govfresh.com/2015/03/the-4-most-popular-gov-websites-

arent-mobile-friendly/.

Fuchs, C. (2003) Structuration Theory and Self-Organization. Systemic Practice and Action

Research, 16(2), 133-167. doi: 10.1023/A:1022889627100

Gallup. (2009, November 16). Gallup study provides valuable insights on the individual

experience with federal agencies. Government Executive. Retrieved from

http://www.govexec.com/pdfs/111609l1.pdf.

Giddens, A. (1984). The constitution of society: Outline of the theory of structuration. Berkeley

and Los Angeles: University of California Press.

Gobé, M. (2009). Emotional branding: The new paradigm for connecting brands to people. New

York: Allworth Press.

Jones, J.M. & Saad, L. (2013, May 23). Americans sour on IRS, rate CDC and FBI most

positively. Retrieved from http://www.gallup.com/poll/162764/americans-views-irs-

sharply-negative-2009.aspx.

Leydesdorff, L. (2010). The communication of meaning and the structuration of expectations:

Gidden’s “structuration theory” and Luhmann’s “self-organization.” Journal of the

American Society for Information Science and Technology, 61(10), 2138-2150.

Liu, Brooke Fisher, Horsley, J. Suzanne, & Yang, Kaifeng. (February 2012). "Overcoming

Negative Media Coverage: Does Government Communication Matter?," Journal of

Public Administration Research and Theory. doi: 10.1093/jopart/mur078. Retrieved from

http://journalistsresource.org/studies/society/news-media/overcoming-negative-media-

coverage-government-communication-matter#sthash.741qCHqo.dpuf

http://www.govfresh.com/2015/03/the-4-most-popular-gov-websites-arent-mobile-friendly/

http://www.govfresh.com/2015/03/the-4-most-popular-gov-websites-arent-mobile-friendly/

http://www.govexec.com/pdfs/111609l1.pdf

http://www.gallup.com/poll/162764/americans-views-irs-sharply-negative-2009.aspx

http://www.gallup.com/poll/162764/americans-views-irs-sharply-negative-2009.aspx

http://journalistsresource.org/studies/society/news-media/overcoming-negative-media-coverage-government-communication-matter#sthash.741qCHqo.dpuf

http://journalistsresource.org/studies/society/news-media/overcoming-negative-media-coverage-government-communication-matter#sthash.741qCHqo.dpuf


Lofstedt, R., Bouder, F., & Chakraborty, S. (2013). Transparency and the Food Drug and

Administration: A quantitative study. Journal of Health Communication, 18(4), 391-396.

Losey, J. (2015). Surveillance of communications: A legitimization crisis and the need for

transparency. International Journal of Communication, 9, 3450-3459.

Mintberg, H., & Van der Hyden, L. (September-October 1999). Organigraphs: Drawing how

companies really work. Harvard Business Review, 87-94.

Mintzberg, H. (January-February 1981). Organizational design: Fashion or fit? Harvard Business

Review, 1-16.

Poole, M. S., & McPhee, R. D. (1983). A structurational analysis of organizational climate. In L.

Putnam & M. Pacanowsky (Eds.), Communication and organizations: An interpretive

approach (pp. 195–220). Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.

Relly, Jeannine E., & Sabharwal, Meghna. (January 2009). Perceptions of transparency of

government policy making: A cross-national study [Abstract]. Government Information

Quarterly, 26(1), 148-157. Doi: 10.1016/j.giq.2008.04.002. Retrieved from

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0740624X08000877.

Solis, B. (2013). What’s the future of business: Changing the way businesses create experiences.

Hoboken, NJ: Wiley.

Toffler, Alvin & Heidi. (1995). Creating a new civilization: The politics of the Third Wave.

Atlanta: Turner Publishing, Inc.

Turner, J.H. (January 1986). Review: The constitution of society: Outline of the theory of

structuration. American Journal of Sociology, 91(4), 969-977. Retrieved from

http://www.jstor.org/stable/2779966?seq=4#page_scan_tab_contents.

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0740624X08000877

http://www.jstor.org/stable/2779966?seq=4#page_scan_tab_contents


Vesa, J. (2015). Nordic openness in practice. NORDICOM Review, 36(2), 129-142. doi:

10.15151nor-2015-0021

Whittington, R. (2010). Chapter 7: Giddens, structuration theory and strategy as practice. In D.

Golsorkhi, L. Rouleau, D. Seidl, and E. Vaara (Eds.) Cambridge Handbook of Strategy as

Practice (109-126). NY: Cambridge University Press.

Documents

Adapting Government Structure: Implications for Positive ...€¦ · The Machine Bureaucracy As stated above, the American government has gravitated toward a preference for the machine