how can we manage divided houses?

When the organizations in which people work produce natural conflict and disjunction, middle managers need a view of the world which is fundamentally different from that presented in theories derived from observing stable and mechanistic organizations.

How Can We Manage Divided Houses?

James M. Kouzes Paul R. Mico

Theories play a vital role in human action. They generate and guide human behavior. People develop theories to organize and describe their experiences, to predict consequences of future behaviors, and to better control the conditions influencing their lives (Argyris, 1976; Argyris and Schon, 1974).

In the clinical world, we readily recognize the importance of theory for human action. “A number of studies of impression formation have demon- strated that people quite readily attribute additional characteristics when given only one or two items of information about another person . . . . People, in general, seem to have implicit theories of personality about what characteristics or behaviors are likely to be related, and they use these implicit theories to fill in gaps in their knowledge of others” (Jones, 1977, p. 3). Bandler and Grinder (1975) maintain that people create a representational map or model which they use to generate their behavior. “Our representation of the world determines to a large degree what our experience of the world will be, how we will perceive the world, what choices we will see available to us as we live in the world” (p. 7).

Portions of this chapter are adapted from an earlier work of the authors: “Domain Theory: An Introduction to Organizational Behavior in Human Service Organiza- tions.” Journal of Applied Behavioral Science, 1979, 15 (4), 449-469.

New Directions for Mental Health Services, 8, 1980 43

44

Good therapists, Bandler and Grinder (1975) believe, are ones who “introduce change in their clients’ models which allow their clients more options in their behavior” (p. 18). Further, therapists themselves have a map or mpdel which allows them to expand and enrich their clients’ representations of the world.

In the organizational world, theories are equally potent. They set out what the organization assumes to be true, what it is, what it does, and what it values (Schon, 1971). Schon believes that “it is in a way misleading to distin- guish between social systems and theory, for the social system is the embodi- ment of its theory and the theory is the conceptual dimension of the social system” (p. 35). While a theory of organization is not necessarily a theory of management, organization theory informs management theory, which prescribes management practice (Tosi, 1975, pp. 7-8).

Consultants to organizations are also affected by their theories. In a study of change agents’ general change models, Tichy (1974) found four basic types: outside pressure, people-change technology, organization development, and analysis for the top. In a subsequent study, Tichy (1975) found that each type used different diagnostic frameworks, and that these differences were related to both the change agents’ values and to their change techniques. “The most important factors which change agents examine during diagnosis tend to be also those things which are worked on most often to create change in the systems” (p. 797).

So regardless of our roles- whether clinician, manager, or consultant- we are what we observe, and what we observe is certainly tinged by our theoretical windows to the world.

A View of the World. The word theory has the same origin as the word theater. They both derive from the Greek theu, meaning “a viewing.” A theory, in its original sense, refers to one’s view of the empirical world. A theorist is a spectator, an observer who offers abstract statements which purport to explain some aspect of what one sees, hears, and feels.

In this paper we review two very different paradigms - general orienta- tions to views of organizations- which serve to define what is studied. One of these paradigms is dominant in our culture today, and it will be very familiar to you. The other is very new. It may feel familiar, but research and the development of organization theories using this orientation are only now beginning to appear in the literature.

We also offer prescriptions for middle managers in mental health settings, from the point of view of theories from each paradigm. Since our recent consulting and research favors one general orientation, we devote most of this chapter to a new theory of organizational behavior in human service organizations (HSOs) and its implications for middle managers. Kurt Lewin was fond of saying, “There is nothing so practical as a good theory.” We think you will find the perspective offered here a very practical view of the world.

Two Organizational Scenarios. Imagine yourself sitting around a conference table in an advanced seminar on organization theory. Your professor, Dr. Sam Rebew, begins the class with this statement: “I am going to paint

45

you a verbal picture of two organizational scenes. After listening to each, I’d like you to tell me what theories might explain the organizational world you see, hear, or feel. Further, I’d like you to tell me how you would function as a middle manager in each of these settings.”

Scenario 1 Organizations

You listen intently as Professor Rebew draws the following verbal images:

In this organization, goals are easy to define operatonally. They are clear and explicit, and there is broad agreement on the preferences about possible outcomes. Information about goal attainment is easily accessible, clear, and unambiguous. Fur- ther, the results of organizational efforts are tangible, and quantitative measures of efficiency and effectiveness are readily available. Participation of organizational members is stable, and people devote the same amount of time and effort to their jobs day in and day out. Work tasks are subdivided by functional specialization, which is decided upon b,y those in central authority.

The ways the core work gets done are well understood, and there are clear, organizationally specified procedures which organizational members must follow. It is easy to demonstrate the relationship between means and ends. People both inside and outside the organization are treated the same, without regard for individual qualities.

Formal roles and relationships are well defined, and members adhere to a hierarchical chain of command. Decision making is rational, and follows a linear, computa- tional process. Through the use of rules, plans, procedures, and hierarchical authority, managers control and coordinate the actions of organizational members.

The Bureaucracy. If you were to say to Professor Rebew, “Scenario 1 is best explained through classical theories of organization,” you would get an “ A for your answer. This is the structure Max Weber (1947) first described, which he viewed as the most efficient form for large complex organizations. The bureaucracy, in Weber’s view, is characterized primarily by rational-legal authority. It makes extensive use of formal rules and procedures to govern and control. People hold offices by virtue of technical competence, and offices are arrayed in a strict hierarchy. They are impersonal, so that no favors can be traded within or without the bureaucracy.

Trist (1977) has referred to this organizational form as a “technocratic bureaucracy,” and he believes it is the prevailing form of organizations in advanced industrial societies. Mintzberg (1979), in terms similar to Trist, refers to organizations characterized in Scenario 1 as machine bureaucracies, and states that all the evidence on these organizatons “suggests that the machine bureaucracy is a structure with an obsession, namely control” (p. 319).

Middle Management in the Technocratic-Machine Bureaucracy. The role of middle management is generally seen as one of “translating general policies made by top management into decisions to be implemented by the lower echelonsn (Tosi and Carroll, 1976, p. 14). Middle managers typically supervise other managers as well as operating employees. Thus, middle managers, as the phrase implies, are the buffers between top management and the front lines of organizational activity.

46

Mintzberg (1979) defines three primary tasks for middle managers in the machine bureaucracy. First, they manage the conflicts which arise between specialized workers in the operating core under their general supervi- sion. Second, they act as liaisons between the technical analysts- planners, accountants, personnel analysts, and so on- in order to incorporate standard- ized procedures downward into the core of operations. Third, middle managers serve to support the flow of information up the organizational hierarchy.

The Dominant Paradigm. This description of the tasks of middle management represents the classical view of that role. It also represents some- thing more: It reflects the role of managers according to the prevailing view- the dominant paradigm (Kuhn, 1970)- of modern complex organizations in our society. This view is so pervasive that it has dominated the vast majority of organizational research and management practice. The dominant paradigm is characterized by its focus on management as the rationalizing force in organizations. It supposes that management is the appropriate domain for the exer- cise of influence over the organizational sphere, and it assumes that the most applicable principles for the operation of organizations are those of hierarchical control and coordination.

According to the classical theory, the bureaucratic structure is the form most conducive to managerial control and coordination. It maintains that managers are accountable for subordinates’ efforts Uaques, 1976), and that, consequently, authority relationships must be clear and explicit. Rules and programs must also be institutionalized, and relations between members must remain impersonal.

The technology most appropriate for this vertical system is linear. The assembly line is the archetype; management by objectives, zero-based budgeting, program planning and budgeting systems, management information systems, and rational problem solving are clear technological preferences. Finally, the measures of success for the modern organization are held to be cost efficiency and effectiveness; useful output must exceed total input, and the organization’s objectives must be attained.

Inquiry into the nature of modern complex organizations has become fixated on this dominant paradigm of the technocratic bureaucracy. The organizational models and management principles derived from these investiga- tions seem to make the normative assumption that the technocratic bureaucracy is the ideal paradigm for all realms of organized effort.

So long as the organizations we observe fit the description of the technocratic bureaucracy, this assumption is valid. However, as we shall see in Scenario 2, there are organizational worlds which appear to be very different from the rational model of the dominant paradigm. For these types of organizations, the bureaucratic assumptions are open to serious question.

Scenario 2

Professor Rebew now turns our attention to another organizational vista. He sketches the following picture:

47

In this organization, goals are ambiguous, inconsistent, and continually changing. They are problematic, difficult to set, and rarely is there total consensus on preferences of possible outcomes. Information about goal attainment is difficult to obtain, and the results of organizational efforts are fuzzy and are not easily evaluated. Quali- tative measures of effectiveness are generally used to determine success.

Participation of organizational members is fluid, and people devote varying amounts of time and effort to their jobs. People tend to come and go a lot. Work tasks are subdivided by functional specialization, but these specialties are determined largely by outside professional associations and schools.

The ways the core work gets done are indeterminant, not well understood, and nonroutine. It is difficult to demonstrate means-ends, or cause-effect, relationships. There are few organizationally specified procedures which everyone must follow, and most of those that are followed originate from outside the organization. Individual qualities are considered in getting the work done.

Decision making is largely judgmental and intuitive, and often a compromise between differing views. Formal roles and relationships are ill-defined, and members adhere little to the chain of command. People feel that they ought to be able to make their own decisions without pressure from the employing organization. Rules, plans, procedures, and hierarchical authority are ineffective in controlling and coordinating actions of organizational members. There is a strong belief in self-regulation, in which the person best qualified to judge the work of a professional is a fellow professional.

Organizational Anarchies. You probably observed that Scenario 2 is much more descriptive of your mental health agency than Scenario 1. But if you searched the literature, you would find little that would assist you in either explaining the dynamics or the management of these “organized anarchies” (Cohen and March, 1974), “loosely coupled systemsn (Meyer and Rowan, 1978; Weick, 1976), or “professional bureaucracies” (Mintzberg, 1979). Not surprisingly, the little research that has been done is in universities (Baldridge and others, 1978; Cohen and March, 1974), secondary schools (Meyer and Rowan, 1978), hospitals (Scott and others, 1978), a federal agency (Sproull, Weiner, and Wolf, 1978), and mental health centers (Kaplan, 1979). There could very well be a message in this fact, a message that HSOs are distinctly different from the world of the technocratic, machine bureaucracy put forth so eloquently by Weber (1947) so many years ago.

New Theories Needed. Recently, we came to realize that we needed to move away from our fixation on conventional models of organizations, and instead to create maps more accurately representing the world of HSOs. We needed a theory that better described and predicted organizational behavior in HSOs- one that would provide special lenses to correct our conceptual myopia. In the remainder of this chapter we describe our theory, its origins, and its implications for middle managers in mental health settings.

The Saga of a New Theory

We trace the origins of our theoretical work on HSOs back to 1974. That year, we designed a special grant project as a second-year effort to assist HSOs in the process of integrating services. The mandate for integrated human service was strong, and we had had requests from our clients to pro-

48

vide training and consultation on services integration. During the first year of the project, we worked with agency teams composed of whomever the agencies selected to participate. During the program, we became acutely aware of issues that reflected differing points of view - those of policy, of management, and of service. As a consequence of that experience, we designed the second year of the project to impact these three different levels. We asked agencies to designate special teams from each level to participate in the training. Separate and joint sessions were held for each group.

Out of this experience came our realization that each group- what we later termed domain - approached the problems of services integration differ- ently. They had their own unique perspectives, and each tended to be in conflict with one or both of the other domains. It was at this point that we began to theorize about the nature of HSOs and were able to differentiate three distinctly different entities, each of which staked a claim to the control of HSOs (Kouzes and Mico, 1976; Mico, Kouzes, and Bergthold, in press).

Concurrent with this training effort, we began a search of literature on HSOs. Significant among the contributors was Weisbord (1976), who described his OD practice with medical centers. Weisbord‘s observation that “medical ten- ters . . . require three different social systems . . . governance, task, and identity” (p. 18) was encouragingly similar to our observations about the dynamics of the policy, management, and service levels in our training project.

We found another conceptualization of multiple systems in Bell (1976). Bell divided contemporary society into three realms: policy, techno-economic, and culture. He further observed that each realm was disjunctive and func- tioned in ways incongruent with the others. Parsons (1960) similarly deline- ated the hierarchical structure of organizations into three system-levels- the technical system, the managerial system, and the community or institutional system.

The work of Jaques (1976) gave further support to our notion that the bureaucratic model may not be the most appropriate one for human services. He pointed to the tendency in modern society to bureaucratize everything, and commented, “Bureaucratic organization is useful for the large-scale pro- duction and provision of goods and services. It is inimical, on the other hand, to the free development of ideas, to the expression of sacred belief, and to the intimacy of the confidential doctor-patient relationship” (p. 344).

Complementing the thinking of these four scholars was the work of researchers in loose coupling (Cohen and March, 1974; Cohen, March, and Olsen, 1972; March and Olsen, 1976; Meyer, 1977; Meyer and others, 1978; Meyer and Rowan, 1978; Scott and others, 1978; Weick, 1976).

In weaving together our own experiences and observations with those of other theorists, researchers, and practitioners, we began to develop a theory to explain and predict the behavior of HSOs.

Domain Theory

We refer to our set of suppositions about HSOs as Domain Theory. We theorize that HSOs are comprised of three distinct domains- the Policy

49

Domain, the Management Domain, and the Service Domain - each of which functions by a separate set of governing (or axial) principles, success measures, structural arrangements, and work modes (or technologies). (Our use of the term domains is similar to that of Thompson, 1967, and Levine and White, 1961. Ours, however, is distinguished by its broader application.) We theorize further that each set of governing principles, success measures, structural arrangements, and work modes is incongruent with the others, and that each domain gives rise to its own legitimating norms which contrast with the norms of the others. The result of the interactions of these domains is an internally disjunctive and discordant organization.

The Policy Domain refers to the level of the organization at which governing policies are formulated. In HSOs this domain is occupied by elected or appointed representatives of a local community who typically serve on boards of directors. In a democratic society the Policy Domain operates on the axial principle of legitimacy by the consent of the governed (Bell, 1976). The success of the Policy Domain is measured in terms of equity, in such matters as just, impartial, and fair policy decisions. A representative form is the logical structure for the Policy Domain, and the work modes by which policy decisions are reached necessarily involve negotiating, bargaining, and voting.

Because of the dominance of the “technocratic bureaucracyn paradigm, the Management Domain of HSOs attempts to mirror this model of the organizational world. HSOs’ Management Domain operates by the governing principles of hierarchical control and coordination. It attempts to rationalize the organization, accepting cost efficiency and effectiveness as its success measures, and bureaucracy as its rightful structure. Whether appropriate to HSOs or not, linear work modes are imported or adapted.

Those providing services to clients of HSOs also see themselves as hav- ing rights to control what they define as their professional domain. After years of schooling, professionals consider themselves capable of self-governance and believe they have the expertise to respond to the needs and demands of their clients. Principles of autonomy and self-regulation thus govern the Service Domain. Quality of care and professional standards are the preferred criteria for measuring success, and these quality standards are related to process, not product. Service Domain occupants work in a mode of individualized, client- specific problem solving with technologies that are largely indeterminant. Fig- ure 1 illustrates major characteristics of each domain.

Separate Identities. Each domain has an important and legitimate role to play in democratic societies, and each is organized in functional and coherent ways that are appropriate to the performance of its primary task. However, these very same principles, success measures, structures, and work modes that serve to organize integral domains also serve to separate and dis- connect the domains from each other. They promote separate identities- identities associated with the domains - and inhibit the development of a common vision of the HSO. The absence of a shared reality also contributes to the identity crisis experienced by many clinical administrators. Passing through the zone from professional service-provider to manager, clinicians

50

Figure 1. The Three Domains of Human Service Organizations

PrIncIples: Consenl of Ihe Governed Success Measures: €gully Sfrucfure: Represenlellm

Work Modes: Voling Participallve

0 0 0 0 Bargalnlng

Negotlatlng POLICY DOMAIN

...................................................... ...................................................... ...................................................... ...................................................... ...................................................... ... :j:::DlSCO~~DANCE~~~:~:~:DIuU~CTtON ~:~:~:~:~CO.~FLlC?S~~:~:~ ...................................................... ...................................................... ...................................................... ......................................................

Prhclpler: Hlerarchlcal Conlrol

SUCC8SS Measurer: Cost Elliciency

Slrucfure: Bureaucrallc

WorL Modes: Use 01 Llnear

and Coordinallon

Ellecliveness

MANAGEMENT DOMAIN Techniques and Tools

...................................................... ...................................................... ......................................................................................... ........................................................................ :::::: ... o!sc.oRDAN.cE~~:~:~: DlsJ~uNC~l.O~~:~:~:~:j:~cONF~~CTs~:~:~:~

...................................................... ...................................................... ...................................................... .....................................................

SERVICE DOMAIN Prlnclple8: Autonomy Sell-regulallon

SWCrS8 Measures; Ouallly 01 Service Good Slandardr 01 Pracllce

ShICfW8: Collegial

Work Modes: Client-speclllc Problem-solving

begin to feel lost and former colleagues begin to wonder if “they” can be trusted any longer.

The “Rashomon Effect.” People who occupy roles in the different domains view the HSO from different vantage points and have different per- ceptions of the reality of HSOs. Schon (1971, p. 210) refers to this phenome-

51

non as “the Rashomon* effect, in which the same story, told from the point of view of several participants, fragments into several different and incompatible stories” (see Kurosawa, 1950).

The actors in each domain collect information needed to perform their own roles, but in the process often selectively ignore or discount information available from other sources, thus frequently arriving at incompatible conclu- sions. Although this selective perception distorts the organizational world, it also serves the purpose of preserving each domain’s integrity.

Different Norms. Each domain follows different norms, and these norms often legitimate incompatible behaviors (Bell, 1976). Conformity to rules and procedures is frequently a norm of the Management Domain; it con- trasts with the Service Domain’s nonconformist norm of individuality. In the Policy Domain that norm is often untenable.

When domains cannot agree on expected and acceptable behaviors, they experience a lack of cohesiveness. The separation is thus strengthened and the possibility of establishing close relationships weakened.

Discordance. One easily perceives the absence of harmony in HSOs; tension and conflict are almost continually present. It is not simply because the work itself is stressful, though it is that. The stress is due in large part to the discordance between the principles, success measures, structures, and work modes of each domain.

Even under normal conditions, for example, there is constant tension between the principles of consent of the governed, hierarchical control and coordination, and autonomy and self-regulation. Measures calling for fair and equitable treatment are often in conflict with the evaluations of cost efficiency and effectiveness, which are in turn frequently discordant with professional standards of practice.

Struggle for Power and Control. Since independent decisions made in each domain impact upon the others, each struggles to maintain its integrity and seeks to balance the power in the system. Adversary relations frequently develop. Rather than seeing themselves as collaborators attempting to work toward a common purpose, the domains often find themselves in a struggle for control of the HSO.

Different Rhythms of Change. The domains tend to be responsive to different environmental sectors, and the drumbeat of change tends to be different for each. The Policy Domain responds to changing demands emanating from the political realm, the Management Domain responds to changes in the technological and economic sector, and the Service Domain responds primarily to changes in the cultural realm. The demands made by these different environmental realms may require different, and even incompatible, responses.

A strategy to improve the functioning of one domain may be at odds with the effective functioning of another. As a result of a Policy Domain

*Rashomon is a classic Japanese film in which the observers of an incident all give different accounts of what occurred.

action, for example, the Management Domain may lose more control over some part of the organization, and the Service Domain may have to relinquish some of its autonomy.

Implications for Middle Managers

Through the lens of Domain Theory, we see different tasks for the middle manager in “organized anarchies,” “loosely coupled systems,” and “professional bureaucracies.” While middle managers in multiple-domain organizations still act as liaisons between top management and the line (Mintzberg, 1979), they must contend with dynamics not found in technocratic bureaucracies. They are, therefore, subject to unique sets of contingencies, and they must accustom their senses and develop their skills to confront the tensions caused by the interaction of disjunctive domains.

Divided Houses. The word domain derives from the Greek word for house. In HSOs, it is as if people have constructed very different houses to serve the functions of policy making, managing, and providing service. These houses look very different, and they act distinctively. When people in one house attempt to build additions onto their domicile, those in another are quick to build fences, protest, resist, and seek permits to construct their own additions. Middle managers, who carry the message from the top down and the bottom up, often get caught in the crossfire between these divided houses. They are marginal people, caught in the zone overlapping the Service and Management Domains.

Caught in this zone of disjunction, middle managers in HSOs often personally experience the tensions between the conflicting demands of the two domains. They experience the tension of demands for rational-legal control and coordination versus demands for autonomy and self-regulation. They experience the tension of demands to measure results in quantifiable terms and demands to let quality and professional standards be the measures. Also, they experience the tension of demands for highly rational, linear problem solving versus demands for individualized treatment and intuitive processes.

This tension is further complicated by the legitimacy of each set of conflicting demands. Research into centralization and formalization (two characteristics of the bureaucracy and the Management Domain) clearly show that centralization of authority makes a large, positive contribution to the produc- tion of greater units of service (more clients seen) and greater efficiency (lower cost per unit of service) in HSOs (Glisson and Martin, 1980; Whetten, 1978). Formalized rules, policies, and guidelines also account for greater productivity (Glisson and Martin, 1980; Molnar and Rogers, 1976). Clearly, from a Man- agement Domain perspective, centralized authority and formalized policies are practical and useful.

However, these same characteristics also negatively correlate with satisfaction among service workers (Whetten, 1978). Holland (1973) found that in a residential treatment center where decision-making authority was central-

53

ized, service staff provided more institutional and impersonal patterns of care. When the organization was decentralized, and service staff were able to participate in decision making, there was a marked shift from this kind of care toward a greater individual orientation. Whetten (1978) found similar results in the evaluation of organizational effectiveness of manpower agencies.

This oft-reported conflict between professionalism and bureaucracy, on the one hand, and the acute uncertainty of our time, on the other, combine to create an extremely stressful situation for the middle manager in mental health agencies. Just how can he or she manage these divided houses?

1. Confront Conzict. As we have stated several times, conflict is natural in disjunctive situations. While the dynamics of HSOs may seem bizarre, the people in them are not crazy. They are merely asserting the independence of their domains and attempting to influence others in the organization to do what they think should be done in the way they want it done. This conflict is an organizational fact of life in mental health agencies.

However, unresolved conflict can turn into rampant aggression. Because of their liaison roles, middle managers play an important part in managing the conflicts. They need to utilize and improve their skills in intragroup and inter- group conflict resolution. In addition, middle managers need to be attentive to their own tension levels, and learn to manage their stress.

2. Explore New Vistas. We have found in our work with managers that simply introducing Domain Theory helps clarify roles and relieve tensions. There is a certain comfort in realizing that conflicts between Management and Service Domains or between Management and Policy Domains are natural, and not the result of mismanagement. This awareness also seems to help HSO managers to more clearly focus their energies in finding strategic ways to deal with others in the system. So, we encourage managers to broaden their perspectives, to explore new ways of viewing organizations, and to step back and be spectators in their own organizational theaters.

3. Recognize Each Domain’s Legitimacy. In our democratic society, each HSO domain performs a necessary function. In a sense, the domains act together as an organizational check and balance system. It is important that each maintain its separate identity and integrity if the multiple needs of human communities are to be served. According each domain its legitimacy conveys a sense of empathy and understanding that will increase the probabil- ity that domain occupants will trust middle managers to act in the best inter- ests of the organization.

4. Generate Shared Identities. One of the most effective ways to get com- peting groups to work together is to identify a superordinate goal which can be shared by all. A middle manager who can actively listen to the multiple points of view of each domain, and then discover goals which will benefit both Man- agement and Service, will help to build interdependencies in the organization. The more the manager can articulate exciting possibilities and shared identities and values, the more the domains can coalesce around a common vision.

5. Develop Style Flexibility. Working effectively in the Management

54

Domain often requires using skills very different from skills needed for working effectively in the Service Domain. The bureaucratic system frequently demands capacities to solve problems using rational (left-brain) tools. It demands skills in prescribing goals, evaluating others, offering incentives, and exerting pressure on others.

These behaviors are not usually typical of the Service Domain. In this domain, collegial norms are dominant. People are expected to actively listen to others, to reflect understanding, and to offer support.

For the middle manager, all these skills are needed. He or she must interface with both domains, and consequently must have the flexibility to adapt the styles and behaviors to fit the situation. He or she must be able to select the appropriate decision strategies for different conditions, and then take skillful action to implement them.

6 . Empower Others. There is a prevalent myth in our society that power corrupts. Research into power and organizations (Kanter, 1977), however, clearly shows that it is powerlessness which is the true origin of petty tyranny among managers and subversiveness among employees. By sharing power, managers and service employees alike will enjoy a greater sense of personal efficacy and job satisfaction. In practical terms, this means that middle managers will need to let go of the managerial tendency to control and bureaucratize everything. They need to learn to “manage autonomy” by encouraging and supporting mechanisms for self-regulation. In working upward, they will need to promote joint problem-solving sessions between managers and service professionals.

7. Introduce Change Dzflerentially. The Management Domain tends to be most responsive to shifts in the economic and technological environment. It also tends to be most willing to adopt innovations that meet the decision criteria of efficiency and effectiveness. If middle managers wish to get top management’s acceptance of a change in organizational operations, it is essential to demonstrate the ways in which the innovation can reduce costs, increase productivity, and meet program goals.

For professionals in the Service Domain, decision criteria are based on quality of service, professional standards, and client satisfaction and well- being. New programs, to be accepted by the professional cadre, must meet these measures of success.

When introducing change into either domain, it is best to develop a strategy which brings the change into the organization via the route preferred by the impacted domain. If more than one domain is affected, then the innovation must demonstrate its capacity to satisfy the needs and decision guidelines of both.

8. Be Humble and Foolish. Cohen and March (1974) offer a refreshing departure from the traditional prescriptions for management. Among their eight basic rules for managers in organized anarchies, they suggest that the administrator be humble and foolish. With the realization that much of what gets done in professional organizations is not under the control of managers, we learn to accept, with humility, the limitations of the Management Domain.

Foolishness plays its part through encouraging people to take risks, try new things, and maintain a sense of humor about it all. The cartoon character Ziggy offers an excellent paraphrase of this prescription when he advises, “Never get too personally involved with your own life” (Wilson, 1975).

9. Think Coybintly. Our final suggestion to middle managers is the meta- message of this chapter - think coyointb. While we have stressed the inherent conflict and disjunction in HSOs, we also believe that these organizations work most effectively when the different domains develop ways to work with other domains, rather than against them. It is a principle of Aikido, the Japan- ese martial art, that one gains power by combining one’s energy with the opponent’s energy. One loses power through moving against another.

In much the same way, middle managers will increase their influence by joining with and attracting energy of top managers and professional service personnel. They will also strengthen the mental health agency itself by encouraging and supporting conjoint approaches to problem solving and decision making. The most effective approach to managing divided houses is to enable them to join together as separate entities toward a common vision of the future.

References

Argyris, C. Increasing Leadership Effecfivenes. New York: Wiley, 1976. Argyris, C., and Schon, D. A. Theory in Practice: Increasing Prgessional Effectiveness. San

Francisco: Jossey-Bass, 1974. Baldridge, J. V., Curtis, D. W., Ecker, G., and Riley, G. L. P0fi.v Making and Ejjective

Leadership: A National Study of Academic Management. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass, 1978. Bandler, R., and Grinder, J. The Structure ofMagic. (Vol. 1) Palo Alto, Calif.: Science

and Behavior Books, 1975. Bell, D., The Cultural Contradictions of Capifalism. New York: Basic Books, 1976. Cohen, M. D., and March, J. G. Leadnship andAmb&dy: Thc American College Presidency.

New York: McGraw-Hill, 1974. Cohen, M. D., March, J. G., and Olsen, J. P. “A Garbage Can Model of Organization

Choice.” Administrative Science Qwrterb, 1972, 17, 1-25. Glisson, C. A., and Martin, P. Y. “Productivity and Efficiency in Human Service

Organizations as Related to Structure, Size, and Age.” Academy ojManagement Journal,

Holland, T. P. “Organizational Structure and Institutional Care.” Journal of Health and

Jaques, E. A General Theory of Bureaucracy. New York: Halsted Press, 1976. Jones, R. A. Self-Fu@lling Prophecies: SocMl, Psychological, and Physiological Effects of Expec-

Kanter, R. M. Men and Women offhe Corporafion. New York: Basic Books, 1977. Kaplan, A. L. “Managerial Activities in an Organized Anarchy and a Rational Orga-

nization: Community Mental Health Centers Contrasted to Branch Banks.” Unpub- lished doctoral dissertation, Stanford University, 1979.

Kouzes, J. M., and Mico, P . R. The Integration ofSmices is a Process, Not a Product. (Tech- nical Report, Grant 85-P-96620/9-01, SRS DHEW.) San Jose, Calif.: Joint Center for Human Services Development, San Jose State University, July 1976.

Kuhn, T. S. The Structure ofScient$ic Revolutions. (2nd ed.) Chicago: University of Chi- cago Press, 1970.

1980, 23 (I), 21-37.

Social Behavior, 1973, 14, 241-251.

fancies. Hillsdale, N.J.: Erlbaum, 1977.

Kurisawa, A. (Director), and Minoura, J. (Producer). Rashomon. Japan: Janus Films, 1950. (Film)

56

Levine, S., and White, D. E. “Exchange as a Conceptual Framework for the Study of Interorganizational Relationships.” Administrative Science Qwrferb, 1961, 5, 583-601.

March, J. G., and Olsen, J. P. Ambkuity and Choice in Organizations. Bergen, Norway: Universitetsforlaget, 1976.

Meyer, J. W. Research on School and District Organization. Paper presented at Sociology of Education Conference, San Diego, April 1977.

Meyer, J. W., and Rowan, B. “The Structure of Educational Organizations.” In M. W. Meyer and Associates (Eds.), Environments and Organitalions: Theoretical and Empirical Perspectives. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass, 1978.

Meyer, J. W., Scott, W. R., Cole, S., and Intili, J. K. ‘Instructional Dissensus and Institutional Consensus in Schools.” In M. W. Meyer and Associates (Eds.), Envi- ronments and Organizations: Theoretical and Empirical Perspectives. San Francisco: Jossey- Bass, 1978.

Mico, P. R., Kouzes, J. M., and Bergthold, G . D. Domain Theory: A n Explanation for the Behavior o f Public Service Organizations. Oakland, Calif.: Third Party Associates, in press.

Mintzberg, H. The Structuring of0rganization.s: A Synthis ofthe Rescarch. Englewood Cliffs, N.J.: Prentice-Hall, 1979.

Molnar, J. J., and Rogers, D. L. “Organizational Effectiveness: An Empirical Com- parison of Goal and System Resource Approaches.” The Sociological Qwrterly, 1976, 17, 401-403.

Parsons, T. Structure and Process in Modern Societies. New York: Free Press, 1960. Schon, D. A. Bgrond the Stable State. New York: Norton, 1971. Scott, W. R., Flood, A. B., Ewy, W., and Forrest, W. H. Jr. “Organizational Effec-

tiveness and the Quality of Surgical Care in Hospitals.” In M. W. Meyer and Associ- ates (Eds.), Organizations and Environments: Theoretical and Empirical Perspectives. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass, 1978.

Thompson, J. D. Organizations in Action. New York: McGraw-Hill, 1967. Tichy, N. M. “Agents of Planned Social Change: Congruence of Values, Cognitions,

Tichy, N. M. “How Different Types of Change Agents Diagnose Organizations.” Human

Tosi, H. L. Theories Organization. Chicago: St. Clair Press, 1975. Tosi, H. L., and Carroll, S. J. Management: Contingencies, Structure, and Process. Chicago:

Trist, E. ”Collaboration in Work Settings: A Personal Perspective.”Jouml of Applied

Weber, M. The Theory ofSocial and Economic Organization. (A. M. Henderson and T. Par-

Weick, K. E. “Educational Organizations as Loosely Coupled Systems.” Administrative

Weisbord, M. R. ’Why Organization Development Hasn’t Worked (So Far) in

Whetten, D. A. “Coping with Incompatible Expectations: An Integrated View of Con-

Wilson, T. Never Gel Too Personally Involved With Your Own L@. Kansas City: Sheed

and Actions.” Administrative Science Quarter&, 1974, 19, 164-182.

Relations, 1975, 28, 771-799.

St. Clair Press, 1976.

Behavioral Science, 1977, 13 (3), 268-278.

sons, Trans.) New York: Oxford University Press, 1947.

Science Quarterb, 1976, 21 (l), 1-19.

Medical Centers.” Health Care Management Review, 1976, 1, 17-28.

flict.“ Administrative Science Quarterly, 1978, 23 (Z), 254-271.

Andrews & McMeel, 1975.

James M. Kouzes is executive vice-president of Harrison K o u e s Associates, Inc., a management and Organizational development consulting f irm in San Jose, California, and was former4 program director, Joint Center f o r Human Services Development at San Jose Stale University.

57

Paul R. Mico is president of Third Par9 Associates, Inc., a training, consulting, and pub Lishing firm in Oakland, CaL;frnia, concerned with health systems management and organizational development.

how can we manage divided houses?

Documents