Ecological Governance:
Organizing Principles for an Emerging Era
Peter J. Robertson
School of Policy, Planning, and Development
University of Southern California
RGL 222, MC 0626
Los Angeles, CA 90089
Ph: 213-740-0353
Fax: 213-740-0001
robertso@usc.edu
September, 2007
ECOLOGICAL GOVERNANCE:
ORGANIZING PRINCIPLES FOR AN EMERGING ERA
ABSTRACT
The paper argues that the significant reforms being implemented in governance systems around
the world reflect a broader transition of society from the modern to a new emerging era. This
transition is framed in terms of a shift from a mechanistic to an ecological worldview, which has
been stimulated by a number of developments throughout the 20th century. In contrast to the
mechanistic orientation towards reductionism, prediction and control, and competition, an
ecological worldview emphasizes the interconnectedness, self-organizing capacity, and
coevolutionary dynamics of all natural systems. This emergent worldview yields useful insights
regarding the purpose, design, process, and relationships characteristic of organizations that
desire to play an effective role in the future governance of society. The discussion identifies
specific changes compatible with these four themes that are already being adopted by many
public and private organizations. The concluding section addresses various factors that could
influence the extent to which ecological governance systems replace modern mechanistic
institutions, suggesting that systemic transformation may be necessary to insure a sustainable
future for humanity.
2
ECOLOGICAL GOVERNANCE:
ORGANIZING PRINCIPLES FOR AN EMERGING ERA
A significant trend in the field of public administration at present is the broadening of its
focus, with attention now being given to the more expansive notion of governance in contrast to
the field’s primary emphasis historically on the more limited issues of government (Bingham,
Nabatchi, and O’Leary 2005; Keohane and Nye 2000; Kettl 2000; Lynn, Heinrich, and Hill
2001; Milward and Provan 2000; Peters and Pierre 1998). This shift reflects the systemic
changes taking place in the world of practice, where a quarter-century of devolution,
decentralization, downsizing, and debureaucratization coupled with privatization, contracting
out, and the adoption of business management techniques has slowly yet inexorably been
reconfiguring the organizational systems through which public interests are being served. Seen
first in such management fads as total quality management (Cohen and Brand 1993; Schmidt and
Finnigan 1992) and re-engineering (Linden 1994) and then in the more inclusive reinventing
government movement (Brudney, Hebert, and Wright 1999; Kamensky 1996; Moon and deLeon
2001; National Performance Review 1993; Osborne and Gaebler 1992), this reform agenda has
been moving forward under the banner of the new public management (Barzelay 2001; Ferlie,
Ashburner, Fitzgerald, and Pettigrew 1996; Lane 2000; Lynn 1998). The net effects of this
change process have stimulated the field’s current focus on the concept of network governance
(Bogason and Musso 2006; Goldsmith and Eggers 2004; Kamensky 2007).
Growing interest in issues of governance thus reflects the fact that much of the work in
the public arena takes place not just by government organizations but through partnerships and
networks involving public, private, and non-profit organizations, with greater involvement
and/or scrutiny by a wide range of interest groups and concerned citizens. In this context, the
3
tasks of policy-making, implementation, and evaluation become even more complex, and
traditional bureaucratic organizations often do not perform very well under these conditions.
Much attention has been given to the kinds of changes that public organizations and managers
must make in order to be effective actors in these cross-sectoral, multi-level governance systems
(Bryson, Crosby, and Stone 2006; Kickert, Klijn, and Koppenjan 1997; McGuire 2002; Milward
and Provan 2006; Page 2003). An important theme in this literature is the importance of
establishing structures and processes that facilitate collaborative dynamics among diverse
participants that in turn can enhance the quality of decisions made and implemented (Gray 1997;
Huxham and Vangen 2005; Mandell 1999; McGuire 2006; Thomson and Perry 2006; Vigoda
2002).
The starting premise of this paper is that the reform processes apparent over the last
twenty-five years can fruitfully be viewed as a manifestation of a deeper and subtler
transformation underway in society, namely, the transition out of modernity into a new,
emerging era. On one hand, the philosophical foundations of the modern era have been
challenged if not undermined during this period by the postmodern critique and
“deconstruction,” such that modern-era institutions have lost some of their legitimacy and are
now frequently expected to incorporate a more diverse set of perspectives and values (Bogason
2001; Farmer 1995; Healey 2006; Fox and Miller 1995). On the other hand, an eclectic “new
paradigm” literature posits that a new worldview is indeed emerging to supersede the nowoutdated modern worldview (Capra 2002; de Quincey 2002; Dennard 1996; Devereux 1989;
Eisler 1987; Elgin 1993; Elgin and LeDrew 1997; Harman 1998; Hartmann 1998; Hubbard
1998; Laszlo 2001; Pinchbeck 2006; Ray and Anderson 2000; Russell 1998; Woodhouse 1996).
Just as the emergence of the modern era transformed the dominant institutions of premodern
4
society, it is natural and inevitable that contemporary institutions founded on the premises of
modernity will need to undergo transformation to reflect the premises of this emergent
paradigm.1
While the reforms implemented to date have clearly not resulted in any wholesale
transformation of modern systems of governance, the objectives of this paper are to identify a set
of organizing principles grounded in this new paradigm perspective and to suggest that many
specific types of reforms implemented in numerous organizations around the world in recent
years are compatible with these principles. To the extent that these reform efforts are in fact part
of the deeper process of the evolution of human civilization, these principles may provide useful
insights regarding how contemporary governance systems can and should continue to change as
the diffusion of the new paradigm further erodes the foundations of modern society. The two
worldviews are described briefly in the first section, contrasting the mechanistic orientation of
the modern era with the ecological emphasis of the emerging era. The second section then
outlines implications of an ecological worldview for organizations involved in the governance of
society, focusing in particular on the four issues of purpose, design, process, and relationships.
In this discussion, reforms that have been taking place in public as well as private organizations
are identified, providing some evidence of the emergence of a new ecological organizational
form. The final section addresses the question of the viability of extensive change in
contemporary systems of governance, arguing that evolutionary transformation could be possible
as ecological consciousness diffuses throughout global society.
MECHANISTIC VS. ECOLOGICAL WORLDVIEWS
The emergence of modern civilization is typically acknowledged as resulting from
Enlightenment-era philosophy of 17th and 18th century Europe, especially the work of René
5
Descartes and Isaac Newton. The Newtonian-Cartesian worldview is essentially mechanistic in
nature, in that the universe is conceptualized as a perfect machine that operates according to a set
of precise mathematical laws. From this perspective, any given system comprises differentiated
parts whose behaviors and interactions are governed by stable and predictable rules that
determine the outcomes of the system as a whole. The purpose of scientific investigation is to
identify these laws of nature, using analytic methods in which the system under study is divided
into its component parts so as to understand the behavior of the whole from knowledge about the
properties of the parts. In contrast to premodern societies in which truth was dictated by
religious or spiritual beliefs, modern science insists that knowledge can only be discovered
empirically, i.e., through quantitative measurement of material phenomena. The modern
worldview is thus essentially dualistic, assuming that objective external phenomena are
inherently real, and separate and distinct from subjective internal experience.
The modern mechanistic worldview is characterized by three ideological orientations that
serve as useful points of comparison with the emerging ecological worldview. The first of these
is an orientation towards reductionism, which refers to the belief that systems can best be
understood by an analysis of their component parts. The scientific method in the modern era has
been characterized by this reductionistic tendency, leading to considerable fragmentation in the
total pool of human knowledge and thought (i.e., physics, biology, and chemistry emerged as
separate disciplines; the natural sciences were differentiated from the social sciences; the spheres
of science, ethics, and art were separated from each other; etc.). Philosophically, this emphasis
on reductionism gave rise to the individualistic orientation embedded in modern political and
economic theory, in contrast to the more collectivistic attitudes dominant in premodern societies.
In more practical terms, this orientation led to the notion that problems can be solved most
6
effectively by decomposing them into subcomponent issues that can then be addressed
separately. This approach is based on the premise that, like a machine, fixing a broken part will
enable the system as a whole to function properly. Modern systems of governance and
administration reflect these tendencies in that they are divided into distinct branches,
jurisdictions, spheres of activity, and organizations, each of which is expected to focus on its
own issues and concerns without much regard for the larger systems of which they are a part.
A second key orientation of the mechanistic worldview is its emphasis on prediction and
control. The primary objective of modern science has been to identify the mathematical laws of
nature that enable humans to more accurately predict the future consequences of current
activities and thereby exert more control over their environment. Successful clarification of
many such cause-and-effect relationships enabled the development of myriad technologies which
have supported the process of industrialization that has dominated the modern era. Faith in the
power and value of technology likewise reinforced the belief in a deterministic world, in which
mechanistic systems can be designed at the front end – based on established laws of nature and
known causal relationships – to function predictably and maintain stability over time. This goal
of maintaining a steady-state equilibrium was reflected in the design of modern administrative
systems as well, with the Weberian bureaucracy serving as a prime example. The desire for
control over the increasingly complex organizations arising in modern industrial society
supported the reliance on hierarchical systems designed according to presumably scientific or
general principles. While the diffusion of the bureaucratic form of organization became almost
synonymous with the process of modernization in the 20th century, the mechanistic
overemphasis on stability and control resulted in a level of bureaucratic rigidity that ultimately
helped motivate the various reform efforts of recent years.
7
A third prominent orientation of the modern worldview is its focus on the competitive
dynamics underlying evolution. “Survival of the fittest” is taken to be the rule guiding the
unfolding of life, with all living things presumably subject to this “law of the jungle,” engaged in
a struggle to survive while competing with others for limited resources. The inevitability of
human competitiveness is likewise taken for granted, and thus modern political and economic
institutions were designed to take this competition into account. More specifically, it is assumed
that individuals act first and foremost in pursuit of their own self-interest, and thus they can be
expected to take advantage of those around them and to manipulate their circumstances however
possible to insure their own benefit. With the emergence of large organizations as primary actors
in the political and economic realms, this competitive, self-interested trait was attributed to them
as well. The consequence is that an adversarial relationship between organizations and their
environments was established as the norm, with managerial strategies used to resist attempts by
external actors to influence organizational activities and, when possible, to exert influence over
such actors for their own gain. This orientation is congruent with and reinforces the
reductionistic tendency to focus on the well-being of the parts of a system (i.e., a single
organization) rather than the system as a whole (i.e., the political system, economy, or
community) in which the organization is embedded.
Generally speaking, the modern worldview – i.e., its underlying philosophy and core
institutions – emerged in the 18th century, was firmly established in Western society in the 19th
century, and diffused throughout much of the rest of the world during the 20th century. At the
same time, however, the last century witnessed a number of developments that served to
undermine the mechanistic mindset of modernity and lay the foundations for a new paradigm. In
the realm of science, the discoveries of quantum physics posed serious challenges to the
8
foundations of classical physics, indicating that the universe consists of a single unified field of
energy and that uncertainty and indeterminacy are inherent qualities of the quantum realm (Bohm
1980; Capra 1991). Research on the brain and mind have established that cognitive capabilities
and consciousness itself result from holistic, integrated interactions among different parts of the
brain and cannot be reduced to the functioning of its separate components (Talbot 1991; Zohar
1990).
The development of systems theory (Bertalanffy 1968; Boulding 1956) provided a
theoretical foundation for studying systems as integrated wholes, with a focus on the interactions
among their parts and with the larger environment in which they are embedded. Scientists in
many fields recognized that improved understanding of their research foci required
interdisciplinary investigation of issues at the intersection of the separate, fragmented disciplines.
A broad range of such systemic, interdisciplinary research has highlighted the fact that systems
at many different levels of analysis display chaotic (non-random but unpredictable) behavior that
simultaneously reflects a deeper pattern of order or structure (Gleick 1987; Parker 1996). These
findings have given rise to the new field of complexity science that explores the properties of
complex, adaptive systems in which qualities of the system as a whole emerge spontaneously
and unpredictably from the dynamic, nonlinear interactions among system components (Lewin
1992; Waldrop 1992). Studies in the life sciences have clarified that the diverse species in any
ecological system engage in a variety of different types of interactions or relationships, ranging
from parasitic and competitive to collaborative and altruistic (Dugatkin 1999; Sober and Wilson
1998).
Along with these developments, a number of other trends in the social sciences have
supported a transition from mechanistic to ecological thinking. A resurgence of humanistic
9
ideology in the mid-20th century (Maslow 1954) provided a basis for critiquing the assumptions
about human nature underlying the principles of administration and organizational design
associated with the rational, scientific management school of thought espoused by the classical
theorists at the beginning of the century. At the same time, contingency theory studies of
organization and management undermined the mechanistic premise that there is “one best way” to
design and manage organizations, indicating instead that the most effective approach depends on
the specific circumstances involved in any particular context (Galbraith 1973; Lawrence and
Lorsch 1967). The emergence of an open systems theory perspective focused attention on the
relationships between organizations and their environments, including issues of resource
acquisition (Pfeffer and Salancik 1978), responses to institutional demands (Meyer and Rowan
1977), and consequences of evolutionary dynamics (Hannan and Freeman 1977).
More generally, there has been growing recognition that any given social system is a
“socially constructed reality” (Berger and Luckmann 1966; Jun 2006) in which institutionalized
behavior patterns reflect the underlying beliefs and values of those whose interactions serve to
create and maintain the system (Giddens 1984; Weick 1979). This perspective challenges the
modernist notion that the “objective reality” of a social system can be analyzed using the
methods of positive science for the purposes of prediction and control, pointing instead to the
importance of more qualitative or interpretive approaches for achieving meaningful
understanding of a given system (Brower, Abolafia, and Carr 2000; Lowery and Evans 2004;
Ospina and Dodge 2005). Furthermore, the idea that modern Western civilization is inherently
superior to the cultures it has been replacing through two hundred years of global diffusion came
under attack by critical theorists who pointed to the dysfunctional consequences of its
materialistic, individualistic, and control-oriented ideology (Denhardt 1981; Habermas 1971).
10
Increased awareness of the environmental damage caused by an industrialized, consumptionbased society has led to greater recognition that humanity must become more ecologicallyminded, viewing ourselves as part of and interdependent with the natural world rather than as
separate and distinct from it with the right to abuse it for our own purposes (Baxter 2000; McGaa
2004; Metzner 1999; Uhl 2004).
Collectively, these developments provide the conceptual and empirical foundation for a
new ecological worldview2 that can be described in terms of three key orientations that
distinguish it from the modern mechanistic worldview (Harder, Robertson, and Woodward
2004). The first of these is an emphasis on interconnectedness (Laszlo 2003). In contrast to a
reductionistic focus on the parts of a system, an ecological orientation is more holistic in nature,
recognizing that the essential properties of a system derive from the relationships among its
parts, and that any part of a system can only be fully understood in terms of its relationships with
the other parts (Freeman 1978). Furthermore, an ecological perspective acknowledges the
“holarchical” nature of the known universe (Wilber 1998), which refers to the fact that every
system is simultaneously both a whole, composed of parts that are distinct yet interconnected, as
well as an interdependent part of an even larger system. Higher-level systems are more complex
than lower-level systems in that the former “transcend and include” the latter. In other words, all
the properties of the lower system are included in the higher system, yet the higher system also
demonstrates transcendent properties that arise from the relationships among its parts. These
systemic properties are not found in the parts themselves, but are derived directly and solely
from the complex interactions among the parts. Ultimately, then, a thorough understanding of
any system requires knowledge of the nature of the interactions among its parts as well as the
nature of its interdependencies with other parts of the larger system(s) in which it is embedded.
11
A second core orientation of an ecological worldview is its recognition of the selforganizing capacity inherent in all natural systems (Jantsch 1980). Whereas a mechanistic
perspective tends to assume that a centralized control mechanism either internal or external to the
system is required to insure effective system performance, an ecological perspective
acknowledges that guidelines for healthy functioning are intrinsic to the system. This capacity
arises from the pattern of functional differentiation and integration among its components that
enables the system to sustain itself and adapt to changes in its environment. In other words,
ecological systems are self-managing and self-regulating in that their distinct and diverse parts
engage in patterns of interaction that serve to maintain the homeostasis of the system, i.e., a
dynamic equilibrium in which there is constant change and adaptation within a certain band of
parameters. But unlike mechanistic systems, in which the patterns of interaction and outcomes
are controlled and therefore predictable, ecological systems readily display emergent patterns of
behavior that cannot be predicted in advance (Kauffman 1995; Merry 1995). Furthermore, their
ability to adapt to unusual circumstances in spontaneous and innovative ways sometimes leads to
significant reconfigurations that enhance their capacity to survive and function effectively. The
knowledge and information required to manifest this ability to self-organize is distributed
throughout the system, suggesting that cognitive capacity or inherent intelligence is a holistic
property of ecological systems not found in mechanistic systems (Capra 1996).
A third primary orientation of an ecological worldview is its emphasis on the
coevolutionary dynamics through which systems evolve along with their environments in a
mutually reinforcing pattern of influence. From this perspective, any environment, or ecosystem,
is essentially a higher-level system containing numerous lower-level systems (e.g., species,
individuals, organizations, communities) that interact and are interdependent with each other.
12
While the mechanistic worldview assumes that the various entities comprising any environment
are inevitably in competition for scarce resources, the ecological perspective recognizes that the
diverse elements of any ecosystem display a complex pattern of both competitive and
cooperative interactions that, together, maintain the health of the ecosystem (Capra 2002; Uhl
2004). As open systems, these myriad elements acquire inputs from the environment, transform
the inputs into outputs, and then dispose of the outputs into the environment. But unlike the
waste produced by modern industrial systems grounded in mechanistic thinking, every output
produced by each element in an ecosystem serves as useful input for one or more other elements
in that ecosystem. Whereas the modern perspective holds that the elements in a system
inevitably act in their own self-interest, the ecological orientation indicates that, in healthy
systems, the various parts pursue their purposes while also contributing to, and not detracting
from, the well-being of the system as a whole. Changes occurring in the behavior of any part of
the system generate adaptations in other parts of the system and thus in the system itself.
Through the cumulative, interactive pattern of these adaptations, the system, its parts, and its
environment essentially coevolve together in a continuous, reciprocal process.
In summary, the transition from the mechanistic thinking of the modern paradigm to the
ecological consciousness of the emerging era entails three significant changes in orientation: 1)
from a focus on the properties of the separate parts comprising any system to an emphasis on the
holistic pattern of relationships among those parts that define and maintain the system; 2) from a
focus on prediction and control using centralized knowledge to maintain system stability to an
emphasis on its intrinsic capacity to generate adaptive responses through self-organizing
processes; 3) from a focus on competitive dynamics that influence system well-being and the
evolution of life to an emphasis on co-evolutionary dynamics through which diverse, complex
13
interactions maintain the health and well-being of holarchical systems. It should be clear that
modern mechanisms of governance – the political, economic, and organizational institutions
through which society determines the path of its development – are rooted in a mechanistic
mindset favoring fragmented analysis of problems, hierarchical methods of decision-making, and
competitive interactions with others. These qualities are ingrained in governments using one or
another version of representative democracy, in free market economies dominated by central
banks and multinational corporations, and in the hierarchical (and still essentially bureaucratic)
organizations that populate and dominate the public and private sectors.
Obviously, the development of an ecological system of governance based on principles of
interconnectedness, self-organizing systems, and coevolutionary dynamics would require
dramatic changes in existing institutions. While any comprehensive transformation is probably a
long way off, there is reason to believe that the various types of organizational reforms
implemented since the 1980s are helping to restructure organizations in ways that are compatible
with an ecological perspective. To support this premise, the next section identifies a set of
organizing principles that, if incorporated into the design and management of contemporary
organizations, would provide the foundation for an ecological governance system. The
discussion includes numerous examples of reforms that have been advocated and/or
implemented during the last twenty-five years, so as to demonstrate that some movement
towards the adoption of these principles is already apparent. While such evidence leaves room
for doubt as to how transformative this process will ultimately be, the proposition here is that
these changes can reasonably be viewed as the early signs of evolution to a new organizational
form that better reflects the principles of ecological governance.
14
ECOLOGICAL GOVERNANCE
Recognition of the value of an ecological perspective on organizations appears to be
growing. Of course, the distinction between mechanistic and organic forms of organization has
long been noted (Burns and Stalker 1961; Lawrence and Lorsch 1967), but it is fair to say that
even the relatively organic organizations to date have mostly maintained a basic bureaucratic
form. More recently, Morgan (1986) made a distinction between viewing organizations as
machines and as living systems, Tracy (1989) outlined the characteristics of a living
organization, de Geus (1997) discussed the idea of a living company, and Miles, Snow,
Mathews, Miles, and Coleman (1997) developed the notion of a cellular organization. More
generally, Hansen (1995) and Moore (1996) focused on the value of ecological thinking in
business, Hawken (1993) analyzed the ecology of commerce, and Cook (2000) examined the
evolution of organizations into a new, more “organismic” form.3
To add to this discourse, implications of an ecological perspective are discussed below in
terms of four key aspects of organizational systems, namely, purpose, design, process, and
relationships. For each of these, core principles derived from an ecological mindset are
identified and examples of congruent practices already apparent in the organizational world are
provided. Many of these innovations have been taking place primarily in the private sector and
have not yet had as much impact in public organizations. However, given the blurring of the
boundaries between the sectors (Bozeman 1987; Perry and Rainey 1988) and the increased
involvement of private organizations in the provision of public services, it is reasonable to expect
that such changes will eventually find their way into the public sector as well. Furthermore,
since large private organizations play a significant role in determining the collective well-being
of society, they must be recognized as critical players in the overall system of governance. Thus,
15
the application of ecological principles is just as relevant to the business sector as to
governmental and nonprofit organizations, such that the changes taking place in profit-seeking
firms as well as in public agencies provide evidence that the shift from a mechanistic to an
ecological organizational form has already begun.4
Since an ecological approach suggests thinking about organizations as living systems,5
the notion of a cellular organization (Miles et al. 1997) provides useful language for discussing
organizational characteristics and dynamics. Cellular organizations are composed of cells, which
can be thought of as individuals, groups, or departments, or even whole organizations
participating in an interorganizational network – any constellation of people who can be seen as
having a distinct role or function in a larger system. Healthy cells contribute to the well-being of
the system, while dysfunctional cells – like a virus or cancer – pursue their own interests to the
detriment of the system. The activity of and interactions among the cells give rise to the system,
and the system’s activities in the context of its environment shape cellular activity. In this sense,
an ecological perspective requires consideration of the individuals who are the primary parts of
organizations as well as the environments in which organizations function.
PURPOSE
In an ecological governance system, the purpose of every organization, its raison d’être,
is to add value to the larger system(s) of which it is a part, while maintaining its own health and
vitality (Hock 1999; Maynard and Mehrtens 1993). As a cell in a system (e.g., a government, an
industry, a community, a network), each organization serves one or more roles or functions that
contribute to the well-being of the collective. Basically, society should be better off in some way
as a result of organizational activities, and an organization’s purpose reflects its intentions as to
the kinds of benefits it will provide.6 In addition to these benefits, however, it is important to
16
bear in mind that organizations are capable of having negative effects as well, and ecological
thinking suggests that organizations should strive to avoid doing any unnecessary harm (Keeley
1984). Thus, organizations should operate efficiently in the sense of maximizing the ratio of
benefits or productive outcomes to the amount of waste, i.e., non-productive or dysfunctional
outcomes, generated by their activities. Furthermore, it is reasonable to expect organizations to
be responsible and accountable for the various negative externalities they create rather than
leaving these costs to be paid for by society (Daly and Cobb 1994; Hawken 1993). In short,
effective organizations in an ecological governance system serve a useful purpose that benefits
others while minimizing the problems caused in the process.
The basic purpose of an organization can be operationalized in terms of its mission
(Osborne and Gaebler 1992; Weiss and Piderit 1999), which identifies in more concrete terms
what the organization does to serve its purpose. To the extent that continued pursuit of an
organization’s mission is perceived as worthwhile, the requisite resources needed to accomplish
it (e.g., material, financial, human, intellectual, and social capital) should flow to the
organization. Yet the scope and scale of the mission should also be compatible with the
resources available to pursue it – organizations should not be expected to do more than they are
capable of in light of resource constraints. With regards to human resources in particular, an
attractive mission can draw to the organization people who are intrinsically interested in some
facet of that mission and thus naturally inclined to want to help the organization succeed (Perry
and Wise 1990; Rainey and Steinbauer 1999; Robertson, Wang, and Trivisvavet 2007; Romzek
1990). Articulation of an explicit set of operating principles or core values (Kernaghan 2003;
Piotrowski and Rosenbloom 2002), together with a well-defined purpose and mission, helps to
clarify the basic parameters or “program rationale” (Mandell 1994) guiding the activities of the
17
organization’s many diverse cells (Cleveland 2000). It is important that the many individuals,
teams, and networks comprising the organization all act in ways congruent with these
parameters, and thus it is helpful for all cells to understand clearly how their roles fit into the
bigger picture (Bradford and Cohen 1984).
A main theme in the organizational culture literature is that organizational effectiveness
can be enhanced when its members are committed to a common vision and shared values
regarding who they are, what they do, and how they do it. For example, compelling evidence
suggests that companies whose activities are guided by faithful adherence to a meaningful vision
of its primary purpose for being in business are rewarded, especially over the long run, with a
high level of financial success (Collins and Porras 1994). Research indicates that organizational
participants prefer cultures that reflect more humanistic values and practices (Cooke and
Rousseau 1988), and desirable cultures have been found to have a significant impact on bottomline performance (Denison and Mishra 1995; Rollins and Roberts 1998; Sheridan 1992). In
order to create a strong culture, leaders are frequently advised that an important first step is to
articulate a new vision for the organization that helps to clarify the desired direction of change
(Bennis and Nanus 1985). But rather than imposing their own vision, leaders are encouraged to
develop a vision that reflects the core values of those they lead and taps into their desire to do
good work (Fairholm 1991; Pfeffer 2002; Rost 1991).
Organizational effectiveness is defined and assessed quite broadly in ecological
governance systems. Utimately, organizational success is a function of the extent to which the
organization responds adequately to the needs, demands, and expectations of various constituents
and other stakeholders (Mitchell, Agle, and Wood 1997; Svendsen 1998). This “stakeholder
approach” (Donaldson and Preston 1995; Freeman 1984) has diffused widely enough that most
18
contemporary executives and managers understand and accept that a variety of different
stakeholders have a vested interest in what organizations do and how they do it. Public
organizations have been subject to increased pressure in recent years to measure their
performance so as to demonstrate more clearly whether or not they are providing the benefits
desired or expected by important constituents (Berman and Wang 2000; Heinrich 2002; Poister
and Streib 1999). Since the purpose and mission of organizations in an ecological governance
system are to provide these benefits while minimizing harm caused, it is useful to get input and
feedback from all relevant stakeholders as to the overall effects, both positive and negative, of
the organization’s activities.
It is clear that employees, customers, clients, community members, and many other
interest groups are paying closer attention to organizational decisions and actions than they used
to, resulting in growing demands for organizations to become more socially responsible
(Regelbrugge 1999; Wilson 2000). Decision makers in socially responsible organizations are
mindful of their overall impact and proactively strive to help their local and global communities
(Pauchant and Associates 1997; Quarter 2001). To assess organizations in these broader terms, a
multidimensional, “balanced scorecard” approach (Kaplan and Norton 1996; Niven 2003) has
been developed to measure performance in terms of both financial and non-financial factors,
relying on input from more representative voices (e.g., employees and customers/clients) in the
evaluation process. In the public arena, such an approach can help to insure that organizations
balance their efforts to accomplish objectives with a commitment to other nonmission-based
(e.g., democratic-constitutional) values (Piotrowski and Rosenbloom 2002). In the end, a multidimensional assessment of organizational performance that takes into account the interests and
perspectives of a broad range of stakeholders would provide useful information on which to base
19
efforts to hold organizations accountable for their processes, outputs, and outcomes and/or to
improve system performance (Behn 2003; Provan and Milward 2001).
DESIGN
In ecological governance, the network replaces the hierarchy as the fundamental and
primary organizational form (Kelly 1998; Lipnack and Stamps 1994). Ecological systems
consist of complex webs of relationships among a diverse array of entities, with no centralized
mechanism for exerting control. Yet despite the absence of a control mechanism, these systems
display a considerable level of regularity, stability, and adaptability (Capra 1996). The nodes in
an organizational network are the many cells which carry out tasks that help the organization
achieve its mission. Each cell is responsible for a particular set of tasks or functions, and role
differentiation results in considerable diversity in the types of cells that constitute any given
organization. The greater the role diversity, the greater the complexity of the organization in
terms of the pattern of interactions required to sustain the system and pursue its purpose. Greater
diversity and complexity are useful when the organization capitalizes on the differences in
orientation, information, skills, values, and attitudes reflected in a diverse membership (Cox and
Blake 1991; Thomas 1991). However, the effectiveness of a complex system is also a function
of the extent to which its diversity is integrated into a coherent unity, a challenge being
addressed by many organizations through the use of diversity management programs (Kellough
and Naff 2004; Selden and Selden 2001). While shared commitment to purpose and principles
help establish a foundation of commonality, the level of system integration is ultimately a
function of the pattern of relationships among the organization’s cells (Hock 1999). This pattern
of relationships is tantamount to the organization’s structure, although it is clearly a dynamic
rather than a static phenomenon (Feldman and Khademian 2002).
20
The network structure comprises relationships among cells, which provide pathways of
interaction that are relatively stable over time but whose activation at any particular moment
depends on the requirements of the situation. An effective network has a relational structure
(Kahn 1998) and patterns of interaction that give rise to the self-organizing, self-managing, selfregulating qualities of natural systems. There has been growing recognition of the potential
value to organizations of self-organizing dynamics (Comfort 1994; Mohrman and Cummings
1989; Stacey 1996; Wheatley 1992) and self-managing cells (Fisher 2000; Kalliola 2003; Yang
and Guy 2004; Yeatts and Hyten 1997). Efforts to flatten organizational hierarchies reflect
awareness of the need to give front-line personnel and lower-level managers more authority and
responsibility to make timely decisions in a responsive manner (Drucker 1988; Peters 1988;
Vinzant and Crothers 1998). To become more relational, many organizations are shifting to the
use of teams as the primary unit and locus of organizational activity (Koehler and Pankowski
1996; Mohrman, Cohen, and Mohrman 1995; Shonk 1992), implementing organizational
redesign practices intended to enhance “horizontal” capacity (Galbraith 1994; Linden 1994), and
participating in various types of partnerships and alliances (Bloomfield 2006; Brinkerhoff 2002).
Such efforts to transform organizational structures from rigid hierarchies into responsive
networks suggest that large-scale organizational change occurs primarily through a continual
process of organizational self-redesign reflecting an on-going series of incremental adjustments
to new contingencies (Milakovich 1995; Mohrman and Cummings 1989; Poister and Harris
2000).
In complex, fast-changing environments, it is imperative that organizations become and
remain flexible, responsive, and innovative, demonstrating the capacity to readily reconfigure
and redeploy organizational resources to respond to new opportunities and challenges (Fradette
21
and Michaud 1998). Effective teams and collaborative alliances are increasingly recognized as
useful tactics for improving innovative and adaptive capacity (Alter and Hage 1993; Powell,
Koput, and Smith-Doerr 1996). Therefore, it behooves ecological organizations to support the
development of a pattern of relationships that motivates and enables collaborative interactions.
Useful skills for organizational cells include those that enhance their ability to be good team
players and interact effectively with diverse others (Goleman 1995; Hargrove 1998). Innovation
also requires a willingness to try new approaches and activities, which means organizational
design should take into account systemic needs for new knowledge and the exploration of
novelty. Since creativity invariably requires experimentation and risk-taking, ecological
organizations operate at “the edge of chaos,” where there is enough order and stability to hold
the system together while simultaneously enough chaos and unpredictability to produce the
needed novelty and innovation (Janov 1994; Strebel 2000).
PROCESS
The dominant process issue in organizations concerns the nature of the decision-making
processes used to determine what the organization is trying to accomplish (purpose, mission, and
goals) and how it will go about accomplishing it (strategy, operations, and administration).
Ecological governance in the context of dynamic networks requires decision processes that are
essentially democratic (deLeon and deLeon 2002; Rothschild and Russell 1986), based on open
participation and efforts to achieve consensus. Generally speaking, organizational cells have the
right and responsibility to participate in decisions that pertain to and/or have an impact on them
(Clawson 1999; Collins 1997; Hock 1999).7 The more complex and significant a decision is, the
greater the number of cells who have a stake in the outcome and thus a claim on participation in
the process. Inclusion of all relevant stakeholders helps to insure that the full range of benefits
22
and costs associated with organizational activity is considered. Considerable organizational
literature and practice have clarified the value of employee participation, discretion, and
empowerment (Cotton 1993; Lawler 1992; Wagner and LePine 1999), inclusion of customers
and clients in organizational decisions (Jablonski 1992; Lewis 1995), and other strategies that
expand organizational democracy (Ackoff 1994; Bachrach and Botwinick 1992).
More generally, adoption of more inclusive decision processes to address complex public
problems is resulting from such factors as governmental devolution and decentralization, greater
involvement of citizens in public decision-making (Berry, Portney, and Thomson 1993; Box
1998; Roberts 2004; Thomas 1995), the growth of the nonprofit or third sector (Burbidge 1997),
the increased focus on participative community development (Chrislip and Larson 1994; Henton,
Melville, and Walesh 1997), and the emerging emphasis on collaborative planning (Healey 2006;
Booher and Innes 2002; Margerum 2002). In large-scale systems, a multitude of individuals,
groups, and organizations serve as the cells whose interactions determine the health of the
system and thus their collective well-being. Given the participatory nature of these processes,
cooperative/collaborative rather than competitive/adversarial approaches to decision deliberation
and conflict resolution are more likely to be constructive (Isenhart and Spangle 2000; Levine
1998; Nagel 1997). In particular, a consensus-based decision process strives to integrate various
perspectives and preferences to achieve a synthesis that addresses the broadest range of concerns
and thus more successfully reflects the collective interest (Susskind, McKearnan, and ThomasLarner 1999). Valuable decision-making techniques such as future search conferences (Emery
and Purser 1996; Weisbord and Janoff 1995), open space technology (Owen 1997), appreciative
inquiry (Cooperrider and Srivastva 1987), collaborative inquiry (Torbert 1983), dialogue (Bohm
1996; Isaacs 1999; Yankelovich 1999), and other large-group (Bunker and Alban 1997; Bryson
23
and Anderson 2000) and deliberative (Alkadry 2003; Weeks 2000) decision methods are
available to help groups of people clarify their mutual interests and shared goals, and develop
agreements regarding action steps through which to create their desired future.
Another important principle underlying ecological decision processes is that of cell selfmanagement (Zeleny 1990). All cells have authority and responsibility for particular tasks,
functions, decisions, and/or outcomes, but no cell has authority over or responsibility for another
cell (Manz and Simms 1993; Semler 1989). Cells are thus autonomous to the extent that they are
independent – each cell has the right and the obligation to make those decisions that pertain
exclusively to itself. Each cell is self-managing in that it is responsible for its own “management”
functions, e.g., planning operations, insuring output quality, interfacing with other cells, and
responding to external demands (Miles et al. 1997). But whenever a cell’s activities are
interdependent with those of other cells, an inclusive decision process is utilized, in which case
cells are expected to act in ways compatible with the interests of the larger system. In essence,
each cell in a cellular organization is responsible for regulating its own performance, and all cells
are responsible for the long-term success of the organization as a whole. In the inevitable
situations where it is useful for one cell to have final authority for a particular decision, such
authority is expertise-based and task-bound, meaning that who is “in charge” in a given situation
depends on the demands of the decision and the relative knowledge, skills, and abilities of those
involved (Barry 1991; Clawson 1999; Mohr 1994). Authority is thus much more fluid and
focused than the broad, perpetual “position authority” found in bureaucratic hierarchies.
The many tasks and activities carried out by the myriad cells in an organization are
coordinated primarily through processes of mutual adaptation enabled by the pattern of
relationships comprising its network structure (Chisholm 1989). In the dynamic, flexible
24
conditions of ecological governance, adherence to prescribed plans and rules is less valuable than
successful adjustment to real-time contingencies based on timely information from relevant
others (Cleveland 2000). Likewise, the function of “management” shifts from a focus on
coordination and control to an emphasis on facilitation and development (Barth 1996; Bradford
and Cohen 1984; Orth, Wilkinson, and Benfari 1987). Facilitation is essentially an enabling
function, oriented towards helping cells carry out their activities and accomplish their objectives
more effectively. Similarly, the leadership orientation most appropriate for ecological systems is
the notion of stewardship, or servant leadership (Block 1993; Greenleaf 1977). Such leaders act
in service to the organization’s purpose and are willing to be held accountable for the well-being
of the system as a whole. They take action after identifying the best way to proceed to serve the
highest purpose of all involved (Ackerman 1984; Daft and Lengel 1998). In short, the function
of leadership and management in ecological governance is to enable the organization’s cells to
engage in mutually-adaptive interactions through which the system can effectively accomplish
its mission.
RELATIONSHIPS
The success of an organization and the effectiveness of its cells are a function of its
internal web of relationships as well as its external web with other cells and organizations in the
environment (Feldman and Khademian 2002). This ecological perspective clearly suggests that,
in general, having more positive relationships and fewer negative relationships is likely to be
beneficial. This is the basic idea behind the concept of social capital (Coleman 1988; Putnam
1995), which is thought to be highest in communities of people who trust each other, usually
based on their shared values, history, identity, etc. Interactions in networks with high social
capital are more likely to be helpful and collaborative, since competition easily undermines the
25
trust underlying the network’s effectiveness. This tendency is reinforced by the norm of
reciprocity (Gouldner 1960), the nearly universal belief that any act of goodwill should be
reciprocated in the future (Axelrod 1984; Cohen and Bradford 1989). Organizational cells that
are helpful and fair in their dealings with others are better able to maintain reciprocal relationships
that are mutually beneficial over the long run. Such relationships can often lie dormant for quite
some time and yet be activated easily when circumstances warrant it, facilitating the selforganizing dynamics needed to respond readily to significant environmental fluctuations (Landau
1991; Moynihan 2007). A web of positive, reciprocal relationships supporting collaborative
interactions is key to the adaptive capacity of ecological organizations (Powell 1990).
Participation by a cell in an organization is conditional upon its agreement to serve the
organization’s purpose and adhere to its core principles (Hock 1999). This does not require the
cell to have any intrinsic interest in the purpose or mission, but cells are naturally expected to act
in ways that are compatible and congruent with systemic requirements. For cells that are
involved in the organization because of common values or a shared interest in its purpose, their
participation is likely to be more meaningful and effective due to their intrinsic motivation to
help the organization succeed. Such organizational identification or internalization is a primary
basis of commitment in organizations (Balfour and Wechsler 1994; O’Reilly and Chatman
1986). It also provides the basis for the development of “covenantal” relationships (Graham and
Organ 1993) between an organization and its cells. In return for a cell’s commitment to the wellbeing of the organization, the organization is committed to promoting the health and
development of the cell. Cells should benefit from their involvement in the system, just as their
participation should benefit the system as a whole. Evidence indicates that organizations in
which members feel valued and appreciated tend to perform better (Pfeffer 1998), possibly
26
because this generates more “organizational citizenship behavior” (Organ 1988) that contributes
to the overall functioning of the system (Moorman, Blakely, and Niehoff 1998; Tsui, Pearce,
Porter, and Tripoli 1997).
Effective evaluation and feedback mechanisms are needed to support an organizational
emphasis on cell development. Feedback based on a collective assessment of cell performance
by others in its network can serve as an important mechanism through which to bring about
improvement in cell performance (Antonioni 1996). Cells require sufficient feedback to
understand why and how their activities or outputs need to change to meet the expectations of
those with whom they are interdependent. The value of this notion is reflected in growing use by
organizations of “360 degree assessments” (Lepsinger and Lucia 1997; Pollack and Pollack
1996; Tornow and London 1998), in which an individual is collectively evaluated by managers,
peers, employees, and sometimes even customers or users. Organizations likewise need to get
broad-based input and feedback relevant to their performance as a component of a larger system
(Aristigueta, Cooksy, and Nelson 2001; Ho and Coates 2004; Kopczynski and Lombardo 1999;
Murphey 1999; Swindell and Kelly 2000), so that they can adjust their activities as necessary to
function more effectively in their environment (Mausolff 2004). The ability to make such
adjustments reflects an important facet of an effective learning system that enhances
organizational capacity to adaptively co-evolve with the environment. By finding new ways to
respond to the ever-changing needs of their stakeholders, organizations contribute to the ongoing development of their communities.
Interest in becoming a “learning organization” has grown rapidly in recent years (Dilworth
1996; Easterby-Smith, Araujo, and Burgoyne 1998; Kettl 1994; Senge 1990), and a variety of
practices (e.g., quality circles, total quality management, parallel learning structures,
27
benchmarking) have been introduced into organizations as a way to enhance their ability to learn
and undergo continuous improvement (Brown and Brudney 2003; Thomas 2001). Effective
learning processes improve an organization’s ability to take self-correcting actions through which
to accomplish goals, solve ill-defined problems, and innovate more readily (Bushe and Shani
1990; Nonaka and Takeuchi 1995). Furthermore, the use of consensual, deliberative decisionmaking processes facilitates the kind of conscious reflection needed for authentic and meaningful
double-loop learning to occur (Argyris 1977; Isaacs 1993; Moynihan 2005). Double-loop learning
enables organizations to identify whether their goals, mission, and/or basic purpose and principles
are still appropriate or worthwhile given current circumstances. Recognition of the need to
change core purpose and/or principles can stimulate a process of fundamental organizational
transformation (Levy and Merry 1986; Nutt 2004), i.e., a fundamental reorientation of its
“socially constructed reality.” Such transformations reflect the inherent systemic capacity for
self-(re)organization (Tushman and Romanelli 1985), and in turn influence the subsequent
evolution of the larger systems in which they are embedded.
CONCLUSION
The discussion above outlines a set of organizing principles that are compatible with the
three key orientations of an ecological worldview. They reflect the interconnectedness of people
and organizations, sectors of society, and the human and natural worlds; they acknowledge the
self-organizing capacity of people and their social systems; and they promote the co-evolutionary
dynamics that enable a more symbiotic relationship between a society and its systems of
governance. At a minimum, then, these principles provide a normative framework for thinking
about how the organizational systems involved in the governance of society might be modified to
28
comport with the conditions of an emerging ecological era rather than remaining rooted in the
mechanistic mindset of modernity.
It is also the purpose of this paper to suggest that many organizations have been
implementing changes and/or adopting new practices that are compatible with these principles of
ecological governance. Support for this claim can be found in the broad range of literature cited
above that describes the kinds of reforms and innovations organizations are utilizing to enhance
their performance.8 Admittedly, this literature contains as much prescription as description
regarding the reform dynamics taking place in organizations over the last twenty-five years. But
taken as a whole, it provides compelling evidence that organizations are under pressure to
modify old, ineffective ways of functioning and incorporate new approaches that enable them to
perform better in more challenging circumstances. The premise here is that this pressure itself
can be viewed as an important manifestation of the emergence of an ecological era, pushing the
organizational “species” to start adapting to new, emergent environmental conditions.
How much adaptation is required and thus how extensive this transformation might be
are, ultimately, empirical questions – time will tell. It is clear that, as of now, the modern
bureaucracy remains the dominant organizational form, certainly in the public sector and for the
most part in the private sector as well.9 Much of the literature cited above focuses on the private
sector, suggesting that there is greater momentum behind putting these principles into practice in
the business world than in public organizations. This is likely due to the fact that the competitive
pressures of the global economy have made it imperative for businesses to become more
efficient, adaptable, innovative, and responsive. Yet despite the extent to which they have
downsized, decentralized, reengineered, flattened their structure, empowered their employees,
emphasized teamwork, joined networks, developed learning capacity, built strong cultures, and
29
promoted corporate social responsibility, most companies remain essentially hierarchical,
autocratic systems narrowly focused on the pursuit of their own short-term self-interest. While it
is easy to assume that this may never change, the fact remains that a considerable literature
supports the notion that new forms of organization are necessary and possible (Ackoff 1999;
Ashkenas, Ulrich, Jick, and Kerr 1995; Banner and Gagné 1995; Benveniste 1994; Bergquist
1993; Bhat 1996; Davidow and Malone 1993; Fradette and Michaud 1998; Galbraith 1994; Halal
1996; Handy 1990; Janov 1994; Lawler 1997; Limerick and Cunnington 1997; Marshall 1995;
McLagan and Nel 1997; Pasternack and Viscio 1998; Peters 1987; Pinchot and Pinchot 1994;
Purser and Cabana 1998; Strebel 2000; Wheatley and Kellner-Rogers 1996).
There are more reasons for skepticism about the potential for any significant reform of
public organizations. Most of these organizations are not subject to intense competitive
dynamics as found in the economy, such that the demand for radical reform is not as compelling;
compared to private companies, government agencies are less likely to “go out of business” if
they do not perform well enough (Peters and Hogwood 1991). Furthermore, the structures and
processes of public organizations are typically shaped by a number of competing values that pull
them in different directions and thus constrain the nature and degree of change that is possible
(Nutt 2004). For example, pressures for upward accountability limit the potential for selfmanagement by public employees and citizens (Agranoff and McGuire 2001; Behn 1998);
managerial orientations towards control and competition undermine efforts to adopt more
participative, collaborative processes (McCaffrey, Faerman, and Hart 1995; Feldman and
Khademian 2000); and equity demands lead readily to an emphasis on adhering to existing
procedures that reduces the likelihood of innovative practices. Such value conflicts generate
30
inertia and resistance that reduce the viability of inducing meaningful change in the operations of
these organizations.
Even when reforms are implemented or innovative practices attempted, oftentimes there
are significant problems with the process and/or disappointment with the outcomes (Kettl 1998;
Thompson and Fulla 2001). For example, participatory policy processes and management
approaches are frequently implemented only partially, or ineffectively, or less-thanenthusiastically. Coupled with the typical “participation costs” (Cooper 1983), a common result
is that involvement by relevant stakeholders is constrained, superficial, or biased, with limited
impact on the decisions made (Berner and Bronson 2005; Irvin and Stansbury 2004; Musso,
Weare, Elliot, Kitsuse, and Shiau 2007). Even successful organizational reforms are often
somewhat trivial, changing arrangements and procedures on the margins of important
organizational activity (Teisman and Klijn 2002; Thompson 2000). The net effect of a number
of such reforms implemented within a single organization is often relatively small, keeping the
core features of the organization and its internal dynamics largely intact.
The limited success of the reforms and innovations that have been attempted so far
should not be surprising, and not just because of the inertia and resistance inherent in most public
organizations. An additional factor is that there is a learning curve involved with the adoption of
these new social technologies. Surely it will take some time and experience to develop the
individual and collective capabilities needed to use these new approaches effectively.10 In
essence, the early adopters of these technologies are “beta-testing” them to help identify the
difficulties associated with using them and better understand what is required in order for them
to function successfully. Their experimentation has already resulted in numerous examples of
successful efforts to establish participative, collaborative processes that make a meaningful
31
contribution to the effective governance of organizations, neighborhoods, communities, and
regions (Beierle and Konisky 2000; Berry et al. 1993; Imperial 2005; Leach, Pelkey, and
Sabatier 2002; Pye-Smith and Feyerabend 1994; Roberts 2004; Weeks 2000). As these
innovative practices and processes diffuse more widely, the people and organizations involved
are likely to acquire at least gradually the knowledge, skills, and attitudes that enable them to be
more effective participants in these systems. This increased effectiveness should enhance the
potential for success of these new mechanisms, which in turn will demonstrate and reinforce
their value as a useful tool for governance. In short, as growing familiarity with the perspectives,
principles, and practices of the ecological paradigm pushes us further down the learning curve, it
is reasonable to expect that our systems of governance will slowly but surely evolve into a more
ecological form.
There is no way to know now where this evolutionary process will lead, or to predict
what governance systems will be like 100, 50, or even 20 years from now. One viable scenario
is that a long, incremental change process will eventually result in systems that comprise a mix
of relatively stable hierarchical organizations focused primarily on the pursuit of their own
objectives, along with an overlay of dynamic networks of people, groups, and organizations that
self-organize and mutually adapt while working together to accomplished shared objectives. On
the other hand, the possibility of more discontinuous, transformational change that results in
qualitatively different systems than those currently in use should not be underestimated.
Research indicates that organizations and other social systems can display a “punctuated
equilibrium” pattern of change (Gersick 1991; True, Jones, and Baumgartner 1999; Tushman and
Romanelli 1985), in which rather sudden systemic reorientations can position them to respond
better to the demands and expectations of their environment. Indeed, the evolution of life on the
32
planet appears to follow this punctuated equilibrium model (Gould 2002), with long periods of
relative stability and little change interrupted by short periods characterized by more rapid and/or
significant change. This pattern can also be seen in the development of human civilization as it
has evolved through several major epochs and eras. In light of previous cultural transformations,
the idea that society is in the midst of another such transition should not seem implausible.
Systemic discontinuities and transformations tend to occur when there is a significant
shift in environmental conditions, or when a system is faced with more environmental
complexity than its structural dynamics can effectively handle (Leifer 1989). Findings from
research at many different levels of analysis indicate that systems, when operating at “far-fromequilibrium” conditions, can reach a bifurcation point where the system either deteriorates and
fails, or spontaneously reconfigures itself so as to be able to handle greater complexity (Capra
1996; Prigogine and Stengers 1984). It seems clear that the process of globalization and the
arrival of the “information age” are generating major changes in human society (Castells 1996;
Cleveland 1985; Friedman 2005; Toffler 1980), with greater environmental complexity
challenging the capacity of extant systems of governance to address the various “wicked
problems” (Rittel and Webber 1973) that confront humanity and the planet as a whole.
Overpopulation and urbanization, environmental destruction and climate change, war and
terrorism, infectious diseases and information technologies – these forces and others contribute
to the chaotic conditions of contemporary culture, with some concern that they are threatening
the very survival of the human race.11 Human civilization could be reaching its own bifurcation
point, such that a systemic transformation of society may be needed to avoid the kind of collapse
that could result from, for example, a nuclear holocaust, major ecosystem failure, or a global
viral epidemic.
33
Societal transformation will almost certainly require or entail a transformation in the
systems of governance through which the innumerable decisions are made that determine the
path and pattern of global development. Since modern institutions, created in and for simpler
times, are not designed to address contemporary and emerging challenges, new ecological modes
of organization and governance may readily prove to be more adept at responding to the growing
complexity of an increasingly dynamic environment. While the principles of ecological
governance outlined here may serve as useful guidelines to those who want to contribute to this
transformation process, many other insightful perspectives and innovative ideas have been
proposed regarding institutional changes that would help to create a more ecologically conscious
society (Ayres 1998; Daly and Cobb 1994; Daly and Farley 2004; Hawken, Lovins, and Lovins
1999; Henderson 1996; Holland 1998; Mander and Goldsmith 1996; McLaughlin and Davidson
1994; Meeker-Lowry 1988; Robertson 1999). Proponents of such reforms generally agree that a
systemic transformation is needed to insure the sustainable development of society.
In these early years of a new century, a new millennium, a new era even, humanity faces
some critical questions. Will we continue to rely on political, economic, and organizational
institutions that are rooted in a 400 year-old worldview and have failed to forestall or resolve the
primary problems confronting society, or are we willing to adopt a new paradigm, acquire
ecological consciousness, and transform our institutions of governance to align them better with
contemporary circumstances and challenges? Is it wise to let the development of society be
determined through governance mechanisms that generate consequences that are undesirable to
most people (e.g., pollution, homelessness, war), or would it be smarter to pursue a path of
“conscious evolution” (Hubbard 1998; McWaters 1982) in which a desired future is identified
and governance mechanisms established to help achieve that vision? Should organizations still
34
be structured as “self-interested rational actors” with a narrow, near-term focus, or can they be
(re)created to serve society, defined in broad terms and with an eye on the future? One option is
to assume that existing institutions are good enough and that they will evolve at their own pace,
hoping that whatever changes are implemented will be sufficient to enable humanity to avoid the
worst-case scenarios regarding our predicted future. The other option is to acknowledge the
severity of the risks we face, to recognize that existing institutions are not reducing these threats
but instead seem to be increasing them, and to begin to proactively transform these institutions so
as to insure more peaceful and prosperous progress for all people. It is hoped that the principles
of ecological governance outlined above will contribute to this latter agenda and thus better
enable humanity to pursue a sustainable path to the future.
35
ENDNOTES
1. It is important to make a distinction between “postmodernism” as a philosophical perspective
or worldview, and the “new paradigm” discussed below. Postmodernism is essentially a reaction
to modernism, articulating a worldview that is derived primarily from a critique of the
foundational premises of the modern worldview. For example, Bogason (2001: 183), citing
Dennard (1997), points out that “postmodernism is not a new order but a self-aware search for a
new and more inclusive order, a transition period.” In contrast, the new paradigm is an
articulation of this new, more inclusive order, an “emergent” worldview in the evolutionary
sense that new, more complex systems naturally emerge out of older, less complex systems
(Morowitz 2002), transcending and including them (Wilber 1998). In other words, the new
paradigm does not negate the modern paradigm but rather transcends it.
2. Actually, an ecological worldview is not really new, as many indigenous people around the
world have adhered to an ecological way of thinking and living for hundreds or thousands of
years (Hartmann 1998; McGaa 2004). Likewise, many aspects of the new paradigm share
similarities to ideas in some very old belief systems (Capra 1991; Devereux 1989). But this
paradigm is essentially new in that it may be unfamiliar to those in contemporary societies where
most people have been thoroughly socialized in terms of a modern mechanistic mindset.
3. The value of an ecological perspective has been noted in the popular business press as well.
For example, an article in FastCompany (Webber 2001) discussed how business is a lot like like,
and the Wall Street Journal printed an excerpt from a book by Petzinger (1999) under the
headline, “A New Model for the Nature of Business: It’s Alive! Forget the Mechanical –
Today’s Leaders Embrace the Biological.”
36
4. The intent here is to outline a rather generic model of organization that provides a way to
think about how to organize the activities of the people and organizations involved in the
governance of public affairs, regardless of their sector. In fact, sector differences might blur
even further in a system of ecological governance, as growing awareness of interdependence
further muddies the distinction between what is private and what is public. Also, while the word
“organization” is used below for convenience, the focus here is actually on the “organized
systems” of networked humans whose individual and joint activities constitute the operations of
the governance system as a whole.
5. The suggestion that organizations be thought of as living systems may raise concerns that this
serves to reify organizations. This concern reflects the underlying question of whether an
organization is a “real thing” or simply a conceptual abstraction. The ecological perspective
proposed here is not intended to come down on one side or the other of this debate, but instead
might be fruitfully adopted by either approach. On one hand, an ecological metaphor could be
just another “image” of organizations (Morgan 1986) that reveals useful insights regarding how
to effectively organize collective activities. The use of new metaphors can in turn help to create a
new reality, by shaping how people comprehend their experience and then how they act (Lakoff
and Johnson 1980). On the other hand, it is reasonable to believe that organizations are real
systems that display properties of living systems rather than mechanistic systems (Miller 1978).
In Boulding’s (1956) holarchical classification of systems, in which each higher-level system
incorporates the features of those below it, social systems such as organizations are recognized
as “multi-cephalous” (i.e., many-brained), composed of symbol processing systems that possess
self-consciousness and are capable of using language (i.e., humans). From this perspective, if a
person is a living system, then so is a social system.
37
6. The notion that organizations are purposeful and goal-oriented is taken here as a given, as a
defining characteristic that distinguishes organizations from other types of human collectives
(e.g., communities). Although the idea that organizations have a particular purpose or mission is
associated most closely with a rational perspective (Scott 1981), a purposive system need not
necessarily or inevitably adhere to rational organization design principles. For example, when
employees have internalized the normative foundations of an organization, as reflected in its
purpose, vision, mission, objectives, assumptions, values, etc., there is less need for the various
bureaucratic mechanisms that are used primarily to exert control over employees (Ouchi 1979).
In describing a “chaordic” model of organization that intentionally eschews a hierarchical
framework, Hock (1999) argues that organizations should be organized first and foremost around
a purpose that attracts people to participate and binds them together. An interesting example of
how a shared purpose can serve to organize activity in the absence of a hierarchy comes from the
open-source software movement, in particular, the development of the Linux operating system
(Raymond 1999), where a self-organizing network of programmers collectively created a product
that some people believe is superior to similar products developed in conventional companies.
7. This idea is compatible with the principle of subsidiarity, which states that matters ought to be
handled by the smallest (or, the lowest) competent authority. In other words, a central authority
should have a subsidiary function, performing only those tasks which cannot be performed
effectively at a more immediate or local level. As Handy (1990: 126) puts it in his discussion of
this principle, “To steal people’s decisions is wrong.”
8. Discussing the reforms taking place in public organizations that enhance their “democratic
ethos,” deLeon and deLeon (2002: 230-231) point out that this is “a process that has been
occurring without benefit of scholarly imprimatur, for modern public organizations are not
38
monolithic bureaucracies. Rather, they include networks and partnerships of many kinds,
entrepreneurs in full flower, self-directed work teams, and self-managing professional and
technical workers galore. They are leaner and flatter, striving for versatility and flexibility. No
longer is information hoarded by managers as a power source, but it gushes through channels in
an electronic and paper flood. In this sense, we argue that our theories of public organizations
need to reflect this democratic reality, and our normative theories should advance it.” While
they subsequently acknowledge that public agencies are still quite hierarchical and many of their
processes make them resistant to democratization, the point here is that evidence of significant
reform in the public sector is indeed apparent, and it is reasonable and desirable for public
administration scholars to document and promote further transformation of the system.
9. Nonprofit organizations already may be more likely to function according to some of the
principles of ecological governance than either public or private organizations. Thus, rather than
trying to “bureaucratize” them – which tends to happen as they grow bigger and/or take steps to
“professionalize” their operations – it might make sense for public agencies and private
businesses to consider how they might function more like nonprofit organizations (cf. Brooks
2002).
10. As DeSeve (2007: 47) points out in his discussion of managed networks, “There has been
relatively little incentive to work across boundaries and even less training in the knowledge,
skills, and abilities that are required for this kind of effort…There are few models and rules of
engagement for how to manage this process of multi-party program delivery or outcome
improvement.”
11. In a 1992 statement issued by the Union of Concerned Scientists, called the World Scientists’
Warning to Humanity, nearly 1700 signatories (including over 100 Nobel laureates) offered the
39
following perspective: “Human beings and the natural world are on a collision course. Human
activities inflict harsh and often irreversible damage on the environment and on critical
resources. If not checked, many of our current practices put at serious risk the future that we
wish for human society and the plant and animal kingdoms, and may so alter the living world
that it will be unable to sustain life in the manner that we know. Fundamental changes are urgent
if we are to avoid the collision our present course will bring about…A great change in our
stewardship of the earth and the life on it, is required, if vast human misery is to be avoided and
our global home on this planet is not to be irretrievably mutilated…A new ethic is required - a
new attitude towards discharging our responsibility for caring for ourselves and for the
earth…This ethic must motivate a great movement, convince reluctant leaders and reluctant
governments and reluctant peoples themselves to effect the needed changes.”
40
REFERENCES
Ackerman, L. S. 1984. The flow state: A new view of organizations and managing. In
Transforming work, edited by J. D. Adams. Alexandria, VA: Miles River Press.
Ackoff, R. L. 1994. The democratic corporation: A radical prescription for recreating
corporate America and rediscovering success. New York: Oxford University Press.
Ackoff, R. L. 1999. Re-creating the corporation: A design of organizations for the 21st century.
New York: Oxford University Press.
Agranoff, R. and M. McGuire. 2001. Big questions in public network management research.
Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory 11: 295-326.
Alkadry, M. 2003. Deliberative discourse between citizens and administrators: If citizens talk,
will administrators listen? Administration & Society 35: 184-209.
Alter, C. and J. Hage. 1993. Organizations working together. Newbury Park, CA: Sage
Publications.
Antonioni, D. 1996. Designing an effective 360-degree appraisal feedback process.
Organizational Dynamics 25 (Autumn): 24-38.
Argyris, C. 1977. Double loop learning in organizations. Harvard Business Review 55 (5): 115125.
Aristigueta, M. P., L. J. Cooksy, and C. W. Nelson. 2001. The role of social indicators in
developing a managing for results system. Public Performance & Management Review 24:
254-269.
Ashkenas, R., D. Ulrich, T. Jick, and S. Kerr. 1995. The boundaryless organization: Breaking
the chains of organizational structure. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Axelrod, R. M. 1984. The evolution of cooperation. New York: Basic Books.
Ayres, R. U. 1998. Turning point: The end of the growth paradigm. New York: St. Martin’s
Press.
Bachrach, P. and A. Botwinick. 1992. Power and empowerment: A radical theory of
participatory democracy. Philadelphia: Temple University Press.
Balfour, D. L. and B. Wechsler. 1994. A theory of public sector commitment: Towards a
reciprocal model of person and organization. In Research in public administration, Vol. 3,
edited by J. Perry, 281-314. Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.
Banner, D. K. and T. E. Gagné. 1995. Designing effective organizations: Traditional &
41
transformational views. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
Barry, D. 1991. Managing the bossless team: Lessons in distributed leadership. Organizational
Dynamics 20 (Summer): 31-47.
Barth, T. J. 1996. Administering in the public interest: The facilitative role for public
administrators. In Refounding democratic public administration: Modern paradoxes,
postmodern challenges, edited by G. L. Wamsley and J. F. Wolf, 168-197. Thousand Oaks,
CA: Sage.
Barzelay, M. 2001. The new public management: Improving research and policy dialogue.
Berkely, CA: University of California Press.
Baxter, B. 2000. Ecologism: An introduction. Washington, DC: Georgetown University Press.
Behn, R. D. 1998. The new public management paradigm and the search for democratic
accountability. International Public Management Journal 1: 131-165.
Behn, R. D. 2003. Why measure performance? Different purposes require different measures.
Public Administration Review 63: 586-606.
Beierle, T. C. and D. M. Konisky. 2000. Values, conflict, and trust in participatory
environmental planning. Journal of Policy Analysis and Management 19: 587-602.
Bennis, W. G. and B. Nanus. 1985. Leaders: The strategies for taking charge. New York:
Harper & Row.
Benveniste, G. 1994. The twenty-first century organization: Analyzing current trends and
imagining the future. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Berger, P. L. and T. Luckmann. 1966. The social construction of reality: A treatise in the
sociology of knowledge. Garden City, NY: Doubleday.
Bergquist, W. 1993. The postmodern organization: Mastering the art of irreversible change.
San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Berman, E. and X. Wang. 2000. Performance measurement in U.S. counties: Capacity for
reform. Public Administration Review 60: 409-420.
Berner, M. and M. Bronson. 2005. A case study of program evaluation in local government:
Building consensus through collaboration. Public Performance & Management Review 28:
309-325.
Berry, J. M., K. E. Portney, and K. Thomson. 1993. The rebirth of urban democracy.
Washington, DC: Brookings Institution Press.
42
Bertalanffy, L. V. 1968. General systems theory: Foundations, development, applications.
New York: G. Braziller.
Bhat, V. N. 1996. The green corporation: The next competitive advantage. Westport, CT:
Quorum Books.
Bingham, L. B., T. Nabatchi, and R. O’Leary. 2005. The new governance: Practices and
processes for stakeholder and citizen participation in the work of government. Public
Administration Review 65: 547-558.
Block, P. 1993. Stewardship: Choosing service over self-interest. San Francisco: BerrettKoehler.
Bloomfield, P. 2006. The challenging business of long-term public-private partnerships:
Reflections on local experience. Public Administration Review 66: 400-411.
Bogason, P. 2001. Postmodernism and American public administration in the 1990s.
Administration & Society 33: 165-193.
Bogason, P. and J. A. Musso. 2006. The democratic prospects of network governance. American
Review of Public Administration 36: 3-18.
Bohm, D. 1980. Wholeness and the implicate order. London: Routledge.
Bohm, D. 1996. On dialogue. London: Routledge.
Booher, D. E. and J. Innes. 2002. Network power in collaborative planning. Journal of
Planning Education and Research 21: 221-236.
Box, R. C. 1998. Citizen governance: Leading American communities into the 21st century.
Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
Boulding, K. 1956. General systems theory – The skeleton of science. Management Science 2:
197-208.
Bozeman, B. 1987. All organizations are public: Bridging public and private organizational
theories. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Bradford, D. L. and A. R. Cohen. 1984. Managing for excellence: The guide to developing high
performance in contemporary organizations. New York: Wiley.
Brinkerhoff, J. M. 2002. Government-nonprofit partnership: A defining framework. Public
Administration and Development 22: 19-30.
Brooks, A. C. 2002. Can nonprofit management help answer public management’s “big
questions”? Public Administration Review 62: 259-266.
43
Brower, R. S., M. Y. Abolafia, and J. B. Carr. 2000. On improving qualitative methods in public
administration research. Administration & Society 32: 363-397.
Brown, M. M. and J. L. Brudney. 2003. Learning organizations in the public sector? A study of
police agencies employing information and technology to advance knowledge. Public
Administration Review 63: 30-43.
Brudney, J. L., F. T. Hebert, and D. S. Wright. 1999. Reinventing government in the American
states: Measuring and explaining administrative reform. Public Administration Review 59:
19-30.
Bryson, J. M. and S. R. Anderson. 2000. Applying large-group interaction methods in the
planning and implementation of major change efforts. Public Administration Review 60: 143162.
Bryson, J. M., B. C. Crosby, and M. M. Stone. 2006. The design and implementation of crosssector collaborations: Propositions from the literature. Public Administration Review 66: 4455.
Bunker, B. B. and B. T. Alban. 1997. Large group interventions: Engaging the whole system
for rapid change. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Burbidge, J., ed. 1997. Beyond prince and merchant: Citizen participation and the rise of civil
society. Washington, DC: Pact Publications.
Burns, T. and G. M. Stalker. 1961. The management of innovation. London: Tavistock
Publications.
Bushe, G. R. and A. B. Shani. 1990. Parallel learning structure interventions in bureaucratic
organizations. In Research in organizational change and development, Vol. 4, edited by W.
A. Pasmore and R. W. Woodman, 167-194. Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.
Capra, F. 1991. The tao of physics. 3rd ed. Boston: Shambhala.
Capra, F. 1996. The web of life: A new scientific understanding of living systems. New York:
Anchor Books.
Capra, F. 2002. The hidden connections: Integrating the biological, cognitive, and social
dimensions of life into a science of sustainability. New York: Doubleday.
Castells, M. 1996. The rise of the network society. Cambridge, MA: Blackwell Publishers.
Chisholm, D. W. 1989. Coordination without hierarchy: Informal structures in
multiorganizational systems. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.
44
Chrislip, D. D. and C. E. Larson. 1994. Collaborative leadership: How citizens and civic
leaders can make a difference. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Clawson, J. 1999. Level three leadership: Getting below the surface. Upper Saddle River, NJ:
Prentice-Hall.
Cleveland, H. 1985. The twilight of hierarchy: Speculations on the global information society.
Public Administration Review 45: 185-195.
Cleveland, H. 2000. The future is uncentralized. Public Administration Review 60: 293-297.
Cohen, A. R. and D. L. Bradford. 1989. Influence without authority: The use of alliances,
reciprocity, and exchange to accomplish work. Organizational Dynamics 17: 4-17.
Cohen, S. and R. Brand. 1993. Total quality management in government: A practical guide for
the real world. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Coleman, J. S. 1988. Social capital in the creation of human capital. American Journal of
Sociology 94: S95-S120.
Collins, D. 1997. The ethical superiority and inevitability of participatory management as an
organizational system. Organization Science 8: 489-507.
Collins, J. C. and J. I. Porras. 1994. Built to last: Successful habits of visionary companies.
New York: HarperCollins.
Comfort, L. K. 1994. Self-organization in complex systems. Journal of Public Administration
Research and Theory 4: 393-410.
Cook, W. J., Jr. 2000. The evolving corporation: A humanist interpretation. Westport, CT:
Quorum Books.
Cooke, R. A. and D. M. Rousseau. 1988. Behavioral norms and expectations: A quantitative
approach to the assessment of organizational culture. Group & Organization Studies 13:
245-273.
Cooper, T. L. 1983. Citizen participation. In Organization theory and management, edited by T.
Lynch, 3-45. New York: Marcel Dekker.
Cooperrider, D. L. and S. Srivastva. 1987. Appreciative inquiry in organizational life. In
Research in organizational change and development, Vol. 1, edited by R. W. Woodman and
W. A. Pasmore, 129-169. Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.
Cotton, J. L. 1993. Employee involvement: Methods for improving performance and work
attitudes. Newbury Park, CA: Sage Publications.
45
Cox, T., Jr. and S. Blake. 1991. Managing cultural diversity: Implications for organizational
competitiveness. Academy of Management Executive 5: 45-56.
Daft, R. L. and R. H. Lengel. 1998. Fusion leadership: Unlocking the subtle forces that change
people and organizations. San Francisco: Berrett-Koehler.
Daly, H. E. and J. B. Cobb, Jr. 1994. For the common good: Redirecting the economy toward
community, the environment, and a sustainable future. 2nd ed. Boston: Beacon Press.
Daly, H. E. and J. Farley. 2004. Ecological economics: Principles and applications.
Washington, DC: Island Press.
Davidow, W. H. and M. S. Malone. 1993. The virtual corporation: Structuring and revitalizing
the corporation for the 21st century. New York: HarperBusiness.
de Geus, A. 1997. The living company. Boston: Harvard Business School Press.
deLeon, L. and P. deLeon. 2002. The democratic ethos and public management. Administration
& Society 34: 229-250
Denhardt, R. B. 1981. Toward a critical theory of public organization. Public Administration
Review 41: 628-635.
Denison, D. R. and A. K. Mishra. 1995. Toward a theory of organizational culture and
effectiveness. Organization Science 6: 204-223.
Dennard, L. F. 1996. The new paradigm in science and public administration. Public
Administration Review 56: 495-499.
Dennard, L. F. 1997. The democratic potential in the transition of postmodernism. American
Behavioral Scientist 41: 148-162.
de Quincey, C. 2002. Radical nature: Rediscovering the soul of matter. Montpelier, VT:
Invisible Cities Press.
DeSeve, G. E. 2007. Creating managed networks as a response to societal challenges. The
Business of Government Spring: 47-52.
Devereux, P. 1989. Earthmind: A modern adventure in ancient wisdom. New York: Harper &
Row.
Dilworth, R. L. 1996. Institutionalizing learning organizations in the public sector. Public
Productivity & Management Review 19: 407-421.
Donaldson, T. and L. E. Preston. 1995. The stakeholder theory of the corporation: Concepts,
evidence, and implications. Academy of Management Review 20: 65-91.
46
Drucker, P. F. 1988. The coming of the new organization. Harvard Business Review 66: 45-53.
Dugatkin, L. 1999. Cheating monkeys and citizen bees: The nature of cooperation in animals
and humans. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Easterby-Smith, M., L. Araujo, and J. Burgoyne. 1998. Organizational learning and the
learning organization. Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications.
Eisler, R. 1987. The chalice & the blade: Our history, our future. San Francisco: Harper &
Row.
Elgin, D. 1993. Awakening earth: Exploring the evolution of human culture and consciousness.
New York: Morrow.
Elgin, D. and C. LeDrew. 1997. Global consciousness change: Indicators of an emerging
paradigm. Sausalito, CA: Institute of Noetic.
Emery, M. and R. E. Purser. 1996. The search conference: A powerful method for planning
organizational change and community action. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Fairholm, G. W. 1991. Values leadership: Toward a new philosophy of leadership. New York:
Praeger.
Farmer, D. J. 1995. The language of public administration: Bureaucracy, modernity, and
postmodernity. Tuscaloosa, AL: University of Alabama Press.
Feldman, M. S. and A. M. Khademian. 2000. Managing for inclusion: Balancing control and
participation. International Public Management Journal 3: 149-167.
Feldman, M. S. and A. M. Khademian. 2002. To manage is to govern. Public Administration
Review 62: 541-554.
Ferlie, E., L. Ashburner, L. Fitzgerald, and A. Pettigrew. 1996. The new public management in
action. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Fisher, K. 2000. Leading self-directed work teams: A guide to developing new team leadership
skills. New York: McGraw-Hill.
Fox, C. J. and H. T. Miller. 1995. Postmodern public administration: Toward discourse.
Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
Fradette, M. and S. Michaud. 1998. The power of corporate kinetics: Create the self-adapting,
self-renewing, instant-action enterprise. New York: Free Press.
Freeman, J. H. 1978. The unit of analysis in organizational research. In Environments and
47
organizations, edited by M. W. Meyer, 335-351. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Freeman, R. E. 1984. Strategic management: A stakeholder approach. Boston: Pitman.
Friedman, T. L. 2005. The world is flat. New York: Farrar, Straus and Giroux.
Galbraith, J. R. 1973. Designing complex organizations. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.
Galbraith, J. R. 1994. Competing with flexible lateral organizations. Reading, MA: AddisonWesley.
Gersick, C. J. G. 1991. Revolutionary change theories: A multilevel exploration of the
punctuated equilibrium model. Academy of Management Review 16: 10-36.
Giddens, A. 1984. The constitution of society: Outline of the theory of structuration. Berkeley,
CA: University of California Press.
Gleick, J. 1987. Chaos: Making a new science. New York: Viking.
Goldsmith, S. and W. D. Eggers. 2004. Governing by network: The new shape of the public
sector. Washington, DC: Brookings Institution Press.
Goleman, D. 1995. Emotional intelligence. New York: Bantam Books.
Gould, S. J. 2002. The structure of evolutionary theory. Cambridge, MA: Belknap Press of
Harvard University Press.
Gouldner, A. 1960. The norm of reciprocity: A preliminary statement. American Sociological
Review 25: 161-178.
Graham, J. W. and D. W. Organ. 1993. Commitment and the covenantal organization.
Employee Responsibilities and Rights Journal 4: 249-270.
Gray, B. 1997. Collaborating: Finding common ground for multiparty problems. San
Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Greenleaf, R. K. 1977. Servant leadership: A journey into the nature of legitimate power and
greatness. New York: Paulist Press.
Habermas, J. 1971. Knowledge and human interests. (Translated by Jeremy J. Shapiro.)
Boston: Beacon Press.
Halal, W. E. 1996. The new management: Democracy and enterprise are transforming
organizations. San Francisco: Berrett-Koehler.
Handy, C. 1990. The age of unreason. Boston: Harvard Business School Press.
48
Hannan, M. T. and J. Freeman. 1977. The population ecology of organizations. American
Journal of Sociology 82: 929-964.
Hansen, J. L. 1995. Invisible patterns: Ecology and wisdom in business and profit. Westport,
CT: Quorum Books.
Harder, J. W., P. J. Robertson, and H. Woodward. 2004. The spirit of the new workplace:
Breathing life into organizations. Organizational Development Journal 22: 79-103.
Hargrove, R. 1998. Mastering the art of creative collaboration. New York: McGraw-Hill.
Harman, W. W. 1998. Global mind change: The promise of the 21st century. 2nd ed. San
Francisco: Berrett-Koehler.
Hartmann, T. 1998. The last hours of ancient sunlight: Waking up to personal & global
transformation. New York: Harmony Books.
Hawken, P. 1993. The ecology of commerce: A declaration of sustainability. New York:
HarperBusiness.
Hawken, P., A. Lovins, and L. H. Lovins. 1999. Natural capitalism: Creating the next
industrial revolution. Boston: Little, Brown.
Healey, P. 2006. Collaborative planning: Shaping places in fragmented societies. 2nd ed.
Basingstoke, Hampshire, UK: Palgrave Macmillan.
Heinrich, C. J. 2002. Outcomes-based performance management in the public sector:
Implications for government accountability and effectiveness. Public Administration Review
62: 712-725.
Henderson, H. 1996. Building a win-win world: Life beyond global economic warfare. San
Francisco: Berrett-Koehler Publishers.
Henton, D., J. Melville, and K. Walesh. 1997. Grassroots leaders for a new economy: How
civic entrepreneurs are building prosperous communities. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Ho, A. and P. Coates. 2004. Citizen-initiated performance assessment: The initial Iowa
experience. Public Performance & Management Review 27: 29-50.
Hock, D. 1999. Birth of the chaordic age. San Francisco: Berrett-Koehler.
Holland, G. B. 1998. A call for connection: Solutions for creating a whole new culture.
Novato, CA: New World Library.
Hubbard, B. M. 1998. Conscious evolution: Awakening the power of our social potential.
49
Novato, CA: New World Library.
Huxham, C. and S. Vangen. 2005. Managingto collaborate: The theory and practice of
collaborative advantage. New York: Routledge.
Imperial, M. T. 2005. Using collaboration as a governance strategy: Lessons from six watershed
management programs. Administration & Society 37: 281-320.
Irvin, R. A. and J. Stansbury. 2004. Citizen participation in decision making: Is it worth the
effort? Public Administration Review 64: 55-65.
Isaacs, W. N. 1993. Taking flight: Dialogue, collective thinking, and organizational learning.
Organizational Dynamics 22 (Winter): 24-39.
Isaacs, W. 1999. Dialogue and the art of thinking together: A pioneering approach to
communicating in business and in life. New York: Doubleday.
Isenhart, M. W. and M. L. Spangle. 2000. Collaborative approaches to resolving conflict.
Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
Jablonski, J. R. 1992. Implementing TQM: Competing in the nineties through total quality
management. San Diego: Pfeiffer & Company.
Janov, J. 1994. The inventive organization: Hope and daring at work. San Francisco: JosseyBass.
Jantsch, E. 1980. The self-organizing universe. New York: George Braziller Publishers.
Jun, J. S. 2006. The social construction of public administration: Interpretive and critical
perspectives. Albany, NY: State University of New York Press.
Kahn, W. A. 1998. Relational systems at work. In Research in organizational behavior, Vol.
20, edited by B. M. Staw and L. L. Cummings, 39-76. Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.
Kalliola, S. 2003. Self-designed teams in improving public sector performance and quality of
working life. Public Performance & Management Review 27: 110-122.
Kamensky, J. M. 1996. Role of the “reinventing government” movement in federal management
reform. Public Administration Review 56: 247-255.
Kamensky, J. M. 2007. Forum introduction: Toward greater collaboration in government. The
Business of Government Spring: 45-46.
Kaplan, R. S. and D. P. Norton. 1996. The balanced scorecard: Translating strategy into action.
Boston: Harvard Business School Press.
50
Kauffman, S. 1995. At home in the universe: The search for laws of self-organization and
complexity. New York: Oxford University Press.
Keeley, M. 1984. Impartiality and participant-interest theories of organizational effectiveness.
Administrative Science Quarterly 29: 1-25.
Kellough, J. E. and K. C. Naff. 2004. Responding to a wake-up call: An examination of federal
agency diversity management programs. Administration & Society 36: 62-90.
Kelly, K. 1998. New rules for the new economy: 10 radical strategies for a connected world.
New York: Viking.
Keohane, R. O. and J. S. Nye, Jr. 2000. Introduction. In Governance in a globalizing world,
edited by J. S. Nye, Jr. and J. D. Donahue, 1-41. Washington, DC: Brookings Institution
Press.
Kernaghan, K. 2003. Integrating values into public service: The values statement as centerpiece.
Public Administration Review 63: 711-719.
Kettl, D. F. 1994. Managing on the frontiers of knowledge: The learning organization. In New
paradigms for government: Issues for the changing public service, edited by P. W. Ingraham,
B. S. Romzek, and Associates, 19-40. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Kettl, D. F. 1998. Reinventing government: A fifth-year report card. Washington, DC:
Brookings Institution Press.
Kettl, D. F. 2000. The transformation of governance: Globalization, devolution, and the role of
government. Public Administration Review 60: 488-497.
Kickert, W. J. M., E-H. Klijn, and J. F. M. Koppenjan. 1997. Managing complex networks:
Strategies for the public sector. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
Koehler, J. W. and J. M. Pankowski. 1996. Teams in government: A handbook for team-based
organizations. Delray Beach, FL: St. Lucie.
Kopczynski, M. and M. Lombardo. 1999. Comparative performance measurement: Insights and
lessons learned from a consortium effort. Public Administration Review 59: 124-134.
Lakoff, G. and M. Johnson. 1980. Metaphors we live by. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Landau, M. 1991. On multiorganizational systems in public administration. Journal of Public
Administration Research and Theory 1: 5-18.
Lane, J-E. 2000. New public management. London: Routledge.
Laszlo, E. 2001. Macroshift: Navigating the transformation to a sustainable world. San
51
Francisco: Berrett-Koehler.
Laszlo, E. 2003. The connectivity hypothesis: Foundations of an integral science of quantum,
cosmos, life, and consciousness. Albany, NY: State University of New York Press.
Lawler, E. E., III. 1992. The ultimate advantage: Creating the high-involvement organization.
San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Lawler, E. E., III. 1997. From the ground up: Six principles for building the new logic
corporation. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Lawrence, P. R. and J. W. Lorsch. 1967. Organization and environment: Managing
differentiation and integration. Boston: Graduate School of Business Administration,
Harvard University.
Leach, W. D., N. W. Pelkey, and P. A. Sabatier. 2002. Stakeholder partnerships as collaborative
policymaking: Evaluation criteria applied to watershed management in California and
Washington. Journal of Policy Analysis and Management 21: 645-670.
Leifer, R. 1989. Understanding organizational transformation using a dissipative structure
model. Human Relations 42: 899-916.
Lepsinger, R. and A. D. Lucia. 1997. The art and science of 360-degree feedback. San
Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Levine, S. 1998. Getting to resolution: Turning conflict into collaboration. San Francisco:
Berrett-Koehler.
Levy, A. and U. Merry 1986. Organizational transformation: Approaches, strategies, theories.
New York: Praeger.
Lewin, R. 1992. Complexity: Life at the edge of chaos. New York: Macmillan.
Lewis, J. D. 1995. The connected corporation: How leading companies win through customersupplier alliances. New York: Free Press.
Limerick, D. and B. Cunnington. 1997. Managing the new organization: A blueprint for
networks and strategic alliances. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Linden, R. 1994. Seamless government: A practical guide to re-engineering in the public
sector. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Lipnack, J. and Stamps, J. 1994. The age of the network: Organizing principles for the 21st
century. New York: Wiley.
Lowery, D. and K. G. Evans. 2004. The iron cage of methodology. Administration & Society 36:
52
306-327.
Lynn, L. E., Jr. 1998. The new public management: How to translate a theme into a legacy.
Public Administration Review 58: 231-237.
Lynn, L. E., Jr., C. Heinrich, and C. Hill. 2001. Improving governance: A new logic for
empirical research. Washington, DC: Georgetown University Press.
Mandell, M. P. 1994. Managing interdependencies through program structures: A revised
paradigm. American Review of Public Administration 24: 99-121.
Mandell, M. P. 1999. Community collaborations: Working through network structures. Policy
Studies Review 16: 42-64.
Mander, J. and E. Goldsmith, eds. 1996. The case against the global economy and for a turn
toward the local. San Francisco: Sierra Club Books.
Manz, C. C. and H. P. Sims, Jr. 1993. Business without bosses: How self-managing teams are
building high-performing companies. New York: Wiley.
Margerum, R. D. 2002. Collaborative planning: Building consensus and building a distinct
model for practice. Journal of Planning Education and Research 21: 237-253.
Marshall, E. M. 1995. Transforming the way we work: The power of the collaborative
workplace. New York: AMACOM.
Maslow, A. 1954. Motivation and personality. New York: Harper & Row.
Mausolff, C. 2004. Learning from feedback in performance measurement systems. Public
Performance & Management Review 28: 9-29.
Maynard, H. B. and S. E. Mehrtens. 1993. The fourth wave: Business in the 21st century. San
Francisco: Berrett-Koehler.
McCaffrey, D. P., S. R. Faerman, and D. W. Hart. 1995. The appeal and difficulties of
participative systems. Organization Science 6: 603-627.
McGaa, E. 2004. Nature’s way: Native wisdom for living in balance with the earth. San
Francisco: HarperSanFrancisco.
McGuire, M. 2002. Managing networks: Propositions on what managers do and why they do it.
Public Administration Review 62: 599-609.
McGuire, M. 2006. Collaborative public management: Assessing what we know and how we
know it. Public Administration Review 66: 33-43.
53
McLagan, P. and C. Nel. 1997. The age of participation: New governance for the workplace
and the world. San Francisco: Berrett-Koehler.
McLaughlin, C. and G. Davidson. 1994. Spiritual politics: Changing the world from the inside
out. New York: Ballantine Books.
McWaters, B. 1982. Conscious evolution: Personal and planetary transformation. San
Francisco: Evolutionary Press.
Meeker-Lowry, S. 1988. Economics as if the earth really mattered. Philadelphia: New Society
Publishers.
Merry, U. 1995. Coping with uncertainty: Insights from the new sciences of chaos, selforganization, and complexity. Westport, CT: Praeger.
Metzner, R. 1999. Green psychology: Transforming our relationship to the earth. Rochester,
VT: Park Street Press.
Meyer, J. W. and B. Rowan. 1977. Institutionalized organizations: Formal structure as myth
and ceremony. American Journal of Sociology 83: 340-363.
Milakovich, M. E. 1995. Improving service quality: Achieving high performance in the public
and private sectors. Delray Beach, FL: St. Lucie Press.
Miles, R. E., C. C. Snow, J. A. Mathews, G. Miles, and H. J. Coleman, Jr. 1997. Organizing in
the knowledge age: Anticipating the cellular form. Academy of Management Executive 11:
7-24.
Miller, J. G. 1978. Living systems. New York: McGraw-Hill.
Milward, H. B. and K. G. Provan. 2000. Governing the hollow state. Journal of Public
Administration Research and Theory 10: 359-379.
Milward, H. B. and K. G. Provan. 2006. A manager’s guide to choosing and using collaborative
networks. Washington, DC: IBM Center for the Business of Government .
Mitchell, R. K., B. R. Agle, and D. J. Wood. 1997. Toward a theory of stakeholder identification
and salience: Defining the principle of who and what really counts. Academy of
Management Review 22: 853-886.
Mohr, L. B. 1994. Authority in organizations: On the reconciliation of democracy and
expertise. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory 4: 49-65.
Mohrman, S. A., S. G. Cohen and A. M. Mohrman, Jr. 1995. Designing team-based
organizations: New forms for knowledge work. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
54
Mohrman, S. A. and T. G. Cummings. 1989. The self-designing organization. Reading, MA:
Addison-Wesley.
Moon, M. J. and P. deLeon. 2001. Municipal reinvention: Management values and diffusion
among municipalities. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory 11: 327-351.
Moore, J. F. 1996. The death of competition: Leadership and strategy in the age of business
ecosystems. New York: HarperBusiness.
Moorman, R. H., G. L. Blakely, and P. B. Niehoff. 1998. Does perceived organizational support
mediate the relationship between procedural justice and organizational citizenship behavior?
Academy of Management Journal 41: 351-357.
Morgan, G. 1986. Images of organization. Newbury Park, CA: Sage Publications.
Morowitz, H. J. 2002. The emergence of everything: How the world became complex. Oxford:
Oxford University Press.
Moynihan, D. P. 2005. Goal-based learning and the future of performance management. Public
Administration Review 65: 203-216.
Moynihan, D. P. 2007. Incident command systems for organizing crisis response. The Business
of Government Spring: 64-69.
Murphey, D. A. 1999. Presenting community-level data in and “outcomes and indicators”
framework: Lessons from Vermont’s experience. Public Administration Review 59: 76-88.
Musso, J., C. Weare, M. Elliot, A. Kitsuse, and E. Shiau. 2007. Toward community engagement
in city governance: Evaluating neighborhood council reform in Los Angeles. University of
Southern California Civic Engagement Initiative Urban Policy Brief.
Nagel, S. S. 1997. Super-optimum solutions and win-win policy: Basic concepts and principles.
Westport, CT: Quorum Books.
National Performance Review. 1993. From red tape to results: Creating a government that
works better and costs less. Washington, DC: US Government Printing Office.
Niven, P. R. 2003. Balanced scoredcard step-by-step for government and nonprofit agencies.
Hoboken, NJ: Wiley.
Nonaka, I. and H. Takeuchi. 1995. The knowledge-creating company: How Japanese
companies create the dynamics of innovation. New York: Oxford University Press.
Nutt, P. C. 2004. Prompting the transformation of public organizations. Public Performance &
Management Review 27: 9-33.
55
O’Reilly, C. A., III. and J. A. Chatman. 1986. Organizational commitment and psychological
attachment: The effects of compliance, identification, and internalization on prosocial
behavior. Journal of Applied Psychology 71: 492-499.
Organ, D W. 1988. Organizational citizenship behavior: The good soldier syndrome.
Lexington, MA: Lexington Books.
Orth, C. D., H. E. Wilkinson, and R. C. Benfari. 1987. The manager's role as coach and mentor.
Organizational Dynamics 15: 66-74.
Osborne, D. and T. Gaebler. 1992. Reinventing government: How the entrepreneurial spirit is
transforming the public sector. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.
Ospina, S. M. and J. Dodge. 2005. It’s about time: Catching method up to meaning – The
usefulness of narrative inquiry in public administration research. Public Administration
Review 65: 143-157.
Ouchi, W. G. 1979. A conceptual framework for the design of organizational control
mechanisms. Management Science 25: 833-848.
Owen, H. 1997. Expanding our now: The story of open space technology. San Francisco:
Berrett-Koehler.
Page, S. 2003. Entrepreneurial strategies for managing interagency collaboration. Journal of
Public Administration Research and Theory 13: 311-339.
Parker, B. R. 1996. Chaos in the cosmos: The stunning complexity of the universe. New York:
Plenum Press.
Pasternack, B. and A. Viscio. 1998. The centerless corporation: A new model for transforming
your organization for growth and prosperity. New York: Simon & Schuster.
Pauchant, T. and Associates. 1997. In search of meaning: Managing for the health of our
organizations, our communities, and the natural world. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Perry, J. L. and H. G. Rainey. 1988. The public-private distinction in organization theory: A
critique and research strategy. Academy of Management Review 13: 182-201.
Perry, J. L. and L. R. Wise. 1990. The motivational bases of public service. Public
Administration Review 50: 367-373.
Peters, B. G., & Hogwood, B. W. 1991. Applying population ecology models to public
organizations. In Research in public administration, Vol. 1, edited by J. Perry, 79-108.
Greenwich,CT: JAI Press.
Peters, B. G. and J. Pierre. 1998. Governance without government? Rethinking public
56
administration. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory 8: 223-243.
Peters, T. 1987. Thriving on chaos: Handbook for a management revolution. New York:
Knopf.
Peters, T. 1988. Restoring American competitiveness: Looking for new models of
organizations. Academy of Management Executive 2: 103-109.
Petzinger, T., Jr. 1999. The new pioneers: The men and women who are transforming the
workplace and marketplace. New York: Simon & Schuster.
Pfeffer, J. 1998. The human equation: Building profits by putting people first. Boston: Harvard
Business School Press.
Pfeffer, J. 2002. Business and the spirit: Management practices that sustain values. In
Handbook of workplace spirituality and organizational performance, edited by R. A.
Giacalone and C. L. Jurkiewicz, 29-45. Armonk, NY: M. E. Sharpe.
Pfeffer, J. and G. R. Salancik. 1978. The external control of organizations: A resource
dependence perspective. New York: Harper & Row.
Pinchbeck, D. 2006. 2012: The return of Quetzalcoatl. New York: Penguin.
Pinchot, G. and E. Pinchot. 1994. The end of bureaucracy & the rise of the intelligent
organization. San Francisco: Berrett-Koehler.
Piotrowski, S. J. and D. H. Rosenbloom. 2002. Nonmission-based values in results-oriented
public management: The case of freedom of information. Public Administration Review 62:
643-657.
Poister, T. H. and R. J. Harris, Jr. 2000. Building quality improvement over the long run:
Approaches, results, and lessons learned from the PennDOT experience. Public Performance
& Management Review 24: 161-176.
Poister, T. H. and G. Streib. 1999. Performance measurement in municipal government:
Assessing the state of the practice. Public Administration Review 59: 325-335.
Pollack, D. M. and L. J. Pollack. 1996. Using 360 degree feedback in performance appraisal.
Public Personnel Management 25: 507-528.
Powell, W. W. 1990. Neither market nor hierarchy: Network forms of organization. In
Research in organizational behavior, Vol. 12, edited by B. M. Staw and L. L. Cummings,
295-336. Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.
Powell, W. W., K. W. Koput, and L. Smith-Doerr. 1996. Interorganizational collaboration and
the locus of innovation: Networks of learning in biotechnology. Administrative Science
57
Quarterly 41: 116-137.
Prigogine, I. and I. Stengers. 1984. Order out of chaos: Man’s new dialogue with nature. New
York: Bantam Books.
Provan, K. G. and H. B. Milward. 2001. Do networks really work? A framework for evaluating
public-sector organizational networks. Public Administration Review 61: 414-423.
Purser, R. E. and S. Cabana. 1998. The self-managing organization: Transforming the work of
teams for real impact. New York: Free Press.
Putnam, R. D. 1995. Bowling alone: America’s declining social capital. Journal of Democracy
6: 65-78.
Pye-Smith, C. and G. B. Feyerabend (with R. Sandbrook). 1994. The wealth of communities:
Stories of success in local environmental management. West Hartford, CT: Kumarian Press.
Quarter, J. 2001. Beyond the bottom line: Socially innovative business owners. Westport, CT:
Quorum Books.
Rainey, H. G. and P. Steinbauer. 1999. Galloping elephants: Developing elements of a theory of
effective government organizations. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory
9: 1-32.
Ray, P. H. and S. R. Anderson. 2000. The cultural creatives: How 50 million people are
changing the world. New York: Harmony Books.
Raymond, E. S. 1999. The cathedral and the bazaar: Musings on Linux and open source by an
accidental revolutionary. Sebastopol, CA: O’Reilly & Associates.
Regelbrugge, L., ed. 1999. Promoting corporate citizenship: Opportunities for business and
civil society engagement. West Hartford, CT: Kumarian Press.
Rittel, H. W. J. and M. M. Webber. 1973. Dilemmas in a general theory of planning. Policy
Sciences 4: 155-169.
Roberts, N. 2004. Public deliberation in an age of direct citizen participation. American Review
of Public Administration 34: 315-353.
Robertson, P. J. 1999. Collaborative organizing: An ‘ideal type’ for a new paradigm. In
Research in organizational change and development, Vol. 12, edited by R. W. Woodman and
W. A. Pasmore, 205-267. Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.
Robertson, P. J., F. Wang, and S. Trivisvavet. 2007. Self- and collective interests in public
organizations: An empirical investigation. Public Performance & Management Review 31:
54-84.
58
Rollins, T. and D. Roberts. 1998. Work culture, organizational performance, and business
success: Measurement and management. Westport, CT: Quorum Books.
Romzek, B. S. 1990. Employee investment and commitment: The ties that bind. Public
Administration Review 50: 374-382.
Rost, J. C. 1991. Leadership for the twenty-first century. New York: Praeger.
Rothschild, J. and R. Russell. 1986. Alternatives to bureaucracy: Democratic participation in
the economy. American Review of Sociology 12: 307-328.
Russell, P. 1998. Waking up in time: Finding inner peace in times of accelerating change.
Novato, CA: Origin Press.
Schmidt, W. H. and J. P.. Finnigan. 1992. The race without a finish line: America’s quest for
total quality. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Scott, W. R. 1981. Organizations: Rational, natural, and open systems. Englewood Cliffs, NJ:
Prentice-Hall.
Selden, S. C. and F. Selden. 2001. Rethinking diversity in public organizations for the 21st
century: Moving toward a multicultural model. Administration & Society 33: 303-329.
Semler, R. 1989. Managing without managers. Harvard Business Review 67(5): 76-84.
Senge, P. M. 1990. The fifth discipline: The art & practice of the learning organization. New
York: Doubleday.
Sheridan, J. E. 1992. Organizational culture and employee retention. Academy of Management
Journal 35: 1036-1056.
Shonk, J. H. 1992. Team-based organizations: Developing a successful team environment.
Homewood, IL: Business One Irwin.
Sober, E. and D. S. Wilson. 1998. Unto others: The evolution and psychology of unselfish
behavior. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Stacey, R. D. 1996. Complexity and creativity in organizations. San Francisco: BerrettKoehler.
Strebel, P., ed. 2000. Focused energy: Mastering bottom-up organization. Chichester, UK:
Wiley.
Susskind, L. E., S. McKearnan, and J. Thomas-Larner, eds. 1999. The consensus building
handbook: A comprehensive guide to reaching agreement. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
59
Svendsen, A. 1998. The stakeholder strategy: Profiting from collaborative business
relationships. San Francisco: Berrett-Koehler.
Swindell, D. and J. M. Kelly. 2000. Linking citizen satisfaction data to performance measures: A
preliminary evaluation. Public Performance & Management Review 24: 30-52.
Talbot, M. 1991. The holographic universe. New York: HarperCollins.
Teisman, G. R. and E-H. Klijn. 2002. Partnership arrangements: Governmental rhetoric or
governance scheme? Public Administration Review 62: 197-205.
Thomas, H. B. 2001. Public policy and the continuous improvement paradigm: A plea for the
total learning community. In Handbook of public management practice and reform, edited
by K. T. Liou, 589-606. New York: Marcel Dekker.
Thomas, J. C. 1995. Public participation in public decisions: New skills and strategies for
public managers. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Thomas, R. R., Jr. 1991. Beyond race and gender: Unleashing the power of your total work
force by managing diversity. New York: American Management Association.
Thompson, J. R. 2000. Reinvention as reform: Assessing the National Performance Review.
Public Administration Review 60: 508-521.
Thompson, J. R. and S. L. Fulla. 2001. Effecting change in a reform context: The National
Performance Review and the contingencies of “microlevel” reform implementation. Public
Performance & Management Review 25: 155-175.
Thomson, A. M. and J. L. Perry. 2006. Collaboration processes: Inside the black box. Public
Administration Review 66:20-32.
Toffler, A. 1980. The third wave. New York: Morrow.
Torbert, W. 1983. Initiating collaborative inquiry. In Beyond method, edited by G. Morgan,
272-291. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage Publications.
Tornow, W. and M. London. 1998. Maximizing the value of 360-degree feedback: A process for
successful individual and organizational development. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Tracy, L. 1989. The living organization: Systems of behavior. New York: Praeger.
True, J. L., B. D. Jones, and F. R. Baumgartner. 1999. Punctuated-equilibrium theory:
Explaining stability and change in public policymaking. In Theories of the policy process,
edited by P. Sabatier, 155-187. Boulder, CO: Westview Press.
60
Tsui, A. S., J. L. Pearce, L. W. Porter, and A. M. Tripoli. 1997. Alternative approaches to the
employee-organization relationship: Does investment in employees pay off? Academy of
Management Journal 40: 1089-1121.
Tushman, M. L. and E. Romanelli. 1985. Organizational evolution: A metamorphosis model of
convergence and reorientation. In Research in organizational behavior, Vol. 7, edited by L.
L. Cummings and B. S. Staw, 171-222. Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.
Uhl, C. 2004. Developing ecological consciousness: Path to a sustainable world. Lanham,
MD: Rowman & Littlefield.
Vigoda, E. 2002. From responsiveness to collaboration: Governance, citizens, and the next
generation of public administration. Public Administration Review 62: 527-540.
Vinzant, J. C. and L. Crothers. 1998. Street-level leadership: Discretion and legitimacy in frontline public service. Washington, DC: Georgetown University Press.
Wagner, J. A. and J. A. LePine. 1999. Effects of participation on performance and satisfaction:
Additional meta-analytic evidence. Psychological Reports 84: 719-726.
Waldrop, M. M. 1992. Complexity: The emerging science at the edge of order and chaos. New
York: Simon & Schuster.
Webber, A. M. 2001. How business is a lot like life. FastCompany 45: 130-136.
Weeks, E. C. 2000. The practice of deliberative democracy: Results from four large-scale trials.
Public Administration Review 60: 360-372.
Weick, K. E. 1979. Cognitive processes in organizations. In Research in organizational
behavior, Vol. 1, edited by B. S. Staw, 41-74. Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.
Weisbord, M. R. and S. Janoff. 1995. Future search: An action guide to finding common
ground in organizations & communities. San Francisco: Berrett-Koehler.
Weiss, J. A. and S. K. Piderit. 1999. The value of mission statements in public agencies. Journal
of Public Administration Research and Theory 9: 193-223.
Wheatley, M. J. 1992. Leadership and the new science: Learning about organization from an
orderly universe. San Francisco: Berrett-Koehler.
Wheatley, M. J. and M. Kellner-Rogers. 1996. A simpler way. San Francisco: Berrett-Koehler.
Wilber, K. 1998. The marriage of sense and soul: Integrating science and religion. New York:
Random House.
Wilson, I. 2000. The new rules of corporate conduct: Rewriting the social charter. Westport,
61
CT: Quorum Books.
Woodhouse, M. B. 1996. Paradigm wars: Worldviews for a new age. Berkeley, CA: Frog,
Ltd.
Yang, S. and M. E. Guy. 2004. Self-managed work teams: Who uses them? What makes them
successful? Public Performance & Management Review 27: 60-79.
Yankelovich, D. 1999. The magic of dialogue: The art of converting transactions into
successful relationships. New York: Simon & Schuster.
Yeatts, D. E. and C. Hyten. 1997. High-performing self managed work teams: A comparison of
theory to practice. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
Zeleny, M. 1990. Amoebae: The new generation of self-managing human systems. Human
Systems Management 9: 57-59.
Zohar, D. 1990. The quantum self: Human nature and consciousness defined by the new
physics. New York: Morrow.
62