Content area
Full Text
This article examines the underlying assumptions and main findings of four streams of research on bureaucratic postures. It explores the utility of each school of thought for understanding how perspectives on bureaucratic postures are associated with the advancement of the public interest and bureaucratic performance. A main conclusion is that, although limited in scope of application, each stream has merit. Nonetheless, the existing research is too narrow: The field needs to consider a more complex model of bureaucratic behavior that draws from these four fields to offer a framework that is widely applicable to the range of motives for work found in the public bureaucracy and the variety of behaviors that individuals exhibit. Some attributes that may characterize such a model are sketched out.
Although several different streams of research examine bureaucratic behavior, our overall understanding of the underlying motivational needs of public employees and the link between those needs and bureaucratic outcomes is limited. In his 2003 Gaus lecture, Johan P. Olsen (2004) pointed directly to the study of bureaucracy as an area needing more scholarly research and models that reflect the complexity of human behavior. Similarly, Behn (1995, 319) calls attention to the need for more research on the link between motivation and the pursuit of important public purposes. This article focuses on the link between studies of bureaucratic motives and two critical public purposes: the advancement of the public interest and the performance of government organizations.
The study of bureaucracy gains importance from the impact that public employees have on the pursuit and attainment of the public interest and the performance of bureaucracy as an institution. Despite the relatively large volume of work on the composition of the public workforce, the pool of knowledge is relatively shallow about the link between workforce motivation and important institutional outcomes such as high performance or advancing the public interest. Overall, the level of methodological sophistication can be described as modest, and the models employed often lack rigor (Rainey and Steinbauer 1999). For example, key constructs are vague or abbreviated and measured by questionable proxies; common definitions of constructs are lacking or misunderstood (Brewer and Selden 1998); contextual factors are often unspecified; studies assume generic effects from one level of bureaucracy to another, as well...