RUNNING HEAD: IMPLICATIONS FOR POSITIVE PUBLIC PERCEPTION 1
Adapting Government Structure: Implications for Positive Public Perception
Sara R. Shepherd
Queens University of Charlotte
IMPLICATIONS FOR POSITIVE PUBLIC PERCEPTION 2
Abstract
This paper explores two organizational designs: the machine bureaucracy, currently used by
most governments, and horizontal structure, currently used in many successful private
organizations. Research reveals that American government is using the vertical organizational
design, also known as the machine bureaucracy. This hierarchical, bureaucratic structure is said
to inhibit communication within the organization through its rigid rules, policies, norms, and
military-like chain-of-command. On the other hand, research also reveals that many large private
organizations are structured horizontally and are successful in innovation, employee engagement
and public perception. This paper explores the impact of bureaucratic structure on public
perception of the government and public agencies. It is theorized audiences likely have a
negative perception of government attributable to structure that could be improved by shifting
the structure to a more horizontal design that encourages employee agency. I also explore the
implication of improving public perception toward American government organizations as an
argument for horizontal structure. The intended audience for this project are government policy-
makers at the legislative level and others, such as Executive Directors, who have the power and
authority to develop and approve policies that support a horizontal organizational structure
within their particular government organization.
Key words: government, organizational design, organizational structure, Giddens’ Structuration
Theory, machine bureaucracy, horizontal structure, horizontal design, public perception,
communication, bureaucracy, hierarchy
IMPLICATIONS FOR POSITIVE PUBLIC PERCEPTION 3
Adapting Government Structure: Implications for Positive Public Perception
Today, more than ever, organizational design is essential to how functionable an
organization is and to what extent it allows employees the ability to communicate in a
way that produces successful outcomes. How the organization is designed is usually the
result of a formal process undergone internally with external feedback (Autry, 1996). The
current and historical preference in America is some form of a hierarchical structure, or
bureaucracy, in which authoritative positions are located at the top, beginning with one
person. For example, most organizations have a Chief Executive Officer (CEO) at the top
of the organizational chart and under the CEO are people who report upwards to that
person. This structure branches out and downward to those on the lowest branches, also
known as the ground level, whom are usually the people interacting with
consumers/customers on a daily basis.
One organization that latched largely onto the bureaucracy structure is America’s
government. The American government adopted the form of bureaucracy known as the
machine bureaucracy (Mintzberg, 1981). Since this design seems to draw largely on the
military structure needed in centuries past based on the society structure at those times, it
is possible that the machine bureaucracy is outdated for government organizations in
today’s society. Furthermore, within the hierarchical structure exist rules, policies and
procedures that are usually rigid and most are commonly applied without considering
context. This can be constrictive for communication, used to “exert control over member
behaviors”, can add more time to the development of messages and delay responsiveness
IMPLICATIONS FOR POSITIVE PUBLIC PERCEPTION 4
to the public, and can affect the construction of messages as information changes or is
removed as it moves up-and-down the vertical chain before reaching the intended
audience (Autry, 1996, p. 1). Most likely this is a result of how the information flows
through the hierarchical structure, leaving behind what can be too little information or
information that is too general. When this happens, I believe it could encourage the idea,
to the public, that the organization is not responsive and does not provide satisfactory
customer service.
In the following literature review, I will discuss in detail two organizational
designs, the machine bureaucracy and horizontal structures, as well as discuss Giddens
structuration theory. I will also compare and contrast the two organizational structures
with respect to employee agency, meaning the freedom or restrictions to do their job; and
I explore that perhaps removing restrictions on employees can positively affect customer
interaction and, thereby, public perception. If my research shows a relationship between
the aforementioned concepts, then it might be an effective strategy to persuade
government officials to adapt the structure of government. Additionally, research findings
garnered will contribute to scholarly academia by demonstrating the duality of structure
in relation to organizational design and the role it plays on interactions and public
perception. It may also have point to another area of study for scholars interested in
employee engagement and resistance to change might be affected by organizational
design. Another area of study that might intrigue scholars is the element of public
perception and how it could shape structure, as defined by Giddens. Lastly, the final
outcome of this project will be a thesis.
Literature Review
IMPLICATIONS FOR POSITIVE PUBLIC PERCEPTION 5
The Machine Bureaucracy
As stated above, the American government has gravitated toward a preference for
the machine bureaucracy. However, having been born out of the needs of the Industrial
Revolution, the machine bureaucracy can be thought of as old and outdated. The
operational characteristics of the machine bureaucracy are that of a hierarchy with
divided and specialized units of labor, inflexibility, rule-bound, and top-down in its
communication flow (Mintzberg, 1981). Essentially, the policies, rules and procedures
formalize behaviors and dictates actions (Mintzberg, 1981, p. 7). (This is important
because it is also included in the discussion about structuration theory, which explains
these policies, rules and behaviors as patterns of activity meaningful to those involved
and can be changed (Poole & McPhee, 2005)). Moreover, since government deals with
people who are human and not machines, the rigid structure of the machine bureaucracy
may prohibit the responsiveness needed in today’s society. Today, organizations may
need the flexibility to respond to unique situations that may not already have a procedure
established, and finding a formal, one-size-fits-all resolution is tough, if not impossible.
One of the most pivotal changes from decades past is the development of
ubiquitous technological devices and the way it has opened the doors for society to access
information; even extending to customer service. Today’s consumers expect to receive
quick and accurate services because the world we live in today is highly connected and
globalized through the advent of a plethora of digital technologies. This creates a society
that is very different from that of the ones 25, 15 and even 10 years ago and has affected
everyone from the personal level to the economic and political levels. Instead of the usual
Industrial Age thinking, companies need to recognize that we now live in a consumer-
IMPLICATIONS FOR POSITIVE PUBLIC PERCEPTION 6
driven “experience economy” and most are doing this (Solis, 2013; Yohn, 2014; Gobe,
2009). However, government organizations are still clinging to the rigid, vertical
structure of the machine bureaucracy, which seems to discount this change in customer
expectations. The effects of not adapting to a changing society may be what is trickling
down to affecting the employee’s agency, their ability to perform their job and, by
extension, to the customer who decides on their level of satisfaction based on their
interaction with staff (Gallup, 2009, p.4). When the results of the interaction are negative,
it is possible the public perception and image of the organization suffers through the
consumer’s communication to others in-person and/or via digital media platforms such as
Facebook and Twitter.
Furthermore, according to Mintzberg and Van der Heyden (1999), traditional
hierarchies are “vanishing” (p. 88). The machine bureaucracy emphasizes high
productivity and minimizing costs along with a mentality of replication meaning looking
to the past for similar situations to resolve issues (Mintzberg, 1981, p. 7). These
philosophies and mindsets result in a resistance to change, which may not benefit
government. However, assembly lines, such as vehicle production, are more appropriate
for this type of organizational design. Since government generally deals with people, it
needs a structure more suited to meeting the needs of a living organism that thinks
independently and freely; or, a structure that can adapt easily to varying situations.
As such, the machine bureaucracy could be less responsive to the demands of the
current society. Additionally, new ideology and expectations of the millennials (born
between 1982 and 2002) and Z generations (born in the mid-1990s through the 2010s or
from the early 2000s to around 2025) are shaking up the way in which organizations are
IMPLICATIONS FOR POSITIVE PUBLIC PERCEPTION 7
structured. These two generations have grown up in the era of digital technology and
technological advancements and the machine bureaucracy struggles to meet their needs
technologically. This is because it may be hard to adapt new technology in the rigid
structure of a bureaucracy. The machine bureaucracy also does not meet the needs of the
changing workforce as it has transitioned from low-wage, low-skilled factory jobs
prevalent in the1950s, to highly educated, knowledge-based service jobs seen now.
Society today has high-skill, high-specialized jobs, a result of the Third Wave or
technological age (Toffler, 1995). Some recent events have also highlighted inefficiencies
of the machine bureaucracy such as the 9/11 terrorist attacks and Edward Snowden’s
unauthorized disclosures.
So, why does government continue to use the machine bureaucracy as its
organizational design? One reason may be the origins as discussed above, which has
proven stable over time; a positive attribute. Not only is it stable, it accommodates the
underlying political pressure, which is the external feedback that influences the formation
of the current government design (Autry, 1996). Mintzberg (1981) also explains that
government agencies function well as a machine bureaucracy because it is subject to
many external controls (i.e. politics), “regardless of their other conditions” (p. 8).
However, it may be that these constraints (the aforementioned other conditions)
negatively affect employee agency and the ability to provide large volumes of positive
customer interactions.
For all of these reasons, the machine bureaucracy is no longer “fashionable”
(Mintzberg, 1981, p. 8). These characteristics discussed above imply that the current
structure impedes communication and employees’ agency. Granted, there are times when
IMPLICATIONS FOR POSITIVE PUBLIC PERCEPTION 8
employees can do the right thing; however, the bureaucratic structure can severely limit
the response, or deny the employee from responding at all. Any instance that denies
responsiveness or takes an inordinate amount of time for a response, are possibly what
the public remembers the most and could be fodder for an agency to have a negative
perception.
Now that some of the inefficiencies of a machine bureaucracy for government
organizational design have been discussed, I will compare that structure to horizontal
organizational design. In so doing, it will illuminate that the horizontal design allows
communication to flow more freely, which enables less-impeded employee agency and
could increase positive interactions with the public, thereby, public perception.
Horizontal Structure
First, I will define the horizontal structure. In the most basic theoretical terms, the
horizontal design would consist of only a handful of senior executives in traditional
support functions such as financial officers and personnel/human resources. These
individuals may form their own circle or could be incorporated into the other cross-
functional teams (permanently or on an as-needed basis) (Byrne, 1993). A crucial aspect
is that this group is not depicted in a physical (on paper) or psychological manner as
above or in a higher power position than everyone else. Since strict management levels
are removed, employees would most likely have ownership in the decision-making
process including management of people, time, resources, and performance evaluation
(Byrne, 1993). This might have an unintended result of affecting engagement and morale
most likely in a more positive way than in the hierarchical, bureaucratic structure. In the
bureaucratic structure, people are given clearly defined tasks with, possibly, little
IMPLICATIONS FOR POSITIVE PUBLIC PERCEPTION 9
feedback from the employee as to changes that could improve his or her job (Mintzberg,
1981).
Already, there are large corporations in America that are moving toward the
horizontal structure. Such companies as AT&T, DuPont, General Electric and Motorola
are realizing the vertical structure of a bureaucracy are not meeting their efficiency or
productivity needs (Byrne, 1993). The horizontal structure seems to allow employees to
focus on processes involved with delivering the product instead of worrying about the
office politics involved in the hierarchical structure such as requesting permission to
move forward with the task, or requesting permission to contact other people in different
departments within the organization. The horizontal structure could also promote feelings
of comradery (Byrne, 1993). One instrumental change seen in the horizontal design is
that of managing across (horizontal) instead of vertically as seen in the machine
bureaucracy and corporations (mostly private ones) are beginning to realize managing
across is more conducive than managing up-and-down (vertical) (Byrne, 1993;
Mintzberg, 1981).
Moreover, the horizontally designed organization would focus around processes
instead of the narrow-defined tasks, which is indicative of the hierarchical, bureaucratic
structure (Byrne, 1993). With the horizontal mind-set, it seems communication would
flow more freely and employees would have more agency to perform his or her job. This
could possibly improve or enhance how the public interacts with and perceives the
organization. Rules, policies and norms (these could be considered processes) might be
more flexible and fluid allowing employees to respond faster to customer’s needs (these
are the practices I mentioned earlier that will be explained in Giddens’ structuration
IMPLICATIONS FOR POSITIVE PUBLIC PERCEPTION 10
theory). This suggests the customer would be happy; and, hopefully, they will talk to
their friends about the positive experience who would talk to their network of friends and
so on; thereby, influencing the public perception of that company. Again, by public
perception, I am referencing the overall positive or negative image of that organization.
Additionally, public perception might also be influenced by the horizontal design
because it might create shared environment instead of the specialized expert. This type of
worker is indicative of the bureaucracy, where staff operation within silos or boundaries,
which may result in a narrow perspective on reaching the company’s goals. In the
horizontal design, everyone from all backgrounds would need to be involved in different
stages of the product delivery process. Thus, all employees understand the big picture of
the company’s vision and product and understand all the parts involved in bringing that
product to fruition. This perspective might promote a feeling of ownership in the
company and might remove physical and psychological barriers to communication,
which is prevalent in the bureaucratic structure (Byrne, 1993; Mintzberg, 1981). I think
this may positively affect employees in that they may feel more freedom to communicate
with each other because egos are less prevalent and no one fears for his or job.
Sometimes it seems this fear might impede communication to the extent that people do
not want to help each other for fear of being out-performed and resulting in job
termination (Byrne, 1993).
Overall, the main challenge for bureaucracy to adapt to the horizontal design is
the collaborative environment and how it works to change the narrow mind-set indicative
of the hierarchical, siloed structure where people are only focused on his or her own task
(Mintzberg, 1981). Collaboration tends to invite flexibility and a feeling of comradery,
IMPLICATIONS FOR POSITIVE PUBLIC PERCEPTION 11
which may have an unintended effect of changing engagement in a more positive
direction (Byrne, 1993). Finally, technology has changed society. Byrne (1993) writes,
“Heightened global competition and the ever increasing speed of technological change
have since altered the rules of the game and have forced corporate planners to seek new
solutions” (p. 79). This seems to imply that the bureaucratic, vertical structure is outdated
and needs to change with a changing society.
So, in discussing two contrasting organizational designs, I highlighted the
differences in structures and that they could change to help meet the needs of the
organization and the public. It could be that employee agency and duality of structure
(explained in the next section) are more aligned with the horizontal structure and this
might help public perception. Now, I will discuss Giddens’ Structuration theory as a way
to understand how organizational design comes into fruition through the duality of
structure.
Giddens’ Structuration Theory
Giddens developed the structuration theory in the 1960s when scholars were
interested in applying human behavior perspective of communication to how society is
structured (Poole & McPhee, 2005). Most of the studies at the time were focused on
social scientific communication and searching for causes of behavior and how it was
influenced externally and contextually (Poole & McPhee, 2005). As a result, the role of
social structure was often overlooked or its significance was dimmed in favor of focusing
on the chain-of-command relationships and communication, indicative of the bureaucracy
(Poole & McPhee, 2005; Mintzberg, 1981). Giddens argued an alternative view built on
other notable theorists of the time such as John Dewey, George Herbert Mead and Erving
IMPLICATIONS FOR POSITIVE PUBLIC PERCEPTION 12
Goffman (Poole & McPhee, 2005). These theorists focused on how human practices
influenced and structured society. The structuration theory posits that both social
structure and human action provide a framework that could explain individual behavior
and the development and effects of societal institutions such as the economy, religion and
government (Poole & McPhee, 2005). The emphasis of the theory is on the role of
processes in society and organizations and allows us to conceptualize communication as a
process as well and the theory encompasses stability and change (Poole & McPhee,
2005).
One of the most important concepts of the structuration theory is viewing the
organization as a system and providing a human aspect to it. Giddens theorizes that
systems are actually human practices and further defines practices as meaningful patterns
of activity. These practices, then, allow us to see the relationships to each other in a ‘big-
picture’ way within society and societal institutions such as the organization (Poole &
McPhee, 2005). Within the system, there are structures, which are the rules and resources
used in order to function or perform practices. Structure would be the rules and means
employees use in practices, or resources. For example, a state’s laws would be the
structure and it is made up of rules and resources. A rule could be formal like a specific
statute and a resource could be a computer system used to research laws in order to
respond to a customer. Additionally, a rule could be informal like norms or narratives that
guide people’s actions (Poole & McPhee, 2005). For example, if coming in to work late
is acceptable only if bringing food or drinks to share with the office. This tells a story, or
narrative, of what is acceptable behavior in that organization. The overarching idea is that
processes are central to the way society and organizations function and that they literally
IMPLICATIONS FOR POSITIVE PUBLIC PERCEPTION 13
create the structure (i.e. vertical or horizontal) because they guide behavior in that they
tell us how to act and what is appropriate and not appropriate (Poole & McPhee, 2005).
Structuration theory also posits that in order to keep the system working, it is
produced and reproduced by the people (employees) within it; a duality. The structure
would be the rules and resources and they are reproduced through using rules and
resources as intended. Giddens call this the duality of structure, a central idea of
structuration theory (Poole & McPhee, 2005). So here is where employee agency is
important. Duality of structure is the balance of employee agency and structure
interacting with each other. Structure changes when employees use rules and resources in
different ways than intended, ignore them or break the rules. Reproducing a structure
happens when people use the rules and resources in the accepted manner within the
organization. So, as the system is reproduced, issues may arise that cause something in
the system to change or transform. A transformation is merely the system evolving in a
new way. Central to my argument is that the system itself (meaning organizational
design) is the product of what employees do as they work through a duality of structures
that are both the conduit and result of actions (Poole & McPhee, 2005).
Duality of structures implies that organizations develop through ongoing
practices. Everytime an employee engages in a practice, the organization’s system is
reproduced. Another implication from Giddens’ theory is that organizations can change
through this duality. It may need to be done in small changes, and over time, but knowing
that rules, procedures, norms, policies, etc., comprise structure, I believe that through
changing practices organizations can change (Poole & McPhee, 2005). Structuration
theory seems to be useful for explaining how organizations can change. It focuses
IMPLICATIONS FOR POSITIVE PUBLIC PERCEPTION 14
attention on the relationship between structure and employee agency and points out that
structures are maintained and adapted through the exercise of agency.
This concludes the literature review section of this paper. Now, I will introduce the focus of the
research I would like to conduct via two research questions.
Research Questions: 1) How does the public currently perceive government
organizations?
2) Are these perceptions related to the current structure of government?
Method
This study will consist of a textual analysis of comments from consumers on a public
forum in order to explore the potential implications of government structure in customer
satisfaction and, thereby, public perception of the organization. The study will focus on 75-100
comments known as reports, collected from the public forum. All comments collected relate to
government interactions and will serve the purpose of answering both research questions.
According to McKee (2003), the "textual analysis is a way for researchers to gather
information about how other human beings make sense of the world...to understand the ways in
which members of various cultures and subcultures make sense of who they are, and how they fit
into the world..." (p. 224). The textual analysis is an effective way of assessing, comparing and
understanding media texts and is closely entrenched in structuralism (McKee, 2003, p. 224). A
textual analysis allows the researcher to explore relationships between concepts and provides
logical methodology strategies that have been proven valid over time. I hope to gain knowledge
in exploring the relationship between customer feedback (thus, public perception) and structure
of the government organization through Giddens’ Structuration Theory.
IMPLICATIONS FOR POSITIVE PUBLIC PERCEPTION 15
Procedure
In examining the comments, I will look for themes in words, phrases and meanings
conveyed in order to discover relationships between structure and perception. To define the
thematic relationships, I will use William Foster Owen’s research on thematic interpretation
(1984, pp. 274-287). According to Owen (1984), a theme is present when there are three
“criterion present: 1) recurrence, 2) repetition, and 3) forcefulness” (p. 275). Recurrence is when
at least two parts of communication have “the same meaning” even if different words are used
(Owens, 1984, p. 275). Repetition is just what it sounds like, the repeating of “certain words,
phrases and sentences”, which can be thought of as explicit language regardless of meaning
(Owens, 1984, p. 275). Forcefulness refers to the tone of voice, volume or dramatic pauses
including enlarged text, highlighted words, or other markings indicating a wish to emphasize the
communication (Owens, 1984). Basically, Owens (1984) posits that themes help us make sense
of relationships and help illuminate implications for elusive underlying themes that might be
present during interactions.
Sample
To conduct my research, I looked online for public forums related to government. I was
not able to find any, but found websites that provided a space for general complaints. I chose the
website Ripoff Report, which is an open forum for people to report scams and fraud, or review a
company, individual, service or product, or complain, vent or let others know that a business is
being unethical (whistleblowing). The staff for the website claim they do not hide reports, even
is a complaint is “satisfied”, but keep all comments (known as reports on the site) open and
IMPLICATIONS FOR POSITIVE PUBLIC PERCEPTION 16
available on the site indefinitely. The staff claim the comments are intact in order to preserve the
history of the company or individual named in the report.
The website allows searches by keyword terms and I used the search capabilities to
search for the terms government and DMV. DMV seemed to yield comments more precise to
government interaction and implications for the relationship between interaction, structure and
public perception. I will continue using this search term in order to yield more data to analyze
and use to propose research findings.
In collecting the data, I started with June 2016 and will continue in reverse calendar
months until I collect approximately 75-100 comments. I collected comments in their entirety,
including attachments (when provided) and comments from other website users or rebuttals from
people or the company(ies) named in the report. Additonally, I labeled each comment i.e.
comment #1, comment #2 and so on. Then, I highlighted the comments that seemed to reflect
decisions made based on structure i.e. rules, procedures or policies. By doing this, I will be able
to easily identify the comments in relation to the respective research questions.
Data Analysis
The selected comments will be analyzed using several thematic interpretation techniques
(Owens, 1984). Using the techniques postulated by Owens, I will analyze the comments for
recurring words, phrases and/or sentences that convey the same (recurring) meanings, even if the
same words are not use and I will also determine forcefulness, such as repetition, capitalization,
exclamation points, etc. From these analyses, I should be able to obtain the goal of this study,
which is to illuminate thematic relationships between interaction and public perception as well as
interaction and structure in order to draw conclusions about the role of the duality of structure
IMPLICATIONS FOR POSITIVE PUBLIC PERCEPTION 17
with interaction and its by-product, public perception (Owens, 1984; Giddens 1984). The
conclusions obtained could have implications for government to adapt its structure to one that
best fits the needs of the organization and its customer, the public; which might be the horizontal
structure described in the literature review.
Sample
I started with June 2016 and will continue in reverse calendar months until I collect
approximately 75-100 comments. I collected comments in their entirety, including attachments
(when provided) and comments from other website users or rebuttals from people or the
company(ies) named in the report. Then, I highlighted the comments that seemed to reflect
decisions made based on structure i.e. rules, procedures or policies. So far, I have collected 28
comments. Of those 28, one comment included an attachment (Comment #15) and four
comments included responses (Comment #19, Comment #20, Comment #25, and Comment
#28). Of the comments that included responses one received three responses (Comment #19),
one comment’s response was rebuttal by the named company (Comment #20), and two
comments received one general response each (Comment #25 and Comment #28).
I will provide further analysis of the comments including the words, phrases and/or
sentences that recur and the ways in which the thematic findings could be interpreted as forceful.
Research Findings
This study will consist of a textual analysis using thematic interpretation techniques of
approximately 75-100 comments collected from the public website Ripoff Report. The analysis
will use the sample and methodology previously described.
IMPLICATIONS FOR POSITIVE PUBLIC PERCEPTION 18
In the rest of this section, I will describe the comments in more detail, probably providing
the comment within this document in order to provide specific examples of the analysis.
Discussion
The goal of this study is to illuminate thematic relationships between interaction and
public perception as well as interaction and structure in order to draw conclusions about the role
of the duality of structure with interaction and its by-product, public perception (Owens, 1984;
Giddens 1984). The conclusions obtained could have implications for government to adapt its
structure to one that best fits the needs of the organization and its customer, the public; which
might be the horizontal structure described in the literature review. After analyzing the
comments, I will discuss themes that emerge.
Theme #1
For the remainder of this section, I will name and describe the themes that emerge.
Conclusion
This textual analysis of public comments has added to academic literature that explores the role
of duality of structure and organizational design and the impact on interactions and public
perception. A review of organizational design and structuration academic literature reveals that
this has been a topic of interest for researchers for at least a century. As society continues to
change, so will the need for continued research around organizational design and public
perception.
For the rest of this section, I will discuss implications garnered from the analysis and
research findings and the implications for continued scholarly research.
IMPLICATIONS FOR POSITIVE PUBLIC PERCEPTION 19
Project Benefits
If my research shows a relationship between the aforementioned concepts, then it might
be an effective strategy to persuade government officials to adapt the structure of government.
Additionally, research findings garnered will contribute to scholarly academia by demonstrating
the duality of structure in relation to organizational design and the role it plays on interactions
and public perception. It may also have point to another area of study for scholars interested in
employee engagement and resistance to change might be affected by organizational design.
Another area of study that might intrigue scholars is the element of public perception and how it
could shape structure, as defined by Giddens.
I will expand this section after I am finished collecting the data and propose research
findings.
Limitations
This study is purposefully limited in scope, as the goal is to thoroughly analyze multiple
comments that may provide a glimpse into a larger trend. However, the scope of the study may
also prove to be a limitation, because the website used to collect the data is potentially biased. In
addition, this study is subject to researcher bias. Being involved in the inner workings of multiple
state agencies predisposes this researcher to focus on organizational design and negative
thematic interpretations of the data. Some interpretations and language can also be interpreted
subjectively at times. This study potentially assumes that organizational design could be a
resolution to a negative image problem that government has based on the researcher’s
involvement (employment) with multiple government organizations Other limitations include a
lack of demographic data for the authors of each comment analyzed and a lack of knowledge
IMPLICATIONS FOR POSITIVE PUBLIC PERCEPTION 20
about the editorial process for the website (even though staff wrote on the website that the
comments are preserved as submitted by the author of the report/comment).
Recommendations for Further Research
I will be able to propose further studies after analyzing the data.
IMPLICATIONS FOR POSITIVE PUBLIC PERCEPTION 21
References
Abbott, A. (1988). The system of professions: An essay on the expert division of labour. Chicago:
Chicago University Press.
Archer, M.S. (1995). Realist social theory. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Archer, M.S. (2000). Being human: Problem of agency. Cambridge: Cambridge University
Press.
Autry, Roy H. (1996). What is organization design? A process for improving the probability that
an organization will be successful. Retrieved from http://www.inovus.com/organiza.htm
Balogun, J., & Johnson, G. (2005). From intended strategy to unintended outcomes: The impact
of change recipient sensemaking. Organization Studies, 26(11), 1573-1160.
Bastien, D.T., & McPhee, R.D. (1995). A study and extended theory of the structuration of
climate. Communication Monographs, 65(2), 87-109.
Byrne, John. (1993, December 20). The horizontal corporation. Business Week, 76-81. Retrieved
from http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/1993-12-19/the-horizontal-corporation.
Del Gallo, S. (2016, February 4). Closing the gap: Why government investment in a digital
presence is essential to positive public perception. [Blog]. Retrieved from
http://www.systemsalliance.com/who-we-are/insights/SAI_Blog/closing-the-gap-why-
government-investment-in-a-digital-presence-is-essential-to-positive-public-perception.
Deseve, Edward G. (2011, December 21). Regaining the public’s trust. Governing Magazine.
Retrieved from http://www.governing.com/columns/mgmt-insights/public-trust-
government-six-factors-change-perception.html.
Ferguson, D. (2009). Research brief: Understanding horizontal governance. Center for Literacy
of Quebec. Retrieved from
http://en.copian.ca/library/research/connectdots/uhg_brief/uhg_brief.pdf
IMPLICATIONS FOR POSITIVE PUBLIC PERCEPTION 22
Fretwell, L. (2015, March 21). The 4 most popular .gov websites aren’t mobile friendly.
Retrieved from http://www.govfresh.com/2015/03/the-4-most-popular-gov-websites-
arent-mobile-friendly/.
Fuchs, C. (2003) Structuration Theory and Self-Organization. Systemic Practice and Action
Research, 16(2), 133-167. doi: 10.1023/A:1022889627100
Gallup. (2009, November 16). Gallup study provides valuable insights on the individual
experience with federal agencies. Government Executive. Retrieved from
http://www.govexec.com/pdfs/111609l1.pdf.
Giddens, A. (1984). The constitution of society: Outline of the theory of structuration. Berkeley
and Los Angeles: University of California Press.
Gobé, M. (2009). Emotional branding: The new paradigm for connecting brands to people. New
York: Allworth Press.
Jones, J.M. & Saad, L. (2013, May 23). Americans sour on IRS, rate CDC and FBI most
positively. Retrieved from http://www.gallup.com/poll/162764/americans-views-irs-
sharply-negative-2009.aspx.
Leydesdorff, L. (2010). The communication of meaning and the structuration of expectations:
Gidden’s “structuration theory” and Luhmann’s “self-organization.” Journal of the
American Society for Information Science and Technology, 61(10), 2138-2150.
Liu, Brooke Fisher, Horsley, J. Suzanne, & Yang, Kaifeng. (February 2012). "Overcoming
Negative Media Coverage: Does Government Communication Matter?," Journal of
Public Administration Research and Theory. doi: 10.1093/jopart/mur078. Retrieved from
http://journalistsresource.org/studies/society/news-media/overcoming-negative-media-
coverage-government-communication-matter#sthash.741qCHqo.dpuf
IMPLICATIONS FOR POSITIVE PUBLIC PERCEPTION 23
Lofstedt, R., Bouder, F., & Chakraborty, S. (2013). Transparency and the Food Drug and
Administration: A quantitative study. Journal of Health Communication, 18(4), 391-396.
Losey, J. (2015). Surveillance of communications: A legitimization crisis and the need for
transparency. International Journal of Communication, 9, 3450-3459.
Mintberg, H., & Van der Hyden, L. (September-October 1999). Organigraphs: Drawing how
companies really work. Harvard Business Review, 87-94.
Mintzberg, H. (January-February 1981). Organizational design: Fashion or fit? Harvard Business
Review, 1-16.
Poole, M. S., & McPhee, R. D. (1983). A structurational analysis of organizational climate. In L.
Putnam & M. Pacanowsky (Eds.), Communication and organizations: An interpretive
approach (pp. 195–220). Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.
Relly, Jeannine E., & Sabharwal, Meghna. (January 2009). Perceptions of transparency of
government policy making: A cross-national study [Abstract]. Government Information
Quarterly, 26(1), 148-157. Doi: 10.1016/j.giq.2008.04.002. Retrieved from
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0740624X08000877.
Solis, B. (2013). What’s the future of business: Changing the way businesses create experiences.
Hoboken, NJ: Wiley.
Toffler, Alvin & Heidi. (1995). Creating a new civilization: The politics of the Third Wave.
Atlanta: Turner Publishing, Inc.
Turner, J.H. (January 1986). Review: The constitution of society: Outline of the theory of
structuration. American Journal of Sociology, 91(4), 969-977. Retrieved from
http://www.jstor.org/stable/2779966?seq=4#page_scan_tab_contents.
IMPLICATIONS FOR POSITIVE PUBLIC PERCEPTION 24
Vesa, J. (2015). Nordic openness in practice. NORDICOM Review, 36(2), 129-142. doi:
10.15151nor-2015-0021
Whittington, R. (2010). Chapter 7: Giddens, structuration theory and strategy as practice. In D.
Golsorkhi, L. Rouleau, D. Seidl, and E. Vaara (Eds.) Cambridge Handbook of Strategy as
Practice (109-126). NY: Cambridge University Press.
Top Related