Long, John D-LDRD642-FinalOrganizationalDesignandCultureEvaluationPaper-Due-06-23-2013r

LONG, JOHN D.: ORGANIZATIONAL DESIGN AND CULTURE EVALUATION

Organizational Design and Culture Evaluation Paper

John David Long

City University of Seattle

LDRD 642: Organizational Design and Culture

Instructor: Dr. Rob Freeborough

May 19, 2013

LONG, JOHN D.: ORGANIZATIONAL DESIGN AND CULTURE EVALUATION LONG, 1

Abstract

The researcher examined the organizational culture of the Federal Correctional

Institution, Victorville, California (FCI Victorville). Based on evidence from several previous

studies, the researcher concluded: FCI Victorville meets Gareth Morgan’s (1997) classification

as a Model 1 Organization. The Model 1 organization is the classic bureaucracy. FCI Victorville

also meets Mintzberg’s (1979) classification as a machine organization (bureaucracy). The

organization meets Daft’s criteria (2012) as a mechanistic organization. Characteristics of

bureaucratic organizational structure include: High centralization, a vertical organizational

hierarchy, high specialization, high standardization, and highly formalized structures rules and

structures. The organizational activities are designed to achieve key organizational goals: (1) To

suppress deviant employee behavior and exert control. (2) To maximize conformity and

standardization. (3) To develop and maintain highly formalized rules, structures, policies,

procedures and control mechanisms (Miles, Snow, Meyer, and Coleman 1978.). Several key

benefits are derived from FCI Victorville’s organizational design and culture. These benefits

include increased organizational productivity, specialization (employees develop specialized

skills and authority), and standardization. These features result in clearly-defined authority and

responsibility relationships. There are also several disadvantages that derive from a bureaucratic

organizational design and culture. These disadvantages include decreased employee motivation,

empowerment, and job satisfaction, (Daft, 2012, Ostroff, Kinicki, and Tamkins.). The

organizational culture is designed to maximize conformity and eliminate employee deviance.

The question then becomes whether the goal of standardization is important enough to stifle

communication, innovation, and creativity.


Organizational Design and Culture Evaluation Paper

Identification of the Organization

The name of the organization is the Federal Correctional Institution Victorville, California. The

organization is a medium security federal prison located in San Bernardino County, California.

FCI Victorville houses 1, 778 medium security inmates. The organization will hereafter be

referred to as FCI Victorville. FCI Victorville is one of one hundred and nineteen (119) federal

prisons under the jurisdiction of the Federal Bureau of Prisons.

Staffing Patterns

There are a total of 300 full-time staff members employed at FCI Victorville. The staff members

work in a multi-disciplinary setting. The staff complement includes physicians, nurses, teachers,

psychologists, chaplains, correctional officers, administration, human resources, financial

services, a fully operational factory, the training department, facilities and correctional services

(security). There are 223 males and 77 females employed by the institution (Federal Bureau of

Prisons, 2013)

Organizational Design

FCI Victorville Is Bureaucratic Organization

FCI Victorville meets Gareth Morgan’s (1997) classification as a Model 1 Organization. The

Male: 73%

Female: 27%

Gender

32.7%

37.1%

28.2%

0.06%1.4%

Race

Male Female White Black

Hispanic Asian Native American

Table 1: FCI Victorville: Staff Characteristics


Model 1 organization is the classic bureaucracy. FCI Victorville also meets Mintzberg’s (1979)

classification as a machine organization (bureaucracy). The organization meets Daft’s criteria

(2012) as a mechanistic organization. The primary characteristics of FCI Victorville’s

organizational structure are high levels of control; high standardization; high centralization; high

conformity; highly formalized rules and structures. The organizational activities are designed to

achieve key organizational goals: (1) To suppress deviant employee behavior and exert control.

(2) To maximize conformity and standardization. (3) To develop and maintain highly

formalized rules, structures, policies, procedures and control mechanisms (Miles, Snow, Meyer,

and Coleman, 1978, Fay and Denison, 2003.). Listed below are the primary characteristics of the

bureaucratic organizational design (Mintzberg, 1979, Ashkanasy and Jackson, 2002.).

High formalization. FCI Victorville both possesses high levels of formalization.

Formalization was defined by Daft (2012) as the degree to which there are standardized rules

and procedures governing all employees in an organization. Pugh, Hickson, Hinings, and Turner

(1968) defined formalization as the extent to which rules, procedures, instructions, and

communications are written. Tasks at FCI Victorville are highly standardized and the chain of

authority is clearly structured in written directives. Written documents govern and constrain the

behavior of every individual in the organization. These written documents include federal

statutes, Program Statements (policy and procedure manuals), and the Employee Code of

Conduct (ethics regulations). The Central Office (headquarters) issues written policy and

procedure manuals called Program Statements. These directives include guidelines for all staff

members and for specialized departments and functions.

In FCI Victorville, written communication is developed and distributed in a vertical

direction in a top-down methodology. Policy decisions for the institution are made exclusively by


the Warden and distributed to each level on the vertical hierarchy. The Warden then sends

written directives to the Associate Wardens. The department heads implement and enforce the

written directives of the administration in their units. (Pugh and Hickson, 1976.).

High centralization. An organization is highly centralized when one individual is clearly

identified as the single source of authority (Pugh and Hickson, 1976.). The Director is the single

source of authority for the entire Federal Bureau of Prisons.

Table 2: FCI Victorville Organizational Chart

High specialization. FCI Victorville is divided into two divisions named the Operations

Division and the Programs Division. Each division consists of several department grouped

logically together on the basis of specialization or function. Each division is administrated by an

Associate Warden. The Programs Division is primarily responsible for administering inmate

programs including education, psychology, and religious programs. The Operations Division

controls the everyday operations of the prison including medical, security, and food service

operations.

Director

Regional Director

Warden

Associate Warden Programs Division

Education Services

Education Supervisor

Psychology Services

Chief Psychologist

Line Staff

Religious Services

Supervisory

Chaplain

Line Staff

Custody

Captain

Food Service

Food Service Supervisor

Health Services

Chief Physician

Associate Warden Operations Division


The departments are semi-autonomous and control all of the functions for their respective

specializations. The workers have received extensive training in their areas of specialization

(Keeling, Underhile, and Wall, 2007, Greenwood and Hinings,1988.).

Vertical organization. The Director of the Federal Bureau of Prisons has sole decision-

making authority for the entire agency. Regional Directors have sole discretionary authority in

each geographic region, subject only to review by the Director. The Warden is the Chief

Executive Officer of the institution. The Warden has sole discretionary authority in the

institution, subject only to review by the Regional Director. Each Associate Warden administers

one division which as composed of several departments logically grouped together by function

or specialty. Each Associate Warden has full discretionary authority over his or her division,

subject only to the Warden’s review. The department head has full discretionary control of his or

her department, subject only to review by the Associate Warden. Employees report directly to

the department head of each department (i.e. Psychological Services, Religious Services, etc.).

There are five supervisory levels above each employee in the hierarchy of authority. These five

levels are listed from highest to lowest: (1) Director of the Federal Bureau of Prisons. (2)

Regional Director. (3) Warden. (4) Associate Warden. (5) Department Head (immediate

supervisor).

Benefits of the bureaucratic organizational structure. Daft (2012) and Ostroff (1999)

separately identified several key benefits of organizational structures: First, bureaucratic

organizational structures increase organizational productivity. Secondly, bureaucratic

organizational structures enhance the development of specialized skills (Daft, 2012). Thirdly,

bureaucratic organizations have clearly-defined authority/responsibility relationships. This is due


to standardization and highly formalized rules and structures. Finally, specialization minimizes

the duplication of personnel, products, work tasks, services, and training.

Weaknesses of the Bureaucratic Organizational Structure. There are many

characteristics of bureaucratic organizational structure that decrease organizational performance.

First, Katz and Kahn (1978) concluded that the emphasis of bureaucratic organization on

standardization, conformity, and formalization restricts organizational change and development.

Bureaucracy also stifles the professional development of employees because organizational

structures constrain creativity and innovation.

Analysis of FCI Victorville’s Organizational Culture

Bureaucratic Organizational Structure Engenders Bureaucratic Organizational Culture

Bureaucratic organizational culture is dominant. Schein (1992) defined organizational

culture as the “beliefs, assumptions, and values that members of a group share about rules of

conduct, leadership styles, administrative procedures, ritual, and customs.” Richard L. Daft

(2012) defined organizational culture as “the underlying set of key values, beliefs,

understandings, and norms shared by the employees of an organization”. These values, beliefs,

norms, and behavior are taught to new members as a correct and traditional component of the

organization.

The bureaucratic organizational culture of FCI Victorville directly mirrors its

bureaucratic organizational structure. Cameron and Quinn (1999) developed a revised model of

the Competing-Values Framework developed by Quinn and Rohrbaugh (1983). Cameron and

Quinn (1999) (Figure 3) identified four types of organizational culture: Hierarchy, clan, market

and adhocracy. The hierarchy organizational culture was based upon Weber’s (1947)

bureaucracy paradigm and emphasized stability, conformity, internal efficiency, and


standardization. FCI Victorville is categorized as a hierarchical organizational culture because

its primary cultural dimensions are high levels of control; high standardization; high

centralization; high conformity; and highly formalized rules and structures (Ashkanasy and

Jackson, 2002.).

Standardization hampers organizational development. Ashkanasy and Jackson

(2002) identified several primary cultural dimensions of bureaucratic organizations. First,

adherence to standardized policies and practices is viewed as the means to achieve the

organizational goals. FCI Victorville promotes compliance (adherence) by implementing a

vertical hierarchy, high control levels; high standardization; high centralization of authority; high

conformity levels; and highly formalized rules and structures.

Dominance of the managerial subsystem. Katz and Kahn’s (1978) concluded that all

large organizations are comprised of multiple cultural subsystems. There were five

organizational cultural subsystems identified by Katz and Kahn (1978). FCI Victorville meets

the criteria for Katz and Kahn’s (1978) managerial subsystem. Managerial subsystems direct the

activities of all the other subsystems in the organization. There are several key characteristics of

the managerial subsystem. The key functions of the managerial subsystem are: To set goals,

values, priorities, and policies, allocate resources, settle disputes, and facilitate organizational

efficiency. Katz and Kahn (1978) concluded that managerial subsystems restrict organizational

change and development by suppressing deviance and rewarding conformity. FCI Victorville’s

cultural subsystem also stifles employees’ professional development by inhibiting creativity and

innovation (Katz and Kahn, 1978).

Decreased levels of employee motivation, empowerment, and job satisfaction.

Several studies have concluded that employees in bureaucratic organizational cultures


possess lower levels of motivation, empowerment, and job satisfaction (Ivancevich and

Donnelly, 1975, Daft, 2012, Ostroff, Kinicki, and Tamkins, 2008, Wilderom, Glunk, and

Maslowski, 2002.). Employee motivation, empowerment, and job satisfaction decrease as

organizational control and centralization of authority increases. (Daft, 2012, Ostroff, Kinicki, and

Tamkins, 2008, Miles, Snow, Meyer, and Coleman, Jr., 1978.).

These findings are characteristic of FCI Victorville. A random survey taken in 2012

concluded that FCI Victorville was one of three institutions in the Federal Bureau of Prisons with

the lowest levels of employee morale and job satisfaction (Source: 2012 Bureau of Prisons

Employee Climate Survey.). Employees listed retaliation and low levels of employee

empowerment as their primary reasons for their feelings.

Decreased organizational communication and efficiency. As previously mentioned,

bureaucratic organizational cultures utilize a top-down communication hierarchy. Directives flow

exclusively from the highest levels to the lowest levels of the organization (Pugh and Hickson,

1976.). Lopez, Peon, and Ordas (2004) and Lund (2003) separately concluded that an

organizational cultures that restrict communication significantly decrease organizational

efficiency. Organizations achieved higher efficiency ratings and superior ratings for work

environment when they increased communication throughout the organization and encouraged

employees to question fundamental beliefs. FCI Victorville’s organizational culture restricts

communication and punishes employees who question fundamental beliefs. The result is

decreased organizational efficiency and employee morale.

Bureaucratic organizations have lower level of employee commitment. Employees in

bureaucratic organizations have lower levels of employee commitment. In comparison,

employees in horizontal organizations have higher levels of employee commitment, employee,

http://www.eric.ed.gov/ERICWebPortal/search/simpleSearch.jsp?_pageLabel=ERICSearchResult&_urlType=action&newSearch=true&ERICExtSearch_SearchType_0=au&ERICExtSearch_SearchValue_0=%22Ivancevich+John+M.%22



empowerment, motivation and job satisfaction. This is related to the fact that employees feel less

empowered and have lower levels of decision-making authority in bureaucratic organizations.

These findings apply to FCI Victorville as well as other hierarchical government agencies (Daft,

2012, Ostroff, Kinicki, and Tamkins, 2008, Wilderom, Glunk, and Maslowski, 2002.).

Conclusions

FCI Victorville is characterized by a bureaucratic organizational structure and a bureaucratic

organizational culture. The organization meets Daft’s criteria (2012) as a mechanistic

organization. The primary characteristics of FCI Victorville’s organizational structure are high

levels of control; high standardization; high centralization; high conformity; highly formalized

rules and structures.

Several key benefits are derived from FCI Victorville’s organizational design and culture.

These benefits include increased organizational productivity, specialization (employees develop

specialized skills and authority), and standardization. These features result in clearly-defined

authority and responsibility relationships. Finally, specialization minimizes the duplication of

personnel, products, work tasks, services, and training (Ahmadi, Salamzadeh, Daraei, and

Akbari, 2012.).

There are also several disadvantages that derive from a bureaucratic organizational design and

culture. Employee motivation, empowerment, and job satisfaction decreases the organization

exerts excessive control. (Daft, 2012, Ostroff, Kinicki, and Tamkins, 2008, Juillerat, 2010).

Secondly, FCI Victorville’s bureaucratic organizational culture restricts organizational

communication and stifles diverse cultural subsystems (Lopez, Peon, and Ordas,2004, Lund,

2003.). The question then becomes whether the goal of standardization is important enough to


stifle communication, innovation, and creativity. The organizational culture also creates a climate

of mistrust and fear between employees at all levels of the organization.


References

Ahmadi, S.A.A., Salamzadeh, Y., Daraei, M., & Akbari, J. (2012). Relationship between

organizational culture and strategy implementation: Typologies and dimensions. Global

Business and Management Research: An International Journal, Vol. 4(3, 4), pp. 286-289.

Ashkanasy, N.M., Wilderom, C.P.M., & Peterson, M.F. (Eds.) (2004). Handbook of

Organizational Culture and Climate. Sage Publications.

Ashkanasy, N.M., & Jackson, C.R. (2002). Organizational culture and climate. In Anderson, N.,

Ones, D.S., Sinangil, H.K., & Viswesvaran (Eds.), Handbook of Industrial, Work and

Organizational Psychology, Vol. 2, pp. 398-415, Sage Publications

Cameron, K., Quinn, R. (1999). Diagnosing and Changing Organizational Culture. Based on the

Competing-Values Framework. Addison-Wesley.

Daft, R. (2012). Organizational Behavior and Design. (11th ed.). Cengage-Southwestern.

Fay, C.F. and Denison, D.R. (2003), “Organizational culture and effectiveness: Can american

theory be applied in russia?” Organizational Science, Vol. 14(6), pp. 686-706.

Galbraith, J. (2002). Designing Organizations. San Francisco, Jossey-Bass.

Greenwood, W. & Hinings, C. (1988). Organizational design types, tracks and the dynamics of

strategic change. Organization Studies 9(3), pp. 293-305.

Ivancevich, J. M., & Donnelly, J. H., Jr. (1975). Relation of organizational structure to job

satisfaction, anxiety-stress, and performance. Administrative Science Quarterly, Vol.

20(2), pp. 272-280.

Juillerat, T. (2010). Friends, not foes? Work design and formalization in the modern work

context. Journal of Organizational Behavior, Vol. 31, pp. 216–239. DOI:

10.1002/job.654. Retrieved from: http://web.ebscohost.com.proxy.cityu.edu/ehost/


http://web.ebscohost.com.proxy.cityu.edu/ehost/


pdfviewer/ pdfviewer?sid=cf1ac214-3d4e-4a53-8679-941c74483deb% 40sessionmgr13

&vid = 26&hid=10.

Katz, D., and Kahn, L.(1978). The Social Psychology of Organizations (2nd ed.). Wiley.

Keeling, R.P., Underhile, R. & Wall, A.F. (2007). Horizontal and vertical structures: The

dynamics of organization. Higher Education Liberal Education, Vol. 93(4), pp. 22-31.

Lopez, S.P., Peon, J.M.M and Ordas, C.J.V. (2004). Managing knowledge: the link between

culture and organizational learning. Journal of Knowledge Management, Vol. 8(6),

pp. 93-104.

Lund, D.B. (2003). Organizational culture and job satisfaction. Journal of Business & Industrial

Marketing, Vol. 18(3), pp. 219-236.

Miles, R.E., Snow, C.E., Meyer, A.D., Coleman, Jr., H.J. (1978). Organizational strategy,

structure, and process. The Academy of Management Review, Vol. 3(3), pp. 546-562.

Mintzberg, H. (1979). The Structuring of Organizations: A Synthesis of the Research. University

of Illinois at Urbana.

Morgan, G. (2006). Images of Organization. Sage Publications.

Ostroff, C., Kinicki, A.J., & Tamkins, M.M. (2008). Organizational culture and climate. In

Borman, W.C., Ilgen, D.R., & Klimoski, R.J. (Eds.), Handbook of Psychology: Vol. 12.

Industrial/Organizational Psychology, pp. 565-593, Wiley.

Pugh, D., and Hickson, D. (1976). Organizational Structure in its Context: The Aston

Programme. Lexington Books.

Pugh, D., Hickson, D., Hinings, C., & Turner, C. (1968). Dimensions of organizational structure.

Administrative Science Quarterly, Vol. 13, pp. 65-105.


Quinn, R.E., & Rohrbaugh, J.(1983). A spatial model of effectiveness criteria: Towards a

competing values approach to organizational analysis. Management Science, Vol. 29(3),

pp. 363-377.

Schein, E. (1992). Organizational Culture and Leadership (2nd ed.). Jossey-Bass.

Wallach, E. (1983). Individual and organizations: the cultural match. Training and Development

Journal, Vol. 37(2), pp. 29-36.

Weber, M. (1947). The theory of social and economic organizations. New York: Oxford

University Press.

Wilderom, C.P.M., Glunk, U., & Maslowski, R. (2002). Organizational culture as a predictor of

organizational performance. In Ashkanasy, N.M., Wilderom, C.P.M., & Peterson, M.F.

(Eds.) (2004). Handbook of Organizational Culture and Climate. Sage Publications.

Zain, Z.M., Ishak, R. & Ghani, E.K. (2009). The Influence of Corporate Culture on

Organizational Commitment: A Study on a Malaysian Listed Company”, European

Journal of Economics, Finance and Administrative Sciences, Issue 17, pp. 16-26.

Documents

Long, John D-LDRD642-FinalOrganizationalDesignandCultureEvaluationPaper-Due-06-23-2013r