WHEN BUREAUCRACY MATTERS FOR ORGANIZATIONAL PERFORMANCE: EXPLORING THE BENEFITS OF ADMINISTRATIVE INTENSITY IN BIG AND COMPLEX ORGANIZATIONS
| DOI | http://doi.org/10.1111/padm.12305 |
| Author | AHMED MOHAMMED SAYED MOSTAFA,RHYS ANDREWS,GEORGE BOYNE |
| Published date | 01 March 2017 |
| Date | 01 March 2017 |
doi: 10.1111/padm.12305
WHEN BUREAUCRACY MATTERS FOR
ORGANIZATIONAL PERFORMANCE: EXPLORING THE
BENEFITS OF ADMINISTRATIVE INTENSITY IN BIG
AND COMPLEX ORGANIZATIONS
RHYS ANDREWS, GEORGE BOYNE AND AHMED MOHAMMED SAYED MOSTAFA
Administrative intensity is arguably a major determinant of public service performance. Although
a large administrative function might constitute a bureaucratic burden, it could also enable orga-
nizations to better coordinate key activities. In particular, administrative intensity may strengthen
or weaken the performance effects of other key organizational characteristics, such as size and task
complexity. To explore these ideas, we analyse the separate and combined effects of administrative
intensity,organization size and task complexity on the research and educational performance of UK
universities between 2005 and 2011. The statistical results suggest that administrative intensity has
a performance pay-off for big and complex organizations.
INTRODUCTION
It has long been fashionable to suggest that bureaucratic public organizations are likely to
perform worse than their ‘leaner’ and more exible counterparts (Peters 2001). Whether
by generating excessive overheads, cumbersome reporting requirements or being unre-
sponsive to stakeholders, organizations with a large central administrative component are
thought to be unable to deliver services efciently and effectively. Yet the administrative
centre of an organization also constitutes a stock of human resourcesthat can potentially be
mobilized for the delivery of better services (Adler and Borys 1996). In this respect, a high
degree of central administrative intensity (the ratio of ‘back-ofce’ resources to front-line
resources) may be necessary to sustain high performance. In particular, the effects of an
array of internal and external variables on performance may be contingent on administra-
tive intensity.
Although there have been a number of recent studies examining the determinants of
administrative intensity and overheads in public organizations (e.g. Boyne and Meier 2013;
Boon and Verhoest 2014; Van Helden and Huijben 2014; Rutherford 2016), surprisingly
little is known about whether and when bureaucracy matters for public service perfor-
mance. Researchers have analysed the role that the central administration might play in
buffering organizations from external forces (e.g. Meier and O’Toole 2009; Andrews et al.
2013). Nevertheless, the possibility that central administrative intensity may lead to bet-
ter performance by strengthening or moderating the effects of key internal organizational
characteristics has yet to be thoroughly explored. To address this gap in the literature,
we examine the separate and combined effects of administrative intensity, organization
size and task complexity on the research and education performance of universities in the
United Kingdom (UK) between 2005 and 2011.
By extending previous research on administrative intensity, we are able to highlight that
not only is bureaucracy a function of other important organizational contingencies, but
Rhys Andrews is at the CardiffBusiness School, Cardiff University, UK. George Boyne is at the College of Arts, Human-
ities and Social Sciences, Cardiff University, UK. Ahmed Mohammed Sayed Mostafa is at Warwick Business School,
University of Warwick,UK.
Public Administration Vol.95, No. 1, 2017 (115–139)
© 2017 John Wiley & Sons Ltd.
116 AND REWS ET AL.
that it is a design feature that can have major implications for the effectiveness of public
organizations. The central administrative function of an organization typically comprises
those personnel with no direct role in service production, such as the senior management
team, corporate services (e.g. nance, human resources, IT, marketing), and other work-
ers providing services to the whole of an organization (Handel 2014). The administration
function is therefore distinguished from those functions responsible for the delivery of
services (e.g. professionals and street-level bureaucrats in public organizations). Since the
administrative function is an ‘overhead’ that must be added to direct service costs (Van
Helden and Huijben 2014), it is likely to have an inuence on the performance of public
organizations. Contingency theorists, in particular, draw attention to the ways in which
the benets of bureaucracy for organizational outcomes may be felt through its relation-
ship with other internal characteristics, especially the sheer size of an organization and
its internal task complexity (Van de Ven et al. 2013). Large central bureaucracies may be
required to better manage bigger and more complex organizations, and this, in turn, may
result in a positive performance pay-off.
Toinvestigate this issue, we carry out statistical analyses of the relationship between the
administrative intensity of UK universities, their size and task complexity and measures
of research and educational performance. First, we review prior research, which suggests
that the relationship between administrative intensity and performance may take a vari-
ety of forms, before exploring the potential for administrative intensity to moderate the
relationships between size and complexity and performance. Thereafter, we outline our
statistical model and the measures of organizational performance used for the analysis.
We then present our ndings, discuss the statistically signicant effects that emerge, and
draw theoretical and policy conclusions.
ADMINISTRATIVE INTENSITY AND ORGANIZATIONAL PERFORMANCE
The literature on administrative intensity in the public sector has tended to take the
standpoint that a large administrative component constitutes a ‘bureaucratic burden’
on organizations (Boon and Verhoest 2014). According to public choice theorists, in
particular, senior managers of public organizations create a large administrative function
because the resources that they receive from government are rarely dependent upon
the efcient production of services (Chubb and Moe 1990). However, despite popular
antipathy towards ‘bureaucracy’ in public organizations (Downs and Larkey 1986), it
is quite possible that administrative intensity is actually associated with better perfor-
mance. Apart from the benets of efcient and equitable decision-making conventionally
associated with bureaucratic modes of organizing public services (Goodsell 1985), organi-
zations with a strong administrative component may also be better placed to synchronize
the many moving parts that are present within public bureaucracies (Van Helden and
Huijben 2014).
Within the generic management literature, one of the main benets of administra-
tive intensity is generally thought to be the propensity for organizations with a bigger
‘back-ofce’ to devote more time and resources to performance-enhancing activities.
For example, Sine et al.’s (2006) analysis of the performance of new internet companies
between 1996 and 2001 reveals that new ventures with high levels of administrative
intensity outperform their ‘leaner’ counterparts because they have greater capacity for
managing the initial phases of business start-up. Furthermore, a review of the determi-
nants of service innovation in the public sector suggests that administrative intensity is a
Public Administration Vol.95, No. 1, 2017 (115–139)
© 2017 John Wiley& Sons Ltd.
To continue reading
Request your trial