| 000 -LEADER |
|---|
| fixed length control field |
02038pab a2200169 454500 |
| 008 - FIXED-LENGTH DATA ELEMENTS--GENERAL INFORMATION |
|---|
| fixed length control field |
180718b1999 xxu||||| |||| 00| 0 eng d |
| 100 ## - MAIN ENTRY--PERSONAL NAME |
|---|
| Personal name |
Considine, Mark |
| 245 ## - TITLE STATEMENT |
|---|
| Title |
Governance at ground level: the frontline bureaucrat in the age of markets and networks |
| 260 ## - PUBLICATION, DISTRIBUTION, ETC. |
|---|
| Date of publication, distribution, etc. |
1999 |
| 300 ## - PHYSICAL DESCRIPTION |
|---|
| Extent |
p.467-80 |
| 362 ## - DATES OF PUBLICATION AND/OR SEQUENTIAL DESIGNATION |
|---|
| Dates of publication and/or sequential designation |
Nov-Dec |
| 520 ## - SUMMARY, ETC. |
|---|
| Summary, etc. |
Many governments have atempted to reform their public management systems over the past decade. But how do reforms play out at the frontline of government where the work is done? We looked at the impacts of system changes on frontline staff. In an effort to understand the actual work orientations of frontline bureaucrats, we identified four distinctive images of bureaucratic work: procedural bureaucracy, corporate bureaucracy, market bureaucracy, and network bureaucracy. These images each have different foci on the use of goals, relationships with clients, approach to supervision, disciplinary strategies, and relations with other key organizations in their environment. Looking at government, private non-profit, and private for-profit organizations, we found only three distinct images. The distinct market and corporate orientations we proposed merged into a single orientation not previously identified or analyzed in the research literature. We also found considerable variation among frontline bureaucrats in their orientations toward bureaucracy. Practitioners appeared to follow three common repertoires, but these were not determined by the type of organization they worked in. Managers wishing to prioritize frontline work may now identify the key attributes of these alternate approaches and compare them with performance information or use them to assess the training needs of agencies contributing to their programs. Clients and their advocates may also use these results to assess their changing prospects under different bureaucratic conditions. - Reproduced |
| 650 ## - SUBJECT ADDED ENTRY--TOPICAL TERM |
|---|
| Topical term or geographic name entry element |
Civil service |
| 700 ## - ADDED ENTRY--PERSONAL NAME |
|---|
| Personal name |
Lewis, Jenny M. |
| 773 ## - HOST ITEM ENTRY |
|---|
| Main entry heading |
Public Administration Review |
| 909 ## - |
|---|
| -- |
43454 |
