Rechtsstaat model system. Public-interest states are more performance driven and market oriented, and examples include Australia, New Zealand, the United Kingdom, and the United States (Pollitt and Bouckaert, 2011, p. 73). TheRechtsstaat modelis one where legislative authority is the primary mechanism upon which government works. Any effort at managerial reforms must fit the legal framework, and so these systems are slower to reform (Pollitt and Bouckaert, 2011, p. 63).
In this section we have characterized societies as a whole and noted that these characterizations are not static. Organizations are embedded in their society, and their functioning and culture is generally in sync with that of their society. However, there are distinct differences between organiza- tional cultures.
about a conflict between two department heads. In the exam the students were to outline how this conflict could be resolved. The class had students from various countries, but those from England, France, and Germany were in the majority. Stevens noted how the students came up with very different answers. The French generally felt that the two parties involved should take their problem to their immediate superior who would then settle the matter and thus provide guidance for how comparable problems in the future should be dealt with. In Stevens’s interpretation, the French regarded bureaucracy as a“pyramid of people”with the CEO on top and each level in clearly defined relation to the other. German students perceived the conflict as evidence of lack of structure, and they advised establishing clear procedures for settling daily problems. In Stevens’s words, Germans regarded bureaucracy as a “well-oiled machine.” Finally, the English defined the conflict as one where the situation, not the hierarchy or the rules, ought to determine the course of action. In Stevens’s parlance, the English perceive an organization as a “village market.”
TABLE 6.2. PERCEPTION ABOUT AND REALITY OF GOVERNMENT
Abstract: Government as a Whole
Concrete: Government as Subunits (Including Individuals) Perception Big bureaucracy, inaccessible,
inefficient, red tape, corrupt
Bureaucratic organizations and bureaucrats are self- seeking, formalistic, distant, corruptible, and power hungry; they follow the lead of elected officeholders.
Reality Balancing myriad and conflicting demands;
largest single employer;
largest possible clientele;
huge degree of organizational differentiation
Bureaucratic organizations and civil servants are proactive; citizen-oriented;
concerned; professional;
indispensable to politics.
Source:Raadschelders (2003, p. 324).
Hofstede and his coauthors linked this to the dimensions of organiza- tional culture and to the University of Aston studies on how different organizations are structured (Hofstede and others, 2010, p. 305). With regard to the latter, the Aston researchers found that organizations vary in how authority is concentrated and how their activities are structured. The French students have grown up in a society with large power distance and strong uncertainty avoidance, hence why they advocated actions that further concentrated authority and structured activities. Growing up in a society with small power distance but strong uncertainty avoidance, German students favored structuring activities without concentrating authority.
English students have been raised in a culture with small power distance and weak uncertainty avoidance, and so they supported neither further concentration of authority nor further structuring of activities.
Clearly, a pyramid of people relates to organizations with substantial power difference, because it is through the hierarchical structure that conflict is resolved. The village market organization has much smaller power distance; it is not the hierarchy but the people themselves who matter. And in machine-type bureaucracies a tendency toward fairly high uncertainty avoidance exists (Hofstede and others, 2010). Expanding these metaphors, in discussions with Asian colleagues, Hofstede identified an organizational type where the organization is regarded as anextended family, where the manager or owner is like a father or grandfather who is the ultimate authority and the employees are often highly loyal to the organi- zation and stay for a long time (Hofstede and others, 2010, pp. 243–246).
What the identification of the extended-family metaphor alludes to is the fact that many theories about and conceptions of government have a fairly strong Western bias. It is true, and we have touched upon this in Chapters 2 to 5, that Western governments have exported a range of administrative traditions and theories across the globe through colonization and through development aid. Some people argued that this would ultimately result in a homogenization of administrative practices and ideas. Others have pointed out that this is too simplistic a conclusion. While there are bureaucracies everywhere, they do operate in different societal contexts and are thus different in how they function. Furthermore, efforts to introduce Western- style reforms in developing countries generally have not paid close attention to the degree to which the indigenous societal context and institutional traditions will support such foreign-based reforms.
There is one element of organizational culture where governments across the globe are similar, and that concerns the visual appearance of government organization. We already noted that governments and their
bureaucracies are imaged in various arts such as poetry and novels, but also in paintings, architecture, and so forth (Heyen, 1994). The scholar who studied how government is visualized in architecture is Charles Goodsell in his research on the appearance and layout of American statehouses, city council chambers, and bureaucratic buildings. His descriptions and find- ings are relevant to any other country.
In his study of the statehouse, he noted how they are often set in parklike grounds emphasizing the relatively open, accessible nature of American state government. The state capitol articulates authority, and its most visible feature is the dome that exhibits three levels of meaning:
a. low or instrumental meaning: It draws attention from afar;
b. medium or status meaning: It identifies as state capitol; and
c. its high or cosmological meaning: It resembles a giant head of authority (Goodsell, 2001, p. 25; see also Rapoport, 1990).
The front of the statehouse is frequently raised above the ground and is reached by steps, providing a space from which to look at the world below.
The steps are often surrounded by podium arms, reminiscent of the arms of a sphinx and suggesting energy. In the rotunda, visitors may see a chandelier hanging from the ceiling, reflecting an ancient idea about sacred space: the egg of creationfloating in the world. Statehouses are built with stone, and that is remarkable since many structures in the United States are constructed with less durable materials such as a wood for the frame of a building. This means that government is here to stay. Next, the interior of the statehouse testifies to the fact that it is a building where decisions are made that affect us all, and this is further underlined by displays of the state seal, a state’s founding document, and the mace as ancient and traditional symbol of authority.
Not only do statehouses exude authority, power, and prestige, they also show evidence of important moments in a state’s history through murals, paintings, and sculptures of crucial events and renowned citizens, politi- cians, and legislative and executive officeholders. Another element that expresses government culture is thefloor plan of a statehouse. Goodsell’s book shows how in bicameral legislatures both houses are situated on the same floor and occupy roughly the same amount of space. Legislative chambers are often quite compact with the legislators seated at the same level, stressing that its members operate as a collegial body rather than as individuals. While the judiciary in all states (and in many countries) operates as a collegial body, the members of the bench are often seated on a raised platform, which emphasizes their authority. The nature of the
relation between legislature and executive is also spatially expressed. Until the 1920s the governor’s office was usually situated in thefloor below that of the legislature, suggesting subordination of the former to the latter. In the 1920s and 1930s the governor’s and lieutenant governor’s offices in several states were moved to the same floor as that of the legislature, suggesting equality of power.
Goodsell also studied how political authority is imaged at local govern- ment level, focusing on city council chambers. He argued that type of authority is expressed in spatial arrangements and distinguished three types: imposed, confronted, and joined authority (see Table 6.3).
In the traditional city council chamber, the council members face the presiding officer (mayor) who is seated on an elevated bench. There is limited seating for the public, and the room expresses authority through elaborate entrances, large windows, and private doors for the council
TABLE 6.3. CONCEPTIONS OF POLITICAL AUTHORITY
Imposed
Authority Confronted Authority Joined Authority Nature of social
control Authority Exchange Persuasion
Nature of
power Consign—
punishment in case of
noncompliance
Compensation—
rewards for cooperation
Conditioning—
persuasion through education Type of
political rule
Monarchical, traditional sovereignty
Separation of powers Direct democracy of the political community Who governs Administration by
the best (aristocracy)
Politics leads, administration executes
Administration by the common man Government–
business relations
Government regulates the firm
Negotiated settlement with politically powerful private business
United industrial policy, cooperative regulation Welfare
conception Paternalistic charity
Client-rights movement Service
coproduction Source:put together on the basis of Goodsell (1988, pp. 202–204).
members. This arrangement expresses imposed authority where superiors (council members) exercise power over inferiors (citizens). This is a government run by the best, those who are called to govern by virtue of birth, and is a situation found in most of history. The second type of council chamber is related to confronted authority where the power of superiors is more balanced with that of the inferiors. There is much more space for citizens, and all council members face the public as a collegial body.
Nowadays, council chambers are representative ofjoined authority,the third type, which conveys a sense of power sharing and a more subtle assertion of power. Additionally, the seating space for interested citizens is larger than in the other two types (Goodsell, 1988).
Bureaucracy also has its physical expressions, as Goodsell showed in an article analyzing the buildings of state agencies. He distinguished between three appropriate and three inappropriate types of public buildings. Of the three appropriate types, the best known is that of thetraditional temple,often with a neoclassical and columned portico. It clearly evokes being a“public”
building, with a clear entrance, and instilling a sense of pride (Goodsell, 1997, pp. 408–410). The local curiosity is also clearly a governmental building, but its architecture visibly displays a connection to the local region or community. It is a building that can be regarded as “ours,” just as the traditional temple, but then showing more individuality and character.
The postmodern delight is even more individual. The early seventeenth- century English author and diplomat Sir Henry Wotton suggested that architecture should display commodity, firmness, and delight (as refer- enced in Goodsell, 1997, p. 414). This type of public building then responds to color, light, convenience, spontaneity, and playfulness. These types are labeled appropriate because they invite people and thus underline the accessibility of democracy (see also Goodsell, 1988, pp. 10–13).
Inappropriate buildings are not inviting. Thebureaucratic boxlooks just like any office building, public or private, with glass, steel, and concrete. The image is one of a blocklike mass, undifferentiated from other buildings and exuding a sterile impersonality. The governmental fortress comes across as massive and discourages access. Finally, theconsumer cityis a public building where public spaces are mixed with other spaces such as shops, restaurants, convention centers, and so forth. These are complex buildings, with multiple entrances, small “cities” with freely moving residents of employees and citizens alike. They display no clear statement of “publicness.”The reader will find examples of these architectural images of public organizations anywhere, but briefly describing them is not the same as looking at the photographs in Goodsell’s publications.
Bureaucratic organizations operate within a societal culture and express themselves architecturally in quite similar ways, but how they function varies. This variation in functioning is partly a consequence of specific tasks (i.e., uniformed services versus nonuniformed services), but also partly of differences in how individuals are perceived.