Analysing organisational culture : a critical ethnography of public relations and personnel specialists in a state bureaucracy

Following an introductory chapter, I examine (i) typologies which have differentiated the literature on organisational culture and symbolism (Chapter 2), (ii) the contribution of organisation theory to organisation culture (Chapter 3), and (iii) recent literature on organisational culture and symbolism (Chapter 4). Within these chapters, I adopt Habermas' (1972) notion of knowledge-constitutive interests, assessing the contrubutions to understanding organisational culture made by literature guided by technical, practical and emancipatory cognitive interests. In doing so, I suggest that more critical studies on organisational culture and symbolism have been comparatively neglected. Lamenting this neglect, I suggest that Giddens' theory of structuration can be employed to advance the development of a critical, emancipatory conceptualisation of organisational culture. In particular, I argue that this Giddensian analysis, by penetrating the existential, poltical and material processes of cultural reproduction (Chapter 5), is able to disclose some of the more contradictory features of organisation culture. The remainder of the thesis comprises of a critical ethnography of the work cultures of public relations and personnel specialists located in a state bureaucracy. I begin the ethnography with a dicussion of my research methods (Chapter 6) and an overview of the departments studied (Chapter 7): I then examine (i) the work cultures of the specialists (Chapter 8), (ii) the specialists' management of the relationships with the hosts bureaucracy (Chapter 9); and, (iii) opportunities the specialists had for developing an emancipatory praxis (Chapter 10). Finally, in a concluding section, I offer some critical reflections on the contributions of the thesis and suggest areas for future research.

Professionals, discretion and public sector reform in the UK:re-visiting Lipsky

Purpose – Seeks to examine how far Michael Lipsky's theory of discretion as it relates to public sector professionals as “street-level bureaucrats” is still applicable in the light of public sector reform and in particular the introduction of increased managerial control over professionals. Design/methodology/approach – The main thesis in Lipsky's work, Street-Level Bureaucracy, that street-level bureaucrats devise their own rules and procedures to deal with the dilemmas of policy implementation is linked to public sector reform over the past 25 years or so. The article differentiates between three forms of discretion, rule, task and value and assesses the extent to which these different forms of discretion have been compromised by reform. Examples are drawn principally from the literature on school teachers and social workers Findings – The findings suggest that the rule-making (hence bureaucratic) capacity of professionals at street-level is much less influential than before although it is questionable whether or not the greater accountability of professionals to management and clarity of the targets and objectives of organisations delivering public policy has liberated them from the dilemmas of street-level bureaucracy. Research limitations/implications – The work has focussed on the UK and in particular on two professions. However, it may be applied to any country which has undergone public sector reform and in particular where “new public management” processes and procedures have been implemented. There is scope for in-depth studies of a range of occupations, professional and otherwise in the UK and elsewhere. Practical implications – Policy makers and managers should consider how far the positive aspects of facilitating discretion in the workplace by reducing the need for “rule-making” to cope with dilemmas have been outweighed by increased levels of bureaucracy and the “de-skilling” of professionals. Originality/value – Lipsky's much cited and influential work is evaluated in the light of public sector reform some 25 years since it was published. The three forms of discretion identified offer the scope for their systematic application to the workplace.