Community participation in bureaucratic organizations: Principles and strategies
Litwak, Eugene; Shiroi, Earl; Zimmerman, Libby; Bernstein, Jessie
1970-12
Citation
Litwak, Eugene; Shiroi, Earl; Zimmerman, Libby; Bernstein, Jessie; (1970). "Community participation in bureaucratic organizations: Principles and strategies." Interchange 1(4): 44-60. <http://hdl.handle.net/2027.42/42934>
Abstract
The present paper points out that there are tasks that primary groups perform better than bureaucracies and those that bureaucracies perform better than primary groups. Both types of tasks are very interdependent so that sometimes primary group tasks must be performed within the boundaries of the bureaucratic organization. The argument is made that when primary groups intervene in bureaucracies, they can do so directly in non-expert tasks without lowering the effectiveness of the bureaucratic organization. When they intervene in expert aspects, they should do so indirectly through an expert advocate. However, in all intervention the primary group must take into account that its structure is contradictory to that of the bureaucracy and, therefore, it must keep as much distance as possible—consistent with its ability to intervene. From this analysis we derive a series of hypotheses suggesting when the community might ideally use the bureaucracy's own experts, when the community must hire its own experts, when the community should use mass media, strikes, indigenous workers, etc. It is suggested that the multitudinous possibilities for linkages can all be derived from a few basic underlying dimensions of the situation. Cet article montre qu'il existe certaines tâches que les groupes primaires accomplissent mieux que les bureaucraties, et certaines autres qu'accomplissent mieux les bureaucraties. Les deux sortes de tâches sont interdépendentes; donc parfois les tâches des groupes primaires doivent s'accomplir parmi les organisations bureaucratiques. Les auteurs soutiennent que les groupes primaires peuvent intervenir dans les bureaucraties en complétant les tâches non-expertes sans réduire l'efficacité de l'organisation bureaucratique. Quands ils participent à certains sujets experts, ils devraient se munir d'un agent expert. Mais dans toute intervention le groupe primaire doit se rendre compte que sa structure contredit celle de la bureaucratie et que, par conséquent, il doit se tenir autant à distance que possible par rapport à sa compétence d'intervention. De cette analyse proviennent des hypothèses qui indiquent quand une communauté peut se servir le mieux du personnel expert d'une bureaucratie, quand la communauté doit engager des experts, quand la communauté doit se servir des mass média, des grèves, des ouvriers indigènes, etc. Les nombreuses possibilités de liaisons proviennent toutes de quelques dimensions fondamentales de la situation.Publisher
Kluwer Academic Publishers; The Ontario Institute for Studies in Education ; Springer Science+Business Media
ISSN
0826-4805 1573-1790
Other DOIs
Types
Article
Metadata
Show full item recordCollections
Remediation of Harmful Language
The University of Michigan Library aims to describe library materials in a way that respects the people and communities who create, use, and are represented in our collections. Report harmful or offensive language in catalog records, finding aids, or elsewhere in our collections anonymously through our metadata feedback form. More information at Remediation of Harmful Language.
Accessibility
If you are unable to use this file in its current format, please select the Contact Us link and we can modify it to make it more accessible to you.