Understanding the Policy Process Th e Work of Henry Mintzberg

It is true that politics generally plays a greater role in shaping public policy than it does in shaping corporate strategy, because states share power with external policy actors to a greater degree than do corporate bureaucracies. Yet this is not always the case. Authoritarian states, for example, do not willingly share power with external policy actors. In such instances, policy making is an “intraorganizational” activity if we view the state as being a single organization. Another problem with the view that public policy making is an interorganizational rather than an intraorganizational process is that the boundaries of organizations are often vague. As Collins (1988) observes, governenry Mintzberg is one of the world’s most ment agencies can be regarded as subparts of one large influential writers in the field of manageemployer, the state, or as a single agency or subagency ment, particularly on the topic of strategy. (or, in the case of the U.S. federal bureaucracy, as a His influence on the study of sub-subagency). He notes that public policy, however, has it is possible for organizations to Historically, students of public been limited. This article argues permeate other organizations as that Mintzberg’s work can well as to be linked together in policy have paid little attention also shed valuable light on the organizational sets, pyramided to the literature on corporate public policy process. Historiinto larger units and connected strategy. One reason for this may cally, students of public policy in other ways. This is particube that corporate strategy, unlike have paid little attention to the larly true of businesses that are public policy, is not perceived literature on corporate strategy. buying and selling and competto be the product of a political One reason for this may be ing or engaging in collusion that corporate strategy, unlike with other businesses, as well as process that involves negotiation public policy, is not perceived of governmental units, whose and bargaining between actors to be the product of a political environment is other agencies, located in the public arena. process that involves negotiaorganized political groups, or tion and bargaining between private organizations that they actors located in the public arena. There are grounds regulate. Collins concludes that organization theory for doubting that this perception is valid, though. As does not depend on the identification of strict organiMintzberg (1983) observes, we may identify both an zational boundaries. As he notes, organizational goals external coalition and an internal coalition as sources often shift as result of organizational power struggles. of influence on corporate decision making. The Organizations under such conditions are more akin former comprises owners, associates such as clients, to loosely affiliated, independent units than they are partners, competitors, and suppliers, and various pub- to a single, unified entity. Collins argues that a linked lics such as the general public, local and national govset of organizations may itself be analyzed as if it were
Craig Matheson is a lecturer in public policy and management at the Flinders Institute of Public Policy and Management at Flinders University, Australia. He worked for four years in the federal bureaucracy in Canberra before pursuing an academic career. His research interests include public policy and management, Australian government, work, organizations, and class. His most recent publications are “In Praise of Bureaucracy? A Dissent from Australia” in Administration & Society (April 2007) and “Are Clerical Workers Proletarian? A Case Study of the Australian Public Service” in the British Journal of Sociology (December 2007). E-mail: craig.matheson@fl.au
Craig Matheson Flinders University
ReflecБайду номын сангаасing on Seminal Administrative Theorists
Understanding the Policy Process: The Work of Henry Mintzberg
Do Henry Mintzberg’s writings make an enduring, invaluable contribution to our understanding of the contemporary public policy process? Mintzberg argues that organizations display eight structural configurations and corresponding coordinating mechanisms. Such structural configurations are shaped by a variety of contingency factors, especially power and environmental ones. Using Mintzberg’s work, eight policy modes, corresponding to structural configurations within government organizations and political systems, are identified and placed on a matrix that comprises two dimensions: standardization and centralization. Six polarities in the policy process arise from this matrix. Mintzberg’s work, the paper argues, remains of enduring value because it provides a seminal framework for a richer understanding of the current policy process, by offering a contingency theory of structures and policy modes, as well as by frank acknowledgment of the protean nature of the policy process. ernments, government agencies, and interest groups, whereas the latter comprises the chief executive officer, line managers, operators, analysts, and support staff. As Mintzberg observes, corporate strategy can be the product of a political process involving the members of these coalitions.