HERDSA 1996: Campion - debates about bureaucracy: Implications for dual mode universities

Contemporary debates about bureaucracy: Implications for dual mode universities

Mick Campion
Sociology Programme
Murdoch University

It is the contention of the paper that through a synthesis of two recent debates a range of contradictions and dilemmas can be brought to the fore. Contradictions and dilemmas which display why we should be ambivalent about the prospects for academic work and for university education.
Over the last few years the distance education and open learning community has been coming to grips with a range of strategic options made available through the application of the conceptual framework related to Fordism, post-Fordism and neo-Fordism. Much more recently a range of issues related to various versions of bureaucracy, post-bureaucracy and neo-bureaucracy have been raised in efforts to undermine or to supplement that perspective.
In this paper I will:

provide a very brief summary of the debate about Fordism and show how this relates to developments in distance education;
articulate the issues raised concerning bureaucracy in the context of this debate;
illustrate why it is timely for us to treat questions concerning bureaucracy as vital for our understanding of the ongoing transformation of the university.
briefly indicate some of the implications of this discussion for the higher education system as a whole given the convergence of the modes which is expected to occur as technological transformations proceed and processes of globalisation in relation to the generation of teaching and learning materials and the provision of services to students proceed.

Why we need to know about the Fordism debate as applied to distance education

It is expected that on- and off-campus modes of university education will converge (Campion and Kelly 1998, 199; Baldwin 1991, 6-7 & 46). Government policies, technological change and market forces currently promote such a convergence. Hence the need for the broader audience to attend to contemporary debates within the distance education community.

In response to the Dawkins' agenda for Distance Education, I presented papers on the implications of the debate about Fordism for policy, practice and research in Distance Education (Campion 1990a & b).

The foundational issue was that for the last twenty or thirty years, debate and policy formulation within and around distance education had been dominated by a proposition put forward in the early 70s. Otto Peters, Foundation Rector of the Fernuniversitat in Hagen, had proposed that distance education was an industrialised mode of educational provision (Keegan 1986, 83). My subsequent application of the conceptual framework concerning Fordism and its possible successors drew attention to the fact that Peters had conflated mass production with industrial production. My point was that mass production - the Fordist paradigm - had been brought into question in certain industries where alternative production processes were introduced and, that more generally, the post-Second World War societal formation in which mass production for mass consumption had previously been unquestioned had also come into question (See Roobeek 1987).

That early work stimulated a more extensive research project (Campion and Renner 1992) and publications by a number of authors, (Campion 1992, 1993, 1994, 1995a, 1995b, 1996a & 1996b; Ding 1995; Edwards 1991 & 1995; Evans 1995; Farnes 1993; Field 1994 & 1995; Fritz 1995; King 1993; Raggatt 1993; Renner 1995; Rumble 1995 a, b, & c).

Pre-Fordism, post-Fordism and university distance education

Drawing upon Badham and Mathews (1989), Campion and Renner (1992) argued that in Australia in the late 1980s the dominant paradigm for distance education policy at the higher education level was Fordist. However, we acknowledged that the processes at many universities might best be represented as pre-Fordist. That is, we suggested that many academic practices were more akin to craft work, and that the university, as had been the case with certain other public sector services, had been relatively successful in resisting the shift to Fordist practice occurring in many other sectors (see Murray 1991, 22).

The key distinction between post and neo-Fordism relates to 'labour responsibility'; in the former it is high and in the latter it remains low. More broadly, the neo-Fordist strategy is seen to be increasingly exploitative whereas the post-Fordist is seen to have progressive potential. We concluded that within the existing socio/political/economic context a neo-Fordist outcome was most likely, though we expressed our preference for a post-Fordist outcome.

Whilst space constrains detail here, it should be clear that these debates are not merely of academic interest. Key policy-makers introduce policies, generate institutional structures and effectively organise workplace practices on the basis of such paradigms. How students learn, and, frequently, what they learn, are products of these decisions.

Dawkins versus Baldwin

Dawkins, following advice from members of the distance education community who accepted Peters' position, was intent upon consolidating the production of distance education materials within a smaller subset of institutions in order to gain economies of scale. This resulted in the selection and nomination of eight Distance Education Centres (Dawkins 1988, 50-53).

Baldwin reversed this process soon after. He abandoned the DEC structure and focussed attention upon issues such as flexibility and quality (an essentially neo- or post-Fordist agenda) (Baldwin 1991, 6-7).

Increasing options whilst recognising limitations

As with any overview, this massively simplifies the issues and their contentious nature (see Campion and Renner 1992 and for a recent more general critique of the Post-Fordism debate, Hampson, Ewer and Smith 1994). Without denying its weaknesses and limitations, the introduction of the debate concerning Fordism did unsettle the dominant distance education orthodoxy, and by doing so, increased the number of available policy options. Key questions remain of course about whether post-Fordist proposals really generate the progressive possibilities authors such as Mathews claim.

The current debate about Bureaucracy in the Distance Education and Open Learning community

Recently the Fordist conceptual framework's application to distance education has been the subject of extensive critique in a trilogy of articles published in the UK journal Open Learning (Rumble 1995a, b and c).

Rumble's position

Rumble distinguished between processes and personnel concerned with the planning, preparation and production of course materials and processes and personnel concerned with the administration and support of students. He suggested that by re-emphasising student administration and student support - which he saw to be bureaucratic - he had displayed a major and critical limitation of the Fordist framework as applied to distance education and open learning (1995 b, 26).

Counters to Rumble's position

I have offered a number of criticisms of the position Rumble puts forward (Campion 1995b & 1996a) but will only focus upon the most relevant of those here.

Rumble appears to think that demonstrating the bureaucratic aspects of organisations weakens the explanatory power of the conceptual framework related to Fordism. I argue the opposite. I have and am arguing first that bureaucracy grew within Fordism and, second, that the Fordist framework strengthens, and is in turn strengthened by, a clearer grasp of the conceptual framework related to bureaucracy. Clegg (1990, 177) suggests that:

Modernist organisations may be thought of in terms of Weber's typification of bureaucratised, mechanistic structures of control, as these were subsequently erected upon a fully rationalised base of divided and deskilled labour. In contemporary literature, following the lead of Gramsci's (1971) reflections in the Prison Notebooks, these foundations are usually referred to as those of 'Fordism'.

Rumble used the distinction between machine and professional bureaucracy and argued that the UKOU is an example of the latter. I have argued, along with Ritzer (1975), that the professional and the bureaucrat have more in common than Rumble reveals, for both are subsumed within the broader process of rationalisation.

Rumble focussed almost entirely on endogenous features of the UKOU; I seek to take greater cognisance of exogenous factors. For example, Australian universities are part of a national system and cannot be understood as autonomous institutions.

Finally, Rumble does not locate his argument within the current debate concerning the alleged shift from bureaucratic to post-bureaucratic methods of management. I am arguing that careful consideration of this supposed shift is crucial.

Summary of the argument so far

I have argued that:

bureaucratic practice can best be understood from within a broadly conceived Fordist framework.
the distinction between machine and professional bureaucracy is no longer as significant a distinction as that between bureaucracy and its successors.
in the context of this argument I am proposing that we distinguish between post- and neo-bureaucratic practices. In my reading of others on post-bureaucracy, I have yet to come across such a distinction. (See Campion 1995b where this idea was first mooted).

The Bureaucratic and post-Bureaucratic paradigms

The debate about bureaucracy is certainly fertile but it is also complex, profound and multifaceted. Consequently here I will offer a few ideas that may help us begin to perceive contradictions and dilemmas that we need to address.

Barzelay and Armajani's (1992, 8-9) Breaking through Bureaucracy offers the following paired statements to outline differences between the rhetoric of the bureaucratic and post-bureaucratic paradigms.

Bureaucracy Post-bureaucracy

A bureaucratic agency is focused on its own needs and perspectives. A customer driven agency is focused on customers needs and perspectives.

A bureaucratic agency is focused on the roles and responsibilities of its parts. A customer driven agency is focused on enabling the whole organisation to function as a team.

A bureaucratic agency defines itself both by the amount of resources it controls and by the tasks it performs. A customer driven agency defines itself by the results it achieves for its customers.

A bureaucratic agency controls costs. A customer driven agency creates value net of costs.

A bureaucratic agency sticks to routine. A customer driven agency modifies its operations to changing demands for its services.

A bureaucratic agency fights for its turf. A customer driven agency competes for business.

A bureaucratic agency insists on following standard procedures A customer driven agency builds choice into its operating systems when doing so serves a purpose.

A bureaucratic agency announces policies and plans. A customer driven agency engages in two-way communication with its customers in order to assess and revise its operating strategy

A bureaucratic agency separates the work of thinking from that of doing. A customer driven agency empowers front-line employees to make judgements about how to improve customer service and value.

Similar proposals are put forward by authors such as Osborne and Gaebler (1993) in Reinventing Government. Barker (1993, 411) informs us that:

Contemporary writers have unleashed a flood of literature announcing the 'coming demise of bureaucracy and hierarchy' (Kanter 189 p. 351) and detailing the dawn of a post bureaucratic age in which control emerges not from rational rules or hierarchy but from the concertive value-based actions of the organisation's members...

Colonisation of the universities by the discourse of post-bureaucracy

It is not just corporate executives that have heard this message; the Vice Chancellors/'Chief Executive Officers' of universities have also listened. University staff involved in quality assurance processes and in generating mission statements and strategic plans over the last four or five years will have some sense that rhetoric of the so called post-bureaucratic paradigm has been having an influence in their institutions.

The process of de-differentiation

This influence exemplifies the de-differentiation process described by du Gay which "ensures that formerly diverse institutions, practices, goods and so forth become subject to judgement and calculation almost exclusively in terms of market-based criteria.." (1994, 667). Organisations such as universities, and organisational activities such as teaching and learning, are reconstructed and come to be governed "along the lines of the commercial firm, with attention focused in particular on its orientation towards the 'sovereign consumer'" (du Gay 1994, 660).

That this process and these concepts drawn from commercial enterprises are influencing the universities seems to me clear. I am proposing that we try to distinguish between processes that increase the regressive nature of the workplace (neo-bureaucratic) and those that possibly have progressive potential (post-bureaucratic).

Interrogating the post-bureaucracy paradigm

The distinction between formal and informal processes

Turning to the approach of Blau (1955) as cited by Clegg (1990, 48) we find that the two governmental agencies which he researched:

..... were more efficient when the members were consciously breaking, rather than following, rules. Where they created an organisation which was more decentralized, less hierarchized, less formalised it functioned more efficiently, particularly where certain preconditions had been established. ..... Not only were such organisations likely to be more efficient, according to Blau, they are also less conflictual.

Key processes which kept the bureaucracy rolling were informal and unlike the formal processes upon which Weber had focussed. Hence, whilst there are discontinuities between traditionally understood formal bureaucratic processes and so called post-bureaucratic processes, it may turn out that the informal processes have not changed radically, and moreover may, in fact, have all along been more decisive than the formal. The current readiness of academic staff within institutions such as my own to abandon bureaucratic committee work might suggest that they also are, at least tacitly, aware that much that is significant occurs at a less formal level.

Processes of devolution

At a structural level Dandeker (1990) indicates that the contemporary processes of decentralisation/devolution do not represent a reduction in the power of the vertical principle of bureaucratic organisation. He notes Rowe's suggestion that:

[it] should not be thought that a decentralised structure implies a weak centre; it is simply an alternative mechanism for maintaining control, only it operates on terms laid down by the centre and is still control. .... it is still bureaucratic control (Rowe 1986, 100 cited by Dandeker 1990, 211).

The relationship between the Federal Government Department of Employment, Education and Training and the Universities might be conceptualised in a similar way.

Concertive control and collegial surveillance

Barker's (1993) study of a company's shift from hierarchical bureaucratic management to self-managing teams provides one concrete illustration of how so called post-bureaucratic processes can produce outcomes that are far from progressive.

He shows that over a relatively short period:

The work life at ISE stabilised into a concertive system that revolved around sets of rational rules as in the old bureaucracy, but in which the authority to command obedience rested with team members themselves, in contrast to the old ISE. The team members had become their own masters and their own slaves. ... Concertive control, as it becomes manifest in organisational interaction, is more powerful and has greater ability to control than the bureaucratic system it replaces (Barker 1993, 433).

So members of a workforce previously difficult for management to control now control each other in a far more effective manner. Casey (1995, 192) points up the broader significance of such processes when she concludes that 'the possibilities of (counter-corporate) action are reduced as employees' previously semi-autonomous loci of solidarity and protection are taken over by the totalising corporate culture.'

The whole process of quality assurance in universities, and the measurement of outcomes it relies upon, requires a far more extensive and intrusive examination of the work of academics. As Thompson (1993, 194) puts it:

... many professional employees are being incorporated into rule-governed bureaucratic regulation for the first time through a variety of performance review measures"

On another level, computerised student record systems are increasing in power and reach whilst all of those supposedly post-bureaucratic features come into play. Dandeker (1990) in his Surveillance, Power and Modernity convincingly reminds us of the role surveillance needs to play in an understanding of bureaucratic processes. The continuation or intensification of surveillance activities within supposedly post-bureaucratic organisation is suggestive of continuity not discontinuity.

Enterprising selves and the enterprising society

Whilst we come to grips with the power of peer group control that Barker illustrates, it is crucial that we not ignore the way in which the dominant discourse moulds our perceptions of ourselves.

Whereas bureaucratic organisations encouraged the development of particular capacities and predispositions amongst its subjects - strict adherence to procedure, the abnegation of personal moral enthusiasm - the new discourses of work reform stressed the importance of individuals acquiring and exhibiting more 'market oriented', 'proactive', and 'entrepreneurial' attitudes and behaviours. (du Gay 1994, 657-658)

Importantly, the connection between such versions of selfhood and the achievement of specific societal economic objectives grounded in the dominance of the market has been displayed by authors such as Nikolas Rose 1989 and Paul du Gay 1991.

An argument in favour of re-differentiation

Du Gay (1994, 670) argues in favour of the separation of realms and invokes Weber's support in the following statements:

As Weber (1968, 1404) argued, the ethos governing the conduct of the politician, the entrepreneur and the bureaucrat are far from identical. In addressing the different kinds of responsibility that politicians and bureaucrats, for example, have for their actions, Weber is insisting on the irreducibility of different spheres of ethical life and on the consequent necessity of applying different ethical protocols to them.

On the other hand the supporters of the post-bureaucratic paradigm

..... By demanding - in the name of 'the market', 'the customer', or whatever - that the ethical conduct of the public administrator, for example, be judged according to the those of the entrepreneur, the discourse of enterprise in fact requires public sector bureaucrats to assume the role of business people. In so doing, realms become confused and the liberties and freedoms predicated upon 'separation' are in danger. (du Gay 1994, 670)

Following this line of argument I am suggesting that the scholar/the academic has not only the right but a duty to resist being judged according to the standards of the entrepreneur.

In defence of bureaucracy

Some appear to relish bureaucracy's demise. It is, however, vital that we remember the place of bureaucracy in enabling the work of government to be drawn away from aristocratic privilege. (Pusey 1976, 15). For, as du Gay (1994, 671) suggests, in new entrepreneurial organisations (and here I would include universities) forms of patronage once limited at least to some degree by bureaucratic process may make a ready return.

Connections between bureaucracy and democracy are intricate and efforts to move beyond the former need to be carefully weighed in terms of their implications for the latter. Each raises dilemmas for the other (Etzioni-Halevy 1983)). Blau (1955, 264-265) and Koven (1994, 79-95) draw our attention to tensions and antagonisms between bureaucracy and democracy. Koven notes that such classical theorists of bureaucracy as Weber, Mosca and Michel were also aware of such tensions. So we need to be wary about rejecting bureaucracy in toto for that may result in the real possibility of further increasing the power of the already powerful.

This is not to say that bureaucracy is without blemish. Bureaucracies frequently do marginalise the least powerful, as the critiques from feminist and other perspectives make all too plain (c.f. Burton 1987 & 1991). Yet the limitations of entrepreneurial, so-called post-bureaucratic, approaches are also not difficult to find.

Conclusion: Contradictions and dilemmas

We need to reflect upon the contradictions and dilemmas raised by the rush in universities to abandon bureaucratic practices in favour of more entrepreneurial, supposedly post-bureaucratic practices. The latter may prove to be more appropriately termed neo-bureaucratic. Furthermore, just as in the universities it may be possible to make a transition from essentially pre-Fordist to post-Fordist processes, so also it may be possible within universities to shift from a relatively pre-bureaucratic to a genuinely post-bureaucratic era.

Acknowledgements

Many thanks to David Freeman for his many kinds of help with the preparation of this paper and to the ARC for funding the Small Grant that made David's involvement possible.

References

Badham, R. and Mathews, J. 1989. The new production systems debate. Labour and Industry, 2, 2, June, pp. 194-246.

Baldwin, P. 1991. Higher Education: Quality and Diversity in the 1990s. Policy statement by the Hon Peter Baldwin, MP, Minister for Higher Education and Employment Services, Australian Government Publishing Service, Canberra.

Barker, J. R. 1993. 'Tightening the iron cage: concertive control in self-managing teams'. Administrative Science Quarterly, 38, September, pp. 408-437.

Barzelay, M. with Armajani, B. J. 1992. Breaking through Bureaucracy, University of California Press, Berkeley.

Blau, P. M. 1955, 1963. The Dynamics of Bureaucracy: A Study of Interpersonal Relations in Two Government Agencies. Revised Edition. University of Chicago Press, Chicago.

Burton, Claire. 1991. The Promise and the Price - the Struggle for Equal Opportunity in Women's Employment. Allen & Unwin, Sydney.

Burton, Claire. 1987. 'Merit and gender: organisations and the mobilisation of masculine bias.' Australian Journal of Social Issues, vol. 22, no. 2, May, pp. 424-435.

Campion, M. 1996a. 'Post-Fordism not a poison either!' Open Learning, 11, 1, pp. 41-46.

Campion, M. 1996b. 'Open learning closing minds', in Evans, T. D. and Nation, D. (Eds.) Opening Education: Policies And Practices From Open And Distance Education, Routledge, London, (forthcoming).

Campion, M. (Guest Editor), 1995a Distance Education, 16, 2, pp. 186-334

Campion, M. 1995b 'The supposed demise of bureaucracy: implications for distance education and open learning - more on the post-Fordism debate'. Distance Education, 16, 2, pp. 192-216.

Campion, M. 1994. 'Implications for research of the distinction between exogenous and endogenous factors', in Evans, T. and Murphy, D. (Eds.) Research in Distance Education III, Deakin University Press, Geelong, pp. 204-212.

Campion, M. 1993. 'Post-Fordism neither panacea nor placebo'. Open Learning, June, 8, 2, pp. 59-60.

Campion, M. 1992. 'Revealing links: post-fordism, postmodernism and distance education' in Evans, T. D. and Juler, P. (Eds.) Research in Distance Education II, Deakin University, Institute of Distance Education, Geelong, pp. 45-51.

Campion, M. 1990a, 'Distance education and the debate about Fordism in industry'. Distance Education for Training in Business and Industry: ASPESA 1989 Forum Conference Proceedings, Gippsland Institute, pp. 176-194.

Campion, M. 1990b, 'Post-Fordism and research in distance education', in Evans, T. D. (Ed.) Research in Distance Education I, Deakin University, Institute of Distance Education, Geelong, pp. 59-71.

Campion, M. and Guiton, P. 1991. 'Economic instrumentalism and the transformation of integration in Australian external studies'. Open Learning, 6, 2, pp. 12-20.

Campion, M. and Kelly, M. 1988. 'Integration of external studies and campus-based education in Australian higher education: the myth and the promise'. Distance Education, 9, 2, pp. 171-201.

Campion, M. and Renner, W. 1992. 'The supposed demise of fordism: implications for distance education and higher education'. Distance Education, 13, 1, pp. 7-28.

Casey C. 1995. Work, Self and Society: After Industrialism, Routledge, London.

Clegg, S. 1990. Modern Organizations: Organisation Studies In The Postmodern World, Sage, London.

Dandeker, C. 1990. Surveillance, Power And Modernity: Bureaucracy And Discipline From 1700 To The Present Day, Polity, Cambridge.

Dawkins, J. S. 1988. Higher Education: A Policy Statement. Australian Government Publishing Service, Canberra.

Ding X. 1995, 'From Fordism to neo-Fordism: Industrialisation theory and distance education - a Chinese perspective'. Distance Education, 16, 2, pp. 217-240.

Du Gay, P. 1994 'Making up managers: bureaucracy, enterprise and the liberal art of separation'. British Journal of Sociology, 45, 4, December, pp. 655-674.

Du Gay, P. 1991 'Enterprise culture and the ideology of excellence'. New Formations, 13, Spring, pp. 45-61.

Edwards R. 1995, 'Different discourses, discourses of difference: Globalisation, distance education and open learning'. Distance Education, 16, 2, pp. 241-255

Edwards, R. 1991. 'The inevitable future? Post-fordism and open learning'. Open Learning, 6, 2, June, pp. 36-42.

Etzioni-Halevy, E. 1983. Bureaucracy and Democracy: A Political Dilemma, Routledge & Kegan Paul, Melbourne.

Evans, T. 1995, 'Globalisation, post-Fordism and open and distance education'. Distance Education, 16, 2, pp. 256-269.

Evans T. D. and Nation D. (Eds.) 1996, Opening Education: Policies And Practices From Open And Distance Education, London, Routledge, (forthcoming).

Farazmand A. (Ed), Handbook of Bureaucracy, Marcel Dekker Inc. New York.

Farnes N. 1993. 'Modes of production: Fordism and distance education', Open Learning, 8, 1, pp. 10-20

Field, J. 1995. 'Globalisation, consumption and the learning business' Distance Education, 16, 2, pp. 270-283.

Field, J. 1994. 'Open learning and consumer culture'. Open Learning, 9, 2, June, pp. 3-11.

Fritz, H. 1995, 'A comment upon Fordism in distance education in relation to the reunification process in Germany'. Distance Education, 16, 2, pp. 302-308.

Hall, S. and Jacques, M. 1990. New Times: The Changing Face Of Politics In The 1990s, Lawrence and Wishart in association with Marxism Today, London.

Hampson, I. Ewer, P. and Smith, M. 1994. 'Post-Fordism and workplace change: towards a critical research agenda'. The Journal of Industrial Relations, 36, 2, pp. 231-257.

Hassard, J. and Parker, M. (Eds.). 1993. Postmodernism and Organizations, Sage, London.

ICDL (International Centre for Distance learning) 1995. Mega-Universities of the World: the Top Ten. The Open University, Milton Keynes.

Keegan, D. 1986. The Foundations of Distance Education, Croom Helm, Sydney.

King, B. 1993. 'Open learning in Australia'. Open Learning, 8, 3, pp. 13-26.

Koven, S. G. 1994: 'The bureaucracy - democracy conundrum: a contemporary inquiry into the labyrinth', in Farazmand A. (Ed), Handbook of Bureaucracy, Marcel Dekker, Inc. New York, pp. 79-95.

Mathews J. 1989. The Age Of Democracy: The Politics Of Post-Fordism, Oxford University Press, Melbourne.

Murray, R. 1991 'The state after Henry.' Marxism Today, May, pp. 22-27.

Osborne, D. and Gaebler, T. 1993. Reinventing Government.: How The Entrepreneurial Spirit is Transforming The Public Sector, Plume, New York.

Pusey, M. 1976. Dynamics Of Bureaucracy: A Case Analysis In Education, Wiley Australasia, Sydney.

Raggatt, P. 1993, 'Post-Fordism and distance education - a flexible strategy for change', Open Learning, 8, 1, pp. 21-31.

Renner, W. 1995, 'Post-Fordist visions and technological solutions: educational technology and the labour process'. Distance Education, 16, 2, pp. 284-301

Ritzer, G. 1975. 'Professionalization, bureaucratization and rationalization: the views of Max Weber', Social Forces, 54, 4, pp. 627-634.

Roobeek, A. 1987. 'The crisis of fordism and the rise of a new technological paradigm.' Futures, April, pp. 129-154.

Rumble, G. 1995a. 'Labour market theories and distance education 1: industrialisation and distance education'. Open Learning, Feb., 10, 1, pp. 10-21.

Rumble, G. 1995b, Labour market theories and distance education 1: how fordist is distance education'. Open Learning, June, 10, 2, pp. 12-28.

Rumble, G. 1995c. 'Labour market theories and distance education 1: post-fordism the way forward?' Open Learning, Oct., 10, 3.

Scase, R. 1992. 'Organizational restructuring, corporate needs for changing managerial skills, and the role of higher education', in Brown, P. and Lauder, H. (Eds. ) Education For Economic Survival: From Fordism To Post-Fordism, Routledge, London, pp. 76-94.

Thompson, P. 1993. 'Postmodernism: fatal distraction', in Hassard, J. and Parker, M. (Eds.), Postmodernism and Organizations, Sage Publications, London, pp. 183-203.

Author: Dr Mick Campion, Sociology Programme, Murdoch University
Email: campion@central.murdoch.edu.au Fax: 09 360 6480

Please cite as: Campion, M. (1996). Contemporary debates about bureaucracy: Implications for dual mode universities. Different Approaches: Theory and Practice in Higher Education. Proceedings HERDSA Conference 1996. Perth, Western Australia, 8-12 July. http://www.herdsa.org.au/confs/1996/campion.html

[ HERDSA ] [ Proceedings Contents ]
This URL: http://www.herdsa.org.au/confs/1996/campion.html
Created 27 June 2001. Last revision: 23 May 2002.
© Higher Education Research and Development Society of Australasia Inc

Bureaucracy	Post-bureaucracy
A bureaucratic agency is focused on its own needs and perspectives.	A customer driven agency is focused on customers needs and perspectives.
A bureaucratic agency is focused on the roles and responsibilities of its parts.	A customer driven agency is focused on enabling the whole organisation to function as a team.
A bureaucratic agency defines itself both by the amount of resources it controls and by the tasks it performs.	A customer driven agency defines itself by the results it achieves for its customers.
A bureaucratic agency controls costs.	A customer driven agency creates value net of costs.
A bureaucratic agency sticks to routine.	A customer driven agency modifies its operations to changing demands for its services.
A bureaucratic agency fights for its turf.	A customer driven agency competes for business.
A bureaucratic agency insists on following standard procedures	A customer driven agency builds choice into its operating systems when doing so serves a purpose.
A bureaucratic agency announces policies and plans.	A customer driven agency engages in two-way communication with its customers in order to assess and revise its operating strategy
A bureaucratic agency separates the work of thinking from that of doing.	A customer driven agency empowers front-line employees to make judgements about how to improve customer service and value.