Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

The Bias of Structures: How Multidivisional Organizations Work in the Public Sector

  • Published:
Public Organization Review Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

This paper discusses the unexploited possibilities that organization theory offers for explaining the policy output of public-sector organizations. Although political scientists frequently argue that organization matters, exactly how it matters remains unresolved. To investigate this issue, the concept of the multidivisional organization (M-form) is applied to the public sector. Three dimensions of the M-form are identified for closer inspection: 1) the structure-strategy relationship, 2) the managerial or leadership dimension, and 3) the external-relations dimension. Several empirical examples are used to demonstrate that the M-form exerts an independent impact on policy output. While the M-form allows a single organization to perform multiple functions, it also works against crosscutting policies and is inclined toward clientelism and capture. The use of the M-form concept is beneficial for political science analyses in that it requires paying greater attention to the “internal life” of governmental and public-sector organizations.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Arnold, R., & Whitford, A. B. (2005). Organisational dilemmas of the EPA: why structure matters for environmental protection. Environmental Politics, 14(1), 118–123.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bauer, M. (2008). Organisational change, management reform and EU policy-making. Journal of European Public Policy, 15(5), 627–674.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Beck-Jørgensen, T., Hansen, H. F., Antonsen, M., & Melander, P. (1998). Public organizations, multiple constituencies, and governance. Public Administration, 76(3), 499–518.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bundestag (2001). Entwurf eines Gesetzes über die integrierte Finanzdienstleistungsaufsicht. Drucksache 14/7033. Berlin: Bundestag.

  • Bundestag (2007). Entwurf eines Gesetzes zur Modernisierung der Aufsichtsstruktur der Bundesanstalt für Finanzdienstleistungsaufsicht. Drucksache 16/7078. Berlin: Bundestag.

  • Burton, R. M., & Obel, B. (1998). Organizational diagnosis and design: Developing theory for application. Boston: Kluwer Academic Publications.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Busch, A. (2005). Shock-absorbers under stress: parapublic institutions and the double challenges of German unification and European integration. In S. Green & W. E. Paterson (Eds.), Governance in contemporary Germany. The semi-sovereign state revisited (pp. 94–114). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Chandler, A. (1962). Strategy and structure: chapters in the history of American enterprise. Cambridge: MIT Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Chang, K. H., de Figueiredo, R. J. P., & Weingast, B. R. (2001). Rational choice theories of bureaucratic control and performance. In W. F. Shugart & L. Razzolini (Eds.), The Elgar companion to public choice (pp. 271–292). Cheltenham: Edward Elgar Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Christensen, T., Lægreid, P., Roness, P. G., & Røvik, K. A. (2007). Organization theory and the public sector: Instrument, culture and myth. London: Routledge.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Cohen, D. K., Cuéllar, M.-F., & Weingast, B. R. (2006). Crisis bureaucracy: homeland Security and the political design of legal mandates. Stanford Law Review, 59(1), 653–759.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cooley, A. (2005). Logics of hierarchy: The organization of empires, states, and military occupations. Ithaca: Cornell University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Czada, R. (1992). Der Staat als “wirtschaftender” Akteur. Differenzierung, Autonomisierung und Leistungssteigerung in handlungstheoretischer Perspektive. In H. Abromeit, & U. Jürgens (Eds.), Die politische Logik wirtschaftlichen Handelns (pp. 171–214). Berlin: Berlin: edition sigma.

  • Czarniawska, B., & Sevón, G. (2003). The Northern Lights – Organization Theory in Scandinavia. Copenhagen: Copenhagen Business School Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Denhardt, R. B. (2000). Theories of public organization. Orlando: Harcourt Brace.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dessaux, P.-A., & Mazaud, J. P. (2006). Hybridizing the merging European corporation: Danone, Hachette, and the divisionalization process in France during the 1970s. Enterprises and Society, 7(2), 227–265.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Desveaux, J. A. (1995). Designing bureaucracies: Institutional capacity and large-scale problem solving. Stanford: Stanford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dienel, H.-L. (2007). Das Bundesverkehrsministerium. In O. Schöller, W. Canzler, & A. Knie (Eds.), Handbuch Verkehrspolitik (pp. 200–224). Wiesbaden: VS Verlag.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Dixit, A. (2002). Incentives and organizations in the public sector: an interpretative review. The Journal of Human Resources, 37(4), 696–727.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Egeberg, M. (2003). How bureaucratic structure matters: An organizational perspective. In B. G. Peters & J. Pierre (Eds.), Handbook of Public Administration (pp. 116–126). London: Sage.

  • Egeberg, M., & Lægreid, P. (1999). Organizing political institutions: Essays for Johan P. Oslo: Scandinavian University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Eisner, M. A. (1991). Antitrust and the triumph of economics. Institution, expertise and policy change. Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fligstein, N. (1985). The spread of the multidivisional form among large firms 1919–1979. American Sociological Review, 50(3), 377–391.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gammelsæter, H. (2003). The conceptualization of managerialism in the public sector: coherence and contraction. Paper presented at the 18th EGOS Colloquium, Barcelona, July 4–6, 2002

  • Hammond, T. H. (1990). In defense of Luther Gulick’s ‘notes on the theory of organization. Public Administration, 68(2), 143–173.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hammond, T. H. (1994). Structure, strategy, and the agenda of the firm. In P. Rumelt, D. E. Schendel, & D. J. Teece (Eds.), Fundamental Issues in Strategy: A Research Agenda (pp. 97–154). Boston: Harvard Business School Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hartlapp, M. (2007). Intra-Kommissionsdynamik im Policy-Making: EU-Politiken angesichts des demographischen Wandels. In I. Tömmel (Ed.), Die EU: Governance und Policy-Making (pp. 139–160). Wiesbaden: VS Verlag.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hitt, M. A., Ireland, D. R., & Hoskisson, R. E. (2009). Strategic management: competitiveness and globalization. Ohio: South-Western Cengage Learning.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hoskisson, R. E., Hill, C. W. L., & Kim, H. (1993). The multidivisional structure: organizational fossil or source of value. Journal of Management, 19(2), 269–298.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hustedt, T. (2013). Ministerialverwaltung im Wandel: Struktur und Rolle der Leitungsbereiche im deutsch-dänischen Vergleich: Nomos Verlagsgesellschaft.

  • James, O. (2001). Business models and the transfer of business-like central government agencies. Governance, 14(2), 233–252.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kelman, S. (2007). Public management and organization studies. In J. P. Walsh & A. P. Brief (Eds.), The academy of management annals (Vol. 1, pp. 225–267). New York: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kogut, B., & Parkinson, D. (1998). Adoption of the multidivisional structure: analyzing history from the start. Industrial and Corporate Change, 7(2), 249–273.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • LaPalombara, J. (2001). Power and politics in organizations: Public and private sector comparisons. In M. Dierkes, A. B. Antal, J. Child, & I. Nonaka (Eds.), The handbook of organizational learning and knowledge (pp. 557–581). Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • LaPalombara, J. (2009). The organizational “gap” in political science. In G. King, K. L. Schlozman, & N. Nie (Eds.), The Future of Political Science. 100 Perspectives (pp. 221–223). New York: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lehmbruch, G. (1992). Bedingungen und Grenzen politischer Steuerung im Verkehrssektor. In V. D. Elektrotechniker (Ed.), Politik und Technik in der Verantwortung (pp. 168–193). Frankfurt/Main: VDE.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lehmkuhl, D. (1999). Importance of small differences: European integration and road haulage associations in Germany and the Netherlands. Amsterdam: Thela Thesis.

  • Lindquist, E. (2009). Public administration research and organization theory: Recovering alternative perspectives on public service institutions. In O. P. Dwivedi, T. Mau, & B. Sheldrick (Eds.), The Evolving Physiology of Government. Canadian Public Administration in Transition (pp. 40–71). Ottawa: University of Ottawa Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lorsch, J. W., & Stephen, A. (1973). Managing diversity and interdependence: an organizational study of multidivisional firms. Boston: HBS Division of Research.

    Google Scholar 

  • Magill, E., & Vermeule, A. (2011). Allocating power within agencies. Yale Law Journal, 120(4), 1032–1083.

    Google Scholar 

  • Majone, G. (1997). From the positive to the regulatory state: causes and consequences of changes in the mode of governance. Journal of Public Policy, 17(2), 139–167.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • March, J. (1997). Administrative practice, organization theory and political philosophy: ruminations on the Reflections of John M. Gaus. Political Science and Politics, 30(4), 689–698.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Marcus, A. A. (1991). EPA’s organizational structure. Law and Contemporary Problems, 54(4), 5–40.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mayntz, R., & Scharpf, F. W. (1975). Policy-making in the German federal bureaucracy. Amsterdam: Elsevier.

    Google Scholar 

  • Meier, K. J., & Krause, G. A. (2003). The scientific study of bureaucracy: An overview. In K. J. Meier & G. A. Krause (Eds.), Politics, policy and organizations. Frontiers in the scientific study of bureaucracy (pp. 1–19). Ann Arbor: Michigan University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mintzberg, H. (1979). The structuring of organizations. A synthesis of research. Englewood Cliffs: Prentice-Hall.

    Google Scholar 

  • Moe, T. (1990). The Politics of Structural Choice: Toward a Theory of Public Bureaucracy. In O. E. Williamson (Ed.), In Organization Theory From Chester Barnard to the Present and Beyond (pp. 116–153). New York: Oxford University Press.

  • Moe, T. (1991). Politics and the theory of organization. Journal of Law, Economics and Organization, 7(1), 106–128.

  • Moynihan, D. P., & Soss, J. (2014). Policy feedback and the politics of administration. Public Administration Review, 74(3), 320–332.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Olsen, J. P. (1991). Political science and organization theory. Parallel agendas but mutual disregard. In R. M. Czada, & A. Windhoff-Héritier (Eds.), Political choice: Institutions, rules, and the limits of rationality. Frankfurt/M.: Campus.

  • Olsen, J. P. (2007). Organization theory, public administration, democratic governance. Nordiske Organisasjons Studier, 9(1), 93–110.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ouchi, W. G. (1984). The M-form society: How American teamwork can recapture the competitive edge. MA: Addison-Wesley.

    Google Scholar 

  • Peters, B. G. (1995). The politics of the bureaucracy. Longman: White Plains.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Pfeffer, J. (2006). Like ships passing in the night: the separate literatures of organization theory and public management. International Public Management Journal, 9(4), 457–465.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pollitt, C., & Bouckaert, G. (2004). Public management reform. A comparative analysis. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rainey, H. (1997). Understanding and managing public organizations. San Francisco: Jossey Bass.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schick, A. (2002). Agencies in search of principles. In OECD (Ed.), Distributed public governance: Agencies, authorities and other autonomous bodies. Paris: OECD.

  • Schöller-Schwedes, O. (2010). The failure of integrated transport policy in Germany: a historical perspective. Journal of Transport Geography, 18(1), 85–96.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Selznick, P. (1949). TVA and the grassroots. A study of politics and organization. Berkeley: University of California Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Simon, H. (1946). The proverbs of administration. Public Administration Review, 6(1), 53–67.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Starbuck, W. H. (1983). Organizations as action generators. American Sociological Review, 48(1), 91--102.

  • Stinchcombe, A. L. (1990). Information and Organizations. Berkeley: University of California Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Strikwerda, J., & Stoelhorst, J.-W. (2009). The emergence and evolution of the multidimensional organization. California Management Review, 51(4), 11–31.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tirole, J. (1994). The internal organization of government. Oxford Economic Papers, 46(1), 1–29.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Trondal, J. (2011). Bureaucratic structure and administrative behavior: lessons from international bureaucracies. West European Politics, 34(4), 795–818.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Vestlund, N. M. (2015). Changing policy focus through organizational reform? The case of the pharmaceutical unit in the European Commission. Public Policy and Administration, 30(1), 92–112.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Whitford, A. B. (2006). Unitary, divisional, and matrix forms as political governance systems. Journal of Management Governance, 10(4), 435–454.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wilks, S. (2008). Boardization and corporate governance in the UK as a response to depoliticization und failing accountability. Public Policy and Administration, 22(4), 443–460.

    Google Scholar 

  • Williamson, O. E. (1975). Markets and hierarchies. New York: The Free Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wilson, J. Q. (1989). Bureaucracy. What government agencies do and why they do it. New York: BasicBooks.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Institut für Politische Wissenschaft, Leibniz Universität Hannover, Schneiderberg 50, 30167, Hannover, Germany

    Marian Döhler

Authors
  1. Marian Döhler
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Marian Döhler.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Döhler, M. The Bias of Structures: How Multidivisional Organizations Work in the Public Sector. Public Organiz Rev 17, 83–100 (2017). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11115-015-0329-8

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11115-015-0329-8

Keywords

Search

Navigation