Organizational Effects On Policy Implementation in a Geographically Dispersed Natural Resources Organization

Abstract

Central administrators in the Minnesota Department of Natural Resources (DNR), Division of Forestry perceived that policies were inconsistently implemented at the field level. Data were collected on implementing five policies in 34 field offices and related to organization structure factors. Overall policy implementation was between 85% and 90%, although nearly 30% of the respondents reported implementation of a given policy at or below 75%. Significant differences were found in overall policy implementation among the five administrative regions in the division. Significant differences in implementation were also found among policies and among field offices. Criticalfactors related to policy implementation included direct influence by people in units above the field office; physical location of the field office in relation to supervisory offices; regional differences in biophysical, social, and economic factors ; influence of other DNR units; and feedback from staff specialists about job performance.

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

Brewer, G.D. , and P. deLeon. 1983. Thefoundations ofpolicy analysis Belmont, CA: Dorsey.

Bunker, D.R. 1972. Policy sciences perspectives on implementation processes Policy Sciences 3:71-80

. Campbell, J.P. 1976. Psychometric theory In Handbook of industrial and organizational psychology, edited by M. D. Dunnett, 1740, Chicago: Rand-McNally.

Ellefson, P.V. 1992. Forest resources policy: Process, participants, and programs New York: McGraw-Hill.

Fox, C.J. 1990. Implementation research: Why and how to transcend positivist methodologies In Implementation and policy process: Opening up the black box, edited by D. J Palumbo and D. J. Calista, 19-212, Westport, CT: Greenwood.

Galbraith, J.R. 1973. Designing complex organizations Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.

Goodman, P. 1965. People or personnel: Decentralizing and the mixed system New York: Random House.

Hage, J. , and M. Aiken. 1967. Relationship of centralization to other structural properties Administrative Science Quarterly 12:72-92

. Hogwood, G.W. , and L.A. Gunn. 1984. Policy analysis for the real world New York: Oxford University Press.

10.

Katz, D. , and R.L. Kahn. 1978. The social psychology of organizations 2d ed. New York: John Wiley.

11.

Kaufman, H. 1967. The forest ranger Baltimore, MD: The Johns Hopkins University Press.

12.

Lawrence, P.R. , and J.W. Lorsch. 1967. Differentiation and integration in complex organizations Administrative Sciences Quarterly 12:1-47

13.

. Likert, R. 1932. A technique for the measurement of attitudes Archives of Psychology, no. 140

14.

. Mazmanian, D. , and P. Sabatier. 1983. Implementation and public policy Glenview, IL: Scott, Foresman.

15.

Mintzberg, H. 1979. The structuring of organizations: A synthesis of the research Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.

16.

Scheirer, M.A. 1981. Program implementation: The organizational context Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.

17.

Tannenbaum, A.S. , B. Kavcic , M. Rosner , M. Vianello , and G. Wieser. 1974. Hierarchy in organizations San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

18.

Thompson, J.D. 1967. Organizations in action New York: McGraw-Hill.

19.

Van de Ven, A.H. , and D.L. Ferry. 1980. Measuring and assessing organizations New York: John Wiley.

20.

Van de Ven, A.H. , and G. Walker. 1984. The dynamics of interorganizational coordination Administrative Sciences Quarterly 29:598-621.