The Reinvention Laboratories

• Author: James R. Thompson
• Published date: 01 March 2000
• Date: 01 March 2000
• DOI: http://doi.org/10.1177/02750740022064542
• Subject Matter: Articles

ARPA/March2000Thompson/THEREINVENTIONLABORATORIES

THE REINVENTION LABORATORIES

Strategic Change by Indirection

JAMES R. THOMPSON

University of Illinois–Chicago

The reinventionlaboratories created as part of the National Performance Reviewrepresent a novel

approach to strategicchange in the federal government. In assigning an important role to middle

managementin the design and implementation of new work technologies, the lab program contrasts

with more conventional approachesto change in which top management is dominant. This study

examines the viability of the generativemodel that the lab program represents as a means of induc-

ing agencies to employ postbureaucratic organizing principles. A conclusion is that although a

variety of factors will affect the degreeof success achieved, the model holds promise as a means of

achieving strategic changein public organizations.

A distinguishing feature of the National Performance Review (NPR)1is the

degree of attention directed to what Arnold (1998) calls the “micro-context of

reform,” referring to changes to work processes and relationships within agen-

cies. Consistent with a central theme of modern management theory, the spon-

sors of NPR endorse a shift away from organizing practices associated with the

bureaucratic-scientific management model whereby workers are assigned

highly specialized tasks, extensive written rules govern work behaviors, and

hierarchical reporting and communication prevail. The new postbureaucratic

(Barzelay,1992) model presumes greater autonomy for frontline workers and is

accompanied by a structure that facilitates the use of that autonomy to encour-

age high quality service, self-management, and innovation.

Extensive theoretical justification has been provided as to the suitability of

this new model for modern conditions.2A central problem for organizations

seeking to adopt this model, however,is that of transitioning from the new to the

old, of getting “from here to there” (Kanter, Stein, & Jick, 1992). The issue is

presentedinthemanagementliteratureasoneofstrategicchange(Tichy,1983).

Insights into the problem of strategic change can be gained from a variety of

theoreticalperspectives.Akeyissuerelates to the relative roles of top and lower

level management in the design and implementation of alternative structures

and work processes. Within the innovation literature, for example, Marcus

(1988) contrasts rule-bound and autonomous approaches to innovation imple-

AUTHOR’SNOTE: I would like to acknowledge the invaluable assistance of PatIngraham of Syra-

cuseUniversity in getting me startedon this line of researchand inencouragingme to persistwithit.

AMERICAN REVIEW OF PUBLIC ADMINISTRATION,Vol. 30 No. 1, March 2000 46-68

© 2000 Sage Publications, Inc.

46

mentation.Therule-boundapproachpresumesa“centralauthoritywhowantsto

see subordinates follow rules to carry out his or her policies,” whereas the

autonomous approach “accepts that people in the lowest echelons of an organi-

zation exhibit autonomy by redefining policies during the course of implemen-

tation” (p. 237). Marcus concludes that “implementation is likely to be more

effective when policy implementors [i.e., lower level managers] are free to

design and determine the specifics” (p. 251).

Withinthe organizational change literature, Kanter et al. (1992) note the scar-

city of “practical examples of organizations...that have fully transformed

themselves to attain this ideal [i.e., the postbureaucratic model]” (p. 5) and

observe that “grassroots innovation—oftenreferred to as bottom-up change—is

often preferred to large-scale top-down change as a source of enduring results”

(p.7). Similarly,Beer, Eisenstat,and Spector(1990) notethe widespreadfailure

of top-down programmatic approaches to change such as quality circles or

attempts to change organizational culture. They endorse a model in which lower

levelmanagers take the lead in devising alternative means of processing work.

The reinvention lab program, which is an NPR initiative launched by Vice

PresidentAlGoreandhis staffasameansofembeddingpostbureaucraticorgan-

izing practices within the federal executive establishment, presents an opportu-

nity to examine the viability of change strategies in which lower levelmanagers

are allowed a central role. In the discussion below,this generic approach is iden-

tified as generative, in contrast with a command or top-down approach to

change. This research is exploratory in nature; no attempt is made to test the

relative efficacy of the two approaches. Nevertheless, because the generative

model represents a departure from conventional approaches to change, a review

of its viability is important. A second purpose is to examine factors that account

for the relative effectivenessof the generative model in different organizational

contexts.

STRATEGY-MAKING PROCESS MODELS

Hart (1992) identifies 11 separate typologies of strategy-making processes,

whichhe organizes into a master typology or integrative framework. Strategy,in

this context, is a rather amorphous concept. Shrivastavaand Grant (1985), refer-

encing Chandler (1962), define strategic decisions as “ones that involvea com-

mitment of a large amount of organizational resources for the fulfillment of

organizational goals and purposes through appropriate means” (p. 98). For the

purpose of this discussion, the change from bureaucratic to postbureaucratic

structures represents a specific strategy suited for analysis within Hart’s(1992)

framework.3

The modal approach to strategy making4is what Hart (1992) calls the com-

mand mode, which presumes a highly centralized structure in which lower level

participants abide by directives from the top. In this mode, (a) strategy formula-

Thompson / THE REINVENTION LABORATORIES 47