the control imperative final (digital)

University of Groningen

The control imperativeNieto Morales, Fernando

IMPORTANT NOTE: You are advised to consult the publisher's version (publisher's PDF) if you wish to cite fromit. Please check the document version below.

Document VersionPublisher's PDF, also known as Version of record

Publication date:2015

Link to publication in University of Groningen/UMCG research database

Citation for published version (APA):Nieto Morales, F. (2015). The control imperative: studies on reorganization in the public and privatesectors. [s.n.].

CopyrightOther than for strictly personal use, it is not permitted to download or to forward/distribute the text or part of it without the consent of theauthor(s) and/or copyright holder(s), unless the work is under an open content license (like Creative Commons).

The publication may also be distributed here under the terms of Article 25fa of the Dutch Copyright Act, indicated by the “Taverne” license.More information can be found on the University of Groningen website: https://www.rug.nl/library/open-access/self-archiving-pure/taverne-amendment.

Take-down policyIf you believe that this document breaches copyright please contact us providing details, and we will remove access to the work immediatelyand investigate your claim.

Downloaded from the University of Groningen/UMCG research database (Pure): http://www.rug.nl/research/portal. For technical reasons thenumber of authors shown on this cover page is limited to 10 maximum.

Download date: 18-03-2022

https://research.rug.nl/en/publications/20de288a-9782-41d9-98bf-44e2f248b21a

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

THE CONTROL IMPERATIVE

Studies on reorganization in the

public and private sectors

Fernando Nieto Morales

!

!

ii !!

!!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

©!2015!by!Fernando!Nieto!Morales!

ISBN!978<94<6182<535<3!(digital)!/!978<94<6182<532<2!(printed)!

!

All!Rights!Reserved.!No!part!of!this!publication!may!be!reproduced!in!any!form!

or!by!any!means,!including!scanning,!photocopying,!or!otherwise!without!prior!

written!permission!of!the!copyright!holder.!

!

Cover!design!by!Milad!Khosseini!

!

!

!

!

!

!

iii !!

!!

!

!

The control imperative

Studies on reorganization in the public and private sectors

!!

PhD thesis !

!

to!obtain!the!degree!of!doctor!at!the!

University!of!Groningen!

on!the!authority!of!the!

Rector!Magnificus!Prof.!E.!Sterken!

and!in!accordance!with!

the!decision!by!the!College!of!Deans.!

!

!

This!thesis!will!be!defended!in!public!on!

!

Thursday!26!February!2015!at!16.15!hours!

!

by!

!

Fernando Nieto Morales born!on!16!September!1984!

in!Mexico!City,!Mexico!

!

!

!

iv !!

!Supervisor! ! !Prof.!R.P.M.!Wittek!

!

Co,supervisor! !Dr.!L.!Heyse!

!

Assessment!committee!! !Prof.!S.M.!Lindenberg!

Prof.!R.!Torenvlied!

Prof.!G.M.!Cejudo!Ramírez!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

v !

Acknowledgments !

!

!

!

!

!

!

Books!like!this!one!are!rarely!the!product!of!a!single!mind.!Along!

the! way,! many! collaborated,! often! inadvertently,! through! con<

versations,! discussions,! ideas,! and! sometimes,! simple! reassur<

ances!of!sanity.!Above!all,! this!book!would!never!have!found!its!

way! to!completion!without! the!guidance!of!my!supervisors,!Ra<

fael! Wittek! and! Liesbet! Heyse.! I! learned! and! benefited! enor<

mously! from! our! conversations—specially! the! heated! ones.!

Working!with!you!has!been!a! truly!rewarding!and! inspiring!ex<

perience.! I! am!most! grateful! for! your! encouragement! and! your!

friendship.!

I! also! want! to! thank! Paul! Hindriks,! María! del! Carmen!

Pardo,!Miranda!Visser,!Kim!Pattiselanno,!Lea!Ellwardt,!Siegwart!

Lindenberg,!René!Torenvlied,!Guillermo!M.!Cejudo,!Marijtje!van!

Duijn,! Frans! Stokman,! Andreas! Flache,! Melinda! Mills,! Rie!

Bosman,! Mauricio! Merino,! Manu! Muñoz,! Valeska! Korff,! Anke!

Munniskma,!Katia!Begall,!Filip!Agneessens,!Alenka!Labun,!Ernes<

to! Velasco,! Christoph! Stadfeldt,! Tina! Kretschmer,! Felix! Tropf,!

Marcela! Vázquez,! and!members! of! the! research! group! on!work!

and!organizations!of!the!Department!of!Sociology!at!the!Univer<

sity! of! Groningen,! all! of! whom! offered!me! indispensable! assis<

tance,!criticism!and!advice.!

Special! thanks! to!Saskia!Simon,!who!managed!to!get! the!

Mexican!Minister!of!the!Public!Service!himself!on!the!phone!and!

make!it! look!like!an!everyday!chore.!Thanks!to!Raúl!Arceo,!Juan!

Ángel!Rangel!and!other!officials!of!the!Ministry!of!the!Public!Ser<

vice! of! Mexico! for! their! assistance.! Thanks! also! to! the! Nether<

!

!

vi !!

lands! Organization! for! Scientific! Research! (NWO)! for! financing!

this!project.!

Thanks! to!my! father,!mother! and! sister,! to!my! “schoon<

familie”! (in<laws),! and!my! friends! on! both! sides! of! the! Atlantic!

and! elsewhere! for! all! their! support! through! the! years.! Finally,!

thanks!to!Paul!for!making!me!smile!every!day.!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

vii !

Contents !

!

!

!

!

!

!

Tables! ix'

Figures! xi!

Acronyms! xiii!

!

Introduction! 1!

1.!Managerial!gattopardism!! 16!

2.!Different!conflicts,!different!reorganizations! 41!

3.!Enforcing!reorganization! 65!

4.!Pathways!to!compliant!reorganization! 96!

5.!After!reorganization! 127!

6.!The!control!imperative! 156!

!

Summary! 179!

Samenvatting' 183'

Síntesis'' 188!

References' 193'

Appendix' 224'

ICS'Dissertation'series' 237'

About'the'author' 257'

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

viii !

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

ix !!

Tables !

!

!

!

!

!

!

1.1! Manifestations!of!control! 21!

1.2! MCP,!reorganization!and!controls! 29!

2.1! Different!reorganizations,!conflicts!and!controls! 55!

2.2! Different!types!of!conflict!(PCA!analysis)! 56!

2.3! Effects!of!conflict!on!incipient!reorganization! 58!

2.4! Effects!of!different!types!of!conflict!on!different!

! types!of!change! 59!

3.1! Strategies!for!building!up!enforcement!capacity! 76!

3.2! Overview!of!interviewees! 77!

3.3! Overview!of!consulted!documents!

! (SPC!case!study)! 79!

4.1! Organizations!that!belong!to!the!SPC!system! 106!

4.2! Fuzzy!sets!of!conditions!leading!to!compliant!

! implementation! 115!

4.3! Truth!table! 116!

4.4! Four!recipes!for!compliant!implementation! 118!

4.5! Structure,!consistency!and!coverage!of!

! recipes!for!compliant!implementation! 120!

4.6! Sectorial!patterns!of!compliance!

! implementation! 122!

5.1! Characteristics!of!public!and!private!

! organizations! 141!

5.2! Change!occurrence!in!public!and!private!


5.3! Covariates!of!organizational!change! 144!

5.4! Logistic!regression!of!predictors!of!different!

! types!of!change!(reference!group:!private!

!

!

x !

! organizations)! 147!

5.5! Logistic!regression!of!predictors!of!different!

! types!of!change!(reference!group:!public!

! organizations)! 148!

5.6! Summary!of!predictions!per!model!and!type!

! of!change! 149!

6.1! Lessons!and!evidence! 157!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

xi !!

Figures !

!

!

!

!

!

!

0.1! The!relation!between!control!and!!

! reorganizations:!an!approximation! 11!

1.1! MCP!measurement!model! 33!

1.2! Direct!effects!of!MCP!and!reorganization! 34!

3.1! Trade<off!between!coordination!!

! and!compliance! 91!

4.1! Compliant!SPC!implementation!in!55!!


6.1! The!relation!between!control!and!change!in!

! perspective! 165!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

xii !

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

xiii !

Acronyms !

!

!

!

!

!

!

ASF! ! Auditoría!Superior!de!la!Federación!

(Congressional!auditing!bureau,!Mexico)!

CEO! ! Chief!executive!officer!

CFA! ! Confirmatory!factor!analysis!

CFI! ! Comparative!fit!index!

FSQCA! ! Fuzzy!set!qualitative!comparative!analysis!

HRM! ! Human!resource!management!

KMO!(test)! Kaiser<Meyer<Olkin!test!

M! ! Mean!

MCP!! ! Managerial!control!position!

MIDESPC!! Modelo!Integral!de!Evaluación!del!Servicio!

Profesional!de!Carrera!

MROS! ! Multiple!respondents!organizational!survey!

NAFTA! ! North!American!Free!Trade!Agreement!

NPM! ! New!Public!Management!

OECD! Organization!for!Economic!Cooperation!and!

Development!

OD! ! Organizational!development!

PCA! ! Principal!component!analysis!

RMSEA! ! Root!mean!square!error!of!approximation!

SD! ! Standard!deviation!

SEM!! ! Structural!equation!modeling!

SFP! ! Secretaría!de!la!Función!Pública!

(Ministry!of!the!Public!Service,!Mexico)!

SPC! ! Servicio!Profesional!de!Carrera!

SPCOP! ! Civil!service!operative!program!

SRMR! ! Standardized!root!mean!residual!

!

!

xiv !

SROS!! ! Single!respondent!organizational!survey!

TLI! ! Tucker<Lewis!Index!

UHRP! ! Unit!of!Human!Resources!Policy!

USD! ! United!States!dollar!

WLSMV! ! Weighted!least!squares!estimator!

!

!

!

!

!

Introduction !

!

!

!

!

!

!

Margaret! “Iron!Lady”!Thatcher’s! famous! slogan!about! there!be<

ing! “no! alternative”! to! neoliberalism! was! not! only! the! kind! of!

cynical!phrase!you!might!expect! from!a!determined!Tory! in! the!

1980s;!it!was!also!a!kind!of!prophesy!announcing!deep!social!and!

economic! changes.! Globalization—as! these! changes! came! to! be!

known—refers! to! at! least! five! major! trends! in! social! and! eco<

nomic!change,!which!for!the!last!three!decades!have!occupied!an!

army! of! social! scientists! and! public! intellectuals:! increasingly!

individualist! forms! of! consumption,! marketization! and! work;!

declining!importance!of!national!borders!for!economic!activities;!

rising!worldwide!interconnection!and!faster!means!of!communi<

cation;! tougher! fiscal! competition! between! countries! including!

efforts! to! deregulate,! privatize! and! liberalize! several! economic!

sectors! and! industries;! and! the! rise!of! an! accelerated,!more! ag<

gressive!and!unstable!form!of!capitalism!(Clegg!1990;!Davis!and!

Meyer! 1998;! Drucker! 1993;! Lipovetsky! 2006;! Mills,! Blossfeld,!

Buchholz,!Hofäcker,!Bernardi!and!Hofmeister!2008;!Milward!and!

Provan!2000;!Piketty!2014;!Sandel!2012).!The!promise!of!global<

ization! is! that!social!and! institutional!change!will!eventually!re<

sult! in! blurred! national! borders,! global! convergence! and! pros<

perity,! as! well! as! greater! choice,! freedom! and! higher! living!

standards!for!individuals!(Mills!et!al.!2008).!

For! policymakers! and! companies! all! around! the! world,!

globalization! has! resulted! in! opportunities! and! challenges.! One!

particular! challenge! sets! the! general! background! for! the! book!

you!have!in!front!of!you:!the'crisis'of'traditional'models'of'organi@

INTRODUCTION!

!

2 !

zation.!Changes!brought!forward!in!the!course!of!recent!decades!

have!forced!decision<makers!to!rethink!the!way!companies,!non<

profits! and! government! agencies! are! structured! and! managed.!

Traditional!bureaucratic!models!of!organization!are!deemed!too!

rigid! and! expensive;! too! engrossed! by! hierarchical! control! and!

regulation! to! succeed! in! a! globalized,! fast<paced! economy! and!

society! (Castells! 1996;! Johnson,! Wood,! Brewster! and! Brookes!

2009).! Commentators! reckon! that! organizations,! public! or! pri<

vate,! need' to' be' reorganized:! “We! see! a! great! opportunity! for!

businesses,!nonprofits!and!government!agencies!to!leave!behind!

the!bureaucratic! system!of!organization!and!become!more!pro<

ductive!and!more!ready!for!the!future.!These!new!organizations!

will! rely! on! systems! that! develop! and! express! the! intelligence,!

judgment,!collaborative!abilities,!and!a!wide<system!responsibil<

ity!of!all!their!members”!(Pinchot!and!Pinchot!1994,!xiii;!see!also,!

Alvesson! and! Thompson! 2006;! Osborne! and! Gaebler! 1993;!

Uchitelle!2006).!

This! book! studies! reorganizations,! that! is,! intentional!

changes!in!the!structure!and!internal!policies!of!organizations!in!

the!wake!of!mounting!globalization.! It!uses!observations!drawn!

from!a!multi<method! study! involving! survey,! archive! and! inter<

view!data!from!top!managers!and!public!officials!of!private!com<

panies! and! government! agencies! in! both! the! Netherlands! and!

Mexico!to!understand!some!of!the!mechanisms!behind!reorgani<

zations;!that!is,!the!“cogs!and!wheels”!(Elster!1989)!that!explain!

why!and!how!this!organizational!change!comes!about.!

Reorganizations! are! important! events! in! an! organiza<

tion’s! life! course.! They! affect! standard! procedures! and! reshape!

organizational! systems.! Reorganizations! affect! how! managers!

wield! their! authority,! how! employees! behave! and! interact,! and!

how!services!are!delivered!and!goods!produced.!In!addition,!be<

cause! in! the! last!decades! the! frequency!and!pace!of!reorganiza<

tions! has! increased! in! capitalist! societies! (Wittek! and!Van!Wit<

teloostuijn! 2012),! studying! and! understanding! the! drivers! and!

effects!of!reorganizations!is!becoming!ever!more!important.!

INTRODUCTION!

!

3 !

!

Everything must change…

Over!a!century!ago,!Max!Weber!contended!that!bureaucracy!was!

the! organizational! manifestation! par! excellence! of! modern! ra<

tionalism,!and!claimed!that!the!process!of!bureaucratization!was!

close! to! inescapable! (1976/1905;! 1968/1922).! The! ability! to!

exert!direct,!depersonalized!control!over!employees!was,!accord<

ing!to!Weber,!central!to!the!success!of!bureaucracies.!Traditional!

bureaucratic! control! is! based! on! regulation,! formal! compensa<

tion!and!a!hierarchy!of!authority!(Coleman!1990).!Organizational!

members!are!constantly!monitored!not!only!because!they!oper<

ate!with! resources! that! in! principle! are! not! theirs,! but! also! be<

cause!supervision!is!necessary!to!prevent!intentional!or!uninten<

tional!deviations!from!organizational!and!managerial!goals.!Judg<

ing! by! how! firms! and! government! agencies! are! designed! and!

managed! to! date,! it! is! evident! that! the! bureaucratic! template,!

with! its! rules!and!hierarchies,! continues! to!exert!a!powerful! in<

fluence!(Barzelay!1992;!DiMaggio!and!Powell!1983).!

Yet,! bureaucracies! “increasingly! fail! us”! (Osborne! and!

Gaebler!1993,!15;!see!also,!Kamarck!2007).!The!characteristics!of!

these! organizations! have! become! a! liability! in! an! increasingly!

globalized!and!dynamic! economy,! a! “burden! that! should!be! left!

behind”!(Merino!2013,!95)!and!that!needs!to!be!broken!through!

(Barzelay!1992).!“Reorganize!or!perish”!seems!to!be!the!message!

behind!much!of!the!managerial!and!business!literature!out!there.!

Companies! are! urged! to! flatten! their! structures! and! reengineer!

their!processes!so!as! to!become!more!efficient,! improve!overall!

capacity,! and! shareholder! value! (Beer! and! Nohria! 2000).! For!

governmental! organizations,! neoliberal! policies! and! the! emer<

gence!of!the!New!Public!Management!(NPM)!movement!triggered!

trajectories! of! reform! aimed! at! making! governments! less! rigid!

and! cheaper! to! run! (Christensen! and!Lægreid!2011;! Pollitt! and!

Bouckaert! 2004).! In! either! case,! critics! target,! often! implicitly,!

INTRODUCTION!

!

4 !

what! they! see! as! outdated! and! detrimental! ideas! about! control!

and! supervision.! Bureaucratic! control! leads! to! rigid! structures,!

overly! formalized! functions! and! procedures,! and! overruns.! Bu<

reaucratic! organizations! are! prone! to! become! inward<looking,!

more! concerned!with!discipline! than! satisfying! citizens! and! cli<

ents,! and!more! troubled!with! running! internal! operations! than!

saving! money! or! improving! overall! efficiency! (Barzelay! 1992;!

Niskanen!2007).!

This! critique! draws! on! two! related! “contingency”! argu<

ments.! The! first! is! that! shifting! conditions! in! the! economy! and!

society,! such! as! increased! local! and! global! competition,! more!

flexible! labor! markets,! technological! advancements! and! fiscal!

crisis!(D’Aunno,!Succi!and!Alexander!2000;!Kamarck!2007)!have!

induced!a!process!of!institutional!drift!that!is!forcing!companies!

and!governments!to!abandon!traditional!bureaucratic!structures.!

Companies! and! governments! are! under! rising! pressure! to! be!

more! effective,! efficient! and! accountable.! According! to! an! in<

creasingly! popular! viewpoint,! only! more! flexible,! responsive,!

networked,! and! flattened! organizations!will!meet! the! challenge!

(Ancona!et!al.!1999;!Sorge!and!Van!Witteloostuijn!2004).!

Second,!increased!dynamism!and!uncertainty!are!pushing!

organizations!to!invest!less!in!fixed!capital!and!instead,!progres<

sively!rely!more!on!labor’s!“intelligent!effort”!(Lindenberg!2006).!

This! erodes! the! basis! of! bureaucratic! governance! (Wittek! and!

Van!de!Bunt!2004,!300).!Rules!and!hierarchies!are!replaced!with!

consensual!forms!of!authority,!responsible!autonomy!and!team<

work.!In!particular,!new!forms!of!organizational!governance!de<

crease! the! prominence! of! traditional! bureaucratic! technologies!

(e.g.,! control! by! rules! and! standard! operating! procedures,! task!

specialization,! sequential! workflows)! and! redefine! the! employ<

ment! contract! as! a! trust! relationship!between!organization!and!

employees.! This! fundamental! change! is! supposed! to! empower!

employees! and! increase! their! intrinsic! commitment,!which! is! a!

reason! for!enthusiasm,!understandably!so.! In! the!view!of!many,!

the! demise! of! traditional! bureaucracies! opens! possibilities! for!

INTRODUCTION!

!

5 !

emancipation! of! employees,! greater! flexibility,! and! workplace!

democratic! governance! (cf.! e.g.,! Adler! 1992;! Folta! 1998;! or!

Pinchot!and!Pinchot!1994).!

!

…For everything to remain the same

The! emergence! and! diffusion! of! trends! of! change! toward! less!

bureaucratic!and!post<bureaucratic!organizations!has!been!well!

documented! (Johnson,!Wood,! Brewster! and! Brookes! 2009;! Os<

terman!1994;!Senge!1990;!Smith!1996),!albeit! important!pieces!

of!evidence!do!not!seem!to!support!the!argument!that!reorgani<

zations!are!leading!to!less!intense!control.!A!paradox!riddles!or<

ganizational! scientists! in! that! there! is! evidence! indicating! that!

contemporary! reorganizations! often! lead! to! tighter! monitoring!

and!increased!pressures!for!workers!to!comply,!and!bring!about!

novel! nonintrusive! disciplinary! technology! (Alvesson! and!

Thompson!2006;!Clegg!2009).!Studies!by!Blim!(2000),!Brehony!

and! Deem! (2005),! Torsteinsen! (2012),! and! Vallas! (2003),! for!

example,!show!that!evidence!far!from!supports!a!systematic!rup<

ture! with! traditional! models! of! organization.! Some! others,! like!

Barker!(1993)!or!Vallas!(1999),!cast!doubt!on!whether!reorgani<

zations!create!conditions!for!labor!empowerment!and!workplace!

democratic!governance.!These!studies!show!that!reorganizations!

maintain!and,!in!some!cases,!strengthen!the!intensity!of!supervi<

sion!and!monitoring,!and!promote!the!internalization!of!manage<

rial! definitions! of! work! (Deetz! 1992;! Wittek! and! Van! de! Bunt!

2004).! To! use! Barker’s! (1993,! 408)! phrasing;! contrary! to! the!

promises! of! greater! freedom! and! emancipation,! contemporary!

reorganizations!appear!to!be!“tightening!the!iron!cage”.!

We!think!there! is!a!simple!reason!for!this!apparent!con<

tradiction.!It!is!because!control'remains'an'imperative'for'organi@

zations.'By! control,'we!mean' the! active! alignment! of! organiza<

tional! subunits’! and!employees’! capabilities!with!organizational!

and!managerial! goals! (Clegg!2009;! Cyert! and!March!1963;! Per<

INTRODUCTION!

!

6 !

row!1970;!Wittek!2007).!Public!and!private!managers!are!coping!

with!and!adapting!to!changes!brought! forward!by!globalization.!

New! management! ideas! and! new! supervision! and! monitoring!

techniques! are! devised! to! keep! up!with! technological! advance<

ment.!There!are!greater!pressures!for!organizational!productivi<

ty! and! accountability.! Improvements! in! educational! levels! are!

giving!rise!to!new!ways!to!manage!highly!specialized!and!skilled!

workers.!Frequent!financial!crises!and!austerity!policies!are!forc<

ing!managers! to! keep! a! tighter! grip! on!how!valuable! resources!

are! spent! and! how! employees’! output! is! measured.! In! other!

words,!social!and!economic!changes!highlight!the!crucial!relation!

between! planned! organizational! change! (reorganizations)! and!

the!need!to!“provide!the!necessary!incentives!for!organizational!

members! to! strive! for! the! achievement! of!management’s! goals,!

but! also! […]! to! provide! the! conditions! and! resources! that! are!

necessary!for!carrying!out!these!tasks”!(Wittek!2007,!85).!

! This!book!takes!on!the!scientific!problem!of!understand<

ing!the!relation!between!control!and!reorganizations.!In!a!way,!it!

tells!the!story!of!reorganizations!from!a!control!perspective,!giv<

en!three!decades!of! intensifying!globalization.!More!specifically,!

we! ask! to' what' extent' and' how' contemporary' reorganizations,'

including' their' implementation' and' outcomes,' are' powered' and'

shaped'by'purposive'efforts'to'gain,'retain'and'increase'control.!

Control!is!a!central!concept!in!the!study!of!organizations,!

at! least! “since! the! time! of!Weber! and! remains! perhaps! the! key!

issue! that! shapes! and! permeates! our! experiences! of! organiza<

tional! life”!(Barker!1993,!409).!However,!most!analyses!on!con<

trol! focus! on! specific! aspects! of! this!multifaceted! phenomenon.!

For! instance,! rationalist! approaches! focus! on! issues! of! compli<

ance! and! coordination,! culturalist! approaches! on! legitimacy! of!

control,! and! structuralist! approaches! on! the! interplay! between!

control! and! issues! of! cooperation! (for! a! review,! see! Wittek!

2007).! We! propose! to! embrace—rather! than! circumvent—the!

fact! that! control! in! organizations! has!multiple! facets! and!mani<

festations.!In!this!spirit!and!aiming!to!add!to!existing!scholarship,!

INTRODUCTION!

!

7 !

studies! in! this! book! acknowledge! both! formal! (e.g.,! rules,! re<

sources)!and!informal!(e.g.,!norms,!trust)!aspects!related!to!con<

trol!(Etzioni!1961;!Wittek!2007),!as!well!as!temporal!and!struc<

tural! manifestations! of! control! (see! below,! pp.19<24).! On! this!

basis,!we!attempt! to!explicate! the!processes!behind!reorganiza<

tion!efforts!in!the!public!and!private!sectors,!and!to!provide!the<

oretical!tools!to!this!end.!

Further,! the! studies! in! this! book! complement! previous!

academic!work,!often!based!on!the!idea!that!reorganizations!are!

driven! mainly! by! ecological! changes! (i.e.,! changes! in! the! envi<

ronment!of!organizations),!making!organizational!change!a!con<

tingent! or! adaptive! reaction! (March! 1981;! Sorge! and! Van!Wit<

teloostuijn! 2004).!We! think! that! to! fully! understand! change! in!

organizations,!we!need! to!reformulate!extant!contingency!argu<

ments!in!order!to!pay!closer!attention!to!internal!organizational!

phenomena,!and!how!these!affect!the!possibilities!and!outcomes!

of!reorganizations.!The!answer!we!hope!to!offer!is!thus!based!on!

the! idea! that! the! need! to! gain! and! keep! control! influences! the!

motives!and!implementation!process!of!reorganizations,!and!that!

reorganizations!in!turn!affect!the!nature!and!intensity!of!control.!

When!managers! and! government! officials! decide! to! embark! on!

and! implement! reorganizations,! they! commit,! even! tacitly,! to!

efforts!that!presumably!improve!organizations’!capacity!to!reach!

their!goals,!which!implies!the!capacity!to!exert!or!attain!control.!

Something! similar! can! be! said! of! the! process! of! change! itself.!

Implementing! changes! entails! that! organizations! and!managers!

are! able! to! somehow! direct! multiple! players,! actions! and! re<

sources.!Successful!reorganization!depends!on!being!able!to!en<

force! and! control! implementation! of! changes! (Hardy! 1996).! As!

we!shall!see,!the!relation!between!planned!organizational!change!

(reorganizations)! and! control! is! composite,! reciprocal! and! per<

vasive! across! different! phases! of! the! reorganization! process.!

Control! is! a! crucial! intervening! factor! in! the!motivation,! imple<

mentation!process!and!outcome!of!reorganizations.!

!

INTRODUCTION!

!

8 !

Cases and data sources

We!make!use!of!empirical!data! from!several!private,!public!and!

government! organizations! in! two! different! countries.! In! both!

countries,! the!effects!of! global! social! and!economic! changes!are!

remarkably! evident.!More! important,! however,! given! our! inter<

est! in! general!mechanisms! underlying! the! relation! between! re<

organizations!and!control,! the!cases!provide!us!with! the!oppor<

tunity! to! study! multiple! facets! of! control! and! their! relation! to!

reorganizations,! in! different! contexts.! Data! from! Dutch! private!

organizations!help!us!to!understand!some!managerial!processes!

behind! reorganization! in! companies.!Also,! data! from!Dutch!pri<

vate!and!public!establishments!is!useful!to!compare!cross<sector!

variations.!Information!on!the!implementation!of!a!reform!span<

ning! a!wide!variety!of! governmental! organizations!of! the!Mexi<

can! federal! government! is! useful! to! study! implementation! pro<

cesses! of! public! sector! reforms.1! By! analyzing! these! different!

cases,!our!study!broadens!the!scope!of!previous!research,!which!

is! often! focused! only! on! a! single! organization! or! a! number! of!

organizations! in! a! particular! sector,! and! is! largely! devoted! to!

Western!(developed)!cases.!

On! the! one! hand,! the! Netherlands! is! one! of! wealthiest,!

long<standing!democracies,!with!very!high! living!standards,!and!

one!of!the!most!technologically!advanced!and!competitive!econ<

omies!in!the!world!(see,!e.g.,!OECD’s!Better!Life!Index,!available!at!

www.oecdbetterlifeindex.org).!The!Dutch!economy!plays!also!an!

important! role! in! the! European! economic! integration! process,!

and! it! is! often! portrayed! as! an! example! of! successful! economic!

governance!(Kraan!2005).!Along!with!other!developed!countries!

inspired! by! neoliberal! economics! and! the! NPM! movement,! the!

Dutch! initiated! extensive! programs! of! reform! in! the! 1980s! and!

1990s,!which!led!to!privatization,!deregulation!and!liberalization!

!1! Details! of! the! data! and! data! collection! procedures! are! presented! and! dis<

cussed!in!subsequent!chapters.!

!

INTRODUCTION!

!

9 !

of! the! economy! and! the! public! sector! (Pollitt! et! al.! 2001;! Ter!

Borgt!and!Helden!2000).!The!Netherlands!showed!good!econom<

ic!performance! throughout! the!1990s,!well! above!European!av<

erage.!However,!and!like!other!developed!countries,!the!Nether<

lands!suffered! in! the!global!economic!deceleration!of! the!2000s!

and!the!subsequent!European!Debt!Crisis,!when!Dutch!industrial!

output!fell!considerably!(Evans<Pritchard!2008).!In!Chapters!1,!2!

and! 5,! we! use! survey! data! from! a! single! respondent! organiza<

tional! panel! of! Dutch! public! and! private! managers! and! estab<

lishments!collected!in!2003!and!2006.!

! Mexico,!on!the!other!hand,!is!a!newly!industrialized!coun<

try—as!are!Brazil,!Indonesia,!China,!India,!and!others.!It!has!one!

of! the! largest! economies! in! the!world,! and! is! strongly! linked! to!

the!United!States!and!Canada!through!the!North!American!Free!

Trade!Agreement!(NAFTA).!Like!other!newly!industrialized!coun<

tries,!Mexico!has!a!high!degree!of!income!inequality,!corruption,!

and! great! geographic! and! demographic! disparities! in! develop<

ment!and!living!standards!(Acemoglu!and!Robinson!2012).!Fur<

ther,! for!most! of! its! history,!Mexico! experienced! limited! demo<

cratic!development.!Throughout!most!of!the!twentieth!century,!a!

single!political!party!and!a!patronage<based!administration!were!

dominant! (Arellano!Gault! 1999).!Only! by! the! end! of! the! 1980s,!

the!political!system!began!experiencing!increased!electoral!com<

petition! and! democratization.! This! coincided! with! major! eco<

nomic! reforms! that! deregulated! and! privatized! several! key! in<

dustries! and! significantly! reduced! the! size! of! the! public! sector!

(Haber,!Klein,!Maurer!and!Middlebrook!2008).!After!2000,!when!

the!opposition!won!the!presidential!election!for!the!first!time,!a!

new! round!of! administrative! and!political! reform!was! initiated.!

Some!of! these! reorganizations!were! intended! to!modernize! the!

public! administration,! and! increase! its! efficiency! and! transpar<

ency! (Cejudo! 2007).! One! such! reform—the! 2003! Civil! Service!

Reform! Act,! or,! in! Spanish,! “Servicio! Profesional! de! Carrera”—

provides!us!with!a!very!useful!example!of!how!governments!at<

tempt!to!reorganize!their!agencies,!not!only!in!response!to!global!

INTRODUCTION!

!

10 !

pressures!for!modernization!and!accountability,!but!also!because!

of!the!need!to!regain!and!maintain!control!(Cejudo!2008;!Pardo!

2005).! In! Chapters! 3! and! 4,! we! use! data! from! a! multiple! re<

spondent!organizational!survey!in!55!organizations!of!the!Mexi<

can! federal! government! collected! in! 2012,! as! well! as! in<depth!

interview!data!from!high<ranking!officials!in!charge!of!enforcing!

and!implementing!this!reform.!

! The!cases!and!data!used!throughout!the!book!present!an!

opportunity!to!examine!reorganizations!in!different!institutional!

and! sectorial! settings.! To! be! sure,! using! data! from! public! and!

private!organizations!in!two!countries!as!different!as!Mexico!and!

the!Netherlands!has!its!limitations,!as!we!will!discuss!duly.!Nev<

ertheless,! this! research! design! does! provide! a! rich! supply! of!

quantitative!and!qualitative!data.!This! is!an!asset!because!expli<

cating! the—often<complex—relation! between! control! and! reor<

ganizations!calls! for!multifaceted!data.!This!enables!a!more! fer<

tile!analysis!of!the!evidence,!and!offers!the!possibility!to!appraise!

theoretical!mechanisms!and!hypotheses!with!multiple!methods,!

including! statistical! analyses,! process<tracing! and! qualitative!

comparison.! Accordingly,! our! study! uses! a! multi<method! ap<

proach! that!combines!quantitative,!qualitative!and!mixed!meth<

ods!(see!Mahoney!and!Goertz!2006).!

!

Control and reorganizations: an approximation

At!large,!the!studies!presented!in!this!book!have!at!least!two!im<

portant! goals.! First,! each! chapter! is! intended! to! help! us! under<

stand!whether! and! how! efforts! to! gain! and! keep! control! affect!

and! are! influenced! by! trajectories! of! planned! organizational!

change!in!companies!or!governments.!The!second!goal!is!to!pro<

vide! insight! into! empirical! puzzles,! where! available! evidence!

tells!us!that!something!we!know!is!wrong!or!where!conventional!

wisdom!about!reorganizations!(or!control)!is!not!based!on!theo<

ry!(cf.!Elster!1998).!Our!study!proceeds!sequentially!through!the!

INTRODUCTION!

!

11 !

reorganization! process.! To! order! the! exposition,! we! focus! on!

three! issues! familiar! to! the! literature!on!planned!organizational!

change! and! change! management! (Figure! 0.1):! motives! behind!

reorganizations,!implementation!problems,!and!the!aftermath!of!

reorganizations.!

!!

!FIGURE!0.1!—The'relation'between'control'and'reorganiza@

tions:'an'approximation!

!

!

Antecedents !

The! first! issue! deals! with! the! motives! behind! reorganizations.!

We!focus!on!the!role!played!by!control!in!the!decision!of!whether!

or!not!to!embark!on!changes.!Popular!“flexibilization”!narratives!

INTRODUCTION!

!

12 !

emphasize! fast<paced! adjustment! to! changing! environmental!

conditions!and!movements!toward!unbridled!strategic!flexibility!

(Sorge!and!Van!Witteloostuijn!2004).!By!contrast,!internal!organ<

izational! factors,! such!as!managerial! control,!play!a! limited!role!

in!extant!explanations!of!planned!organizational!change.!Is!man<

agerial! control! or! the! lack! thereof! an! antecedent! of! reorganiza<

tion?! If! it! is,! we! should! discover! that! variations! of! managerial!

control! relate! to! different! properties! of! reorganization,! for! ex<

ample,!the!frequency!or!type!of!change.!In!Chapter!1,!we!ask!why'

is' it' that' some' managers' readily' embark' on' reorganizations,'

whereas'others'avoid'them.!This!chapter!advances!a!“managerial!

gattopardism”! thesis,! which! claims! that! managers! are! likely! to!

avoid! reorganizations,! unless! these! are! deemed! useful! to! im<

prove! their! control! position.!We!hypothesize! that! the!weaker! a!

managers’! control! position,! the! more! likely! the! occurrence! of!

reorganizations.! In!order! to!assess! the!empirical!validity!of! this!

claim,!we!use!longitudinal!survey!data!from!top!managers!in!the!

Netherlands!collected!in!2003!and!2006,!and!structural!equation!

modeling!techniques.!

Chapter!2!presents!a!study!of!the!role!of!loss!of!control!due!

to!conflict!as!antecedent!of!different!types!of!reorganizations.!In!

particular,! the! chapter!examines! the! relationship'between' struc@

tural' organizational' conflict' and' the' likelihood' and' type' of' reor@

ganizations.!Using!a!distinction!between!“type!E”!(structural!ad<

justments)!and! “type!O”! (changes!aimed!at! increasing!organiza<

tional!capacity)!reorganization,!we!theorize!that!distinct!forms!of!

structural! differentiation! relate! to! different! types! of! structural!

conflict,! and! that! these! in! turn! relate! to!different! types!of! reor<

ganization.! We! hypothesize! that! vertical! conflict! (i.e.,! conflict!

between!superiors!and!subordinates)!relates!to!type!E!reorgani<

zation,! and! by! contrast,! horizontal! conflict! (conflicts! among! or<

ganizational! subunits! laterally! placed! or! within! peer<to<peer!

processes)!relates!more!closely!to!type!O!reorganizations.!We!put!

these!ideas!to!the!test!with!survey!data!from!Dutch!managers!in!

private!establishments.!We!use!logistic!models!that!allow!us!for!

INTRODUCTION!

!

13 !

estimating! the! likelihood! of! (different! types! of)! reorganization,!

given!different!types!of!conflict.!

!

Implementation !

The! second! issue! deals! with! problems! of! implementation.! The!

central! question! is!whether,! and!under!what! conditions,! imple<

menters!gain!control!over!implementation.!If!control!plays!a!role!

in! change! implementation,! then! we! could! expect! to! find! that!

qualitative! variations! in! control! lead! to! qualitatively! different!

results,! or! that! implementers! operating! in! organizations! with!

different! characteristics! differ! with! regard! to! the! way! they!

achieve!control!over!implementation.!We!first!look!at!the!process!

of! creating! and! securing!enforcement' capacity,! that! is,!attaining'

and' sustaining' control' in' order' to' implement' reorganizations.! In!

Chapter!3,!we!pose!that!building!enforcement!capacity!is!crucial!

for! the! success! of! public! management! reforms.! However,! this!

aspect!of! reforms!does!not! receive!much!attention! in!extant! re<

search.!We!analyze!the!process!of!building!enforcement!capacity!

for! the! case! of! the!Mexican! 2003! Civil! Service! Reform!Act.! Alt<

hough! this! reorganization! experienced! several! complications!

(e.g.,!limited!support,!resources!and!credibility),!important!goals!

and!partial!control!over!implementation!were!attained.!We!study!

how!officials!achieved!this!through!the!management!of!combina<

tions!of! different! types!of! control! strategies.!We!pay! special! at<

tention!to!the!use!of!“soft”!(normative!and!procedural)!strategies!

that!enable!implementers!to!attain!coordination!and!compliance.!

This! chapter! also! explores! how! the! process! of! building! up! en<

forcement!capacity!can!affect!the!goals!of!reorganization,!poten<

tially!deviating!from!policymakers’! intent.! In!order!to!study!and!

trace! these! processes,! we! use! data! from! interviews! with! high<

level!officials!of! the!Mexican!government.!We!use!stream!analy<

sis! (Porras! 1987)! to! reconstruct! critical! stories,! which! in! turn!

permitted!us! to! identify! strategies! and!patterns!of! enforcement!

and!implementation.!

INTRODUCTION!

!

14 !

Next,!we!turn!to!the!study!of!the!conditions!under!which!

reorganizations! are! successfully! implemented.! In! particular,!

Chapter! 4! addresses! the! issue! of' implementation' of' reorganiza@

tions' in' organizations' with' different' characteristics,! including!

different! resource! endowments.! A! traditional! technocratic! ap<

proach! on! implementation! stresses! the! need! for! committing!

large! resource! endowments! and! setting! up! formal! controls! in!

order! to! successfully! implement! reorganization.! Building! on! an!

institutional! framework,! we! argue! that! there! are! alternative!

pathways! to! compliant! implementation! for! organizations! with!

limited! resource! endowments.! Particularly,! we! study! the! role!

played!by! limited! resources! in! combination!with! (oppositional)!

norms!and!interpersonal!trust!in!enabling!successful!reorganiza<

tion!in!governmental!organizations.!In!order!to!test!our!ideas,!we!

use!panel!data! from!55!ministries!and!government!agencies!ex<

posed! to! the! same! reform! (the!Mexican! 2003! Civil! Service! Re<

form).! Using! fuzzy! set! qualitative! comparative! analysis! (FSQCA),!

we!are!able! to!systematically!compare!organizations!and!deter<

mine! different! implementation! “recipes”! leading! to! compliant!

implementation.!

!

Aftermath !

The!third!issue!deals!with!the!aftermath!of!reorganizations.!Con<

trol!can!also!be!influenced!by!change,!in!the!sense!that!reorgani<

zations!may!affect! the!quality!of!control!systems.! If! they!do,!we!

could!discover,!for!example,!that!efforts!of!planned!organization<

al!change!decrease!previous!differences!in!control!across!private!

and!public!organizations.!In!Chapter!5,!we!examine!claims!made!

by! proponents! of! the! NPM!movement! that! expect! precisely! that!

public'organizations'will'become'more'flexible'and'adaptive'after'

administrative' reorganizations,! effectively' showing' similar' pat@

terns' of' change' to' the' private' sector.!We! test! this! “convergence!

argument”! and! analyze! whether! public! organizations! have!

changed! their! organizational! structures! and! internal! policies! in!

INTRODUCTION!

!

15 !

relation! to! competitive,! regulatory! and! autonomy! pressures,!

similarly! to! private! organizations.! We! use! survey! data! from!

Dutch!public!and!private!organizations!and!moderation!analyses!

to! determine! sectorial! differences! and! similarities! after! three!

decades!of!NPM!reform!in!the!Netherlands.!

Chapter!6!concludes!by!summarizing!and!discussing! the!

most! important! results,! and!seeks! to!answer! the!main!question!

above:! whether! contemporary! reorganizations! are! shaped! by!

purposive! efforts! to! gain! or! maintain! control.! It! also! offers! an!

outline! of! avenues! for! future! research,! and! summarizes! some!

implications!for!theory!and!practice.!

!

!

!

!

ONE Managerial gattopardism1 !

!

!

!

!

!

!

Decades! of! research! on! organizational! change! show! that! top!

managers! vary! considerably! in! their! inclination! to! launch! reor<

ganizations,! that! is,! intentional! changes! in! organizational! struc<

tures!and!internal!policies.!Whereas!many!top!executives!launch!

some!kind!of! reorganization!within! their! first! two!years!on! the!

job! (more! than! 50%! according! to! Blenko,!Mankins! and! Rogers!

2010;!also!see!Boeker!1997),!others!often!actively!resist!change!

(Agócs! 1997;! Mabey! and! Mayon<White! 1993;! Muurlink,! Wil<

kinson,! Peetz! and! Townsend! 2012;! Palmer,! Dunford! and! Akin!

2009;!Pfeffer!1992).!Why'do' some' top'managers'eagerly' initiate'

reorganizations,' whereas' others' actively' avoid' or' resist' them?!

Answering! this! question! is! not! only! relevant! for! understanding!

the! role! of! top!managers! in! enabling! reorganizations.! It! is! also!

relevant! for! understanding! why! some! organizations! fail! to! im<

plement!necessary!changes!in!dysfunctional!structures!and!pro<

cesses! (Staw,! Sandelands! and! Dutton! 1981),! whereas! others!

spend! valuable! resources! in! risky! reorganizations! that! often!

bring!about!more!problems!than!solutions!(Palmer,!Dunford!and!

Akin!2009).!

!1!This!chapter!is!based!on!F.!Nieto!Morales,!R.!Wittek,!P.!Hindriks!and!L.!Heyse.!

2014,! “Managerial! gattopardism:!Why!managerial! control! inhibits! reorganiza<

tions”.! A! revised! version! is! under! review! for! publication! at! time! of! writing.!

Funding! for! data! collection! to! R.! Wittek! (The! Netherlands’! Organization! for!

Scientific!Research:!016<005<052,!400<05<704).!

MANAGERIAL!GATTOPARDISM!

!

17 !

! A!central!proposition!of! strategic!management!research,!

particularly! upper! echelons! theory! (Finkelstein! and! Hambrick!

1990;!Finkelstein,!Hambrick!and!Canella!2009;!Hambrick!2007;!

Hambrick!and!Mason!1984)! is! that! top!managers!play!a! crucial!

role! in! bringing! about! strategic! change! (see! also,!Westphal! and!

Friedrickson! 2001).! A! considerable! body! of! empirical! research!

seems! to!support! this.!Strategic!management!studies,! for!exam<

ple,! show! that! CEO’s! professional! experience! predicts! the! likeli<

hood! and! orientation! of! changes! (Finkelstein! and! Hambrick!

1996).! Others! show! that! top! executive! tenure! is! a! predictor! of!

commitment!to!uphold!the!status!quo!and!a!deterrent!to!strate<

gic!change!(Hambrick,!Geletkanycz!and!Fredrickson!1993).!More!

recently,!Waldman,! Javidan!and!Varella! (2004)! found! that!man<

agers’! charismatic! leadership! is! associated! with! objective! and!

subjective! indicators! of! strategic! change,! and!Vera! and!Crossan!

(2004)!make!a!case!for!the!influence!of!corporate!leadership!on!

broader!processes!of!organizational!development.!

! However,! as! pointed! out! already! by! Hambrick! (2007,!

335),!an! issue! in! the!upper!echelons! literature! is! that!many!ob<

served!associations!are!interpreted!solely!on!the!basis!of!mana<

gerial! profile! proxies,! rather! than! theory<based! mechanisms.!

Previous! work! has! addressed! some! concrete! causal! pathways!

(e.g.,! for! tenure! or! executives’! functional! role;! cf.! Finkelstein,!

Hambrick!and!Canella!2009).!Yet,!a!“black!box!problem”!remains!

in! that!managerial! experiences! are! often! disconnected! from! in<

tra<organizational! processes.! This! study! seeks! to! contribute! in!

this!regard.!Elaborating!on!the!idea!of!gattopardism!(cf.!Andrews!

2003),!we!specify!a!social!mechanism!linking!managers’!experi<

ences! of! control! to! the! likelihood! of! reorganizations.! In! doing!

this,! our! study! contributes! to! the! upper! echelons! literature! by!

moving!beyond!mere! association!of! variables! toward!an! intelli<

gible! answer! to! the! question! “why! do! executives! do!what! they!

do?”!

! In!Il'Gattopardo!(The!Leopard,!1958),!Giuseppe!Tomasi!di!

Lampedusa! tells! the! story! of! Don! Fabrizio,! Prince! of! Salina,! a!


!

18 !

19th! century! Sicilian! nobleman! who! struggles! to! preserve! his!

position! in! the! midst! of! social! and! political! revolution.! As! the!

novel! progresses,! it! becomes! clear! that! in! order! to! secure! the!

continuity!of!his!family’s!influence,!Don!Fabrizio!must!break!with!

tradition! and! embrace! change:! “Everything!needs! to! change,! so!

that! everything! remains! the! same.”!Gattopardism! thus! refers! to!

the!notion!that!individuals!in!power!positions!are!likely!to!avoid!

risky! change,! unless! change! is! useful! to! preserve! or! improve!

their! position.! Although! the! connection! between! managerial!

power!and!control,!and!corporate!change!is!by!no!means!a!novel<

ty!(cf.!Westphal!and!Fredrickson!2001),!many!arguments! in! the!

literature! assume,! often! implicitly,! a! positive! association! be<

tween!managerial!motivation! and! change.! It! is! assumed,! for! in<

stance,! that! corporate! executives! are! “in! control”! when! kick<

starting! reorganizations! (see,! e.g.,! Kotter! 2012).! Further,! to! the!

best! of! our! knowledge,! there! is! limited! work! in! this! literature!

that!connects! (micro)!experiences!of!control! to! (macro)!organi<

zational! outcomes! such! as! reorganizations.!We! pose! the! thesis!

that!reorganizations!are!costly!and!risky!undertakings!and!man<

agers!who! are! “in! control”!will! readily! avoid! them,! unless! they!

are!useful!to!improve!their!position.!Specifically,!we!develop!and!

empirically!explore! the!mechanism!by!which! the!weaker!an!ex<

ecutive’s!managerial'control'position!(MCP)!is,!the!higher!the!like<

lihood!that!he!or!she!embarks!on!reorganization.!

! This! chapter!makes! three!contributions! to! the! literature!

on!corporate!change!and!upper!echelons.!First,!by! investigating!

the! inverse! relation!between!managerial! experiences!of! control!

and!reorganizations,!we!identify!an!endogenous!mechanism!link<

ing!managerial!power!motivation! to! the! likelihood!of! corporate!

change!(see!Wittek!and!Van!Witteloostuijn!2013,!576)!that!com<

plements!(exogenous)!contingency!arguments!on!organizational!

change.! Second,!we!develop! a! construct! to!measure!managerial!

control!that,!in!line!with!central!tenets!of!upper!echelons!theory,!

permits!capturing!and!comparing!managerial!construals!of!con<

trol! (cf.!Hambrick!2007).!This!consists!of!a! latent!measurement!


!

19 !

inferred!from!dimensions!of!managers’!(varying)!experiences!in!

attaining!organizational! and!managerial! goals! (legitimacy,! com<

pliance,! coordination! and! cooperation).! Third,! we! empirically!

explore! our! ideas,! facilitated!by! longitudinal! data! from!365! top!

managers!in!the!Netherlands,!collected!in!2003!and!2006.!

!

Gattopardism

As! originally! formulated! by! Hambrick! and! Mason! (1984),! the!

central!idea!of!upper!echelons!theory!is!two<folded.!On!one!hand,!

top! executives! act! on! the! basis! of! their! interpretations! of! the!

strategic! situations! they! face;! and! on! the! other,! interpretations!

are!influenced!by!the!executives’!experiences.!As!such,!the!theory!

builds! on! a! bounded! rationality! framework! and!postulates! that!

managerial!decisions!are!necessarily!situational.! In!order!to!un<

derstand!(macro)!organizational!events,!researchers!“must!con<

sider!the!biases!and!dispositions!of!their!most!powerful!actors—

their! top!executives”! (Hambrick!2007,!334).!From!this!perspec<

tive,!organizational!phenomena!such!as!the!incidence!of!reorgan<

izations!are!a!reflection!of!the!experiences!and!biases!of!power<

ful! actors! in! the!organization.!Before!we!elaborate!on! this! rela<

tion,!this!theoretical!section!introduces!the!key!construct,!mana@

gerial'control'position!(MCP).!The!section!subsequently!elaborates!

on! the! potential! effects! of! reorganization! on! MCP,! and! on! the!

mechanism!by!which!MCP!may!decrease!the!incidence!of!reorgan<

izations.!

!

Managerial control position (MCP) !

Managerial!control! is! “the!one!way!managers!can!align!employ<

ees’!capabilities!with!the!organization’s!goals”!(Raelin!2011,!135<

6;! also! see! Cyert! and!March! 1963;! and! Perrow! 1970).! It! is! the!

most!fundamental!aspect!of!managers’!power!base!(Hales!1999;!

Mintzberg! 1989;! 1973;! Otley,! Broadbent! and! Berry! 1995;!


!

20 !

Thompson! and! Van! den! Broek! 2010;! Wittek! and! Van! Wit<

teloostuijn! 2013).!Our! construct! of!MCP! builds! on! a! sociological!

framework! for! the! study! of! organizational! governance! (Etzioni!

1961;!Wittek! 2007,! 82<84).! In! particular,! this! framework! is! in<

formed!by!the!basic!idea!that!control!is!wielded!in!order!to!align!

goals!“among!a!collection!of!individuals!or!units!who!share!only!

partially! congruent! objectives”! (Ouchi! 1979,! 833;! Mintzberg!

1989;!1973),!and!that!managers’!experiences!of!control!may!ex<

hibit!comparable!characteristics!across!individual!cases.!Further,!

this!connects!with!the!upper!echelons!assumption!that!the!expe<

riences! of! executives—in! this! case,! experiences! of! control—are!

related!to!organizational!strategy;!specifically,!in!that!experience!

provides! the! basis! for! strategic! choice! (Finkelstein,! Hambrick!

and!Canella!2009).!

! A! core! assumption! behind! our! conceptualization! is! that!

control! is! a!multifaceted! phenomenon,! and! that! it! is! fruitful! to!

embrace!such!multidimensionality.!However,!we!risk!crafting!an!

overly! complex! concept! and! measurement.! Our! solution! is! to!

devise!an!overarching!construct!based!on!a!theory!of!governance!

that!emphasizes!both!structural! (vertical!vs.!horizontal),!as!well!

as! temporal! aspects! of! control! outcomes.! The! latter! covers! the!

distinction! between! ex' ante' vs.' ex' post! outcomes.! Ex! ante! ele<

ments!of!control!refer!to!those!control!components!that!precede!

actual! alignment! of! individual! to! organizational/managerial!

goals.! They! relate! to! the! degree! to! which! employees! endorse!

formal!rules,!expectations!and!norms.!Ex!post!elements!are!those!

control! components! that! indicate! actual! alignment! or! the! lack!

thereof.!They!refer!to!the!degree!to!which!managers!observe!that!

employees’! behaviors! comply! to! or! violate! rules,! expectations!

and! norms.! The! structural! distinction! relates! to! the! difference!

between!vertical'vs.'horizontal!control.!Vertical!control!captures!

the!degree!to!which!desired!outcomes!are!realized!within!formal!

authority!or!principal<agent!relations.!Horizontal!control!reflects!

the!degree!to!which!management!succeeds!in!bringing!about!the!

desired!lateral!or!peer<to<peer!processes!and!outcomes.!


!

21 !

We! suggest! that! managerial! experiences! of! control! are!

strong!to!the!degree!that!desired!outcomes!occur!across!all!four!

facets! of! control! that! result! from! cross<classifying! the! two! dis<

tinctions!(see!Table!1.1).!In!general,!MCP!allows!for!reducing!the!

gap!between! employees’! capacity! to! labor! and!what! employees!

(or!subunits)!actually!end!up!doing!(cf.!Sewell!2005).!That!is,!MCP!

allows! for! aligning! employees’! capabilities! with! organizational!

and!managerial!goals.!As!a!set,!the!four!facets!included!in!the!MCP!

construct! offer! a! general! overview! of! managers’! experience! of!

control,!which! covers! (ex! ante)! expectations!and! (ex!post)! con<

firmations!of! control,! as!well! as! control!within!agency!relations!

and!peer<to<peer!processes.!

Substantive!gaps!between!employees’!labor!potential!and!

their!actions!and!output!across!MCP!dimensions!may!affect!per<

formance,! endangering! top! managers’! ability! to! comply! with!

performance!targets.!Maintaining!and! improving!MCP,! thus,!ena<

bles! top! managers! to! draw! direct! (e.g.,! increased! compliance!

with!managerial!demands)!and! indirect!benefits! (e.g.,!better!or<

ganizational! performance).!We! briefly! elaborate! on! each! of! the!

four!facets!of!managerial!control!positions.!

!

!

TABLE!1.1!Manifestations'of'control'!

!'

Vertical''

Horizontal''

Ex'ante'!

Legitimacy!!

Coordination!'

Ex'post'!

Compliance!!

Cooperation!!

!

!

a) Legitimacy !

Legitimacy!reflects!the!degree!to!which!vertical!ex!ante!control!is!

effective,!and!is!a!key!element!of!organizational!control!(Etzioni!

1961).! Legitimacy! can! have! different! sources.! Traditionally,! au<

thority! is! exercised! through! formal! command.! Acceptance! of!

such! authority! is! based! on! the! formal! position! of! the!manager!


!

22 !

(Downs! 1964;! Weber! 1978/1922).! Managers! exercise! control!

because!they!can!demand!obedience!based!on!their!higher!posi<

tion! in! the! hierarchy.! Contemporary! organizations! increasingly!

rely! on! functional! legitimation! of! assignments! (Lindenberg! and!

Foss!2011;!Wittek!and!Van!de!Bunt!2004).!This!means!that!man<

agerial! control! is! legitimate! to! the! extent! that! managers’! de<

mands!are!referred!to!tasks,!rather!than!to!the!abstract!right!to!

exercise! control! (Clegg,! Courpasson! and! Phillips! 2006;! Hales!

1999).!Managerial!control!positions!are!strong!in!settings!where!

subordinates! accept! responsibilities,! rights! and! obligations! as!

they! follow!either! from! formal! authority,! or! from! their! task! as<

signments.!

!

b) Compliance !

Compliance! to! formal! rules! and! requirements! denotes! the! suc<

cessful!ex!post!outcome!of!vertical!control.!Accepting! that!man<

agers!have!a!legitimate!claim!or!position!to!control!is!in!itself!not!

enough!to!produce!alignment!of!employees’!capabilities!and!or<

ganizational!goals.!Managerial!control!also! implies! that!employ<

ees! actually! observe! managerial! instructions,! rules! and! stand<

ards.!That!is,!legitimate!managerial!control!is!effective!when!em<

ployees! comply! with! managerial! demands! (Cyert! and! March!

1963;!March!and!Simon!1958;!Pfeffer!1992).!Lack!of!compliance!

in! vertical! relations! can! disrupt! work! and! authority! relations!

(Cyert! and! March! 1963).! Compliance! may! be! achieved! by! nu<

merous!control!systems!and!strategies!leading!to!an!appropriate,!

desired!response!(Etzioni!1961).!This!has!been!the!core!topic!of!

much!managerial! and! organizational! literature:! from! economic!

approaches!(e.g.,!agency!theory)!that!stress!crafting!optimal!con<

tracts!and!reward!systems!to!reduce!employee!deviance,!to!soci<

ological! approaches! that! focus! on! systems! and! technologies! of!

social! control! enforced! by!management! (Eisenhardt! 1985).! For!

example,!if!behavior!cannot!be!observed!directly!and!employees’!

work!is!tied!to!discretion,!a!contract!could!set!rewards!based!on!


!

23 !

measurable! outcomes! (e.g.,! revenue).! Managerial! control! posi<

tions!are!strong!where!employee!behavior!complies!with!mana<

gerial!instructions!and!organizational!rules.!

!

c) Coordination !

A! third! facet! of! MCP! is! the! degree! to! which! it! achieves! ex! ante!

horizontal! control.! A! crucial! aspect! is! the! ability! to! set! up! or!

prompt! smooth! coordination! systems! and! procedures! among!

interdependent!employees!and!organizational!subunits!(Malone!

and!Crowston!1994).!Even!if!employees!comply!with!managerial!

instructions,! they! may! fail! to! adequately! meet! organizational!

goals,! due! to! poor! coordination.! For! instance,! in! a! context! of!

pooled!interdependence,!although!each!individual!department!or!

employee!may!in!fact!comply!with!managerial! instructions,! lack!

of!coordination!in!the!way!instructions!are!obeyed!will!to!lead!to!

disagreements! (Thompson! 2007/1967).! Disagreements! in! turn!

could!endanger!organizational!performance!and!threaten!mana<

gerial! goals;! that! is,! coordination! is! often! necessary! to! prompt!

compliance.! In! this! case,! standardization—a! form! of! coordina<

tion—could! assist! by! improving! consistency.! Managers! achieve!

coordination!in!diverse!ways!that!strongly!depend!on!the!nature!

of! organizational! interdependence;! however,! the! point! remains!

that! if! MCP! is! strong,!managers! should! be! in! a! position! to! elicit!

coordination.!

!

d) Cooperation !

The! fourth! element! of! a! strong! control! position! consists! of! a!

manager’s! ability! to! elicit! cooperation! between! employees! and!

subunits! of! the! organization! (horizontal! ex! post! control).! Con<

flict—defined!as!disagreement!and!confrontation!among!organi<

zational!members!(Person,!Ensley!and!Amason!2002)—is!a!per<

vasive! feature! of! organizations! (Kolb! and!Putnam!1992;!Rahim!

2002).!Since!cooperation!fosters!the!realization!of!organizational!


!

24 !

and! managerial! goals,! and! conflicts! tend! to! jeopardize! goal!

achievement! (Rahim! 2002),! managers! have! an! interest! to! con<

tain! conflict! and! stimulate! cooperation.! Hence,! MCP! is! strong!

where!managers!succeed!in!eliciting!cooperation,!particularly!by!

preventing!or!effectively!mitigating!conflicts.!

!

In!sum,!a!manager’s!MCP!is!robust!if!he!or!she!is!able!to!elicit!(a)!

perceptions!of!legitimacy,!(b)!compliance!to!organizational!rules!

and! managerial! instructions,! (c)! coordination! among! interde<

pendent! organizational! subunits,! and! (d)! cooperation! by! suc<

cessfully!preventing!and!mitigating!conflicts.!

!

MCP and reorganization !

Reorganizations! have! potential! costs! and! expected! benefits! in!

relation!to!MCP.!From!the!point!of!view!of!the!underlying!mecha<

nism,!it!is!consistent—and!important—to!distinguish!them.!First,!

reorganizations!often!bring!benefits!such!as!improved!organiza<

tional!capacity!or! increased!economic!value!of!companies!(Beer!

and!Nohria!2000).!Reorganizations!may!also!improve!MCP.!This!is!

because! reorganizations! allow! redefining! elementary! rules,!

structures! and! processes! in! the! organization,! and! they!make! it!

easier!for!managers!to!re<assign!employees!to!different!tasks!and!

organizational!units,!or!simply!to!fire!them.!Reorganizations!can!

therefore! be! an! effective! instrument! for! top!managers! to! build!

coalitions!by!selectively!promising!rewards!to!potential!allies,!to!

tighten! the! lines! of! command,! and! enhance! the! overall! experi<

ence! of! control! (Pfeffer! 1992).! For! example,! reorganizing! de<

partments! or! implementing! standardization! policies! (e.g.,! ISO!

certification)!may!lead!to!increased!managerial!capacity!to!elicit!

coordination.! Downsizing! a! company’s! structure! is! a! particular!

example! of! how! change! directly! reduces! the! span! of! control! of!

managers,!potentially!improving!their!capacity!to!elicit!employee!

compliance!and!manage!conflicts!(cf.!Beer!and!Nohria!2000;!Wil<

liamson!1967).!


!

25 !

Reorganizations,!however,!may!also!bear!a!cost! in!terms!

of!managerial!control.!For!one! thing,! reorganizations! take!away!

resources!and!time!from!current!activities,!risking!organizational!

and!managerial!goals!not!being!met.!For!another,!they!may!bring!

about! a!number!of!negative! effects! and!potential! costs! for!both!

managers! and! employees! (Sorge! and!Van!Witteloostuijn! 2004).!

Potential! negative! effects! of! organizational! change! include! in<

creased! uncertainty,! insecurity! and! stress! for! employees! and!

managers! (Tvedt,! Saksvik! and! Nytrø! 2009),! employees’! re<

sistance!and!conflict!(Mintzberg!1989;!Palmer,!Dunford!and!Akin!

2009;!Worrall,! Cooper! and! Campbell! 2000),! discredit! and! poli<

ticking! (Buchanan! and! Badham! 2004),! as! well! as! unforeseen!

overheads! and! increased! hazard! of! organizational! failure! (Am<

burgey,! Kelly! and! Barnett! 1990;! Hannan! and! Freeman! 1977;!

Zucker!and!Darby!1999).!

Whether!potential!reorganizational!costs!outweigh!bene<

fits! and! have! a! likely! negative! effect! on! MCP—or! vice! versa,! if!

benefits! surpass! costs—is!an!empirical! issue! that!depends!on!a!

number! of! organizational! and! managerial! characteristics.! For!

example,!organizational!size!and!structural!complexity!are!likely!

to! affect! the! ability! of! managers! to! contain! potential! costs,! be<

cause!size!and!complexity!affect!managers’!span!of!control!(Wil<

liamson! 1967).! Similarly,! managers’! level! of! discretion! could!

potentially!influence!the!balance!between!potential!benefits!and!

prospective!costs!(Mintzberg!1989).!

!

MCP’s'effect'on'the'incidence'of'reorganizations'

!

The!mix!of!potential!benefits,! costs! and! risk! implies! there! is! an!

opportunity! cost! associated! with! the! decision! of! forgoing! the!

status!quo!in!order!to!pursue!reorganization.!This!is!not!to!imply!

that!managerial!control!solely!accounts!for!the!incidence!of!reor<

ganizations! (cf.! Amburgey,! Kelly! and! Barnett! 1990;! Hambrick!

2007;! Hannah! and! Freeman! 1977;! Kraatz! and! Zajac! 1996;!

Thompson!2007/1967).!Our!point!is!that!the!opportunity!cost!of!


!

26 !

reorganizations,! as! experienced! by! managers,! is! likely! affected!

by! the!quality!of!managerial!control!positions.! In! this!restricted!

sense,! there!may!be!a!causal!mechanism!connecting!managerial!

control!to!reorganizations.!

From! a! gattopardistic! perspective,! negative! effects! of!

change!represent!an!important!risk!for!top!managers.!Those!who!

particularly!enjoy!a! robust!MCP!can! jeopardize! their!position!by!

starting! a! reorganization.! For! example,! reorganizations! often!

trigger! conflict! between! employees! and! management! (Palmer,!

Dunford!and!Akin!2009),!which! is!a!case! in!point!of!change!po<

tentially!weakening!managers’! control! position.! In! addition,! in<

troducing!new!procedures!may!create!confusion!and! lack!of!co<

ordination! among! previously! harmonized! subunits.! Thus,! the!

better!MCP,!the!higher!the!opportunity!cost!of!initiating!reorgani<

zation! because! prospective! costs! of! change! offset! and! perhaps!

outweigh! potential! benefits! against! current! MCP.! Therefore,! to!

the!extent!to!which!MCP!is!robust,!top!managers!have!incentives!

to! resist! change! and! instead! consolidate! the! status! quo! (Staw,!

Sandelands! and! Dutton! 1981).! Upholding! the! status! quo! may!

translate! into! conservative!behavior,! such!as!denial!of! the!need!

of! change,! refusal! to!accept! responsibility,! refusal! to! implement!

change,!or!even!active!repression!and!intimidation!against!advo<

cates! of! change! (Agócs! 1997;! Hambrick,! Geletkanycz! and!

Fredrickson!1993).!

In!contrast,! if!MCP! is!weak,! top!managers!have!an! incen<

tive! to!embark!on!change!trajectories.!Weak!MCP!may!mean,! for!

instance,! that! employees!or!organizational! subunits!dispute! the!

legitimacy! of! managers’! demands! or! that! management! experi<

ences! problems! in! coordinating! departments,! or! perhaps! that!

management! is! incapable! of! arbitrating! and! settling! organiza<

tional!conflicts,!or!a!combination!thereof.!In!such!situations,!top!

managers!have!incentives!to!reconstitute!or!improve!their!posi<

tion.! To! the! extent! that!MCP!weakens,! the!probability! of! change!

should! increase! because! its! opportunity! cost! decreases! (i.e.,!

purely! in! terms! of! control,! potential! benefits! of! reorganization!


!

27 !

become! more! salient! as! MCP! weakens).! The! arguments! above!

suggest! that! an! inverse! relation—negative,! in! the! statistical!

sense—exists!between!MCP!and!reorganizations:!

!

Hypothesis'1—MCP!will!have!a!negative!effect!on!the!inci<

dence!of!reorganizations.!

!

Research design

Data !

To!explore!empirically!the!validity!of!the!above!claims,!we!used!

two<wave! panel! data! from! Dutch! top! managers! from! a! Single!

Response!Organizational! Survey! (SROS)! carried!out! in!2003!and!

2006.!The! SROS!protocol! collects!data! from!different! individuals!

and!organizations!using!relatively!efficient!means,!while!maxim<

izing! comparability! (Knoke!2001).! The!protocol! included! struc<

tured!telephone!interviews!with!top!managers!(37!min.,!average!

duration).!With!a!response!rate!of!about!25%,!the!protocol!used!

for! this! study! proved! very! successful! compared! with! very! low!

response!rates!of!similar!designs.!

Establishments! from! a! randomized! list! of! companies!

from!the!central!registry!of!the!Chamber!of!Commerce!were!tar<

geted! (registration! is! largely! mandatory! in! the! Netherlands).!

Only! establishments! created! before! 2000! and! still! existing! in!

2003!were!surveyed.!These!were!first!contacted!by!telephone!to!

ask!whether! they!would! cooperate!with! the! study,! and! if! so,! to!

identify! the!manager!who!would!be!best! informed!and!was!au<

thorized! to! share! information.! In!more! than! 80%! of! cases,! this!

was!the!chief!executive!officer!or!owner.!Remaining!respondents!

were! senior! managers! involved! in! organizational! development!

policies!(e.g.,!human!resources!officials).!

! For!this!study,!we!restrict!our!analysis!to!a!subsample!of!

365! surveyed! top! managers! of! industrial/manufacturing! and!


!

28 !

service,!privately!owned!establishments!who!answered!the!sur<

vey!in!both!waves!of!data!collection.!From!these,!12.7%!manag<

ers! are! women;! 64.3%! are! CEOs! or! equivalent! (35.7%! occupy!

another!top!management!position);!and!81.7%!have!a!university!

degree.! In!2003,!an! introductory! letter!was!sent! to!respondents!

and! an! appointment! for! an! interview! was! arranged.! In! 2006,!

managers! were! asked! to! participate! in! a! second! wave! of! data!

collection! (no! dropouts! in! the! subsample).! In! both! waves,! re<

spondents! were! questioned! on! organizational! characteristics!

and! processes,! including! experiences! of! planned! organizational!

change.!The!resulting!dataset!allows!us!to!statistically!model!the!

effect!of!MCP!on!reorganizations!as!reported!by!top!managers!in!

2003—as!reportedly!took!place!in!2003!and!2004<6—as!well!as!

the!effect!of!MCP!in!2003!and!reorganizations!on!MCP!in!2006.!

!

Measurements !

Managerial! control! position! in! 2003! (MCP@2003)! was!measured!

by!four!items:!legitimacy,!compliance,!coordination,!and!cooper<

ation;!all!were!measured!over!2003.!Responses! to!all!of! the! fol<

lowing!items!were!coded!in!four<item!scales!ranging!from!0:!se<

vere!problems! to!3:!no!problems.!Hence,!higher!values! indicate!

robust!MCP.!We!opted!for!direct!questions!on!legitimacy,!compli<

ance,! coordination! and! cooperation! to! keep! an! accurate! and!

comparable!measurement!of!different!MCP!dimensions.!Although!

reputational! bias! is! possible! (Podsakoff! and! Organ! 1986),! the!

composite!nature!of!the!MCP!construct!as!well!as!the!confirmato<

ry!factor!analysis!(reported!below)!shows!remarkable!consisten<

cy!with!our!theoretical!expectations.!Hence,!we!deem!our!meas<

urements!effective.!

To!capture!the!level!of!legitimacy!of!managerial!authority!

by!2003!we! asked! respondents:! “Are! there!problems! regarding!

acceptance!of!managerial!authority?”!Compliance!was!measured!

with:!“Are!there!problems!regarding!compliance!with!managerial!

instructions! in! your! organization?”!Coordination! was!measured!


!

29 !

by:!“Are!there!problems!regarding!coordination!between!organi<

zational! subunits/departments?”! We! asked! two! questions! to!

measure! cooperation:! “Are! there! problems! regarding! conflicts!

between!subunits/departments?”!and!“Are!there!problems!relat<

ed!to!conflict!between!management!and!employees?”!The!meas<

urement!of!cooperation!is!the!sum!score!of!both!items.!

Table!1.2!provides!descriptive! statistics! for!all! items.!As!

we! used! structural! equation! modeling! (SEM)! to! estimate! latent!

variables! for! this! scale,! traditional! reliability! analyses! (e.g.,!

Cronbach’s!alpha)!are!not!informative.!

!

!

!! TABLE!1.2!MCP,'reorganization'and'controls'!

! Min.' Max.' M' SD'

MCP<2003! ! ! ! !

!Legitimacy! 0! 3! 2.68! 0.59!

!Compliance! 0! 3! 2.46! 0.74!

!Coordination! 0! 3! 2.42! 0.81!

!Cooperation! 2! 6! 5.18! 1.09!'

MCP<2006!! ! ! !

!Legitimacy! 0! 3! 2.53! 0.66!

!Compliance! 0! 3! 2.25! 0.80!!Coordination! 0! 3! 2.11! 0.80!

!Cooperation! 2! 6! 4.86! 1.17!!

! ! ! !

Reorganization!2003! 0! 1! 0.24! ―!

Reorganization!2004<6! 0! 1! 0.39! ―!!

! ! ! !

Sectora! 0! 1! 0.67! ―!Org.!age! 5! 135! 33.4! 26.0!

Complexity! 0! 30! 5.96! 5.21!

Sizeb! 3! 1900! 50.0! 282.7!

Hierarchy! 0! 10! 2.12! 1.59!

Competition! 0! 4! 2.41! 1.23!

Regulation! 0! 4! 2.49! 1.22!Technology!!

0! 4! 2.04! 1.25!

NOTES:!a!0!=!secondary!sector;!1!=!tertiary!sector!b!Only!employees!with!full<time!contract.!Median!reported!

!

!

!


!

30 !

Managerial! control! position! in! 2006! (MCP@2006)! was!

measured! by! four! items:! legitimacy,! compliance,! coordination,!

and!cooperation;!all!were!measured!over!2006.!For!all!items,!we!

asked! respondents! the! same! questions! as! in! 2003.! As! before,!

scales!were!coded!so!that!higher!values!indicate!robust!MCP!(see!

Table!1.2).!Also! for!this!variable,!SEM!was!used!to!estimate!a! la<

tent! variable.! Following! the!modification! indices! in!Mplus! soft<

ware,!the!error!terms!of!two!items!(coordination!2006!and!legit<

imacy! 2006)!were! allowed! to! co<vary! to! increase!model! fit! (on!

the! relation! between! lower/higher! coordination! and! low<

er/higher!legitimacy!of!managerial!demands,!particularly!in!con<

temporary!organizations,!see!Lindenberg!and!Foss!2011;!Wittek!

and!Van!de!Bunt!2004).!

Reorganization! was! measured! with! two! dichotomous!

variables.! As! with! MCP,! measurements! of! reorganization! are!

based!on!self<reports!and!are!intended!to!capture!discontinuous!

changes! intended! and! planned! by! the! management! within! the!

period! 2003<2006.! In! wave! 1! (2003),! we! asked! respondents!

whether!they!intended!to!implement!changes!in!the!structure!or!

in!the!internal!policies!of!the!organization!by!the!time!of!the!in<

terview.!Of!the!sample,!24%!reported!planned!reorganizations!in!

this! period! (Reorganization' 2003;! see! Table! 1.2).! In! wave! 2!

(2006),!we!asked!managers!whether! intended!changes! in!struc<

ture! or! internal! policies! had! occurred! in! the! three<year! period!

prior!to!the!interview.!About!40%!of!sampled!managers!reported!

reorganizations! in! the! second! wave! (Reorganization' 2004@6).2!

These!measurements!are!not!intended!to!distinguish!nuances!in!

the!type!or!extent!of!change—a!limitation!discussed!below.!They!

!2!Note!that!the!measurement!of!reorganizations!in!wave!1!is!related!to!manage<

rial! intention! to! implement!change.! In!wave!2! it! relates! to!actual! incidence!of!

change,!as!reported!by!managers.!Given!the!temporal!and!proportional!differ<

ences! between! measurements! (16%),! we! deemed! it! relevant! to! keep! both!

measurements!as!joint!indicators!of!incidence!of!reorganizations.!

!


!

31 !

are!used!to!measure!change!as!an!organizational!reconfiguration!

intended!by!the!manager.!

Further,!to!ensure!that!our!results!are!not!confounded!by!

other!factors!we!included!several!control!variables,!all!measured!

in! 2003:! sector,! organizational! age,! complexity,! size,! hierarchy,!

competition,! regulation! and! technological! change.! Sector! is!

measured! as! a! dichotomous! variable! indicating! (0)! secondary!

sector!(industry!and!manufacturing)!and!(1)!tertiary!sector!(ser<

vices).!We!coded!each!sector!according!to!the!Standard!Company!

Classification! code! (Standaard! Bedrijfsindeling! code,! SBI! ’93;!

www.cbs.nl).! Organizational' age! is! a! continuous! vector! repre<

senting! the! age! of! the! organization! in! years! (up! to! 2003).! The!

number! of! organizational! subunits/departments! is! captured! in!

the!complexity!vector.!Size!is!the!number!of!employees!with!full<

time!contracts!on!the!payroll.!Hierarchy!is!the!number!of!hierar<

chical!layers!between!the!highest!and!lowest!official.!Competition!

is!measured!with:!“To!what!extent!do!you!agree!that!the!market!

is! characterized! by! strong! competition?”;! Technology! with:! “To!

what! extent! do! you! agree! that! technology! necessary! in! this! or<

ganization!has!change!in!recent!years?”;!and!Regulation!with:!“To!

what!extent!do!you!agree! that! the!market! is! influenced!by!gov<

ernment! regulations! and! policies”.! Responses! to! these! three!

items!were!coded!on!a! five<point!scale!ranging! from!0:!strongly!

disagree!to!4:!strongly!agree.!

!

Analytical strategy !

We! employed! SEM!with!Mplus! software! (v.7.11)! to! analyze! our!

data!and!test!our!expectations.!Model!fit!was!assessed!with!crite<

ria! outlined! by! Hu! and! Bentler! (1999):! a! cutoff! value! close! to!

0.06!for!the!Root!Mean!Square!Error!of!Approximation!(RMSEA),!a!

cutoff!value!close!to!0.95!for!both!the!Comparative!Fit!Index!(CFI)!

and!the!Tucker<Lewis!Index!(TLI),!and!a!cutoff!value!close!to!0.08!

for! the! Standardized! Root! Mean! Residual! (SRMR).! Differences!

were! labeled! “significant”! when! p<values! were! 0.05! or! lower.!


!

32 !

Using!confirmatory!factor!analyses!(CFA),!we!first!tested!if!MCP!in!

2003! and! 2006! could! be!measured! reliably.! The! CFA! employed!

the!Maximum!Likelihood!estimation!method.!Next,!we!specified!

the! mediation! model! of! interest,! in! which! structural! relations!

between! the!variables!were! tested.!As! two!dependent!variables!

were! categorical,! all! structural! models! were! estimated! using! a!

Weighted! Least! Squares! estimator! (WLSMV)! and! Theta! parame<

terization.!Finally,!to!rule!out!indirect!effects!we!used!bootstrap<

ping!with!95%!bias!corrected!confidence!intervals.!

!

Results

Confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) !

We! conducted! a! CFA! that! combined! the! two! MCP! variables! in! a!

single!factor!predicted!by!the!items:!compliance!(2003),!coordi<

nation! (2003),! cooperation! (2003),! legitimacy! (2003),! compli<

ance!(2006),!coordination!(2006),!cooperation!(2006),!and!legit<

imacy! (2006).! This! yielded! a! poor! model! fit! [χ²! (19,!

N=365)=142.90,!RMSEA=0.13,!CFI=0.75,!TLI=0.64,!SRMR=0.08].!In!a!

second!CFA,! two! latent!variables!were!estimated:!MCP<2003!was!

predicted! by! compliance! (2003),! coordination! (2003),! coopera<

tion!(2003),!legitimacy!(2003);!MCP<2006!was!predicted!by!com<

pliance! (2006),! coordination! (2006),! cooperation! (2006),! legiti<

macy! (2006).!This!model! yielded!a! good! fit! of! data,!with! χ²(18,!

N=365)=26.84,!RMSEA=0.04,!CFI=0.98,!TLI=0.97,!SRMR=0.03!(cf.!Hu!

and!Bentler!1999).!The!difference!in!Chi<square!between!the!two!

CFAs! was! statistically! significant! (Δχ2=116.06,! Δdf=1,! p<0.01),!

indicating! that! our! data! supports! the! distinction! between! MCP<

2003!and!MCP<2006.!The! second!measurement!model!was!used!

for!the!structural!analyses.!For!the!factor!loadings,!see!the!graph<

ical!representation!of!the!measurement!model!in!Figure!1.1:!

!

!

!


!

33 !

!FIGURE!1.1!—MCP'measurement'model!

!

!

Structural model !

In! the! structural! model,! MCP<2006! was! predicted! by! MCP<2003!

(see!Figure!1.2).!We!modeled! reorganization! in!2003!and! reor<

ganization! in! 2004<6! to! partially!mediate! the! relation! between!

MCP<2003!and!MCP<2006.!That!is,!we!assumed!a!reinforcing!effect!

of!MCP!(managers!who!are!in!control,!ceteris'paribus,!are!likely!to!

retain!control),! that!MCP!affects!the!incidence!of!reorganizations!

(Hypothesis! 1),! and! that! reorganizations! in! turn! could! affect!

quality!of!future!MCP.!Reorganization!in!2004<6!was!predicted!by!

reorganization! in! 2003! (on! potential! cumulative! effects! of!

change,! see!Amburgey,!Kelly,! and!Barnett!1993).!To! control! for!

their!statistical! influence,!the!model! included!all!structural!vari<

ables:! sector,!organizational!age,! complexity,!hierarchy!and!size!


!

34 !

(i.e.,! these!structural!variables!predicted!all! four!variables!of! in<

terest).!Additionally,! reorganization! in!2003!and! reorganization!

in!2004<6!were!predicted!by!technology,!regulation!and!competi<

tion.3!

!

!!

NOTES:!

Model!fit:!χ²!(84,!N=346)=94.28,!RMSEA=0.02,!CFI=0.97,!TLI=0.96,!

WRMR=0.67!

Controls:!Sector,!Org.!age,!Complexity,!Size,!and!Hierarchy!for!all!

variables;!Technology,!Regulation,!Competition!for!Reorganization!

in!2003!and!Reorganization!in!2004/6.!

Sig.!codes:!**!p<0.05;!***!p<0.01!a!p=0.54!b!p=0.95!

!FIGURE!1.2!—Direct'effects'of'MCP'and'reorganization!

!

!

! The! results! showed! that! the!model! fit! the! data!well! [χ²!

(84,! N=346)=94.28,! RMSEA=0.02,! CFI=0.97,! TLI=0.96,!WRMR=0.67]!

and!explained!29.8%!of!the!variance!in!MCP<2006.!Nineteen!cases!

!3!To!control!for!the!influence!of!managers’!individual!characteristics,!our!model!

also!included!gender,!educational!level,!stock<buying!options!for!managers!and!

functional! stand! (CEO!vs.!non<CEO).!However,! including! these!variables!did!not!

improve! model! fit! [χ²(108,! N=277)=123.49,! RMSEA=0.02,! CFI=0.95,! TLI=0.92,!

WRMR=0.69]! and! lead! to! the! loss! of! nearly! 20%! of! cases! because! of! missing!

values.! Moreover,! none! of! the! effects! of! these! additional! variables! reached!

statistical!significance!(only!a!negative!effect!of!education!on!MCP<2003).!

!


!

35 !

were!dropped!due!to!missing!data.!The!results!(unstandardized)!

further!showed! that!MCP<2006!was!positively!predicted!by!MCP<

2003! (b=0.57,!p<0.01).!MCP<2006!was!not!associated!with! reor<

ganization! in!2003!or! reorganization! in!2004<6,!or!with!control!

variables.!

Hypothesis!1!predicted!a!negative! (inverse)! relation!be<

tween!reorganizations!and!MCP.!In!the!structural!model,!reorgan<

ization! in! 2004<6! was! negatively! associated! with! MCP<2003!

(b=−0.71,!p=0.01),!as!predicted,!and!positively!with!reorganiza<

tion!in!2003!(b=0.26,!p=0.02).!It!was!unrelated!to!control!varia<

bles!except! for! a!positive!association!with! competition! (b=0.15,!

p=0.03).! Also! in! support! of! our! hypothesis,! reorganization! in!

2003! was! negatively! associated! with! MCP<2003! (b=−1.02,!

p<0.01).!Although!effect!sizes!were!negligible,!there!were!signifi<

cant!positive!relations!between!MCP<2003!and!organizational!age!

(b=0.01,! p=0.01),! and! between! MCP<2003! and! size! (b=0.00,!

p=0.01).!

We!used!a!bootstrapping!procedure!(1000!draws)!to!test!

the! significance! of! indirect! effects.! As! the! 95%! bias! corrected!

confidence!intervals!included!zero!for!each!indirect!path,!none!of!

the! effects! turned! out! to! be! significant! (cf.! Preacher! and!Hayes!

2008).!We! conclude! that! in! our! data! the! relation! between!MCP<

2003! and! MCP<2006! was! not! mediated! by! reorganizations! in!

2003!or!2004<6.!

!

Discussion

This! chapter! began! by! asking!why! some!managers! readily! em<

bark!on!reorganizations,!whereas!others!avoid!them.!To!answer!

this,! we! sketched! a! managerial! gattopardism! mechanism.! We!

claimed! that!managers! in! an! advantageous! control! position! are!

likely! to! avoid! risky! change,! unless! it! is! useful! to! improve! a!

weakened!position.! In!particular,!we!hypothesized! that!MCP!has!

an! inverse!relation!to!the!occurrence!of!reorganizations,!even! if!


!

36 !

reorganization! could! potentially! improve! MCP.! We! found! evi<

dence!supporting!these!ideas!in!an!empirical!study!involving!two!

waves!of!survey!data!from!a!sample!of!Dutch!managers!(for!the!

period! between! 2003! and! 2006).! We! found! a! robust! negative!

effect!of!MCP!on!reorganization,!as!well!as!a!reinforcing!effect!of!

MCP!at! t0! on!MCP!at! t1.! Including!variables!on! the!organizational!

environment!(competition,!regulation!and!technological!change)!

into!our!model! did!not! cancel! out! the!negative! effect! of!MCP!on!

reorganizations.!

! Before! discussing! the! implications! of! our! results,! it! is!

appropriate!to!acknowledge!some!limitations.!First,!data!used!in!

this!study!come!from!a!sample!of!Dutch<only!top!managers.!This!

begs! the! empirical! question! whether! the! observed! effects! are!

generalizable!beyond!this!sample.!Second,!our!operationalization!

of!reorganizations!is!quite!broad!and!does!not!account!for!argu<

ably!relevant!nuances.!Ideally,!for!instance,!we!would!have!liked!

to! use! a!multifaceted!measurement! of! change! that! included! in<

formation! on! the! type! and! extent! of! reorganizations.! Strictly!

speaking,! the!measurement!of!change!used! in! this!study!cannot!

discriminate! minor! reorganizations! from! major! overhauls.! In<

stead,!the!measurement!of!change!used!here!captures!change!as!

a!general!event! that,!crucially,!was! intended!by!the!manager.! In!

addition,!since!we!wanted!to!account!for!managers’!experiences!

and!construals,!we!decided!to!rely!on!self<reports.!Although!this!

is!a! commonly!used!method! in!management!and!organizational!

research! and! has! important! advantages! (including! efficiency! in!

data!collection!and!comparability),!self<reports!may!have!disad<

vantages! such! as! social! desirability! bias! (Podsakoff! and! Organ!

1986;! also! see! Gerhart,! Wright,! McMahan! and! Snell! 2000;!

Huselid!and!Becker!2000).!While!interpreting!our!findings,!these!

limitations!should!be!borne!in!mind.!

! From! our! results,!we! conclude! firstly! that! the! notion! of!

managerial! gattopardism! has! both! the! potential! to! enrich! our!

understanding!of!the!incidence!of!corporate!reorganizations!and!

in!particular,! the! advantage!of!providing! an!upper! echelons! ex<


!

37 !

planation!to!the!question!why!some!managers!decide!to!embark!

on! reorganizations,!whereas! others! resist! them.!We! focused! on!

intended!changes!to!organizational!structures!and!internal!poli<

cies.!The!central!idea!is!that!the!decision!to!embark!on!reorgani<

zation!is!sensitive!to!differences!in!managerial!control!positions,!

as!experienced!by!the!manager.!

Also,!the!notion!of!gattopardism!helps!us!understand!pat<

terns! of! maladaptive! managerial! responses! to! changes! in! the!

organizational!environment.!According!to!traditional!contingen<

cy!approaches!on!organizational!change!(e.g.,!Salancik!and!Pfef<

fer!1977),!managers!rationally!adapt! to!changes! in! the!environ<

ment!to!regain!fit;!thus,!contingencies!should!result!in!reorgani<

zations.! However,! there! is! evidence! suggesting! that! managers!

sometimes!fail!to!implement!changes!and!instead!react!rigidly!to!

perceived!threats!(Staw,!Sandelands!and!Dutton!1981).!There!is!

also! evidence! suggesting! that! managers! often! compromise! re<

sources!in!dysfunctional!trajectories!of!change!(Palmer,!Dunford!

and! Akin! 2009).! These! patterns! are! clearly! beyond! traditional!

functional<contingency!frameworks.!

! From! a! gattopardistic! perspective,! however,! these! pat<

terns!are!comprehensible!as!the!consequence!of!managers!react<

ing! to! threats! to! their! positions! (also! see!Wittek! and! Van!Wit<

teloostuijn!2012).!Reorganizations!may!not!only!result!from!con<

tingent!responses!to!environmental!cues;!they!do!not!need!to!be!

functional! for! the!organization.!The! specific!upper! echelons!ap<

proach! developed! here! acknowledges! that! power! motives! and!

mobilization! of! critical! resources—reflected! in! the! managerial!

control! construct—are! important! for! understanding! the! occur<

rence! of! corporate! reorganizations.! However,! it! places! special!

emphasis! on! understanding! changes! in! the! manager’s! control!

position!and!how!these!affect!managerial!resistance!or!proclivity!

to! change! (also,! see!Agócs! 1997).! Academically,! this! is! relevant!

because!most! studies! on! corporate! change!mainly! address!why!

and! how! workers! and! employees! resist! efforts! to! change.! The!

role! played! by!managers,! especially! those! on! upper! levels,! has!


!

38 !

been! somewhat! neglected.! In! practical! terms,! it! is! relevant! be<

cause!gattopardistic!executives!can!form!a!formidable!barrier!to!

change! and! innovation.! That! managers! have! much! to! lose! in!

terms! of! control! not! only!means! that! they!will! not! be! the! ones!

introducing! change! and! innovations,! but! also! that! they!may! re<

sist!and!try!to!stop!such!challenges!to!the!status!quo.!

! The! gattopardism! framework! offers! further! interesting!

possibilities.!For! instance,!one!could!wonder!whether!managers!

with!low!MCP,!who!are!more!likely!to!embark!on!reorganizations,!

are!at!the!same!time!the!most!at!risk!to!fail.!Conversely,!high<MCP!

managers,! who! decide! not! to! embark! on! change! (or! to! resist!

change),!might! in! fact! be!more! likely! to! be! successful.! In! other!

words,! from! the! perspective! of! the! organization,! the! notion! of!

gattopardism! may! help! us! understand! why! every! so! often! the!

“wrong”!managers!embark!on!trajectories!of!reorganization.!

! Second,! we! conclude! that! empirical! data! supports! our!

conceptualization! of!managerial! control! position.! An! advantage!

of! the!MCP!construct! is! that! it! reflects! the!complexity!of!manag<

ers’! experience! of! control.! Another! benefit! is! that! it! allows! for!

measuring!overall!control.!In!this!sense,!we!can!comprehend!and!

compare!how!managers!perceive!their!grip!over!their!organiza<

tions! across! time! points,! without! relying! on! information! about!

specific!control!systems,!policies,!or! types!of!managerial!power.!

Still,! it! remains!very! interesting! to!explore!detailed!connections!

between! different!managerial! control! strategies,! MCP,! and!man<

agers’!proclivity!to!embark!on!reorganizations.!For!example,!one!

could!ask!how!different!forms!of!control!(coercion,!rewards,!etc.;!

see! Barker! 1993;! Shetty! 1978)! affect! MCP,! or! which! additional!

organizational! factors! influence! the! relation! between! types! of!

control,!MCP,!and!reorganizations.!For!instance,!how!does!mana<

gerial!autonomy!affect!the!relation!between!MCP!and!reorganiza<

tions?!Future!studies!could!explore!this.!

! Third,!in!our!study!we!found!no!clear!evidence!for!a!posi<

tive!or!negative!effect!of! reorganizations!on!MCP.!The!argument!

was!that!reorganizations!offer!managers!an!opportunity!to!reen<


!

39 !

gineer!problematic!structures!and!policies!and!thereby!improve!

their!position,!but! that! reorganizations!also! could!bring!a!num<

ber!of!problems!and!potential!costs!for!managers.!The!absence!of!

observable!effects!in!our!structural!model!can!be!due!to!several!

reasons.!The!obvious! first!possibility! is! that!MCP! is! simply!unaf<

fected!by!reorganizations.!Although!we!cannot!rule!out!this!pos<

sibility! in!our!data,! it! seems!unlikely! that! significant!changes! to!

organizational! structures! and! policies! do! not! affect! managerial!

experiences! of! control! at! all.! Anecdotic! and! ethnographic! evi<

dence! suggests! otherwise.! For! example,! Barker! (1993)! found!

that! changing! a! labor! system! to! one! based! on! self<managing!

teams!significantly! increased!employee!compliance! in!a! compa<

ny,!and!improved!the!position!of!the!manager!(vice<president)!in!

charge!of!the!reorganization.!

! Another!possibility!already!anticipated!in!the!theory!sec<

tion! above! is! that! negative! effects! (costs)! of! reorganizations!on!

MCP!cancel!out!positive!effects!(expected!benefits).!For!instance,!

analyzing!reorganizations!in!manufacturing!plants,!Vallas!(2003)!

found! that!while! changes! sometimes! increase!workers’! compli<

ance,! they! also! tend! to! raise! suspicion! and! distrust! of!manage<

ment.!Yet!another!possibility!is!that!the!effects!of!reorganization!

on! MCP! depend! on! the! characteristics! of! change! and! its! imple<

mentation! process! and! outcome.! For! example,! complex! imple<

mentation! processes! with! abundant! veto! points! may! not! have!

the!same!outcome!(in! terms!of!MCP)! than!relatively!easy,! “pain<

less”! trajectories.! Also,! some! efforts! of! change!may! be!more! or!

less! successful.! Successful! reorganizations! may! have! a! positive!

effect!on!MCP,!whereas!unsuccessful!ones!could!affect!MCP!nega<

tively.!Although!our!data!does!not! allow!us! to! explore! these!al<

ternatives,!possibly!some!of!these!elements!are!at!play.!On!these!

issues,!further!research!is!needed.!

All! things! considered,! this! study! sketched!an!alternative!

way! to!understand! the!role!played!by! top!managers! in! the! inci<

dence!of!reorganizations.!Based!on!the!tenets!of!the!upper!eche<

lons!literature!and!the!idea!of!gattopardism,!as!well!as!on!statis<


!

40 !

tical! evidence,! this! study! suggests! that! some!managers!may! in<

deed!act!gattopardistically.!In!doing!so,!we!furthered!our!under<

standing!of! the! relation!between!managerial! experience!of! con<

trol!and!organizational!change,!and!opened!up!some!interesting!

avenues!for!future!research.!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

TWO Different conflicts, different reorganizations1 !

!

!

!

!

!

!

Since!Hegel!suggested!that!conflict!was!the!engine!of!history,!the!

relationship! between! conflict! and! change! has! concerned! social!

scientists.!The! idea!that!opposing! forces!exist! in!society!and!or<

ganizations! and! that! collisions! between! them! (may)! challenge!

the!status!quo!has!informed!a!rich!vein!of!sociological,!economic!

and!political!approaches!on!social!and!institutional!change!(Van!

de!Ven!and!Hargrave!2004).!In!spite!of!this,!in!the!organizational!

sciences,! critical! and! radical! traditions! are! perhaps! the! only!

prominent! approaches! that! explicitly! address! the! centrality! of!

conflict!for!organizational!development!(for!an!extensive!review!

and! comment! on! perspectives! on! organizational! change,! see!

Demers!2007).!In!the!vast!majority!of!mainstream!organizational!

approaches!the!relation!between!conflict!and!change,!and!in!par<

ticular!the!idea!that!conflict!can!bring!about!change!is!strikingly!

absent! (cf.! Demers! 2007).! In!most! of! the! organization! develop<

ment! (OD)! literature,! for! instance,! the! issue!of!conflict! is!by!and!

large! addressed! as! an! inconvenience! of! reorganizing;! namely,!

conflict!is!assumed!to!be!one!of!the!facets!of!resistance!to!change!

!1!This!chapter! is!based!on!F.!Nieto!Morales,!R.!Wittek!and!L.!Heyse.!2014,!“On!

the!relation!between!reorganizations!and!structural!conflict”.!A!version!of!this!

chapter! is! under! review! for! publication! at! time! of! writing.! Funding! for! data!

collection! to!R.!Wittek!(The!Netherlands’!Organization! for!Scientific!Research:!

016<005<052,!400<05<704).!

CONFLICT!AND!REORGANIZATIONS!

!

42 !

or! comes! from! lack! of! commitment! (Armenakis! and! Bedeian!

1999;!Cummings!and!Worley!2008;!Jaros!2010).!That!is,!conflict!

is!not!seen!as!a!source!of!change!but!of!inertia.!Although!conflict!

management! research! has! long! established! that! conflict! is! an!

unavoidable!aspect!of! formal!organization!(Rahim!2002),! impli<

cations!of!conflict!have!been!mostly!addressed!from!an!interper<

sonal!or!intergroup!perspective,! largely!disconnected!from!stra<

tegic! organizational! processes! such! as! reorganizations! (Rahim!

2002;! also! cf.! Jones! 2004;! Pondy! 1967).! For! instance,! conflict!

does! not! figure! in! a! recent! review! of! drivers! of! processes! of!

change!in!organizations!(Whelan<Berry!and!Somerville!2010).!

! We! believe! a! puzzle! remains! in! that! it! is! unclear! if! and!

how!conflicts!influence!strategic!decisions!in!companies,!such!as!

the!decision! to! embark!on! reorganizations! (see! also!Robertson,!

Roberts!and!Porras!1993).!We!claim! that! studying!conflict!aris<

ing!from!structural!characteristics!of!the!firm!sheds!light!on!this!

conundrum!in!that!the!differences!may!contribute!to!explain!why!

a! given! outlook! on! reorganization! is! chosen! over! another.! By!

“structural! conflict”! we! mean! disagreement! and! confrontation!

between! organizational! members! or! subunits! resulting! from!

formal!differentiation!in!an!organization.!

The!purpose!of! this! chapter! is! to!explain!why!managers!

choose!to!embark!on!a!given!type!of!reorganization!by!looking!at!

differences! in! structural! conflict! in! organizations.! Our! explana<

tion! aims! at! bringing! organizational! structure! and! intra<

organizational!conflict!back!into!the!discussion!of!planned!organ<

izational!change.!We!argue!that! to!explain!change,! it! is!not!only!

important! to! look!at!external!pressures!and!contingencies,!as! is!

currently!a!dominant!explanatory!perspective,!but!also!at!endog<

enous!dynamics! between! structural! conflict! and!managerial! ac<

tion.! Focusing! on! the! connection! between! conflict! and! change!

also!responds!to!Van!de!Ven’s!(1992)!call!for!research!on!change!

that! generates! new! knowledge! on! organizational! strategy! and!

development.! Our! study! contributes! to! this! by! offering! an! ap<

proach!that!uses!differences!in!structural!conflict!to!understand!


!

43 !

why! some! types! of! reorganization! occur! more! frequently! than!

others.!

! We!focus!on!two!general!types!of!reorganization,!reflect<

ing!two!distinct!theories!on!planned!organizational!change!(for!a!

detailed! discussion,! see! Beer! and! Nohria! 2000;! also! cf.! Huy!

2001).!On!the!one!hand,!type'E'reorganizations!refer!to!initiatives!

focused!on!directly!improving!the!economic!value!of!the!compa<

ny,!such!as!downsizing!and!delayering.!On!the!other!hand,!type'O'

reorganizations! refer! to!changes! focused!on!building!up!organi<

zational!capacity,!such!as!process!reengineering!or! training!and!

socialization! initiatives.!This!distinction! is!empirically!and!theo<

retically!relevant:!type!E!and!type!O!changes!refer!to!two!distinc<

tive! outlooks! on! reorganization! as!means! to! improve! organiza<

tional! performance;! the! one! emphasizes! quick! and! decisive!

structural!adjustment,!whereas!the!other!underscores!incremen<

tal!and!consensual!change!in!policies!and!organizational!capabili<

ties!(Beer!and!Nohria!2000).!Although!prescriptions!and!general!

models! of! either! form! of! reorganization,! explicitly! or! implicitly!

abound!in!the!literature!(cf.!Burnes!2004;!Campbell,!Worrall,!and!

Cooper!2000;!Palmer,!Dunford!and!Akin!2009;!Porras!and!Silver!

1991;!Van!de!Ven!and!Poole!1995),!studies!that!explain!observed!

diversity! in! types! of! reorganization—and! the! reasons! for! it—

remain! limited! (Colombo!and!Delmastro!2002;!Huy!2001;!Rob<

ertson,!Roberts!and!Porras!1993;!Vales!2007;!Van!de!Ven!1992).!

We! posit! that! the! decision! of! adopting! a! type! E! or! type! O! ap<

proach! on! reorganization! is! influenced! by! structural! conflict.!

Specifically,! we! ask:! to' what' extent' do' variations' in' structural'

conflict'influence'the'(managerial)'decision'of'under@taking'type'E'

or'type'O'change?!

We!do!not!claim!that!(differences!in)!structural!conflict!is!

the!sole!explanation!behind!the!decision!to!embark!on!type!E!or!

type! O! change.! However,! we! do! maintain! that! theoretical! and!

empirical!affinities!exist!between!given! forms!of!structural!con<

flict! and! the!decision! to! initiate!qualitatively!different! reorgani<

zations,! and! these! affinities! have! relevant! consequences! for!


!

44 !

managerial!strategy.!In!line!with!this,!others!like!Gelfand,!Leslie,!

Keller!and!De!Dreu!(2012)!have!already!argued!that!differences!

in!conflict!at! the!organizational! level! tend!to!be!associated!with!

different! forms!of! conflict!management! (see! also!Kolb! and!Put<

nam!1992;!Rahim!2002).!

The! remainder!of! this! chapter! is! arranged!as! follows.! In!

the!next!section!we!develop!a!theoretical!approach!on!structural!

conflict!and!reorganization.!Second,!we!test!our!argument!using!

survey!data!from!238!managers!of!Dutch!tertiary!sector!organi<

zations!collected!in!2006.!We!then!report!our!statistical!analyses!

and! results.!The! final! section!provides! a!discussion!of! our! find<

ings!and!suggests!avenues!for!future!research.!

!

Theoretical background

Structural conflict !

Previous!research!has!established!that!conflict!is!an!unavoidable!

feature!of! formal! organizations! (Kolb! and!Putnam!1992;!Pondy!

1967;! Rahim! 2002;! Rahim! and! Bonoma! 1979;! Simmel!

1964/1908).! In! this! literature,! the! reasons! for! the! ubiquity! of!

conflict!go!hand! in!hand!with!disagreements!regarding!work!or!

interpersonal!clashes.!For!instance,!the!classical!work!by!Guetz<

kow! and! Gyr! (1954)! makes! a! point! of! differentiating! between!

tasks! and! emotional! conflicts.! Jehn! (1997)! and! Person,! Ensley!

and!Amason! (2002)! echo! this! in! their! distinction! between! task!

and!relational!conflict.!

! An!alternative!way!of!dealing!with!the!ubiquity!of!conflict!

is! to! look! at! it! from! a! structural! perspective.! Organizational!

structures! exhibit! regularities! that! can!be! studied!on! their! own!

without! relying! on! assumptions! about! interpersonal! grievances!

or!the!precise!nature!of!the!division!of!work!across!different!or<

ganizations.!As!explained!below,!we!propose!that!the!principle!of!

structural! differentiation—that! is,! division! of! responsibilities!


!

45 !

and!authority!in!an!organization!into!subunits!(Blau!1970),!each!

of! which! develops! particular! properties! in! relation! to! its! envi<

ronment! (Lawrence! and! Lorsch! 1967)—accounts! for! general!

forms!of!conflict! that!are! likely! to!elicit!different!managerial!re<

sponses.!

There!are!at!least!two!possible!types!of!structural!conflict!

in! any!organization:! vertical! and!horizontal.!Vertical' conflict! re<

fers!to!disagreement!and!confrontation!arising!from!hierarchical!

differentiation.!Hierarchical! differentiation! implies! a! division! of!

responsibilities!across!vertical! lines!of!authority!(e.g.,!managers!

and! workers).! Vertical! differentiation! allows! organizations! to!

cope!with!the!problem!of!attaining!complex!activities:! the!more!

sub<goals! and! actions! are! separated! into! manageable! sets,! the!

easier! it! is! for! organizational! members! to! fulfill! them! (Blau!

1970).!In!particular,!vertical!differentiation!allows!for!separation!

between! executive! and! operative! activities.! This! economic! or!

“agency”!relation!entails!that!some!segments!of!the!organization!

are! responsible! for! the! formulation! and!evaluation!of! organiza<

tional!policies! and! strategy! (executive! segment),!whereas!other!

segments! are! responsible! for! their! implementation! (operative!

segment).!This!relationship!is!marked!by!asymmetry!and!uncer<

tainty!as!executive!segments!must!rely!on!operative!segments!to!

fulfill!their!goals.!Vertical!differentiation!is!likely!to!hatch!conflict!

when! the! segments’! goals!misalign! (Cyert! and!March! 1963;! Si<

mon! 1979;! Williamson! 1967);! information! exchange! between!

segments! fails! (Van!der!Mandele!and!Van!Witteloostuijn!2013);!

or! authority! lines! lose! effectiveness! (Sauerman! and! Stephan!

2012;!Sen!1993).!Conflict!magnifies!uncertainty,! inherent! in!the!

hierarchical!relation!(Eisenhardt!1989).!Therefore,!when!conflict!

arises!across!vertical! lines!of!differentiation,! the!economic!rela<

tion! of! delegation! becomes! less! efficient! because! additional! re<

sources! need! to! be! employed! to! reduce! asymmetry! and! uncer<

tainty.!

The! structural! complement! of! vertical! differentiation! is!

horizontal!differentiation;!that!is,!subdivision!based!on!function<


!

46 !

al! specialization! (e.g.,! staff! and! line! functions).!This! form!of!dif<

ferentiation! requires! both! executive! and! operative! segments! to!

become!horizontally!subdivided!among!different!functional!divi<

sions!(Blau!1970).!Horizontal!differentiation!brings!about!a!het<

erarchical! division! of! responsibilities! into! functionally! special<

ized!subunits.!There!is!limited!autonomy!because!subunits!have!

relative! influence! over! the!way! other! subunits! operate,! that! is,!

they!are!interdependent!(Fairtlough!2005;!Lawrence!and!Lorsch!

1967).! Therefore,! functional! relations! arising! from! horizontal!

differentiation!are! characterized!by! the!need! to!achieve! coordi<

nation!among!segments!with!parochial! interests!and!fuzzy! lines!

of! authority.! Functional! differentiation! brings! about! conflict!

when!different!interests!collide;!functional!divisions!compete!for!

control;!or!(social)!cohesion!across!segments!weakens!(De!Dreu!

and! Beersma! 2005;! Friedkin! and! Johnson! 2002;! Jones! 2004;!

Mintzberg!1979;!Morrill!1991).!Horizontal' conflicts! affect! (func<

tional)!coordination!relations!and!thus!the!ability!of!an!organiza<

tion!to! integrate!multiple! functions!needed!to!achieve!organiza<

tional!goals.!

In! sum,! the! nature! (and! consequences)! of! conflict! may!

significantly! differ! across! vertical! and! horizontal! structural! di<

mensions.!On!the!one!hand,!vertical!conflict!may!intensify!ineffi<

ciencies! in!economic!relations!of!agency/delegation!among!par<

ties! with! asymmetric! power.! On! the! other,! horizontal! conflict!

aggravates! inadequacies!and! lack!of!synchronization! in!heterar<

chical!relations!between!parties!with!control!over!certain!organ<

izational!activities.!Vertical!conflict!is!likely!to!increase!the!costs!

of! securing! compliance.! Horizontal! conflict! is! likely! to! increase!

the! costs! of! achieving! coordination! among! laterally! positioned!

subunits.! Therefore,! it! is! important! to! note! that! by! straining!

structural! (vertical! or! horizontal)! divisions,! either! type! of! con<

flict!will!likely!affect!in!different!ways!the!ability!to!control!activi<

ties!necessary!to!achieve!organizational!goals:!either!by!affecting!

relations!of! agency/delegation!or!by! shortcutting! functional! co<

ordination.!


!

47 !

!

!

Managerial action as link between structural conflict and change !

Recognized! structural! conflict! is! likely! to! activate! managerial!

reactions.! Managers! scan! the! organization! for! relevant! infor<

mation! on! conditions! affecting! performance.! Conflict! manage<

ment!theories!argue!that!recognition!of!conflict!opens!opportuni<

ties!for!adjustment.!In!other!words,!once!managers!identify!con<

flicts,! they! are! likely! to! do! something! about! them;! namely,! to!

attempt!changes!that!mitigate!or!reduce!conflict!(Brorström!and!

Siverbo!2004;!Katz!and!Flynn!2013;!Pascale!1990;!Rahim!2002).!

This! observation! is! consistent! with! findings! from! managerial!

cognition!research!that!stress!the!connection!between!perceived!

instabilities!in!the!immediate!environment!of!managers!and!their!

response.!It!has!been!shown!that!managers’!perceptions!power<

fully! guide! actions! concerning! strategic! choices! (Foss! and! Lin<

denberg!2013;!Nadkarni!and!Barr!2008;!Stubbart!1989).!

Managers! have!material,! cognitive! and! social! incentives!

to!reduce!conflict! in!their!organization,!and!their!formal!and!in<

formal! position! offers! the! opportunities! to! undertake! action! in!

this! direction.! First,! conflict! may! indicate! inadequate! control,!

which! in! turn!may! threaten! a!manager’s! position! or! his! or! her!

ability! to! comply!with!performance! targets! (see!Chapter!1).! Se<

cond,!conflict!may!be!an!opportunity!to!exploit!a!power!vacuum:!

where!potential!rivals!fight,!an!opposing!coalition!against!mana<

gerial!action!becomes! less! likely!(Mumby!2005).!Brokerage!and!

arbitration!between!contesting! factions!also!present!opportuni<

ties!for!managers!to!increase!their!influence!(Burt!1992).!Third,!

structural! conflict! may! indicate! suboptimally! designed! struc<

tures! or! processes,! which! might! negatively! impact! managerial!

capacity!and!create!performance!problems!(cf.!Ouchi!1977).!

Implementing! reorganizations! allows! managers! to! deal!

with!structural!conflict.!Managers!can!use!change!to!define!new!


!

48 !

structures,! policies! and! procedures.! That! is,! change! enables!

managers!to!create!a!better!position!which!might!be!considered!

superior!compared!to!the!status!quo,!either!because!changes!will!

bring!about!direct!benefits! (e.g.,! increased!managerial! capacity)!

or! indirect!ones!(e.g.,!better!organizational!performance).!Given!

the!previous,!we!hypothesize!that:!

!

Hypothesis' 1—Perceptions! of! structural! conflict! will! in<

crease!the!likelihood!of!reorganizations.!

!

!

Different forms of conflict and types of reorganization !

Type! E! changes! usually! involve! the! use! of! financial! incentives!

(e.g.,! bonus! and! targeting),! layoffs! and! downsizing! (Beer! and!

Nohria! 2000;! also! cf.! Huy! 2001).! Typically,! these! changes! are!

guided!by! the!notion! that! structural! reorganization! can!quickly!

improve!return!value!for!shareholders!or!company!owners.!In!its!

archetypical! form,! type! E! changes! are! top<down! interventions!

that!transform!structures!and!systems,!that!is,!the!“hardware”!of!

the!organization.!These!are!the!sort!of!“tough”!reforms!that!place!

companies!and!managers!under! the! spotlight!of!public!opinion:!

drastic! layoffs! or! merging! of! corporate! divisions.! But! type! E!

changes!may!not!necessarily!be! aggressive!nor,! as! the! common!

wisdom! suggests,! necessary! hostile! against! frontline! workers.!

For! example,! delayering! initiatives! may! be! directed! to! specific!

managerial!echelons,!and!not!operative!levels.!In!either!case,!the!

central! idea!behind! type!E!change! is! that!cost<cutting!structural!

reorganization! improves! return! value! of! the! company,! not! only!

by!reducing!transactional!costs!but!also!by!reaffirming!top<down!

control!over!activities!(Williamson!1967).!

! Type!O!changes,!by!contrast,!involve!more!“indirect”!ways!

of! reorganization.!Archetypally,! type!O! changes! refer! to! gradual!

and! consented! adjustments! to! organizational! policies,! proce<

dures! and! human! capabilities! (i.e.,! the! organizational! “soft<


!

49 !

ware”).!Training!and!socialization!programs,!process!reengineer<

ing,!and!innovation!initiatives!are!examples!of!this!type!of!reor<

ganization.! These! long<term! interventions! focus! on! improving!

corporate!procedures!and!human!capabilities!to!improve!overall!

performance.!Whereas! exponents!of! type! E! change! assume! that!

nippy! structural! change! directly! brings! benefits,! advocates! of!

type!O!change!propose!that!in!order!to!improve!return!value!and!

performance!one!may!adjust!the!way!work!is!done!within!exist<

ing!structures!by!focusing!on!improving!the!quality!of!the!social!

relations!within!the!organization.!The!idea!is!that!type!O!change!

improves! organizational! capacity! by! increasing! commitment,!

addressing! task! redundancies! and! enhancing! the! competencies!

of!organizational!members!(Beer!and!Nohria!2000).!

Admittedly,!type!E!and!type!O!are!not!mutually!exclusive!

sets.! In! reality! corporate! initiatives! of! planned! change! may! be!

mixed.!Case!studies!of!reorganizations!at!ASDA—the!British!retail!

company—and!General!Motors!illustrate!the!fact!that!both!types!

of!change!may!co<occur!(Beer!and!Nohria!2000;!Freeland!2005).!

However,! it! is! useful! to! study! them! separately! because! the! un<

derlying!theories!of!reorganization!differ!and!their!organization<

al!effects!are!not!necessarily!the!same.!

!! We!hypothesize! that!given! that!managers!recognize!ver@

tical'conflict,!they!are!more!likely!to!opt!for!type!E!change.!Verti<

cal!conflict!has!the!potential!to!directly!affect!hierarchical!agency!

relations.! For! example,! sustained! conflict! between!workers! and!

management! is! likely! to! affect! organizational! productivity!

(Rahim! 2011).! In! a! context! of! vertical! conflict,! managers! may!

adopt!type!E!changes!that!in!turn!allow!them!to!reengineer!prob<

lematic! structures! and! renew! control! over! relations! of! delega<

tion.!Changing!the!number!of!hierarchical!layers!(delayering)!or!

the!number!of!employees!(downsizing)!are!examples!of!changes!

that! (a)! potentially! reduce! the! amount! of! resources! needed! to!

control!operations!and!(b)!reaffirm!vertical!lines!of!authority.!In!

contrast,! in!the!vertical!conflict!context,!type!O!changes!may!not!

necessarily! help! or! even! be! feasible! because! conflict! between!


!

50 !

asymmetrically!powerful!parties!may!preclude!the!conditions!for!

implementing!gradual!and!consented!changes.!Type!O!initiatives!

rely!on!the!implicit!assumption!that!managers!have!the!legitima<

cy!to!formulate!and!gather!support!around!change.!However,!in!a!

context!of!stark!vertical!conflict,!managerial!authority!and!legit<

imacy!may!very!well!be!at! the!center!of!dispute!(Buchanan!and!

Badham!2004).!

!

Hypothesis' 2—Perceptions! of! vertical! structural! conflict!

will!increase!the!likelihood!of!type!E!reorganizations,!rel<

ative!to!type!O!reorganizations.!

!

! A!different!picture! is! likely! to! emerge! in!horizontal' con@

flict,! which! relates! to! problems! rooted! in! intra<organizational!

interdependence.!It!refers!to!disagreements!between!parties!in!a!

heterarchical!relation;!that!is,!when!no!one!can!exert!clear!domi<

nation! over! another.! These! conflicts!might! acquire! the! form! of!

turf! battles! or! perhaps! mutual! obstruction! among! antagonistic!

departments!(Buchanan!and!Badham!2004).!In!any!case,!by!dis<

tressing! functional! relations! of! coordination,! horizontal! conflict!

can!compromise!an!organization’s!set!of!established!procedures,!

policies!and!workflows.! In! this!situation,! type!O!change!may!as<

sist!managers!by!(a)!adjusting!the!division!of!work!and!redefin<

ing! roles! and! responsibilities,! and! (b)! creating! or! improving!

channels! of! communication,! and! enhancing! commitment! and!

coordination! among! mutually! dependent! organizational! units.!

Process<reengineering! programs,! for! instance,! may! bring! con<

testing!parties! together! to!deliberate! and! reduce! task!disagree<

ment.! Similarly,! collective! target! schemes! (e.g.,! Six! Sigma! pro<

grams)! can! be! introduced! to! align! subunit! goals,! and! socializa<

tion! and! team<building! interventions! can! be! implemented! to!

increase!(social)!cohesion!in!the!organization!(Ashforth!and!Mael!

1989;!Podsakoff,!Whiting,!Podsakoff!and!Blume!2009).!All!these!

interventions!have!in!common!the!potential!to!improve!commu<

nication,! increase! coordination! and! adjust! the!division! of! tasks.!


!

51 !

Thus!they!can!potentially!contribute!to!mitigate!horizontal!con<

flict.!

Conversely,! type! E! changes!may! be! ineffective! and! even!

counterproductive,!given!horizontal!conflict.!First,!type!E!chang<

es!primarily!affect!structures.!Given!the!conditions!of!horizontal!

conflict,!such!changes!as!downsizing,!outsourcing,!or!delayering!

may! deepen! confrontation! between! antagonistic! subunits.! For!

instance,! downsizing! programs! are! more! likely! to! affect! staff!

than!line!positions,!potentially!escalating!conflicts!between!staff!

and!line!departments!(Koontz!and!Weihrich!2007).!Second,!reli<

ance!on!external!consultants,!typical!of!type!E!initiatives,!is!likely!

to! breed! internal! resentment! and! hostility! (Beer! and! Nohria!

2000;! Cummings! and!Worley! 2008).! Attempting! to! solve! hori<

zontal! conflict! by! implementing! type! E! reorganization!might! in!

effect!breed!vertical!conflicts.!

!

Hypothesis' 3—Perceptions! of! horizontal! structural! con<

flict!will!increase!the!likelihood!of!type!O!reorganizations,!

relative!to!type!E!reorganizations.!

!

Research design

Data !

As! in! Chapter! 1,! we! used! data! collected! from! a! survey! among!

Dutch!managers.!However,!because!several!variables!of! interest!

were! included! only! in! the! second! wave! of! data! collection,! the!

analysis!that!follows!uses!cross<sectional!data!collected!in!2006.!

The!sample!used!below!consists!of!238!top!managers!of!private!

organizations!operating!in!the!tertiary!sector!(financial!services,!

transportation!and!logistics,!and!general!services!like!hostelling,!

catering,!and!legal!services),!with!complete!information!as!to!all!

variables!central!to!this!analysis.!

!


!

52 !

!

!

Reorganization !

We! used! three! measures! of! reorganization.! All! measures! are!

based! on! self<reports! and! focus! on! interventions! planned! and!

implemented! by! the!management! of! the! organization.! First,!we!

measured! incipient' change.!Managers!were! asked!whether! they!

intended!to!implement!any!reorganization!in!the!near!future,!by!

the! time! of! interview.! Of! the! sampled!managers,! 31%! reported!

planned! incipient! change.! Second,! in! order! to! capture! type' E'

change,! we! asked! managers! whether! they! were! implementing!

changes!initiated!by!the!management!that!affected!the!structure!

or!general!configuration!of!the!company,!such!as!merging,!down<

sizing! and!delayering! initiatives.2! Response!was! coded!dichoto<

mously!(i.e.,!1:!change;!0:!no!change).!Of!the!sampled!managers,!

38%!reported!occurrence!of!type!E!change.!Finally,!respondents!

were! asked! about! type' O' changes,! operationalized! in! the! inter<

view! as! changes! implemented! by! the! management! in! human!

resources,! finances,! or! production! policies,! such! as! introducing!

total!quality!programs,!new!training!programs!or!process!reen<

gineering.! As! before,! the! response! was! coded! dichotomously.!

More!than!half!of!the!sample!(57%)!reported!this!form!of!change.!

Overall,!40.2%!(N=201)!of!sampled!managers!who!reported!type!

O!change,!also!reported!type!E!change.!

!

!

Structural conflict !

We!used! four!measures!of! (perceived)! structural! conflict.!Verti@

cal'conflict!was!measured!with!two!questions.!The!first!item!was!

!2!This!is!not!a!multi<category!measurement!but!a!single!item!intended!to!meas<

ure!type!E!change!as!a!general!event.!This!is!also!the!case!for!the!measurement!

of!type!O!change.!

!


!

53 !

“Does!your!organization!experience!problems!regarding!conflicts!

between!managers! and! employees?”! (VC1),! and! the! second!was!

“Does!your!organization!experience!problems!regarding!conflicts!

between!the!top!manager(s)!and!the!leaders!of!the!different!de<

partments?”!(VC2).!Answers!in!both!cases!range!from!0:!no!prob<

lems! to! 3:! severe! problems.!Horizontal' conflict! was! also!meas<

ured! with! two! items:! “To! what! extent! do! you! agree! with! the!

statement…! ‘There! are! conflicts! because…! departments! in! this!

organization!act!first!in!their!own!interest!rather!than!in!the!in<

terest!of! the!organization!as!a!whole’”! (HC1);!and!the!statement!

“Departments!do!not!coordinate”!(HC2).!Response!was!registered!

on! a! five<point! scale! ranging! from! 0:! strongly! disagree! to! 4:!

strongly!agree.!

!

Control variables !

We! included! controls! in! our! analyses! to! avoid! confounding! re<

sults.!First,!size!of!the!organization!is!measured!as!the!number!of!

departments!(departments)!and!the!number!of!employees!on!the!

payroll! (employees).! The! number! of! echelons! was!measured! as!

the!number!of!hierarchical! layers!between!the!highest!and! low<

est! official! in! the! organization.! Perceived! technological' change!

was!measured!by!asking!respondents!to!what!extent!they!agreed!

that! technologies! required! in! the!work! process! had! changed! in!

recent!years.!Perceived!change!in!required!technical!and!profes<

sional!skills!was!measured!by!asking!to!what!extent!respondents!

agreed!that!required!skills! for!the!work!process!had!changed!in!

recent!years.!Response! codes! for! technological! and! skill! change!

range!from!0:!strongly!disagree!to!4:!strongly!agree.!

We! also! used!measures! of! ecological! change! (cf.! Porter!

1980;! 1985).! We! measured! perceived! competition! with! two!

questions,! both! on! a! five<point! scale! running! from! 0:! strongly!

disagree!to!4:!strongly!agree:!“To!what!extent!do!you!agree!that…!

the!market!of!your!organization! is!characterized!by!strong![for<

eign/domestic]!competition”! (foreign!competition!and!domestic!


!

54 !

competition).! Similarly,! perceived! vertical' dependence! was! cap<

tured!with!two!items,!both!with!a! five<point!scale!running! from!

0:! strongly! disagree! to! 4:! strongly! agree:! “This! organization!

strongly!depends!on!its![suppliers/customers!or!users]”!(suppli<

er! dependence! and! customer! dependence,! respectively).! The!

influence!of!regulation!was!measured!with!a!single!item:!“In!gen<

eral,! is! change! in! your! organization! affected! because! it! clashes!

with! governmental! regulation/legislation?”! with! a! dummy! an<

swer!category!(0:!no!and!1:!yes).!Finally,!we!controlled! for!eco<

nomic! subsector,! which! captured! unobserved! heterogeneity!

among! managers! across! three! subsectors:! transportation! and!

logistics!services!(18.6%),!financial!services!(11.4%)!and!general!

services! (70.6%).! Classification! was! done! using! the! Standaard!

Bedrijfsindeling! Code.! Table! 2.1! summarizes! descriptive! statis<

tics!for!all!variables!used!in!our!analyses.!

Descriptive statistics and method !

We! were! interested! in! examining! the! relation! between! covari<

ates!and!reported!incidence!and!type!of!change.!In!particular,!we!

wanted!to!test!whether!differences!in!recognized!structural!con<

flict!were!related!to!types!of!reorganization.!First,!given!that!the!

data! is! self<reported! and!was! collected! through! a! single! instru<

ment,! we! performed! Harman’s! one<factor! test! and! exploratory!

factor!analysis!on!the!entire!set!of!variables!to!check!for!common!

method! variance.! These! showed! that! no! single! factor! emerges!

from!the!observed!data!and!that!one!general!factor!does!not!ac<

count! for! the! majority! of! the! covariance! across! measurements!

(com.!variance=14.4%).!

Data!exploration!(see!Table!2.1)!revealed!characteristics!

of! the! sample.! Measurements! of! change! inter<correlate,! which!

implies!that!sampled!managers!who!reported!one!type!of!change,!

are!also!likely!to!report!other!changes.!There!is!also!a!significant!

positive!correlation!(τ=0.38,!p<0.05)!between!VC1!and!VC2,!indi<

cating!that!managers!who!reported!conflicts!among!management!


!

55 !

TABLE&2.1&!!Different!reorganizations,!conflicts!and!controls&

&&

Min!:!Max!

M!

SD!

18.!

17.!

16.!

15.!

14.!

13.!

12.!

11.!

10.!

9.!

8.!

7.!

6.!

5.!

4.!

3.!

2.!

1.&

Type&E&change&

0:1&

.38&

6&6.00&

.09&

.11&

6.06&

6.03&

6.00&

.10&

.05&

6.04&

6.01&

.02&

.01&

6.01&

.06&

.16&

.13&

.21&

2.&

Type&O&change&

0:1&

.57&

6&6.05&

.05&

.04&

6.02&

.06&

.07&

.12&

.07&

.03&

.03&

.07&

.15&

.10&

.07&

.06&

.25&

&3.&

Incipient&change&

0:1&

.31&

6&6.07&

.21&

.06&

.08&

6.07&

.00&

.22&

.14&

.03&

.09&

.05&

.19&

.18&

.14&

.07&

&&

4.&

VC1&

0:3&

.46&

.66&

.06&

.11&

.03&

6.01&

.05&

6.02&

.07&

.03&

.05&

.12&

.10&

.20&

.15&

.38&

&&

&5.&

VC2&

0:3&

.71&

.74&

.04&

.14&

.05&

.14&

.05&

.03&

.09&

.03&

.01&

.03&

.12&

.13&

.16&

&&

&&

6.&

HC1&

0:4&

1.47&

1.06&

6.04&

6.01&

6.08&

6.08&

.05&

6.03&

.07&

.03&

6.02&

.11&

.05&

.34&

&&

&&

&7.&

HC2&

0:3&

1.27&

.97&

6.03&

.07&

.04&

6.02&

.04&

.03&

.07&

.07&

.06&

.14&

.10&

&&

&&

&&

8.&

Departments&

1:50&

6.25&

5.55&

.05&

.03&

.04&

.03&

.06&

.03&

6.04&

.04&

.18&

.41&

&&

&&

&&

&9.&

Employeesa&

5:1400&

70.00&

221.6&

.02&

.06&

6.04&

6.06&

.09&

.03&

.05&

.01&

.28&

&&

&&

&&

&&

10.&

Echelons&

0:7&

2.24&

1.45&

6.07&

.01&

6.02&

.01&

.01&

.12&

.10&

.04&

&&

&&

&&

&&

&11.&

Technology&

0:4&

2.38&

1.22&

6.06&

.04&

.12&

.09&

.09&

.07&

.38&

&&

&&

&&

&&

&&

12.&

Skills&&

0:4&

2.55&

1.11&

.03&

.02&

.16&

.09&

.06&

.12&

&&

&&

&&

&&

&&

&13.&

Competition&(foreign)&

0:4&

3.13&

1.01&

6.04&

6.02&

.25&

6.03&

.00&

&&

&&

&&

&&

&&

&&

14.&

Competition&(dom.)&

0:4&

1.21&

1.32&

6.27&

6.09&

6.03&

.11&

&&

&&

&&

&&

&&

&&

&15.&

Supplier&dep.&

0:4&

1.82&

1.44&

6.06&

.10&

.06&

&&

&&

&&

&&

&&

&&

&&

16.&

Customer&dep.&

0:4&

3.36&

.74&

.09&

.09&

&&

&&

&&

&&

&&

&&

&&

&17.&

Regulation&

0:1&

.28&

6&.11&

&&

&&

&&

&&

&&

&&

&&

&&

18.&

Sector&

1:3&

2.52&

.78&

&&

&&

&&

&&

&&

&&

&&

&&

&

NOTES:&

aMedian&is&reported&instead&to&account&for&the&influence&of&outliers&

Boxes&indicate&significant&correlations&(p<0.05)&

&

!!


!

56 !

and! employees! also! tend! to! report! conflicts! between! top!man<

agement!and!the!managers!of!departments!or!subunits.! !In!addi<

tion,!a!positive!correlation!between!HC1!and!HC2!(τ=0.34,!p<0.05)!

indicates! that! perceptions! of! lack! of! coordination! among! de<

partments!are!associated!with! the!belief! that!subunits!put! their!

interest!above!general!organizational!goals.!Measures!of!conflict!

correlate! with! measurements! of! size! (number! of! departments!

and/or! number! of! employees)! suggesting! that! larger! spans! of!

control!are!associated!with!increased!(perceived)!conflict!in!this!

sample!(Blau!1970;!Rahim!and!Bonoma!1979;!Williamson!1967).!

The!remaining!correlations!corroborate!typical!characteristics!of!

the!tertiary!sector:!for!instance,!intensive!use!of!skilled!labor!and!

strong! vertical! dependence! on! customers! (Van! Looy,! Gemmel!

and!Van!Dierdonck!2003).!

!

!TABLE!2.2!Different'types'of'conflict'(PCA'analysis)!

!

! Factorsa,!b!

' Vertical'

conflict'

Horizontal'

conflict'

Conflict!between!management!and!employees!(VC1)!!

0.84! !

Conflict!between!management!and!

department!leaders!(VC2)!0.82! !

Departments!acting!on!self<interest!

first!(HC1)!!! 0.84!

Departments!do!not!coordinate!

(HC2)!! 0.81!

NOTES:!a!Extraction!method!is!PCA!with!Varimax!rotation!and!Kaiser!normalization.!b!Only!correlations!equal!or!lager!than!0.3!

!

!

After!data!exploration,!we!wanted!to!make!sure!that!our!

measurements! of! (perceived)! conflict! were! consistent!with! the!

distinction! between! horizontal! and! vertical! dimensions! of! con<

flict.!We!performed!confirmatory!factor!analysis!using!all!conflict!

measures! (Table! 2.2).! The! results! confirm! these! are! consistent!

indicators! of! two! latent! factors! [KMO! test=0.6;! Bartlett’s! Test:!


!

57 !

Approx.! χ2! (3,! N=238)=215.7,! p<0.00],! which!we!map! onto! our!

theoretical! framework:! vertical! conflict! (λ=1.8)! and! horizontal!

conflict!(λ=1.1)!and!that!together!account!for!70.5%!of!observed!

variance.! For! each,!we! calculated! a! factorial! score! of! structural!

conflict!using!standard!regression.!We!used!these!scores!as!pre<

dictors.!

Finally,!in!order!to!test!hypotheses,!we!modeled!the!rela<

tion!between!conflict!and!change!in!a!series!of!logistic!models.!In!

the!first,!we!modeled!incipient!change!as!the!outcome!of!conflict!

measures!and!controls.!We!intended!to!estimate!the!overall!rela<

tion!between!conflict!and!the!likelihood!of!planned!organization<

al!change!in!the!sample.!Next,!we!developed!two!sets!of!models,!

each!using!a!different!type!of!change!as!outcome!variable.!These!

models!were! intended! to!explore! the!relation!between!(vertical!

and/or!horizontal)!conflict!and!types!of!change!(type!E!and!type!

O).!We! report! two!models! per! type! of! change:! full! and! best<fit!

models.! In! both! cases,! diagnostics! indicated! that! the! full!model!

did!not! fit! the!observed!data! and! consequently!we!used!Wald’s!

criterion! for!backward!model! specification.!We!report!our! find<

ings!next.!

!

Results

Table!2.3!shows!the!results!of!the!logistic!model!aimed!at!giving!

more! information! regarding!Hypothesis! 1.! Results! indicate! that!

the!full!model!(including!conflict!scores!and!controls)!provided!a!

statistically! significant! improvement! over! the! empty! model,! χ2!

(14,!N=238)=51.82,!p<0.00.!This!model!accounts! for!28%!of! the!

total!variance.!The!correct!prediction!rate!is!about!76%.!Further,!

Wald! tests! confirm! that! scores! of! both! vertical! and! horizontal!

conflict! are! significantly! and!positively! related! to! the! likelihood!

of! (incipient)! change,! when! controlling! for! size,! echelons,! per<

ceived! technological! and! skills! change,! competition,! vertical!de<

pendence,! regulation! and! cross<subsector! heterogeneity.! In!


!

58 !

terms!of!likelihood,!the!CI(95%)!of!the!odds!ratios!of!vertical!and!

horizontal!conflict!(0.96:1.81;!1.19:2.27,!respectively)!allow!us!to!

conclude! that!when! sampled!managers! score! above! average!on!

(perceived)! horizontal! conflict,! they! are! more! likely! to! report!

incipient! change! too,! vis<à<vis! those! who! score! below! average.!

Unfortunately! a! similar! strong! statement! cannot! be! concluded!

for! vertical! conflict,! but! the! presence! of! a! positive! relation! be<

tween!vertical!conflict!and! incipient!change!remains! interesting!

(b=0.27,! p<0.1).! Overall,! we! find! some! support! in! favor! of! Hy<

pothesis!1!in!that!sampled!managers!who!recognize!conflict!are!

indeed!more!likely!to!also!embark!on!(incipient)!change.!

!

!

TABLE!2.3!Effects'of'conflict'on'incipient'reorganization!!

! Incipient'change'

! Estimates! S.E.!

Vertical!conflict! !0.27*! 0.16!

Horizontal!conflict! !0.49**! 0.16!!

Departments!!

<0.01!!

0.03!

Employees! !0.00! 0.00!

Echelons! <0.03! 0.12!

Technology! !0.06! 0.15!Skills! !0.51**! 0.19!

Competition!(foreign)! <0.14! 0.16!

Competition!(domestic)! <0.37**! 0.14!

Supplier!dependence! !0.08! 0.12!

Customer!dependence! !0.24! 0.25!

Regulation! !0.83**! 0.35!! ! !

!

Differences!per!subsectora:!! !

Transport!and!logistics! !1.02! 0.45!

Financial! !1.23! 0.49!!

%!Correctb!!

76.10!!

Sensitivity! 90.40! !

Specificity! 43.10! !

Nagelkerke!R2! !0.28! !

N! !238! !NOTES:!a!Reference!category!is!“General!services”.!b!Overall!predictive!accuracy.!

Sig.!Codes:!*!p!<!0.1;!**!p!<!0.05!


!

59 !

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!T

ABLE!2.4!!!Effects'of'different'types'of'conflict'on'different'types'of'change!

!Type'E'change'

Type'O'change'

!!!!!!!!Full!m

odel!

!!!!!!!Fitted!model!

!!!!!!!Full!m

odel!

!!!!!!!Fitted!model!

!Estim

ates!S.E.!

Estim

ates!S.E.!

Estim

ates!S.E.!

Estim

ates!S.E.!

Vertical!conflict!

!!0.29**!

0.15!

!!0.29**!

0.15!

!!0.04!

0.15!

!!

Horizontal!conflict!

–0.06!

0.14!

!!

""0.26*!

0.14!

""0.27**!

0.14!

! Departments!

! –0.00!

! 0.31!

!!

! ""0.03!

! 0.03!

! ""0.02!

! 0.03!

Employees!

!!0.00!

0.00!

!!

!!0.00!

0.00!

!!

Echelons!

–0.08!

0.10!

–0.08!

0.09!

–0.01!

0.10!

!!

Technology!

!!0.06!

0.13!

!!

–0.00!

0.13!

!!

Skills!

!!0.17!

0.15!

!!0.22*!

0.13!

!!0.21!

0.15!

!!0.21*!

0.13!

Competition!(foreign)!

–0.03!

0.14!

!!

""0.13!

0.13!

""0.13!

0.13!

Competition!(dom

estic)!

–0.05!

0.11!

–0.02!

0.11!

""0.12!

0.11!

""0.12!

0.11!

Supplier!dependence!

–0.15!

0.10!

–0.14!

0.10!

–0.04!

0.10!

!!

Custom

er!dependence!

!!0.35*!

0.20!

!!0.33!

0.21!

!!0.01!

0.20!

!!

Regulation!

!!0.33!

0.33!

!!0.33!

0.33!

!!0.19!

0.33!

!!0.19!

0.32!

!!

!!

!!

!!

!! Differences!per!subsectora:!

!!

!!

!!

!!

Transport!and!logistics!

!!0.08!

0.39!

!!

–0.02!

0.37!

–0.03!

0.36!

Financial!

!!0.67!

0.44!

!!

!!0.72!

0.48!

!!0.73!

0.48!

! %!Correctb !

!! 64.30!

!!! 63.40!

!!! 61.80!

!!! 63.90!

!

Sensitivity!

85.70!

!85.70!

!39.20!

!43.10!

!Specificity!

29.70!

!27.50!

!78.70!

!79.40!

!Nagelkerke!R2!

!0.08!

!!0.08!

!!0.09!

!!0.09!

!N!

!238!

!!

!!

!!

!NO

TES:!

a !Reference!category!is!“General!services”.!

b !Overall!predictive!accuracy.!

*!p!<!0.1;!**!p!<!0.05!

!


!

60 !

Table!2.4!shows!the!results!of!the!models!that!explore!the!

relation!between!types!of!conflict!(and!controls)!and!two!differ<

ent! types!of!planned!change:! type!E!changes! (e.g.,!delayering!or!

downsizing)! and! type! O! changes! (e.g.,! process! reengineering! or!

HRM! interventions).! The! second! and! fourth!models! in!Table! 2.4!

indicate!the!best<fit!model! for!type!E!change!and!type!O!change,!

given!our!data.!Both!are!statistically!superior!over!the!respective!

empty!models:!χ2!(7,!N=238)=14.72,!p<0.05!(type!E!change)!and!

χ2!(8,!N=238)=16.43,!p<0.05!(type!O!change).!

For! type! E! changes,! the! fitted!model! has! an! overall! pre<

dictive!accuracy!of!about!63%!and!explains!about!8%!of!the!total!

variance.! Further,! it! shows! a! positive! and! significant! relation!

between! vertical! conflict! and! type! E! change! (b=0.29,! p<0.05),!

when! controlling! for! number! of! echelons,! changes! in! skills,! do<

mestic!competition,!vertical!dependence!and!regulation.!For!type!

O!changes,!the!fitted!model!has!an!overall!predictive!accuracy!of!

about! 64%! and! explains! 9%! of! the! total! variance.! This! model!

shows!a!positive!and!significant!relation!between!horizontal!con<

flict!and!type!O!change!(b=0.27,!p<0.05),!when!controlling!for!the!

number! of! departments,! changes! in! skills,! competition,! regula<

tion! and! subsector.! These! results! provide! evidence! supporting!

hypotheses!2!and!3!in!that,!in!our!sample,!type!E!change!signifi<

cantly!correlates!with!vertical!conflict,!whereas!type!O!change!is!

associated!with!horizontal!conflict.!

!

Discussion

In! approaches! to! planned! organizational! change,! the! structural!

conditions! that! relate! to! qualitatively! different! reorganizations!

have!been!somewhat!neglected! (Robertson,!Roberts!and!Porras!

1993),!particularly!the!relation!between!conflict!and!type!E!and!O!

reorganizations.!In!this!chapter,!we!proposed!that!differences!in!

structural! conflict! arising! from! formal! differentiation! in! the! or<

ganization!contribute!to!explain!why!managers!opt!for!different!


!

61 !

types! of! reorganization.! We! tested! this! proposition! using! data!

from!a!sample!of!Dutch!managers!working!in!the!tertiary!sector.!

We! found! evidence! in! favor! of! the! idea! that! perceived! conflict!

across!vertical!and!horizontal!fault!lines!correlates!with!different!

forms!of!planned!organizational!change.!Namely,!statistical!mod<

els! suggest! that! sampled!managers!who! recognize! vertical! con<

flict!were!also!likely!to!report!type!E!changes;!whereas!managers!

who! perceived! horizontal! conflict! were! likely! to! report! type! O!

changes!instead.!

However,!at!least!two!limitations!need!acknowledgment.!

First,! the! data!we! used! in! our! analyses! comes! from!Dutch<only!

managers!in!a!specific!economic!sector.!This!poses!the!question!

as!to!whether!observed!effects!are!observable!in!other!samples.!

For! example,! differences! as! to! “conflict! cultures”! (i.e.,! socially!

shared! norms! for! how! conflict! should! be! managed)! may! have!

important!implications!for!a!full<fledged!study!of!conflict!arising!

from! structural! differentiation! (Gelfand,! Leslie,! Keller! and! De!

Dreu! 2012;! Parker! and! Bradley! 2000).! Perhaps! structural! con<

flict,!as!defined!above,!is!sector<dependent!(e.g.,! in!some!sectors!

like! the! creative! industries,! discrepancies! may! be! encouraged!

rather! than! a! source! of! concern! for!managers).! Also,! the! struc<

tural!possibilities!of!type!E!change!or!type!O!change!might!differ!

across! economic! sectors! (e.g.,! managers! in! public! enterprises!

simply!may! not! be! able! to! implement! aggressive! structural! ad<

justment!without!legal!mandate!or!strong!political!leverage;!Nie<

to!Morales,!Wittek!and!Heyse!2013).!Hence,!future!cross<cultural!

and!sectorial!work!would!be!highly!appropriate,!both!to!explore!

further!nuances!and!assess!the!external!validity!of!our!findings.!

Second,!since!our!focus!is!on!conflict!and!planned!organi<

zational! change,! we! decided! to! rely! on! self<reports.! Sampled!

managers!were! selected! precisely! because! they!were! in! an! ad<

vantageous!position!to!inform!us!about!reorganizations!and!their!

perceptions!of!structural!conflict!in!their!organizations!(Gerhart,!

Wright,! McMahan! and! Snell! 2000;! Huselid! and! Becker! 2000).!

Nevertheless,!future!research!may!greatly!benefit!from!collecting!


!

62 !

additional!data!from!complementary!sources!as!well!as!multiple!

informants! in! each! organization.! Despite! these! limitations,! we!

believe!our!argument!and!findings!have!three!important!implica<

tions!for!management!theory!and!practice.!

First,! our! reasoning! stressed! the! connection! between!

structural! characteristics! of! hierarchies! and! heterarchies,! the!

form! of! organizational! conflict! and! type! of! reorganization! (see!

also!Kolb!and!Putnam!1992).!Based!on!this,!we!explored!the!im<

plications!for!a!theory!of!reorganizations.!The!implication!of!our!

results!is!that!reorganizations!can!also!be!seen!as!a!way!of!man<

aging!conflict.!That!is,!there!is!an!implicit!functionalist!argument!

that!comes!largely!in!three!steps:!(a)!differentiation!of!authority!

and! responsibility! hatches! conflict;! (b)! once!managers!perceive!

conflict,!they!have!the!incentive!to!mitigate!it,!and!(c)!launching!

specific! forms! of! reorganization! may! be! a! response! to! specific!

forms! of! conflict,! that! is,! an! attempt! to! mitigate! conflict.! We!

showed!that!in!our!sample,!perceptions!of!conflict!correlate!with!

increased!likelihood!of!reorganization,!and!differences!in!conflict!

relate!to!differences!in!the!type!of!reorganization.!This!evidence!

supports! the! underlying! argument.! If! corroborated! by! further!

research,!this!may!add!support!to!the!idea!that!managers!do!not!

reorganize!based!only!on!considerations!related!to!business!and!

ecological! contingencies,! but! that! the! propensity! to! embark! on!

reorganizations! can! also! be! also! attributed! to! differences! in!

structural!conflict.!

Second,! our! study! showed! that! vertical! and! horizontal!

conflicts!may!well!be!related!to!different!types!of!reorganization.!

This!may!shed!added!light!on!why!some!forms!of!reorganization!

are! more! or! less! common! (frequency! of! reorganizations),! and!

more!or! less!effective! (i.e.,!whether! reorganizations!do!mitigate!

concrete!forms!of!conflict).!For!instance,!Beer!and!Nohria!(2000,!

134)! claimed! that! type! E! reorganizations! are!more! common! in!

companies!where! corporate!boards! readily!push! for! swift! reor<

ganization.! If! our! argument! holds,! an! additional! explanation! to!

Beer!and!Nohria’s!observation!is!that!higher!rates!of!type!E!reor<


!

63 !

ganization! not! only! respond! to! general! financial! pressures,! but!

also! to! the! possibility! that! managers! likely! include! considera<

tions!related!to!vertical!conflict!in!their!diagnosis—for!example,!

improving! troublesome! labor! relations.! Conversely,! one! study!

found!that! in!a!representative!sample!of!Dutch! innovating!com<

panies,!the!majority!(69%)!were!implementing!changes!in!inter<

nal!policies! and!processes,! that! is,! type!O! changes! (CBS!2013)—

incidentally,!note!also!that!overall!in!our!Dutch!sample!managers!

reported!more! type!O!change! (57%)! than! type!E! change! (38%).!

These!differences!may!be!ascribed!to!whether!managers!in!these!

organizations! are! more! or! less! exposed! to! horizontal! conflicts,!

relative!to!vertical!ones.!Of!course,!we!do!not!pretend!to!explain!

these!differences!solely!on!the!basis!of!structural!conflict,!nor!do!

we!want! to! imply! that! it! is! possible! to! do! so.!Nevertheless,! the!

observation! stresses! the! possibility! that! various! organizational!

structures!may!set!conditions!for!particular!reorganization!prac<

tices.! For! instance,! companies!with! a! complex! division! of!work!

may!be!more!prone!to!horizontal!conflicts!and!thus!type!O!reor<

ganization!may!be!more!effective!in!mitigating!conflict.!

Third,! if! structural! conflict! is! indeed!associated!with! re<

organizations,!as!we!hypothesized,!then!reorganization!might!in!

effect! lead!to! lower! levels!of!(perceived)!conflict!rather!than!in<

creased!ones,!of!which!the!latter!is!an!implicit!assumption!in!the!

literature!on!change!management!(see!e.g.,!Palmer,!Dunford!and!

Akin!2009;!Streatfield!2001).!We!do!not!suggest!that!reorganiza<

tion! generates! no! resistance,! or! that! conflict! can! be! mitigated!

solely!by!reorganizing.!We!simply!point!out! that! reorganization!

may!counterbalance!managerial!perceptions!of!conflict!(see!also,!

McKinley! and! Scherer! 2000).! Another! issue! is! that! if!managers!

attempt! organizational! change! to! mitigate! (beliefs! of)! conflict,!

reorganization!may! not! necessarily! boost! or! improve! organiza<

tional! performance.! This! may! seem! counterintuitive! given! the!

deep<rooted!idea,!especially!in!popular!OD!literature,!that!change!

is!necessary!for!organizational!survival!and!performance!(Janod!

and!Saint<Martin!2004;!Langley!et!al.!2009).!However,!our!argu<


!

64 !

ment!concedes!the!possibility!that!reorganizations,!as!an!instru<

ment! of! conflict! mitigation,! may! not! affect! organizational! per<

formance!at!all,!or!may!do!so!negatively.!To! illustrate! this,! con<

sider! the! case! of! interventions! that! respond! to! false! beliefs! of!

conflict.! In! this! cases,!managers!who!perceive! either! vertical! or!

horizontal!conflicts!are!likely!to!also!implement!reorganizations,!

even!when! conflicts! do!not! objectively! exist! or!were! effectively!

misdiagnosed.! Diverting! valuable! resources! into! unnecessary!

reorganization!may!affect!the!performance!of!the!organization.!

The! above! points! offer! possible! implications! for! our! ar<

gument!and!interesting!avenues!for!future!research,!as!we!shall!

discuss!below.!For!now,!this!chapter!shows!that!there!is!room!for!

further! specification!of! internal! structural! conditions! that!moti<

vate!managers! to!embark!on! forms!of! reorganization,!an!obser<

vation! that!may! have! relevant! consequences! for! organizational!

strategy!and!development.!

!

!

!

!

!

THREE Enforcing reorganization1 !

!

!

!

!

!

!

There! has! been!much! attention! for! public! sector! reform! in! the!

past! decades! (Pollitt! and! Bouckaert! 2004).! In! this! chapter,! we!

aim!to!complement!the!ongoing!debate!with!observations!on!two!

somewhat! neglected! issues.! First,! the! issue! of! how! reform! en<

forcement! capacity! is! built,! that! is,! the!process! of! attaining! and!

sustaining! control! in! order! to! implement! changes! (cf.! Barzelay!

and!Jacobsen!2009).!We!argue!that!the!success!of!a!reform!criti<

cally!depends!on! implementers’!ability! to!enforce! the!reform! in!

the!daily!routines!of!the!bureaucracy,!that!is,!to!build!sustainable!

reform!enforcement! capacity.!This! issue! is!particularly! relevant!

in!developing!and!newly! industrialized!countries!where!this!ca<

pacity! is! limited!or! even!non<existent! (Dussauge!Laguna!2011).!

Second,! New! Public! Management! (NPM)! has! dominated! many!

reform!efforts!in!public!administrations!all!over!the!world.!Nev<

ertheless,! there! is! a! sizable! proportion!of! reforms! in!which!not!

NPM!but!the!general!need!to!increase!control!over!the!public!ad<

ministration! (Cejudo!2007)!provides! the!major! template! for! re<

form!(Pollitt!2001).!This!chapter!addresses!these!issues!by!ana<

lyzing!how!enforcement!capacity!was!built! in! the!context!of! the!

reorganization! of! the! Mexican! civil! service! that! took! place! be<

tween!2003!and!2012.!

!1!This!chapter!is!based!on!F.!Nieto!Morales,!L.!Heyse,!M.C.!Pardo!and!R.!Wittek.!

2014.!“Building!enforcement!capacity:!Evidence!from!the!Mexican!civil!service!

reform”,!Public'Administration'and'Development,!34,!389<405.!It! is!reproduced!

here!with!license!of!John!Wiley!and!Sons!(no.!3532600118139).!

ENFORCING!REORGANIZATION!

!

66 !

! The! SPC! (Servicio' Profesional' de' Carrera)! reform! intro<

duced! a! meritocratic! system! of! human! resource! management!

(HRM)! into! several! organizations! of! the!Mexican! federal! admin<

istration.2!The!goal!was! to!modernize!HRM!policies!and!systems!

to! guarantee! equal! opportunities! for! accessing! and! making! a!

career! in! the! federal! government.! The! reform! covered! the! top!

managerial! echelons! of! the! administration! (some! 36,000! posi<

tions).!The! SPC! reform!comprised!new!regulation!regarding!hir<

ing,!professional!development,! training,!performance!evaluation!

and!severance!of!federal!officials.!Although!influenced!in!its!dis<

course!by!a!NPM<like!rhetoric!(cf.!Muñoz!Gutiérrez!2005),!in!real<

ity! the! SPC! neither! introduced! market! mechanisms,! nor! did! it!

reduce! regulation!or! grant!more!autonomy! to!public!managers.!

Consequently,! the! SPC! may! be! better! conceived! as! a! neo<

Weberian!reform!(Dunn!and!Miller!2007)!that!attempted!to! im<

prove!central!control!and!create!homogenous!rules!with!the!ex<

plicit! intention!of! combating!patronage<based!practices! (Cejudo!

2007).!

As!happened!in!other!countries!implementing!similar!re<

forms!(e.g.,!Chile,!Brazil!and!Argentina),!soon!after!the!adoption!

of! the!SPC! law,!commentators!raised!concerns!about! its!viability!

(Grindle!2012).!Main!critiques!included!faulty!design,!inability!to!

galvanize! support,! lack! of! resources,! resistance! to! change! and!

persistence! of! patronage! (Arellano! Gault! 2006;! Martínez! Puón!

2006;! OECD! 2011).! Given! these! difficulties,! that! the! SPC! reform!

and! its! implementation! persisted! is! noteworthy;! not! only! be<

cause!reforms!often!do!not!get!the!expected!results,!but!because!

implementers!may!not!have! the!enforcement!capacity! to! imple<

ment! changes! in! the! first! place! (Bovens! and! ’t! Hart! 1998).! Re<

!2!In!principle,!the!SPC!reform!concerns!all!federal!ministries!and!agencies.!How<

ever,! it! excludes!a!number!of!organizations;!namely,! those! related! to!national!

security!and!foreign!policy!(e.g.,!Ministry!of!Foreign!Affairs),!concrete!autono<

mous! organizations! (e.g.,! Federal! Electoral! Institute! or! the! National! Commis<

sion!of!Human!Rights),!and!the!parastatal!sector!(e.g.,!state<owned!companies).!

!


!

67 !

forms!often!fail!to!reach!their!goals!because!lawmakers!leave!the!

“dirty!work”! of! enforcement! to! public! officials,!who! often! have!

few!organizational!or!institutional!means!to!overcome!resistance!

to! reform.! In! the! reform! literature,! at! least! three! contingencies!

for! successful! enforcement! are! typically! highlighted:! command<

ment! over! resources,! strong! support! and! effective! rule<making!

(see!e.g.,!Caiden!1991;!Patashnik!2008;!Peters!2001).!

Whereas! the! SPC! was! initiated! in! a! time! of! ample! re<

sources! and! political! support,! within! a! relatively! short! period!

these!favorable!circumstances!disappeared.!Contrary!to!what!the!

literature! might! predict,! the! reform! survived! all! policymaking!

stages! and! two! changes! of! administration,! policy! components!

remained!operational,!and! it!achieved! important!objectives.!For!

example,! since! 2007,! more! than! 29,000! vacancies! have! been!

filled!through!SPC!procedures,!96%!of!the!organizations!covered!

by!the!SPC!law!developed!training!programs,!the!performance!of!

some!22,000!federal!employees!became!regularly!evaluated,!and!

90%!of!the!“consolidation!goals”!of!the!reform!were!reached!by!

2012!(SFP!2012).!This!reform!thus!presents!a!puzzle:!on!the!one!

hand,! it! has! been!marked! by! severe! complications! and! limited!

support.! In! fact,! soon! after! its! adoption,! the! SPC! underwent! an!

acute! legitimacy! crisis! in! the! sense! that! it! experienced! strong!

decline,!low!levels!of!acceptance,!and!strong!resistance!from!fed<

eral! agencies! (cf.! Alink,! Boin! and! ’t! Hart! 2001).! On! the! other!

hand,!there!have!been!important!accomplishments,!starting!with!

the!fact!that!the!SPC!reform!continued!to!be!implemented!in!spite!

of!many! setbacks.! How!were! the! implementers! able! to! enforce!

change,!despite! the! lack!of! resources!and!political! support?!Are!

there!broader! lessons!for!public!administration!theory!and!par<

ticularly!for!reform!enforcement!capacity!to!be!distilled!from!this!

case?!

A!contingency!framework!based!on!the!role!of!resources,!

coalitions!and!rule<making!seems!insufficient!to!explain!the!fact!

that!SPC! implementers!managed!to!attain!some!control!over! im<

plementation.! We! therefore! propose! an! alternative! process<


!

68 !

argument! based! on! the! adaptive! combination! of! control! strate<

gies.!There!are!various!reasons!for!this.!First,!extant!research!is!

characterized! mostly! by! descriptive! and! prescriptive! accounts,!

mainly! focused! on! doctrinal,! rhetorical! and! design! aspects! of!

reforming!(Barzelay!and!Gallego!2006).!By!contrast,!there!is!little!

work! that! unpacks! the! dynamic! relations! between! micro<

strategies! of! implementers! and! (macro)! reform! outcomes.! Se<

cond,!previous! research!has!mainly! focused!on! the! role!of!poli<

cymakers!or!the!dynamics!of!political!control!of!the!bureaucracy!

(e.g.,!Ingraham!1997;!Pollitt!and!Bouckaert!2004;!Wood!and!Wa<

terman! 1991).! The! role! of! top! bureaucrats! in! charge! of! imple<

mentation! is! often! neglected.!We! argue! that! strategies! devised!

and!pursued!by!implementers!to!gain!control!over! implementa<

tion!are! an! important! aspect! of! reform!success.!Third,!most! re<

search! on! public! management! and! policy! reform! is! devoted! to!

Western!cases.!The!Mexican!case!broadens!the!scope!of!research!

on! enforcement! capacity,! and! also! has! implications! for! general!

debates! on! government! capacity! and! development! (Andrews!

2013;!Grindle!and!Hilderbrand!1995).!

This!study!makes!two!distinct!contributions.!Theoretical<

ly,!we!develop!a!framework!for!studying!reform!enforcement.!In!

particular,!we!propose!that!implementers’!control!strategies!are!

context<dependent! and! constantly! need! repairing! to! regain,!

maintain!or!increase!legitimacy.!Thereby,!the!(re)combination!of!

control! strategies! has! different! outcomes! in! terms! of! coordina<

tion! and! compliance,! both! relevant! conditions! for! reform! en<

forcement.! Empirically,! the! opportunity! to! conduct! interviews!

with!top!officials!directly!involved!in!the!execution!and!enforce<

ment!of!the!SPC!provides!unique!empirical!insights!into!the!black!

box!of!high<level!bureaucratic!strategic!management.!Specifical<

ly,! this! study! systematically! traces! the! evolution! of! the! imple<

mentation!process!of!a!large<scale!reform.!

!

!

!


!

69 !

!

Reform survival in adverse conditions

Meager resources, lack of support and faulty rules !

The!SPC!became!an! important!part!of! the!modernization!agenda!

of! Mexico! during! the! 2000<2006! administration.! Resources!

poured! into! its! implementation,! especially! during! the! first! two!

years:! a! new!department!was! created! (the!Unit! of! Civil! Service!

and!Human!Resources,! later!renamed!Unit!of!Human!Resources!

Policy,! UHRP),! funds! were! budgeted,! and! President! Vicente! Fox!

(2000<2006)! backed! the! reform! in! a! number! of! statements!

(Dussauge!Laguna!2005;!2011).!Hence,! important!contingencies!

for!successful!reform!were!present!right!from!the!start.!

However,! complications! arose! quickly! since! the! reform!

directly! threatened! patronage! practices,! deeply! entrenched! in!

the! Mexican! administrative! system! (Merino! 2006).! It! directly!

challenged! the! discretion! over! human! resources! that! political!

and!bureaucratic!leaders!traditionally!enjoyed.!In!particular,!the!

SPC!significantly!changed!the!way!public!organizations!recruited!

and! administered! their! managerial! core.! Thus,! the! stakes! for!

actors!involved!in!this!reform!were!high!(Klingner!and!Arellano!

Gault! 2006;! Pardo! 2005;! for! a! recent! discussion! on! patronage,!

see!Grindle!2012).!

In! addition,! lawmakers!were! vague! on! the! quantity! and!

quality! of! control!mechanisms!available! to! the! enforcing!minis<

try.! In! the! Mexican! system,! after! law! enactment,! the! executive!

branch! creates! rules! for! the! implementation! of! new! legislation!

(bylaws! and! other! regulations).! This! means! that! implementers!

have!room!for!maneuvering!after!enactment,! limited!by!the! law!

and!the!President.!This!was!also!the!case!for!the!SPC:!most!regu<

latory!details!were! left! to! a!bylaw,! and! several!parts!of! the! law!

remained!open!to!broad!interpretation!(Fócil!Arteaga!2009).!For!

example,! although! the! law! is! strict! on!which! positions!must! be!


!

70 !

occupied! by! tenured! officials,! it! established! ambiguous! criteria!

for!exceptions:! “In!exceptional!cases!and!when!the!social!order,!

public!services,!sanitation,!safety!or!environment!of!any!area!or!

region!of!the!country!become!endangered!as!a!result!of!disasters!

caused!by!natural!phenomena,!by!accident!or!force!majeure,!the!

head! of! the! agency! or! the! chief! administrative! officer! […]!may!

authorize!the!temporary!appointment!to!a!vacancy![…],!without!

subjecting! to! the! recruitment! and! selection! procedures! of! this!

law”!(Ley'del'Servicio'Profesional'de'Carrera,!art.34).!

! Further,!the!reform!clearly!aimed!at!a!decentralized!sys<

tem.!However,!the!first!bylaw!(2004)!created!the!bases!for!a!cen<

tralized! operation.! Although! this! resulted! in! strong! regulatory!

powers!of! the!enforcing!agency,! the! rules! it!produced!were!un<

successful! in! lessening! imprecisions! and! mitigating! operative!

problems.!Moreover,!centralization!created!additional!problems!

and!warning!signs!of!resistance!against!a!tightly!centralized!sys<

tem!soon!appeared!(CIDE!2007;!Fócil!Arteaga!2009).!First,! there!

were!indications!that!the!SPC!was!not!generating!the!desired!ef<

fects.!For!instance,!tenured!positions!covered!by!the!civil!service!

law! reduced! by! 12.5%! from!2005! to! 2011! (cf.! ASF! 2012;! Presi<

dencia!2011).!There!were!substantial!variations!between!hierar<

chical! levels! too.! From! 2006! to! 2010,! the! number! of! directors<

general! subject! to! the! SPC! dropped! by! almost! a! quarter! of! the!

original!universe!contemplated!in!the!law,!whereas!for!heads!of!

department! the!numbers!declined!by!11.9%!in! the!same!period!

(CIDE!2007).!Reform!was!openly!blocked!in!at!least!two!organiza<

tions,!and!in!many!agencies!operation!remained!precarious!(ASF!

2012).! Some! HRM! components! (notably! professional! develop<

ment)!had!been! inoperative!since! the!enactment!of! the! law!and!

exceptions!to!the!system!(e.g.,!art.34)!were!abused!and,!in!some!

cases,! administrative! procedures! and! rules! were! circumvented!

by!organizations!(OECD!2011).!


!

71 !

Second,! important! contingencies! for! reform! success!

changed:!there!was!a!drop!in!the!availability!of!resources,3!a!very!

constrained! timeframe! for! implementation!was!decided!on,!and!

there!was!disagreement! on!policy! objectives! (Dussauge!Laguna!

2011).!A!large!number!of!stakeholders!and!a!bulk!of!dependence!

relationships! further! complicated!matters.! Consequently,! politi<

cal! and! bureaucratic! support! quickly! declined! after! 2003,!

dropped! sharply! by! the! end! of! the! administration! and! became!

critical!at!the!start!of!President!Felipe!Calderón’s!administration!

(2006<2012).!Meanwhile,!the!authority!of!the!enforcing!ministry!

remained! open! to! challenge! from! other! agencies,! and! the! civil!

service! reform! stayed! low! on! the! electorate’s! and! politician’s!

priorities!(OECD,!2011).!

Thus,! the! SPC!experienced!a! seemingly! fatal! route!of! im<

plementation.! It!was!characterized!by!unsuccessful!operation,!a!

major! reconfiguration,! diminishing! resources,! and! the! inability!

to!fire!up!support!and!attain!compliance!with!the!new!system.!In!

response,! a! second!bylaw!was!adopted! (2007)!with! the!explicit!

purpose!of!correcting!some!of! these! inadequacies!by!drastically!

shifting!to!a!decentralized!model.!

!

Reform survival !

The! above! account! echoes! insights! from! the! literature! in! that!

reforms!are!problematic,!difficult!and!at!times!nearly!impossible!

(Bannink! and! Resodihardjo! 2006;! Pressman! and! Wildavsky!

1973).!It!also!shows!that!the!case!of!the!SPC!unsatisfactorily!met!

contingencies! like! sufficient! command! over! resources,! support!

and!effective!rules.!

!3!Budget!(adjusted!for! inflation)!allocated!to!the!UHRP!dropped!by!42.9%!from!

2005! to!2006,!and! then!again!by!34.8%!the!next!year.! In!2008!and!2011!saw!

increments! in! comparison! to!2007!and!2010:!16.8%!and!72.9%,! respectively.!

However,!on!average,!UHRP!budget!declined!yearly!by!8.9%!for!the!2005<2012!

period!(data!from:!Secretaría!de!Hacienda!y!Crédito!Público,).!

!


!

72 !

Nevertheless,!besides!the!manifold!complications!(see!al<

so! Klingner! and! Arellano! Gault! 2006,! or! Pardo! 2010),! the! SPC!

accomplishments! are! equally!noteworthy.!One! could! argue! that!

its! implementation! continued! despite! the! complications.! For!

example,!an!evaluation!by!the!Mexican!Congress!concluded:!“Af<

ter!seven!years!since!the!enactment!of!the!Professional!Civil!Ser<

vice! Act! and! four! years! since! it!was! supposed! to! be! integrated!

fully,4!the!Ministry!of!the!Public!Service!together!with!the!organ<

izations!of! the! federal! administration,! by!2010,! established!and!

implemented! bases! so! that! hiring! of! public! servants! is! done! in!

equality!of!opportunities![…].!It!was!also!verified!that!out!of!the!

seven!subsystems!of!the!SPC,!five![…]!operate!in!the!terms!of!ap<

plicable!rules”!(ASF!2012,!15).!In!addition,!it!reached!several!op<

erational!goals!and!(partial)!control!over!operation!of!the!SPC!has!

been! documented.! For! instance,! since! 2004,! implementers! en<

acted! 135! regulations,! of! which! about! half! remained! fully! en<

forceable! by! 2010.! Successful! implementation! of! the! SPC! was!

achieved!in!a!critical!27%!of!the!organizations!that!form!part!of!

the! SPC,! which! represents! 68.7%! of! all! tenured! positions! (ASF!

2012,! 5<16).! Further,! important! routines! were! developed! for!

hiring! and! recruitment,! for! information!management! and!most!

noticeably,!for!performance!evaluation!(SFP,!2012;!OECD!2011).!

We!do!not!wish!to!imply!that!the!SPC!has!achieved!all! its!

substantive!goals.!Recent!studies!by!Grindle!(2012)!and!the!OECD!

(2011)!cast!doubt!on!whether!the!future!of!Mexico’s!civil!service!

is! secured! and! on! whether! neo<Weberian! reforms! like! the! SPC!

have! had! the! desired! effect,! particularly! in! terms! of! increased!

central!control!over!public!agencies!and!less!discretional!power!

for! bureaucratic! leaders.! However,! any! serious! analysis! of! the!

available! evidence!must! also! recognize! that! the! SPC! reform! has!

survived,!if!not!well,!since!the!enactment!of!the!law!in!2003,!even!

!4!The!SPC!Law!established!that!the!government!had!180!days!to!decree!a!bylaw!

(trans.!art.!1)!and!that!the!“system!must!operate!fully!in!a!period!that!will!not!

exceed!three!years!after!the!enactment!of!this!law”!(trans.!art.!4).!

!


!

73 !

in! the! face! of! scarcity! of! resources,! weak! support! and! faulty!

rules.! As! evidenced! by! other! cases,! these! conditions! crippled!

other! efforts! to! change! in!Mexico! (Pardo! 2010)! and! elsewhere!

(Bovens!and!’t!Hart!1996),!and!are!antecedents!of!reforms!going!

wrong!(Caiden!1999).!What!then!explains!the!survival!of!the!SPC,!

given!these!unfavorable!contingencies?!We!posit!that!part!of!the!

answer!lies! in!the!implementers’!ability!to!redirect!strategies!to!

(re)gain!control!over!implementation,!both!in!response!to!failure!

of!previous!strategies!and!to!contingencies.!

!

Building enforcement capacity

Achieving compliance and coordination under uncertainty !

We!take!a!processual!stand!on!enforcement!capacity!by!studying!

control! strategies! available! to! and! applied! by! implementers!

through! time! at! the!micro! level,! and! the! overall! pattern! of! (re<

form)! enforcement! that! emerges! from! their! application.!We! ar<

gue! that! achieving!and! sustaining!enforcement! capacity! implies!

balancing! a! combination! of! goal! congruence! (compliance)! and!

coordination! among! implementers! and! reform! recipients.! Once!

implementers! devise! and! apply! strategies,! they! are! capable! of!

evaluating!whether! compliance! and/or! coordination! have! been!

achieved!(Steur!and!Wittek!2005).!Implementers!evaluate!prob<

lems! resulting! from! previous! interventions! and! adjust! their!

strategies!accordingly.!

Ours!contrasts!with!the!linear!processes!approach!to!re<

form! implementation,! where! successful! enforcement! requires!

sufficient! investments! in! time! and! resources! to! set! up! efficient!

incentive,! monitoring! and! control! structures! (Van! de! Ven! and!

Hargrave! 2004).!We! consider! that! the! non<linear! nature! of! re<

forming!is!of,!at!least,!equal!importance,!meaning!that!implemen<

tation!is!attempted!under!uncertainty!and!interdependence!con<

ditions,! streaming! from! a! complex! and! dynamic! politico<


!

74 !

administrative! environment! (cf.! Steur! and! Wittek! 2005).! This!

includes! not! only! legal! pressures! and! formal! relations! of! de<

pendence,! but! also! changing! political! conditions,! practical! re<

strictions!and!administrative!traditions!(Grafton,!Abernethy!and!

Lillis! 2011).! For! example,! default! settings! (established! by! law<

makers)! affect! bureaucrats’! room! for! maneuvering! (Patashnik!

2008);!also,!changes!made!at!one!level!of!the!reform!may!trigger!

or! require! further! changes! at! other! levels! (Brunsson! and!Olsen!

1993;! Toonen! 2003).! Further,! given! interdependence! with! the!

recipients! of! the! reform! (e.g.,! agencies! and! ministries),! imple<

menters!will!acquire! information!about!the! impact!of! their!con<

trol!strategies!only!gradually.!

Building!enforcement!capacity! in!such!circumstances!re<

fers!to!a!branch!process!in!that!an!implementers’!strategy!results!

from!a!progression!of!limited!comparisons!(Lindblom!1959;!see!

also!Thoenig!2003),!where!the!goal!is!to!attain!and!sustain!com<

pliance! and! coordination! to! successfully! implement! a! reform.!

This!process!requires!context<dependent!adaptation!to!changing!

circumstances:!if!certain!strategies!produce!negative!effects!(e.g.,!

opposition! by! powerful! groups)! or! are! perceived! as! a! failure,!

they!will! quickly! lose! legitimacy.! As! a! result,! control! strategies!

must!be!repaired!or!adjusted!to!regain,!maintain!or! increase! le<

gitimacy.!

!

Three strategy types !

We! expect! implementers! to! proactively! or! reactively! develop!

strategies!that!they!deem!legitimate!means!to!enforce!an!enacted!

reform.!To! study! these! control! strategies! in! the! case!of! the! SPC,!

we!grouped!them!in!three!ideal<typical!sets!(cf.!Scott!2008):!reg<

ulatory,!normative!and!procedural!control!strategies.!We!assume!

that!implementers!adaptively!use!combinations!of!these!strategy!

sets!and!that!multiple!combinations!may!emerge!within!a!given!

process!of!reform.!


!

75 !

Regulatory'strategies.!Reforms!involve!rules,!laws,!stand<

ards!and!other!formal!constraints.!Implementers!can!use!strate<

gies! based!on! these! rules,! thereby!using! the!power!of! legitima<

tion,!coercion!and!sanctioning!(DiMaggio!and!Powell!1983;!Pow<

ell! 1996).! Addressing! formal! constraints,! for! example,! in! the!

form!of! legal!expediency,!enables! legitimacy! (Dowling!and!Pfef<

fer!1975).!Regulation!guides!the!implementation!of!a!reform!and!

may!confer!legitimacy!to!control!the!extent!that!it!is!done!accord<

ing!to!a! legal!mandate.!Regulatory!strategies!enable! implement<

ers’!action!by!conferring!them!special!powers!and!licenses!(Scott!

2008).!Implementers!accordingly!make!decisions!and!exert!con<

trol! based! on! the! assumption! of! formal! legitimation! (Ouchi!

1979).! Regulatory! strategies! are! characterized! by! commanding!

action.!These!strategies!rely!on!expediency,!verticality,!and!com<

pulsion,! and! include! actions! like! rule<making! and! formal! con<

tracting.! Hupe! and! Klaasen! (2000)! draw! the! analogy! to! a! CEO:!

implementers!attempt!to!enforce!a!reform!atop!of!the!authorita<

tive!foundations!provided!by!rules,!laws!and!formal!powers,!and!

establish!mechanisms! of! control! accordingly! (e.g.,! sanction! sys<

tems!or!control!panels).!

Normative'strategies.!Norms!specify!valid!forms!of!action!

and!legitimate!means!(Scott!2008).!Adapting!to!prevalent!norms!

legitimates! control! and! creates! implementation! opportunities;!

for! example,! by! showing! that! a! reform! is! desirable,! ethical! or!

compelling.!Reforms!build!on!normative!ideas!and!guiding!prin<

ciples! that! infuse! administrative! changes! with!meaning! (Chris<

tensen!and!Lægreid!2003;!Hood!and!Jackson!1991;!Peters!2001;!

Selznick!1948).!Hood!and! Jackson!(1991)!showed!that!different!

“doctrines”!(e.g.,! the! free!selection!of!suppliers)!provide!norma<

tive!bases!for!specific!policy!components!(e.g.,!voucher!systems).!

However,! conflict! between!a! reform!and! contextual!norms!may!

trigger!resistance,!tokenism!or!open!confrontation.!In!such!cases,!

achieving!control!becomes!problematic!unless!implementers!are!

able! to! adapt! to! or! influence! norms.! Normative! strategies! are!

characterized!by!some!form!of!persuasion!(Majone!1989;!Ouchi!


!

76 !

1979).! This! includes! strategies! like! endorsement,! certification,!

accreditation,! dissuasion! and! interpretation! (Thoenig! 2003).!

These!strategies!rely!on!appropriateness!and!inducement.!Again,!

using!Hupe!and!Klaasen’s!(2000)!analogies,!implementers!can!be!

seen! as! chairmen! using! persuasive! tactics! like! argumentation!

and!conflict!avoidance!to!enforce!and!implement!change.!

!!

TABLE!3.1!Strategies'for'building'up'enforcement'capacity!!

! Foundation' Actions' Analogy'

Regulatory'

Based!on!rules,!

formal!sanctions!

and!default!design!

Commanding:!

creating!or!

modifying!rules!

Implementers!as!CEOs!

' ! ! !

Normative'Based!on!norms!

and!values!

Persuading:!avoiding!conflict,!

adapting!to!and!

exploiting!norms!!

Implementers!

as!chairmen!

' ! ! !

Procedural'

Based!on!routines!

and!prevalent!

techniques!

Integrating:!

assimilating!homegrown!

routines!!

Implementers!as!engineers!

!

Procedural'strategies.!The!final!set!relates!to!the!influence!

of!administrative!practices!and!routines.!Routines!are!patterns!of!

activities! realized! customarily! as! taken<for<granted!ways! to! ac<

complish!organizational!goals.!The!power!of! routines!resides! in!

their! practical! legitimacy:! they! are! recurrent! practices! adopted!

by!organizations!(Feldman!and!Pentland!2003;!Suchman!1995).!

Addressing!them!legitimizes!control,!for!instance,!by!integrating!

new!procedures!to!old!ones,!or!by!devising!solutions!that!allow!

for! homegrown! routines! to! coexist! with! a! reform.! Conversely,!

failure!to!address!routines!increases!the!chances!of!paralysis!and!

incomprehension.! In!general,! strategies! legitimized!by!practices!

and! routines! acquire! the! form! of! integrative! actions.! Here! the!

analogy! could! be! of! implementers! as! engineers:! enforcement!


!

77 !

capacity!is!achieved!on!the!basis!of!practical!validity!and!the!con<

struction! of! solutions! that! allow! reform! recipients! to! perform.!

This! includes!control!strategies!such!as! integration!of!prevalent!

techniques!and!process!reengineering.!Table!3.1!summarizes!this!

three<way! heuristic! on! strategies! that! allow! implementers! to!

build!and!sustain!enforcement!capacity.!

!

The SPC case

Method !

To!unravel!the!process!of!building!enforcement!capacity,!we!opt<

ed! for! a! qualitative! case! study! design.! This! allows! for! process<

tracing!(Beach!and!Brun!Pedersen!2013)!that!retains!meaningful!

details!of!real<life!events!(George!and!Bennett!2005;!Yin!2003).!

!

!

!!TABLE!3.2!Overview'of'interviewees!!

Gender' Age' Position' A' B' C'

M! 44! Director!General! 2! 18! No!M! 57! Director!General! 2! 25! No!

F! 49! DDGa! 8! 26! Yes!

M! 45! Director!General! 6! 6! Yes!

M! 35! DDG! 6! 6! Yes!

M! 45! Director! 8! 16! Yes!

M! 62! Director! 9! 25! Yes!

M! 38! Director! 9! 13! Yes!M! 57! Director! 7! 35! Yes!

M! 48! Director! 9! 10! Yes!NOTES:!

A:!Years!working!for!the!UHRP!(up!to!2012)!

B:!Years!working!for!the!public!sector!

C:!Member!of!the!SPC?!(tenured)!a!Deputy!Director!General!

!

!

The!research!was!conducted!in!Mexico!City,!from!Febru<

ary!to!August!2012.!Main!methods!of!data!collection!were!inter<

viewing! and! document! analysis.! Ten! in<depth! interviews! with!


!

78 !

the! highest! officials! of! the! Unit! of! Human! Resources! Policy!

(UHRP)!of!the!Ministry!of!the!Public!Service!were!held!(Table!3.2),!

based! on! their! experience! as! implementers! of! the! SPC! between!

2003!and!2012.!We!contacted!UHRP!officials!in!September!2011.!

After! the! goals! and! procedures! were! presented,! UHRP! officials!

agreed!to!participate!in!the!study.!Interviews!were!conducted!in!

situ! and! in! Spanish,! and! lasted! on! average! 67!minutes! each.! In!

addition!to!interview!data,!we!collected!and!consulted!policy!and!

legal! documents! that! shed! additional! information! and! helped!

contextualizing!informants’!accounts!(Table!3.3).!

Interviews!were! recorded,! transcribed! and! anonymized.!

Subsequently,! two! researchers! coded! transcripts! using! Atlas.ti!

(v.6.2).! Although! interview! data! is! necessarily! perceptual,! we!

aimed!at! identifying! common! themes!and! connections!by! relat<

ing! the! interviews! to! our! heuristic! (see! previous! section).! This!

helped!us!integrate!events!and!experiences!in!a!coherent!analy<

sis.! Interview!coding! focused!on! indexing!at! the!quotation! level!

and!identifying!(regulatory,!normative!and/or!procedural)!strat<

egies,!as!well!as! the!context! in!which!these!were!conceived!and!

executed! (see! Appendix).! The!main! goal! of! our! analysis!was! to!

reconstruct! the! general! history! of! enforcement! of! the! SPC.! Sys<

tematic!comparisons!allowed!us!to!identify!“critical!stories”!that!

we!report!in!the!next!section!(for!a!detailed!methodological!dis<

cussion,!see!Porras!1987).!We!found!evidence!for!three!phases!of!

enforcement! capacity! building! for! the! SPC! case! (2003<2012),!

which!we!report!in!turn!below.!

!

Phase 1: rules and locks !

The!first!combination!of!strategies!emerged!in!a!context!of!high!

expectations!and!promising! conditions! for! implementation.!The!

new! law! granted! the! maneuvering! room! to! create! procedures!

and!mechanisms!of!control.!However,!the!law!was!also!vague!in!

its!!definitions!!and!set!challenging!deadlines!for!implementation.!

!


!

79 !

TABLE!3.3!Overview!of!consulted!documents!(SPC!case!study)!!

Titlea' Source' Year'

1. Ley!del!Servicio!Profesional!de!Carrera!en!la!

Administración!Pública!Federal!

! 2003b!

2. Oficio!SSFP!USPC/412/007/2004! SFP! 2004!

3. Reglamento!de!la!Ley!del!Servicio!Profesional!

de!Carrera!en!la!Administración!Pública!

Federal!

SFP! 2005!

4. Oficio!SSFP!USPRH/408/022/2005! SFP! 2005!

5. Oficio!SSFP!USPRH!/408/015/2005! SFP! 2005!

6. Programa!para!el!Servicio!Profesional!de!Carrera!en!la!Administración!Pública!Federal!

2004<2006!

SFP! 2005!

7. Auditoría!de!desempeño!05<0<27100<07<130! ASF! 2006!

8. Reglamento!de!la!Ley!del!Servicio!Profesional!

de!Carrera!en!la!Administración!Pública!

Federal!

SFP! 2007!

9. Acuerdo!por!el!que!se!da!a!conocer!el!

Programa!Operativo!Anual!del!Sistema!de!

Servicio!Profesional!de!Carrera!en!la!

Administración!Pública!Federal!Centralizada!

para!el!año!2007!

SFP! 2007!

10. Oficio!SSFP/408/008/2009! SFP! 2009!

11. Acuerdo!por!el!que!se!levanta!la!suspensión!de!los!plazos!y!términos!relativos!a!la!operación!

de!todos!los!subsistemas!del!Servicio!

Profesional!de!Carrera,!incluidos!los!términos!

y!plazos!correspondientes!a!las!designaciones!

realizadas!conforme!a!lo!dispuesto!por!el!

artículo!34!de!la!Ley!del!Servicio!Profesional!de!Carrera!en!la!Administración!Pública!

Federal!

SFP! 2009!

12. Oficio!SSFP/408/SPC/014/2009! SFP! 2009!

13. Reglamento!Interior!de!la!Secretaría!de!la!Función!Pública!

SFP! 2009c!

14. Manual!Administrativo!de!Aplicación!General!en!Materia!de!Recursos!Humanos!y!Organización!

SFP! 2010d!

15. Oficio!SSFP/408/003/2010! SFP! 2010!

16. Auditoría!de!Desempeño!10<0<27100<07<0102! ASF! 2012!NOTES:!a!All!documents!are!public!and!available!from!official!websites:!www.normateca.gob.mx,!

www.diputados.gob.mx,!www.funcionpublica.gob.mx!and!www.asf.gob.mx!b!Last!reform!published!09/01/2006!c!Last!reform!published!03/08/2011!


!

80 !

!

Despite!this,! implementers!first!enjoyed!support!from!President!

Fox! and! external! stakeholders! (e.g.,! public! intellectuals).! The!

reform! was! integrated! into! the! “Good! Government! Agenda”!

(Agenda' Presidencial' de' Buen' Gobierno),! which! was! the! main!

modernization!project!of! the!administration! (Pardo!2010).!This!

gathered!support!around!the!reform!and!facilitated!enforcement:!

!

“In! the!beginning! there!was!much! expectation.! I! believe!

that!in!general,!the!institutions!expected!something!much!

more! digestible! […].! I!mean,! in! the! beginning! there!was!

good!synergy,!a!good!dynamic,!and!they![the!institutions]!

hoped! they! could! deal!with! the! challenge.! I! believe! that!

we!created!many!allies!for!the!project.!But!then!we!made!

some!mistakes…!we!created! too!many! locks! […]! to! start!

up! the! project! and!we! lost! allies! because!we! demanded!

more!than!what!was!possible”!(Director!General;!6!years!

with!the!UHRP).!

!

Implementers! opted! for! regulatory! control! strategies!

based!primarily!on!rule<making!and!standardization.!There!was!

a!particularly!strong!emphasis!on!creating!“locks”,!inflexible!and!

complex!rules!that!in!the!implementers’!eyes!would!secure!con<

trol!and!minimize!slippages.!A!first!strategy!consisted!of!creating!

rules!(established!in!the!first!bylaw)!that!concentrated!authority!

and!operation!in!the!UHRP,!which!became!not!only!policy!coordi<

nator,! but! also! a! globalizing! bureau! that! designed! procedures,!

operated!them,!and!monitored!their!application!across!organiza<

tions.! A! second! strategy!was! the! creation! of! a! human! resource!

information!system!called!“RHnet”.!This!system!standardized!SPC!

procedures! and!was! designed! as! a! single<entry! portal! in!which!

every!organization!would! load! information!about! its!human!re<

sources!and!operation!of! the!SPC.!External!consultants!designed!

the!system,!and!implementers!attempted!to!exploit!this!as!a!form!

of!endorsement.!However,! the!design!and!construction!of!RHnet!


!

81 !

started!before! the! operative! rules!were! completed.! Thus,!many!

SPC! components! were! not! considered! in! the! RHnet! system.! Be<

cause!of!the!gap!between!new!rules!and!the!information!system,!

implementers!devised!a!third!strategy!based!not!on!information!

actively!provided!by! institutions,! but! on! the! verifiable! adminis<

trative!record.!This!strategy,!known!as!MIDESPC!(Modelo'Integral'

de'Evaluación'del'Servicio'Profesional'de'Carrera)! consisted!of!a!

series!of!indicators!that!help!monitoring!the!execution!of!the!SPC!

in!each!organization.!It!let!implementers!oversee!the!implemen<

tation!of!components!and!compare!performance.!However,!to!be!

effective,!it!relied!on!a!network!of!auditors!verifying!compliance,!

which!added!to!the!complexity!and!costs.!

! After! the! first! bylaw! was! adopted,! several! problems!

arose.!Great!expectations!were!not!met.!Ministries!and!agencies,!

confronted!with!new!complex!rules,!resisted!implementation.!In!

particular,!some!maintained!old!practices!by!taking!advantage!of!

regulatory! imprecisions! or,! in! other! cases,! organizations! made!

only! perfunctory! efforts! to! comply!with! the! new! rules! (e.g.,! by!

simulating!open!competition!to!occupy!vacancies,!but!in!fact!se<

curing! the! hiring! of! pre<selected! candidates).! Support! declined,!

both! from! administrative! and! political! leaders.! This! situation!

worsened!after!the!change!of!administration!in!2006:!

!

“The! Unit! and! the! SPC! used! to! be! regarded! as! the! thing!

that!was!going!to!transform!everything,!you!know?![…]!In!

the!beginning!all!the!resources!were!placed!in!the!Unit.!It!

was!a!bit! like! the!Unit,! right?!At! that! time!we!had! fancy!

offices! and! all! the! resources! […].! But! then!when! it! [the!

SPC]! stopped! being! [a]! priority! and! the! problems! began!

overflowing!us,!bam!!You!have!no! fancy!office!anymore,!

you!have!to!move,!and!you!have!to!lay!off!personnel![…]”!

(Director!General;!6!years!with!the!UHRP).!

!

Phase! 1,! characterized! by! reliance! on! regulatory! strate<

gies!(centralizing!rules!and!standardization!in!a!single!operative!


!

82 !

framework)!was! effective! in!minimizing! coordination!problems!

to! the! extent! that! it! homogenized! procedures.! However,! it! did!

not!succeed!in!assuring!compliance.!Although!organizations!for<

mally!adopted!similar!policy!tools!and!procedures,!goals!did!not!

converge! and! resistance! against! reform! intensified.! Further,!

when! support! and! resources! for! the! reform! began! decreasing,!

centralization!backfired.!Rules!could!not!be!enforced!effectively!

and! complex! processes! that! demanded! personnel! and! money!

began!to!pile!up!in!the!UHRP.!

Despite! other! alternatives! available! to! implementers!

(e.g.,!more!flexible!regulation!or!even!procedural!integration),!it!

seems!that!in!the!beginning!they!mostly!relied!on!the!assumption!

that!strict!regulation!was!a!necessary!and!sufficient!condition!to!

enforce! the! reform.! The! effects! of! phase! 1! included! the! loss! of!

allies!and!a!very!complex!operative!system!that!“stressed”!feder<

al! organizations.! Also,! emphasis! on! locks! decreased! the! imple<

menters’!room!for!maneuvering.!The!gap!between!rules!and! in<

formation! system! as!well! as! large! development! costs! created! a!

need! for!constant!repairs! to!RHnet,!effectively!creating!a!“policy!

lock<in!effect”!(Bannink!and!Resodihardjo!2006):!

!

“When!the!construction!of!RHnet!was!already!ongoing,! it!

was!pointed!out!that!we!had!no!rules!yet.!And!then,!sud<

denly,! after! we! had! a! very! expensive! system! […],! we!

needed!to!start!making!all!sorts!of!adaptations!to!the!sys<

tem![…].!In!fact,!as!a!joke,!people!started!calling!it!‘patch<

net’”!(Director;!8!years!with!the!UHRP).!

!

Lack!of!understanding!of!new!regulations!created!a!“bat<

tle! of! definitions! and! translations”! that! permitted! deviations!

from! the! original! intentions! of! implementers,! next! to! open! re<

sistance! and! tokenism! (e.g.,! regarding! new! hiring! rules! or! the!

exception!criteria!established!in!art.34!of!the!SPC!law).!According!

to! interviewees,! organizations! interpreted! rigid! regulation!with!


!

83 !

suspicion! and! as! an! imposition!over! their! internal! procedures.5!

However,!phase!1!set!the!basis!for!formal!mechanisms!of!control!

based!on!outcomes!and!not!on!procedures!(e.g.,!MIDESPC),!creat<

ing!an!information!system!that!later!helped!to!contain!centrifugal!

pressures!arising!from!delegation.!Moreover,! it!showed!the! lim<

its!of!regulatory!strategies:!

!

“Setting! rules! is! like! cooking! with! a! pressure! cooker:! if!

you!take!it!to!the!limit!and!you!haven’t!really!established!

other!mechanisms! of! control! and! relief! valves,! well,! it’s!

going! to! explode,! even! if! you! had! the! best! intentions”!

(Dep.!Director!General;!8!years!with!the!UHRP)!

!

Phase 2: adapted rules !

Phase!2!begins!with!the!adoption!of!a!new!bylaw!in!the!context!

of! a! discredited! implementation,! lack! of! support,! limited! re<

sources,! a! new! administration! skeptical! of! reform,! and! a! new!

UHRP!leadership!that!lacked!experience!and!commitment:!

!

“I!believe!that!to!the!extent!that!politicians!began!under<

standing! the! new! institution! […],! less! commitment! and!

security!were!given! to! the!reform![…].!And!on! the!other!

hand,! bad! implementation! led! to! frustration.! Because! if!

you!create!new!strict!structures!and!you!pass!them!on!to!

the!organizations...!I!mean,!human!resource!management!

is!already!complex!and![when]!you!impose!another!mod<

el,! the! SPC,! then!you!create! two!structures,!you!generate!

two!areas,!two!forms!of!management,!two!objectives,!and!

so! on,! rules! expand! and!what! was! already! complex! be<

comes! even! more! complex”! (Director;! 9! years! with! the!

UHRP).!

!5!NB:!At!the!time!some!interviewees!worked!in!federal!agencies!covered!by!the!

SPC!and!thus!experienced!this!model!of!enforcement!as!“reform!recipients”.!

!


!

84 !

! !

Firstly,! in! response! to! resistance! and! rule! imprecisions,!

implementers!devised!a!new!strategy!based!as!before!on!regula<

tory!changes.!However,!whereas!centralization!was!the!emphasis!

of!phase!1,!phase!2,!tried!control!through!delegation.!At!the!cen<

ter!of!the!strategy!was!the!enactment!of!a!new!bylaw!(2007)!that!

transferred! most! of! the! operation! to! ministries! and! agencies,!

while! the! UHRP! pulled! back! into! a! supervisory! role! (retaining!

regulatory! powers).! Delegation,! however,! did! not! mean! much!

flexibility:! many! procedures! remained! uniform! to! a! significant!

degree.! Although! there! were! important! changes! (e.g.,! hiring!

rules),! some! SPC!procedures!established! in! the! first!bylaw!were!

consolidated! in! the! second! (e.g.,! performance! evaluation).! The!

difference,! however,!was! that! the! new! bylaw! delegated! several!

operational! details! and! their! implementation! to! organizations,!

especially!regarding!hiring!and!recruitment.!

Yet,!there!was!an!important!movement!toward!flexibility.!

This! strategy! involved!making! the! law’s! exclusion! criteria! (art.!

34)!and!hiring!procedures!more! lenient.!Since!the!enactment!of!

the! law,! SPC!hiring!procedures!had!been! the!most! controversial!

part! of! the! reform.! According! to! interviewees,! organizations!

were! concerned! by! the! standardized! hiring! procedures,! which!

both!reduced!their!discretion!and!ignored!differences!in!the!kind!

of!personnel!needed!in!each!organization.!The!new!strategy!was!

intended!to!regain!support! from!the!agencies!by!yielding! to! the!

customary!discretion!each!agency!had!enjoyed!over!their!hiring!

procedures.! Implementers’! strategy! consisted! of! adapting! to!

strong! administrative! traditions! regarding! control! over! hiring,!

avoiding!conflict!by!delegating!design!and!operation!of!operative!

routines!to!the!ministries!and!agencies,!and!focusing!instead!on!

monitoring!outcomes.!Similarly,! implementers!developed!a!new!

control!and!evaluation!strategy!based!on!“control!panels”.! It!re<

covered!lessons!learned!from!the!MIDESPC!system!in!that!empha<

sis!was!placed!on!outcomes,!but!it!not!only!relied!on!monitoring!

by! auditors! or! on! the! administrative! record,! instead! it! also! ex<


!

85 !

ploited! information!that!organizations!regularly!reported!to! the!

UHRP.! Nonetheless,! lack! of! organizational! capabilities,! bad! tim<

ing,6! and! new! obligations! (e.g.,! design! of! assessment! tools! for!

hiring)! contained! centrifugal! movements! started! by! the! new!

control!strategies:!

!

“You! have! to! relativize! this!whole! issue! of! decentraliza<

tion![…].!Ultimately,!what!really!happened!was!that!insti<

tutions!did!not!complain!that!much!about!centralization;!

although,!now!many!agencies!demand!that!we!centralize!

some! tools! because! otherwise! they! cannot! handle! [the]!

operation”!(Dep.!Director!General,!8!years!with!the!UHRP).!

!

Phase! 2! echoed! the! emphasis! of! phase! 1! on! regulatory!

strategies.!However,!phase!2!also! included!strategies!of! conflict!

avoidance,!adaptation!to!prevalent!norms!and,!in!comparison!to!

phase!1,!privileged!voluntary!compliance!over!sanctioning.!This!

could!be!considered!a!move!toward!normative!strategies.!Avoid<

ance! of! conflict! also! implied! that! the! long<term!goals! of! the! re<

form!(e.g.,!hiring!on!the!bases!of!professional!merit)!became!sub<

ject! to! a! logic! that! privileged! short<term! goals! (e.g.,! creation! of!

new! tools! for! hiring! and! assessment! of! candidates).! Although!

compliance! improved! only! slightly! according! to! interviewees,!

pulling!back!allowed!implementers!to!notice!specific!differences!

among!the!organizations!that!participated!in!the!reform,!as!well!

as! the! need! for! integration! of! particular! organizational! needs.!

Differentiation,!however,!led!to!diminished!coordination.!

!

!

!

!

!6!The!enactment!of!the!new!bylaw!took!place!after!the!federal!budget!had!been!

approved,!thus!federal!agencies!did!not!have!additional!resources!to!deal!with!

their!new!responsibilities.!

!


!

86 !

Phase 3: persuading and integrating !

The!third!and!final!phase!occurred!during!the!last!years!of!Presi<

dent! Felipe! Calderón’s! administration,! driven!mainly! by! a! new!

UHRP! leadership! interested! in! revitalizing! the! SPC.! Political! sup<

port!and!resources!remained!low,!but!much!had!been!learned!in!

the!previous!years.!Phase!3!was!characterized!by!a! shift! in!em<

phasis! from! regulatory! strategies! to! normative! and! procedural!

ones.!This!shift!can!also!be!seen!as!resulting!from!earlier!phases;!

particularly!regulatory!strategies!and!large!investments!in!policy!

tools!(e.g.,!RHnet)!limited!the!implementers’!freedom!in!phase!3:!

!

“When! I! came! here! I! expected! to! make! fundamental!

changes! […],! and! I! found! that! the! room,! my! degree! of!

freedom! was! very! limited,! and! that! in! fact! my! job! was!

mostly!to!oversee!informational! flows![…]!and!the!infor<

mational! system.! I! realized! that! in! reality! I! had!bumped!

into!a!wall”!(Director!General,!2!years!with!the!UHRP).!

!

! A! new! bundle! of! control! strategies! consisted! of! taking!

emphasis!away!from!changing!and!implementing!rules!to!achiev<

ing!control!by!persuading!organizations!and!building!coalitions.!

Strategies! built! on! the! decentralized! system! already! in! place.!

This!meant!that!implementers!reinterpreted!the!role!of!the!UHRP!

from! a! one<sided! regulator! to! a! reciprocal! client<supplier,! with!

organizations!held! responsible! for! the!operation!and! the!devel<

opment! of! specific! procedures,! while! the! UHRP! monitored! per<

formance!and!suggested!improvements:!

!

“What!we!are!doing!now!is!only!discretionary,!really![…].!

Trying!to!redirect!the!SPC!to!a!different!model,!well,!is!on<

ly!a!proposal!that!the!agencies!can!or![can]not!adopt;!it!is!

not!really!mandatory”!(Director!General;!2!years!with!the!

UHRP).!

!


!

87 !

“The!approach!now! is!more! focused!on…!on!our! clients.!

[Changes]! have! allowed! us,! on! one! hand,! to! have! more!

knowledge,! internally,! but! also! about! the! institutions.!

And!it’s!also!a!way!of!addressing!the!needs!of!the!institu<

tions,!because!instead!of!asking!us,!they!go!directly!to!the!

website!and!consult! themselves.! It’s! like! the! fable!of! the!

fisherman.!You!know!it?!You!don’t!need!to!give!them!the!

fish.! Instead! you! tell! them:! ‘look! here! are! all! the! fish,!

which!one! you!want?’!What!we! are!doing!now! is! to! im<

prove!the!pond”!(Director;!9!years!with!the!UHRP).!

!

The! UHRP! did! not! give! up! its! regulatory! powers,! and!

strategies!conceived!in!phase!2!continued!to!be!implemented!in!

phase! 3! (e.g.,! control! panels!were! consolidated! and! improved).!

However,!changes!in!phase!3!did!imply,! firstly,!a!shift!from!spe<

cific! emphasis! on! the! SPC! to! a! more! general! concern! with! the!

“professionalization!of!the!public!service”.!For!instance,!the!pub<

lication!of!a!General'Administrative'Manual'on'Human'Resources'

and' Organization! in! 2010! (Manual' Administrativo' de' Aplicación'

General' en' Materia' de' Recursos' Humanos' y' Organización)! is! a!

direct! result!of! this! change! in! approach.!After! enactment!of! the!

Manual,! the!operation!of! the!SPC!became!part!of!a!more!general!

HRM!framework,!with!regulations!that!apply!not!only!to!tenured!

officials! in! some! organizations! but! to! all! federal! personnel.!

Changing! specific! SPC! regulations! to! more! general! regulations!

applicable!to!all! federal!agencies!permitted!the!simplification!of!

rules!and! lowered!redundancies!(e.g.,!by!creating!common!defi<

nitions,! as!well! as! clarifying! general! responsibilities! of! HRM! de<

partments),! as! well! as! the! integration! of! prevalent! HRM! proce<

dures!under!the!legal!umbrella!provided!by!the!Manual.!Finally,!

some! in<house! routines! changed! and! new! procedures! for! data!

management!and!client!support!were!developed.!These!also!ech<

oed!an!approach!that!highlighted!the!specific!HRM!needs!of!each!

organization,!as!well!as!voluntary!compliance!instead!of!sanction!

and!coercive!control.!But!they!meant!that!new!repairs!needed!to!


!

88 !

be! done! to! the! information! system.!Overall,! it! seems! that! these!

strategies!(integration!of!the!SPC!into!a!broader!HRM!framework;!

simplifying! rules;! integrating! prevalent! HRM! procedures! and!

practices;!adapting!in<house!routines)!paid!off!in!improved!com<

pliance:!

!

“Even! though! the! desired! procedures! have! not! been! es<

tablished!completely,!at!least!the!institutions!are!thinking!

in!a!different!way! […].!They!are! thinking!about! this! [the!

SPC].!Now,!they!know!that!things!cannot!be!done!as!they!

please!but!that!they!need!to!have!some!control,!and!that’s!

important”!(Director;!8!years!with!the!UHRP).!

!

Persuading!agencies! to!comply!with!SPC!procedures!also!

took! the! form!of! informal! talks!with! resisters! and! the! symbolic!

management! of! accomplishments! and! accreditations.! A! new!

strategy!made!use!of!incoming!information,!reframing!it!in!order!

to!encourage!best!practices!and!promote!achievements:!

!

“Another! issue! is! that! we! realized! that! we! needed! to!

promote!short<term!achievements!of!the!institutions![…].!

One!must! cackle! the! eggs! [sic],! otherwise! results! go!un<

noticed.!Because!change!can!take! long!time![…],!but!cre<

ating!awareness!of!short<term!achievements!helps!main<

tain!a!sort!of! inertia!toward!change”!(Dep.!Director!Gen<

eral;!6!years!with!the!UHRP).!

!

In!addition,!the!UHRP!attempted!to!compensate!for!lack!of!

support!from!political! leaders,!by!looking!for!tenured!civil!serv<

ants’!endorsement.!New!allies!were!found!in!international!organ<

izations! too! (World! Bank! and! OECD).! This! increased! credibility,!

while! international! commitments! legitimized! the! continuity! of!

the! enforcement! strategy.! Although! the! new! strategies! devised!

and! pursued! in! phase! 3! paid! off! in! increased! compliance,! they!

also! led! to! important!coordination!problems.!Procedural!strate<


!

89 !

gies!based!on!autonomy! implied! that!many!demands!needed! to!

be!brought!together!into!an!already!complex!system.!Some!prob<

lems!remained!unsolved:!integration!created!a!need!for!constant!

repairs! of! ongoing! processes! (particularly! data! management),!

and!mismatches!between! the! UHRP’s! expectations! and! agencies’!

operations—although!legal!and!in!line!with!the!goals!of!the!SPC:!

!

“Now!the!problem,! the!challenge! is! to!create!more!coor<

dination! options! with! the! organizations.! We! were! left!

like,! like! very! disconnected,! not…! I! mean! when! we! call!

them,! they! come,! and!we! tell! them! how! to! operate! and!

that’s! it,! but! we! could! work! better! if! we! were! all,! well,!

better!coordinated”!(Director,!8!years!with!the!UHRP).!

!

General patterns: patching and diversification !

From!the!account!above!we!observe!two!general!patterns.!First,!

throughout! the! period,! implementers! needed! to!make! constant!

adjustments! to! costly! control! systems! (e.g.,! RHnet).! “Patching”!

became!more!prominent!when!the!regulation!changed!in!phase!2!

and!continued!to!be!an!issue!after! implementers!opted!for! inte<

gration<based! procedural! strategies.! Financial! investments! in!

policy! tools! and! past! regulatory! decisions! constrained! their! ca<

pacities!in!later!phases.!Patching!seems!to!be!driven!by!this!form!

of!path<dependence!and!policy!lock<in!(see!Bannink!and!Resodi<

hardjo!2006;!Knill!1999).!

Second,!all! together,!we!observe!strategy!diversification.!

When! implementation! conditions! were! promising! (i.e.,! support!

and!resources!for!implementers)!and!despite!imprecisions!in!the!

law,! implementers!mostly! relied!on! control! strategies!based!on!

rule<making.!Later,!when!regulatory!strategies!stopped!working!

and! enforcement! capacity! and! legitimacy! diminished,! imple<

menters!used!rule<making!once!again,!but!the!emphasis!changed!

from! central! regulation! to! delegation.! Additionally,! yielding! to!

some! norms! (e.g.,! hiring)! reduced! conflict! and! resistance.! In!


!

90 !

phase!3,!implementers!retained!some!regulatory!strategies!(e.g.,!

delegation)! but! decreased! their! relative! importance! (e.g.,! by!

promoting! deregulation).! Also,! normative! strategies! based! on!

persuasion! and! endorsement,! and! procedural! strategies! based!

on! integration! of! homegrown! routines! and! demands! became!

more! prominent.! Thus,! the! repertoire! of! strategies! expanded!

throughout! the! period,! both! quantitatively! (number! of! strate<

gies)!and!qualitatively!(type!of!strategies).!Some!strategies!were!

abandoned! (e.g.,! first!bylaw),!but! in!general!we!observe! that! as!

implementers!presumably!acquired!more!experience,!old!strate<

gies!were!complemented!by!new!ones.!

Diversification!reflects!both!limitations!and!opportunities!

for!building!enforcement! capacity.! For! instance,! throughout! the!

implementation! of! the! SPC,! several! veto! points! appeared! (e.g.,!

agencies! opposing! implementation),! presenting! opportunities!

and!often!forcing!changes!in!strategy!(e.g.,!a!new!bylaw).!Where<

as!implementers!initially!relied!on!strict!and!centralizing!regula<

tory! strategies,! later,! when! veto! points! became! abundant,! im<

plementers!explored!additional!strategies.!

This!pattern! further!highlights!a! trade<off!between!com<

pliance! and! coordination.!When! regulatory! strategies! “took! the!

forestage”!(especially!standardizing!rules),!costs!associated!with!

coordination! dropped.! To! the! extent! that! homogenizing! rules!

were!adopted,!implementers!needed!to!invest!little!on!coordina<

tion!efforts.!However,! the!same!emphasis!on!common!rules!and!

locks! increased! the! costs! of! (securing)! compliance;! namely,! be<

cause!general!mechanisms!of!monitoring!and!control!were!need<

ed!to!assure!that!reform!recipients!would!comply!with!the!rules.!

Conversely,!when!enforcement!switched!to! integrative!and!nor<

mative!strategies,! the!cost!of!securing!compliance!reduced.!This!

reflects! the! interdependence! and! transfer! of! responsibilities!

from!the!enforcing!agency!to! the!recipients!of! the!reform.!Com<

pliance! in! this! case! is! secured!by! integrating!multiple! demands!

and!by!making!rules!flexible.!However,!this!shift!also!implied!that!

implementers! needed! to! spend!more! on! coordinating! very! dif<


!

91 !

ferent!(and!often!contradictory)!demands.!That!is,!in!the!studied!

period,! costs! associated!with! coordination! increased! at! the! ex<

pense!of!obtaining!compliance!(Figure!3.1).!

!

!

!FIGURE!3.1!—Trade@off'between'coordination'and'

compliance!

!

Discussion

In! this! chapter! we! asked! how! implementers! managed! to! build!

enforcement! capacity! for! the! SPC! case.! Our! analysis! of! the! evi<

dence! leads! us! to! the! following! conclusions.! First,! although! the!

distinction!between!regulatory,!normative!and!procedural!strat<

egies! a! priori! says! little! about! their! relative! effectiveness! (in!

terms! of! enforcement! capacity),! the! case! study! does! show! an!

overall!combinatory!process!by!which!strategies!are!repaired!or!


!

92 !

adjusted! in!order! to! regain,!maintain!or! increase! legitimacy.!To!

the! extent! that! resources! and! political! support! were! plentiful,!

control!was!sought!through!commanding.!When!these!strategies!

stopped! working,! implementers! were! forced! to! devise! alterna<

tives! that! reflected!a!better!balance!between!direct! control! and!

interdependence.!

As! the! case! study! shows,! control! strategies! initially! fell!

short! of! balancing!demands! for! autonomy! (coming! from! resist<

ers).! This! explains! some! of! the! problems! reported! in! the! inter<

views,!such!as!tokenism!and!simulation,!for!example,!in!applying!

new!recruitment!procedures!(CIDE!2007).!Phase!3!reflects!a!dif<

ferent! approach! to!attaining! control,! based!on! increased!auton<

omy! and! flexibility.! Thus,! the! process! of! building! enforcement!

capacity! in! this! case! shows! a! shift! from! control! attempted!

through!commanding!alone!to!a!model!based!on!persuasion!and!

integration.!This!movement!reduced!the!cost!of!(securing)!com<

pliance! yet! increased! the! cost! of! achieving! coordination.! In! the!

case!of!the!SPC,!lack!of!coordination!was!the!price!of!compliance!

and!thus!key!to!reform!survival.!While!integrating!local!demands!

into! the! system! seemed! the!most! effective! solution! in! terms! of!

control! (given!decreasing!support),! the!solution!created!coordi<

nation!diseconomies!due!to!interdependence!and!flexibility.!This!

trade<off! further!helps! to!explain!why,!as!Grindle!noted! (2012),!

the!SPC!reform!did!not!appear! to!curb! the!discretionary!powers!

of! local! bureaucratic! leaders:! overcoming! resistance! against! re<

form! demanded! the! preservation! of! some! norms! and! practices!

that!allowed!agencies!to!reclaim!turf!(particularly!regarding!hir<

ing! and! recruitment).! In! this! sense,! the! process! of! building! en<

forcement!capacity!affected!the!outcome!of!the!reform,!deviating!

thus! from! lawmakers’! original! intentions,! which! aimed! at! the!

creation! of! stable! and! uniform! cadres! of! tenured! officials.! In<

stead,! integration!of! local!demands!provided!organizations!with!

the!opportunity!to!set!policy!exceptions!and!limit!the!influence!of!

the!enforcing!ministry!on!certain!HRM!processes,!such!as!hiring.!


!

93 !

! Second,! the! case! study! shows! that! the! effectiveness! of!

regulatory!strategies!may!depend!on!the!one!hand,!on!the!avail<

ability!of!resources!and!political!leverage.!Once!these!conditions!

weaken,! enforcement! through! regulatory! strategies! in! isolation!

becomes!problematic!(cf.!Meyer!and!Rowan!1977).!On!the!other!

hand,!it!suggests!that!implementation!based!solely!on!regulatory!

strategies! is! likely! to! be! less! effective,! given! interdependence!

with!reform!recipients!and!uncertainty!about!their!performance.!

That! is,! due! to! information! asymmetry,! effectiveness! of! regula<

tion!depends!on!the!reform!recipients’!willingness!to!comply!and!

convey!information!on!their!behavior!and!performance.!Without!

additional! measures! directed! at! increasing! compliance! or! the!

quality! of! information! reaching! implementers,! reform! enforce<

ment!becomes!ineffective.!However,!regulatory!strategies!remain!

important!for!reform!enforcement.!As!seen!above,!implementers!

did!not!give!up!regulatory!powers!and!regulation!was!a!precon<

dition!for!other!strategies.!For!example,!changes!in!rules!during!

phase!2!served!as!the!basis!for!integration!in!phase!3.!By!allow<

ing! delegation,! rules! also! gave! implementers! an! opportunity! to!

legitimately! integrate! local! demands! into! the! SPC.! This! also!

stresses! the! point! that! rules! tend! to! breed! path<dependencies!

(Peters!2001).!

Third,!our!study!highlights!the!importance!of!integrative!

and!persuasive!strategies! for!enforcement!capacity,!particularly!

when! resources! and! leverage! of! the! enforcing! agency! are! low!

(see!also,!Chapter!4).! Strategies! that! addressed!prevalent! tradi<

tions! and! preexisting! routines! seemed! to! increase! compliance!

with!the!reform.!Conversely,!actions!that!ignored!normative!pro<

cedural!nuances!reduced!compliance!in!that!they!increased!goal!

misalignment!and! resistance.!This! supports!Grindle!and!Hilder<

brand’s!(1995)!observation!that!better!performance! is!more!of<

ten!driven!by!effective!communication!and!cooperation! than!by!

rules!and!regulations.!

Before!concluding,!three!limitations!need!to!be!acknowl<

edged.! First,! the! study! relied!mostly! on! interview! data! and! the!


!

94 !

implementers’! recollections.!We!wanted! to! reconstruct! the!pro<

cess!of! enforcement! and! so!we!needed! to! rely!on! insider! infor<

mation.! Our! informants! were! selected! because! they! were! the!

main!actors!in!this!process.!However,!this!methodological!choice!

implies! that! our! observations! are! subject! to! bias! in! the! inter<

viewees’! accounts.! We! tried! to! control! bias! by! contrasting! our!

observations!with!documents!and!records.!A!related!issue!is!that!

we!did!not!collect!interview!data!on!the!side!of!the!reform!recip<

ients.!Since!we!were!mainly! interested! in!the!strategies!devised!

by! implementers,! we! limited! our! analyses! to! their! side! of! the!

story,! which! means! that! reform! recipients’! strategies! of! re<

sistance!or!acquiesce!were! interpreted!mainly! through! the!mir<

ror!provided!by!implementers’!accounts.!

! Second,! the! particularities! of! the! case! are! important! to!

recognize.!The!SPC!reform!concerns!a!range!of!governmental!or<

ganizations.!Transversal! implementation! implies! that!successful!

reform!not!only!depends!on!the!efficacy!of!the!enforcing!agency!

(therefore!on!its!enforcing!capacity),!but!on!the!actions!of!a!bun<

dle! of! stakeholders! (Hill! and! Hupe! 2002).! This! implies! specific!

reform!contingencies.!For!instance,!the!presence!of!large!number!

of! actors! with! veto! capacity! implies! a! relatively!more! complex!

and!risky!execution!(Knill!1999;!Merino!2006).!Also,!the!reform!

was! implemented! in! the!Mexican! administrative! system,!which!

resembles!other!Latin!American!and!Eastern!European!systems!

in!its!legalism,!centralized<vertical!structure!and!little!separation!

between!political!and!top!bureaucratic!roles.!However,! it!differs!

considerably!from!other!cases!(e.g.,!Asian!and!African!parliamen<

tary! systems).! In! the! strict! sense!our! conclusions!are! restricted!

to!the!Mexican!case.!However,!we!aimed!at!deriving!conclusions!

that! could!be! tested! and! applied! to! additional! units! of! analysis,!

whether!in!other!countries!or!to!different!reforms.!For!instance,!

our!observation!on! the! trade<off!between!compliance!and!coor<

dination!in!the!context!of!developing!enforcement!capacity!could!

be! tested! in!other! contexts.!Also,!other! cases!may! illustrate!dif<

ferent!combinatory!processes!and,!most!interestingly,!processes!


!

95 !

that! lead! to!high!compliance!and!high!coordination,! a! combina<

tion!not!identified!in!the!SPC!case.!

! Finally,!in!the!SPC!case,!there!is!a!tension!between!reform!

design! and! enforcement! (contradictions! between! decentralized!

rules! and! centralized! operation).! Put! differently,! the! case! lends!

itself!to!the!study!of!enforcement!capacity!building!but!succumbs!

to!the!problems!of!reform!design.!For!instance,!from!the!analysis!

of! the! interviews! one! might! speculate! whether! implementers!

would!have!had!fewer!complications!if!the!law!had!contemplated!

permissible! timeframes,!or! if! imprecisions!would!have!been!re<

solved! in! advance.! Another! interesting! possibility! would! be! to!

compare!implementation!processes!(and!strategies!used!to!build!

enforcement!capacity)!across!time.!For!example,!one!may!ask!to!

what! extent! do! current! efforts! to! build! enforcement! capacity!

reproduce! recipes! that! worked! in! the! past! (see! Pardo! 2005).!

Future!research!on!the!SPC!and!other!reforms!could!address!the<

se!additional!questions.!

! Despite! the! limitations,! this! chapter! suggests! important!

lessons.!The! findings!highlight! the!relevance!of!studying!combi<

nations! of! strategies! for! understanding! how! implementers!

achieve!control!after!the!enactment!of!a!reform.!We!showed!that!

attaining! control! in! the! SPC! case!was! characterized! by! patching!

and! strategy! diversification,! that! using! regulatory! strategies! in!

isolation! was! ineffective,! and! that! normative! and! procedural!

strategies! reduced! the! costs! of! compliance! but! intensified! the!

coordination!costs.!These!points! support! the! idea! that!although!

laws!may!bestow!implementers!with!the!formal!capacity!to!pun<

ish!those!who!do!not!comply!or!support!change,!in!practice!this!

power!may!be! ineffective!and!needs! to!be! facilitated!and!main<

tained.!This!may!lead!to!alterations!to!the!lawmakers’!envisioned!

reform!path,!which!helps!explain! the!mix!of!a!degree!of! reform!

success!and!the!lack!of!results!and!adverse!outcomes.!

!

!

!

!

FOUR Pathways to compliant implementation1 !

!

!

!

!

!

!

During! the! past! decades,! many! governments! have! launched!

large<scale! reform! trajectories! to! modernize,! and! increase! the!

effectiveness!and!efficiency!of! their!various!agencies! (Pollit!and!

Bouckaert!2004).!However,! there! is!quite! some!variation! in! the!

degree! to!which! these! reforms!were! actually! implemented,! be<

yond! the! rhetoric! and! intent,! both! across! and!within! countries!

(Goldfinch,!Derouen! Jr.! and! Pospieszna! 2013;!Kuhlmann,! Bogu<

mil! and! Grohs! 2008;! Ongaro! and! Valotti! 2008).! This! raises! the!

question! as! to! which! conditions! facilitate! or! inhibit! compliant!

reform! implementation,! that! is,! the! extent! to!which! a! reform! is!

put!into!practice,!and!“has!moved!from!rhetoric!and!intent!to!be!

reflected! in! design! and! action”! (Goldfinch,! Derouen! Jr.! and! Po<

spieszna! 2013,! 51;! also! see! Brunsson! 1989;! Fernandez! and!

Rainey!2006;!Oosterwaal!2011;!Pollitt!2001).!

With! regard! to! potential! answers,! both! scholarship! and!

the! public! debate! have! shown! interest! in! the! link! between! re<

source! investments!and!outcomes!of! reform! (Andrews!and!Van!

de!Walle!2012;!Eliassen!and!Sitter!2008;!Hood!and!Dixon!2013).!

Advocates! of! a! resource<based! approach! point! to! understudied!

links! between! resource! endowments! and! the! propensity! and!

!1! Based! on! F.! Nieto! Morales,! R.! Wittek,! and! L.! Heyse.! 2014.! “Organizational!

pathways! to! compliant! reform! implementation:! Evidence! from! the! Mexican!

civil!service!reform”,!which!is!forthcoming!in!Public'Administration.!!

IMPLEMENTATION!PATHWAYS!

!

97 !

success!of!organizational!change!(Kraatz!and!Zajac!2001).!These!

links!are! far! from!straightforward.! Some!commentators!make!a!

case!for!a!positive!relation!between!resource!availability,! incen<

tives,! and! organizational! performance! (Jackson! 2007;! also! cf.,!

Wittek!2007).!It!is!argued,!for!instance,!that!sizable!endowments!

provide! flexibility! in! response! to! environmental! changes,! and!

improve! organizational! capacity! to! adopt! and! implement! new!

policies!(Bowman!and!Hurry!1993;!De!Lancer!Julnes!and!Holzer!

2001).! Others! suggest! that! resource<rich! organizations! have!

greater! “organizational! slack”! that! increases! inertia! (Cyert! and!

March! 1963),! and! that! resource! availability! fosters! stability! of!

organizational! strategies! and! commitments! (Selznick! 1957).! A!

longitudinal! empirical! study! of! strategic! change! in! the! educa<

tional! sector! in! the!United! States,! for! example,! showed! that! re<

source! endowments! could!decrease! the!propensity! and! success!

of!change!(Kraatz!and!Zajac!2001).!

This!chapter!builds!on! this!debate,!and!extends! it! to! the!

study! of! intra<organizational! conditions! linked! to! compliant! re<

form!implementation!in!public!sector!organizations.!Specifically,!

we! consider! the! role!of! resource! endowments! in! reform! imple<

mentation! in! relation! to! various! “implementation! recipes”.! The!

key! question!we! address! is! to'what' degree' is' the' availability' of'

large' resource' endowments,' in' combination'with'other'organiza@

tional' characteristics,' a' necessary' precondition' for' compliant' re@

form'implementation'in'governmental'agencies.!

This!study!makes!three!distinct!contributions!to!the!liter<

ature! on! public! management! reform.! First,! disentangling! ver<

sions!of!technocratic!and!institutional!implementation!pathways,!

we! identify! three! “recipes”! leading! to! compliant! reform! imple<

mentation! under! conditions! of! adverse! or! abundant! resource!

endowments.!We! argue! that! each! of! these! provides! a! plausible!

pathway! to! compliant! reform! implementation.! Second,! we! can!

assess!the!empirical!validity!of!all!three!recipes!with!unique!data!

from! a! comparative! study! of! 55! organizations! of! the! Mexican!

federal! government,!which! implemented! the! 2003! Civil! Service!


!

98 !

Reform!Act!(or!“SPC”;!see!Chapter!3,!p.66).!The!aim!of!the!SPC!was!

to! create! a! professional! and! meritocratic! system! that! would!

eventually! replace! patronage<based! practices! (Arellano! Gault!

1999;! Grindle! 2012;!Merino! 2006).! The! central! tool! to! achieve!

this!objective,!as!we!have!discussed!before,!was!the!implementa<

tion!of!a!new!human!resources!management!system!for!manage<

rial!positions!in!a!large!number!of!federal!agencies!(Pardo!2005).!

Third,!we!demonstrate!the!value!of!using!(fuzzy!set)!qualitative!

comparative!analysis!(FSQCA)!as!an!analytical!strategy! for!an! in<

ter<organizational! comparative! study! of! reform! compliance,!

looking!into!the!co<occurrence!of!different!causal!pathways.!

!

Implementation pathways

A!crucial!assumption!behind!public!administration!reform!is!that!

decisions!and!investments!made!by!legislators!and!policymakers!

are! effectively! translated! into! organizational! change! (Brunsson!

1989;! Brunsson! and! Olsen! 1993;! Oosterwaal! 2011;! Torenvlied!

2000).!A!fundamental!question!is!thus:!under!what!conditions!or!

through!which! pathways! do! implementers! in! governmental! or<

ganizations!move! from! intent! and! rhetoric! to! change! that! com<

plies!with! the! goals! and! program! of! reform,! and! how! do! these!

pathways!relate!to!the!size!of!resource!endowments!earmarked!

for!reform.!

One!way!to!tackle!these!issues!is!to!consider!a!number!of!

theoretical! pathways.!At! least! two! general! pathways! to! compli<

ant! reform! implementation! can! be! distinguished:! technocratic!

and! institutional! (cf.! Christensen,! Lægreid,! Roness! and! Røvik!

2007;! De! Lancer! Julnes! and! Holzer! 2001).! Both! offer! distinct,!

theory<based! configurations! of! organizational! conditions! con<

tributing!to!compliant!implementation,!and!in!particular,!present!

different! possibilities! for! implementing! reform! in! organizations!

with! either! small! or! large! resource! endowments.! Specifically,!

these! pathways! differ! with! regard! to! the! relative! importance!


!

99 !

they! attach! to! (a)! resource! endowments;! but! also,! (b)! formal!

structures! of! control,! (c)! normative!beliefs,! and! (d)! implement<

ers’! interests.! In! this! sense,! different! pathways! offer!more! than!

lists! of! factors! that! arguably! matter! for! implementation;! they!

offer!(comparable)!configurations!of!conditions!that,!as'a'set,!are!

causally!linked!to!compliant!reform!implementation.!

!

Technocratic pathway !

The!technocratic!pathway!is!characterized!by!an!implementation!

model!that!emphasizes!planning!and!control,!as!well!as!commit<

ting!resources!to! implementation.!From!this!perspective,! imple<

mentation! is!mainly! a!matter! of! technical! design! (cf.!De! Lancer!

Julnes!and!Holzer!2001).!The! technocratic!pathway! is!based!on!

classic!bureaucracy! and! (scientific)!management! theories.! It! fo<

cuses! primarily! on! formal! organizational! conditions! affecting!

policy!implementation.!Arguments!underlying!this!pathway!posit!

that!translating!policy!decisions!into!actual!organizational!action!

requires!technical!control!over!agents!who!may!intentionally!or!

unintentionally! deviate! from! implementers’! intentions! (Ooster<

waal! 2011).! This! pathway! to! compliant! implementation! is! re<

flected!in!a!top<down,!linear!model!of!change!(Thomas!and!Grin<

dle! 1990,! 1164;! Van! de! Ven! and! Hargrave! 2004).! Accordingly,!

implementation! is! most! successful! when! the! administrative!

structure!is!well!integrated!from!above!(Goggin,!Bowman,!Lester,!

and! O’Toole! 1990;! Pressman! and! Wildavsky! 1984),! which! im<

plies! a! significant! degree! of! formalization! and! vertical! interde<

pendence.! Organizational! members! comply! through! compensa<

tion!and!active!regulation!(Coleman!1990;!Hechter!1987).!Hence,!

implementation! gaps—non<compliant! implementation—are!

primarily! the! result! of! faulty! design! and! lack! of! central! control!

over!policy!components!(Pressman!and!Wildavsky!1973).!

Translated! into! the! area! of! public! sector! reform,! imple<

menting! organizational! change! requires! ample! resource! invest<

ments.!Resources!are!needed!to!transform!organizational!proce<


!

100 !

dures,! rules! and! structures,! hire! new!personnel! and! acquire! or!

develop! infrastructure.! Implementing! changes! with! limited! re<

sources!may!have!negative!consequences!for!other!organization<

al!activities!or!areas!not!directly!related!to!change!(Boyne!2003).!

In!addition,! implementation!requires!setting!up!efficient!control!

and!monitoring!procedures!(Boyne!2003;!Fernandez!and!Rainey!

2007;! Goggin,! Bowman,! Lester! and! O’Toole! 1990;! Nica! 2013;!

Rossotti! 2005).! This! means! both! maintaining! effective! lines! of!

authority,! as! well! as! ex! ante! and! ex! post! controls! (“fixing! the!

game”)! over! procedures! and! decision<making! (Bardach! 1977;!

Chun!and!Rainey!2005;!Oosterwaal!2011;!Wood!and!Waterman!

1991).!

With! its! strong! reliance! on! resource! endowments! and!

formal!control,! informal!normative!mechanisms!play!a!very!mi<

nor,!if!any,!role!in!the!technocratic!pathway!to!compliant!reform!

implementation.! A! well<designed! formal! governance! structure!

aligns!the!interests!of!the!implementers!with!the!interests!of!the!

organization,! thereby!not!needing!additional!normative!support!

to!succeed.!Thus,!according!to!the!technocratic!pathway,!compli<

ant! reform! implementation! is! achieved! in! public! organizations!

with!significant!resource!endowments!(Goggin,!Bowman,!Lester,!

and!O’Toole!1990)!and!robust!central!control!over!processes!and!

decision<making! (Hill! and!Hupe!2002;!Mazmanian! and!Sabatier!

1983).!The!previous!can!be!summarized!as!follows:!

!

Technocratic'pathway—Compliant!implementation!of!re<

form! occurs! in! government! agencies! with! (a)! high! re<

source! endowments! and! (b)! strong! formal! central! con<

trol.!

!

!

Institutional pathways !

The! technocratic! pathway! builds! on! the! rationalist! assumption!

that!higher!investments!in!resources!relate!to!higher!compliance!


!

101 !

in! implementation! (cf.!Wittek! 2007).! An! alternative! framework!

to!explain!compliant!reform!emphasizes!the!normative!legitima<

tion! of! organizational! processes! and! active! bottom<up! involve<

ment! of! organizational! members! (Rainey! 2003;! Wittek! 2007;!

Wittek!and!Van!de!Bunt!2004).!Compared! to! technocratic!path<

ways,!an!institutional!model!of!implementation!focuses!primarily!

on! the! interplay!between! formal! and! informal! structures!of! the!

public!organization!(see!Christensen,!Lægreid,!Roness!and!Røvik!

2007,!122<42;!Rainey!2003).!In!particular,!scholars!highlight!the!

“pattern! maintenance”! function! of! organizational! norms! (Scott!

2008),! as!well! as! the! regularizing! effects! of! interpersonal! trust!

(Mayer,!Davis!and!Schoorman!1995;!Nyhan!2000;!1999).!On!the!

one! hand,! informal! norms! prescribe! legitimate! ways! of! action,!

that! is,! they!designate! appropriate!ways! for! pursuing!organiza<

tional!goals.!Once!norms!are!appropriated!and!legitimate!expec<

tations! arise,! focal! actors! acquire! strong! incentives! to! comply!

(Scott! 2008),! thereby! fostering! compliant! reform! implementa<

tion.!High! levels! of! interpersonal! trust,! on! the! other! hand,! help!

organizational!members!to!deal!with!uncertainty,! including!that!

which! arises! from! intentional! efforts! of! organizational! change.!

Two!variations!of!the!institutional!pathway!can!be!specified.!The!

first! is! based! on! classic! institutional! theory,! with! two! central!

arguments.!

First,! positive! reciprocity! expectations! based! on! norms!

and!intra<organizational!trust!allow!individuals!to!cope!with!risk,!

facilitating!cooperation,!acquiescence!and! (group)! identification!

(Ferrin,! Bligh! and! Kohles! 2007;! Lundin! 2007;! Putman! 2000).!

Intra<organizational!trust!is!an!important!asset!for!the!reforming!

public!organization!(see!e.g.,!Brunsson!and!Olsen!1993;!Fernan<

dez!and!Rainey!2006;!Rossotti!2005)!because!it!allows!organiza<

tional!members!to!cope!with!risks!inherent!in!reform!initiatives!

(Neves!and!Caetano!2007),!and!it!fosters!public!employees’!con<

fidence! in! the! organization’s! ability! to! adapt! to! changing! envi<

ronments! and! turbulence! (Nyhan! 2000).! Strong! interpersonal!

trust!also!indirectly!increases!individuals’!commitment!with!the!


!

102 !

organization,! which! in! turn! may! enhance! compliance! (Kramer!

1999).!

Second,! reforms! violating! prevalent! norms! or! at! odds!

with! the! culture! of! the! public! organization! (Christensen,!

Lægreid,! Roness! and! Røvik! 2007;! Nica! 2013)! are! likely! to! face!

oppositional!norms!(Meyer!and!Rowan!1977;!Nee!1998;!Wittek!

and!Van!de!Bunt!2004).!That!is,!compliant!reform!is!expedited!if!

implementation!strategies!account!for!or!prevent!the!emergence!

of!oppositional!norms!(Scott!2008).!

From! a! classic! institutional! perspective,! large! resource!

endowments!would!not!be!considered!a!central!precondition!for!

successful! implementation.! Instead,! given! some! minimum! re<

source! allowance,! compliant! change! is! in! principle! possible! if!

normative!beliefs!support! implementation.!The! institutional!ap<

proach!would!also!make!no!strong!predictions!about!the!type!of!

formal!control!structures:!as!long!as!the!organization!succeeds!in!

eliciting! normative! attachment! and! avoids! oppositional! norms,!

implementation! of! change! is! feasible.! Hence,! organizational! ac<

tion! (including! organizational! change)! requires! some! degree! of!

formalized! control! to! contain! conflict! and! address! power! de<

pendencies! (Selznick! 1996;! Greenwood! and! Hinings! 1996).! All!

the!previous!can!be!summarized!as!follows:!

!

Classic' institutional' pathway—Compliant! reform! imple<

mentation! occurs! in! government! agencies! with! (a)!

strong/weak! formal! central! control,! (b)! weak! opposi<

tional!norms!and!(c)!high!trust.!

!

The! second! institutional! pathway! builds! on! further! de<

velopments!in!institutional!theory!that!maintain!the!focus!on!the!

influence! of! informal! governance! structures,! but! also! make! a!

strong!point! of! incorporating! incentives! and! interests! as! causal!

conditions! (Nee! 2005).! This! “interest<based”! institutionalism!

underlines! the! need! to! align! organizational!members’! interests!

and! formal! and! informal! organizational! structures! to! achieve!


!

103 !

compliant! action! (Nee! 2005;! 1998).! Given! this,! strong! positive!

incentives! and! commitment! are! a! major! precondition! for! suc<

cessful! implementation! (cf.! Bénabou! and!Tirole! 2003).! Both! in<

ternal! and! external! conditions! to! the! organization! that! affect!

implementers’!interests!(e.g.,!changes!in!the!organization’s!envi<

ronment,!high!commitment!cultures,!contingent!rewards,!or!fear!

of!sanctions)!can!affect!implementation.!

Strong! internal! commitment! combined!with! demanding!

organizational! environments! favorable! to! change! should! en<

hance! compliant! reform! implementation! because! these! pres<

sures!align! implementers’! interests!with!reform!goals! (see!also,!

Kuhlmann,! Bogumil! and! Grohs! 2008).! Some! suggest! that! large!

resource! endowments! and! financial! incentives! may! undermine!

implementers’! intrinsic! motivation! to! implement! changes! (cf.!

Frey!and! Jegen!2001;!Osterloh!and!Frey!2000).!Therefore,! from!

this! perspective,! the! combination! of! interest! alignment,! high!

trust! and! weak! oppositional! norms! should! lead! to! compliant!

reform! implementation,! even! if! resource! endowments! are! not!

large.!

!

Interest@based' institutional' pathway—Compliant! reform!

implementation!occurs! in! government! agencies!with! (a)!

weak! oppositional! norms,! (b)! high! trust,! (c)! strong! im<

plementer!commitment,!and!(d)!strong!external!demand.!

!

Research design

Case: Reform of the Mexican Civil Service !

Providing! a! strong! answer! to! our! research! question! requires!

comparative! data! on! a! set! of! government! agencies! that! imple<

mented!organizational! changes!with!varying!degrees!of! success!

(compliance),! and! which! preferably! were! exposed! to! the! same!

reform!and!operate! in! the!same!politico<administrative!context.!


!

104 !

The!reform!of!the!Mexican!Civil!Service!(2003<2012)!meets!this!

requirement.! The! SPC! reform! is! interesting! for! at! least! two! rea<

sons.!First,! it! involved!several!different!organizations.!Transver<

sal! implementation!(i.e.,! implementation! in!an!entire!set!of!gov<

ernment!organizations)!allows!for!a!comparison!of!public!organ<

izations! with! different! characteristics,! including! different! re<

source! endowments,! levels! of! control,! oppositional! norms! and!

trust.! Second! and! more! importantly,! despite! limited! financial!

resources!and!strong!opposition! to! the!reform!(OECD!2011),! the!

SPC!was! successfully! implemented! in! several! organizations! (ASF!

2012),!indicating!that!a!variety!of!potential!pathways!to!compli<

ant!reform!may!be!present.!The!case! therefore!permits!a!closer!

examination! of! the! link! between! reform! implementation! and!

local!organizational!characteristics.!

! For! the! largest! part! of! its! modern! history,! the! Mexican!

federal! government! was! dominated! by! a! single! political! party,!

and!political!and!bureaucratic!leaders!enjoyed!ample!freedom!in!

the!recruitment!and!management!of!the!federal!workforce!(Arel<

lano!Gault!1999).!Only!by! the!end!of! the!1980s!did! the!political!

system! begin! experiencing! increased! electoral! competition! and!

democratization.! This! coincided! with! major! economic! reform!

and! the! entry! of! Mexico! in! 1994! to! NAFTA! and! the! OECD.! After!

2000,!when!the!opposition!won!the!presidential!election!for!first!

time!was!a!round!of!political!and!administrative!reform!initiated.!

The! 2003! SPC! reform! was! intended! to! modernize! federal! HRM!

policy,! by! introducing! a!meritocratic! system! into! several! agen<

cies!and!ministries.!

! Commentators! still! debate! whether! the! SPC! reform! has!

been!as!successful!(or!not)!as!similar!reforms!in!other!countries!

(Grindle!2012;!OECD!2011).!Mixed!evidence! shows! that! in! some!

areas,!SPC!implementation!was!very!successful!whereas!in!others!

it!either!failed!or!changes!were!marginal.!For!instance,!as!we!saw!

in! Chapter! 3,! some! patronage<based! practices! regarding! hiring!

and!recruitment!have!proven!extremely!resilient.!Conversely,!the!

adoption!of!new!rules!for!performance!evaluation!has!been!very!


!

105 !

successful,!reaching!96%!of!the!organizations!covered!by!the!SPC!

system!(SFP!2012).!Furthermore,!evidence!shows!much!variation!

in!the!degree!to!which!federal!organizations!changed!their!rules!

and!processes!to!comply!with!the!SPC!reform.!

!

Data !

We!collected!data! from!55!ministries!and!agencies!of! the!Mexi<

can! federal! government! that!were! the! object! of! the! SPC! reform.!

The!collection!has!two!sources:!survey!panel!data!and!secondary!

data!gathered!from!official!records.!Survey!data!was!collected!in!

early!2012! through!an!online! (Spanish)!questionnaire! sent! to! a!

panel!of!key!informants!in!all!federal!organizations!forming!parts!

of!the!SPC!system.!We!established!contact!first!with!the!Ministry!

of!the!Public!Service,!which!was!in!charge!of!overseeing!applica<

tion!of! the!reform.!After!explaining!the!aim!of!our!research,! the!

Ministry!agreed!to!facilitate!data!collection.!Officials!of!the!Minis<

try’s!Unit! of!Human!Resources! Policy! communicated!with! chief!

administrative! officers! (or! equivalents)! in! each! organization!

covered! by! the! SPC! system.! They! presented! the! study! and! re<

search!team,!and!encouraged!participation.!Next,!we!established!

direct! communication! with! each! organization,! targeting! three!

informants!per!organization:!the!chief!administrative!officer!(or!

equivalent),! human! resources! director! general! (or! equivalent),!

and!the!internal!auditor!in!chief.!These!three!informants!not!only!

played!a!pivotal!role!in!the!implementation!of!the!studied!reform!

(OECD!2011),!but!also!were!in!an!advantageous!position!to!inform!

us!about!organizational!characteristics.!Informants’!participation!

in! this! study! was! at! all<time! strictly! voluntary.! In! accordance!

with! the!privacy!protocol!agreed!with! the!Ministry!and! inform<

ants,! all! personal! information! is! considered! confidential.! Using!

this!protocol,!we!were!able!to!collect!information!from!55!organ<

izations! (73.3%!of! all! organizations! covered!by! the! SPC! system;!

see!Table!4.1).!

!


!

106 !

! TABLE!4.1!Organizations'that'belong'to'the'SPC'system!!

! Organization'

Law'and'order'

(N=7)'

A01! Ministry!of!the!Interior!

A02! Ministry!of!the!Public!Service!

A03! Legal!Advisor!to!the!Federal!Executive!

A04!Publications!and!Illustrated!Magazines!

Commission!

A05!Mexican!Commission!for!Assistance!to!Refugees!

A06! National!Population!Council!

A07!Institute!of!Management!and!Valuation!

of!National!Assets!

Economy'

(N=24)'

B01! Ministry!of!the!Treasury!and!Public!

Credit!

B02! Ministry!of!Economy!B03! Ministry!of!Energy!!

B04! Ministry!of!Communications!and!

Transport!

B05! Ministry!of!Agriculture,!Livestock,!Rural!

Development,!Fisheries!and!Food!!

B06! Ministry!of!Environment!and!Natural!Resources!

B07! Ministry!of!Tourism!!

B08! Federal!Telecommunications!

Commission!

B09! General!Coordination!of!the!National!

Program!of!“Solidaridad”!Companies!

B10! Higher!Agricultural!School!of!Guerrero!State!!

B11! Agricultural!and!Fishing!Information!

Service!

B12! National!Protected!Natural!Areas!

Commission!

B13! Federal!Attorney!for!Environmental!

Protection!B14! National!Seed!Inspection!and!

Certification!Service!

B15! National!Institute!of!Fishing!

B16! National!Sanitation,!Safety!and!

Agricultural!and!Livestock!Quality!

Service!!B17! National!Commission!for!Nuclear!Safety!

and!Safeguards!!

!


!

107 !

! TABLE!4.1!(cont.)!!

! Organization'

Economy'

(cont.)'

B18! National!Insurances!and!Bonds!

Commission!!

B19! National!Aquaculture!and!Fisheries!

Commission!

B20! Federal!Regulatory!Reform!Commission!!

B21! Federal!Competition!Commission!B22! Center!for!Advanced!Tourism!Studies!

'

B23! “Angeles!Verdes”!Corporation!B24! Agricultural!and!Livestock!

Commercialization!Services!

Social'welfare'

(N=24)'

C01! Ministry!of!Social!Development!!C02! Ministry!of!Health!C03! Ministry!of!Public!Education!C04! Ministry!of!Labor!and!Social!Welfare!!C05! Administration!of!the!Patrimony!of!the!

Public!Welfare!!C06! Federal!Commission!for!Protection!

from!Sanitary!Risk!!C07! National!Medical!Arbitration!

Commission!!C08! National!Bioethics!Commission!!C09! National!Center!of!Technological!

Excellency!in!Health!C10! National!Center!for!the!Prevention!and!

Control!of!Addictions!!C11! National!Center!for!the!Prevention!and!

Control!of!HIV<AIDS!C12! Psychiatric!Services!C13! National!Social!Health!Protection!

Commission!!C14! National!Commission!for!the!Pension!

System!C15! National!Center!of!Blood!Transfusion!C16! National!Coordination!of!the!Human!

Development!Program!“Oportunidades”!C17! Federal!Attorney!for!the!Defense!of!

Labor!C18! Federal!Administration!of!Educational!

Services!in!the!Federal!District!!

!


!

108 !

!! TABLE!4.1!(cont.)!!

! Organization'

' C19! National!Culture!and!Arts!Council!

Social'welfare'

(cont.)'

C20! National!Institute!of!Anthropology!and!

History!!C21! National!Institute!of!Fine!Arts!C22! National!Institute!of!the!Copyright!!C23! National!Polytechnic!Institute!C24! National!Pedagogical!University!!

!

!

As! expected! from! the! transversal! nature! of! the! SPC! re<

form,! surveyed!organizations! show!significant!diversity! in! their!

organizational! characteristics.! Overall,! 29%!of! the! surveyed! or<

ganizations!are!ministries! (secretarías),!and! the!remaining!71%!

are!agencies!(órganos'desconcentrados).!Ministries!represent!the!

strategic!core!of!the!executive!branch.!They!design,!evaluate!and!

oversee! the!bulk!of! federal!programs!and!policies.!Agencies!are!

subordinate! in! all! cases! to! responsible!ministries.! They! are! de<

centralized!and!semi<autonomous,!with!both!policy!implementa<

tion!and!supervisory!powers.!Most!ministries!and!some!concrete!

agencies!have!a!territorial!structure!that!combines!a!head!office!

(predominantly! in! Mexico! City)! and! branch! offices! in! each! or!

some!of!the!31!Mexican!states.!To!control!for!this!factor,!we!ex<

plicitly! asked! informants! to! limit! their! responses! to! the! head!

office! only.! Further,! sampled! organizations!may!be! classified! in!

three! groups! (Table! 4.1).! The! first! group! (10%!of! surveyed! or<

ganizations)!includes!those!devoted!to!internal!government,!reg<

ulation!of!the!public!service,!or!legal!advice!to!the!executive!(e.g.,!

Ministry!of! the!Interior).!The!second!type!(45%!of!surveyed!or<

ganizations)!is!related!to!fiscal!and!economic!regulation,!the!con<

struction! and! maintenance! of! infrastructure! or! promotion! and!

regulation! of! concrete! economic! areas/activities! (e.g.,! Federal!

Telecommunications!Commission).!The!third!type!is!dedicated!to!

social!policy!and!welfare!services!like!education!and!health!(45%!

of!surveyed!organizations;!e.g.,!National!Commission!for!the!Pen<

sion! System).! Finally,! in! all! but! one! surveyed! organization,! SPC!


!

109 !

rules! and! procedures! were! implemented! to! some! extent! (see!

below).!

!

Method and measurements: Fuzzy set qualitative comparative analysis (FSQCA) !

Each! of! the! three! pathways! to! compliant! implementation!

acknowledges!the!potential!influence!of!a!combination!of!organi<

zational! conditions.! Rather! than! providing! mutually! exclusive!

“black! or! white! hypotheses”,! these! can! be! read! as! alternative!

“recipes”!that!emphasize!certain!combinations!of!conditions!over!

others.! Pathways! specify! a! causal! set.! That! is,! they! establish! a!

number! of! necessary! organizational! conditions! of! unnecessary!

yet! sufficient! causal! configurations! (pathways)! leading! to! com<

pliant! implementation.! One! vital! methodological! implication!

resulting!from!this!is!that!the!analytical!method!should!be!able!to!

distinguish! different! configurations! important! to! successful! im<

plementation!(cf.!Matland!1995).!Put!another!way,!the!empirical!

analysis! should! be! able! to! account! for! “equifinality”,! that! is,! to!

reveal! potential! alternative! paths! leading! to! the! same! outcome!

(for!a!useful!discussion!of!the!notion!of!equifinality,!see!Mahoney!

and!Goertz!2006).!

! Based! on! the! theoretical! discussion,! each! template! pro<

vides!a!plausible!pathway!to!compliant!implementation.!Both!the!

theoretical! expectations! and! specifics! of! our! sample! put! re<

strictions!on!the!data!analysis!method.!First,!the!three!pathways!

do! not! compete! with! each! other! in! the! sense! of! contradicting!

hypotheses.!They!differ!mainly!in!the!combination!of!causal!con<

ditions!and!thus!the!relative!importance!they!attach!to!each!con<

dition,! in' combination'with! other! conditions.! Second,! configura<

tions! specified! by! each! pathway! can! be! treated! as! functionally!

equivalent!solutions! leading!to!the!same!outcome.!In!this!sense,!

multivariate!statistical!analyses!geared!to!explaining!variance!in!

the!outcome!are!not!appropriate.!Third,!the!number!of!organiza<


!

110 !

tional! units! (N=55)! is! inadequate! for! extended! statistical! analy<

sis.!

! Instead,!a!tool!that!can!meet!these!requirements!is!fuzzy!

set!qualitative!comparative!analysis!(FSQCA).!FSQCA!is!a!powerful!

method!grounded!in!set!theory,!formal!logic!and!Boolean!algebra!

that!is!particularly!suited!to!configurational!analysis!in!“small<N”!

samples! (Schneider! and! Wagemann! 2010).! The! FSQCA! analysis!

presented! in! this! section! investigates! and! compares! different!

causal! recipes! (pathways)! leading! to! compliant! implementation!

in!the!case!of!the!Mexican!SPC!reform.!

!

a) Measurements (fuzzy sets) !

The!basis!of!FSQCA!analysis!is!the!definition!of!theoretically!rele<

vant!causal!conditions!and!their!translation!into!calibrated!fuzzy!

sets.! In! contrast! to! conventional! dichotomous! measurements!

(“crisp! sets”),! using! fuzzy! sets! let! us! assess! set!membership! in!

the! interval! between! a! fuzzy! score! of! 0! and! a! fuzzy! score! of! 1.!

This! allows! us! to! refine! the! operationalization! of! causal! condi<

tions,! and! retain!qualitative!nuances!of! the!data! that! could!oth<

erwise!be!overlooked.!Calibration!of!each!fuzzy!set!indicates!the!

qualitative!criteria!used!to!determine!a!case’s!degree!of!member<

ship! in! the!set!of! interest.! In!particular,! three!qualitative!break<

points! for! each! fuzzy! set! need! to! be! defined!by! the! researcher:!

full! membership,! full! exclusion,! and! crossover! point.! The! first!

determines!the!point!at!which!a!concrete!case!is!considered!to!be!

“fully!in”!a!specified!set.!The!second!refers!to!the!point!at!which!a!

concrete!case!is!considered!to!be!“fully!out”.!The!crossover!point!

indicates! the! value! of!maximum!ambiguity,! that! is,! the! point! at!

which! a! given! case! cannot! be! considered! either! “in”! or! “out”! a!

given!set!(Ragin!2008).!

!

!

!

!


!

111 !

!FIGURE!4.1!—Compliant'SPC'implementation'in'55'organizations!

!

!

Outcome' (compliant' implementation).! To! estimate! to!

what! extent! all! 55! organizations! complied!with! the! SPC! reform,!

we!used!public!data!reported!by! the!Ministry!of! the!Public!Ser<

vice!that!reflect!each!organization’s!level!of!compliance!with!the!

Civil! Service! Operative! Program! (SPCOP).! Each! organization! re<

ceived! a! score! representing! the! overall! percentage! of! fulfilled!

SPCOP!goals!that!could!be!verified!in!the!administrative!record.!A!

score!of!100!means!that!an!organization!effectively!adopted!and!

implemented! all! changes! required!by! the! SPCOP,! and! represents!

total! compliance!with! the! SPC! reform.!Figure!4.1! shows! the!dis<

tribution! of! SPCOP! scores! for! all! studied! organizations,! ranging!

from!0! to!100.!We!used! these!scores! to!construct!a! fuzzy!set!of!

organizations!that!successfully! implemented!the!SPC!reform.!Us<

ing!the!direct!method!for!calibrating!fuzzy!sets!(see!Ragin!2008),!

the!threshold!for!full!membership!in!the!set!(fuzzy!score=0.95)!is!

a!score!of!90!(compliance!with!90%!of!SPCOP!goals),! the!crosso<

ver! point! (fuzzy! score=0.5)! is! a! score! of! 70! (compliance! with!

70%!of!SPCOP!goals),!and!the!threshold!for!full!exclusion!from!the!


!

112 !

set! of! compliant! reform! implementers! (fuzzy! score=0.05)! is! a!

score!of!60!(compliance!with!60%!of!SPCOP!goals).!

Resource'endowment.!To!measure!resources!available!for!

implementation! and! operation! of! the! reform,!we! used! financial!

data!from!the!Ministry!of!the!Treasury!(www.shcp.gob.mx),!and!

data!on!the!number!of!administrative!positions!in!each!organiza<

tion!that!formed!part!of!the!SPC!system!by!January!2011!to!con<

trol! for!organizational! size! (data! is!publicly!available!via! the! IN<

FOMEX!system!of!the!Federal!Institute!for!Access!to!Public!Infor<

mation,!www.infomex.org.mx).!We!calculated! the! ratio!between!

allocated!budget!and!the!number!of!civil!service!positions!in!each!

organization.! Thus!measurement! of! resources! is! limited! to! a! fi<

nancial!operationalization!of!endowments,!but!is!sensitive!to!the!

size!of!the!reform’s!target!population!per!organization!(number!

of! managerial! positions! linked! to! the! Civil! Service! Reform! Act;!

see!also!OECD!2011).!The!organization!in!the!most!advantageous!

position! could! spend!about!2700!USD!per!position,!whereas! the!

organization!in!the!worst!position!could!spend!about!37!USD!per!

position.!Organizations!with!endowments!that!amounted!to!817!

USD!per!position!(i.e.,!at!least!a!third!of!the!resources!available!to!

the!top!organization)!or!more!were!considered!fully!in!the!set!of!

organizations! with! large! resource! endowments! (fuzzy! score! of!

0.95! or! above).!We! use! the! average! score! for! all! organizations!

(672! USD)! as! crossover! point! (fuzzy! score=0.5).! Organizations!

with!endowments!equal!to!or!less!than!532!USD!per!position!(i.e.,!

only!a! fifth!of! resources!available! to! the! top!organization)!were!

excluded!from!the!fuzzy!set!(fuzzy!score!of!0.05!or!less).!

Central' control.! Strong! central! control!was!measured!by!

asking! informants:! “How! centralized! are! decision<making! and!

control!over!processes!in!this!organization.”!Response!was!coded!

on!a!five<point!scale!ranging!from!1:!very!decentralized!to!5:!very!

centralized.!We!averaged! scores!of! all! informants!per!organiza<

tion! to! obtain! organizational! scores! (cf.! Enticott,! Boyne! and!

Walker!2009),!which!we!then!used!to!determine!membership!in!

the! fuzzy! set! of! organizations! with! strong! central! control.! The!


!

113 !

threshold!for!full!membership!in!the!fuzzy!set!(fuzzy!score=0.95)!

equals! an! organizational! score! of! 5! (very! centralized! decision<

making!and!control),!the!crossover!point!(fuzzy!score=0.5)!is!an!

organizational! score!of!3! (neither! centralized!nor!decentralized!

control),!and! the! threshold! for! full!exclusion!(fuzzy!score=0.05)!

is!equivalent!to!an!organizational!score!of!1!(very!decentralized!

decision<making!and!control).!

Implementer' commitment.! To! account! for! implementers’!

commitment! to!adopt!and!execute! the! SPC! reform,!we!asked! in<

formants:! “Is! lack! of!will! or! support! from! organizational!mem<

bers!a!major!obstacle!for!the!SPC!in!this!organization?”!Individual!

response! was! coded! as! a! number! in! a! 1:10! interval,! where! a!

score!of!10!means!that!lack!of!will!or!support!is!a!major!obstacle!

and!1! that! it! is!not!a!major!obstacle.! Individual! scores!were!re<

versed!so!that!higher!values!reflect!higher!commitment.!We!then!

averaged!scores!to!produce!organizational!scores.!We!use!these!

to! define! membership! in! the! fuzzy! set! of! organizations! with!

strong! implementer! commitment.! The! threshold! for! full! mem<

bership! in! the! fuzzy! set! (fuzzy! score=0.95)! equals! an! organiza<

tional! score! of! 6.55! (high! commitment),! the! crossover! point!

(fuzzy! score=0.5)! is! an! organizational! score! of! 6.04! (average!

commitment),! and! the! threshold! for! full! exclusion! (fuzzy!

score=0.05)!is!equivalent!to!an!organizational!score!of!5.53!(low!

commitment).!

External' demand.! To! measure! external! demand,! we!

asked:! “To! what! extent! do! you! agree! that! demands! for! better!

performance!coming!from!citizens!and/or!users!of!this!organiza<

tion!have!increased!in!the!last!five!years?”!Responses!were!coded!

on! a! five<point! scale! ranging! from! 1:! strongly! disagree! to! 5:!

strongly! agree.! Using! organizational! scores,! we! determined!

membership!in!the!fuzzy!set!of!organizations!with!strong!exter<

nal!demand.!The!threshold!for!full!membership!in!the!set!(fuzzy!

score=0.95)! is! an! organizational! score! of! 5! (very! strong! de<

mand),!the!crossover!point!(fuzzy!score=0.5)!is!an!organizational!

score!of!4!(strong!demand),!and!the!threshold! for! full!exclusion!


!

114 !

from! the! set! (fuzzy! score=0.05)! is! an! organizational! score! of! 2!

(weak!demand).!

Interpersonal' trust.! To! measure! interpersonal! trust! we!

asked!informants!“To!what!extent!do!you!agree!that,! in!general,!

in! this! organization! subordinates! and! superiors! trust! each! oth<

er.”! Individual!responses!were!coded!on!a!five<point!scale!rang<

ing!from!1:!strongly!disagree!to!5:!strongly!agree.!As!before,! in<

dividual!scores!were!averaged!to!produce!organizational!scores.!

The!threshold!for!full!membership!in!the!set!(fuzzy!score=0.95)!

is!an!organizational!score!of!4!(presence!of!interpersonal!trust),!

the!crossover!point! (fuzzy!score=0.5)! is!an!organizational!score!

of!3!(weak!presence!of!interpersonal!trust),!and!the!threshold!for!

full!exclusion!from!the!set!(fuzzy!score=0.05)!is!an!organizational!

score!of!2!(absence!of!interpersonal!trust).!

Oppositional' norm' (Patronage).! We! measured! the! im<

portance!of!patronage!in!an!organization,!as!evidence!of!a!norm!

that!directly!opposed!objectives!of!the!SPC!reform!(see!Chapter!3,!

pp.69<71).! In! other!words,! this! item!measures! the! existence! of!

oppositional!norms.!We!asked! informants:! “In!general,!how! im<

portant!is!loyalty!to!a!person!or!group!to!obtain!promotions!or!to!

pursue! a! career! in! this! organization?”! The! response!was! coded!

on!a!five<item!scale!ranging!from!1:!not!important!to!5:!extreme<

ly!important.!Using!organizational!scores,!we!defined!the!thresh<

old! for! full! membership! in! the! fuzzy! set! of! organizations! with!

strong! patronage! norm! (fuzzy! score=0.95),! an! organizational!

score!of!4!(loyalty!to!a!group!is!very!important!to!obtain!promo<

tions!and/or!pursue!a!career!in!the!organization),!the!crossover!

point! (fuzzy! score=0.5)! is! an! organizational! score! of! 3,! and! the!

threshold!for!full!exclusion!(fuzzy!score=0.05)!is!equivalent!to!an!

organizational! score! of! 2! (loyalty! to! a! group! is! only! somewhat!

important).! Table! 4.2! presents! the! overall! distribution! for! all!

fuzzy!sets;!that!is,!the!percentage!of!cases!that!fall!within!differ<

ent! ranges! (more! “in”! or! “out”)! of! observed! conditions! (re<

sources,!control,!trust,!etc.).!

!


!

115 !

!

TABLE!4.2!Fuzzy'sets'of'conditions'leading'to'compliant'implementation!!

' Fuzzy'score'range'

'≤'0.05'

0.06'@'

0.49'0.5'

0.51'@'

0.94'≥'0.95'

C.!implementation! 0.05! 0.13! 0.00! 0.76! 0.05!

Resources! 0.47! 0.02! 0.00! 0.27! 0.24!

Control! 0.11! 0.02! 0.24! 0.18! 0.45!

Trust! 0.09! 0.00! 0.33! 0.15! 0.44!Oppositional!norm! 0.51! 0.13! 0.20! 0.02! 0.15!

Commitment! 0.38! 0.05! 0.00! 0.16! 0.40!

External!demand! 0.04! 0.13! 0.35! 0.20! 0.29!NOTE:!

Each!row!represents!the!percentage!of!case!that!fall!within!different!ranges!of!each!

causal!condition!(fuzzy!set)!

All!coefficients!range!0<1!

!

!

b) Analytical strategy !

Using!FSQCA,!we!can!consider!the!varying!degrees!of!membership!

in!all! logically!possible!combinations!(configurations)!of!a!given!

set! of! causal! conditions! and! then,! systematically! and! formally!

investigate! the! connections!between! causal! conditions! and!out<

come.! Specifically,! this! method! allows! for! assessing! whether!

membership! in!a! combination!of! causal! conditions! (causal! reci<

pe)! can! be! considered! a! consistent! subset! of! membership! in! a!

given! outcome.! Configurational! FSQCA! analysis! reveals! which!

combinations!of!causal!conditions!consistently!relate! to!compli<

ant!implementation.!

First,! we! calculated! the! degree! of! membership! of! each!

case! in! all! logically! possible! combinations! of! causal! conditions.!

With! six! causal! conditions! (resource! endowment,! trust,! central!

control,!oppositional!norm,!commitment,!and!external!demand),!

there!are!64!combinations.!Out!of!these,!only!12!(18.7%)!have!at!

least!one!case!with!greater!than!0.5!membership!(i.e.,!beyond!the!

point! of!maximum! ambiguity)! in! the! specific! causal! recipe.!We!

use!this!as!selection!criterion!for!distinguishing!empirically!rele<


!

116 !

vant! combinations! (see! Table! 4.3).! The! additional! 52! combina<

tions!were!treated!as!remainders!in!the!next!analysis.!

!

!

TABLE!4.3!Truth'tablea,b!!

C' R' W' N' T' D' Count' Consistency' Outcome'

1! 1! 1! 1! 0! 0! 1! 0.99! 1!

1! 0! 1! 0! 1! 1! 1! 0.99! 1!

1! 1! 1! 0! 1! 1! 2! 0.98! 1!

1! 0! 1! 0! 1! 0! 1! 0.98! 1!

0! 0! 1! 0! 1! 0! 1! 0.98! 1!

1! 1! 1! 0! 1! 0! 1! 0.98! 1!

1! 1! 1! 1! 1! 1! 1! 0.96! 1!0! 0! 1! 0! 1! 1! 2! 0.92! 1!

1! 1! 0! 0! 1! 1! 1! 0.91! 1!

0! 0! 0! 0! 1! 1! 1! 0.89! 1!

0! 1! 0! 0! 1! 1! 1! 0.83! 0!

1! 0! 1! 1! 1! 1! 1! 0.78! 0!NOTE:!a!Only!configurations!with!at!least!one!case!with!greater!than!0.5!set!

membership!b!Each!row!represents!an!empirically!valid!combination!of!present!(1)!or!not!

present!(0)!causal!conditions!as!(consistent)!subsets!of!the!outcome!

(compliant!SPC!implementation)!Abbreviations:!

C:!control,!R:!resource!endowment,!W:!commitment,!N:!oppositional!norm,!T:!

trust,!D:!external!demand!

!

!

Second,! we! assessed! whether! subset! relations! between!

configurations! of! causal! conditions! and! the! outcome! could! be!

demonstrated! in! the! data.!With! fuzzy! sets,! a! subset! relation! is!

demonstrated!mathematically! by! showing! that! degree! of!mem<

bership!in!a!given!causal!recipe!is!consistently!less!than!or!equal!

to!degree!of!membership! in! the!outcome! (“consistency”).!Table!

4.3!reports!on!the!measurement!of!consistency!for!each!of!the!12!

configurations! (Table! 4.3! is! also! called! a! “truth! table”).! These!

scores! range! from! 0.78! to! 0.99,! indicating! little! spread! in! the!

degree! to! which! the! subset! relation! is! satisfied.! In! the! subse<

quent!truth!table!analysis,!the!nine!combinations!with!consisten<


!

117 !

cy!scores!of!at!least!0.89!were!treated!as!subsets!of!the!outcome.!

The!remaining!combinations!failed!to!satisfy!this!criterion.!

Third,! we! used! FSQCA! software! (v.2.5;! Ragin,! Drass! and!

Davey! 2007)! to! derive! truth! table! solutions.! We! consider! the!

parsimonious! and! intermediate! solutions.! The! first! permits! the!

incorporation! of! any! counterfactual! (remaining)! combination!

that! contributes! to!a! simpler! solution.!The! second!derives!a! re<

sult! that! considers!a!priori!plausibility!of! counterfactual! combi<

nations;! that! is,! it! formalizes! theory<based! expectations! of! the!

effects! of! causal! conditions! on! the! outcome:! compliant! imple<

mentation!(see!Ragin!2008).!Put!differently,!it!only!uses!counter<

factual!combinations!that!are!plausible!given!evidence!and!exist<

ing!knowledge.!We!present!these!two!solutions!next.!

!

Results

The! parsimonious' solution! yields! two! alternative! paths! to! com<

pliant!reform!implementation,!as!expressed!in!the!Boolean!solu<

tion!formula:!

!

(~R!∙!~N)!+!(R!∙!C)!

!

where!R!is!the!fuzzy!set!of!organizations!with!large!resource!en<

dowment,!N!is!the!set!with!strong!oppositional!norm,!C!is!the!set!

with! strong! central! control,!~! indicates!negation!of! a! fuzzy! set,!!!!!

∙!represents!the!logical!AND,!and!+!represents!the!logical!OR.!The!

parsimonious!solution!reveals!that!(1)!the!combination!of!small!

resource! endowment! and!weak!oppositional!norm! (loyalty! to! a!

group!is!only!somewhat!important!to!pursue!a!career!and!obtain!

promotions),!and!(2)!the!combination!of!strong!control!and!large!

resource! endowments! is! linked! to! compliant! SPC! reform! imple<

mentation!in!our!data.!While!this!parsimonious!solution!leads!to!

an! elegant! result,! it! may! incorporate! too!many! counterfactuals!

that!in!turn,!may!be!difficult!to!account!for!in!terms!of!theoretical!


!

118 !

and!substantive!knowledge.!For!example,!the!parsimonious!solu<

tion!above! includes! the!combination!of!ample!resources,! strong!

central!control,!low!commitment!to!reform,!and!strong!opposing!

patronage! norms,! which! has! no! empirical! foothold! in! our! data!

and!is!difficult!to!defend!from!a!theoretical!view!(see,!e.g.,!Grin<

dle!2012;!also!cf.!Migdal!2009).!

!

!

! TABLE!4.4!Four'recipes'for'compliant'implementation!!

! Configurations'

1.!<! (RESOURCES!·!CONTROL!·!COMMITMENT)!2.!<! (RESOURCES!·!CONTROL!·!oppositional!norm!·!TRUST!·!

EXTERNAL!DEMAND)!

3.!<! (resources!·!oppositional!norm!·!TRUST!·!COMMITMENT)!

4.!<! (resources!·!control!·!TRUST!·!oppositional!norm!·!

EXTERNAL!DEMAND)!NOTE:!

Conditions!in!upper!case!are!present;!conditions!in!lower!case!are!

negated.!The!four!configurations!(pathways)!are!linked!through!the!

logical!OR.!Conditions!within!a!configuration!are!linked!through!the!

logical!AND!

!

!

The!intermediate'solution!solves!this!problem.!It!indicates!

that! four! causal! recipes! are! linked! to! compliant! reform! imple<

mentation!(Table!4.4).!In!Boolean!notation!the!resulting!formula!

is:!

!

(R!∙!C!∙!W)!+!(~R!∙!~N!∙!T!∙!W)!

+!(~R!∙!~N!∙!~C!∙!D!∙!T)!+!(R!∙!C!∙!~N!∙!D!∙!T)!

!

where!R!is!the!fuzzy!set!of!organizations!with!large!endowments,!

C!is!the!set!with!strong!central!control,!T!is!the!set!with!interper<

sonal!trust,!W!is!the!set!with!strong!implementer!commitment!to!

reform,!N! is! the!set!with!strong!oppositional!norm,!and!D! is! the!

set!with!strong!external!demand.!

The! four! configurations!are! similar! in! that! they!all! refer!

to!the!presence!or!absence!of!resource!endowments.!Further,!in!


!

119 !

the! two! configurations! that! link! limited! resources! to! outcome!

also!link!presence!of!trust!and!weak!patronage!norms!to!the!out<

come.!These!results!confirm!that!conditions!linked!to!compliant!

reform! implementation! are! configurational! in! nature;! different!

recipes!may! lead!to! the!same!outcome!(equifinality);!and! in! the!

absence!of!plentiful!resources,!conditions!highlighted!by!institu<

tional!templates!become!relevant.!

After! comparing! the! parsimonious! and! intermediate! so<

lutions,! the! specific! structure!of! each!of! the! four! configurations!

can!be!determined.!This!derives! from! the! fact! that! terms! in! the!

parsimonious! solution!must!be!part!of! any! (intermediate)! solu<

tion—that! is,! the! intermediate! solution!must!be! a! subset!of! the!

parsimonious! solution! (Ragin! 2008,! 160<75).! Table! 4.5! shows!

“core”!and!“contributing”!causal!conditions,!as!well!as!consisten<

cy!and!coverage!measurements!per!each! configuration.!This! ta<

ble!illustrates!the!ways!in!which!surveyed!organizations!compli<

antly! implemented! the! SPC! reform.!We! first!discuss! to!what!de<

gree!the!four!empirically!derived!configurations!match!the!three!

theoretical! pathways! presented! above! (Technocratic,! Classic!

Institutional,!and!Interest<based!Institutional),!and!present!gen<

eral!observations!thereafter.!

The!empirical!pattern!closest!to!the'technocratic'pathway!

is!the!first!configuration.!It!suggests!that!compliant!implementa<

tion!requires!a!rich!resource!endowment,!strong!centralized!con<

trol,!but!also!strong!implementer!commitment.!Strictly!speaking,!

the!presence!of! the! latter!disconfirms!the!parsimonious!version!

of! the! technocratic! pathway.! The! additional! requirement! of!

commitment!in!configuration!1!suggests!that!classic!technocratic!

assumptions!would!have!to!be!extended!by!a!stronger!emphasis!

on! interests,! particularly! implementer! commitment.! Configura<

tion!2!does!not!contradict!the!technocratic!pathway,!but!demon<

strates!that!for!the!Mexican!case!to!lead!to!compliant!implemen<

tation,!it!would!have!to!be!complemented!with!institutional!con<

ditions.!

!


!

120 !

!TABLE!4.5!Structure,'consistency'and'coverage'of'recipes'for'compliant'

'implementation!!

! Configurationsa!

! 1! 2! 3! 4!

Resources! !! !! "! "!Control! !! !! ! "!

Trust! ! !! !! !!

Op.!norm!(patronage)! ! "! "! "!Commitment! !! ! !! !

External!demand! ! !! ! !!

! ! ! ! !

Consistency! 0.95! 0.95! 0.95! 0.90!

Raw!coverage! 0.25! 0.23! 0.31! 0.24!Unique!coverage! 0.11! 0.07! 0.12! 0.08!NOTES:!a!Consistency!cutoff:!0.89!

!!=core!causal!condition;!"!=core!causal!condition!(negated);!!!!=contributing!causal!condition;!"!=!contributing!causal!condition!(negated)!!

!

The!classic'institutional'pathway!favored!the!combination!

of! control!with! trust! and! the! absence! of! oppositional! norms.! It!

did! not!make! strong! assumptions! about! resource! endowments.!

Configuration! 2! comes! closest! to! this! pathway.! It! contains! all!

three!conditions,!but!adds!large!resource!endowments!as!a!nec<

essary!requirement.!Thus,! in!strict!sense,!this!observed!configu<

ration!does!not!solve!the!problem!for!SPC!implementers!in!organ<

izations!with!small!endowments.!Another!empirical!pattern!com<

ing!close!to!the!ideas!behind!an!institutional!pathway!is!configu<

ration!4.!The!result! suggests! that!compliant! implementation!re<

quires! trust! and! strong! external! demands! in! combination! with!

the!absence!of!centralized!control,!oppositional!norms,!and!large!

resource! endowments.! Hence,! in! contrast! to! configuration! 2,!

compliant! implementation! is! possible! even! with! a! low! budget,!

given!that!control!is!not!centralized,!there!are!sufficient!external!

demands! and! the! normative! basis! is! strongly! supportive! of! the!

change.!


!

121 !

The!interest@based'institutional'pathway!relaxes!the!set!of!

conditions! specified! by! the! institutional! framework,! dropping!

the!requirement!of!strong/weak!central!control!and!adding!em<

phasis! to! commitment! and! external! demands! as! ways! to! align!

implementers’! interest!with!reform.!The!empirical!pattern!com<

ing! closest! to! this! pathway! is! configuration! 3.! The!main! differ<

ence! with! the! hypothesized! pathway! is! that! external! demands!

are!not!required,!but!implementer!commitment!is.!

More! generally,! two! configurations! require! large! re<

source!endowments!and!two!do!not.!This!suggests!that!there!are!

indeed! two! fundamentally! different! routes! to! compliant! imple<

mentation,! at! least! regarding! the! availability! of! resources! ear<

marked!for!reform.!Another!notable!feature!of!the!four!configu<

rations!is!that!in!three!of!them,!the!combination!of!trust!and!the!

absence! of! oppositional! norms! are! linked! to! the! outcome,! sup<

porting! one! of! the!major! claims! of! institutional! approaches! on!

implementation.!Results! show!that! (1)!although!empirically! im<

portant,!the!technocratic!pathway!characterized!by!the!existence!

of! strong! centralized! control! and! availability! of! large! resource!

endowments! does! not! predominate! across! instances! of! compli<

ant!SPC!reform!implementation.!(2)!Institutional!pathways!main<

ly!characterized!by!weak!oppositional!norms!and!the!presence!of!

interpersonal! trust!are!also!a!subset!of! the! instances!of! compli<

ant!implementation,!even!if!resources!are!limited.!

Further,! we! selected! representative! organizations! with!

membership!scores!above!0.5!in!each!of!the!configurations.!The!

idea!was! to!detect!additional!patterns!underlying!differences! in!

compliant!SPC!implementation!(Table!4.6).!First,!the!“most!popu<

lated”!configurations!in!Table!4.6!are!1!and!3!(with!14!and!8!cas<

es! with! fuzzy! scores! above! 0.5,! respectively).! Configurations! 2!

and!4!only!include!three!cases!each!that!fulfill!this!criterion.!The!

two!most!populated!configurations!(1!and!3)!come!closest!to!the!

technocratic! and! the! interest<based! institutional! pathways,! re<

spectively.!In!our!data,!social!welfare!organizations!(e.g.,!welfare!

administration! services! and! health! procurement! agencies)! pre<


!

122 !

dominate! in! the! technocratic! pathway.! Economic! policy! organi<

zations! (e.g.,! organizations! related! to! agriculture! and! livestock!

policy,! as! well! as! energy! and! telecommunications! regulatory!

agencies)!predominate!in!the!interest<based!institutional!config<

uration.! No! consistent! differences! appear! from! the! distribution!

of! ministries! versus! agencies! across! configurations.! Although!

evidently! beyond! our! theoretical! framework,! these! additional!

insights!suggest!the!possibility!that!differences!in!organizational!

task! or! policy! domain/sector! could! relate! to! differences! in! the!

efficacy!of!different!pathways!to!reform!implementation.!

!

!TABLE!4.6!Sectorial!patterns!of!compliant!implementation!!

! Configurations'

! 1! 2! 3! 4!

Na! 14! 3! 8! 3!!

%!orgs.!law!and!order!!

0.14!!

0.00!!

0.00!!

0.33!

%!orgs.!economy! 0.36! 0.33! 0.63! 0.66!

%!orgs.!social!welfare! 0.50! 0.66! 0.37! 0.00!!

!! ! ! !

%!central!ministries! 0.93! 0.33! 0.88! 0.66!

%!agencies! 0.07! 0.66! 0.12! 0.33!NOTE:!a!Only!cases!with!membership!score!above!0.5!per!configuration!Coefficients!range!0!–!1.!

!

!

Discussion

A! technocratic! approach! to!public!management! reform!stresses!

the! need! for! committing! sizable! resource! endowments! into! ef<

forts! of! reform.! Building! on! an! institutional! framework! (Nee!

2005),! we! argued! that! there! might! be! alternative! pathways! to!

compliant! implementation! for! government! agencies! with! small!

resource! endowments.! Our! comparative! study! of! 55! Mexican!

government! agencies! that! underwent! reform! revealed! the! co<

occurrence! of! both! technocratic! and! institutional! pathways! to!


!

123 !

compliant! implementation.! The! common! denominator! across!

institutional! configurations! was! the! absence! of! large! resource!

endowments! combined! with! strong! oppositional! norms! (weak!

patronage)! and! interpersonal! trust! (subordinates/supervisors!

generally!trust!each!other).!

Before! discussing! the! implications! of! our! findings,! we!

need! to! acknowledge! some! limitations! of! this! study.! First,! alt<

hough! grounded! in! theoretical! and! substantive! knowledge,! our!

study! is! limited! to! a! broad! framework! on! organizational<level!

influences! on! implementation.!We! aimed! at! understanding! dif<

ferent! comparable! ways! in! which! bundles! of! organizational!

characteristics! affected! organizational! change! in! governmental!

organizations.! However,! emphasis! on! generic! conditions! also!

limited! the! attention! paid! in! this! study! to! more! finely! grained!

organizational!factors!that!may!affect!compliant!implementation!

(e.g.,!conflict!and!policy!legitimation!processes;!see,!Hill!and!Hu<

pe! 2002;! Kelly! 1994;! Lipsky! 1980).! In! addition,! this! study! ne<

glects! inter<organizational! influences!and!the!role!played!by!the!

enforcing! ministry! (see! Chapter! 3).! Future! studies! can! greatly!

benefit! from! conceptualizing! and! testing! connections! between!

these!elements!and!their!relation!to!technocratic!and!institution<

al!pathways.!

Second,!our!empirical! study! is! limited! to! the! case!of! the!

Mexican! SPC! reform.! Although! the! availability! of! reliable! and!

comparable!data!will! likely!be!a!problem,! future!research!could!

benefit! from! comparing! organizations! implementing! different!

reforms,! in! different! or! across! politico<administrative! systems.!

Third,!our!analysis! focused!on! identifying!causal!configurations.!

An! FSQCA!methodology! assisted! us! in! systematically! comparing!

cases! and! identifying! recipes.!However,! this! choice! also! implies!

that!little!can!be!said!about!the!“net!effect”!of!each!separate!con<

dition.! Future! research! designs! could! combine! specific! predic<

tions!for!single!conditions,!a!traditional!net!effects!method!(e.g.,!

multivariate! regression)!and!a!configurational!approach! to!pro<

duce!additional!insights.!


!

124 !

Despite! its! limitations,! this! study! and! evidence! distilled!

from! the! Mexican! case! provide! interesting! lessons.!We! discuss!

three! of! these! by!way! of! conclusion.! First,! the! present! study! is!

among!few!public!administration!studies!to!compare!a!relatively!

large! variety! of! public! organizations! of! a! national! government!

that!underwent!public!management!reform.!Our!research!design!

improves! traditional! SROS! protocols.! We! collected! information!

from!multiple!informants!per!organization!and!complemented!it!

with! independent,! secondary! data.! This! design! produces! more!

information!and! is!also! likely! to!reduce!bias!(cf.!Enticott,!Boyne!

and!Walker!2009).!This!improvement!shows!that!it!is!possible!to!

compare! intra<organizational! characteristics! of! several! public!

organizations!systematically,!using!relatively!efficient!methods.!

Second,!this!chapter!shows!(a)!the!configurational!nature!

of!technocratic!and!institutional!recipes!for!implementation,!and!

(b)! their!co<occurrence!as!possible!pathways! leading!to!compli<

ant! SPC! implementation.! It! suggests! that! organizational<level!

conditions! affecting! compliant! implementation! (resource! en<

dowments,! formal!central!control,!normative!beliefs,!and!imple<

menters’! interests)!may!be! conceptualized! and! studied! as! com<

plementary!pieces!of! combinatorial!mechanisms! (pathways).! In!

this!sense,!one!of!the!lessons!of!this!study!is!that!factors,!such!as!

large! resource! endowments,! are! vital! in! relation! to! (theory<

based)! recipes!or!pathways.!These!allow!us! to!appraise! the! im<

portance!of!factors!alleged!to!matter!in!implementation;!but!they!

also!allow!us!to!contextualize!their!explanatory!value!relative!to!

other! organizational! characteristics.! For! instance,! this! study!

shows! that,! in! the!Mexican! case,!meager! resource! endowments!

contributed! to! compliant! implementation,! given! a! constellation!

of! interpersonal! trust,! weak! oppositional! norms! and! alignment!

of!implementers’!interests.!An!advantage!of!this!form!of!configu<

rational! thinking! is! that! it! allows! for! equifinality.! Paying! atten<

tion!to!the!multiple!pathways!leading!to!compliant!implementa<

tion!is!relevant!for!theories!of!implementation.!It!permits!contex<

tualization! and! assessment! of! different! recipes—as! opposed! to!


!

125 !

limiting!the!analysis!to!concrete!ingredients.!Further,!this!kind!of!

analysis!is!also!relevant!for!practitioners,!who!often!must!search!

for!different!ways!of!implementing!policy!reforms!with!or!with<

out!limited!resources.!

For!the!SPC!case,!this!study!reveals!that!both!technocratic!

and!institutional!recipes!were!potentially!sufficient,!if!not!neces<

sary,!explanations!of!compliant!implementation.!We!do!not!mean!

to!imply!that!the!pathways!studied!here!are!enough!to!explain!all!

instances!of!compliant!implementation.!Instead,!we!want!to!con<

vey!that!this!study!reveals!clues!as!to!how!and!why!investments!

in!the!form!of!large!resource!endowments!matter!or!do!not!mat<

ter!for!compliant!reform!implementation.!The!study!also!reveals!

some! contextual! information! suggesting! that! differences! in! or<

ganizational!context/task!may!be!related!to!different!implemen<

tation!pathways.!For! instance,!organizations! that!operate!under!

strong! budgetary! constraints! and! directly! provide! public! ser<

vices! (such! as! social! welfare! organizations;! see! Table! 4.1)! suc<

ceeded! in! implementing! the! SPC! reform! to! the! extent! that! large!

financial! endowments! and! central! control! over! processes!were!

available!and!implementers’!interests!were!aligned!to!reform.!In!

comparison,!smaller!agencies!that!regulate!policy!arenas!but!do!

not! necessarily! provide! a! wide! range! of! direct! public! services!

(e.g.,! economic! regulators)! succeeded! in! implementing! the! SPC!

even! though! resources! were! limited,! when! subordinates! and!

supervisors!trusted!each!other,!patronage!norms!were!weak,!and!

implementers’!interests!were!aligned.!Future!studies!could!theo<

rize!on!and!empirically!test!this!sort!of!contextual/task!relations!

across!different!types!of!governmental!organizations.!

Finally,! our! findings! stress! the! importance! of! normative!

beliefs! and! alignment! of! interests! related! to! organizational!

change! (see! De! Lancer! Jules! and! Holzer! 2001).! This! highlights!

some!potential!avenues!of!future!research!on!implementation!of!

organizational!change!in!government,!and!in!public!management!

reform! generally.! First,! management! of! intra<organizational!

norms!and!interpersonal!trust!could!have!a!more!prominent!role!


!

126 !

in!the!study!of!public!management!reform!implementation!than!

granted!by!traditional!bureaucracy!and!public!management!the<

ories.!The!idea!that!implementers!need!to!“build!internal!support!

for! change! and! overcome! resistance”! (Fernandez! and! Rainey!

2006,!170)!could!be!further!specified!and!explored!in!future!re<

search.!

On!the!one!hand,!very!few!studies!look!into!strategies!of!

cultural!management! in! the!public! sector;! in!particular,!on!how!

public! managers! and! reformers! could! emphasize,! cultivate! or!

build! upon! norms! friendly! to! a! given! program! of! reform,! or!

weaken!or!isolate!oppositional!norms!(cf.!Bate!1995).!Our!results!

echo! also! studies! pointing! at! favorable! effects! of! trust! building!

(e.g.,! Lundin! 2007).! Implementation! strategies! that! allow! for!

active!employee!participation,!empowerment,!bilateral!feedback!

on! performance,! and! other! antecedents! of! interpersonal! trust!

(Nyhan!2000)!could!potentially! increase! the!chances!of! compli<

ant! implementation! in! the!public! sector.!On! the!other!hand,! fu<

ture!studies!could!look!closer!into!if!and!how!large!resource!en<

dowments! and! financial! incentives! crowd! out! intrinsic!motiva<

tion!to!implement!change!in!governmental!agencies!(cf.!Frey!and!

Jegen!2001),!as!suggested!by!an! interest<based! institutional!ap<

proach!on!public!management!reform!implementation.!

!

!

!

!

FIVE After reorganization1 !

!

!

!

!

!

!

Since! the! 1980s,! an! increasing! number! of! governments! around!

the! globe! have! implemented! public! administration! reforms! to!

improve!both!efficiency!and!effectiveness!of!public!services.!The!

goal! was! to! transform! public! administration! structures! from! a!

set! of! overly! bureaucratized,! inward<looking! organizations! to!

more!open!agencies,!much!more!adaptive!and!responsive!to!citi<

zens’! needs! (Kettl! 2005).! In! Continental! Europe,! this! trend! to<

ward! post<bureaucratic! reform! was! reinforced! by! the! conver<

gence!criteria!of!the!European!Union!Treaty!of!Maastricht!(Bach!

and! Della! Rocca! 2000;! also! see! Kickert! 2011).! These! reforms!

implied!substantial!changes!in!the!degree!of!competition,!regula<

tion,!and!autonomy!in!the!environment!of!public!organizations.!

! Most! research! on! administrative! reform! focuses! on! the!

differential! nature! and! consequences! (or! “success”)! of! these!

changes.!Previous!studies!found!much!between!country!variation!

in! the!degree!and!scope!of! “new!public!managerialism”!and! the!

way! concrete! reforms! have! been! implemented! (e.g.,! Pollitt! and!

Bouckaert! 2004).! In! addition,! research! yielded! mixed! results!

about! the! consequences! of! reforms.! Some! studies! showed! that!

!1!This!chapter!is!based!on!F.!Nieto!Morales,!R.!Wittek,!and!L.!Heyse.!2013.!“After!

the!reform:!Change!in!Dutch!public!and!private!organizations”,!Journal'of'Public'

Administration' Research' and' Theory,! 23,! 735<54.! It! is! reproduced! here! with!

license!of!Oxford!Journals!(no.3461911150930).!Funding!for!data!collection!to!

R.!Wittek!(The!Netherlands’!Organization!for!Scientific!Research:!016<005<052,!

400<05<704).!

AFTER!REORGANIZATION!

!

128 !

the!nature!of!public!organizations!either!impedes!the!success!of!

restructuring! processes! in! these! organizations! or! leads! to! out<

comes! that! are! fundamentally! different! from! private! organiza<

tions.!Other! studies! conclude! that! in! terms!of! achieving! the!ob<

jectives!of!change,!restructurings!can!be!equally!effective!in!pub<

lic!and!private!organizations!(for!a!review!of!both!positions,!see!

Boyne!2002).!

Far!less!attention!is!devoted!to!the!antecedents!of!organ<

izational! change! and! the! related! question! to' what' degree' post@

reorganization' conditions' affected' public' agencies’' propensity' to'

implement' organizational' changes.! We! define! organizational!

change!as!any! intended!reconfiguration!of!organizational! struc<

tures! (cf.! Fernandez! and! Pitts! 2007).2! One! of! the! fundamental!

premises!behind!public!management!reforms!is!that!by!changing!

the!institutional!context—making!it!more!“market<like”!through!

introducing! competition,! reducing! regulation,! and! increasing!

autonomy—public!organizations!will! eventually! respond!by!ad<

justing! their! structures! and! processes! accordingly! (Ferlie! et! al.!

1996;!Osborne!and!Gaebler!1993;!also!cf.!Buchanan!and!Tollison!

1999;! Desmidt! and! Heene! 2005;! Niskanen! 2007;! Pollitt! 2001).!

Hence,!public!organizations!are!expected!to!show!similar!covari<

ates!of!change!than!private!firms.!

In! this! fifth! chapter,! we! explore! two! interrelated! ques<

tions.! First,! to! what! degree! are! variations! in! the! exposure! to!

competition,! regulation,! and! autonomy! related! to! the! incidence!

of! deliberate! organizational! change! in! Dutch! public! organiza<

tions?! Second,! do! these! covariates! of! change! affect! public! and!

private! organizations! similarly?! An! NPM<informed! position! sug<

!2! In! this! specific! study,!we!distinguish! comprehensive! structural! changes! and!

changes! in! administrative! procedures,! such! as! internal! reorganizations,! new!

budgeting! policies,! and! automation! of!work.! On! this,! see! distinction! between!

rare!“fundamental”!and!more!common!nonfundamental!change!(i.e.,! reorgani<

zations)! by!Hannan! and! Freeman! (1984,! 158).!However,!we!must! stress! that!

this! distinction! is! purely! exploratory! and! does! not! reflect! a! priori! particular!

hypotheses.!

!


!

129 !

gests! that! the! responses! of! public! and! private! organizations! to!

these! covariates! of! change!will! tend! to! converge.! Conversely,! a!

more! traditional! view!would! lead! to! contradicting! expectations!

of! remaining! differences! between! public! and! private! organiza<

tions.!

Our! study!makes! three! distinct! contributions! to! the! de<

bate! on! administrative! reform!and!organizational! change.! First,!

this!study!puts!the!expectations!from!both!the!traditional!and!the!

NPM<informed!position!to!an!empirical! test! in! the!context!of! the!

Dutch!public!sector.!To!our!best!knowledge,!this!research!is!the!

first!one!to!quantitatively!study!the!effect!of!covariates!of!change!

in!both!Dutch!public!and!private!sectors.!Thus,!with!its!focus!on!

the! Netherlands,! our! study! broadens! the! scope! of! existing! re<

search!on!change! in!the!public!sector,!which!has!mostly!tackled!

Anglo<Saxon! cases! (Pollitt,! Van! Thiel,! and! Homburg! 2007).! In!

addition,!the!Dutch!case!has!become!a!major!point!of!reference!in!

the! public! sector! reform! literature! (e.g.,! Pollitt! and! Bouckaert!

2004)!and!is!often!portrayed!as!a!“best!practice”!case!by!promi<

nent!international!organizations!(e.g.,!OECD)!and!practitioners!in!

general.!Thus,! it! remains! interesting! to! study! the!particularities!

of!the!Dutch!case!and!to!see!whether!expectations!from!the!gen<

eral!literature!on!public!management!and!administrative!reform!

hold!for!this!particular!case.!

Second,! it! develops! hypotheses! on! the! differential! rela<

tion! between! competition,! regulation,! and! autonomy! and! the!

propensity!of!change!in!public!and!private!organizations.!Though!

differences!between!public!and!private!organizations!have!been!

extensively! studied,! the! question! to! what! degree! they! differ! in!

post<administrative!reform!conditions!has!not!been!investigated!

in!depth.!

Third,! using! a! unique! data! set! on! organizational! change!

in!the!Netherlands,!it!empirically!tests!hypotheses!at!the!organi<

zation! level.! Whereas! most! empirical! investigations! are! either!

case! studies! or! use! very! general! information! on! organization<

level!characteristics!(e.g.,!provided!by!Eurostat),!our!study!builds!


!

130 !

on! a! tailor! made! organizational! survey! in! a! random! sample! of!

Dutch!private!and!public!organizations.!The! research!design!al<

lowed!including!very!specific!change<related!questions,!which!up!

until!now!are!not!available!in!comparable!studies.!

!

Public management reform in the Netherlands

In! the! Netherlands,! the! “trajectory! of! reform”! (Pollitt! and!

Bouckaert!2004)!of!the!last!30!years!can!be!roughly!divided!into!

three!phases.!The!first!period,!from!1982!to!1990,!was!character<

ized! by! a! strong!movement! toward! privatization! and! deregula<

tion! (Ter!Borgt! and!Helden!2000),!mostly! in! the! social! security!

and!health!provision!sectors.!Privatization!was!accompanied!by!

extensive! financial! retrenchment! of! the! public! sector! and! the!

introduction!of!new!accountability!systems!(Operatie!Comptabel!

Bestel).!Though!numerous! state!agencies!gradually!became!pri<

vately! owned! (e.g.,! the! Postbank),! the! extent! of! these! reforms!

was!still!relatively!moderate!when!compared!to!similar!changes!

during! the!same!period! in! the!United!Kingdom!or!New!Zealand!

(Pollitt!and!Bouckaert!2004;!Yesilkagit!and!De!Vries!2004).!

During!the!second!period!(early!1990s!to!2000s),!the!re<

forms! stressed! decentralization! goals,! both! at! the! national! and!

the! local! level.! Since! 1991,! 22! new! autonomous! and! semi<

autonomous! agencies! (“Zelfstandig! Bestuursorganen”! and!

“Agentschappen,”! like! the! Immigration! and! Naturalization! Ser<

vice,!National! Police! Force,! Royal!Dutch!Meteorological!Depart<

ment)!were!created!at!the!national!level.!In!2001,!they!employed!

about! one<third! of! the! Dutch! civil! servants! (Pollitt! et! al.! 2001;!

Van!Oosteroom!2002).!At!the!local!level,!decentralization!efforts!

followed! the! very! popular! “Tilburg!Model”! (Hendriks! and!Tops!

2003).! The!model! built! on! two! key! principles.! First,! it! granted!

self<management! to! municipal! service! departments! (including!

the! ability! to! allocate! internal! responsibilities! to! the! staff).! Se<

cond,! it! separated! policy! formulation! (kept! by! the! city! council)!


!

131 !

and!policy!implementation!(responsibility!of!the!service!depart<

ments!and!directly!linked!to!performance!evaluation!and!budget!

allocation).!

The!reforms!of!the!1990s!also!brought!profound!person<

nel!and!organizational!changes.!At!the!local!level,!the!“Policy!and!

Management! Instruments! Initiative”! (Beleid! en! Beheers! Instru<

mentarium! Initiatief)! transformed! administrative! structures! of!

several!municipal!governments!(Ter!Bogt!and!Helden!2000).!The!

objective!was! to! increase! efficiency! of! internal! contracting! and!

the!development!of!new!accrual!accountancy!systems!(Ter!Bogt!

2006)! and! to! harmonize! policy! implementation,! funding,! and!

control!systems.!Municipalities!were!allowed!to!take!over!sever<

al! governmental! tasks! only! if! they! were! prepared! to! bear! the!

majority! of! operational! costs! (in! some! cases! up! to! 90%! of! the!

funding).!At!the!national!level,!performance<related!pay!schemes,!

as!well!as!a!Senior!Civil!Service,!were!introduced.!

The!third!period!(ongoing!since!the!early!2000s)!is!char<

acterized! by! comprehensive! performance! budgeting! for! the!

whole! government! (2001)! and! an! attempt! to! “normalize”! the!

human! resources! management! practices! of! Dutch! public! agen<

cies.!Since!the!second!half!of!the!1990s,!Dutch!government!agen<

cies! face! similar! labor! legislation! conditions! as! their! private!

counterparts! (Personeelsmanagement! Normalisering).! Some!

authors! have! also! characterized! this! last! period! as! a! corrective!

phase!of!NPM!reforms,!in!particular!at!the!local!level,!where!NPM!

reforms!were!complemented!with!“consensual!models”!of!public!

service!provision!(e.g.,!Hendriks!and!Tops!2003).!

Whether! or! not! the! ultimate! goals! of! the! reforms! were!

achieved! is! still! debated! (Kraan! 2005),! but! scholars! agree! that!

the!internal!and!external!organizational!conditions!Dutch!public!

agencies!face!in!the!late!2000s!are!radically!different!from!those!

of! the! decade! of! 1980,! in! at! least! three! respects.! First,! the! re<

forms!increased!the!exposure!to!market<like!conditions!through!

the! introduction! of! an! agency<client!model! of! service! provision!

(cf.! Van! Oosteroom! 2002).! Second,! they! reduced! the! weight! of!


!

132 !

central!regulation!in!the!daily!operation!of!some!public!agencies.!

Third,! the! reforms! increased! the! arm’s! length! control! of! public!

managers!both!at!the!local!and!national!level.!In!sum,!in!the!case!

of! the! Netherlands,! the! trajectory! of! reform! has! definitely! re<

shaped!the!organizational!conditions!of!the!public!sector.!

!

Explaining organizational change in public and private organizations

Two!opposing!views! can!be!discerned!with! regard! to! the!ques<

tion!to!what!degree!intentional!change!in!public!and!private!or<

ganizations! is! fostered! by! the! same! mechanisms.! These! views,!

hereafter! called! the! “traditional! view”! and! the! “NPM! view,”! are!

related! to! the! ongoing!debate! on! the! significance! of! the!public<

private! distinction! in! the! public! administration! literature! (e.g.,!

Blumenthal! 1983;! Boyne! 2002;! Bozeman! 1987;! Dahl! and! Lind<

blom! 1953;! Nutt! and! Backoff! 1993;! Perry! and! Rainey! 1988;!

Rainey!and!Bozeman!2000).!

!

The traditional view !

The! “traditional”! view! stresses! the! fundamental! differences! be<

tween!public!and!private!organizations,!suggesting!that!both!will!

respond! differently! to! the! same! covariates! for! change,! despite!

the! transformation! of! the! public! sector! in! the! last! decades.!

Hence,! these!scholars!contend!that!public!and!private!organiza<

tions! remain! fundamentally! dissimilar! (e.g.,! Eliassen! and! Sitter!

2008).!

The! traditional! view! is! grounded! in! classical! public! ad<

ministration!and!public!law!perspectives,!which!stress!that!pub<

lic!organizations!always!were!and!will!remain! inherently!differ<

ent! from!private!organizations! (Perry!and!Rainey!1988).!Public!

organizations! differ! from! private! ones! on! a! variety! of! dimen<

sions,! including! longer! and! more! complicated! decision<making!


!

133 !

processes,!a!stronger!emphasis!on!rules!compliance!in!decision<

making,! and! a! stronger! emphasis! on! collectivistic! norms.!More!

generally,! public! organizations! have! to! face! “a! combination! of!

multiple!and!conflicting!goals,!a!political!context!with!a!broader!

range! of! constituent! groups,! higher! levels! of! accountability! and!

more! rules,! regulations,! and! constraints”! (Robertson! and! Sen<

eviratne! 1995,! 548).!Many! of! these! features!will! not! disappear!

with! the! transformation!of! the!public!sector:! “These!differences!

may! have! decreased! over! the! last! decade! or! two,! but! they! still!

make! for! a! different! operational! environment! for! leadership! in!

the!public!sector”!(Eliassen!and!Sitter!2008,!150).!Consequently,!

public! organizations! are! less! likely! to! respond! to! mechanisms!

that! have! been! found! to! encompass! or! reduce! organizational!

change!in!private!organizations.!

!

The New Public Management view !

The!NPM!view!holds!that!public!organizations!have!become!more!

similar!to!private!organizations!since!programs!of!administrative!

reorganization!have!altered!structural!and!procedural!conditions!

for! the! occurrence! of! change.! Consequently,! public! and! private!

organizations!are!expected!to!respond!similarly!to!covariates!of!

change.!Hence,!proponents!of!this!view!argue!that!the!traditional!

distinction! between! “public”! and! “private”! organizations! has!

become! increasingly! blurred! with! the! implementation! of! post<

bureaucratic! and! NPM! reforms! (Barzelay! 2001;! Boyne! 2002;!

Hood!1996;!Hoggett!1991;!Hood!1991).!

Though!some! trace! the! roots!of! this!perspective!back! to!

public!choice!theories!(Walker,!Brewer,!and!Boyne!2010;!also!cf.!

Niskanen!2007),!others!describe!the!NPM!reform!movement!as!a!

set! of! heterogeneous! trends! (Boston! 2011;! Peters! 2001).! A!

common!denominator!within!this!perspective!is!the!assumption!

that!public!organizations!should!be!increasingly!subject!to!simi<

lar! competitive! and! regulatory! forces! as! private! organizations,!

with! the! result! that! they! should! exhibit! a! similar! relation!with!


!

134 !

changing! conditions! as! their! private! counterparts! (Robertson!

and!Seneviratne!1995).!Hence,!after!the!extensive!NPM!reforms!of!

the!past! three!decades,!public!and!private!organizations! should!

be!subject!to!the!same!mechanisms!accompanying!organizational!

change.!There!should!be!no!differences!in!the!effect!of!covariates!

of!organizational!change.!

!

Public organizations and their relation to competition regulation and autonomy

A!way!of!appraising!which!of!the!above!views!on!administrative!

reforms!holds! is! to! examine!whether! intentional! organizational!

changes!in!both!public!and!private!organizations!are!related!(or!

not)! to! the! same! set! of! correlates.! Whereas! proponents! of! the!

traditional!view!would!predict!that!public!organizations!respond!

differently!than!private!organizations!to!the!same!covariates,!an!

NPM<informed! position! will! predict! similar! responses.! Building!

on! this! last! assumption! of! convergence! (i.e.,! the! NPM! view),!we!

elaborate!on!three!covariates!of!change!(competition,!regulation,!

and!autonomy)!that!have!been!characteristic!of!the!Dutch!admin<

istrative!reform.!

!

Competition !

In!line!with!public!choice,!transaction!cost!economics,!and!agen<

cy! theories! (Boston! 2011),! NPM! scholars! assume! that! competi<

tive,! market<like! arrangements! are! a! valuable! alternative! for!

achieving!efficiency!and!effectiveness! in! the!public!sector.!Since!

government!services!are!monopolies,!public!managers!have!little!

if! any! incentives! to! become!more! efficient.! The! introduction! of!

competition! will! activate! managerial! responsiveness! (cf.!

Niskanen!2007).! It! is! assumed! that!public!managers—like! their!

counterparts! in! the! private! sector—are! aggressive! entrepre<

neurs!who!will! attempt! to!maximize! the!utility!of! the!organiza<


!

135 !

tion! if! they! have! the! incentives! to! do! so.! Public! managers! will!

perform! more! efficiently! if! they! have! to! operate! in! similarly!

competitive! environments! as!managers! of! private! firms,!where!

individual! careers! and! the! survival! of! the! organization! depend!

upon! quick! and! adequate! adjustment! to! competitive! demands!

and! opportunities! related! to,! for! example,! changing! citizens’!

preferences.!

The! organizational! literature! repeatedly! pointed! to! in<

creasing! competition! in! the! wake! of! mounting! globalization!

trends!as!one!of! the!major!antecedents!of!a!variety!of!organiza<

tional! changes,! ranging! from! downsizing! to! comprehensive! re<

structuring! (Baumol,! Blinder,! and! Wolf! 2003).! Indicators! like!

declining! budget! surpluses! and! declining! comparative! output!

signal!to!the!organization!that!it!operates!with!inefficiencies!that!

need! to! be! eliminated! in! order! to! remain! competitive! (Budros!

1999;! D’Aunno,! Succi,! and! Alexander! 2000)! and! that! access! to!

critical! and! potentially! scarce! resources! might! be! threatened!

(Pfeffer!and!Salancik!1977).!Change!ensues! in!order! to!reestab<

lish! fit! between! organizational! processes! and! the! competitive!

environment! and! to! secure! access! to! critical! suppliers! and! cus<

tomers!(see!Barnett!and!Carroll!1995).!With!regard!to!adminis<

trative!reforms!in!the!Netherlands,!the!movement!toward!privat<

ization!in!the!first!period!of!reforms!reflects!these!ideas!the!best.!

However,! other! (less! radical)! developments!were! also! crucially!

informed!by! the!same!emphasis!on!competitive! incentives! (e.g.,!

outcome<based!budgeting).!

In!addition,!by!the!end!of!the!1980s,!many!organizations!

started! to! experiment! with! alternative! organizational! forms! in!

which! traditional! hierarchical! governance! structures! based! on!

command! and! control!were! replaced!by!hybrid!models! that! in<

corporated! competitive! processes! into! the! organization! itself!

(Pennings! and!Woiceshyn! 1987;! Romanelli! 1991;! Smith! 1997).!

Through!the!creation!of! internal!markets!and!granting!more! in<

dependence!and!autonomy!to! lower! level!units! in! the!organiza<

tion,! competition! between! units! of! the! same! organization! was!


!

136 !

purportedly!stimulated.!This!would!further!strengthen!sensitivi<

ty!to!cost!effectiveness!and!quality,!thus!increasing!the!adaptabil<

ity! of! the! organization.! Similarly,! NPM<inspired! reform! has! fos<

tered! the! “disaggregation”! of! larger! bureaucracies! and! the! sub<

sequent!stimulation!of!competitive!schemes!among!the!resulting!

subunits! (Eliassen! and! Sitter! 2008,! 101<2).! Disaggregation! and!

internal! competition! in! the! public! sector! were! intended! to! in<

crease!flexibility!and!adaptation,!as!well!as!reducing!transaction<

al!costs.!An!example! from!the!Dutch!reform!case! is! the!creation!

of!internal!contracts,!especially!at!the!local!level!between!munic<

ipal!executive!boards!and!service!departments.!In!sum,!our!first!

hypothesis! suggests! a! positive! link! between! competition! and!

change!in!both!public!and!private!organizations.!

!

Hypothesis'1—Competition!will!have!a!positive!effect!on!

change,!both!in!public!and!private!organizations.!

!

(De)regulation !

Organizations!differ!with!regard!to!both!the!amount!of!external!

and!internal!rules!and!regulations!they!have!to!face.!First,!tradi<

tional!public!administration!perspectives!have! long!emphasized!

regulatory!dependency!as!a!major!defining!trait!of!public!organi<

zations:!“strategic!management!for!public!organizations!must!be!

carried! out! in! a! jurisdictional! jungle”! (Nutt! and! Backoff! 1993,!

217;!also!cf.!Ring!and!Perry!1985).!A!basic!principle!of!constitu<

tional! law! illustrates! this! emphasis:! laws! constrict! private! per<

sons!in!the!sense!that!they!cannot!do!what!is!strictly!forbidden;!

public!persons!are!limited!in!the!sense!that!they!cannot!do!more!

or!less!than!what!they!are!explicitly!allowed.!Furthermore,!regu<

lation! depends! on! political! processes.! These! might! occur! at! a!

slower!pace!than!market!processes,!since!deliberation!and!nego<

tiation! cause!delays! in!political!decision<making!and! reduce!or<

ganizational!responsiveness.!


!

137 !

Institutional!forces!in!the!form!of!formal!regulations!have!

been! identified!as!another! important!predictor!of! change! in!or<

ganizations! (D’Aunno,! Succi,! and! Alexander! 2000).! Regulation!

involves!the!control!of!decision<makers!through!rules,!which!can!

have! their!source! in!supranational,!national,!or! local! legislation.!

Institutional! forces! are! weaker! to! the! degree! that! regulations,!

norms,! and! cognitive!models! are!heterogeneous,!divergent,! and!

inconsistent! (Scott! 1995).! This! is! more! likely! in! settings! with!

fragmented!decision<making!structures!and!“multiple!and!unco<

ordinated! sources! of! authority! and! influence”! (D’Aunno,! Succi,!

and!Alexander! 2000,! 682),! such! as! a! competitive!market.!Here,!

organizations! have!more! discretion! to! change! their! current! or<

ganizational! model,! increasing! the! likelihood! of! new! organiza<

tional! forms!or!procedures!being! implemented.! In! contrast,! ho<

mogenous! sets! of! rules,! regulations,! and! formal! requirements!

will! reinforce! those! organizational! routines! that! reproduce! the!

stability!of! the!organization,! favoring!organizational! inertia!and!

structural! ossification,! and! discouraging! organizational! change!

(Downs!1967;!Hannan!and!Freeman!1984).!If!competitive!forces!

foster! responsiveness! of! the! public! sector,! it! is! only! consistent!

that!deregulation!accompanies!these!market<inspired!reforms.!

Second,! many! studies! have! demonstrated! the! stability<

enhancing! effects! of! intra<organizational! rules! and! regulations!

(e.g.,! Cohen! and! Bacdayan! 1994;! Gersick! and! Hackman! 1990).!

The! higher! the! density! of! rules! in! organizations! the! less! likely!

change!becomes.!There!is!also!a!tendency!for!the!number!of!rules!

to! increase! through! time! (“rules! tend! to!breed! rules”),!with!old!

rules!remaining!intact!and!new!ones!refining!and!reinforcing!old!

ones!(March,!Schulz,!and!Xueguang!2000).!New!rules!are!likely!to!

increase!the!stability!of!organizational!structures.!

NPM!programs!promoted!the!gradual!replacement!of!cen<

tralized!regulatory!control!by!indirect!control!and!the!exercise!of!

ownership!rights!(Eliassen!and!Sitter!2008,!61).!They!also!shift<

ed!the!emphasis!from!process!control!to!control!by!results!(e.g.,!

in!the!Netherlands!by!implementing!outcome!measurements!and!


!

138 !

performance! targets).! Thus,! tackling! overly! formalized! internal!

procedures! became! one! of! the!major! targets! of! the! NPM!move<

ment!(Boyne!2002).!Some!deregulation!efforts!that!accompanied!

decentralization!of!the!Dutch!public!sector!reflect!this!approach.!

In! sum,! the! incidence! of! structural! adjustments! and!procedural!

changes! is! likely! to! increase! in!circumstances! in!which!external!

legislation!and!internal!regulation!is!low.!

!

Hypothesis' 2—External! and! internal! deregulation! will!

have! a! positive! effect! on! organizational! change! in! both!

public!and!private!organizations.!

!

Managerial autonomy !

Together!with!deregulation,!increasing!autonomy!of!managers!in!

the!public!sector!has!been!another!central!element!of!the!Dutch!

administrative! reform.! In! general,! increasing!managerial! auton<

omy!has!been!a!central!issue!for!those!NPM<inspired!reforms!that!

attempted!to!push!a!transition!from!legalism!to!managerialism!in!

the! public! service! (Dupuy! 2000).! The! degree! of! autonomy! or!

discretion!of!those!at!the!top!of!the!organizational!hierarchy!re<

fers!to!the!power!to!determine!policies!guiding!the!organization,!

including! policies! of! adjustment! and! reform! (cf.! Kang! and!

Sorensen! 1999).!Managerial! power! research! suggests! that! con<

solidated! power! structures,! however,! favor! inertia! and! not!

change!(Mitsuhashi!and!Greve!2004;!also!see!above,!Chapter!1).!

This! is! either! because! changes! in! the! status! quo! might! under<

mine!the!position!of!the!powerful!or!because!powerful!managers!

use! a! variety! of!means! to! strengthen! their! power! basis,! for! ex<

ample,!through!monopolizing!the!flow!of!information!or!reward!

structures!favoring!their!own!goals!(Mitsuhashi!and!Greve!2004,!

111).! In! line! with! this! argument,! managers! of! public! organiza<

tions! have! long! been! portrayed! as! real! “champions! of! inertia,”!

who!tend!to!preserve!their!positions!by!shielding!organizational!

stability!(cf.!Downs!1967).!


!

139 !

We!hypothesize! that!rather! than!constituting!a! threat! to!

the!power!position!of!public!managers,!administrative!reform!in!

the! public! sector! and! particularly!managerial! empowerment! in!

the!form!of!increased!autonomy!actually!provided!them!with!an!

opportunity!to!compensate!a!previous!lack!of!power.!Hence,!pub<

lic! managers! are! expected! to! use! their! increased! autonomy! to!

increase!and!consolidate!their!power!base!by!means!of!initiating!

organizational! change.! Put! otherwise,! public! managers! before!

NPM!reforms!seemed!to!experience!a!deficit!of!managerial!power!

because! they!had! fewer!opportunities! to!develop! their!bases!of!

power! (compared! to! managers! in! private! organizations).! The!

findings! of! one! of! the! rare! studies! comparing! the! outcomes! of!

organizational!change! in!public!and!private!organizations!(Rob<

ertson!and!Seneviratne!1995)! favor!such!an! interpretation.!The!

study!concludes!that!though!there!were!few!differences,!change!

in! the! public! sector! was! far! more! difficult! to! realize! because!

change! agents! in! the! public! sector! enjoy! less! discretion! than!

change! entrepreneurs! in! the! private! sector! (also! cf.! Nutt! and!

Backoff!1993).!From!this!perspective,!change!remains!to!be!haz<

ardous,! but! it! might! also! become! an! instrument! of! power! and!

control!gain!for!public!managers,!particularly!in!response!to!citi<

zens’! demands.! As! Dupuy! (2000,! 194)! has! suggested,! a! central!

point!of!the!NPM!reform!is!to!open!the!possibility!for!public!man<

agers! to! redesign! their! administrative! world! (also! cf.! Ostroff!

2006).! By! granting! managers! more! autonomy! and! discretion,!

administrative! reform! created! conditions! that! reduced! public!

sector!managers’!resistance!to!change,!providing!them!an!excel<

lent!opportunity!to!“seize!the!chance,”!so!to!speak.!Thus,!in!com<

parison,! we! could! expect! that! the! relation! between! autonomy!

and!change!should!be!at!least!lessened!in!public!organizations.!

!

Hypothesis' 3—Increased!managerial! autonomy! over! the!

organization!will!have!a!negative!effect!on!change;!how<

ever,!the!effect!will!be!stronger!for!private!than!for!public!

organizations.!


!

140 !

Data and descriptive statistics

As!in!Chapters!1!and!2,! the!research!design!follows!the!conven<

tions!of! single! respondent!organizational! surveys,!which! is! cur<

rently!the!standard!research!design!for!organization<!and!popu<

lation<level!studies!(e.g.,!Knoke!2001).!To!recall,!data!come!from!

a! telephone! survey! of! key! informants! of! establishments! of! pri<

vate! and! public! organizations! in! the! Netherlands,! collected! in!

2006.! For! private! and! public! organizations,! the! target! sample!

was! randomly! selected! from!a! sample! of! privately! and!publicly!

owned!establishments!in!the!Netherlands!

For! this! chapter,!we! restrict!our!analysis! to!privately!or!

publicly! owned! service! providing! organizations.! The! rationale!

behind!this!strategy!was!to!improve!the!comparability!of!organi<

zations! so! that! the! analysis! would! not! be! influenced! by! differ<

ences!in!tasks.!We!therefore!excluded!organizations!in!manufac<

turing!and!other!types!of!industry,!as!well!as!intermediate!cases!

such!as!schools,!hospitals,!and!insurance!providers!(for!a!discus<

sion!on!the!nature!of!these!organizations!in!the!Netherlands,!see!

Kraan!2005).!The!sample!used!hereunder!consists!of!122!organi<

zations,! 61! private! and! 61! public! organizations.! Our! sample! of!

public! organizations! includes,! among! others,! various!municipal!

service! departments,! service! enterprises! owned! by! the! govern<

ment,! autonomous! agencies! of! the! national! government,! and!

some! central!ministries! of! the!Dutch! government.!We! expected!

that!by!sampling!organizations!in!2006,!we!could!capture!struc<

tural!differences!(or!convergences)!produced!by!almost!20!years!

of!administrative!reform!that!otherwise!might!not!be!detectable.!

!

Publicness !

We!defined!organizational!publicness!based!on!the!ownership!of!

a!given!organization,!according!to!the!2002!version!of!the!Stand<

ard! Company! Classification! Code! 93! (Standard! Bedrijf! Indeling!

93!Code)!provided!by!the!Dutch!Central!Bureau!of!Statistics.!For!


!

141 !

public!organizations,!we!identified!those!organizations!classified!

as! “public! administration”! and! “government<owned! services”!

(codes!75000).!For!private!organizations,!we!drew!cases!classi<

fied!as!direct!service!providers!(codes!55000!and!65–67000).!

!

!

!TABLE!5.1!Characteristics'of'public'and'private'organizations!!

' ' Sample' Public' Private'

' Min':'

Max'

M'

(SD)''

M'

(SD)''

M'

(SD)''

Organizational!agea! 3!:!200!24.03!

(32.78)!

28.0!

(39.82)!

20.07!

(23.44)!! ! ! ! !

Size!(employees!in!the!payroll!with!full<time!

contract)b!

6!:!2500!100!

(381.72)!254!

(366.70)!50!

(384.19)!

! ! ! ! !

Complexity!(number!of!

departments/subunits)!1!:!97!

9.30!

(12.90)!

11.15!

(14.87)!

7.44!

(10.36)!! ! ! ! !

Hierarchical!layersc! 0!:!10!2.57!

(1.97)!

2.89!

(2.14)!

2.25!

(1.75)!! ! ! ! !

N! ! 122! 61! 61!NOTES:!a!Until!year!2006.!b!Only!medians.!Due!to!one!outlier!(freq.!=!2500)!the!mean!for!this!variable!is!

not!very!informative.!Eliminating/retaining!the!outlier!does!not!affect!other!

covariates.!c!Number!of!hierarchical!layers!between!highest!and!lowest!official.!

!!

! In!order!to!avoid!small!sample!bias!and!to!guarantee!ro<

bustness! of! our! comparisons,! we! limited! our! analyses! to! two!

subsamples! of! equal! size.! For! both! types! of! organizations,! we!

drew! a! random! sample! of! 61! cases.!We! use! a! dummy! variable!

“Publicness”! (0:!private! and!1:!public)! to! identify! groups.!Table!

5.1!summarizes!four!characteristics!of!the!organizations!used!in!

this!study:!age,!size,!number!of!departments,!and!number!of!hi<

erarchical! layers.! In! general! terms,! public! organizations! in! our!

sample! appear! to! be! larger! (larger! number! of! employees! with!

full<time! contract),! more! complex! (larger! number! of! subu<

nits/departments),! and!more! “hierarchical”! (larger!distance!be<


!

142 !

tween! highest! and! lowest! official)! than! their! private! counter<

parts.!

!Dependent variable !

We!define!organizational!change!as!any!intended!reconfiguration!

of! organizational! structures! (cf.! Fernandez! and!Pitts! 2007)! and!

distinguish! between! comprehensive! structural! changes! and!

changes!in!administrative!procedures,!such!as!internal!reorgani<

zations,!new!budgeting!policies,!and!automation!of!work.3!

Intended!organizational!change!was!measured!with!three!

dichotomous! variables.! All! three! are! based! on! self<reports! and!

focus!on!changes!planned!and!implemented!by!the!management.!

(1)! Structural! changes! (variable! “Change! structural”:! M=0.45).!

Informants!were!asked!if!changes!in!position!or!the!general!con<

figuration!of! the!organization!such!as!merging,!downsizing,!and!

delayering! occurred! in! the! past! three! years! (2003–2006).! (2)!

Changes! in! administrative! procedures.! Informants! were! asked!

whether!such!changes!had!occurred!in!the!same!period!(variable!

“Changes! procedures”:! M=0.60).! These! changes! were! defined!

during! the! interview! as! intended!modifications! in! the! way! hu<

man!resources,! finances,!or!customer!attention! internal!policies!

were! formulated,! implemented,! and/or! evaluated! in! the! period!

2003–2006.! (3)!Finally,!we!collapsed!both!measurements!of! in<

tended! change! in! a! separate! dummy! variable,! representing! the!

occurrence!of!change!as!a!general!event!(variable!“Change!over<

all,”! M=0.73).! This! variable! allows! for! an! analysis! on! the! inci<

dence! of! change! in! general,! regardless! of! particularities! of! the!

type!of!reform.!

Table! 5.2! summarizes! descriptive! differences! across!

groups.!Private!organizations! in!our!sample!show!a!higher!pro<

pensity! for! change! in! structures! than! public! organizations,!

!3! See! distinction! between! rare! fundamental! and! common! nonfundamental!

change!(i.e.,!reorganizations)!in!Hannan!and!Freeman!(1984,!158).!

!


!

143 !

whereas!about!60%!of!both!private!and!public!organizations! in!

our! sample! embarked! on! change! in! procedures! between! 2003!

and!2006.!

!

!

TABLE!5.2!Change'occurrence'in'public'and'private'organizations!!

' Change'overall' Change'structure'Change'

procedures'

Public! 0.72! 0.39! 0.59!

Private! 0.74! 0.51! 0.61!

Sample! 0.73! 0.45! 0.60!NOTE:!

Coefficients!range!0!–!1!

!

!

Covariates of change !

Competition.!Two!indicators!were!used!to!measure!the!degree!of!

competition! an! organization! has! to! face.! External! competition!

was! measured! with! the! question! “Is! the! environment! of! your!

organization! characterized! by! strong! competition?”! (M=0.76,!

SD=1.16).! Internal! competition!was!measured! by! asking! the! re<

spondents! if! departments! competed! among! each! other! in! the!

sense!that!departmental!interests!prevailed!over!collective!ones!

(M=1.56,!SD=1.13).!Answer!categories! for!both!questions!were!a!

five<item! rating! scale—0:! completely! inapplicable,! 1:! inapplica<

ble,!2:!neutral,!neither!applicable!nor!inapplicable,!3:!applicable,!

and!4:!very!applicable.!Both!variables!are!not!correlated!(τ=0.01,!

p=0.92).!

! Regulation.! Two! indicators! were! used! to! measure! the!

degree! to!which! the!organization! is!subject! to!rules!and!regula<

tions.!External!regulation!was!indirectly!assessed!with!the!ques<

tion! “Is! the! organization! unable! to! change! because! of! govern<

ment!legislation?”!(M=0.38).!The!variable!is!coded!“0:!no”!and!“1:!

yes”!(i.e.,!the!score!“0”!indicates!that!the!organization!experienc<

es! a! low! level! of! external! regulation! regarding! change! efforts).!

Internal! regulation! was! assessed! with! the! item! “Employees! in!


!

144 !

this! organization! have! to! strictly! follow! formalized! norms! and!

protocols! on! daily! basis”! (M=3.16,! SD=0.80).! Answer! categories!

range! from! “completely! inapplicable”! to! “very! applicable”! on! a!

five<item! scale.! The!measures! for! external! and! internal! regula<

tion!do!not!correlate!(τ=−0.02,!p=0.78).!

!

!!TABLE!5.3!Covariates'of'organizational'change!!

' ' Sample' Public' Private'

' Min':'

Max'

M'

(SD)''

M'

(SD)''

M'

(SD)''

Competition:' ! ! ! !

!External! 0!:!4!0.76!

(1.16)!

0.39!

(0.66)!

1.13!

(1.42)!

!Internal! 0!:!4!1.56!

(1.13)!

1.51!

(1.07)!

1.61!

(1.18)!! ! ! ! !

Regulation:' ! ! ! !

!External! 0!:!1!0.38!

—!

0.34!

—!

0.41!

—!

!Internal! 0!:!4!3.16!

(0.80)!

3.21!

(0.73)!

3.10!

(0.87)!! ! ! ! !

Autonomy:' ! ! ! !

!Admin.! 0!:!4!2.72!

(0.78)!

2.67!

(0.85)!

2.77!

(0.72)!

!Strategy! 0!:!4!1.00!

(0.98)!

1.20!

(0.96)!

0.80!

(0.96)!! ! ! ! !

N! ! 122! 61! 61!

!

!

! Autonomy.! The! degree! of! managerial! autonomy! was!

measured! with! two! questions.! First,! respondents! were! asked:!

“With!respect!to!administrative!activities!and!operational!proce<

dures,!how!much!autonomy!has! the!site!manager! to!make!deci<

sions?”! (variable! “Autonomy!Administrative”:! M=2.72,! SD=0.78).!

Second,!we!asked:! “With!respect! to!defining! the!strategy!of! this!

organization,!how!much!autonomy!has!the!site!manager!to!make!

decisions?”! (variable! “Autonomy! Strategic”:! M=1.00,! SD=0.98).!

Responses! for! both! questions!were! coded! on! a! five<item! rating!


!

145 !

scale—0:!“He!has!no!autonomy;!all!decisions!are!made!by!some<

one! else,”! 1:! “He! has! certain! autonomy,! but!most! decisions! are!

made!by!another!person,”!2:!“He!has!autonomy!but!shares!com<

petences!with!another!person,”!3:! “He!has!great!autonomy,! just!

few!decisions! are!made!by! someone!else,”! and!4:! “He!has! com<

plete!autonomy.”!The!correlation!between!both!measurements!of!

autonomy!is!just!significant!at!the!0.9!level,!but!the!effect!size!is!

negligible!(τ=0.15,!p=0.06).!

Table!5.3!summarizes! information!for!all!our!predictors.!

On!average,!sampled!private!organizations!face!stronger!external!

legislation! as! an! obstacle! to! change! and! competition! than! the!

sample!of!public!organizations.!Public!and!private!organizations!

in! our! sample! do! not! differ!much! in! the! degree! of! competition!

among!organizational!subunits!and!the!extent!of!managerial!au<

tonomy! over! administrative! procedures.! Public! managers! have!

more!autonomy!regarding!strategic!decisions!than!their!sampled!

private!counterparts!but!face!denser!internal!rule!environments.!

!

Control variables !

We! control! for! four! organizational! characteristics:! age,! size!

(number! of! employees! with! full<time! contract),! complexity!

(number! of! different! subunits/departments),! and! hierarchy!

(number!of!hierarchical!levels).!

!

Method of analysis !

In!order!to!test!our!hypotheses!and!to!rule!out!differences!due!to!

variations!among!types!of!change,!we!created!three!logistic!mod<

els.!Each!model!was!constructed!so!that!we!could!formally!assess!

differences!between!groups,! that! is,! between! types!of! organiza<

tions! in!our!sample.!We!opted! for!a!modeling!strategy! in!which!

publicness!is!taken!to!be!a!moderator!of!the!effect!of!each!covari<

ate! of! change! (competition,! regulation,! and! autonomy).! This!

modeling!strategy!provides!(1)!an!estimation!of!the!effect!of!each!


!

146 !

independent!variable!for!each!organizational!type!(2)!and!a!for<

mal! test! of! the! difference! in! such! effects! due! to! organizational!

publicness.! Hence,! each! logistic! model! has! “simple! conditional!

effects”!and!“interaction!conditional!effects”!(cf.!Jaccard!and!Tur<

risi!2003).!Thus,! regarding!our! first! research!question! (to!what!

degree!do!variations!in!exposure!to!covariates!of!change!are!re<

lated! to! change! in! the!Dutch! public! sector),! a! significant! simple!

effect! is!considered!evidence!for!the!influence!of!a!given!covari<

ate.!On!our!second!research!question!(to!what!degree!the!effect!

differs! between! public! and! private! organizations),! a! significant!

interaction! effect! is! considered! evidence! in! favor! of! divergence!

between! public! and! private! organizations! in! our! sample.! Fur<

thermore,!we!do!not!make!claims!based!on!the!different!types!of!

change!but!use! the!distinction! to!explore!whether! covariates!of!

change!have!differential!effects!on!various!types!of!change.!As!a!

result,!a!significant!effect! in!our!analysis! is!considered!evidence!

in! favor!or!against!a!given!hypothesis,! regardless!of! the! type!of!

reform.!

!

Results

We!present!two!sets!of!models!in!Tables!5.4!and!5.5.!In!the!first!

set,!private!organizations!in!our!sample!are!the!reference!group!

(see!Table!5.4).!In!the!second!set,!we!inversed!the!coding!of!the!

publicness! dummy,! making! public! organizations! the! reference!

group!(Table!5.5).!Table!5.6!presents!an!overview!of!the!correct!

matches!at!the!current! level!of!specification!per!model!between!

predicted!and!observed!cases!on!the!dependent!variable.!

! First,! Hypothesis! 1! (competition)! predicted! a! positive!

effect! of! competition! both! for! public! and! private! organizations.!

This!claim!finds!support!in!our!data.!For!private!organizations!in!

our! sample,! the! main! effect! of! external! competition! is! positive!

and! statistically! significant! for! all! types! of! changes.! For! public!

organizations,!!this!!effect!!is!!!significant!!for!!changes!!in!!internal!

!


!

147 !

!

!

!

TABLE!5.4!Logistic'regression'of'predictors'of'different'types'of'change'

'(reference'group:'private'organizations)''!

' Model'1a'

Change'overall'

Model'2a'

Change'struct.'

Model'3a'

Change'proc.'

! Est.! S.E.! ! Est.! S.E.! ! Est.! S.E.! !

Publicness'(P)a! <0.92! 3.77! ! <0.11! 2.76! ! <6.49*! 3.51! !'

Simple'effects'! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !

Competition! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !

!External! !0.49*! 0.28! ! !0.42*! 0.23! ! !0.57**! 0.25! !

!Internal! !0.05! 0.32! ! <0.14! 0.28! ! !0.06! 0.30! !

Regulation! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !

!External! <0.07! 0.71! ! <0.06! 0.60! ! !0.05! 0.68! !!Internal! !0.56! 0.42! ! !0.71*! 0.39! ! <0.16! 0.40! !

Autonomy! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !

!Adm.! <1.65**! 0.87! ! <0.59! 0.45! ! <2.07**! 0.85! !

!Strategic! !0.79! 0.48! ! <0.13! 0.31! ! !0.92**! 0.42! !'

Interactions'! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !

P!×!Comp.!Ext.! !0.36! 0.77! ! <0.54! 0.53! ! !0.38! 0.61! !

P!×!Comp.!Int.! <0.19! 0.46! ! <0.28! 0.42! ! !0.12! 0.42! !

P!×!Reg.!Ext.! !1.36! 1.07! ! !1.29! 0.89! ! !0.23! 0.92! !

P!×!Reg.!Int.! <1.19*! 0.68! ! <0.19! 0.62! ! !0.16! 0.59! !P!×!A.!Adm.! !1.56! 0.97! ! !0.05! 0.60! ! !2.26**! 0.93! !

P!×!A.!Str.! <0.51! 0.64! ! !0.14! 0.48! ! <0.82! 0.54! !'

Controls'! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !

Age! !0.01! 0.01! ! <0.01! 0.01! ! !0.00! 0.01! !

Size! !0.00**! 0.00! ! !0.00**! 0.00! ! !0.00**! 0.00! !

Complexity! <0.02! 0.02! ! <0.01! 0.02! ! <0.01! 0.02! !

Hierarchy! <0.12! 0.16! ! !0.01! 0.14! ! <0.28*! 0.14! !!

%!Correct!b!!

!74.6!! !

!

!72.1!! ! !

!74.6!! !

Nagelkerke!R2! !0.33! ! ! !0.26! ! ! !0.34! ! !

N! !122!NOTES:!a!0=Private,!1=Public!b!Overall!percentage!of!correct!matches!between!observed!and!predicted!cases.!

Sig.!Codes:!*!p<0.1,!**!p<0.05!

!

!

!

!


!

148 !

!

!

!

TABLE!5.5!Logistic'regression'of'predictors'of'different'types'of'change'

'(reference'group:'public'organizations)!!!

' Model'1a'

Change'overall'

Model'2a'

Change'struct.'

Model'3a'

Change'proc.'

! Est.! S.E.! ! Est.! S.E.! ! Est.! S.E.! !

Publicness'(P)a! !0.92! 3.77! ! !0.11! 2.76! ! !6.49*! 3.51! !'

Simple'effects'! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !

Competition! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !

!External! !0.85! 0.70! ! <0.13! 0.47! ! !0.95*! 0.55! !

!Internal! <0.14! 0.33! ! <0.42! 0.32! ! !0.18! 0.29! !

Regulation! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !

!External! !1.28! 0.81! ! !1.23*! 0.67! ! !0.28! 0.64! !!Internal! <0.63! 0.53! ! !0.51! 0.48! ! <0.01! 0.43! !

Autonomy! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !

!Adm.! <0.09! 0.43! ! <0.55! 0.40! ! !0.19! 0.39! !

!Strategic! !0.29! 0.43! ! !0.01! 0.37! ! !0.10! 0.35! !'

Interactions'! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !

P!×!Comp.!Ext.! <0.36! 0.77! ! !0.54! 0.53! ! <0.38! 0.61! !

P!×!Comp.!Int.! !0.19! 0.46! ! !0.28! 0.42! ! <0.12! 0.42! !

P!×!Reg.!Ext.! <1.36! 1.07! ! <1.29! 0.89! ! <0.23! 0.92! !

P!×!Reg.!Int.! !1.19*! 0.68! ! !0.19! 0.62! ! <0.16! 0.59! !P!×!A.!Adm.! <1.56! 0.97! ! <0.05! 0.60! ! <2.26**! 0.93! !

P!×!A.!Str.! !0.51! 0.64! ! <0.14! 0.48! ! !0.82! 0.54! !'

Controls'! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !

Age! !0.01! 0.01! ! <0.01! 0.01! ! !0.00! 0.01! !

Size! !0.00**! 0.00! ! !0.00**! 0.00! ! !0.00**! 0.00! !

Complexity! <0.02! 0.02! ! <0.01! 0.02! ! <0.01! 0.02! !

Hierarchy! <0.12! 0.16! ! !0.01! 0.14! ! <0.28*! 0.14! !!

%!Correct!b!!

!74.6!! !

!

!72.1!! ! !

!74.6!! !

Nagelkerke!R2! !0.33! ! ! !0.26! ! ! !0.34! ! !

N! !122!NOTES:!a!0=Private,!1=Public!b!Overall!percentage!of!correct!matches!between!observed!and!predicted!cases.!

Sig.!Codes:!*!p<0.1,!**!p<0.05!

!

!

!

!


!

149 !

procedures.!Regarding! internal!competition,!no!significant!main!

effects!could!be! found!for! the!sampled!public!or!private!organi<

zations.!In!addition,!moderation!analysis!could!not!detect!signifi<

cant! differences! between! groups.! These! findings! support! Hy<

pothesis! 1:! external! competition! covariates! with! intended!

change! in! both! private! and! public! organizations! in! the! sample!

and!publicness!of! an!organization!does!not! seem! to! temper! the!

effect!of!competition!on!change.!

!

!

TABLE!5.6!Summary'of'predictions'per'model'and'type'of'change!!

! ! Model'predicts:a!

' ' Model'1' Model'2' Model'3'

' ' Change'overall' Change'struct.' Change'proc.'

! ! y'='0' y'='1' y'='0' y'='1' y'='0' y'='1'

O.C.:b!y'='0' 11c! 22! 53c! 14! 30c! 19!

y'='1' 9! 80c! 20! 35c! 12! 61c!NOTES:!a!Frequencies!according!to!the!dependent!variable!b!Observed!cases!c!Correct!observations!

!

!

! Hypothesis!2!(regulation)!predicted!that!change!becomes!

more! likely! where! external! and! internal! regulation! decreases.!

This!claim!does!not!find!support! in!our!analysis.!For!private!or<

ganizations!in!the!sample,!the!direct!effect!of!internal!regulation!

is! positive! and! significant! on! structural! change,! suggesting! that!

increased!rule!density!increases!the!chances!for!change.!For!pub<

lic!organizations,!the!effect!of!external!regulation!is!positive!and!

significant!on!structural!change.!This!suggests! that!at! the!struc<

tural! level,! change! in! the! sampled! public! organizations! occurs!

despite!high!external!regulatory!pressures!and!perhaps!because!

of! them.! In! any! case,! this! result! seems! to! point! out! the! strong!

impact!of! regulatory!dependency!of! the!public! sector!as!covari<

ate! of! change.!Our!moderation! analysis! detected! significant!dif<

ferences! between! sampled! public! and! private! organizations! in!

the!effect!of!internal!regulation.!Whereas!internal!regulation!has!


!

150 !

the! hypothesized! negative! effect! among! public! organizations,! it!

has!a!fostering!effect!among!private!organizations!(although!the!

main!effects!on!overall!change!are!not!statistically!significant!at!

the!0.9!level).!Thus,!from!our!analysis,!it!seems!that!it!is!the!pres<

ence!of!regulation—rather! than!deregulation—what!encompass!

structural!change!among!public!organizations.!

Hypothesis!3!(autonomy)!suggested!that!increasing!man<

agerial!autonomy!reduces!the!likelihood!of!intended!changes!but!

that!this!effect!was!stronger!for!private!than!for!public!organiza<

tions.!For!private!organizations!in!the!sample,!we!indeed!found!a!

significant!negative!effect!of!administrative!autonomy!on!overall!

change!and!procedural!change.!However,!we!also!detected!a!sig<

nificant!positive!effect!of!autonomy!over!organizational!strategy!

on!changes!in!internal!procedures.!This!latter!finding!contradicts!

Hypothesis! 3.! For! sampled! public! organizations,! we! found! no!

significant!main!effects!of!autonomy!on!change.!Nonetheless,! in!

support!of!Hypothesis!3,!our!moderation!analysis!found!a!signifi<

cant! difference! between! public! and! private! organizations! for!

changes! in! procedures:! sampled! public! organizations! with! ad<

ministrative!autonomy!are!more!likely!to! implement!changes! in!

their!administrative!procedures! than!sampled!private!organiza<

tions!in!similar!circumstances.!In!sum,!evidence!for!Hypothesis!3!

is! mixed,! but! it! shows! a! significant! difference! between! groups!

regarding!the!effect!of!increased!managerial!autonomy.!

Two! additional! aspects! of! our! results! deserve! some! at<

tention.! First,! the! general! effect! of! organizational!publicness!on!

change!is!negative!for!all!types!of!change.!This!effect!is!also!sta<

tistically! significant! for! change! in! procedures.! It! suggests! that!

public!organizations!exhibit!more! inertia! than!private!organiza<

tions! (cf.! e.g.,! Downs! 1967).! Second,! the! effects! of! our! control!

variables! (age,! size,! complexity,! and! hierarchy)! are! negligible,!

with! the!exception!of! a! strong!and! significant!negative!effect!of!

hierarchy!on!procedural!change:!the!more!hierarchical!levels!an!

organization! has! the! less! likely! internal! procedures! will! be!

changed.!


!

151 !

Discussion

During! the!past! three!decades,!public!sector!organizations!have!

gone!through!a!sea!of!reforms,!and!the!Netherlands!were!no!ex<

ception! to! this! trend.! These! reforms! share! a! common! concern!

with!the!viability!of!the!traditional!bureaucratic!model!of!public!

administration.! Their! purpose! is! to! make! public! organizations!

more!responsive!to!changing!demands!in!their!environments,!in!

particular! the! demands! of! citizens! and! consumers,! and! to! im<

prove!their!services!and!to!reduce!their!costs!(Eliassen!and!Sitter!

2008).!Introducing!competitive!pressures,!easing!rules!and!regu<

lations,!and!increasing!managerial!autonomy!are!among!the!ma<

jor! instruments! to! reach! this! objective.! NPM!proponents!believe!

that!the!gradual!spread!of!these!mechanisms!into!the!public!sec<

tor!should!ultimately! lead!to!the!fading!of!the!major!differences!

between!the!public!and!the!private!sector:!organizations!in!both!

settings!would!exhibit!similar!patterns!of!adjustment!to!changes!

in! their! environments.! According! to! this! “convergence”! thesis,!

there!should!not!be!much!difference!between!public!and!private!

organizations! concerning! the! covariates,! processes,! and! out<

comes!of!organizational!changes.!Traditional!public!management!

is!far!more!skeptical,!stressing!that!the!public!sector!will!always!

maintain! its!distinctive! character.! Consequently,! any! factor! that!

accompanies! change! in! private! organizations! will! at! least! be!

moderated! in! public! organizations.! In! this! perspective,! public<

ness!will!continue!to!exert!its!impact!beyond!the!manifold!differ<

ences!that!exist!among!public!organizations.!

! Based!on!data!from!a!sample!of!Dutch!private!and!public!

organizations! in!2006,!we! find!support! for!some!but!not!all! the!

NPM! predictions.! In! fact,! our! analysis! tends! to! support! the! idea!

that!public!management!remains!different!in!some!few!concrete!

regards,!despite!years!of!NPM<inspired!reform.!Nonetheless,!giv<

en! the! absence! of! significant! differences,! it! does! seem! that! ad<

ministrative! reforms! have! certainly! transformed! the! organiza<

tional! conditions! of! the! Dutch! public! sector.! Like! their! private!


!

152 !

counterparts,! for!public!organizations,! change! is! linked! to! com<

petitive! pressures.! Deregulation! is,! however,! not! related! to!

changes.! The! analysis! even! suggests! that! structural! change! oc<

curs! despite! external! pressures! in! the! public! sector.! From! this,!

one! could! derive! the! conclusion! that! organizations! seem!more!

responsive!to!high<regulated!environments!than!to!deregulation.!

From! this! point! of! view,! obstructive! legislation!might! be! a! nui<

sance! for! public!managers,! but! it! could! be! a! very! effective! nui<

sance! to! catalyze! change.! Also! noteworthy! is! the! finding! that!

increased!managerial! autonomy! implies! a! significant! difference!

regarding!procedural! changes!between!sampled!public! and!pri<

vate! organizations.! This! contradicts! the! common! view,! which!

suggests! that! managerial! power! is! less! effective! in! the! public!

sector,!due! to! the!higher! level!of!complexity! in!decision<making!

and!the!larger!variety!of!(political)!stakeholders.!It!also!supports!

Dupuy’s! (2000)! idea! that! administrative! adjustments! are! a! far!

more!common!response!to!pressures!on!managers!than!compre<

hensive!structural!reforms.!

! !In! addition,! we! found! differences! due! to! the! nature! of!

change! itself.! Structural! changes! in! sampled! private! organiza<

tions!are! related! to! competition!and!regulation,!whereas!mana<

gerial! autonomy! relates! to! procedural! change.! Among! sampled!

public! organizations,! the! probability! of! structural! change! in<

creases! with! external! regulation.! However,! concerning! internal!

procedural! changes,! external! competition! is! an! important! co<

variate.!Finally,!it!seems!that!the!relationship!between!autonomy!

and! internal! procedural! changes! is! significantly! different! be<

tween!sectors,!but!this!is!not!the!case!for!structural!changes.!All!

this!adds!on! the! idea! that!some!differences!between!sectors!re<

main!despite!general!convergence.!Moreover,! it!stresses!the!im<

portance! of! taking! into! consideration! the! particular! type! of! re<

form!in!explaining!the!propensity!to!change!in!the!public!admin<

istration.!

! Four! potential! limitations! of! our! study! need! to! be! ad<

dressed.!First,!our!study!was!conducted!in!the!Netherlands.!Such!


!

153 !

specificity! limits! the! possibility! to! generalize! our! findings.! For!

example,! though! the! political! and! administrative! system! of! the!

Netherlands! resembles! the! Anglo<Saxon! models! in! some! do<

mains! (e.g.,! separate! and! politicized! minister/mandarin! rela<

tions),! it!differs! considerably! from! this!model! in!other!domains!

(e.g.,! corporative! public! arenas! and! an! important! emphasis! on!

consensual! policymaking).! To! what! degree! our! discussion! and!

findings!may! be! generalized! beyond! the! Netherlands! therefore!

constitutes!a!fruitful!avenue!for!further!research.!Future!studies!

may! benefit! from! comparative! research! designs! that! pay! close!

attention! to! the! national! context,! given! the! large! cross<national!

variation! in! the! content!of! NPM! reforms!and! the!way! they!were!

actually! implemented! (Pollitt! and! Bouckaert! 2004).! Neverthe<

less,!one!can!conclude!from!our!analysis!that!for!the!case!of!NPM,!

“à!la!Dutch”!convergence!cannot!be!rejected.!

! Second,!since!the!object!of!this!study!is!deliberate!organi<

zational! change! (reorganizations)! and! therefore! required!more!

detailed!information!about!organizational!processes,!it!relied!on!

self<reports! provided! by! one! informant! per! organization.! The!

majority!of!our!informants!are!owner/managers,!site!managers,!

or! senior!managers! of! a! department.! They!were! selected! as! in<

formants! because! they! were! particularly! well! informed! about!

and! involved! in! organizational! changes.! Nevertheless,! relying!

solely! on! a! single! informant! may! be! problematic! because! they!

may!have!incomplete!information!about!the!organization!and!the!

change.4!Future!research!might!benefit!from!approaching!multi<

!4! For! an! in<depth! analysis! of! this! and! related!methodological! issues! of! single!

respondent! organizational! surveys,! see! the! contributions! to! Issue! 53! (4)! of!

Personnel' Psychology,! in! particular! the! debate! between! Gerhart! et! al.! (2000)!

and!Huselid!and!Becker! (2000).!Preliminary!conclusions! from!this!debate!are!

that! reliability! problems! due! to! insufficient! information! of! single! informants!

are!more! severe! in! large! (i.e.,! more! than! 40,000! employees),! heterogeneous,!

and! multisite! organizations,! where! the! issues! addressed! in! the! interview! lie!

outside!of!the!expertise!of!the!informant.!In!our!study,!we!surveyed!establish<

ments!with!a!moderate!size!(average!of!254!employees).!

!


!

154 !

ple! respondents!within! the! same! organization! (Enticott,! Boyne,!

and!Walker!2009)!and!collect!additional!data!from!other!sources!

(e.g.,!budget!reports,!evaluation!reports,!qualitative!studies,!etc.).!

! Third,! since! we! were! interested! in! the! incidence! of!

change!in!general,!we!used!very!coarse<grained!measures!of!or<

ganizational! change.! Incorporating! more! fine<grained! distinc<

tions!between!different!types!of!change!(e.g.,!particular!types!of!

structural! change,! like! changes! in! size! or! organizational! form,!

and! types! of! procedural! change! like! human! resources!manage<

ment! policies! or! financial! policy! adjustments)! would! require!

more!detailed! theory!work! that! incorporates! insights!related! to!

these!specific!outcomes!(Fernandez!and!Pitts!2007).!

! Fourth,! a! longitudinal! research!design!could!disentangle!

the! causal! relations! between! the! independent! and! dependent!

variables!of!this!study!by!measuring!the!effect!causes!of!change!

and! not! only! cross<sectional! correlation! between! covariates.! A!

longitudinal! research! design,! thus,! is! required! to! investigate!

properly!the!trends!in!organizational!behavior!that!explain!adap<

tive!responses!of!public!organizations.!

! Notwithstanding! these! limitations,! our! study! does! sug<

gest! that! public! and! private! organizations! in! the! Netherlands!

might! be! indeed! converging! but! that! administrative! reforms!

have!not!yet!eliminated!concrete!differences!between!Dutch!pub<

lic! and! private! management! (at! least! regarding! organizational!

change).! Increased! competitive! pressures! in! combination! with!

wider!managerial!autonomy!might!provide!public!managers!with!

the! incentives! and! the! discretion! to! restructure! their! organiza<

tions,!despite!external!regulatory!pressures.!Hence,!public!man<

agement!reform!might!enable!them!to!mature!into!“strong!social!

actors”! as! has! been! argued! elsewhere! (Brunsson! and! Sahlin<

Anderson! 2000).! For! public!managers,! changes!might! not! be! a!

threat,! but! a! unique! chance! to! enlarge! and! consolidate! their!

power! base,! which—compared! to! management! positions! in!

Dutch!private!firms—was!far!more!restricted!before!the!reforms.!

Whether!public!managers!will!become!equally!responsive!to!the!


!

155 !

same!cues!of!change!as!their!private!counterparts!remains!a!rel<

evant! question! for! public! management! scholars! and! citizens!

alike.! However,! for! the! time! being,! we! must! conclude! that! 20!

years!of!administrative!reform!indeed!changed!a!lot!of!the!Dutch!

public! sector,! but! when! compared! to! its! private! counterpart,!

some!concrete!differences!remain.!

!

!

!

!

SIX The control imperative !

!

!

!

!

!

!

The!central!proposition!of! this!book! is! that! the!need! to!achieve!

and! maintain! control,! and! to! secure! conditions! necessary! for!

doing!so!is!a!crucial! intervening!factor!in!the!motivation,! imple<

mentation!and!outcome!of!reorganizations.!We!propose!that!the!

control! imperative! powers! and! shapes! contemporary! efforts! in!

planned!organizational!change!in!the!public!and!private!sectors.!

Studying!and!understanding!this,!we!claim,!helps!open!the!black!

box! that! links! general! changes! in! the! environment! of! organiza<

tions! to! particular! trajectories! of! organizational! change.! The!

studies! presented! in! preceding! chapters! posit! the! notions! that!

managers!and!implementers!strive!for!control;!that! it! is! in!their!

best! interest! to! achieve! and! retain! control;! and! that! pursuing!

such!goals!has!real!implications!for!corporate!strategy!and!public!

policy.!We!have!explored!different!facets!of!the!relation!between!

control!and!change!across!different!phases!of!the!reorganization!

process,!and!on!the!way,!we!have!gathered!significant!evidence.!

In! this! concluding! chapter,! we! first! recapitulate! on! the!

available!evidence!and!findings.!Next,!we!discuss!loose!ends,!and!

explore!avenues!for!future!studies.!We!conclude!by!pointing!out!

implications!for!theory!and!practice.!

!

!

!

!

!

THE!CONTROL!IMPERATIVE!

!

157 !

!!!!!!!!TABLE!6.1!Lessons'and'evidence!

' ' Lessons' Evidence'

ANTECEDENTS!

Ch.1!

!

Managers’!control!positions!

are!multidimensional!!

Managers!who!see!their!

control!position!endangered!

or!diminished!embark!with!higher!likelihood!on!

reorganizations!!

Control!affects!the!likelihood!of!reorganizations,!even!when!

accounting!for!ecological!

influences!!

365!managers!Private!sector!

Netherlands!

Ch.!2!

!

Different!types!of!conflict!correlate!with!different!types!

of!reorganization!!

238!managers!Private!sector!

Netherlands!

IMPLEMENTATION!

Ch.!3!

!

Control!is!a!precarious!state!

for!managers!(implementers),!and!it!depends!on!managing!

multiple!strategies!!

Variations!in!the!ability!to!exert!control!can!have!

unintended!consequences!for!

policy!!

10!managers!1!org.!

Public!sector!

Mexico!

Ch.!4!

!

Implementation!of!reorganizations!does!not!

require!formal!control!and!

large!resource!endowments!!

Legitimation!of!processes!and!

bottom<up!involvement!of!

organizational!members!

contribute!to!implementation!!

55!orgs.!

Public!sector!

Mexico!

AFTERMATH!

Ch.!5!

!

NPM!reforms!have!created!

convergence!among!public!

and!private!organizations!!

Changes!influence!the!quality!

and!quantity!of!control,!esp.!in!

public!agencies!!

122!orgs.!

Public!and!

private!

Netherlands!


!

158 !

Evidence and lessons

Our!evidence!suggests!that!control! is! indeed!an!intervening!fac<

tor!in!the!motives,!implementation!and!aftermath!of!reorganiza<

tions,!in!the!public!and!private!sectors!(Table!6.1).!It!also!shows!

that!the!relation!between!control!and!change!is!composite,!recip<

rocal!and!pervasive.!First,!the!relation!is!composite!because!both!

control!and!change!are!complex,!multifaceted!phenomena.!As!we!

have! seen,! different! aspects! and! qualities! of! control! (or! loss! of!

control)!have!different!effects!on!the!probability!and!type!of!re<

organization! (Chapters! 1! and! 2).! Second,! control! and! change!

have!a!reciprocal!relation.!Control!affects! the!possibilities!of!re<

organizations—both! as! antecedent! (Chapters! 1! and! 2)! and!

throughout! the! implementation!process!(Chapters!3!and!4)—as!

much! as! reorganizations! affect! the!nature! and! intensity! of! con<

trol!(Chapters!3!and!5).!Finally,!our!evidence!shows!that!the!rela<

tion! between! control! and! change! can! be! found! in! one! way! or!

another! in! different! organizations! and! across! different! sectors.!

Control!is!imperative!for!public!and!private!managers!to!defend!

and!maintain!their!position,!and!its!pursuit!has!important!conse<

quences!for!strategy!and!policy.!

!

Antecedents !

In!the!first!chapter,!we!observed!and!asked!why!some!managers!

resisted!reorganization,!whereas!others!seemed!eager!to!embark!

on!them.!The!central!issue!was!to!understand!whether!variations!

in!managers’!experience!of!control!would!help!us!understand!the!

occurrence! of! reorganizations.!We! claimed! that! a! gattopardism!

mechanism!was!at!play:!For!managers!who!deemed!their!control!

positions!(MCP)!strong,!the!opportunity!cost!of!initiating!reorgan<

ization!was!high!because!embarking!on!change!could!potentially!

undermine!the!basis!of!a!robust!position.!Conversely,!managers!

who! saw! their!position! challenged!or!diminished!had!an! incen<


!

159 !

tive!to!start!and!support!reorganization—that!is,!the!opportunity!

cost! of! reorganizing! decreases! to! the! extent! that! a! managers’!

control!position!decreases!as!well.!

Statistical!analyses!indicated!that!higher!MCP!indeed!cor<

related! with! lower! incidence! of! change.! This! observation! sup<

ports! the! underlying! argument! that! change! responds,! at! least!

partially,!to!managers’!efforts!to!uphold!their!position!and!repel!

threats.! Obviously! this! claim! neglects!many! factors,! such! as! in<

cremental! drivers! of! change! (adjustments! and! improvisations!

that! in! themselves! do! not! constitute! purposeful! reorganization,!

but! that! in! the! long!run!change!organizational!routines;!Gersick!

and!Hackman!1990;!March!1981),!as!well!as!the!incessant!nego<

tiation! that! occurs! between! management! and! employees,! and!

between! members! of! the! management! team! (Buchanan! and!

Badham!2004;!Demers!2007,!180<5).!The!observation,!however,!

is!relevant!because!it!shows!that!attending!to!the!strength!of!the!

manager’s!control!position!can!inform!us!about!the!likelihood!of!

reorganization,!even!when!controlling! for! the! influence!of!pow<

erful! drivers! of! change! external! to! the! organization! (increased!

market! competition,! changes! in! governmental! legislation,! and!

technological! advancement).! It! also! suggests! that! the! relation!

between! control! and! change! is!more! complex! than! assumed! in!

some!popular!textbooks!(for!a!discussion!on!this,!see!Streatfield!

2001).!The!evidence!we!gathered!suggests!that!managers'do'not'

necessarily' embark'on'changes'because' they'are' “in' control”,'but'

probably'because'they'are'not.!

Chapter!2!offered!a!somewhat!different!treatment!of!the!

issue!of!control!as!antecedent!of!reorganizations.!We!asked!why!

some!managers!decided!to!embark!on!structural!changes!such!as!

massive!layoffs!and!downsizing!(type!E!reorganization),!whereas!

others!chose!reorganizations!geared!to!improving!organizational!

capacity,! for! example,! through! process! reengineering! or! policy!

adjustment! (type! O! reorganization).! That! is,!we! asked!why! one!

kind!of!reorganization!was!chosen!over!the!other.!The!key!to!the!

answer! is! that! the!vertical!and!horizontal!dimensions!of! the!or<


!

160 !

ganizational! structure! hatch! fundamentally! different! conflicts,!

with!equally!different!consequences!for!management!and!organ<

izations.! Vertical! conflicts! reduce! the! efficiency! of! agency! rela<

tions! and! increase! the! costs! of! securing! compliance.!Horizontal!

conflicts!disrupt!peer<to<peer!processes!and!increase!the!costs!of!

achieving! coordination.! We! proposed! that! different! conflicts!

were! likely! to!elicit!different!managerial! responses.!Specifically,!

we! suggested! that! reorganizations! are! a! potential! solution! for!

conflict—and!the! loss!of!control! that! it!entails.!Type!E!reorgani<

zations!were!arguably!more!effective!at!mitigating!vertical! con<

flicts,!and!conversely,!type!O!reorganizations!at!horizontal!ones.!

An! analysis! of! a! sample! of! managers! revealed! that! the!

likelihood! of! reorganizations! increased! in! the! presence! of! con<

flict.! The! sample! also! showed! that! the! likelihood! of! observing!

different! kinds! of! reorganization! was! associated,! as! expected,!

with!different!kinds!of!conflict:!vertical!conflict!associates!with!a!

higher!likelihood!of!type!E!reorganization,!and!horizontal!conflict!

associates!with!a!higher!likelihood!of!type!O!reorganization.!This!

suggests! that!managers! facing!different!sorts!of!conflict!may!in<

deed!react!differently!and,!if!they!choose!to!implement!reorgani<

zations,! they!are! likely! to!embark!on!qualitatively!different! tra<

jectories! of! change.! These! correlations! are! further! evidence! in!

favor!of! the! idea! that! the!need! to! remain! in! control! is! a! crucial!

antecedent!of!reorganizations.!Chapter!2!suggests,! in!particular,!

that! qualitative' variations' in' the' kind' of' threats' to' control' may'

affect'the'kind'of'reorganization!pursued!by!managers.!

!

Implementation !

Chapters!3!and!4!take!on!the!issue!of!how!managers!and!imple<

menters! gain! control! over! the! implementation! of! reorganiza<

tions.!Empirically,!these!chapters!focus!on!the!implementation!of!

a!massive!HRM!reorganization!in!several!agencies!of!the!national!

government!of!Mexico.! In!Chapter!3,!we!asked!how! implement<

ers!managed!to!enforce!change,!that!is,!how!they!attain!and!sus<


!

161 !

tain!control! in!order! to! implement!a!reorganization.! In! the!case!

of!the!SPC!reform,!we!analyzed!which!strategies!were!devised!to!

achieve! this,! and! what! were! the! resulting! patterns! of! enforce<

ment! and! control.! We! were! particularly! interested! in! how! im<

plementers! managed! to! achieve! coordination! and! compliance!

(see!also,!Chapters!1!and!2).!Evidence!shows!that!different!types!

of! strategies! of! control! were! adopted,! repaired! or! adjusted! to!

regain,!maintain! or! increase! legitimacy! (cf.! Scott! 2008).! To! the!

extent! that! resources!and!political! leverage!were!plentiful,! con<

trol!was! sought! through! purely! regulatory! strategies.!However,!

when!these!strategies!proved!ineffective!(particularly!evidenced!

by! low! levels! of! compliance),! implementers!were! forced! to! de<

vise!alternatives.!The!case!study!shows!that!implementers!of!the!

SPC! reform! moved! to! an! enforcement! framework! based! on! in<

creased! autonomy! and! flexibility! and! increased! prominence! of!

“soft”! strategies! (e.g.,! persuasive! strategies).! This! transition! re<

sulted! in! a! reduction! of! the! cost! of! securing! compliance,! but! it!

increased!the!cost!of!achieving!coordination.!

With! regard! to!our!overarching!question,! this!pattern! is!

interesting! for! at! least! two! reasons.! First,! it! shows! again! that!

control!is!multifaceted,!and!that!securing!some!aspects!of!control!

(e.g.,! achieving! compliance)! does! not! preclude! complications! in!

others! (e.g.,! coordination).! It! seems! that! control' is' a' precarious'

state'for'managers!and!implementers:!achieving!control!requires!

active!management! of!multiple! strategies! for! the! attainment! of!

multiple!goals,!which!are!not!always!mutually!consistent!or!even!

feasible! (see! Folta! 1998;! Schmidt! and! Kipnis! 1984;! Streatfield,!

2001).! Second,! changes' in' the' ability' to' attain' control' can' have'

important,' sometimes' unintended,' implications' for' policy' and'

strategy.!As!observed!in!the!SPC!case,!the!trade<off!between!com<

pliance! and! coordination! helps! make! sense! of! why! the! reform!

did!not!curb!discretionary!powers!of!agencies!(OECD!2011),!and!

instead!provided! opportunities! for! reform! recipients! to! deviate!

from!the!original!intent!of!the!reform!(Grindle!2012).!


!

162 !

In! Chapter! 4,! we! looked! into! different! implementation!

recipes—different!combinations!of!organizational!factors!leading!

to!compliant! implementation!(i.e.,! the!extent! to!which!observed!

changes!in!organizational!rules!and!procedures!comply!with!the!

goals!and!program!of!a!reform).!We!identified!three!pathways!to!

compliant! implementation:! a! technocratic! and! two! institutional!

variations! (classical! and! interest<based).!The! technocratic!path<

way!emphasizes!setting!up!formal,!centralized!control!structures!

over! processes! and!decision<making,! and! committing! resources!

to! the! implementation! of! organizational! change.! Institutional!

recipes! focus! instead! on! the! interplay! between! formal! and! in<

formal! elements! of! organizational! governance.! Institutional!

pathways! relax! technocratic! assumptions! about! formal! (top<

down)! control! and! resource! endowments,! and! focus! rather! on!

legitimation!processes! and!bottom<up! involvement!of! organiza<

tional! members.! The! distinction! is! important! because! these!

pathways!represent!two!fundamentally!different!theories!of!con<

trol!over!implementation.!

Our! empirical! analysis! examined! whether! institutional!

recipes! would! in! fact! represent! functional! equivalents! of! the!

technocratic!pathway;! that! is,!we!evaluated! their! co<occurrence!

as! recipes! for! compliant! implementation.! An! FSQCA! analysis!

showed!that!setting'up'formal'control'structures'and'committing'

ample' resources' was' not' the' only' pathway' leading' to' compliant'

implementation!(at!least!not!for!the!studied!reform).!A!number!of!

observed! configurations! linked! to! compliant! implementation!

included,! instead,! a! combination! of! robust! interpersonal! trust!

and! weak! oppositional! norms;! thus,! granting! one! of! the! core!

claims!of! institutional!pathways.!These! results! also! echo! recent!

claims!in!the!management!literature!calling!for!greater!attention!

to! processes! of! normative! support! in! organizations—that! is,! if!

and!how!normative!beliefs! help!organizations! reach! their! goals!

and! create! value! (see,! e.g.,! Birkinshaw,! Foss! and! Lindenberg!

2014;!Foss!and!Lindenberg!2013;!Lindenberg!and!Foss!2011).!

!


!

163 !

Aftermath !

Chapter! 3! provided! insight! into! outcomes! of! reorganizations!

(e.g.,! on! unintended! consequences).! In! Chapter! 5,!we! examined!

the!effects!of!years!of!NPM<inspired! reform.!The!goal!was! to!as<

sess! whether! efforts! of! planned! organizational! change! in! the!

public!sector!had!brought!governmental!organizations!closer! to!

their!private! counterparts.! In!particular,!we!wondered!whether!

post<reorganization! conditions! affected! public! organizations’!

propensity! to! implement! further! organizational! change,! in! re<

sponse! to! three! major! covariates! of! change:! competition,!

(de)regulation!and!managerial!autonomy.!

Evidence!shows!showed!some!similarities!regarding!dif<

ferent! covariates! of! change! among! sampled! public! and! private!

organizations.!For!example,!both!groups!react!positively!to!com<

petitive!pressures.!Yet,!differences!are!noteworthy.!First,!public!

and!private!organizations!react!differently!to!variations!in!regu<

lation.! For! private! organizations,! increments! in! the! density! of!

internal!rules!correlate!with!structural!change;!for!public!organi<

zations,! increments! in! external! regulation! are! associated! with!

higher!likelihood!of!structural!change.!This!suggests!that!change!

in! sampled! public! organizations! occurs! despite! high! external!

regulatory!pressures!and!perhaps!because!of!them!(cf.!DiMaggio!

and!Powell!1983).!Second,!we! found!a!significant!difference!be<

tween! public! and! private! organizations! for! procedural! change:!

sampled! public! organizations! with! administrative! autonomy!

were! more! likely! to! implement! procedural! changes! relative! to!

private!organizations.!These!results!lend!support!to!the!idea!that!

reorganizations!may! affect! control! once! they! have! been! imple<

mented!(on!this,!see!also!Chapter!1).!For!example,!evidence!sug<

gests! that!by! increasing!public!managers’! administrative!auton<

omy,! NPM! reforms! created! conditions! for! further! adjustment! in!

public!agencies!(i.e.,!higher!likelihood!of!change).!In!other!words,!

control'may'be'influenced'by'changes:!managers!who!traditional<

ly! had! limited! autonomy! and! control! over! procedures!may! see!


!

164 !

their! influence! over! strategic! change! increase! after! reorganiza<

tion.!

!

Loose ends and future research

As!evidenced!above,!control!plays!a!relevant!role! in!trajectories!

of! reorganization! both! in! the! public! and! in! the! private! sectors.!

Obviously,!however,!there!is!far!more!to!reorganizations—and!to!

organizational! change! and! governance,! for! that! matter! (cf.!

Demers!2007;!Wittek!2007).!We!do!not!wish!to!imply!that!reor<

ganizations! can! be! reduced! to! merely! putative! efforts! to! gain!

control.! Such! a! conclusion!would! not! only! debase! the! valuable!

lessons! summarized! above,! it! would! also! conceal! the! complex!

interactions! surrounding! the! relationship! between! change! and!

control.!Certainly,! control! is! important;!however,! it! is! crucial! to!

place! the! relation! between! control! and! change! in! perspective!

(Figure!6.1).!To!mention! four! important!aspects,!much!depends!

on! the! characteristics! of! managers! and! implementers,! the! fea<

tures! of! the! organization,! the! delicate! network! of! intra<

organizational!social!relations,!and!the! institutional!context!and!

the! ecology! of! organizations.! In! this! sense,! the! studies! in! this!

book!answer!some! important!questions,!but! leave!others!unan<

swered.!Below,!we!present!some!possibilities!for!future!research.!

!

Managers !

Most!of!the!decision<making!processes!and!mechanisms!studied!

in!this!book!have!managers!as!their!focal!actors.!This!primacy!is!

warranted.! After! all,! managers! are! members! of! the! dominant!

coalition! in! the! vast! majority! of! organizations.! They! influence!

organizational! outcomes! through,! for! instance,! strategy! and!

sanctioning! (Hambrick! and! Mason! 1984;! Mintzberg! 1989;! see!

also! Chapter! 3).! As! previous! chapters! show,! managerial! goals,!

such!!as!!control,!!have!!vital!!implications!!for!!corporate!!strategy!


!

165 !

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!


!

166 !

(Chapter!1)!and!public!policy!(Chapter!3).!Additional!managerial!

characteristics! (gender,! educational! background,! personality),!

values! and! attitudes! (innovativeness,! traditionalism),! and!man<

nerisms!(leadership! type)!may!possibly! interact! in! the!relation<

ship! between! control! and! change! (Hambrick! 2007;! Meier! and!

O’Toole!2006).!This!relates!not!only! to! individual!differences! in!

managers’! proclivity! to,! say,! favor! the! status! quo! (Hambrick,!

Geletkanycz! and! Fredrickson! 2006);! it! also! raises! questions! on!

how!particular!individuals!manage!to!attain!which!facets!of!con<

trol,! and! what! the! implications! are! for! strategy! (Nadkarni! and!

Barr!2008).!In!this!regard,!this!book!has!already!provided!some!

hints!as!to!what!kind!of!managers!are!more!or!less!likely!to!im<

plement!reorganizations!(e.g.,!based!on!the!quality!of! their!con<

trol! positions).! Yet,! other! issues! remain! unanswered! and! are!

fruitful! avenues! for! future! research.! For! example,!what! are! the!

individual!characteristics!of!managers!prone!to!implement!reor<

ganizations,! in! terms! of! educational! background! or! attitudes! to!

reorganizations?!Are!managers!with! an!MBA! compared! to! those!

without!specialist!managerial!training!more!or!less!prone!to!de<

tect! “control!problems”! such!as! conflict! and! thus,! to!embark!on!

reorganizations?!

!

Social relations and group processes!!

Another! area! of! interest! for! future! studies! relates! to! the! traits!

and! processes! spanning! intra<! and! inter<organizational! social!

relations! in! relation! to! reorganization! and! control.!Mechanisms!

associated! with! normative! beliefs! (Chapters! 3! and! 4),! trust!

(Chapter!4)!and!organizational!conflict!(Chapter!2)!appear!to!be!

especially! promising.! Normative! beliefs! and! “normative! goal!

frames”!(cf.!Lindenberg!and!Foss!2011),!and!interpersonal!trust!

(Nyhan! 2000;! 1999)! play! important! roles! in! the! governance! of!

organizational!change;!in!particular,!they!seem!to!facilitate!com<

pliance! and! sustainable! cooperation.! Norms! and! values! affect!

implementation! possibilities,! and! can! also! serve! as! vehicles! of!


!

167 !

enforcement.! Intra<organizational! trust! is! also! likely! to! interact!

with!managers’!control!positions!(cf.!Kramer!1999)!and!to!expe<

dite!reorganization!(cf.!Nyhan!2000).!

Our! findings! suggest! that! building! internal! support! and!

mitigating! resistance! to! change! can!be! facilitated!by! bottom<up!

involvement! of! employees! and! recipients! of! change,! as! well! as!

management!of/adaptation!to!normative!expectations!(Chapters!

3!and!4).!Further,!it!is!important!to!study!additional!causal!con<

nections!between!change!and!conflict.!In!Chapter!2,!we!saw!how!

different! types! of! conflict! related! to! different! strategies! of!

change.!It!is!interesting,!for!instance,!to!explore!reciprocal!effects!

between!conflict! and!change:!how!conflicts! trigger! changes!and!

how! change! itself! hatches! conflict.! For! example,! attempting! to!

solve!horizontal!conflicts!with!type!E!changes!might!in!effect!lead!

to!vertical!conflict!(see!above,!p.51).!In!this!regard,!it!seems,!we!

have! only! glimpsed! the! tip! of! the! iceberg,! and! clearly!more! re<

search!is!required.!

Organizational characteristics !

Characteristics! of! organizations! and! the! sector! in! which! they!

operate! represent! another! potential! source! of! variation! and!

complex! interaction! effects.! We! refer! to! such! features! as! rule!

density! (number! of! formal! rules! and! procedures),! complexity!

(number! of! organizational! subunits),! or! structure! (e.g.,! M<form!

vs.!U<form).!Other!characteristics!include!task!(e.g.,!organizations!

that! provide! services! vs.! organizations! that! produce! material!

goods),! and! sector! and! ownership! differences! (e.g.,! public! vs.!

private).!As!we!have!seen,!organizational!characteristics!are!re<

lated!to!both!control!and!change.!For!instance,!managers’!control!

positions!correlate!with!organizational!size!and!age,!albeit!effect!

sizes!were! very! small! (Chapter! 1,! p.35).! Also,! for! both! types! of!

change! studied! in!Chapter!5! (procedural! and! structural),! larger!

organizations! showed! higher! likelihood! of! reorganization! than!

smaller! ones.! That! these! characteristics! are! related! to! such! in<


!

168 !

ternal!phenomena!as!control!and!planned!change!is!not!surpris<

ing.! Previous! theoretical! and! empirical! work! has! already! high<

lighted! their! relevance! (see,! e.g.,! Armenakis! and!Bedeian! 1999;!

Baumol,! Alan! and! Edward! 2003;! Damanpour! 1991;! Demers!

2007).!Nevertheless,!it!is!interesting!to!note!that!particular!varia<

tions! can!have! significant!effects!on!why!and!how!management!

attempts!to!regain!control!and!implement!changes.!As!Chapter!4!

pointed! out! (pp.121<2),! for! example,! variations! in! task! across!

public!organizations!of!the!Mexican!national!government!seemed!

to! connect! to! the! prevalence! of! certain! implementation! path<

ways.! We! saw! that! organizations! that! operated! under! strong!

budgetary!restrictions!and!provided!a!wide!variety!of!direct!pub<

lic!services!succeeded!in!implementing!the!reorganization!to!the!

extent! that! formal! control! and! ample! resources!were! available.!

Compliant! implementation! through! institutional! recipes! was!

successful,!by!contrast,! in!smaller!organizations!that!provided!a!

limited!variety!of!public!services.!

The!distinction!between!public!and!private!organizations!

deserves!special!attention.!We!used!data!from!public!and!private!

managers! and! organizations.! There! are! good! reasons! for! this!

design.! For! one! thing,! the!mechanisms! studied! in! this! book! are!

nuanced! by! institutional! and! organizational! characteristics! of!

private!and!public!organizations.!For!example,!Chapter!5!shows!

that!in!spite!of!similarities,!the!public!and!private!establishments!

studied! differ! in! some! regards.! Dutch! public! managers! do! not!

necessarily!have!as!much!discretion!over!organizational!strategy!

as! their! private! counterparts! (Nutt! and! Backoff! 1993;! Maor!

1999).! Although! NPM! reforms! might! be! changing! this,! in! many!

cases,!public!managers!continue!to!implement!changes!reactive<

ly,!for!instance,!due!to!changes!in!legislation!(see!above,!Chapter!

5;! also! Chapter! 3,! p.69).! This! point! is! also! important! to! under<

stand!the!process!of!implementation!studied!in!Chapter!3.!Public!

managers!and!implementers!often!find!themselves! in!a!position!

in!which!they!have!to!implement!reorganizations!that!were!con<

ceived! or! designed! exogenously—even! if,! as! illustrated! by! the!


!

169 !

Mexican!case,!they!do!not!have!adequate!institutional!or!organi<

zational!means!to!enforce!changes.!

For!another,!as!discussed!in!a!recent!treatise!by!Van!der!

Mandele!and!Van!Witteloostuijn!(2013),!embarking!on!change!in!

the!public!and!private!sectors!may!constitute!distinct!processes.!

For!example,!with!the!exception!of!big!corporations!(e.g.,!banks,!

insurance! companies,! telecom),! implementing! a! reorganization!

could! entail! higher! risk! of! organizational! failure! in! the! private!

sector,!relative!to!such!governmental!organizations!as!ministries!

and! agencies! because! the! former! are! “allowed! to! fail”! whereas!

the! latter! are! not.! Failed! experimentation! with! reorganization!

under!competitive!market!conditions!should!be!associated!with!

greater!risk!of!dismissal!(on!the!difference!between!exploration!

and! exploitation,! see!March! 1991).! In! the! public! sector,! and! in!

particular! for! governmental! organizations,! such! inbuilt! risk! is!

minimal! or! non<existent.! This! raises! the! question! of! whether!

public! managers! with! comparable! autonomy! as! their! private!

counterparts! embark! with! greater! probability! on! experimental!

trajectories!of!change!(see!Chapter!5,!p.152).!Obviously,! the!an<

swer! to! this! depends! on! several! conditions,! including! that! pri<

vate! and! public!managers!may! not! face! the! same! incentives! to!

embark! on! change! to! begin!with,! or! that! the! regulatory! frame<

work!of!public!and!private!organizations!affects!them!differently!

(as!we!saw!in!Chapter!5).!The!point,!however,!is!of!great!interest,!

not!only!because!it!suggests!that!the!common!view!on!the!“rigidi<

ty”!of!public!organizations!may!be!partially!unfounded,!but!also!

because!it!hints!at!the!importance!of!Schumpeterian!mechanisms!

of! creative! destruction! in! the! public! sector! (see! also,! Acemoglu!

and!Robinson!2012).!

Further!theoretical!work!and!empirical!studies!are!need<

ed! to!explicate! these!associations,! interactions!and!possibilities.!

In! particular,! additional! data! and! analysis! are! needed! to! study!

control<related! antecedents! and! implementation! processes! of!

planned!organizational!change!across!public!and!private!organi<

zations.! It! remains! interesting,! for! instance,! to! compare! imple<


!

170 !

mentation!of!major!regulatory!or!policy!change!across!sectors,!or!

to!compare!(potential)!sectorial!differences!in!“managers’!degree!

of!gattopardism”!(cf.!above,!Chapter!1).!As!a!case!in!point,!Chap<

ter! 5! suggests! that! for! Dutch! public! managers,! embarking! on!

reorganization!might!not!be!a!threat,!but!rather!a!chance!to!im<

prove!and!consolidate!their!power!base.!

!

Context and ecology of organizations !

The!broader!institutional!and!ecological!context!in!which!public!

and! private! organizations! operate! is! also! relevant.! On! the! one!

hand,! organizations! interact! with! other! organizations! in! their!

environment! (Hannan! and! Freeman! 1977).! This! ecology! of! or<

ganizations!is!characterized!by!particular!dynamics!that!may!be!

relevant! to! understand! variations! in! the! relationship! between!

control!and!change.!For!example,!we!have!seen!in!previous!chap<

ters! that! increased! environmental! competition,! as!well! changes!

in! technology!or! labor! skills! affect! the! likelihood!of! reorganiza<

tion!(Chapters!1,!2!and!5).!We!have!also!seen!that!for!implemen<

tation!processes!of!public!sector!reforms,!resources!and!support!

provided!by!other!organizations!affect!the!structure!of!opportu<

nities! available! to! implementers! (Chapter! 3).! Further,!we! think!

that! greater! attention! to! (intra<organizational)! control! mecha<

nisms! is! likely! to! inform! future! studies!aimed!at!understanding!

population<level! differences! in! rates! of! inertia! and! change,! and!

the! limits! to! and! likelihood! of! organizational! adaptability.! For!

instance,! if! particular! forms! of! organization! are!more! prone! to!

(different!types!of)!conflict!(due!to!differences!in!niche!or!struc<

ture;!Hannan!and!Freeman!1977),!one!could!observe!on!average!

higher! rates! of! reorganization! or! inertia! across! organizational!

types!at!the!population!level.!

On! the!other!hand,! for! future! studies,! interaction!effects!

occurring!at!the!institutional! level!are!of!particular! interest.!For!

example,! to! what! extent! do! differences! in! the! structure! of! the!

governmental! sector! (different! minister<bureaucratic! relations;!


!

171 !

level! of! agencification,! etc.)! affect! characteristics! of! control! and!

the!likelihood!of!reorganizations?!Differences!in!labor!legislation!

and!markets,!the!influence!of!international!fads!and!policies,!and!

spillover! effects! and! isomorphism! across! sectors! and! countries!

represent! potential! influences! that! could! affect! how! managers!

perceive!and!exert!control!in!organizations,!as!well!as!the!possi<

bilities! and! aftermath! of! contemporary! reorganizations! across!

sectors!and!countries!(see,!e.g.,!Frumkin!and!Galaskiewicz!2004;!

Zaheer!1995).!

More!fundamentally,!how!far!the!mechanisms!and!expla<

nations! offered! in! this! book! may! be! generalized! beyond! the!

Dutch!and!Mexican!cases!remains!to!be!answered.!As!discussed!

above,!these!two!countries!presented!us!with!an!opportunity!to!

extract! valuable! lessons! and! evidence.! In! principle,! conclusions!

could! be! extended! to! similar! cases.! For! instance,! in! the! case! of!

the!SPC!in!Mexico,!lessons!and!theoretical!tools!discussed!in!this!

book! could! be! informative! for! similar! processes! in! comparable!

countries!such!as!Brazil!or!Chile.!Observations!on!NPM!reforms!in!

the! Netherlands! could! also! be! informative! in! other! European!

countries! that! followed! similar! trajectories! of! reform! (see,! e.g.,!

Hvidman! and!Andersen! 2014).! Similarly,! concepts! such! as!MCP,!

developed!here!against!the!background!provided!by!Dutch!man<

agers!and!companies!could!be!applied!and!translated!into!differ<

ent! settings,! hopefully! revealing! informative! similarities! and!

differences! across! countries! and! cultures! (cf.! Lincoln! and! Kal<

leberg!1990).!In!any!case,!the!limited!generalizability!of!our!con<

clusions,!particularly!in!relation!to!the!characteristics!of!our!em<

pirical!cases,!should!not!be!overlooked.!

!

Practical and theoretical implications

Although,! many! aspects! of! the! relation! between! control! and!

change!need!to!be!put!in!perspective!and!more!figures!and!data!

need!to!be!gathered,!our!studies!suggest!that!purposive!efforts!to!


!

172 !

gain,!retain!and!increase!control!do!in!fact!affect!the!quantity!and!

quality!of!reorganizations—and!their!implementation—and!that!

in! turn,! reorganizations!may! transform! how! control! is!wielded!

and! sustained! in! contemporary! organizations! (see! also,! Clegg!

2009).! Focusing! on! internal! control! issues! and! processes! com<

plements!the!(economic!and!contingency)!literature!on!organiza<

tional! change!with! its! strong!emphasis! on! external! and! techno<

logical! drivers! of! change.! As! presented! above,! control! effects!

seem! strong! enough! to! hold! independently! of! external! condi<

tions.!Hereunder!we!point! at! some!possible! implications!of! our!

study!for!theory,!practice!and!methodology.!

!

Multiple facets of control !

One!of!the!core!assumptions!behind!our!studies!is!that!control!is!

a! multifaceted! phenomenon! (also! see! Clegg! 2009;! Hales! 1999,!

Otley,!Broadbent!and!Berry!1995).!We!posit! that! it! is! fruitful! to!

embrace!rather!than!circumvent!such!multiple!manifestations.!In!

doing!so,!however,!researchers!risk!crafting!highly!complex!con<

cepts! and! measurements.! Our! solution! was! to! devise! an! over<

arching!construct!of!control!(managerial!control!position)!based!

on! a! sociological! theory! of! governance! that! emphasizes! both!

structural!facets!of!control!(vertical!vs.!horizontal),!as!well!as!ex!

ante! and! ex! post! control! outcomes! (Chapter! 1).! The! construct!

allows!us!to!appraise!four!different!facets!of!control!(compliance,!

coordination,! cooperation! and! legitimacy)! that! are! informative!

separately! (Chapters! 2! and! 3)! and! in! combination! (Chapter! 1).!

The!MCP!construct!captures! the!extent! to!which!management! in!

an!organization!is!capable!of!reducing!the!gap!between!employ<

ees’! capacity! and!what! they! actually! end! up! doing,! both!within!

agency!relations!and!peer<to<peer!processes.!Also,!the!construct!

allows! us! to!measure! overall! control! capacity! across! cases! in! a!

comparable! way.! Using! the! concept! and! its! categories,! we! can!

comprehend! and! compare! how! managers! view! their! grasp! on!


!

173 !

their!organizations,!across!points!in!time!and!in!different!organi<

zations!and!sectors.!

!

Conflict management !

As!for!conflict!management,!qualitatively!different!conflicts!may!

be! related! to! different! kinds! of! reorganization.! This! echoes! the!

idea! that! trajectories! of! adjustment! and! change! can! arise! from!

conflicts!(cf.!Katz!and!Flynn!2013)!and!may!shed!additional!light!

on!why!some!forms!of!reorganization!are!more!or!less!common!

(frequency! of! reorganizations)! and! more! or! less! effective—at!

least!regarding!conflict!management.!Although!more!research!is!

clearly!needed,!it!is!interesting!to!observe!that!different!types!of!

reorganization!may!correlate!with!organizational!characteristics,!

and!not!only!with!managers’!values!and!preferences,!or!financial!

considerations.! In! this! sense,! our! findings! lend! support! to! the!

idea!that!it!might!be!unadvisable!to!pursue!certain!forms!of!reor<

ganization!in!particular!contexts!(cf.!Beer!and!Nohria!2000).!For!

instance,!companies!that!have!a!complex!division!of!work!may!be!

more!prone!to!horizontal!conflicts!and,!therefore,!type!E!reorgan<

ization!may!be!less!effective!in!mitigating!conflict.!

!

Public sector reform !

There! are! at! least! three! general! implications! for! public! sector!

reform! and! NPM! theory! and! practice.! First,! our! investigations!

suggest!that!the!effectiveness!of!traditional!regulatory!strategies!

of! control!and!enforcement! (e.g.,! creating!new!rules!and! formal!

procedures),!on!the!one!hand,!may!depend!on!the!availability!of!

resources!and!political!leverage.!On!the!other!hand,!findings!sug<

gest! that! implementation! based! solely! on! regulation! and! en<

forcement! is! likely! to! be! ineffective! and! perhaps! even! counter<

productive! (see! above,! pp.92<3).! Without! additional! measures!

directed!at! increasing!cooperation!or! the!quality!of! information!


!

174 !

reaching! regulators,! change! enforcement! and! implementation!

are!likely!to!be!ineffective.!

! Second,!our!study!highlights!the!importance!of!“soft”!con<

trol!strategies!(integrative!and!persuasive!strategies;!Chapter!3),!

as!well!as!bottom<up!legitimation!and!involvement!of!employees!

for! enforcement! and! implementation! of! changes,! particularly!

when! resources! are! low! (Chapter! 4).!However,! these! strategies!

are!not!without! risk.! In! the!Mexican!SPC!case,!we!saw!that! inte<

grating! demands! into! change! initiatives! increased! compliance!

but!also!reduced!coordination!and!had!unintended!consequences!

that! worked! against! reformers’! intent.! Nuances! highlight! the!

relevance! of! non<linear,! normative! aspects! of! enforcement! and!

implementation!of!public!sector!reforms.!They!suggest!that!vari<

ables!such!as!normative!beliefs!and!the!quality!of! interpersonal!

trust!could!play!a!more!prominent!role!than!the!one!granted!by!

mainstream!theories!of!implementation.!

Third,!our!analysis!of!Dutch!public!and!private!organiza<

tions!sheds!light!on!some!predictions!of!a!NPM<informed!perspec<

tive! (Chapter! 5).! The! absence! of! significant! differences! across!

studied!organizations!seems!to!confirm!the!underlying!idea!that!

patterns! of! reorganization! in! public! organizations! are! indeed!

converging!with! those! in!private! companies.!However,! analyses!

also!showed!that!in!spite!of!convergence,!public!organizations!do!

remain!different!in!some!concrete!aspects.!In!particular,!granting!

greater!autonomy!to!public!managers!might!indeed!create!condi<

tions! for! greater! internal! adaptability.! Also,! the! role! played! by!

external! regulation! in! triggering! change! remains! different! for!

public!organizations.!

!

Implementation “recipes” !

The! role! played! by! resources! in! bringing! about! change! in! the!

public!sector!should!be!reconsidered.!This!book!suggests!paying!

greater! attention! to! recipes! for! implementation—in! contrast! to!

the!prevalent!interest!in!concrete!ingredients,!such!as!resources.!


!

175 !

Organizational<level!conditions!affecting!compliant! implementa<

tion! (resource! endowments,! formal! control,! normative! beliefs,!

and!implementers’! interests)!may!be!studied!as!complementary!

pieces!of!combinatorial!mechanisms!(pathways).!That!is,!factors!

that!may! or!may!not! contribute! to! the! implementation! of! reor<

ganizations,!such!as!resource!endowments,!are! important! in!re<

lation! to!more! complex! “recipes”.! For! instance,! in! the! SPC! case,!

this!book!showed! that! limited! resources! contributed! to! compli<

ant!implementation!in!several!organizations,!provided!a!constel<

lation! of! interpersonal! trust,! weak! oppositional! norms! and!

alignment!of! implementers’! interests!existed.! In!this!sense,!hav<

ing!limited!resources!may!not!be!a!recipe!for!disaster!after!all.!

Methods and data collection !

Whereas! most! empirical! investigations! use! very! general! infor<

mation! on! organization<level! characteristics! (e.g.,! provided! by!

Eurostat! or! similar! data! repositories),! our! study! builds! on! cus<

tom<made! surveys,! as! well! as! archival! and! in<depth! interview!

data.! Regarding!methods,! three! aspects! deserve!mention.! First,!

the!SROS!protocol!improved!over!similar!designs.!In!particular,!it!

included!two!key!refinements:!(a)!pre<selected!key!respondents!

were! allowed! to! prepare! before! interviews! took! place,! which!

increased! their! cooperation;! (b)! structured! and! automatized!

questionnaires!especially!designed! for! this! study!helped!econo<

mize! time! (for!both! informants! and! researchers)! and! increased!

comparability! across! cases.! With! an! overall! response! rate! of!

about!25%,!these!improvements!proved!successful.!

! Second,!ours!is!among!few!studies!to!compare!a!relatively!

large!variety!of!ministries!and!agencies!of!an!entire!national!gov<

ernment.! Our! data! collection! protocol! (Chapter! 4)! improves! on!

SROS!surveys!and!applies!an!approach!that!may!be!called!a!MROS!

(Multiple!Respondents!Organizational!Survey;!see!also,!Enticott,!

Boyne!and!Walker!2009).!We!collected! information! from!multi<

ple! informants! per! organization! and! complemented! this! with!


!

176 !

independent,!secondary!data.!This! increases!the!amount!of!data!

and!improves!the!quality!of!information.!

! Third,! this! book! demonstrates! the! value! of! combining!

qualitative,!quantitative!and!mixed!methods!for!the!study!of!or<

ganizational! and! management! processes.! This! methodological!

heterodoxy!gives!researchers!more!flexibility,!and!importantly,!it!

allows!for!a!richer!analysis!of!the!available!evidence.!

!

The control imperative

On!July!11,!2013,!Steven!Ballmer,!former!CEO!of!Microsoft!Corpo<

ration,!sent!a!memo!to!employees!announcing!a!major!reorgani<

zation.! In! it,! Ballmer! claimed! that! changes! would! “enable! [Mi<

crosoft]!to!innovate!with!greater!speed,!efficiency!and!capability!

in! a! fast! changing!world.”! The! company! needed,! “better! execu<

tion! from! product! conceptualization! and! innovation! right!

through!to!marketing!and!sales![…]!To!advance!our!strategy!and!

execute!more! quickly,! more! efficiently,! and!with! greater! excel<

lence!we!need!to!transform!how!we!organize,!how!we!plan!and!

how! we! work.! […]! Better! execution! and! innovation! through!

strategy! and! goal! and!discipline.”!Ballmer! concluded! in! passing!

that!Microsoft! needed:! “Lots! of! change.! But! in! all! of! this,!many!

key!things!remain!the!same.”1!

It!is!not!news,!of!course,!that!global!economic,!social!and!

political! changes! are! pushing! companies! and! governments! to!

become!more!effective,! accountable! and!efficient;! and! that! con<

sequently,!organizations!are! facing!mounting!pressures! to!reor<

ganize!their!processes!and!structures.!Yet,!one!wonders!how!this!

process! works! for! organizations! and! managers.! Why! are! reor<

ganizations! leading! to! tighter! monitoring! structures! and! novel!

!1! Read! the! full!memorandum! at:! blogs.marketwatch.com/thetell/2013/07/11!

/microsoft<ceo<steve<ballmer<on<reorganization<full<memo! (accessed! 15/08/!

2014).!

!


!

177 !

supervision! processes,! when!many! believe! that! changes! would!

bring!about!less!intense!control?!

To!answer!these!questions,!we!offer!the!thesis!that!in!its!

multiple!manifestations,!control!is!a!crucial!factor!to!understand!

reorganizations! in! that! it! powers! and! shapes!efforts! in!planned!

organizational! change! in! public! and! private! sectors.! Ballmer’s!

memo!illustrates!that!idea.!It!shows!that!contemporary!organiza<

tions! and! managers! are! coping! with! new! conditions! brought!

about!by!globalization.!In!doing!so,!actively!(re)aligning!employ<

ees’!capabilities!with!organizational!and!managerial!goals!is!par<

amount.!Reorganizations!go!hand!in!hand!with!the!basic!problem!

of!maintaining!control.!After!all,!some!things!need!to!change!for!

others!to!remain!the!same.!

!

!

!

!

!

!

SUMMARY!

!

179 !

Summary !

!

!

!

!

!

!

In! the! course! of! the! last! decades,! global! social! and! economic!

changes!have!brought!about!a!more!dynamic!and!unstable!form!

of!capitalism.!Companies!and!governments!all!around!the!world!

have! been! forced! to! rethink! their! organizational! models! and!

adapt! them! to! become!more! flexible,! accountable! and! effective.!

But! how! exactly! does! this! process! work! for! organizations! and!

managers?!

This! book! studies! reorganizations,! that! is,! intentional!

changes!in!the!structure!and!internal!policies!of!organizations,!in!

the!wake!of!mounting!globalization.! It!uses!observations!drawn!

from!a!multi<method! study! involving! survey,! archive! and! inter<

view! data! from! top!managers! and! public! officials! from! private!

companies! and! government! agencies! in! the! Netherlands! and!

Mexico! to!understand!some!of! the!mechanisms!behind!contem<

porary! reorganizations.! It! offers! the! thesis! that! control,! that! is,!

the!active!alignment!of!employees’!capabilities!to!organizational!

and!managerial!goals,!is!a!crucial!factor!to!understand!reorgani<

zations.!

Some! of! the! questions! addressed! in! the! five! empirical!

chapters!of!the!book!include:!Why!do!some!managers!embark!on!

reorganizations,!whereas!others! avoid! them?!What!does! it! take!

to! implement! reorganization! if! there! is! no! budget! for! it?! Did!

changes! in! the! public! sector! really! make! these! organizations!

more!flexible!and!adaptive?!

!

!

SUMMARY!

!

180 !

Why is it that some managers readily embark on reorganiza-tions, whereas others avoid them? !

We! advance! a! “managerial! gattopardism”! thesis,! claiming! that!

empowered! managers! are! likely! to! avoid! risky! reorganization,!

unless! it! is! useful! to! improve! their! position.! In! particular,! we!

theorize!that!managers’!control!position!has!an! inverse!relation!

with!the!occurrence!of!reorganizations.!Evidence!supporting!this!

idea!is!found!in!a!study!involving!two!waves!of!survey!data!from!

a! sample!of!365!Dutch! top!managers!of!private!establishments.!

Results!from!a!structural!model!show!a!negative!effect!of!mana<

gerial! control!on! reorganization,! as!well! as! a!positive! (reinforc<

ing)! effect! of! control! through! time.! This! evidence! suggests! that!

managers!do!not!necessarily!embark!on!changes,!as!assumed!in!

many!popular!textbooks,!because!they!are!“in!control”,!but!prob<

ably!because!they!are!not.!

!

Why do some managers decide to embark on structural changes such as massive layoffs and downsizing, whereas others chose reorganizations geared to the improvement of organizational capacity? !

We! examine! the! relationship! between! structural! organizational!

conflict!and! the! likelihood!and! type!of! reorganization.!We! theo<

rize! that!different! forms!of!structural!conflict!are!related! to!dif<

ferent!types!of!reorganization.!Hypotheses!are!tested!using!data!

from!238!top!managers!of!private!establishments!in!the!Nether<

lands.!Statistical!analyses!show!that!sampled!managers!who!rec<

ognize!vertical!conflict!(clashes!between!superiors!and!subordi<

nates)! are! also! more! likely! to! embark! on! quick! and! decisive!

structural! change,! such! as! downsizing.! By! contrast,! those! per<

ceiving! horizontal! conflict! (between! laterally! placed! organiza<

tional!subunits)!are!more! likely!to!embark!on!changes!aimed!at!

increasing!organizational! capacity,! such!as! training!and!process!

reengineering.!

SUMMARY!

!

181 !

!

How do (public) managers attain and sustain control in or-der to implement an administrative reform? !

Building! enforcement! capacity,! that! is,! attaining! and! sustaining!

control!to!implement!reorganization,!is!crucial!for!the!success!of!

public!management! reforms.! However,! this! aspect! does! not! re<

ceive! much! theoretical! or! empirical! attention.! We! analyze! the!

process! of! building! enforcement! capacity! in! the! reform! of! the!

Mexican!Professional!Civil!Service.!Although!it!experienced!com<

plications!(limited!support,!resources,!and!credibility),!important!

goals! were! attained! and! some! control! was! achieved.!We! study!

how! officials! gained! control! over! implementation! through! the!

adaptive!management!of!combinations!of!different!control!strat<

egies! (regulatory,! normative,! and! procedural).! The! case! study,!

focused!on! the! analysis! of! in<depth! interviews!with! the!highest!

officials!involved!in!the!implementation!of!this!reform,!finds!evi<

dence!for!three!combinations!of!strategies!next!to!a!general!pat<

tern!characterized!by!a!trade<off!between!compliance!and!coor<

dination.! This! trade<off! shows! that! the! process! of! building! en<

forcement!capacity!may!have!unintended!consequences!for!pub<

lic!policy.!

!

What does it take to implement governmental reorganization without a budget for it? !

A! traditional! technocratic! approach! to! public! management! re<

form!stresses!the!need!to!commit!large!resource!endowments!to!

implement! reform.! Building! on! an! institutional! framework,! we!

argue! that! public! agencies! with! limited! resource! endowments!

have! alternative! pathways! to! compliant! implementation.! Our!

comparative!study!of!55!Mexican!government!agencies!that!were!

the! object! of! the! 2003! Civil! Service! Reform!Act! reveals! the! co<

occurrence! of! both! technocratic! and! institutional! pathways! to!

compliant! implementation.! The! common! denominator! across!

SUMMARY!

!

182 !

pathways! in! organizations!with! low! resource! endowments!was!

absence!of!strong!oppositional!norms!(patronage)!and!presence!

of! robust! interpersonal! trust.!We! conclude! that! the! role! played!

by!resource!endowments!in!compliant!reform!implementation!is!

far!from!straightforward,!and!depends!on!different!combinations!

of!public!organizations’!characteristics.!

!

Did reforms in the public sector really make organizations more flexible and adaptive? !

Proponents!of!New!Public!Management! (NPM)!expect!public!or<

ganizations!to!be!more!flexible!and!adaptive!after!reform,!effec<

tively! showing! convergence! with! patterns! of! reorganization! in!

the! private! sector.! We! test! this! “convergence! argument”! in! a!

Dutch! sample! of! 61! public! and! 61! private! organizations.! We!

study! whether! public! organizations,! after! 20! years! of! NPM! re<

form,!change!their!organizational!structures!and!internal!policies!

in! relation! to! competitive,! regulatory! and! autonomy! pressures,!

similarly! to!private!organizations.!Statistical!analyses!show!that!

competition!increases!the!incidence!of!change!both!in!public!and!

private!organizations.!High!managerial! autonomy!and!exposure!

to! regulatory! pressures! relate! to! increased! incidence! of! change!

in!public!organizations,!but!not!in!private!ones.!The!results!sup<

port! the! idea! that! NPM! reform! has! made! public! organizations!

more! similar! to! private! organizations,! but! that! some! concrete!

differences! persist! between! private! and! public! management! in!

the!Netherlands.!

!

!

!

!

!

Samenvatting !

!

!

!

!

!

!

In!de!afgelopen!decennia!hebben!wereldwijde!sociale!en!econo<

mische! veranderingen! gezorgd! voor! een! meer! dynamische! en!

instabiele!vorm!van!kapitalisme.!Over!de!hele!wereld!zagen!be<

drijven!en!overheden!zich!gedwongen!om!hun!organisatiemodel<

len! te!heroverwegen!en!zodanig!aan! te!passen!dat!ze! flexibeler,!

verantwoordelijker!en!effectiever!zijn.!Maar!hoe!werkt!dat!pro<

ces!precies!voor!organisaties!en!managers?!

! Dit! boek! bestudeert! reorganisaties! (d.w.z.! intentionele!

veranderingen!in!de!structuur!en!het!intern!beleid!van!organisa<

ties)! in! het! kielzog! van! toenemende! globalisering.! Het! maakt!

gebruik! van! observaties! uit! een!multi<method! study! onder!ma<

nagers!en!topambtenaren!van!zowel!private!ondernemingen,!als!

overheidsdiensten! in!Nederland!en!Mexico.!De!data! zijn!afkom<

stig! uit! enquêtes,! archieven! en! interviews! en! bieden! inzicht! in!

een!aantal!mechanismen!onderliggend!aan!hedendaagse!reorga<

nisaties.!De!centrale!stelling!is!dat!controle!een!onmisbare!factor!

is! om! reorganisaties! te! begrijpen,! waarbij! controle! is! gedefini<

eerd!als! een!actieve! afstemming!van!de! capaciteiten!van!mede<

werkers!met!doelen!van!de!organisatie!en!managers.!

! In! de! vijf! empirische! hoofdstukken! van! dit! boek! komen!

onder! meer! de! volgende! vragen! aan! bod:! Waarom! initiëren!

sommige! managers! reorganisaties,! terwijl! andere! deze! juist!

vermijden?!Wat!is!nodig!om!een!reorganisatie!te!door!te!voeren!

wanneer!er!geen!budget!voor!bestaat?!Hebben!veranderingen!in!

de!publieke!sector!daadwerkelijk!geleid! tot!meer! flexibiliteit!en!

een!groter!aanpassingsvermogen!van!deze!organisaties?!

SAMENVATTING!

!

184 !

!

Waarom beginnen sommige managers met enthousiasme aan een reorganisatie, terwijl anderen deze juist vermijden? !

Wij! poneren! de! “gattopardistische! managers”! stelling,! welke!

beweert!dat!managers!met!goede!machtsposities!geneigd!zijn!om!

riskante! reorganisaties! te!mijden,! tenzij!die!hun!positie!kunnen!

verbeteren.!In!het!bijzonder!redeneren!we!dat!de!machtspositie!

van!managers!direct!gerelateerd!is!aan!het!uitblijven!van!reorga<

nisaties.!Bewijs!voor!dit!idee!werd!gevonden!in!een!enquête!on<

der! 365!Nederlandse! topmanagers! in! particuliere! ondernemin<

gen,! afgenomen! op! twee! tijdsmomenten.! De! resultaten! van! een!

structureel!model!tonen!aan!dat!de!controlepositie!van!managers!

een!negatief!effect!heeft!op!het!voorkomen!van!reorganisaties!en!

dat!controle!door!de!tijd!heen!een!positief,!zichzelf!versterkend,!

effect! heeft.! Deze! bevindingen! impliceren! dat! managers! niet,!

zoals! verondersteld! wordt! in! vele! standaardwerken,! beginnen!

aan!reorganisaties!omdat!ze!in!controle!zijn,!maar!juist!omdat!ze!

dat!niet!zijn.!

!

Waarom besluiten sommige managers om structurele veran-deringen (zoals massaontslag en downsizing) door te voeren, terwijl andere kiezen voor reorganisaties die zijn gericht op verbetering van de organisatorische capaciteit? !

We! onderzoeken!de! relatie! tussen! enerzijds! structurele! organi<

satorische! conflicten! en! anderzijds! de! waarschijnlijkheid! dat!

bepaald! types! reorganisatie! plaatsvinden.! We! redeneren! dat!

verschillende!vormen!van!structurele!conflicten!zijn!gerelateerd!

aan! verschillende! types! reorganisaties.! De! hypothesen! worden!

getoetst!aan!de!hand!van!data!van!238!topmanagers!van!private!

ondernemingen!in!Nederland.!Uit!statistische!analyses!blijkt!dat!

managers!die!verticale! conflicten!ervaren! (botsingen! tussen!su<

perieuren!en!ondergeschikten)!meer!kans!hebben!om!snelle! en!

resolute! veranderingen! door! te! voeren,! zoals! massaontslag.!

SAMENVATTING!

!

185 !

Daarentegen! hebben!managers! die! horizontale! conflicten! erva<

ren!(conflicten! tussen!gelijkwaardige!organisatorische!onderde<

len)!meer!kans!om!veranderingen!te!initiëren!die!gericht!zijn!op!

het! vergroten! van! de! organisatorische! capaciteit,! zoals! training!

en!process!reengineering.!

!

Hoe komt het dat ambtenaren controle verkrijgen en behou-den om administratieve hervormingen door te voeren? !

Het! creëren! van!handhavingscapaciteit,! d.w.z.! het! verkrijgen! en!

behouden!van!controle!om!reorganisaties!door!te!voeren,!is!cru<

ciaal! voor! succesvolle!hervormingen!van!het! openbaar!bestuur.!

Dit!aspect!krijgt!echter!maar!weinig! theoretische!en!empirische!

aandacht.!We!analyseren!het!proces!waarmee!handhavingscapa<

citeit! werd! gecreëerd! tijdens! de! professionalisering! van! het!

Mexicaanse! ambtenarenapparaat.! Hoewel! de! hervorming! op!

verscheidende!problemen!stuitte! (te!weten:!beperkte!middelen,!

draagvlak! en! geloofwaardigheid),! zijn! belangrijke! doelen! be<

haald!en!is!een!zekere!mate!van!controle!bereikt.!We!bestuderen!

hoe!ambtenaren!controle!over!de!implementatie!verkregen!door!

gebruik! van! adaptief! management,! bestaande! uit! combinaties!

van!verschillende!types!controlestrategieën!(regulerend,!norma<

tief!en!procedureel).!De!case!study!omvat!diepte<interviews!met!

topambtenaren! die! betrokken! waren! bij! de! invoering! van! de!

hervorming.!Het! onderzoek! toont! aan!dat! drie! combinaties! van!

strategieën!gebruikt!werden,! in!aanvulling!op!een!algemeen!pa<

troon!gekenmerkt!door!een!trade<off!tussen!naleving!en!coördi<

natie.!Deze! trade<off! laat!zien!dat!het!creëren!van!handhavings<

capaciteit!onbedoelde!gevolgen!kan!hebben!voor!publiek!beleid.!

!

Wat is nodig om een reorganisatie van de overheid door te voeren, wanneer er geen budget voor bestaat? !

Een! traditionele! technocratische! benadering! van! hervormingen!

van!het!openbaar!bestuur!benadrukt!de!noodzaak!van!het!inzet<

SAMENVATTING!

!

186 !

ten!van!grote!hoeveelheden!financiële!middelen!om!een!hervor<

ming!door!te!voeren.!Vanuit!een!institutioneel!kader!beargumen<

teren! we! dat! er! alternatieve! trajecten! bestaan! voor! overheids<

diensten!met!beperkte!middelen!om!hervormingen!door!te!voe<

ren.!Onze!studie!vergeleek!55!Mexicaanse!overheidsdiensten!die!

zijn!aangewezen!in!de!Wet!Hervorming!Openbaar!Bestuur!2013.!

De!resultaten!laten!zien!dat!er!zowel!technocratische!als!institu<

tionele! trajecten! zijn! die! leiden! tot! implementatie.! De! gemeen<

schappelijke!noemer!voor!organisaties!met!weinig!middelen!was!

de! afwezigheid! van! sterke! oppositionele! normen! (patronage)!

gekoppeld! met! de! aanwezigheid! van! robuust! interpersoonlijk!

vertrouwen.!We!komen!tot!de!conclusie!dat!de!rol!van!financiële!

middelen! in! de! zorgvuldige! uitvoering! van! hervormingen! verre!

van! eenvoudig! is! en! bovendien! afhankelijk! is! van! combinaties!

van!kenmerken!van!publieke!organisaties.!

!

Hebben veranderingen in de publieke sector daadwerkelijk geleid tot meer flexibiliteit en een groter aanpassingsver-mogen van deze organisaties? !

Voorstanders! van! New! Public! Management! (NPM)! verwachten!

dat!publieke!organisaties!door!hervormingen! flexibeler!worden!

en! beschikken! over! een! groter! aanpassingsvermogen,! analoog!

aan! reorganisaties! in! de! private! sector.!We! testen! dit! “conver<

gentie! argument”! onder! een! steekproef! van! 61! publieke! en! 61!

private!organisaties!in!Nederland.!We!onderzoeken!of!de!organi<

satiestructuren! en! het! intern! beleid! van! publieke! organisaties,!

twintig! jaar!na!de!NPM!hervorming,!zijn!veranderd! in!relatie! tot!

competitieve,!regulerende!en!autonome!prikkels!(gelijk!aan!par<

ticuliere! organisaties).! Statistische! analyses! laten! zien!dat! reor<

ganisaties!vaker!voorkomen!bij!toenemende!competitie,!hetgeen!

geldt! voor! zowel! publieke! als! particuliere! organisaties.! Hogere!

autonomie!van!managers!en!blootstelling!aan!regeldruk!zijn!ge<

relateerd!aan!meer!veranderingen!in!publieke!organisaties,!maar!

niet! in!particuliere!ondernemingen.!De!resultaten!ondersteunen!

SAMENVATTING!

!

187 !

het! idee!dat!de!NPM!hervorming!ertoe!heeft! geleid!dat!publieke!

organisaties! meer! zijn! gaan! lijken! op! particuliere! ondernemin<

gen,!maar!dat!er!concrete!verschillen!blijven!bestaan!tussen!pri<

vaat!en!openbaar!bestuur!in!Nederland.!

!

!

!

!

!

Síntesis !

!

!

!

!

!

!

En!el!curso!de! las!últimas!décadas,!cambios!sociales!y!económi<

cos!han!dado!lugar!a!una!forma!más!dinámica!e!inestable!de!ca<

pitalismo.! Corporaciones! y! gobiernos! alrededor! del! mundo! se!

han! visto! obligados! a! repensar! sus! modelos! de! organización! y!

adaptarles! para! ser! más! flexibles,! responsables! y! eficaces.! Sin!

embargo,!¿cómo!exactamente!funciona!este!proceso!para!organi<

zaciones!y!gerentes?!

Este!libro!estudia!reorganizaciones,!es!decir,!cambios!in<

tencionales!en!la!estructura!y!las!políticas!internas!de!las!organi<

zaciones,! dados! cambios! globales! en! la! sociedad! y! economía.!

Observaciones! extraídas! de! encuestas! y! entrevistas! con! altos!

directivos!y!funcionarios!públicos,!así!como!información!de!em<

presas!privadas!y!agencias!gubernamentales!en!los!Países!Bajos!

y!México!son!usadas!para!comprender!relaciones!teóricas!y!dar!

respuestas!a!problemas!empíricos.!El!libro!ofrece!la!tesis!de!que!

el! control,! es! decir,! la! alineación! de! las! capacidades! de! los! em<

pleados!a!los!objetivos!organizacionales!y!de!gestión,!es!un!factor!

crucial!para!entender!los!procesos!de!reorganización.!

Algunas!de! las!preguntas!abordadas!en! los!cinco!capítu<

los! empíricos! del! libro! son:! ¿por! qué! algunos! gerentes! deciden!

iniciar!reorganizaciones,!mientras!que!otros! las!evitan?,!¿qué!se!

necesita!para! implementar!una! reorganización! si!no!hay!presu<

puesto!para!ello?,!¿acaso!tendencias!contemporáneas!de!reforma!

del!sector!público!han!hecho!a!estas!organizaciones!más!flexibles!

y!adaptables?!

!

SÍNTESIS!

!

189 !

¿Por qué es que algunos gerentes deciden iniciar reorganiza-ciones, mientras que otros las evitan? !

Proponemos! la! tesis! del! “gatopardismo! gerencial”.! Dicha! tesis!

afirma!que! los!gerentes!que!se!perciben!a!sí!mismos!en!control!

son! más! propensos! a! evitar! reorganizaciones,! incluso! si! éstas!

podrían!ayudarle!a!mejorar!su!control!sobre!la!organización.!En!

particular,!teorizamos!que!el!control!gerencial!tiene!una!relación!

inversa! con! la! incidencia! de! las! reorganizaciones.! Evidencia! de!

un!estudio!de!365!altos!directivos!de!establecimientos!privados!

en!los!Países!Bajos!apoya!esta!idea.!Los!resultados!de!un!modelo!

estructural! muestran! un! efecto! negativo! del! control! gerencial!

sobre!la!incidencia!de!reorganizaciones,!así!como!un!efecto!posi<

tivo! (reforzante)! del! control! gerencial! en! sí!mismo! a! través! del!

tiempo.!La!evidencia!sugiere!que!los!gerentes!no!necesariamente!

deciden,! como! sugieren! varias! referencias! populares,! reorgani<

zar! sus! organizaciones! porque! están! “en! control”,! sino! porque!

probablemente!no!lo!están.!

!

¿Por qué algunos gerentes deciden iniciar cambios estructu-rales tales como despidos y reducción de personal, mientras que otros optan por reorganizaciones orientadas a la mejora de la capacidad organizacional? !

Examinamos! la! relación! entre! el! conflicto! organizacional! y! la!

probabilidad!y!el!tipo!de!reorganización.!Proponemos!que!distin<

tas! formas! de! conflicto! organizacional! están! relacionadas! con!

distintos!tipos!de!reorganización.!Nuestras!hipótesis!son!exami<

nadas! con! datos! de! 238! gerentes! de! establecimientos! privados!

en! los! Países! Bajos.! Los! análisis! estadísticos! muestran! que! los!

gerentes!que!perciben! conflictos! verticales! (conflictos! entre! su<

periores!y!subordinados)!son! también!más!propensos!a!embar<

carse!en!reorganizaciones!estructurales!rápidas!y!decisivas,!tales!

como! reducción! masiva! de! personal.! Por! el! contrario,! los! que!

perciben!conflictos!horizontales!(conflictos!entre!departamentos!

SÍNTESIS!

!

190 !

o! colegas! en! el! mismo! nivel! jerárquico)! son! más! propensos! a!

iniciar!reorganizaciones!orientadas!a!mejorar!capacidades!orga<

nizacionales!a!través,!por!ejemplo,!de!capacitación!y!reingeniería!

de!procesos.!

!

¿Cómo es que los gerentes (públicos) logran y mantienen con-trol con tal de implementar una reforma administrativa? !

La!capacidad!de!ejecución,!es!decir,!la!capacidad!de!lograr!y!man<

tener! control! con! el! fin! de! implementar! una! reorganización,! es!

crucial! para! el! éxito! de! las! reformas! de! la! gestión! pública.! Sin!

embargo,!este!aspecto!de!las!reformas!no!recibe!mucha!atención!

teórica!o!empírica.!Nosotros!analizamos!el!proceso!de!construc<

ción!de!la!capacidad!de!ejecución!para!el!caso!del!Servicio!Profe<

sional!de!Carrera!en!México.!Aunque!esta! reforma!experimentó!

varias! complicaciones! (por! ejemplo,! apoyo! limitado,! recursos!

escasos!y!falta!de!credibilidad),!se!alcanzaron!metas!importantes!

y! se! logró! un! cierto! control.! Estudiamos! cómo! los! funcionarios!

encargados!de!implementar!esta!reforma!lograron!control!sobre!

la! implementación! a! través! de! la! utilización! adaptativa! de! tres!

diferentes! tipos!de!estrategias!de!control! (gestión!de! las! reglas,!

gestión!de! las!normas! informales!y!gestión!de! los!procedimien<

tos).!El!estudio!de!caso!se!centra!en!el!análisis!de!entrevistas!con!

los! funcionarios! encargados! de! la! implementación! del! Servicio!

Profesional!de!Carrera.!Encontramos!evidencia!de!tres!combina<

ciones! de! estrategias,! junto! a! un! patrón! general! caracterizado!

por!un!equilibrio!frágil!entre!el!cumplimiento!y!la!coordinación.!

Este!equilibrio!muestra!que!el!proceso!de!construcción!de!la!ca<

pacidad!de!ejecución! tiene! consecuencias!no!previstas!para! im<

plementación!de!políticas!públicas.!

!

!

!

!

SÍNTESIS!

!

191 !

¿Qué se necesita para implementar reorganizaciones en el gobierno si no hay presupuesto para ello? El!tradicional!enfoque!tecnocrático!sobre!la!reforma!de!las!orga<

nizaciones! gubernamentales! hace! hincapié! en! la! necesidad! de!

comprometer! dotaciones! de! recursos! y! sentar! bases! de! control!

gerencial!con!tal!de!implementar!cambios.!Con!base!en!lecciones!

del!nuevo!institucionalismo!sociológico,!argumentamos!que!exis<

ten! vías! alternativas!para! la! implementación!de! cambios! en!or<

ganizaciones! gubernamentales! con! una! dotación! limitada! de!

recursos.!Nuestro!estudio!comparativo!de!55!agencias!guberna<

mentales!mexicanas!que!fueron!objeto!de!la!Ley!del!Servicio!Pro<

fesional! de! Carrera! revela! la! coexistencia! de! “recetas! de! imple<

mentación”! tecnocráticas!e! institucionales.!El!común!denomina<

dor! en! las! organizaciones! con!dotaciones! limitadas!de! recursos!

pero! que! tuvieron! éxito! en! implementar! dicha! reforma! fue! la!

ausencia!de!normas!de! clientelismo!administrativo,! así! como! la!

presencia! de! confianza! entre! superiores! y! subordinados.! Con<

cluimos! que! la! importancia! de! contar! con! recursos! para! imple<

mentar!una!reorganización!depende!de!distintas!combinaciones!

de!características!organizaciones!de!las!organizaciones!públicas.!

!

¿Acaso las reformas en el sector público realmente han hecho a estas organizaciones más flexibles y adaptables? !

Los!defensores!de! la!Nueva!Gerencia!Pública! (NGP)!esperan!que!

las!organizaciones!públicas!se!muestren!más! flexibles!y!adapta<

bles! después! de! las! reformas,!mostrando! en! todo! caso! conver<

gencia! con! patrones! de! reorganización! comparables! a! los! del!

sector!privado.!Estudiamos!este!"argumento!de!convergencia"!en!

una!muestra!de!61!organizaciones!privadas!y!61!organizaciones!

públicas!en!los!Países!Bajos.!El!punto!es!ver!si!las!organizaciones!

públicas,! después!de!20! años!de! reformas! inspiradas! en! la! NGP,!

introducen!cambios!en!sus!estructuras!y!políticas!internas!dadas!

presiones!competitivas,!cambios!en! la!regulación!y!mayor!auto<

SÍNTESIS!

!

192 !

nomía!de!gestión,!de!manera!similar!a! las!organizaciones!priva<

das.! Los! análisis! estadísticos! muestran! que! la! competencia! au<

menta!la!incidencia!del!cambio!en!organizaciones!públicas!y!pri<

vadas.!Mayor! autonomía! de! gestión! y! presiones! regulatorias! se!

relacionan!con!una!mayor!incidencia!de!cambio!en!las!organiza<

ciones!públicas,!pero!no!en!las!privadas.!Los!resultados!apoyan!la!

idea!de!que!la!NGP!ha!hecho!a!las!organizaciones!públicas!holan<

desas!más!similares!a!su!contraparte!privada,!pero!que!algunas!

diferencias!concretas!sin!embargo!persisten.!

!

!

!

!

!

References !

!

!

!

!

!

!

Acemoglu,!D.,!and!J.A.!Robinson.!2012.!Why'nations' fail.'The'ori@

gins'of'power,'prosperity'and'poverty.!London:!Profile.!

Adler,! P.! 1992.! “Introduction”,! in! P.! Adler! (ed.),!Technology' and'

the' future' of'work.!New!York:!Oxford!Univ.! Press,! pp.! 3<

14.!

Agócs,! C.! 1997.! “Institutionalized! resistance! to! organizational!

change:!denial,! inaction!and!repression”,! Journal'of'Busi@

ness'Ethics,!16,!917<31.!

Alink,! F.,! A.! Boin! and! P.! ’t! Hart.! 2001.! “Institutional! crises! and!

reforms!in!policy!sectors:!the!case!of!asylum!policy!in!Eu<

rope”,!Journal'of'European'Public'Policy,!8,!286<306.!

Alvesson,!M.,!and!P.!Thompson.!2006.!“Post<Bureaucracy?”,! in!S.!

Ackroyd,!R.!Batt,!P.!Thompson!and!P.S.!Tolbert!(eds.),!The'

Oxford' handbook' of' work' and' organization.! Oxford:! Ox<

ford!Univ.!Press,!pp.!485<507.!

Amburgey,!T.L.,!D.!Kelly,!and!W.!P.!Barnett.!1993.!“Resetting!the!

clock:! The! dynamics! of! organizational! change! and! fail<

ure”,!Administrative'Science'Quarterly,!38,!51<73.!

Ancona,! D.,! T.A.! Kochan,! M.! Schully,! J.V.! van! Maanen,! and! D.E.!

Westney.! 1999.! Organizational' behavior' and' processes:'

Managing' for' the' future.! Cincinnati:! South!Western! Col<

lege.!

Andrews,!G.!2003.!“The!Sicilian!paradox”,!Soundings,!25,!92<104.!

Andrews,! M.! 2013,! March! 8.! “Why! institutional! reforms! in! the!

developing! world! aren’t! working”,! The' Guardian,!

www.guardian.co.uk!(accessed!11/03/13).!

REFERENCES!

!

194 !

Andrews,!R.,!and!S.!van!de!Walle.!2012.!“New!public!management!

and! citizens’! perceptions! of! local! service! efficiency,! re<

sponsiveness,! equity! and!effectiveness”,! COCOPS!Working!

Paper!No.!7,!www.cocops.eu!(accessed!28/04/14).!

Arellano!Gault,!D.!2006.!“Los!desafíos!de!una!gestión!pública!me<

ritocrática”! in! M.! Merino! (ed.),! Los' desafíos' del' servicio'

profesional' de' carrera' en' México.! Mexico! City:! CIDE,!

pp.217<44.!

__________! 1999.! “Mexican! public! sector! reform:! patrimonialist!

values!and!governmental!organizational!culture!in!Mexi<

co”,! International'Review'of' Public'Administration,! 4,! 67<

77.!

Armenakis,! A.! A.,! and! A.! G.! Bedeian.! 1999.! “Organizational!

change:! A! review! of! theory! and! research! in! the! 1990s”,!

Journal'of'Management,!25,!293<315.!

ASF.! 2012.!Auditoría'de'desempeño'10@0@27100@07@0102:' Sistema'

de' Servicio' Profesional' de' Carrera' en' la' Administración'

Pública' Federal.! www.asf.gob.mx/Trans/Informes/!

IR2010i/Indice/Auditorias.htm!(accessed!05/12/12).!

Ashford,!B.!E.,!and!F.!Mael.!1989.!“Social! identity!theory!and!the!

organization”,! Academy' of' Management' Review,! 14,! 20<

39.!

Bach,!S.,!and!G.!della!Rocca.!2000.!“The!management!strategies!of!

public!services!employers!in!Europe”,!Industrial'Relations'

Journal,!31,!82<96.!

Bannink,!D.,!and!S.!Resodihardjo.!2006.!“The!myths!of!reform”,!in!

L.! Heyse,! S.! Resodihardjo,! T.! Lantink! and! B.! Lettinga!

(eds.),!Reform'in'Europe:'breaking'the'barriers'in'govern@

ment.!Aldershot:!Ashgate,!pp.1<20.!

Bardach,!E.!1977.!The'implementation'game:'What'happens'after'

a'bill'becomes'a'law.!Cambridge:!MIT!Press.!

Barker,!J.R.!1993.!“Tightening!the!iron!cage:!concertive!control!in!

self<managing! teams”,! Administrative' Science' Quarterly,!

38,!408<37.!

REFERENCES!

!

195 !

Barnett,!W.P.,!and!G.R.!Carroll.!1995.! “Modeling! internal!organi<

zational!change”,!Annual'Review'of'Sociology,!21,!217<36.!

Barzelay,!M.!2001.!New'public'management.'Public'policymaking'

dilemmas:' Balancing' between' administrative' capacity,'

control' and' democratic' governance.! Berkeley:! Univ.! of!

California!Press.!

__________! 1992.!Breaking' through' bureaucracy:' A' new' vision' for'

managing' in' government.! Berkeley:! Univ.! of! California!

Press.!

Barzelay,!M.,! and!R.!Gallego.! 2006.! “From! ‘new! institutionalism’!

to! ‘institutional! processualism’:! Advancing! knowledge!

about!public!management!policy!change”,!Governance:'An'

International'Journal'of'Policy,'Administration'and'Institu@

tions,!19,!531<57.!

Barzelay,! M.,! and! A.S.! Jacobsen! 2009.! “Theorizing! implementa<

tion!of!public!management!policy!reforms:!a!case!study!of!

strategic! planning! and! programming! in! the! European!

Commission.!Governance:'An'International'Journal'of'Poli@

cy,'Administration,'and'Institutions,!22,!319<334.!

Bate,! S.! 1995.! Strategies' for' cultural' change.! Oxford:! Butter<

worth<Heinemann.!

Baum,!J.!A.!C.,!and!J.!V.!Singh.!1996.!“Dynamics!of!organizational!

responses!to!competition”,!Social'Forces,!74,!1261<97.!

Baumol,!W.J.,!B.!Alan,!and!W.!Edward.!2003.!Downsizing'in'Amer@

ica:'Reality,' causes,' and' consequences.!New!York:!Russell!

Sage!Foundation.!

Blau,!P.!M.!1970.!“A!formal!theory!of!differentiation!in!organiza<

tions”,!American'Sociological'Review,!35,!201<18.!

Beach,! D.,! and! R.B.! Pedersen.! 2013.! Process@tracing' methods.'

Foundations' and' guidelines.! Ann!Harbor:! Univ.! of!Michi<

gan!Press.!

Beer,!M.,!and!N.!Nohria.!2000.!Breaking'the'code'of'change.!Bos<

ton:!Harvard!Business!School!Press.!

Bénabou,!R.,!and! J.!Tirole.!2003.! “Intrinsic!and!extrinsic!motiva<

tion”,!The'Review'of'Economic'Studies,!70,!489<520.!

REFERENCES!

!

196 !

Birkinshaw,!J.,!N.!Foss,!and!S.M.!Lindenberg.!2014.!“Purpose!with!

profits:! How! to! make! your! pro<social! goals! pay”,! MIT'

Sloan' Management' Review' online,! 55,!

www.sloanreview.mit.edu!(accessed!21/08/2014)!

Blenko,! M.W.,! M.C.! Mankins,! and! P.! Rogers.! 2010.! “The! key! to!

successful! corporate! reorganization”,! www.forbes.com!

(accessed!20/03/2014).!

Blim,!M.!2000.!“Capitalisms!in!late!modernity”,!Annual'Review'of'

Anthropology,!29,!25<38.!

Blumenthal,!M.W.!1983.!“Candid!reflections!of!a!businessman!in!

Washington”,!in!J.L.!Perry!and!K.L.!Kraemer!(eds.),!Public'

management:' Public' and' private' perspectives.! Palo! Alto:!

Mayfield,!pp.!22–3.!

Boeker,!W.!1997.!“Strategic!change:!The!influence!of!managerial!

characteristics! and! organizational! growth”,! Academy' of'

Management'Journal,!40,!152<70.!

Boston,! J.! 2011.! “Basic! NPM! ideas! and! their! development,! in! T.!

Christensen! and!P.! Lægreid! (eds.),!The'Ashgate' research'

companion' to' New' Public'Management.! Surrey:! Ashgate,!

pp.17–32.!

Bovens,! M.,! and! P.! ’t! Hart.! 1996.! Understanding' policy' fiascoes.!

New!Brunswick:!Transaction.!

Bowman,! E.,! and! D.! Hurry.! 1993.! “Strategy! through! the! option!

lens:!An!integrated!view!of!resource!investments!and!the!

incremental! choice! process”,! Academy' of' Management'

Review,!18,!760<82.!

Boyne,!G.A.!2003.!“Sources!of!public!service!improvement:!a!crit<

ical! review! and! research! agenda”,! Journal' of' Public' Ad@

ministration'Research'and'Theory,!13,!367<94.!

__________!2002.!“Public!and!private!management:!What’s!the!dif<

ference?”,!Journal'of'Management'Studies,!39,!97<122.!

Bozeman,! B.! 1987.! All' organizations' are' public.! San! Francisco:!

Jossey<Bass.!

REFERENCES!

!

197 !

Brass,!D.J.,!and!M.!E.!Burkhardt.!1993.!“Potential!power!and!pow<

er!use:!An!investigation!of!structure!and!behavior”,!Acad@

emy'of'Management'Journal,!36,!441<70.!

Brehony,! K.J.,! and! R.! Deem.! 2005.! “Challenging! the! post<

Fordist/flexible!organization!thesis:!the!case!of!reformed!

educational!organizations”,!British'Journal'of'Sociology'of'

Education,!26,!395<414.!

Brorström,! B.,! and! S.! Siverbo.! 2004.! “Deeply! rooted! traditions!

and! the! will! to! change:! problematic! conflicts! in! three!

Swedish! health! care! organizations”,! Journal' of' Economic'

Issues,!38.!393<52.!

Brunsson,!N.! 1989.!The' organization' of' hypocrisy.' Talk,' decision'

and'actions'in'organizations.!Chichester:!Wiley!and!sons.!

Brunsson,! N.,! and! J.P.! Olsen.! 1993.! The' reforming' organization.!

London:!Routledge.!

Brunsson,!N.,!and!K.!Sahlin<Andreson.!2000.!“Constructing!organ<

izations:!The!example!of!public!sector!reform”,!Organiza@

tion'Studies,!21,!721<46.!

Buchanan,!D.,! and!R.!Badham.!2004.!Power,'politics,' and'organi@

zational'change.'Winning'the'turf'game.!London:!Sage.!

Buchanan,!J.M.,!and!R.D.!Tollison!(eds.).!1999.!The'theory'of'pub@

lic'choice.!Ann!Arbor:!Univ.!of!Michigan!Press.!

Budros,! A.! 1999.! “A! conceptual! framework! for! analyzing! why!

organizations!downsize”.!Organization'Science,!10,!69<82.!

Burt,!R.S.! 1992.!Structural'holes:' the' social' structure'of' competi@

tion.!Cambridge:!Harvard!Univ.!Press.!

Caiden,! G.E.! 1999.! “Administrative! reform—proceed! with! cau<

tion”,! International' Journal' of' Public' Administration,! 22,!

815<32.!

_________!1991.!Administrative'reform'comes'of'age.!Berlin:!Walter!

de!Gruyter.!

Campbell,!F.,!L.!Worrall!and!C.!Cooper.!2000.!“The!psychological!

effects!of!downsizing!and!privatization”!(working!paper).!

Castells,!M.!1996.!The'rise'of'the'network'society.!Malden:!Black<

well.!

REFERENCES!

!

198 !

CBS.! 2013.! ICT,' kennis' en' economie' 2013,! www.cbs.nl! (accessed!

11/12/2013).!

Cejudo,!G.M.!2008.!“Explaining!change!in!the!Mexican!public!sec<

tor:! the! limits! of! the!New!Public!Management”,! Interna@

tional'Review'of'Administrative'Sciences,!74,!111<27.!

__________! 2007.! “Cinco! ideas! equivocadas! sobre! el! cambio! en! la!

administración! pública! mexicana”,! Buen' Gobierno,! 3,! 8<

20.!

Christensen,!T.,!and!P.!Lægreid.!2011.!“Introduction”,!in!T.!Chris<

tensen!and!P.!Lægreid! (eds.),!The'Ashgate' research'com@

panion'to'New'Public'Management.!Surrey:!Ashgate,!pp.1<

13.!

__________!2003.!“Administrative!reform!policy:!The!challenges!of!

turning! symbols! into! practice”,! Public' Organization' Re@

view,!3,!3<27.!

Christensen,! T.,! P.! Lægreid,! P.G.! Roness! and! K.A.! Røvik.! 2007.!

Organization'theory'and'the'public'sector:'Instrument,'cul@

ture'and'myth.!Oxon:!Routledge.!

Chun,!Y.H.,!and!H.G.!Rainey.!2005.!“Goal!ambiguity!and!organiza<

tional! performance! in! U.S.! federal! agencies”,! Journal' of'

Public'Administration'Research'and'Theory,!15,!529<57.!

CIDE.! 2007.! Asesoría' para' la' reforma' del' Servicio' Profesional' de'

Carrera'en'la'Administración'Pública'Federal'(Primera'en@

trega).! www.spc.gob.mx/biblioteca1.htm! (accessed!

22/02/2013).!

Clegg,!S.R.!2009.!“Managing!power! in!organizations:!The!hidden!

history!of!its!constitution”,!in!S.R.!Clegg!and!M.!Haugaard!

(eds.),! The' Sage' handbook' of' power.! London:! Sage,! pp.!

310<331.!

__________!1990.!Modern'organizations:'Organization'studies'in'the'

postmodern'world.!London:!Sage.!

Clegg,! S.! R.,! D.! Courpasson! and!N.! Phillips.! 2006.!Power' and' or@

ganizations.!London:!Sage.!

REFERENCES!

!

199 !

Cohen,!M.D.,!and!P.!Bacdayan.!1994.!“Organizational!routines!are!

stored!as!procedural!memory:!Evidence!from!a!laborato<

ry!study”,!Organization'Science,!5,!554<68.!

Coleman,!J.S.!1990.!Foundations'of'social'theory.!Cambridge:!Har<

vard!Univ.!Press.!

Colombo,! M.G.,! and! M.! Delmastro.! 2002.! “The! determinants! of!

organizational!change!and!structural!inertia:!Technologi<

cal!and!organizational! factors”,! Journal'of'Economics'and'

Management'Strategy,!11,!595<635.!

Cummings,! T.G.,! and! C.G.! Worley.! 2008.! Organization' develop@

ment'and'change.!Mason:!South!Western.!

Cyert,!R.M.,!and!J.G.!March.!1963.!A'behavioral'theory'of'the'firm.!

Englewood!Cliffs:!Prentice!Hall.!

Dahl,!R.A.,!and!C.E.!Lindblom.!1953.!Politics,'economics,'and'wel@

fare.!New!York:!Harper!and!Row.!

D’Aunno,!T.,!M.!Succi,!and!J.A.!Alexander.!2000.!“The!role!of!insti<

tutional! and! market! forces! in! divergent! organizational!

change”,!Administrative'Science'Quarterly,!45,!679<703.!

Damanpour,! F.! (1991).! “Organizational! innovation:! A! meta<

analysis! of! effects! of! determinants! and! moderators”,!

Academy'of'Management'Journal,!34,!555<590.!

Davis,! S.! and!C.!Meyer.!1998.!BLUR:'The' speed'of' change' in'con@

nected'economy.!Reading:!Addison<Wesley.!

De!Dreu,!C.K.W.,!and!B.!Beersma.!2005.!“Conflict!in!organizations.!

Beyond! effectiveness! and! performance”,! European' Jour@

nal'of'Work'and'Organizational'Psychology,!14,!105<17.!

De!Lancer!Julnes,!P.,!and!M.!Holzer.!2001.!“Promoting!the!utiliza<

tion!of!performance!measures!in!public!organizations:!An!

empirical! study! of! factors! affecting! adoption! and! imple<

mentation”,!Public'Administration'Review,!61,!693<708.!

Deetz,!S.!1992.!“Disciplinary!power! in!the!modern!corporation”,!

in! M.! Alvesson! and! H.! Willmott! (eds.),! Critical' manage@

ment'studies.!London:!Sage,!pp.21<45.!

Demers,! C.! 2007.! Organizational' change' theories:' a' synthesis.!

Thousand!Oaks:!Sage.!

REFERENCES!

!

200 !

Desmidt,!S.,!and!A.!Heene.!2005.!Strategie'en'organisatie'van'pu@

blieke'organisaties.!Leuven:!Lannoo!Campus.!

DiMaggio,! P.J.! and!W.W.! Powell.! 1983.! “The! iron! cage! revisited:!

Institutional! isomorphism! and! collective! rationality! in!

organizational! fields”,! American' Sociological' Review,! 48,!

147<60.!

Dowling,!J.,!and!J.!Pfeffer.!1975.!“Organizational!legitimacy:!social!

values! and! organizational! behavior”,! Pacific' Sociological'

Review,!18,!122<36.!

Downs,!A.!1967.!Inside'bureaucracy.!Boston:!Little!Brown.!

__________! 1964.! Inside' bureaucracy! (unedited! version),!

www.rand.org!(accessed!07/03/2014).!

Drucker,! P.! 1993.!Post@capitalist' society.! New! York:! Harper! and!

Row.!

Dupuy,! F.! 2000.! “Why! is! it! so! difficult! to! reform! public! admin<

istration?”!in!OECD,!Government!of!the!future.!Paris:!OECD,!

pp.185<96.!

Dunn,!W.N.,!and!D.Y.!Miller.!2007.! “A!critique!of! the!New!Public!

Management! and! the! Neo<Weberian! State:! Advancing! a!

critical! theory! of! the! administrative! reform”,! Public' Or@

ganization'Review,!7,!345<58.!

Dussauge! Laguna,! M.I.! 2011.! “The! challenges! of! implementing!

merit<based! personnel! policies! in! Latin! America:! Mexi<

co’s!civil!service!reform!experience”,!Journal'of'Compara@

tive'Policy'Analysis:'Research'and'Theory,!13,!51<73.!

__________!2005.! “Sobre! la!pertinencia!del!Servicio!Profesional!de!

Carrera!en!México.!Foro'Internacional,!45,!761<94.!

Eisenhardt,! K.M.! 1989.! “Agency! theory:! an! assessment! and! re<

view”,!The'Academy'of'Management'Review,!14,!57<74.!

__________!1985.!“Control:!organizational!and!economic!approach<

es”,!Management'Science,!31,!134<49.!

Eliassen,! K.! A.,! and! N.! Sitter.! 2008.! Understanding' public' man@

agement.!London:!Sage.!

Elster,! J.! 1998.! “A! plea! for!mechanisms! in! social! science”,! in! P.!

Hedström!and!R.!Swedberg!(eds.),!Social'mechanisms:'An'

REFERENCES!

!

201 !

analytical' approach' to' social' theory.! Cambridge:! Cam<

bridge!Univ.!Press,!pp.45<73.!

_________! 1989.!Nuts' and'bolts' for' the' social' sciences.! Cambridge:!

Cambridge!Univ.!Press.!

Enticott,!G.,!G.A.!Boyne!and!R.!M.!Walker.!2009.!“The!use!of!mul<

tiple! informants! in! public! administration! research:! data!

aggregation! using! organizational! echelons”,! Journal' of'


Etzioni,!A.!1961.!A'comparative'analysis'of'complex'organizations.!

New!York:!Free!Press.!

Evans<Pritchard,!A.!2008,! July!21.!“The!global!economy!is!at!the!

point! of! maximum! danger”,! The' Telegraph,!

www.telegraph.co.uk!(accessed!10/08/2014).!

Fairtlough,!G.!2005.!The'three'ways'of'getting'things'done.'Hierar@

chy,' heterarchy' and' responsible' autonomy' in' organiza@

tions.!Dorset:!Triarchy!Press.!

Feldman,! M.S.,! and! B.T.! Pentland.! 2003.! “Reconceptualizing! or<

ganizational! routines! as! a! source! of! flexibility! and!

change”,!Administrative'Science'Quarterly,!48,!94<118.!

Ferlie,!E.,!L.!Ashburner,!L.!Fitzgerald,!and!A.!Pettigrew.!1996.!The'

New' Public' Management' in' action.! Oxford:! Oxford! Univ.!

Press.!

Fernandez,! S.,! and!D.W.! Pitts.! 2007.! “Under!what! conditions! do!

public! managers! favor! and! pursue! organizational!

change?”,!The'American'Review' of' Public' Administration,!

37,!324–41.!

Fernandez,! S.,! and! H.G.! Rainey.! 2006.! “Managing! successful! or<

ganizational! change! in! the! public! sector”,!Public' Admin@

istration'Review,!66,!168<76.!

Ferrin,!D.L.,!M.C.!Bligh,!and!J.C.!Kohles.!2007.!“Can!I!trust!you!to!

trust!me?!A! theory!of! trust,!monitoring!and!cooperation!

in!interpersonal!and!intergroup!relationships”,!Group'Or@

ganization'Management,!32,!465<99.!

Finkelstein,!S.,!and!D.C.!Hambrick.!1990.!“Top<management<team!

tenure! and! organizational! outcomes:! The! moderating!

REFERENCES!

!

202 !

role! of! managerial! discretion”,! Administrative' Science'

Quarterly,!35,!484<503.!

Finkelstein,!S.,!D.C.!Hambrick!and!A.A.!Canella!Jr.!2009.!Strategic'

leadership.' Theory' and' research' on' executives,' top' man@

agement' teams,' and' boards.! New! York:! Oxford! Univ.!

Press.!

Fócil!Arteaga,!M.A.!2009.!“Servicio!Profesional!de!Carrera!en!Mé<

xico! de! ‘Esperando! a! Godot’! al! ‘Gatopardo’”,! Buen' Go@

bierno,!6,!151<67.!

Folta,!T.B.!1998.!“Governance!and!uncertainty:!The!trade<off!be<

tween!administrative!control!and!commitment”,!Strategic'

Management'Journal,!19,!1007<28.!

Foss,!N.!J.,!and!S.!Lindenberg.!2013.!“Microfoundations!for!strate<

gy:! a! goal<framing! perspective! on! the! drivers! of! value!

creation”,!The' Academy' of'Management' Perspectives,! 27,!

doi:10.5465/amp.2012.0103.!

Freeland,!R.F.!2005.!The'struggle'for'control'of'the'modern'corpo@

ration.' Organizational' change' at' General' Motors,' 1924@

1970.!New!York:!Cambridge!Univ.!Press.!

Frey,! B.S.,! and! R.! Jegen.! 2001.! “Motivation! crowding! theory”,!

Journal'of'Economic'Surveys,!15,!589<611.!

Friedkin,!N.E.,! and!E.C.! Johnson.!2002.! “Control! loss! and!Fayol’s!

gangplanks”,!Social'Networks,!24,!395<406.!

Frumkin,! P.,! and! J.! Galaskiewicz.! 2004.! “Institutional! isomor<

phism!and!public!sector!organizations”,! Journal'of'Public'

Administration'Research'and'Theory,!14,!288<307.!

Gelfand,!M.J.,!L.M.!Leslie,!K.!Keller,!and!C.!de!Dreu.!2012.!“Conflict!

culture! in!organizations:!how! leaders! shape!conflict! cul<

tures!and!their!organizational<level!consequences”,! Jour@

nal'of'Applied'Psychology,!97,!1131<47.!

George,!A.L.,!and!A.!Bennett.!2005.!Case'studies'and'theory'devel@

opment'in'the'social'sciences.!Cambridge:!MIT!Press.!

Gerhart,! B.,! P.M.! Wright,! G.C.! McMahan,! and! S.A.! Snell.! 2000.!

“Measurement!error!in!research!on!human!resources!and!

firm! performance:! How! much! error! is! there! and! how!

REFERENCES!

!

203 !

does! it! influence! effect! size! estimates?”,! Personnel' Psy@

chology,!53,!803–34.!

Gersick,!C.J.,!and!J.R.!Hackman.!1990.!“Habitual!routines! in!task<

performing!groups”,!Organizational'Behavior'and'Human'

Decision'Process,!47,!65<97.!

Goggin,!M.L.,! A.O.M.! Bowman,! J.P.! Lester! and! L.J.! O’Toole.! 1990.!

Implementation' theory'and'practice:'Toward'a' third'gen@

eration.!New!York:!HarperCollins.!

Goldfinch,! S.,! K.! Derouen! Jr.! and! P.! Pospieszna.! 2013.! “Flying!

blind?!Evidence!for!good!governance!public!management!

reform!agendas,!implementation!and!outcomes!in!low!in<

come!countries”,!Public'Administration'and'Development,!

33,!50<61.!

Grafton,! J.,!M.A.!Abernethy! and!A.M.! Lilis.! 2011.! “Organizational!

design! choices! in! response! to! public! sector! reforms:! a!

case!study!of!mandated!hospital!networks”,!Management'

Accounting'Research,!22,!242<68.!

Greenwood,! R.,! and! C.R.! Hinings.! 1996.! “Understanding! radical!

organizational!change:!bringing!together!the!old!and!the!

new! institutionalism”,! Academy' of' Management' Review,!

21,!1022<54.!

Grindle,!M.S.! 2012.! Jobs' for' the' boys.' Patronage' and' the' state' in'

comparative'perspective.!Cambridge:!Harvard!Univ.!Press!

Grindle,!M.S.,! and!M.E.!Hilderbrand.!1995.! “Building! sustainable!

capacity! in! the!public!sector:!what!can!be!done?”,!Public'

Administration'and'Development,!15,!441<63.!

Guetrzkow,!H.,! and! J.!Gyr.!1954.! “An!analysis!of! conflict! in!deci<

sion<making!groups”,!Human'Relations,!7,!367<81.!

Haber,! S.H.,! H.S.! Klein,! N.! Maurer! and! K.J.! Middlebrook.! 2008.!

Mexico'since'1980.!New!York:!Cambridge!Univ.!Press.!

Hales,!C.!2002.!“‘Bureaucracy<lite’!and!continuities!in!managerial!

work”,!British'Journal'of'Management,!13,!51<66.!

__________!1999.!“Why!do!managers!do!what!they!do?!Reconciling!

evidence! and! theory! in! accounts! of! managerial! work”,!

British'Journal'of'Management,!10,!335<50.!

REFERENCES!

!

204 !

Hambrick,!D.C.!2007.!“Upper!echelons!theory:!and!update”,'Acad@

emy'of'Management'Review,!32,!334<43.!

Hambrick,! D.C.,! M.A.! Geletkanycz! and! J.W.! Fredrickson.! 2006.!

“Top!executive!commitment!to!the!status!quo:!Some!tests!

of! its! determinants”,! Strategic' Management' Journal,! 14,!

401<18.!

Hambrick,!D.C.,! and!P.A.!Mason.!1984.! “Upper!echelons:!The!or<

ganization! as! a! reflection!of! its! top!managers”,!Academy'

of'Management'Review,!9,!193<206.!

Hannan,!M.T.,! and! J.! Freeman.! 1984.! “Structural! inertia! and! or<

ganizational! change”,! American' Sociological' Review,! 49,!

149<64.!

__________!1977.!“The!population!ecology!of!organizations”,!Ameri@

can'Journal'of'Sociology,!82,!929<64.!

Hardy,!C.!1996.!“Understanding!power:!Bringing!about!strategic!

change”,!British'Journal'of'Management,!7,!S3<16.!

Hechter,! M.! 1987.! Principles' of' group' solidarity.! Los! Angeles:!

Univ.!of!California!Press.!

Hendriks,! F.,! and! P.! Tops.! 2003.! “Local! public! management! re<

forms! in! the! Netherlands:! Fads,! fashions! and! winds! of!

change”,!Public'Administration,!2,!301<23.!

Hill,!M.,!and!P.L.!Hupe.!2002.!Implementing'public'policy.!London:!

Sage.!

Hoggett,!P.!1991.!“A!new!management!in!the!public!sector?”,!Pol@

icy'and'Politics,!19,!243<56.!

Hood,! C.! 1996.! “Exploring! variations! in! public!management! re<

form!of!the!1980s”in!H.A.G.M.!Bekke,!J.L.!Perry!and!T.A.J.!

Toonen! (eds.),! Civil' service' systems' in' comparative' per@

spective.!Bloomington:!Indiana!Univ.!Press,!pp.!268–87.!

__________! 1991.! “A! public! management! for! all! seasons?”,! Public'

Administration,!69,!3<19.!

Hood,!C.,! and!M.! Jackson.!1991.!Administrative'argument.!Alder<

shot:!Dartmouth.!

Hood,!C.,!and!R.!Dixon.!2013.!“A!model!of!cost<cutting!in!govern<

ment?! The! great! management! revolution! in! UK! central!

REFERENCES!

!

205 !

government! reconsidered”,! Public' Administration,! 91,!

114<34.!

Hu,! L.,! and!P.M.!Bentler.! 1999.! “Cutoff! criteria! for! fit! indexes! in!

covariance! structure! analysis:! Conventional! criteria! ver<

sus! new! alternatives”,! Structural' Equation' Modeling:' A'

Multidisciplinary'Journal,!6,!1<55.!

Hupe,!P.L.,!and!H.L.!Klaasen.!2000.!“De!zichtbare!staat:!over!stu<

ringconcepties! en! onderhandelen”,! in! P.L.! Hupe,! M.A.T.!

Beukenholdt<ter! Mors! and! H.L.! Klaasen! (eds.),! Publiek'

onderhandelen:'Een'vorm'van'eigentijds'besturen.!Alphen!

aan!den!Rijn:!Samsom,!pp.257<85.!

Huselid,!M.! A.,! and! B.! E.! Becker.! 2000.! “Comment! on! ‘Measure<

ment!error!in!research!on!human!resources!and!firm!per<

formance:! How! much! error! is! there! and! how! does! it!

influence! effect! size! estimates?’! by! Gerhart,! Wright,!

McMahan,!and!Snell”,!Personnel'Psychology,!53,!835–54.!

Huy,!Q.N.!2001.!“Time,!temporal!capability!and!planned!change”,!

Academy'of'Management'Review,!26,!601<23.!

Hvidman,! U.,! and! S.C.! Andersen.! 2014.! “Impact! of! performance!

management!in!public!and!private!organizations”,!Journal'

of'Public'Administration'Research'and'Theory,!24,!35<58.!

Ingraham,! P.W.! 1997.! “Play! it! again,! Sam;! it's! still! not! right:!

searching! for! the! right! notes! in! administrative! reform”,!

Public'Administration'Review,!57,!325<31.!

Jaccard,! J.J.,! and! R.! Turrisi.! 2003.' Interaction' effects' in' multiple'

regression.!Thousand!Oaks:!Sage.!

Jackson,! C.! 2007.! “A! little! now! for! a! lot! later:!A! look! at! a!Texas!

advanced! placement! incentive! program”! (Working! pa<

per),! www.digitalcommons.ilr.cornell.edu! (accessed!

05/08/14).!

Janod,! V.,! and! A.! Saint<Martin.! 2004.! “Measuring! the! impact! of!

work!reorganization!on!firm!performance:!evidence!from!

French! manufacturing,! 1995<1999”,! Labour' Economics,!

11,!785<98.!

REFERENCES!

!

206 !

Jaros,!S.!2010.! “Commitment! to!organizational!change:!a!critical!

review”,!Journal'of'Change'Management,!10,!79<108.!

Jehn,! K.A.! 1997.! “A! qualitative! analysis! of! conflict! types! and! di<

mensions! of! organizational! groups”,! Administrative' Sci@

ence'Quarterly,!42,!530<57.!

Johnson,!P.,!G.!Wood,!C.!Brewster!and!M.!Brookes.!2009.!“The!rise!

of! post<bureaucracy:! Theorists’! fancy! of! organizational!

praxis?”,!International'Sociology,!29:!37<61.!

Jones,!G.R.!2004.!Organizational'theory,'design'and'change.!Upper!

Saddle!River:!Pearson.!

Katz,! N.H.! and! L.! T.! Flynn.! 2013.! “Understanding! conflict! man<

agement!systems!and!strategies!in!the!workplace:!a!pilot!

study”,!Conflict'Resolution'Quarterly,!30,!393<410.!

Kamarck,!E.C.!2007.!The'end'of'government'as'we'know'it:'Making'

public'policy'work.!Boulder,!Lynne!Rienner.!

Kang,! D.L.,! and! A.B.! Sorensen.! 1999.! “Ownership! organization!

and! firm! performance”,! Annual' Review' of' Sociology,! 25,!

121<44.!

Kelly,!M.! 1994.! “Theories! of! justice! and! street<level! discretion”,!

Journal' of' Public' Administration' Research' and' Theory,! 4,!

119<40.!

Kettl,!D.F.!2005.!The'global'public'management'revolution.!Wash<

ington!DC:!Brookings!Institution!Press.!

Kickert,!W.J.M.!2011.!“Public!management!reform!in!continental!

Europe”,!in!T.!Christensen!and!P.!Lægreid!(eds.),!The'Ash@

gate'research'companion'to'New'Public'Management.!Sur<

rey:!Ashgate,!pp.97–112.!

Klingner,!D.E.,!and!D.!Arellano!Gault.!2006.!“Mexico’s!Profession<

al! Career! Service!Law:!Governance,! political! culture! and!

public! administrative! reform”,! International' Public'Man@

agement'Review,!7,!70<97.!

Knoke,!D.!2001.!Changing'organizations.'Business'networks'in'the'

new'political'economy.!Boulder:!Westview.!

REFERENCES!

!

207 !

Knill,!C.!1999.!“Explaining!cross<national!variance!in!administra<

tive! reform:! autonomous! v.! incremental! bureaucracies”,!

Journal'of'Public'Policy,!19,!113<39.!

Knoke,!D.!2001.!Changing'organizations.'Business'networks'in'the'

new'political'economy.!Boulder:!Westview.!

Kolb,!D.!M.,!and!L.!L.!Putnam.!1992.!“The!multiple!faces!of!conflict!

in!organizations”,! Journal'of'Organizational'Behavior,!13,!

311<24.!

Kotter,! J.P.!2012.!Leading'change.!Boston:!Harvard!Business!Re<

view!Press.!

Koontz,! H.,! and! H.! Weihrich.! 2007.! Essentials' of' management.!

New!Dehli:!McGraw<Hill.!

Kraan,!D.J.!2005.!“Typically!Dutch”,'OECD'Journal'on'Budgeting,!4,!

104<25.!

Kraatz,!M.S.,!and!E.J.!Zajac.!2001.!“How!organizational!resources!

affect!strategic!change!and!performance!in!turbulent!en<

vironments:! theory! and! evidence”,!Organization' Science,!

12,!632<57.!

__________!1996.!“Exploring!the!limits!of!the!new!institutionalism:!

The! causes! and! consequences! of! illegitimate! organiza<

tional!change”,!American'Sociological'Review,!61:!812<36.!

Kramer,!R.!M.!1999.!“Trust!and!distrust!in!organizations:!emerg<

ing! perspectives,! enduring! questions”,!Annual' Review' of'

Psychology,!50,!569<98.!

Kuhlmann,!S.,!J.!Bogumil!and!S.!Grohs.!2008.!“Evaluating!adminis<

trative!modernization!in!German!local!governments:!suc<

cess! or! failure! of! the! ‘New! Steering!Model’?”,!Public' Ad@

ministration'Review,!68,!851<63.!

Lane,!J.E.!1997.!“Public!sector!reform:!only!deregulation,!privati<

zation!and!marketization?”,!in!J.E.!Lane!(ed.),!Public'sector'

reform:' Rationale,' trends' and' problems.! London:! Sage,!

pp.1<16.!

Langley,!G.J.,!R.D.!Moen,!K.M.!Nolan,!T.W.!Nolan,!C.L.!Norman!and!

L.P.! Provost.! 2009.! The' improvement' guide:' a' practical'

REFERENCES!

!

208 !

approach' to' enhancing' organizational' performance.! San!

Francisco:!Jossey<Bass.!

Ley'del'Servicio'Profesional'de'Carrera'en'la'Administración'Públi@

ca' Federal! 2003.! www.diputados.gob.mx/! LeyesBiblio!

(accessed!10/04/2012).!

Lawrence,!P.R.,!and! J.W.!Lorsch.!1967.! “Differentiation!and! inte<

gration!in!complex!organizations”,!Administrative'Science'

Review,!12,!1<47.!

Lincoln,! J.R.,! and!A.L.!Kalleberg.! 1990.!Culture,' control' and' com@

mitment:'A'study'of'work'organization'and'work'attitudes'

in' the' United' States' and' Japan.! New! York:! Cambridge!

Univ.!Press.!

Lindblom,! C.! 1959.! “The! science! of! muddling! through”,! Public'

Administration'Review,!19,!79<88.!

Lindenberg,! S.! 2006.! “What! sustains! market! societies! as! open!

access! societies?”,! in! U.! Bindseil,! J.! Haucap! and! C.! Wey!

(eds.),! Institutions' in' perspective.! Tubingen:! Mohr! Sie<

beck,!pp.255<80.!

Lindenberg,! S.,! and!N.J.! Foss.! 2011.! “Managing! joint! production!

motivation:! The! role! of! goal! framing! and! governance!

mechanisms”,!Academy' of'Management' Review,! 36,! 500<

25.!

Lipovetsky,!G.!2006.!Le'bonheur'paradoxal.!Paris:!Gallimard.!

Lipsky,!M.! 1980.! Street@level' bureaucracy.' Dilemmas' of' the' indi@

vidual'in'public'services.!New!York:!Russell!Sage!Founda<

tion.!

Lundin,!M.!2007.! “Explaining! cooperation:!how!resources! inter<

dependence,! goal! congruence! and! trust! affect! joint! ac<

tions!in!policy!implementation”,!Journal'of'Public'Admin@

istration'Research'and'Theory,!17,!651<72.!

Mabey,!C.,!and!B.!Mayon<White.!1993.!Managing'change.!London:!

Sage.!

Mahoney,! J.,! and! G.! Goertz.! 2006.! “A! tale! of! two! cultures:! Con<

trasting! quantitative! and! qualitative! research”,! Political'

Analysis,!14,!227<49.!

REFERENCES!

!

209 !

Majone,!G.!1989.!Evidence,'argument'and'persuasion'in'the'policy'

process.!New!Haven:!Yale!Univ.!Press.!

Malone,! T.! W.,! and! K.! Crowston.! 1994.! “The! interdisciplinary!

study! of! coordination”,!ACM' Computing' Surveys,! 26,! 87<

119.!

Maltzman,!F.,!and!C.R.!Shipan.!2008.!“Change,!continuity!and!the!

evolution! of! law”,! American' Journal' of' Political' Science,!

52,!252<67.!

Maor,! M.! 1999.! “The! paradox! of!managerialism”,! Public' Admin@


March,!J.G.!1991.!“Exploration!and!exploitation!in!organizational!

learning”,!Organization'Science,!2,!71<87.!

__________!1981.!“Footnotes!to!organizational!change”,!Administra@

tive'Science'Quarterly,!26,!563<77.!

March,! J.! G.,! and! H.! A.! Simon.! 1958.! Organizations.! New! York:!

Wiley.!

March,! J.! G.,! M.! Schulz,! and! Xueguang! Z.! 2000.!The' dynamics' of'

rules.' Change' in' written' organizational' codes.! Stanford:!

Stanford!Univ.!Press.!

Martínez!Puón,!R.!2006.!“Alcances!y!resultados!del!Servicio!Pro<

fesional!de!Carrera!en!México.!Un!ejercicio!de!evaluación!

a!tres!años!de!su!implementación”,!Gestión'y'Política'Pú@

blica,!15,!457<83.!

Matland,!R.E.!1995.!“Synthesizing!the!implementation!literature:!

The!ambiguity<conflict!model!of!policy! implementation”,!

Journal' of' Public' Administration' Research' and' Theory,! 5,!

145<74.!

Mayer,!R.!C.,! J.!H.!Davis!and!F.!D.!Schoorman.!1995.!“An!integra<

tive!model!of!organizational!trust”,!The'Academy'of'Man@

agement'Review,!20,!709<34.!

Mazmanian,! D.A.! and! P.! A.! Sabatier.! 1983.! Implementation' and'

public'policy.!Glenview:!Free!Press.!

McKinley,!W.,!and!A.!G.!Scherer.!2000.!“Some!unanticipated!con<

sequences! of! organizational! restructuring”,! Academy' of'

Management'Review,!25,!735<52.!

REFERENCES!

!

210 !

Meier,! K.J.,! and! L.J.! O’Toole.! 2006.' Bureaucracy' in' a' democratic'

state:'A'governance'perspective.!Baltimore,!Johns!Hopkins!

Univ.!Press.!

Merino,!M.!2013.!Políticas'Públicas.'Ensayo'sobre' la' intervención'

del'Estado'en'la'solución'de'los'problemas'públicos.!Mexi<

co:!CIDE.!

__________!2006.!“Introducción”,!in!M.!Merino!(ed.),!Los'desafíos'del'

servicio' profesional' de' carrera' en' México.! Mexico! City:!

CIDE,!pp.15<28.!

Meyer,!J.W.,!and!B.!Rowan.!1977.!Institutionalized!organizations:!

formal! structure! as!myth! and! ceremony.!American' Jour@

nal'of'Sociology,!83:!340<63.!

Migdal,!J.!S.!2009.!State'in'society.'Studying'how'states'and'socie@

ties' transform' and' constitute' one' another.! New! York:!

Cambridge!Univ.!Press.!

Mills,!M.,!H.P.!Blossfeld,!S.!Buchholz,!D.!Hofäcker,!F.!Bernardi!and!

H.!Hofmeister! 2008.! “Converging!divergences?!An! inter<

national!comparison!of!the!impact!of!globalization!on!in<

dustrial!relations!and!employment!careers”,!International'

Sociology,!23,!561<595.!

Milward,! H.B.,! and! K.G.! Provan.! 2000.! “Governing! the! hollow!

state”,!Journal'of'Public'Administration'Research'and'The@

ory,!10:!359<80.!

Mintzberg,!H.!1989.!Mintzberg'on'management.!New!York:!Free!

Press.!

__________! 1979.! The' structuring' of' organizations.! Englewood!

Cliffs:!Prentice!Hall.!

__________!1973.!The'nature'of'managerial'work.!New!York:!Harper!

&!Row.!

Mitsuhashi,! H.,! and! H.R.! Greve.! 2004.! “Powerful! and! free:! In<

traorganizational! power! and! the! dynamics! of! corporate!

strategy”,!Strategic'Organization,!2,!107<32.!

Morrill,!C.!1991.!“Conflict!management,!honor!and!organizational!

change”,!American'Journal'of'Sociology,!97,!585<621.!

REFERENCES!

!

211 !

Mumby,!D.K.! 2005.! “Theorizing! resistance! in! organization! stud<

ies”,!Management'Communication'Quarterly,!19,!19<44.!

Muñoz! Gutiérrez,! R.! 2005.! Innovación' gubernamental:! El' para@

digma'de'buen'gobierno'en'la'administración'del'Presiden@

te'Vicente'Fox.!Mexico!City:!Fondo!de!Cultura!Económica.!

Muurlink,! O.,! A.! Wilkinson,! D.! Peetz! and! K.! Townsend! (2012).!

“Managerial!autism:!Threat<rigidity!and!rigidity’s!threat”,!

British'Journal'of'Management,!23,!S74<87.!

Nadkarni,!S.!and!P.!S.!Barr.!2008.!“Environmental!context,!mana<

gerial! cognition,! and! strategic! action:! An! integrated!

view”,!Strategic'Management'Journal,!29,!1395<427.!

Nee,!V.!2005.!“The!new!institutionalism!in!economics!and!sociol<

ogy”,! in!N.!Smelser!and!R.!Swedberg! (eds.),!Handbook'of'

economic' sociology.! New! York:! Princeton! Univ.! Press,!

pp.49<74.!

__________!1998.!“Norms!and!networks!in!economic!and!organiza<

tional!performance”,!The'American'Economic'Review,!88,!

85<9.!

Neves,! P.,! and! A.! Caetano.! 2007.! “Social! exchange! processes! in!

organizational! change:! the! roles! of! trust! and! control”,!

Journal'of'Change'Management,!6,!351<64.!

Nica,!E.!2013.! “Organizational!culture! in! the!public!sector”,!Eco@

nomics,'Management'and'Financial'Markets,!8,!179<84.!

Nieto! Morales,! F.,! L.! Heyse,! M.C.! Pardo! and! R.! Wittek.! 2014.!

“Building!enforcement!capacity:!Evidence!from!the!Mexi<

can! civil! service! reform”,! Public' Administration' and' De@

velopment,!34,!389<405.!

Nieto!Morales,!F.,!R.!Wittek!and!L.!Heyse.!2013.!“After!the!reform:!

Change! in!Dutch!public!and!private!organizations”,! Jour@

nal' of' Public' Administration' Research' and' Theory,! 23,!

735<54.!

Niskanen,!W.!2007.!Bureaucracy'and'representative'government.!

Chicago:!Aldine.!

REFERENCES!

!

212 !

Nutt,! P.C.,! and! R.W.! Backoff.! 1993.! “Organizational! publicness!

and!its!implications!for!strategic!management”,'Journal'of'


Nyhan,!R.C.!2000.! “Changing! the!paradigm:!Trust!and! its!role! in!

public! sector! organizations”,! American' Review' of' Public'

Administration,!30,!87<109.!

__________!1999.!“Increasing!affective!organizational!commitment!

in! public! organizations:! the! key! role! of! interpersonal!

trust”,!Review'of'Public'Personnel'Administration,!19,!58<

70.!

OECD! 2011.! TowardsTowards' more' effective' and' dynamic' public'

management'in'Mexico.!OECD!Public!Governance!Reviews,!

Paris:!OECD!Publishing.!

__________!2005.!Modernizing'government:'The'way'forward.!Paris:!

OECD!Publishing.!

Ongaro,! E.,! and!G.! Valotti.! 2008.! “Public!management! reform! in!

Italy:! explaining! the! implementation! gap”,! International'

Journal'of'Public'Sector'Management,!21,!174<204.!

Oosterwaal,!A.!2011.!The'gap'between'decision'and' implementa@

tion.' Decision'making,' delegation' and' compliance' in' gov@

ernmental'and'organizational'settings.!Utrecht:!ICS.!

Osborne,!D.,!and!T.!Gaebler.!1993.!Re@inventing'government:'How'

the'entrepreneurial'spirit'is'transforming'the'public'sector.!

New!York:!Plume<Penguin.!

Osterloh,!M.,!and!B.S.!Frey.!2000.! “Motivation,!knowledge!trans<

fer! and! organizational! forms”,! Organization' Science,! 11,!

538<50.!

Osterman,! P.! 1994.! “How! common! is!workplace! transformation!

and! who! adopts! it?”,! Industrial' Labor' Relations' Review,!

47,!173<88.!

Ostroff,!F.!2006.! “Change!management! in!government”,!Harvard'

Business'Review,!84,!110<16.!

Otley,!D.,! J.!Broadbent!and!A.!Berry.!1995.!Research! in!manage<

ment! control:! and! overview! of! its! development,! British'

Journal'of'Management,!6:!S31<44.!

REFERENCES!

!

213 !

O’Toole,!L.! J.!2012.! “Interorganizational!relations!and!policy! im<

plementation”! in! B.G.! Peters! and! J.! Pierre! (eds.),!Hand@

book'of'Public'Administration.!London:!Sage,!pp.292<304.!

__________!2000.!“Research!on!policy!implementation:!assessment!

and!prospects”,!Journal'of'Public'Administration'Research'

and'Theory,!10,!263<88.!

O’Toole,!L.!J.,!and!R.!S.!Montjoy.!1984.!“Interorganizational!policy!

implementation:!a!theoretical!perspective”,!Public'Admin@


Ouchi,! W.G.! 1979.! “A! conceptual! framework! for! the! design! of!

organizational! control! mechanisms”,! Management' Sci@

ence,!25:!833<48.!

__________! 1977.! “The! relationship! between! organizational! struc<

ture! and! organizational! control”,! Administrative' Science'

Quarterly,!22,!95<113.!

Palmer,!I.,!R.!Dunford!and!G.!Akin.!2009.!Managing'organization@

al' change.' A' multiple' perspectives' approach.! Singapore:!

McGraw<Hill.!

Pardo,!M.C.!2010.!“La!propuesta!de!modernización!administrati<

va!en!México:!entre!la!tradición!y!el!cambio”,!Foro'Inter@

nacional,!50,!393<421.!

__________!2005.!“El!Servicio!Profesional!de!Carrera!en!México:!de!

la!tradición!al!cambio”,!Foro'Internacional,!45,!599<634.!

Parker,! R.,! and! L.! Bradley.! 2000.! “Organizational! culture! in! the!

public! sector:!Evidence! from!six!organizations”,! Interna@

tional'Journal'of'Public'Sector'Management,!13,!125<41.!

Pascale,!R.!T.!1990.!Managing'on'the'edge:'how'the'smartest'com@

panies' use' conflict' to' stay' ahead.! New! York:! Simon! and!

Schuster.!

Patashnik,!E.M.!2008.!Reforms'at'risk:'What'happens'after'major'

policy' changes' are' enacted?! Princeton:! Princeton! Univ.!

Press.!

Pearson,!A.!W.,!M.!D.!Ensley,!and!A.!C.!Amason.!2002.!“An!assess<

ment!and!refinement!of! Jehn’s! intragroup!conflict!scale”,!

International'Journal'of'Conflict'Management,!13,!110<26.!

REFERENCES!

!

214 !

Pennings,!J.M.,!and!J.!Woiceshyn.!1987.!“A!Typology!of!organiza<

tional! control! and! its!metaphors”,! in! S.B.!Bacharach! and!

S.M.!Mitchell!(eds.),!Research'in'the'sociology'of'organiza@

tions,!vol.!5.!Greenwich:!JAI,!pp.73–104.!

Perrow,! C.! 1970.! Organizational' analysis:' A' sociological' view.!

Belmont:!Wadsworth.!

Perry,!J.L.,!and!H.G.!Rainey.!1988.!“The!public<private!distinction!

in!organizational! theory:!A! critique! and! research! strate<

gy”,!Academy'of'Management'Review,!13,!182<201.!

Peters,!B.G.!2001.!The'politics'of'bureaucracy:'An'introduction'to'

comparative'public'administration.!London:!Routledge.!

Pfeffer,!J.!1992.!“Understanding!power!in!organizations”,!Califor@

nia'Management'Review,!34,!29<50.!

__________!1981.!Power'in'organizations.!Marshfield:!Pitman.!

Pfeffer!J.,!and!G.R.!Salancik.!1977.!“Organizational!context!and!the!

characteristics! and! tenure! of! hospital! administrators”,!


Piketty,! T.! 2014.! Capital' in' the' twenty@first' century.! Cambridge:!

Harvard!Univ.!Press.!

Pinchot,!G.!and!E.!Pinchot.!1994.!The'end'of'bureaucracy'and'the'

rise'of'the'intelligent'organization.!San!Francisco:!Berrett<

Koehler.!

Podsakoff,! N.P.,! S.W.! Whiting,! P.M.! Podsakoff! and! B.D.! Blume.!

2009.!“Individual<!and!organizational<level!consequences!

of!organizational!citizenship!behaviors:!a!meta<analysis”,!

Journal'of'Applied'Psychology,!94,!122<41.!

Podsakoff,!P.M.,!and!D.!W.!Organ.!1986.!“Self<reports!in!organiza<

tional! research:! Problems! and! prospects”,! Journal' of'

Management,!12,!531<544.!

Pollitt,! C.! 2001.! “Convergence:! the! useful!myth?”,!Public' Admin@

istration,!79,!933<47.!

Pollitt,!C.,!and!G.!Bouckaert.!2004.!Public'management'reform:'a'

comparative'analysis.!Oxford:!Oxford!Univ.!Press.!

Pollitt,!C.,!K.!Bathgate,!J.!Caulfield,!A.!Smullen,!and!C.!Talbot.!2001!

“Agency! fever?! Analysis! of! an! international! policy! fash<

REFERENCES!

!

215 !

ion”,!Journal'of'Comparative'Policy'Analysis:'Research'and'

Practice,!3,!271<90.!

Pollitt,!C.,!S.!van!Thiel,!and!V.!Homburg.!2007!“New!public!man<

agement! in! Europe”,! Management' Online' Review,!

http://repub.eur.nl!(accessed!18/11/2011).!

Pondy,!L.R.!1967.!“Organizational!conflict:!concepts!and!models”,!

Administrative'Science'Quarterly,!12,!296<320.!

Porras,!J.I.!1987.!Stream'analysis:'a'powerful'way'to'diagnose'and'

manage'organizational'change.!Reading:!Addison<Wesley.!

Porras,! J.I.,! and! R.C.! Silver.! 1991.! “Organizational! development!

and!transformation”,!Annual'Review'of'Psychology,!42,!51<

78.!

Powell,!W.W.!1996.!“Fields!of!practice:!connections!between!law!

and!organizations”,!Law'and'Social'Inquiry,!21,!959<66.!

Preacher,!K.J.,!and!A.F.!Hayes.!2008.!“Asymptotic!and!resampling!

strategies!for!assessing!and!comparing!indirect!effects!in!

multiple! mediator! models”,! Behavior' Research' Methods,!

40,!879<91.!

Presidencia! de! la! República.! 2011.!Quinto' informe' de' gobierno.!

www.quinto.informe.gob.mx!(accessed!15/01/13).!

Pressman,! J.L.,! and! A.! Wildavsky.! 1973.! Implementation:' How'

great' expectations' in'Washington'are'dashed' in'Oakland;'

or,' why' it' is' amazing' that' federal' programs' work' at' all!

(…).!Berkeley:!Univ.!of!California!Press.!

Putnam,! R.D.! 2000.! Bowling' alone.' The' collapse' and' revival' of'

American'community.!New!York:!Simon!and!Schuster.!

Raelin,! J.A.! 2011.! “The! end! of! managerial! control?”,! Group' and'

Organization'Management,!36,!135<60.!

Ragin,! C.C.! 2008.! Redesigning' social' inquiry.' Fuzzy' sets' and' be@

yond.!Chicago:!Univ.!of!Chicago!Press.!

Ragin,!C.C.,!K.!S.!Drass!and!S.!Davey.!2007.!“Fuzzy<set/Qualitative!

Comparative!analysis”,'version'2.5.!www.fsqca.com.!

Rahim,! M.A.! 2011.! Managing' conflict' in' organizations.! New!

Brunswick:!Transaction.!

REFERENCES!

!

216 !

__________! 2002.! “Toward! a! theory! of! managing! organizational!

conflict”,! International' Journal' of' Conflict' Management,!

13,!206<35.!

Rahim! M.A.! and! T.V.! Bonoma.! 1979.! “Managing! organizational!

conflict:!a!model!for!diagnosis!and!intervention”,!Psycho@

logical'Reports,!44,!1323<44.!

Rainey,!H.G.!2003.!Understanding'and'managing'public'organiza@

tions.!San!Francisco:!Jossey<Bass.!

Rainey,!H.G.,!and!B.!Bozeman.!2000.!“Comparing!public!and!pri<

vate!organizations:!Empirical! research!and!the!power!of!

the! a! priori”,! Journal' of' Public' Administration' Research'

and'Theory,!10,!447<70.!

Ring,!P.S.,! and! J.L.!Perry.!1985.! “Strategic!management! in!public!

and! private! organizations:! Implications! of! distinctive!

contexts! and! constraints”,! Academy' of' Management' Re@

view,!10,!276<86.!

Robertson,!P.J.,!D.R.!Roberts,!and! J.I.!Porras.!1993.! “Dynamics!of!

planned!organizational! change:! assessing! empirical! sup<

port! for! a! theoretical! model”,! Academy' of' Management'

Journal,!36,!619<34.!

Robertson,!P.J.,!and!S.J.!Seneviratne.!1995.!“Outcomes!of!planned!

organizational! change! in! the! public! sector:! A! meta<

analytic!comparison!to!the!private!sector”,!Public'Admin@


Romanelli,!E.!1991.!“The!evolution!of!new!organizational!forms”,!

Annual'Review'of'Sociology,!17,!79<103.!

Rossotti,! C.O.! 2005.! Many' unhappy' returns.! Boston:! Harvard!

Business!School!Press.!

Salancik,! G.R.! and! J.! Pfeffer.! 1977.! “Who!gets! power!—and!how!

they!hold!on!to!it:!A!strategic<contingency!model!of!pow<

er’,!Organizational'Dynamics,!5,!2<21.!

Sandel,!M.J.!2012.!What'money'can’t'buy.'The'moral'limits'of'mar@

kets.!New!York:!Penguin.!

REFERENCES!

!

217 !

Sauermann,!H.,!and!P.!Stephan.!2013.!“Conflicting!logics?!A!mul<

tidimensional! view! of! industrial! and! academic! science”,!

Organization'Science,!24,!889<909.!

Schmidt,!S.M.,!and!D.!Kipnis.!1984.!“Managers’!pursuit!of!individ<

ual!and!organizational!goals”,!Human'Relations,!37,!781<

94.!

Scott,!W.R.!2008.! Institutions'and'organizations.' Ideas'and' Inter@

ests.!Thousand!Oaks:!Sage.!

Schneider,! C.Q.,! and! C.! Wagemann.! 2010.! “Standards! of! good!

practice! in! Qualitative! Comparative! Analysis! (QCA)! and!

fuzzy<sets”,!Comparative'Sociology,!9,!397<418.!

Secretaría! de!Hacienda! y! Crédito! Público.! 2012.!Presupuesto' de'

egresos' de' la' Federación' para' el' ejercicio' fiscal' 2012.!

shcp.gob.mx/EGRESOS/PEF!(accessed!19/03/2013)!

__________! 2011.!Presupuesto' de' egresos' de' la' Federación' para' el'

ejercicio' fiscal' 2011.! shcp.gob.mx/EGRESOS/PEF! (acces<

sed!19/03/2013)!



sed!19/03/2013)!



sed!19/03/2013)!



sed!19/03/2013)!



sed!19/03/2013)!



sed!19/03/2013)!



sed!19/03/2013)!

REFERENCES!

!

218 !

Selznick,! P.! 1996.! “Institutionalism! ‘old’! and! ‘new’”,!Administra@


__________! 1957.!Leadership' in' administration.! New! York:! Harper!

and!Row.!

__________! 1948.! “Foundations! of! the! theory! of! organization”,!

American'Sociological'Review,!13,!25<35.!

Sen,!A.!1993.!“The!structure!of!firms”,!Journal'of'Economic'Behav@

ior'and'Organization,!20,!119<130.!

Senge,!P.M.!1990.!The'fifth'discipline:'The'art'and'practice'of' the'

learning'organization.!London:!Century.!

Sewell,!G.!2005.!“Nice!work?!Rethinking!managerial!control!in!an!

era!of!knowledge!work”,!Organization,!12,!685<704.!

SFP.!2012.!Mejores'prácticas'de'recursos'humanos'en'el'sector'pú@

blico.!Mexico!City:!Leto.!

Shetty,! Y.! K.! 1978.! “Managerial! power! and! organizational! effec<

tiveness:!a!contingency!analysis”,!Journal'of'Management'

Studies,!15:!176<86.!

Simmel,!G.!1964.!Conflict'and' the'Web'of'group@affiliations.!New!

York:!Free!Press.!

Simon,!H.A.!1979.!“Rational!decision!making!in!business!organi<

zations”,!American'Economic'Review,!69,!493<513.!

Smith,!V.!1997.!“New!forms!of!work!organization”,!Annual'Review'

of'Sociology,!23,!315<39.!

__________! 1996.! “Employee! involvement,! involved! employees:!

participative!work!arrangements!in!a!white<collar!service!

occupation”,!Social'Problems,!21,!166<79.!

Sorge,! A.,! and! A.! van! Witteloostuijn.! 2004.! “The! (non)sense! of!

organizational! change:! and! essai! about! universal! man<

agement!hypes,!sick!consultancy!metaphors,!and!healthy!

organization!theories”,!Organization'Studies,!25,!1205<31.!

Staw,! B.! M.,! L.! E.! Sandelands! and! J.! E.! Dutton.! 1981.! “Threat<

rigidity! effects! in! organizational! behavior”,! Administra@


Streatfield,! P.J.! 2001.! The' paradox' of' control' in' organizations.!

New!York:!Routledge.!

REFERENCES!

!

219 !

Steur,!J.,!and!R.!Wittek.!2005.!“The!governance!of!transition!pro<

cesses! in! an! organization:! A! cognitive! mapping! ap<

proach”,!Academy'of'Management'Proceedings,!C1<C6.!

Stubbart,!C.I.!1989.!“Managerial!cognition:!A!missing!link!in!stra<

tegic! management! research”,! Journal' of' Management'

Studies,!26,!325<47.!

Suchman,!M.C.!1995.!“Managing!legitimacy:!strategic!and!institu<

tional! approaches”,!Academy'of'Management'Review,! 20,!

571<610.!

Ter!Bogt,!H.J.!2006.! “New!public!management!and!management!

changes! in!Dutch! local!government:!Some!recent!experi<

ences! and! future! topics”,!

http://som.eldoc.ub.rug.nl/reports/themeD/2006/06D0

4/!(accessed!22/03/2012).!

Ter!Bogt,!H.J,! and!G.J.! van!Helden.! 2000.! “Accounting! change! in!

Dutch! government:! Exploring! the! gap! between! expecta<

tions! and! realizations”,! Management' Accounting' Re@

search,!11,!263<79.!

Thoenig,!J.C.!2003.!“Institutional!theories!and!public!institutions:!

traditions! and! appropriateness”,! in! B.G.! Peters! and! J.!

Pierre!(eds.),!Handbook'of'public'administration.!London:!

Sage,!pp.!127<38.!

Thomas,!J.W.,!and!M.S.!Grindle.!1990.!“After!the!decision:!Imple<

menting! policy! reforms! in! developing! countries”,!World'

Development,!18,!1163<81.!

Thompson,! J.D.! 2007! (1967).!Organizations' in' action:' social' sci@

ence' bases' of' administrative' theory.! New!York:!McGraw<

Hill.!

Thompson,!P.,! and!D.!van!den!Broek.!2010.! “Managerial! control!

and!workplace!regimes:!an! introduction”,!Work,'Employ@

ment'and'Society,!24,!1<12.!

Toonen,! T.A.J.! 2003.! “Administrative! reform:! analytics”,! in! B.G.!

Peters!and!J.!Pierre!(eds.),!Handbook'of'public'administra@

tion.!London:!Sage,!pp.!467<78.!

REFERENCES!

!

220 !

Torenvlied,!R.! 2000.!Political' decisions' and'agency'performance.!

Dordrecht:!Kluwer.!

Torsteinsen,!H.!2012.!“Why!does!post<bureaucracy!lead!to!more!

formalization?”,!Local'Government'Studies,!38,!321<44.!

Tvedt,!S.!D.,!P.!Saksvik!and!K.!Nytrø.!2009.!“Does!change!process!

healthiness! reduce! the!negative!effects!of!organizational!

change! on! the! psychosocial! work! environment?”,!Work'

and'Stress,!23,!80<98.!

Uchitelle,!L.!2006.!The'disposable'American.!New!York:!Knopf.!

Vales,!E.!2007.!“Employees!can!make!a!difference!!Involving!em<

ployees! in! change! at! Allstate! Insurance”,! Organization'

Development'Journal,!25,!P27<31.!

Vallas,! S.P.! 2003.! “The! adventures! of! managerial! hegemony:!

teamwork,! ideology!and!worker!resistance”,!Social'Prob@

lems,!50,!204<25.!

__________!1999.!“Rethinking!post<Fordism:!the!meaning!of!work<

place!flexibility”,!Sociological'Theory,!17,!68<101.!

Van!Looy,!B.,!P.!Gemmel!and!R.!van!Dierdonck,!eds.!2003.!Services'

management:' an' integrated' approach.! London:! Prentice!

Hall.!

Van! de! Ven,! A.H.! 1992.! “Suggestions! for! studying! strategy! pro<

cess:!a!research!note”,!Strategic'Management' Journal,!13!

(special!issue),!169<91.!

Van!de!Ven,!A.H.!and!M.S.!Poole.!1995.!“Explaining!development!

and! change! in! organizations”,! Academy' of' Management'

Review,!20,!510<40.!

Van!de!Ven,!A.H.! and!T.J.!Hargrave.! 2004.! “Social,! technical! and!

institutional!change.!A!literature!review!and!synthesis”!in!

M.S.!Poole!and!A.H.!van!de!Ven!(eds),!Handbook'of'organ@

izational' change' and' innovation.! Oxford:! Oxford! Univ.!

Press,!pp.259<303.!

Van!der!Mandele,!H.,!and!A.!van!Witteloostuijn.!2013.!Free'to'fail:'

The' inevitability' and' irreversibility' of' organizational' un@

controllability.!London:!Edward!Elgar.!

REFERENCES!

!

221 !

Van!Oosteroom,!R.!2002.! “Distributed!public! governance:!Agen<

cies,! authorities,! and! other! autonomous! bodies! in! the!

Netherlands”,!OCDE'Journal'on'Budgeting,!2,!103<20.!

Vera,!D.,!and!M.!Crossan.!2004.!“Strategic!leadership!and!organi<

zational! learning”,! Academy' of' Management' Review,! 29,!

222<40.!

Walker,! R.M.,! G.A.! Brewer,! and! G.A.! Boyne.! 2010.! “How! far! has!

market!orientation!penetrated!public!organizations?”,! in!

M.!Ramesh,!E.!Araral,!Wu!X.!(eds.),!Reasserting'the'public'

in' public' services.'New'public'management' reforms.! Lon<

don:!Routledge,!pp.63<78.!

Waldman,! D.A.,! M.! Javidan,! and! P.! Varella.! 2004.! “Charismatic!

leadership!at!the!strategic!level:!A!new!application!of!up<

per!echelons!theory”,!Leadership'Quarterly,!15:!355<80.!

Weber,!M.!1976!(1905).!The'protestant'ethic'and'the'spirit'of'cap@

italism.!London:!Allen!and!Unwin.!

__________!1968! (1922).!Economy'and' society:'An'outline'of' inter@

pretative'sociology.!New!York:!Bedminster!Press.!

Westphal,!J.D.,!and!J.W.!Fredrickson.!2001.!“Who!directs!strategic!

change?! Director! experience,! the! selection! of! new! CEOs,!

and!change!in!corporate!strategy”,!Strategic'Management'

Journal,!22,!1113<37.!

Wezel,!F.C.,!and!A.!Saka<Helmhout.!2006.!“Antecedents!and!con<

sequences! of! organizational! change:! ‘Institutionalizing’!

the! behavioral! theory! of! the! firm”,!Organization' Studies,!

27,!265<86.!

Whelan<Berry,! K.S.,! and! K.A! Somerville.! 2010.! “Linking! change!

drivers!and! the!organizational! change!process:! a! review!

and! synthesis”,! Journal' of' Change'Management,! 10,! 175<

93.!

Williams,! M.J.! 2014.! “Serving! the! self! from! the! seat! of! power:!

Goals! and! threats! predict! leaders’! self<interested!behav<

ior”,!Journal'of'Management,!20,!1<31.!

REFERENCES!

!

222 !

Williamson,! O.! E.! 1985.!The' economic' institutions' of' capitalism:'

Firms,' markets,' relational' contracting.! New! York:! Free!

Press.!

__________! 1967.! “Hierarchical! control! and! optimum! firm! size”,!

Journal'of'Political'Economy,!75,!123<38.!

Wittek,!R.!2007.!“Governance!from!a!sociological!perspective”!in!

D.! Jansen! (ed.),!New' forms' of' governance' in' research' or@

ganizations.'Disciplinary'approaches,' interfaces,' and' inte@

gration.!Dordrecht:!Springer,!pp.!73<99.!

Wittek,!R.!and!A.!van!Witteloostuijn.!2013.! “Rational!choice!and!

organizational! change”,! in!R.!Wittek,!T.A.B.! Snijders,! and!

V.! Nee! (eds.),!The' handbook' of' rational' choice' social' re@

search.!Palo!Alto:!Stanford!Univ.!Press,!pp.!556<88.!

Wittek,! R.,! and! G.G.! van! de! Bunt.! 2004.! “Post<bureaucratic! gov<

ernance,!informal!networks!and!oppositional!solidarity!in!

organizations”,!The'Netherlands’' Journal'of' Social' Scienc@

es,!40,!295<319.!

Wittek,!R.!and!A.!van!Witteloostuijn.!2012.! “Rational!choice!and!

organizational! change”,! in!R.!Wittek,!T.A.B.! Snijders,! and!

V.! Nee! (eds.),!The' handbook' of' rational' choice' social' re@

search.!Palo!Alto:!Stanford!University!Press,!pp.556<88.!

Wood,!B.!D.!and!R.!W.!Waterman.!1991.!“The!dynamics!of!politi<

cal!control!of!the!bureaucracy”,!American'Political'Science'

Review,!85,!801<28.!

Worrall,!L.,!C.!Cooper,!and!F.!Campbell.!2000.!“The!new!reality!for!

UK!managers:!Perpetual!change!and!employment!instabil<

ity”,!Work,'Employment'and'Society,!14,!647<68.!

Yesilkagit,!K.,!and!J.!de!Vries.!2004.!“Reform!styles!of!political!and!

administrative! elites! in! majoritarian! and! consensus! de<

mocracies:! Public!management! reforms! in!New! Zealand!

and!the!Netherlands”,!Public'Administration,!82,!951<74.!

Yin,! R.K.! 2003.! Case' study' research:' design' and' methods.! Thou<

sand!Oaks:!Sage.!

Zaheer,! S.! 1995.! “Overcoming! the! liability! of! foreignness”,! The'


REFERENCES!

!

223 !

Zucker,! L.! G.,! and!M.! R.! Darby.! 1999.! “Costly! information:! Firm!

transformation,!exit,!or!persistent!failure”,!in!H.!K.!Anhei<

er! (ed.),' When' things' go' wrong.' Organizational' failures'

and'breakdowns.!Thousand!Oaks:!Sage,!pp.17<34.!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

Appendix Code book for interview transcripts !

!

!

!

!

!

!

Code'family'0'

Identification!codes!'

Tag'Key'construct'/'

Meaning'

Rules'for'coding'

When'to'use'' When'not'to'use'!

1!GENERO!

Gender!

!Identification!codes!are!only!to!be!used!for!

the!headers!of!transcripts.!

Do!not!use!to!code!any!part!of!the!actual!

interview!text.!

2!EDAD!

Age!

3!PUESTO!

Current!

hierarchical!

position!!

4!EXPSECTOR!

Years!of!

experience!

working!for!

the!public!

sector!

5!EXPORG!

Years!working!

for!the!Civil!

Service!Unit!

(after!2003)!

!

!

Code'family'1'

Stakeholders!

6! SECRETARIA!Ministry!of!the!

Public!Service!

Reference!to!the!

Ministry!or!the!

office!of!the!Minister!

When!concrete!units!

or!departments!of!

the!Ministry!are!

explicitly!referred!

7! UNIDAD!

Unit!of!Human!

Resources!

Policy!(UHRP)!

Reference!to!the!

Unit!or!any!of!its!

departments!

When!concrete!

individual!actors!

(esp.!executive!

director)!are!

referred!

APPENDIX!

!

225 !

8!DEPENDENCI

A!

Agency/Minist

ry!

Reference!to!any!of!

the!agencies!or!

ministries!that!form!

part!of!the!Civil!

Service!Network!or!

references!to!any!of!

the!

“Professionalization!

committees”!

When!the!quotation!

explicitly!and!only!

refers!to!the!

Ministry!of!Finance!

9! HACIENDA!Ministry!of!

Finance!

Reference!to!the!

Ministry!of!Finance!

(or!any!of!its!

units/departments)!

When!the!quotation!

refers!to!the!

(former)!Civil!

Service!Unit.!In!this!

case!code!as!

“UNIDAD”!

10! PRESIDENTE!President!of!

Mexico!

Reference!to!the!

President!of!Mexico!

or!to!his!office!

!

11! CONGRESO!National!

congress!

Reference!to!the!

National!Congress!

or!the!Senate!

!

12! INTERNAC!International!

actors!

Reference!to!a!

foreign!government!

or!any!international!

organization!(e.g.,!

OECD)!

!

13! A1!

Executive!

director!of!the!

Civil!Service!

Unit!A1!

Reference!to!A1!

If!unsure!mark!as!

“UNIDAD”!

14! A2!

Executive!

director!of!the!

Civil!Service!

Unit!A2!

Reference!to!A2!

15! A3!

Executive!

director!of!the!

Civil!Service!

Unit!A3!

Reference!to!A3!

16! A4!

Executive!

director!of!the!

Civil!Service!

Unit!A4!

Reference!to!A4!

17! SUBSECRE!

Deputy!

Minister!of!

Public!

Administration!

Reference!to!the!

(current!or!former)!

Deputy!Minister!of!

Public!

Administration!

!If!quotation!refers!

to!other!

unit/depart<ment!of!

the!Ministry,!mark!

as!“SECRETARIA”!

18! CONSEJO!

Civil!Service!

Council!

(Assembly!of!

all!Chief!

Administrative!

Officers)!

Reference!to!the!

Civil!Service!

Council!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

APPENDIX!

!

226 !

19! OFICIALES!

Chief!

Administrative!

Officer!(CAOs)!

Reference!to!one!or!

more!CAOs!or!

equivalent!

When!the!quotation!

refers!to!any!of!these!

actors!as'part'of!a!

“professionalization!

committee”.!Then,!

mark!as!

“DEPENDENCIA”!

20! DIRECTORH!

Directors!of!

Human!

Resources!and!

Organization!

Reference!to!

Directors!of!Human!

Resources!or!

equivalent!

21! OIC!

Auditing!

offices!of!the!

Ministry!of!

Public!

Administration!

in!each!

agency/ministr

y!(OICs)!

Reference!to!one!or!

more!OICs!

22! AUDITORIA!

Congressional!

Office!of!the!

Comptroller!

Reference!to!the!

Congressional!

Office!of!the!

Comptroller!or!any!

of!its!reports!

When!the!quotation!

explicitly!refers!to!

auditing!activities!

carried!out!by!OICs!

23!FUNCIONASP

C!

Career!Civil!

Servants!

Reference!to!

Career!Civil!

Servants!or!when!

the!quotation!

refers!to!the!

exemplary!case!of!a!

single!Career!civil!

servant!

When!the!quotation!

refers!to!a!public!

official!but!it!is!

unclear!whether!he,!

she!or!they!belong!to!

the!SPC!system.!In!

this!case,!code!as!

“OTROSACT”!

24! SECTPUBLICO!Civil!Servants!

(generic)!

Generic!reference!

to!the!entirety!of!

Federal!public!

officials!

When!the!quotation!

refers!to!Career!Civil!

Servants,!specific!

positions!(e.g.,!CAOs),!

or!organizations!(e.g.,!

ministries)!

25! OTROSACT!Other!

stakeholders!

Reference!to!any!

stakeholder!not!

listed!in!this!table!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

APPENDIX!

!

227 !

Code'family'2'

Systems!and!structures!

26!PLANEACION!

SPC!planning!

subsystem!

Explicit!reference!

to!Planning!or!to!

any!of!the!

following!

processes:!

a)!Registry!of!

bureaucratic!

structures!

b)!Registry!of!

personnel!data!

c)!RUSP!

d)Creation/suppre

ssion!of!positions!

of!the!SPC!system!

When!the!quotation!

refers!to!generic!

processes!of!

information!

processing!or!data!

analysis,!or!explicit!

references!to!the!

RHnet!platform.!In!

these!cases,!mark!as!

“INFO”!or!“FLUJO”,!

correspondently!(see!

below)!

27!INGRESO!

SPC!

recruitment!

subsystem!!

Explicit!reference!

to!recruitment!or!

to!any!of!the!

following!

processes:!

a)!Personnel!

selection!

b)!Hiring!

!

28!ART34!

Article!34!of!

the!SPC!Law!(it!

allows!to!

circumvent!

recruitment!

procedures!for!

up!to!10!

months)!

Reference!to!

Article!34!of!the!SPC!

Law!

!

29! LIBREDESIGN

A!

Free!

appointment!

positions!in!

federal!

agencies/minis

tries!(positions!

that!do!not!

belong!to!the!

SPC)!

Reference!to!free!

appointment!

positions!!

When!quotation!

refers!to!positions!

that!cannot!be!linked!

to!the!SPC!system!

30!DESARROLLO!

SPC!

professional!

development!

subsystem!

Explicit!reference!

to!professional!

development!or!to!

any!of!the!

following!

processes:!

a)!Career!planning!

b)!Exchange!

c)!“Lateral!

movements”!

!

! !

!

!

! ! !

APPENDIX!

!

228 !

31!CAPACITACIO

N!

SPC!Training!

subsystem!

Explicit!reference!

to!training!or!to!

competence!

certification!

procedures!

When!the!quotation!

refers!to!generic!

processes!of!training!

that!cannot!be!linked!

to!the!SPC!system,!or!

when!the!quotation!

refers!to!the!concept!

of!“competencies”.!In!

this!last!case,!mark!as!

“CAPACIDAD”!

32! EVALUACION!

SPC!

Performance!

evaluation!

subsystem!

Reference!to!

performance!

evaluation!

!

33! SEPARACION!SPC!Severance!

subsystem!

Reference!to!

severance!or!to!any!

of!the!following!

processes:!

a)!Firing!

b)!Severance!of!

career!civil!

servants!

!

34! PROGRAMA!SPC!Operative!

program!

Reference!to!

current!or!former!

Civil!Service!

Programs!

Not!to!be!confused!

with!the!Operative!

Programs!that!each!

organization!

develops.!If!this!is!the!

case,!only!mark!as!

“DEPENDENCIA”!

35! MANUALRH!

Manual!of!

Human!

Resource!

Management!of!

the!Federal!

Administration!

Reference!to!the!

Manual!of!Human!

Resource!

Management!of!the!

Federal!

Administration!

!

36! META! Goals!

Reference!to!an!

explicit!goal!of!the!

SPC!policy!or!UHRP!

!

!

'

'

'

'

'

'

'

'

'

'

APPENDIX!

!

229 !

Code'family'3'

Rules!and!regulation!

37!REGLAMENTO!

SPC!

Administrative!

bylaws!of!2005!

and!2007!

Reference!to!any!

SPC!bylaws!(2005!

or!2007)!and/or!

their!

administrative!

guidelines!

!

NB.!Mark!year!as!

note!(2005!or!

2007)!

When!the!quotation!

refers!to!changes!in!

the!bylaw!refer!as!

“CAMBIOREGTO”!and!

add!year!as!note!

38!LEY! SPC!Law!

Reference!to!the!

SPC!Law!of!2003!!

39!NORMAS!

Regulation!

(generic)!

Reference!to!any!

law,!bylaw,!

administrative!

guideline!or!legal!

document!other!

than!the!SPC!law!

and!bylaws!

When!the!quotation!

refers!to!

administrative!

guidelines!of!the!SPC!

mark!as!

“REGLAMENTO”!

40!FACULTAD!

Conferred!

power!to!an!

administrative!

unit!or!

bureaucratic/p

olitical!position!

Reference!to!any!

legal!power!of!the!

Unit!or!the!

Ministry!of!Public!

Administration!

regarding!the!SPC!

When!the!quotation!

refers!to!legal!powers!

exercised!by!other!

organizations!(esp.!

Ministry!of!Finance).!

In!this!case,!code!

according!to!code!

family!1!

41!TRAMITE!

Administrative!

procedure!

related!to!any!

of!the!

processes!of!

the!SPC!

Reference!to!a!

concrete!formal!

administrative!

procedure!related!

to!HRM!

When!the!quotation!

can!be!linked!to!any!

of!the!subsystems!of!

the!SPC.!In!this!case,!

use!code!family!2!

'

Tag'

Key'

construct/mea

ning'

!' "'

42!CAMBIOREGT

O!

Changes!to!the!

SPC!bylaw!

Reference!to!any!

factual!or!intended!

change!to!the!

bylaws!of!the!SPC!

(2005!or!2007)!

and/or!their!

administrative!

guidelines!

When!the!quotation!


procedures,!

structures!or!

personnel.!In!these!

cases,!then!mark!

“CAMBPERSONA”!or!

“CAMBESTRUCT”!

correspondently!

43! ESTANDAR!Standardizatio

n!

Reference!to!the!

concept!of!

“standard”!and/or!

processes!or!

aspects!of!

standardization!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

APPENDIX!

!

230 !

44! SANCION!Formal!

sanctioning!

Reference!to!any!

form!of!sanction!

applicable!to!any!of!

the!policy!

stakeholders!

(including!those!

enforced!or!applied!

by!the!Unit!or!

Ministry)!

!

!

!

!

!

!

'

'

'

'

'

'

'

'

'

'

'

'

'

'

'

'

'

'

'

'

'

'

'

'

APPENDIX!

!

231 !

Code'family'4'

Information!

45!INFO!

Information!

production/an

alysis!

Reference!to!

activities,!aspects!

of!processes!

related!to!

obtaining,!

processing!and/or!

analyzing!

operative!data!of!

the!SPC!system,!or!

when!the!RHnet!

platform!is!

mentioned!

!

NB.!Make!note!as!

“RHNET”!as!

appropriate!

When!the!quotation!

refers!to!planning!or!

to!any!of!the!

following!processes:!

a)!Registry!of!

bureaucratic!

structures!

b)!Registry!of!

personnel!data!

c)!RUSP!

d)!Creation/!

suppression!of!

positions!of!the!SPC!

system.!

In!these!cases!refer!

as!“PLANEACION”!

46!DESCONOCE!

Lack!of!

knowledge!

regarding!any!

aspect!of!the!

SPC!

Quotations!that!

refer!to!situations!

when!an!actor!or!a!

number!of!actors!

do!not!know!or!are!

not!familiar!with!

regulation,!

procedures!or!

aspects!related!to!

the!SPC!

!

47!FLUJO! Data!flows!

Reference!to!the!

existence!of!a!

formal!relation!

between!actors,!

primarily!

characterized!by!

data!exchange,!esp.!

between!UHRP!and!

agencies/ministrie

s!

When!the!quotation!

refers!to!generic!

activities!of!

obtaining,!processing!

and/or!analyzing!

operative!data!of!the!

SPC!system,!or!when!

the!RHnet!platform!is!

mentioned.!In!this!

case!refer!as!“INFO”!

'

'

'

'

'

'

'

'

'

'

APPENDIX!

!

232 !

Code'family'5'

Strategy!and!integration!

48!OBEDECE! Compliance!

Reference!to!

situations!in!which!

stakeholders!

comply!with!the!

goals!and!program!

of!the!SPC!!

!

49!NOOBEDECE!

Lack!of!

compliance!

Reference!to!


stakeholders!do!

not!comply!with!

the!goals!and!

program!of!the!SPC!

!

50!FORTALEZA! Strength!

Reference!to!

aspects,!processes!

or!events,!internal!

to!the!Unit!or!the!

SPC!system,!that!are!

perceived!as!

advantageous!

(currently!or!in!the!

past)!for!the!

implementation!of!

the!SPC!

When!the!quotation!

refers!to!aspects,!

processes!or!events,!

external!to!the!Unit!

or!the!SPC!system!that!

are!perceived!as!

advantageous.!In!this!

case!code!as!

“OPORTUNIDAD”!

51!OPORTUNIDA

D!Opportunity!

Reference!to!

aspects,!processes!

or!events,!external!

to!the!Unit!or!the!


perceived!as!

advantageous!


past)!for!the!

implementation!of!

the!SPC!

When!the!quotation!

refers!to!aspects,!


internal!to!the!Unit!or!

the!SPC!system!that!

are!perceived!as!

advantageous.!In!this!

case!code!as!

“FORTALEZA”!

52! DEBILIDAD! Weakness!

Reference!to!

aspects,!processes!

or!events,!internal!

to!the!Unit!or!the!


perceived!as!

disadvantageous!


past)!for!the!

implementation!of!

the!SPC!

When!the!quotation!

refers!to!aspects,!



or!the!SPC!system!that!

are!perceived!as!

disadvantageous.!In!

this!case!code!as!

“AMENAZA”!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

! !

APPENDIX!

!

233 !

53! AMENAZA! Threat!

Reference!to!

aspects,!processes!

or!events,!external!

to!the!Unit!or!the!


perceived!as!

disadvantageous!


past)!for!the!

implementation!of!

the!SPC!

When!the!quotation!

refers!to!aspects,!


internal!to!the!Unit!or!

the!SPC!system!that!

are!perceived!as!

disadvantageous.!In!

this!case!code!as!

“DEBILIDAD”!

!

54! PROFESIONAL!Professionaliza

tion!

Reference!to!the!

concept!of!

“professionalizatio

n”!or!to!processes!

that!are!

characterized!as!

“professionalizing”!

public!employees!

!

55! CAPACIDAD! Competencies!

Reference!to!

generic!processes!

of!training!that!

cannot!be!linked!to!

the!SPC!system,!or!

when!the!quotation!

refers!to!the!

concept!of!

“competencies”!

Explicit!reference!to!

training!or!to!

competence!

certification!

procedures!of!the!SPC.!

In!these!cases,!refer!

as!“CAPACITACION”!

56! RESTRINGE! Restrictions!

Reference!to!any!

aspect!(internal!or!


and/or!the!SPC)!

that!is!perceived!as!

a!restriction!

(technical,!cultural,!

legal,!etc.)!

!

57!COMUNICACIO

N!

Communicatio

n!

Reference!to!any!

internal!or!external!

process!of!

communication,!

including!

“positioning”!

activities,!

“promotion!of!SPC”!

and!“consultations”!

When!the!quotation!

refers!to!exchange!of!

information,!refer!

instead!as!“INFO”!

!

When!the!quotation!

implies!negotiation,!

refer!as!“NEGOCIAR”!

58! FLEXIBLE! Flexibilization!

Reference!to!the!

concept!of!

“flexibility”!and/or!

processes!or!

aspects!of!

flexibilization!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

! !

APPENDIX!

!

234 !

59! TIMING! Timing!

Reference!to!the!

timing!of!a!

concrete!action!or!

event,!provided!

that!it!is!perceived!

as!relevant!for!the!

implementation!of!

the!SPC!

When!the!quotation!

only!refers!to!dates!

or!the!importance!of!

timing!cannot!be!

inferred!from!the!text!

60!CAMBPROCES

O!

Procedural!

change!

Reference!to!any!

change!(intentional!

or!not)!to!a!

procedure!of!the!

SPC!system!or!to!

internal!

procedures!of!the!

Unit!

When!the!quotation!

refers!to!changes!to!

the!bylaw!or!to!

administrative!

guidelines.!In!these!

cases,!refer!as!

“CAMBIOREGTO”!

61!CAMBPERSON

A!Staff!change!

Reference!to!any!

change!that!

involves!the!

changing!the!

composition!of!

personnel!within!

the!Unit,!or!

persons!changing!

positions!(internal!

and!external!to!the!

Unit)!

!

62!CAMBESTRUC

T!

Structural!

change!

Reference!to!any!

change!(intentional!

or!not)!to!the!

structure!of!the!

Unit,!the!Ministry!

or!any!of!the!

organizations!

involved!in!the!SPC!

system!

When!the!quotation!


structure!that!

implied!changes!in!

staff,!then!mark!both!

as!“CAMBPERSONA”!and!

“CAMBESTRUCT”!

63! DISENOSPC! Policy!design!

Generic!references!

to!how!the!SPC!

policy!(or!any!of!its!

components)!was!

designed!

When!the!quotation!

refers!to!the!law!or!

the!bylaw,!then!use!

instead!codes!in!code!

family!3!

64! LOGRO! Achievement!

References!to!any!

kind!of!

achievement!by!the!

SPC!system!or!the!

UHRP!

In!case!quotation!

refers!to!an!

accomplishment!that!

damages!the!SPC,!then!

code!as!“AMENAZA”!

65! COORDINA! Coordination!

Reference!to!


stakeholders!(esp.!

agencies!or!

ministries)!

coordinate!with!the!

UHRP,!SPC!

components!or!

among!themselves!

!

APPENDIX!

!

235 !

66! NOCOORDINA!Lack!of!

coordination!

Reference!to!


stakeholders!(esp.!

agencies!or!

ministries)!

coordinate!with!the!

UHRP,!SPC!

components!or!

among!themselves!

!

67! DESCENTRAL!Decentralizatio

n!

References!to!

“decentralization”,!

“devolution”!or!

equivalent!

!

!

!

Code!family!6!

Norms!and!informal!power!

68!NEGOCIAR! Negotiation!

Reference!to!any!of!

the!following!

activities:!

a)!Negotiations!

within!the!Unit,!

b)!Negotiations!

within!the!Ministry!

concerning!aspects!

of!the!SPC!or!human!

resources!policy!

c)!Negotiations!

between!the!Unit!

and!CAOs,!directors,!

or!agencies!

d)!Negotiations!in!

Congress!

e)!Negotiations!

involving!any!of!

the!actors!related!

to!the!SPC!

When!the!quotation!

refers!to!

“positioning”!

activities,!“promotion!

of!SPC”!and!

“consultations”.!In!

these!cases,!code!as!

“COMUNICACION”!

69! TRADICION!Traditions/Nor

ms!

Reference!to!the!

concept!of!

“tradition”!or!to!

informal!norms!

related!to!the!

implementation!of!

the!SPC!

!

70! LIDER! Leadership!

Reference!to!the!

concepts!of!

“leader”,!

“leadership”!!

!

!

! !

!

!

!

!

!

!

APPENDIX!

!

236 !

71! PODER! Power!

Reference!to!the!

concept!of!“power”!

or!references!to!the!

capacity!of!

stakeholders!to!

affect!SPC!

implementation!

!

72! CONFIANZA! Loyalty!

Reference!to!

situations!related!

to!“cronyism”!or!

“loyalty”!among!

actors!or!groups!of!

actors!

When!the!quotation!

refers!to!“building!

trust”!code!instead!as!

“CREDIBILIDAD”!!

73!CREDIBILIDA

D!

Credibility!and!

trust!

Reference!to!the!

concepts!or!

situations!

involving!“trust”!

and/or!

“credibility”;!

attempts!

(successful!or!not)!

to!be!trustworthy,!

or!activities!

intended!to!

increase!reliability!

and!credibility!

!

74! CONFLICTO! Conflict!

References!to!

conflicts!between!

stakeholders!(mark!

stakeholders),!esp.!

between!agencies!

and!UHRP!

!

!

!

!

!

!

ICS Dissertation series !

!

!

!

!

!

!

The! ICS! series!presents!dissertations!of! the! Interuniversity!Cen<

ter! for! Social! Science! Theory! and! Methodology.! Each! of! these!

studies! aims! at! integrating! explicit! theory! formation! with!

state<of<the<art!empirical!research!or!at! the!development!of!ad<

vanced!methods! for!empirical! research.!The! ICS!was! founded! in!

1986!as!a!cooperative!effort!of!the!universities!of!Groningen!and!

Utrecht.!Since!1992,!the!ICS!expanded!to!the!University!of!Nijme<

gen.!Most! of! the! projects! are! financed! by! the! participating! uni<

versities! or! by! the! Netherlands! Organization! for! Scientific! Re<

search!(NWO).!The! international!composition!of! the! ICS!graduate!

students! is!mirrored! in! the! increasing! international! orientation!

of!the!projects!and!thus!of!the!ICS!series!itself.!

!

1)! ! C.! van! Liere! (1990).! Lastige' leerlingen.' Een' empirisch' on@

derzoek'naar' sociale' oorzaken' van'probleemgedrag'op'ba@

sisscholen.!Amsterdam:!Thesis!Publishers.!

2)! ! Marco! H.D.! van! Leeuwen! (1990).! Bijstand' in' Amsterdam,'

ca.' 1800@1850.' Armenzorg' als' beheersings@' en' overlevings@

strategie.!ICS!dissertation,!Utrecht.!

3)! ! I.!Maas!(1990).!Deelname'aan'podiumkunsten'via'de'podia,'

de'media' en' actieve' beoefening.' Substitutie' of' leereffecten?!

Amsterdam:!Thesis!Publishers.!

4)! ! M.I.!Broese!van!Groenou!(1991).!Gescheiden'netwerken.'De'

relaties' met' vrienden' en' verwanten' na' echtscheiding.! Am<

sterdam:!Thesis!Publishers.!

5)! ! Jan! M.M.! van! den! Bos! (1991).! Dutch' EC' Policy' Making.' A'

model@guided' approach' to' coordination' and' negotiation.!

ICS!DISSERTATIONS!

!

238 !


6)! ! Karin! Sanders! (1991).! Vrouwelijke' pioniers.' Vrouwen' en'

mannen'met'een'“mannelijke”'hogere'beroepsopleiding'aan'

het'begin'van'hun'loopbaan.!Amsterdam:!Thesis!Publishers.!

7)! ! Sjerp!de!Vries! (1991).!Egoism,' altruism,' and' social' justice.'

Theory'and'experiments'on'cooperation'in'social'dilemmas.!

Amsterdam:!Thesis!Publishers.!!

8)! ! Ronald!S.!Batenburg!(1991).!Automatisering'in'bedrijf.!Am<


9)! ! Rudi! Wielers! (1991).! Selectie' en' allocatie' op' de' arbeids@

markt.' Een' uitwerking' voor' de' informele' en' geïnstitu@

tionaliseerde'kinderopvang.!Amsterdam:!Thesis!Publishers.!

10)!! Gert!P.!Westert!(1991).!Verschillen'in'ziekenhuisgebruik.!ICS!

dissertation,!Groningen.!

11)!! Hanneke! Hermsen! (1992).! Votes' and' policy' preferences.'

Equilibria'in'party'systems.!Amsterdam:!Thesis!Publishers.!

12)!! Cora! J.M.!Maas! (1992).!Probleemleerlingen' in' het' basison@

derwijs.!Amsterdam:!Thesis!Publishers.!

13)!! Ed!A.W.!Boxman! (1992).!Contacten' en' carrière.' Een' empi@

risch@theoretisch' onderzoek' naar' de' relatie' tussen' sociale'

netwerken'en'arbeidsmarktposities.!Amsterdam:!Thesis!Pu<

blishers.!

14)!! Conny!G.J.!Taes! (1992).!Kijken'naar'banen.'Een'onderzoek'

naar'de'inschatting'van'arbeidsmarktkansen'bij'schoolverla@

ters'uit'het'middelbaar'beroepsonderwijs.!Amsterdam:!The<

sis!Publishers.!

15)!! Peter! van! Roozendaal! (1992).! Cabinets' in' multi@party' de@

mocracies.' The' effect' of' dominant' and' central' parties' on'

cabinet'composition'and'durability.!Amsterdam:!Thesis!Pu<

blishers.!

16)!! Marcel!van!Dam!(1992).!Regio' zonder' regie.'Verschillen' in'

en' effectiviteit' van' gemeentelijk' arbeidsmarktbeleid.! Am<


17)!! Tanja!van!der!Lippe! (1993).!Arbeidsverdeling' tussen'man@

nen'en'vrouwen.!Amsterdam:!Thesis!Publishers.!

ICS!DISSERTATIONS!

!

239 !

18)!! Marc! A.! Jacobs! (1993).! Software:' kopen' of' kopiëren?' Een'

sociaal@wetenschappelijk' onderzoek' onder' PC@gebruikers.!


19)!! Peter!van!der!Meer!(1993).!Verdringing'op'de'Nederlandse'

arbeidsmarkt.'Sector@'en'sekseverschillen.!Amsterdam:!The<

sis!Publishers.!

20)!! Gerbert!Kraaykamp!(1993).!Over'lezen'gesproken.'Een'stu@

die' naar' sociale' differentiatie' in' leesgedrag.! Amsterdam:!

Thesis!Publishers.!

21)!! Evelien!Zeggelink!(1993).!Strangers'into'friends.'The'evolu@

tion' of' friendship' networks' using' an' individual' oriented'

modeling'approach.!Amsterdam:!Thesis!Publishers.!

22)!! Jaco! Berveling! (1994).! Het' stempel' op' de' besluitvorming.'

Macht,' invloed'en'besluitvorming'op'twee'Amsterdamse'be@

leidsterreinen.!Amsterdam:!Thesis!Publishers.!

23)!! Wim!Bernasco!(1994).!Coupled'careers.'The'effects'of'spou@

se's'resources'on'success'at'work.!Amsterdam:!Thesis!Pub<

lishers.!

24)!! Liset!van!Dijk!(1994).!Choices'in'child'care.'The'distribution'

of'child'care'among'mothers,'fathers'and'non@parental'care'

providers.!Amsterdam:!Thesis!Publishers.!

25)!! Jos! de! Haan! (1994).! Research' groups' in' Dutch' sociology.!


26)!! K.! Boahene! (1995).! Innovation' adoption' as' a' so@

cio@economic'process.'The'case'of'the'Ghanaian'cocoa'indus@

try.!Amsterdam:!Thesis!Publishers.!

27)! Paul! E.M.! Ligthart! (1995).! Solidarity' in' economic' transac@

tions.'An'experimental'study'of'framing'effects'in'bargaining'

and'contracting.!Amsterdam:!Thesis!Publishers.!

28)! Roger! Th.! A.J.! Leenders! (1995).! Structure' and' influence.'

Statistical'models' for' the'dynamics'of'actor'attributes,'net@

work' structure,' and' their' interdependence.! Amsterdam:!

Thesis!Publishers.!

29)! Beate!Völker!(1995).!Should'auld'acquaintance'be'forgot...?'

Institutions'of'communism,'the'transition'to'capitalism'and'

ICS!DISSERTATIONS!

!

240 !

personal' networks:' the' case' of' East' Germany.! Amsterdam:!

Thesis!Publishers.!

30)! A.! Cancrinus<Matthijsse! (1995).! Tussen' hulpverlening' en'

ondernemerschap.' Beroepsuitoefening' en' taakopvattingen'

van'openbare'apothekers' in'een'aantal'West@Europese' lan@

den.!Amsterdam:!Thesis!Publishers.!

31)! Nardi!Steverink!(1996).!Zo' lang'mogelijk'zelfstandig.'Naar'

een'verklaring'van'verschillen'in'oriëntatie'ten'aanzien'van'

opname' in' een' verzorgingstehuis' onder' fysiek' kwetsbare'

ouderen.!Amsterdam:!Thesis!Publishers.!

32)! Ellen! Lindeman! (1996).! Participatie' in' vrijwilligerswerk.!


33)! Chris!Snijders!(1996).!Trust'and'commitments.!Amsterdam:!

Thesis!Publishers.!

34)! Koos! Postma! (1996).! Changing' prejudice' in' Hungary.' A'

study' on' the' collapse' of' state' socialism' and' its' impact' on'

prejudice'against'gypsies'and'Jews.!Amsterdam:!Thesis!Pu<

blishers.!

35)! Jooske!T.!van!Busschbach!(1996).!Uit'het'oog,'uit'het'hart?'

Stabiliteit' en' verandering' in' persoonlijke' relaties.! Amster<

dam:!Thesis!Publishers.!

36)! René!Torenvlied!(1996).!Besluiten' in'uitvoering.'Theorieën'

over' beleidsuitvoering' modelmatig' getoetst' op' sociale' ver@

nieuwing'in'drie'gemeenten.!Amsterdam:!Thesis!Publishers.!

37)! Andreas! Flache! (1996).! The' double' edge' of' networks.' An'

analysis'of'the'effect'of'informal'networks'on'cooperation'in'

social'dilemmas.!Amsterdam:!Thesis!Publishers.!

38)! Kees! van! Veen! (1997).! Inside' an' internal' labor' market:'

Formal'rules,'flexibility'and'career'lines'in'a'Dutch'manufac@

turing'company.!Amsterdam:!Thesis!Publishers.!

39)! Lucienne! van! Eijk! (1997).! Activity' and' well@being' in' the'

elderly.!Amsterdam:!Thesis!Publishers.!

40)! Róbert! Gál! (1997).! Unreliability.' Contract' discipline' and'

contract' governance' under' economic' transition.! Amster<


ICS!DISSERTATIONS!

!

241 !

41)! Anne<Geerte! van! de!Goor! (1997).!Effects' of' Regulation' on'

Disability'Duration.!ICS!dissertation,!Utrecht.!

42)! Boris!Blumberg!(1997).!Das'Management'von'Technologie@

kooperationen.'Partnersuche'und'Verhand@' lungen'mit'dem'

Partner'aus'Empirisch@Theoretischer'Perspektive.!ICS!disser<

tation,!Utrecht.!!

43)! Marijke!von!Bergh!(1997).!Loopbanen'van'oudere'werkne@

mers.!Amsterdam:!Thesis!Publishers.!

44)! Anna! Petra! Nieboer! (1997).! Life@events' and' well@being:' A'

prospective'study'on'changes'in'well@being'of'elderly'people'

due'to'a'serious'illness'event'or'death'of'the'spouse.!Amster<


45)! Jacques!Niehof! (1997).!Resources' and' social' reproduction:'

The'effects'of'cultural'and'material'resources'on'educational'

and'occupational'careers'in'industrial'nations'at'the'end'of'

the'twentieth'century.!ICS!dissertation,!Nijmegen.!!

46)! Ariana!Need!(1997).!The'Kindred'Vote.'Individual'and'fami@

ly' effects'of' social' class'and' religion'on'electoral' change' in'

the'Netherlands,'1956@1994.!ICS!dissertation,!Nijmegen.!

47)! Jim!Allen!(1997).!Sector'composition'and'the'effect'of'edu@

cation'on'wages:'an'international'comparison.!Amsterdam:!

Thesis!Publishers.!

48)! Jack!B.F.!Hutten!(1998).!Workload'and'provision'of'care' in'

general'practice.'An'empirical'study'of'the'relation'between'

workload' of' Dutch' general' practitioners' and' the' content'

and'quality'of'their'care.!ICS!dissertation,!Utrecht.!

49)! Per! B.! Kropp! (1998).! Berufserfolg' im' Transformation@

sprozeß.'Eine'theoretisch@empirische'Studie'über'die'Gewin@

ner'und'Verlierer'der'Wende'in'Ostdeutschland.!ICS!disserta<

tion,!Utrecht.!

50)! Maarten! H.J.!Wolbers! (1998).!Diploma@inflatie' en' verdrin@

ging'op'de'arbeidsmarkt.'Een'studie'naar'ontwikkelingen'in'

de'opbrengsten'van'diploma's'in'Nederland.!ICS!dissertation,!

Nijmegen.!

!

ICS!DISSERTATIONS!

!

242 !

51)! Wilma!Smeenk!(1998).!Opportunity'and'marriage.'The'im@

pact'of'individual'resources'and'marriage'market'structure'

on' first'marriage' timing'and'partner' choice' in' the'Nether@

lands.!ICS!dissertation,!Nijmegen.!

52)! Marinus! Spreen! (1999).!Sampling' personal' network' struc@

tures:' Statistical' inference' in' ego@graphs.' ICS! dissertation,!

Groningen.!

53)! Vincent!Buskens!(1999).!Social'networks'and'trust.! ICS!dis<

sertation,!Utrecht.!

54)! Susanne! Rijken! (1999).! Educational' expansion' and' status'

attainment.'A' cross@national'and'over@time'comparison.! ICS!

dissertation,!Utrecht.!

55)! Mérove! Gijsberts! (1999).!The' legitimation' of' inequality' in'

state@socialist'and'market'societies,'1987@1996.!ICS!disserta<

tion,!Utrecht.!

56)! Gerhard!G.!Van!de!Bunt!(1999).'Friends'by'choice.'An'actor@

oriented' statistical' network' model' for' friendship' networks'

through'time.!ICS!dissertation,!Groningen.!

57)! Robert! Thomson! (1999).! The' party' mandate:' Election'

pledges' and' government' actions' in' the' Netherlands,'

1986@1998.!Amsterdam:!Thela!Thesis.!

58)! Corine!Baarda! (1999).!Politieke'besluiten'en'boeren'beslis@

singen.'Het'draagvlak' van'het'mestbeleid' tot'2000.! ICS!dis<

sertation,!Groningen.!

59)! !Rafael!Wittek! (1999).! Interdependence' and' informal' con@

trol'in'organizations.!ICS!dissertation,!Groningen.!

60)! !Diane!Payne!(1999).'Policy'making'in'the'European'Union:'

An' analysis' of' the' impact' of' the' reform' of' the' structural'

funds'in'Ireland.!ICS!dissertation,!Groningen.!

61)! René!Veenstra!(1999).!Leerlingen'@'Klassen'@'Scholen.'Pres@

taties' en' vorderingen' van' leerlingen' in' het' voortgezet' on@

derwijs.'Amsterdam,!Thela!Thesis.!

62)! Marjolein! Achterkamp! (1999).! Influence' strategies' in' col@

lective'decision'making.'A'comparison'of'two'models.'ICS!dis<


ICS!DISSERTATIONS!

!

243 !

63)! Peter! Mühlau! (2000).! The' governance' of' the' employment'

relation.'A'relational'signaling'perspective.! ICS!dissertation,!

Groningen.!

64)! Agnes! Akkerman! (2000).! Verdeelde' vakbeweging' en' sta@

kingen.'Concurrentie'om'leden.!ICS!dissertation,!Gro<ningen.!

65)! !Sandra! van! Thiel! (2000).! Quangocratization:' Trends,'

causes'and'consequences.'ICS!dissertation,!Utrecht.!

66)! Rudi!Turksema!(2000).!Supply'of'day'care.!ICS!dissertation,!

Utrecht.!

67)! Sylvia!E.!Korupp!(2000).'Mothers'and' the'process'of' social'

stratification.!ICS!dissertation,!Utrecht.!

68)! Bernard!A.!Nijstad!(2000).!How'the'group'affects'the'mind:'

Effects'of'communication'in'idea'generating'groups.!ICS!dis<


69)! Inge! F.! de! Wolf! (2000).! Opleidingsspecialisatie' en' arbeids@

marktsucces' van' sociale' wetenschappers.! ICS! dissertation,!

Utrecht.!

70)!! Jan! Kratzer! (2001).! Communication' and' performance:' An'

empirical' study' in' innovation' teams.! ICS! dissertation,! Gro<

ningen.!

71)!! Madelon!Kroneman!(2001).!Healthcare'systems'and'hospi@

tal'bed'use.!ICS/NIVEL!dissertation,!Utrecht.!

72)!! Herman!van!de!Werfhorst!(2001).!Field'of'study'and'social'

inequality.'Four'types'of'educational'resources'in'the'process'

of' stratification' in' the'Netherlands.! ICS!dissertation,!Nijme<

gen.!

73)!! Tamás!Bartus! (2001).!Social' capital' and'earnings' inequal@

ties.'The'role'of'informal'job'search'in'Hungary.!ICS!disserta<

tion,!Groningen.!

74)! Hester! Moerbeek! (2001).! Friends' and' foes' in' the' occupa@

tional'career.'The'influence'of'sweet'and'sour'social'capital'

on'the'labour'market.!ICS!dissertation,!Nijmegen.!

75)!! Marcel! van! Assen! (2001).! Essays' on' actor' perspectives' in'

exchange' networks' and' social' dilemmas.' ICS! dissertation,!

Groningen.!

76)!! Inge!Sieben!(2001).!Sibling'similarities'and'social'stratifica@

ICS!DISSERTATIONS!

!

244 !

tion.'The'impact'of'family'background'across'countries'and'

cohorts.!ICS!dissertation,!Nijmegen.!

77)!! Alinda!van!Bruggen!(2001).!Individual'production'of'social'

well@being.' An' exploratory' study.! ICS! dissertation,!Groning<

en.!

78)!! Marcel!Coenders!(2001).!Nationalistic'attitudes'and'ethnic'

exclusionism' in' a' comparative' perspective:' An' empirical'

study'of'attitudes'toward'the'country'and'ethnic'immigrants'

in'22'countries.!ICS!dissertation,!Nijmegen.!

79)!! Marcel! Lubbers! (2001).!Exclusionistic' electorates.' Extreme'

right@wing' voting' in'Western' Europe.! ICS! dissertation,! Nij<

megen.!

80)!! Uwe! Matzat! (2001).! Social' networks' and' cooperation' in'

electronic' communities.' A' theoretical@empirical' analysis' of'

academic'communication'and'internet'discussion'groups.!ICS!


81)!! Jacques! P.G.! Janssen! (2002).!Do' opposites' attract' divorce?'

Dimensions'of'mixed'marriage'and'the'risk'of'divorce'in'the'

Netherlands,'ICS!dissertation,!Nijmegen.!

82)! Miranda! Jansen! (2002).! Waardenoriëntaties' en' partner@

relaties.'Een'panelstudie'naar'wederzijdse'invloeden,!ICS!dis<


83)!! Anne! Rigt! Poortman! (2002).! Socioeconomic' causes' and'

consequences'of'divorce.!ICS!dissertation,!Utrecht.!

84)!! Alexander!Gattig!(2002).!Intertemporal'decision'making,!ICS!


85)!! Gerrit! Rooks! (2002).!Contract' en' conflict:' Strategisch'ma@

nagement'van'inkooptransacties,'ICS!dissertation,!Utrecht.!

86)!! Károly!Takács!(2002).!Social'networks'and'intergroup'con@

flict.!ICS!dissertation,!Groningen.!

87)!! Thomas! Gautschi! (2002).! Trust' and' exchang.' Effects' of'

temporal' embeddedness' and' network' embeddedness' on'

providing'and'dividing'a'surplus.!ICS!dissertation,!Utrecht.!

88)!! Hilde!Bras!(2002).!Zeeuwse'meiden.'Dienen'in'de'levensloop'

van'vrouwen,' ca.'1850–1950.!Aksant!Academic!Publishers,!

Amsterdam.!

!

ICS!DISSERTATIONS!

!

245 !

89)!! Merijn! Rengers! (2002).! Economic' lives' of' artists.' Studies'

into'careers'and'the'labour'market'in'the'cultural'sector.!ICS!


90)!! Annelies!Kassenberg! (2002).!Wat' scholieren'bindt.' Sociale'

gemeenschap'in'scholen.!ICS!dissertation,!Groningen!

91)!! Marc!Verboord!(2003).!Moet'de'meester'dalen'of'de'leerling'

klimmen?' De' invloed' van' literatuuronderwijs' en' ouders' op'

het' lezen'van'boeken'tussen'1975'en'2000.! ICS!dissertation,!

Utrecht.!

92)!! Marcel! van! Egmond! (2003).!Rain'falls' on'all' of'us' (but'so@

me'manage' to'get'more'wet' than'others):' Political'context'

and'electoral'participation.!ICS!dissertation,!Nijmegen.!

93)!! Justine!Horgan!(2003).!High'Performance'Human'Resource'

Management'in'Ireland'and'the'Netherlands:''Adoption'and'

Effectiveness.!ICS!dissertation,!Groningen.!

94)!! Corine!Hoeben!(2003).!Let's'be'a'community.'Community'in'

local'exchange'trading'systems.!ICS!dissertation,!Groningen.!

95)!! Christian! Steglich! (2003).! The' framing' of' decision' situa@

tions.'Automatic'goal'selection'and'rational'goal'pursuit.!ICS!


96)! Johan!van!Wilsem!(2003).!Crime'and'context.'The'impact'of'

individual,' neighbourhood,' city' and' country' characteristics'

on'victimization.!ICS!dissertation,!Nijmegen.!

97)!! Christiaan! Monden! (2003).! Education,' inequality' and'

health.'The' impact'of'partners'and' life'course.! ICS!disserta<

tion,!Nijmegen.!

98)!! Evelyn! Hello! (2003).! Educational' attainment' and' ethnic'

attitudes.'How'to'explain'their'relationship.!ICS!dissertation,!

Nijmegen.!

99)!! Marnix! Croes! en! Peter! Tammes! (2004).!Gif' laten' wij' niet'

voortbestaan.'Een'onderzoek'naar'de'overlevingskansen'van'

joden' in' de' Nederlandse' gemeenten,' 1940@1945.! Aksant!

Academic!Publishers,!Amsterdam.!

100)! Ineke!Nagel!(2004).!Cultuurdeelname'in'de'levensloop.!ICS<!


101)!!Marieke!van!der!Wal!(2004).!Competencies'to'participate'in'

life.'measurement'and'the'impact'of'school.!ICS!dissertation,!

ICS!DISSERTATIONS!

!

246 !

Groningen.!

102)! Vivian!Meertens! (2004).!Depressive' symptoms' in' the' gen@

eral'population:'a'multifactorial'social'approach.!ICS!disser<

tation,!Nijmegen.!!

103)! Hanneke!Schuurmans!(2004).!Promoting'well@being'in'frail'

elderly' people.' Theory' and' intervention.! ICS! dissertation,!

Groningen.!

104)! Javier! Arregui! (2004).! Negotiation' in' legislative' decision@

making'in'the'European'Union.!ICS!dissertation,!Groningen.!

105)! Tamar! Fischer! (2004).! Parental' divorce,' conflict' and' re@

sources.'The'effects'on'children’s'behaviour'problems,'socio@

economic' attainment,' and' transitions' in' the' demographic'

career.!ICS!dissertation,!!Nijmegen.!

106)! René!Bekkers!(2004).!Giving'and'volunteering'in'the'Neth@

erlands:'Sociological'and'psychological'perspectives.'ICS!dis<


107)!Renée!van!der!Hulst!(2004).!Gender'differences'in'workplace'

authority:'An'empirical'study'on'social'networks.''ICS!disser<

tation,!Groningen.!

108)!Rita!Smaniotto! (2004).! “You' scratch'my'back'and' i' scratch'

yours”'versus' “Love' thy'neighbour”.'Two'proximate'mecha@

nisms'of'reciprocal'altruism.!ICS!dissertation,!Groningen.!

109)! Maurice! Gesthuizen! (2004).! The' life@course' of' the' low@

educated' in' the'Netherlands:' Social'and'economic' risks.' ICS!

dissertation,!Nijmegen.!

110)! Carlijne!Philips!(2005).!Vakantiegemeenschappen.'Kwalita@

tief' en' kwantitatief' onderzoek' naar' gelegenheid' en' re@

freshergemeenschap' tijdens' de' vakantie.! ICS! dissertation,!

Groningen.!

111)!Esther!de!Ruijter!(2005).!Household'outsourcing.!ICS!disser<

tation,!Utrecht.!

112)! Frank!van!Tubergen!(2005).!The'integration'of'immigrants'

in' cross@national' perspective:' Origin,' destination,' and' com@

munity'effects.!ICS!dissertation,!Utrecht.!

113)!Ferry!Koster! (2005).!For' the' time'being.'Accounting' for' in@

conclusive' findings'concerning'the'effects'of' temporary'em@

ployment' relationships' on' solidary' behavior' of' employees.!

ICS!DISSERTATIONS!

!

247 !

ICS!dissertation,!Groningen.!

114)! Carolien!Klein!Haarhuis!(2005).!Promoting'anti@corruption'

reforms.'Evaluating'the'implementation'of'a'World'Bank'an@

ti@corruption' program' in' seven'African' countries' (1999@

2001).!ICS!dissertation,!Utrecht.!

115)!Martin!van!der!Gaag!(2005).!Measurement'of' individual'so@

cial'capital.!ICS!dissertation,!Groningen.!

116)! Johan!Hansen! (2005).!Shaping' careers' of'men'and'women'

in'organizational'contexts.!ICS!dissertation,!Utrecht.!

117)! Davide!Barrera!(2005).!Trust'in'embedded'settings.! ICS!dis<


118)! Mattijs! Lambooij! (2005).! Promoting' cooperation.' Studies'

into'the'effects'of' long@term'and'short@term'rewards'on'co@

operation'of'employees.!ICS!dissertation,!Utrecht.!

119)! Lotte!Vermeij!(2006).!What’s'cooking?'Cultural'boundaries'

among' Dutch' teenagers' of' different' ethnic' origins' in' the'

context'of'school.!ICS!dissertation,!Utrecht.!

120)! Mathilde!Strating! (2006).!Facing' the' challenge'of' rheuma@

toid' arthritis.' A' 13@year' prospective' study' among' patients'

and'cross@sectional'study'among'their'partners.!ICS!disserta<

tion,!Groningen.!

121)! Jannes!de!Vries! (2006).!Measurement'error' in' family'back@

ground' variables:' The' bias' in' the' intergenerational' trans@

mission' of' status,' cultural' consumption,' party' preference,'

and'religiosity.!ICS!dissertation,!Nijmegen.!

122)! Stefan! Thau! (2006).!Workplace' deviance:' Four' studies' on'

employee'motives'and'self@regulation.! ICS!dissertation,!Gro<

ningen.!

123)! Mirjam! Plantinga! (2006).! Employee' motivation' and' em@

ployee'performance'in'child'care.'The'effects'of'the'introduc@

tion' of'market' forces' on' employees' in' the'Dutch' child@care'

sector.!ICS!dissertation,!Groningen.!

124)! Helga!de!Valk!(2006).!Pathways'into'adulthood.'A'compara@

tive' study' on' family' life' transitions' among' migrant' and'

Dutch'youth.!ICS!dissertation,!Utrecht.!

125)! Henrike! Elzen! (2006).! Self@management' for' chronically' ill'

older'people.!ICS!dissertation,!Groningen.!

ICS!DISSERTATIONS!

!

248 !

126)! Ayse! Güveli! (2007).! New' social' classes' within' the' service'

class'in'the'Netherlands'and'Britain.'Adjusting'the'EGP'class'

schema'for'the'technocrats'and'the'social'and'cultural'spe@

cialists.!ICS!dissertation,!Nijmegen.!

127)! Willem<Jan!Verhoeven! (2007).! Income'attainment' in' post@

communist'societies.!ICS!dissertation,!Utrecht.!

128)! Marieke!Voorpostel! (2007).!Sibling' support:'The' exchange'

of' help' among' brothers' and' sisters' in' the' Netherlands.' ICS!


129)! Jacob!Dijkstra!(2007).!The'effects'of'externalities'on'partner'

choice' and' payoffs' in' exchange' networks.! ICS! dissertation,!

Groningen.!

130)! Patricia!van!Echtelt!(2007).!Time@greedy'employment'rela@

tionships:' four' studies' on' the' time' claims' of' post@Fordist'

work.'ICS!dissertation,!Groningen.!

131)! Sonja! Vogt! (2007).!Heterogeneity' in' social' dilemmas:' The'

case'of'social'support.!ICS!dissertation,!Utrecht.!

132)! Michael! Schweinberger! (2007).! Statistical' methods' for'

studying'the'evolution'of'networks'and'behavior.! ICS!disser<

tation,!Groningen.!

133)! István!Back!(2007).!Commitment'and'evolution:'Connecting'

emotion'and'reason'in'long@term'relationships.'ICS!disserta<

tion,!Groningen.!

134)! Ruben! van! Gaalen! (2007).! Solidarity' and' ambivalence' in'

parent@child'relationships.!ICS!dissertation,!Utrecht.!

135)! Jan!Reitsma!(2007).!Religiosity'and'solidarity—Dimensions'

and' relationships' disentangled' and' tested.! ICS! dissertation,!

Nijmegen.!

136)! Jan! Kornelis! Dijkstra! (2007).! Status' and' affection' among'

(pre)adolescents'and'their'relation'with'antisocial'and'pro@

social'behavior.!ICS!dissertation,!Groningen.!

137)! Wouter! van! Gils! (2007).! Full@time' working' couples' in' the'

Netherlands.' Causes' and' consequences.! ICS! dissertation,!

Nijmegen.!

138)! Djamila!Schans!(2007).!Ethnic'diversity'in'intergenerational'

solidarity.!ICS!dissertation,!Utrecht.!

!

ICS!DISSERTATIONS!

!

249 !

139)! Ruud!van!der!Meulen!(2007).!Brug'over'woelig'water:'Lid@

maatschap' van' sportverenigingen,' vriendschappen,' kennis@

senkringen' en' veralgemeend' vertrouwen.! ICS! dis<sertation,!

Nijmegen.!

140)! Andrea! Knecht! (2008).! Friendship' selection' and' friends''

influence.'Dynamics'of'networks'and'actor'attributes'in'ear@

ly'adolescence.'ICS!dissertation,!Utrecht.!

141)! Ingrid!Doorten! (2008).!The' division' of' unpaid'work' in' the'

household:'A'stubborn'pattern?!ICS!dissertation,!Utrecht.!

142)! Stijn! Ruiter! (2008).!Association' in' context' and' association'

as' context:' Causes' and' consequences' of' voluntary' associa@

tion'involvement.!ICS!dissertation,!Nijmegen.!

143)! Janneke!Joly!(2008).!People'on'our'minds:'When'humanized'

contexts'activate'social'norms.!ICS!dissertation,!Groningen.!

144)! Margreet!Frieling!(2008).! ‘Joint'production’'als'motor'voor'

actief'burgerschap'in'de'buurt.!ICS!dissertation,!Groningen.!

145)! Ellen! Verbakel! (2008).' The' partner' as' resource' or' re@

striction?'Labour'market'careers'of'husbands'and'wives'and'

the'consequences'for'inequality'between'couples.! ICS!disser<

tation,!Nijmegen.!

146)! Gijs!van!Houten!(2008).!Beleidsuitvoering'in'gelaagde'stel@

sels.' De' doorwerking' van' aanbevelingen' van' de' Stichting'

van'de'Arbeid'in'het'CAO@overleg.!ICS!dissertation,!Utrecht.!

147)! Eva!Jaspers!(2008).'Intolerance'over'time.'Macro'and'micro'

level'questions'on'attitudes'towards'euthanasia,'homosexu@

ality'and'ethnic'minorities.!ICS!dissertation,!Nijmegen.!

148)! Gijs!Weijters!(2008).!Youth'delinquency'in'Dutch'cities'and'

schools:'A'multilevel'approach.!ICS!dissertation,!Nijmegen.!!

149)!Jessica!Pass!(2009).!The'self'in'social'rejection.! ICS!disserta<

tion,!Groningen.!

150)!Gerald!Mollenhorst!(2009).!Networks'in'contexts.'How'meet@

ing'opportunities'affect'personal'relationships.' ICS!disserta<

tion,!Utrecht.!

151)! Tom!van!der!Meer!(2009).!States'of' freely'associating'citi@

zens:' Comparative' studies' into' the' impact' of' state' institu@

tions'on'social,'civic'and'political'participation.!ICS!disserta<

tion,!Nijmegen.!

ICS!DISSERTATIONS!

!

250 !

152)!Manuela!Vieth!(2009).!Commitments'and'reciprocity'in'trust'

situations.' Experimental' studies' on' obligation,' indignation,'

and'self@consistency.!ICS!dissertation,!Utrecht.!

153)! Rense! Corten! (2009).! Co@evolution' of' social' networks' and'

behavior'in'social'dilemmas:'Theoretical'and'empirical'per@

spectives.!ICS!dissertation,!Utrecht.!

154)! Arieke! J.! Rijken! (2009).! Happy' families,' high' fertility?'

Childbearing'choices'in'the'context'of'family'and'partner're@

lationships.!ICS!dissertation,!Utrecht.!

155)!! Jochem! Tolsma! (2009).!Ethnic' hostility' among' ethnic'ma@

jority'and'minority'groups'in'the'Netherlands.''An'investiga@

tion'into'the'impact'of'social'mobility'experiences,'the'local'

living' environment' and' educational' attainment' on' ethnic'

hostility.!ICS!dissertation,!Nijmegen.!

156)! Freek! Bucx! (2009).! Linked' lives:' Young' adults'' life' course'

and'relations'with'parents.!ICS!dissertation,!Utrecht.!

157)! Philip!Wotschack! (2009).!Household' governance' and' time'

allocation.' Four' studies' on' the' combination' of' work' and'

care.!ICS!dissertation,!Groningen.!

158)! Nienke!Moor!(2009).!Explaining'worldwide'religious'diver@

sity.'The' relationship'between' subsistence' technologies'and'

ideas' about' the' unknown' in' pre@industrial' and'

(post)industrial'societies.!ICS!dissertation,!Nijmegen.!

159)! Lieke! ten! Brummelhuis! (2009).! Family' matters' at' work.'

Depleting'and'enriching'effects'of'employees’'family'lives'on'

work'outcomes.!!ICS!dissertation,!Utrecht.!

160)! Renske!Keizer!(2010).!Remaining'childless.'Causes'and'con@

sequences' from' a' life' course' perspective.! ICS! dissertation,!

Utrecht.!

161)! Miranda! Sentse! (2010).! Bridging' contexts:' The' interplay'

between' family,' child,' and' peers' in' explaining' problem' be@

havior'in'early'adolescence.!ICS!dissertation,!Groningen.!

162)! Nicole! Tieben! (2010).! Transitions,' tracks' and' transfor@

mations.' Social' inequality' in' transitions' into,' through' and'

out' of' secondary' education' in' the' Netherlands' for' cohorts'

born'between'1914'and'1985.!!ICS!dissertation,!Nijmegen.!

!

ICS!DISSERTATIONS!

!

251 !

163)!Birgit!Pauksztat!(2010).!Speaking'up'in'organizations:'Four'

studies'on'employee'voice.!ICS!dissertation,!Groningen.!

164)! Richard!Zijdeman!(2010).!Status'attainment'in'the'Nether@

lands,'1811@1941.'Spatial'and'temporal'variation'before'and'

during'industrialization.!ICS!dissertation,!Utrecht.!

165)! Rianne! Kloosterman! (2010).! Social' background' and' chil@

dren's' educational' careers.' The' primary' and' secondary' ef@

fects'of'social'background'over'transitions'and'over'time'in'

the'Netherlands.!ICS!dissertation,!Nijmegen.!

166)!Olav!Aarts!(2010).!Religious'diversity'and'religious' involve@

ment.'a'study'of'religious'markets'in'Western'societies'at'the'

end'of'the'twentieth'century.!ICS!dissertation,!Nijmegen.!

167)! Stephanie! Wiesmann! (2010).! 24/7' negotiation' in' couples'

transition'to'parenthood.!ICS!dissertation,!Utrecht.!

168)! Borja! Martinovic! (2010).! Interethnic' contacts:' A' dynamic'

analysis' of' interaction' between' immigrants' and' natives' in'

Western'countries.!ICS!dissertation,!Utrecht.!!

169)! Anne!Roeters! (2010).!Family' life' under' pressure?' Parents''

paid'work'and'the'quantity'and'quality'of'parent@child'and'

family'time.!ICS!dissertation,!Utrecht.!

170)! Jelle! Sijtsema! (2010).!Adolescent' aggressive' behavior:' Sta@

tus'and'stimulation'goals'in'relation'to'the'peer'context.'ICS!


171)! Kees!Keizer!(2010).!The'spreading'of'disorder.!ICS!disserta<

tion,!Groningen.!

172)! Michael!Mäs! (2010).!The' diversity' puzzle.' Explaining' clus@

tering'and'polarization'of'opinions.!ICS!dissertation,!Gronin<

gen.!

173)! Marie<Louise!Damen!(2010).!Cultuurdeelname'en'CKV.'Stu@

dies'naar'effecten'van'kunsteducatie'op'de'cultuur@deelname'

van' leerlingen' tijdens' en' na' het' voortgezet' onderwijs.! ICS!


174)! Marieke!van!de!Rakt!(2011).!Two'generations'of'crime:'The'

intergenerational' transmission' of' convictions' over' the' life'

course.!ICS!dissertation,!Nijmegen.!

175)! Willem!Huijnk!(2011).!Family'life'and'ethnic'attitudes.'The'

role' of' the' family' for' attitudes' towards' intermarriage' and'

ICS!DISSERTATIONS!

!

252 !

acculturation'among'minority'and'majority'groups.! ICS!dis<


176)! Tim! Huijts! (2011).! Social' ties' and' health' in' Europe.'

Individual' associations,' cross@national' variations,' and'

contextual'explanations.!ICS!dissertation,!Nijmegen.!

177)! Wouter! Steenbeek! (2011).' Social' and' physical' disorder.'

How'community,'business'presence'and'entrepreneurs'influ@

ence' disorder' in' Dutch' neighborhoods.! ICS! dissertation,!

Utrecht.!

178)! Miranda! Vervoort! (2011).! Living' together' apart?' Ethnic'

concentration' in' the' neighborhood' and' ethnic' minorities’'

social' contacts' and' language' practices.! ICS! dissertation,!

Utrecht.!

179)! Agnieszka!Kanas! (2011).The' economic' performance' of' im@

migrants.'The'role'of'human'and'social'capital.!ICS!disserta<

tion,!Utrecht.!

180)! Lea! Ellwardt! (2011).!Gossip' in' organizations.' A' social' net@

work'study.!ICS!dissertation,!Groningen.!

181)! Annemarije! Oosterwaal! (2011).!The' gap' between' decision'

and' implementation.'Decision'making,'delegation'and'com@

pliance'in'governmental'and'organizational'settings.'ICS!dis<


182)! Natascha!Notten!(2011).!Parents'and'the'media.'Causes'and'

consequences' of' parental' media' socialization.! ICS! disserta<

tion,!Nijmegen.!

183)! Tobias! Stark! (2011).! Integration' in' schools.' A' process' per@

spective'on'students’'interethnic'attitudes'and'interpersonal'

relationships.!ICS!dissertation,!Groningen.!

184)! Giedo!Jansen!(2011).!Social'cleavages'and'political'choices.'

Large@scale' comparisons'of' social' class,' religion'and'voting'

behavior' in' Western' democracies.! ICS! dissertation,! Nijme<

gen.!

185)! Ruud! van! der!Horst! (2011).!Network' effects' on' treatment'

results' in' a' closed' forensic' psychiatric' setting.! ICS! disser<

tation,!Groningen.!

186)! Mark! Levels! (2011).! Abortion' laws' in' European' countries'

between'1960'and'2010.'Legislative'developments'and'their'

ICS!DISSERTATIONS!

!

253 !

consequences'for'women's'reproductive'decision@making.!ICS!


187)! Marieke!van!Londen!(2012).!Exclusion'of'ethnic'minorities'

in'the'Netherlands.'The'effects'of' individual'and'situational'

characteristics'on'opposition'to'ethnic'policy'and'ethnically'

mixed'neighbourhoods.!ICS!dissertation,!Nijmegen.!

188)! Sigrid! M.! Mohnen! (2012).! Neighborhood' context' and'

health:' How' neighborhood' social' capital' affects' individual'

health.'ICS!dissertation,!Utrecht.!

189)! Asya! Zhelyazkova! (2012).! Compliance' under' controversy:'

Analysis' of' the' transposition' of' European' directives' and'

their'provisions.!ICS!dissertation,!Utrecht.!190)! Valeska!Korff!(2012).!Between'cause'and'control:'Manage@

ment' in' a' humanitarian' organization.! ICS! disserta<tion,!

Groningen.!

191)! Maike! Gieling! (2012).! Dealing' with' diversity:' Adolescents''

support'for'civil'liberties'and'immigrant'rights.!ICS!disserta<

tion,!Utrecht.!

192)! Katya! Ivanova! (2012).! From' parents' to' partners:' The' im@

pact'of'family'on'romantic'relationships'in'adolescence'and'

emerging'adulthood.'ICS!dissertation,!Groningen.!

193)! Jelmer!Schalk! (2012).!The'Performance'of'public' corporate'

actors:' Essays' on' effects' of' institutional' and' network'

embeddedness' in' supranational,' national,' and' local'

collaborative'contexts.!ICS!dissertation,!Utrecht.!

194)! Alona!Labun!(2012).!Social'networks'and'informal'power'in'

organizations.!ICS!dissertation,!Groningen.!

195)! Michal! Bojanowski! (2012).! Essays' on' social' network' for@

mation'in'heterogeneous'populations:'Models,'methods,'and'

empirical'analyses.!ICS!dissertation,!Utrecht.!

196)! Anca! Minescu! (2012).! Relative' group' position' and' inter@

group'attitudes'in'Russia.!ICS!dissertation,!Utrecht.!

197)! Marieke!van!Schellen!(2012).!Marriage'and'crime'over'the'

life'course.'The'criminal'careers'of'convicts'and'their'spous@

es.'ICS!dissertation,!Utrecht.!

198)! Mieke!Maliepaard!(2012).!Religious' trends'and'social' inte@

gration:'Muslim'minorities' in' the'Netherlands.! ICS!disserta<

ICS!DISSERTATIONS!

!

254 !

tion,!Utrecht.!

199)! Fransje! Smits! (2012).! Turks' and' Moroccans' in' the' Low'

Countries'around'the'year'2000:'determinants'of'religiosity,'

trend'in'religiosity'and'determinants'of'the'trend.'ICS!disser<

tation,!Nijmegen.!

200)! Roderick! Sluiter! (2012).! The' Diffusion' of' morality' policies'

among'Western' European' countries.' A' comparison' of' tem@

poral'and'spatial'diffusion'patterns'of'six'morality'and'elev@

en'non@morality'policies.'ICS!dissertation,!Nijmegen.!

201)!Nicoletta!Balbo!(2012).!Family,' friends'and'fertility.' ICS!dis<


202)! Anke! Munniksma! (2013).! Crossing' ethnic' boundaries:' Pa@

rental'resistance'to'and'consequences'of'adolescents''cross@

ethnic'peer'relations.!ICS!dissertation,!Groningen.!

203)! Anja! Abendroth! (2013).!Working' women' in' Europe.' How'

the' country,'workplace,' and' family' context'matter.' ICS! dis<


204)!Katia!Begall! (2013).!Occupational'hazard?'The'relationship'

between' working' conditions' and' fertility.' ICS! dissertation,!

Groningen.!

205)! Hidde!Bekhuis! (2013).!The'popularity'of'domestic' cultural'

products:' Cross@national' differences' and' the' relation' to'

globalization.'ICS!dissertation,!Utrecht.!

206)! Lieselotte! Blommaert! (2013).! Are' Joris' and' Renske' more'

employable' than' Rashid' and' Samira?' A' study' on' the'

prevalence' and' sources' of' ethnic' discrimination' in'

recruitment' in' the' Netherlands' using' experimental' and'

survey'data.'ICS!dissertation,!Utrecht.!

207)! Wiebke! Schulz! (2013).! Careers' of' men' and' women' in' the'

19th'and'20th'centuries.!ICS!dissertation,!Utrecht.!

208)! Ozan!Aksoy!(2013).!Essays'on'social'preferences'and'beliefs'

in'non@embedded'social'dilemmas.!ICS!dissertation,!Utrecht.!

209)! Dominik! Morbitzer! (2013).! Limited' farsightedness' in' net@

work'formation.!ICS!dissertation,!Utrecht.!

210)! Thomas! de! Vroome! (2013).!Earning' your' place:' The' rela@

tion'between' immigrants’'economic'and'psychological' inte@

gration'in'the'Netherlands.!ICS!dissertation,!Utrecht.!

ICS!DISSERTATIONS!

!

255 !

211)! Marloes!de!Lange!(2013).!Causes'and'consequences'of'em@

ployment' flexibility' among' young' people.' Recent' develop@

ments' in' the'Netherlands'and'Europe.! ICS!dissertation,!Nij<

megen.!

212)! Roza! Meuleman! (2014).! Consuming' the' Nation.' Domestic'

cultural'consumption:'its'stratification'and!relation'with'na@

tionalist'attitudes.'ICS!dissertation,!Utrecht.!

213)!Esther!Havekes!(2014).!Putting'interethnic'attitudes'in'con@

text.' The' relationship' between' neighbourhood' characteris@

tics,' interethnic'attitudes'and'residential'behaviour.' ICS!dis<

sertation,!Utrecht.'

214)'Zoltán!Lippényi!(2014).!Transitions'toward'an'open'society?'

Intergenerational' occupational' mobility' in' Hungary' in' the'

19th'and'20th'centuries.!ICS'dissertation,!Utrecht.!

215)! Anouk!Smeekes!(2014).'The'presence'of'the'past:'Historical'

rooting'of'national'identity'and'current'group'dynamics.'ICS!


216)' Michael!Savelkoul! (2014).'Ethnic'diversity'and' social' capi@

tal.' Testing' underlying' explanations' derived' from' conflict'

and' contact' theories' in' Europe' and' the' United' States.! ICS!


217)! Martijn! Hogerbrugge! (2014).!Misfortune' and' family:' How'

negative'events,'family'ties,'and'lives'are'linked.!ICS!disserta<

tion,!Utrecht.!

218)! Gina! Potarca! (2014).!Modern' love.' Comparative' insights' in'

online'dating'preferences'and'assortative'mating.!ICS!disser<

tation,!Groningen.!

219)! Mariska! van! der! Horst! (2014).! Gender,' aspirations,' and'

achievements:' Relating' work' and' family' aspirations' to' oc@

cupational'outcomes.'ICS!dissertation,!Utrecht.!!

220)!Gijs!Huitsing!(2014).!A'social'network'perspective'on'bully@

ing.!ICS!dissertation,!Groningen.!

221)!Thomas!Kowalewski! (2015).!Personal' growth' in' organiza@

tional'contexts.!ICS!dissertation,!Groningen.!!!!!

222)! Manu!Muñoz!Herrera!(2015).!The' impact'of' individual'dif@

ferences'on'network'relations:'Social'exclusion'and'inequali@

ICS!DISSERTATIONS!

!

256 !

ty' in'productive' exchange'and' coordination'games.! ICS!dis<


223)! Tim!Immerzeel!(2015).!Voting'for'a'change.'The'democratic'

lure'of'populist' radical' right'parties' in' voting'behavior.! ICS!


224)! Fernando! Nieto! Morales! (2015).! The' control' imperative.'

Studies'on'reorganization' in' the'public'and'private'sectors.!

ICS!dissertation,!Groningen.!

!

!

!

!

About the author !

!

!

!

!

!

!

Fernando! Nieto! Morales! was! born! in! Mexico! City! in! 1984.! He!

holds!a!B.A.!in!Politics!and!Public!Administration!(2007,!El!Cole<

gio!de!México,!Mexico),!and!a!M.Sc.!in!Behavioral!and!Social!Sci<

ences! (2010,! cum! laude;! University! of! Groningen,! the! Nether<

lands).!He! has!worked! as! public!management! consultant! at! the!

Center! for! Research! and! Teaching! in! Economics! (CIDE)! and! as!

external! consultant! for! Civicus! Consultants! in! Mexico! City.! In!

2010! he!was! appointed! a! doctoral! researcher! and! lecturer! and!

worked!until!2014!at!the!ICS!Graduate!School,!University!of!Gro<

ningen.!

!

More!information!on!www.nietomorales.com!

the control imperative final (digital)

Documents