Prominent scholars have observed that public organizations and policies tend to have ambiguous goals, but research on these assertions is scarce. This analysis adds to a recent set of studies that developed measures of organizational goal ambiguity and found that federal agencies vary on these measures due to differences in funding patterns and other variables. This study adds variables representing the nature of the agencies’ work—the routineness and complexity of their technologies and tasks. As hypothesized, complexity relates positively to one dimension of goal ambiguity, “directive goal ambiguity.” Routineness of tasks relates negatively to “evaluative goal ambiguity,” whereas complexity relates positively to it. These results further evince the value of the measures of goal ambiguity and their potential contribution to analysis of variations among government agencies, and to such issues as the applicability of various managerial reforms to different agencies. The results also contribute indicators of organizational task complexity and routineness that researchers can use to take into account the type of work that an agency does, in analyzing government agencies and differences among them.
Allison, G.T. ( 1983). Public and private management: Are they fundamentally alike in all unimportant respects? In J. L. Perry & K. L. Kraemer (Eds.), Public management (pp. 72-92). Palo Alto, CA: Mayfield.
2.
Andrews, R., Boyne, G.A., & Walker, R.M. ( 2008). Reconstructing empirical public administration: Lutonism or scientific realism. Administration & Society, 40, 324-330.
3.
Bigley, G.A., & Roberts, K.H. ( 2001). The incident command system: High-reliability organizing for complex and volatile task environments. Academy of Management Journal, 44, 1281-1299.
4.
Bishop, P.C., & Jones, A.J. ( 1993). Implementing the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990: Assessing the variables of success. Public Administration Review, 53, 121-128.
5.
Boyd, B.K., Dess, G.G., & Raheed, A.M.A. (1993). Divergence between archival and perceptual measures of the environment: Causes and consequences. Academy of Management Review, 18, 204-226.
6.
Boyne, G.A., & Walker, R.M. ( 2004). Strategy content and public service organizations. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 14, 231-252.
7.
Chun, Y.H., & Rainey, H.G. ( 2005a). Goal ambiguity and organizational performance in U.S. federal agencies. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 15, 529-558.
8.
Chun, Y.H., & Rainey, H.G. ( 2005b). Goal ambiguity in U.S. federal agencies. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 15, 1-30.
9.
Daft, R.L. ( 2007). Organization theory and design (9th ed.). St. Paul, MN: West Group .
10.
Daft, R.L., & Macintosh, N.B. (1981). A tentative exploration into amount and equivocality of information processing in organizational work units. Administrative Science Quarterly, 26, 207-224.
11.
Dahl, R.A., & Lindblom, C.E. (1953). Politics, economics, and welfare. New York: Harper & Row.
12.
Dornbusch, S.M., & Scott, W.C. ( 1975). Evaluation and the exercise of authority. New York: Basic Books.
13.
Downs, A. ( 1967). Inside bureaucracy. Boston: Little, Brown.
14.
Drucker, P.F. ( 1980). The deadly sins in public administration. Public Administration Review, 40, 103-106.
15.
Epstein, D., & O’Halloran, S. (1999). Delegating powers: A transaction cost politics approach to policy making under separate powers . New York: Cambridge University Press.
16.
Feldman, M. ( 1989). Order without design: Information production and policy making. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.
17.
Feller, I. ( 2002). Performance measurement redux. American Journal of Evaluation, 23, 435-452.
18.
Fiorina, M.P. ( 1986). Legislative uncertainty, legislative control, and the delegation of legislative power. Journal of Law, Economics, and Organization, 2, 33-51.
19.
Ford, J. ( 1997). Earnings by level of work: Results from pilot studies of the national compensation survey program. Compensation and Working Conditions, Summer, 24-31.
20.
Franklin, A.L. ( 1999). Managing for results in Arizona: A fifth-year report card. Public Productivity and Management Review, 23, 194-209.
21.
Frederickson, H.G., & LaPorte, T.R. ( 2002). Airport security, high reliability, and the problem of rationality. Public Administration Review, 62, 33-43.
22.
Gable, C. ( 1998). Strategic action planning now! A guide for setting and meeting your goals. New York: St. Lucie.
23.
Gillespie, D.F., & Mileti, D.S. ( 1977). Technology and the study of organization: An overview and appraisal. Academy of Management Review, 2, 7-16.
24.
Gormley, W.T. ( 1989). Taming the bureaucracy: Muscles, prayers, and other strategies . Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
25.
Gormley, W.T., & Balla, S.J. ( 2008). Bureaucracy and democracy: Accountability and performance . Washington, DC: CQ Press.
26.
Hage, J., & Aiken, M. ( 1969). Routine technology, social structure, and organizational goals. Administrative Science Quarterly, 14, 366-376.
27.
Hall, R.H. ( 2002). Organizations: Structures, processes, and outcomes (8th ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.
28.
Hargrove, E. C., & Glidewell, J. C. (Eds.). (1990). Impossible jobs in public management. Lawrence: University of Kansas Press.
29.
Hickson, D., Pugh, D., & Pheysey, D. ( 1969). Operations technology and organizational structure: An empirical reappraisal. Administrative Science Quarterly, 14, 378-397.
30.
Hofstede, G. ( 1981). Management control of public and not-for-profit activities . Accounting, Organizations and Society, 6, 193-211.
31.
Hood, C., & Dunsire, A. ( 1981). Bureaumetrics. Tuscaloosa: University of Alabama Press.
32.
Huber, J.D., & Shipan, C.R. ( 2002). Deliberate discretion: The institutional foundations of bureaucratic autonomy. New York: Cambridge University Press.
33.
Hulin, C.L., & Roznowski, M. ( 1985). Organizational technologies: Effects on organizations’ characteristics and individual’s responses. In L. L. Cummings & B. M. Staw (Eds.), Research in organizational behavior (Vol. 7, pp. 39-85). Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.
34.
LaPorte, T.R., & Consolini, P.M. (1991). Working in practice but not in theory: Theoretical challenges of "high-reliability organizations." Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 1, 19-47.
35.
Lewis, D.E. ( 2003). Presidents and the politics of agency design: Political insulation in the United States government bureaucracy, 1947-1997. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.
36.
Lipsky, M. ( 1980). Street-level bureaucracy. New York : Russell Sage Foundation.
37.
Locke, E.A., & Latham, G.P. ( 2002). Building a practically useful theory of goal setting and task motivation. American Psychologist, 57, 705-717.
38.
Lowi, T. ( 1972). Four systems of policy, politics, and choice. Public Administration Review, 32, 298-310.
39.
Lowi, T. ( 1979). The end of liberalism. New York: W. W. Norton.
40.
Lynn, L.E. ( 1981). Managing the public’s business. New York: Basic Books.
41.
March, J.G. ( 1991). Exploration and exploitation in organizational learning . Organization Science, 2, 71-87.
42.
March, J.G., & Olsen, J.P. ( 1976). Ambiguity and choice in organizations. Oslo, Norway: Scandinavian University Press.
Mashaw, J.L., Merrill, R.A., & Shane, P.M. ( 1998). Administrative law: The American public law system (4th ed.). St. Paul, MN: West Group.
45.
Mazmanian, D.A., & Sabatier, P.A. (1989). Implementation and public policy. New York: University Press of America.
46.
McCubbins, M.D. ( 1985). The legislative design of regulatory structure. American Journal of Political Science, 29, 721-748.
47.
McCubbins, M.D., Noll, R.G., & Weingast, B.R. (1989). Structure and process, politics and policy: Administrative arrangements and the political control of agencies. Virginia Law Review, 75, 431-482.
48.
Meier, K.J. ( 1980). Measuring organizational power: Resources and autonomy of government agencies. Administration and Society, 12, 357-375.
49.
Meier, K.J. ( 2000). Politics and the bureaucracy (4th ed.) New York: Harcourt.
50.
Meier, K.J., & McFarlane, D.R. (1995). Statutory coherence policy implementation: The case of family planning. Journal of Public Policy, 15, 281-298.
51.
Miller, C.C., Glick, W.H., Wang, Y., & Huber, G.P. ( 1991). Understanding technology-structure relationships: Theory developing and meta-analytic theory testing. Academy of Management Journal, 34, 370-399.
52.
Mosher, F.C. ( 1982). Democracy and the public service. New York: Oxford University Press.
53.
Moynihan, D.P. ( 2008). The dynamics of performance management. Washington, DC: Georgetown University Press.
54.
Pandey, S.K., & Rainey, H.G. ( 2006). Public managers’ perceptions of organizational goal ambiguity: Analyzing alternative models. International Public Management Journal, 9, 85-112.
55.
Pandey, S.K., & Wright, B.E. ( 2006). Connecting the dots in public management: Political environment, organizational goal ambiguity and the public manager’s role ambiguity . Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 16, 511-532.
56.
Perrow, C. ( 1967). A framework for the comparative analysis of organizations . American Sociological Review, 32, 194-208.
57.
Perrow, C. ( 1970). Organizational analysis. Belmont, CA: Wadsworth.
58.
Poister, T.H., & Streib, G. ( 1999). Performance measurement in municipal government: Assessing the state of the practice. Public Administration Review, 59, 325-335.
59.
Radin, B.A. ( 2000). The government performance and results act and the tradition of federal management reform: Square pegs in round holes? Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 10, 111-135.
60.
Rainey, H.G., & Lee, J.W. ( 2005, September-October). Of politics and purpose: Political context and goal ambiguity of U.S. federal agencies. Paper presented at the 8th Public Management Research Conference, Los Angeles, CA.
61.
Rainey, H.G., Pandey, S., & Bozeman, B. ( 1995). Research note: Public and private managers’ perceptions of red tape. Public Administration Review, 55, 567-574.
62.
Ringquist, E.J., Worsham, J., & Eisner M.A. ( 2003). Salience, complexity, and legislative direction of regulatory bureaucracies. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 13, 141-164.
63.
Ripley, R.B., & Franklin, G.A. (1991). Congress, the bureaucracy, and public policy (5th ed.). Pacific Grove, CA: Brooks/Cole.
64.
Roberts, K.H. ( 1990). Some characteristics of one type of high reliability organization. Organizational Science, 1, 160-176.
65.
Salamon, L.M. ( 2002). Economic regulation. In L. M. Salamon (Ed.), The tools of government: A guide to the new governance (pp. 117-155). New York: Oxford University Press.
Scott, W.R. ( 2003). Organizations: Rational, natural, and open systems (5th ed.). Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.
68.
Simon, H.A. ( 1964). On the concept of organizational goal. Administrative Science Quarterly, 9, 1-22.
69.
Stillman, R.J. ( 1999). Preface to public administration (2nd ed.). Burke, VA: Chatelaine Press .
70.
Stillman, R.J. ( 2004). The American bureaucracy (3rd ed.). Belmont, CA: Wadsworth/Thomson Learning.
71.
Tehrani, M., Montanari, J.R., & Carson, K.R. ( 1990, August). Technology as determinant of organizational structure: A meta-analytic review. In L. R. Jauch & J. L. Wall (Eds.), Proceedings of the 50th annual meeting of the Academy of Management. Briarcliff Manor, NY: Academy of Management.
72.
U.S. General Accounting Office. (2004). Results-oriented government: GPRA has established a solid foundation for achieving greater results. Washington, DC: Author.
73.
U.S. Office of Management and Budget. (2001 ). OMB circular no. A-11. Washington, DC : Author.
74.
U.S. Office of Management and Budget. (2003 ). Performance and management assessments. Washington, DC: Author.
75.
U.S. Office of Personnel Management. (1995 ). Introduction to the position classification standards. Washington, DC: Author.
76.
Van de Ven, A.H., & Ferry, D.L. ( 1980). Measuring and assessing organizations. New York: Wiley-Interscience.
77.
Volden, C. ( 2002). Delegating power to bureaucracies: Evidence from the states. Journal of Law, Economics, and Organization, 18, 187-220.
78.
Warwick, D.P. ( 1975). A theory of public bureaucracy. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
79.
Weick, K.E., & Sutcliffe, K.M. (2001). Managing the unexpected: Assuring high performance in an age of complexity. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Weiss, J. ( 1982). Coping with complexity: An experimental study of public policy decision-making. Journal of Policy Analysis and Management , 2, 66-87.
82.
Wildavsky, A. ( 1979). Speaking truth to power. Boston: Little, Brown.
83.
Wilson, J.Q. ( 1989). Bureaucracy. New York: Basic Books.
84.
Withey, M., Daft, R.L., & Cooper, W.H. ( 1983). Measures of Perrow’s work unit technology: An empirical assessment and a new scale. Academy of Management Journal , 26, 45-63.
85.
Woodward, J. ( 1965). Industrial organization: Theory and practice. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
86.
Wright, B.E. ( 2004). The role of work context in work motivation: A public sector application of goal and social cognitive theories. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 14, 59-78.
87.
Wright, B.E., & Davis, B.S. ( 2003). Job satisfaction in the public sector: The role of work environment. American Review of Public Administration, 33, 79-90.
88.
Yang, K., & Pandey, S. K. (2009). How do perceived political environment and administrative reform affect employee commitment? Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 19, 335-360.
