The Inquiry into the Relationships between Bureaucracy and ICT
(Information and Communication Technology)
Abstract
This study examines the relationship between bureaucracy and information and communication
technology (ICT). As ICT has developed, it has changed people’s everyday lives and enhanced
organizational effectiveness. Few studies have analyzed how bureaucracy influences and intervenes the
impact of ICT on organizations. Therefore, this study focuses on exploring the complicated relationships
between bureaucracy and ICT in public organizations.
First, this study analyzes how ICT influences the effectiveness of bureaucratic organizations as short-term
outputs—utilization, time-saving and decision quality—and the structural changes of bureaucracy as
long-term outcome—such as centralization, de-red tape, and de-sectarianism.
Second, this study analyzes how bureaucratic characteristics—such as hierarchy (hierarchy of authority),
technical competence (technically competent participants), and red tape (procedural devices for work
situations or rule governing behavior of positional incumbents), which are concepts that have been
discussed by Max Weber, Carl Friedrich, and Robert Merton—influence and intervene IS’s impact on
effectiveness and structural changes in bureaucracy.
The analysis is based on survey data collected from civil service officers, and the results will contribute
to clarifying the relationship between bureaucracy and ICT.
Keyword: Bureaucracy, Information Technology, ICT’s Impact
1
The Inquiry into the Relationships between Bureaucracy and ICT
(Information and Communication Technology)
1. Introduction
As information communication technology (ICT) has advanced, it has influenced every aspect of
human life. Advances in the fields of telecommunications, information, and knowledge management have
been catalysts in the structural revolution in given society that has affected almost every sphere of social
life.
Information technology (IT) is regarded as a method for improving managerial efficiency in public and
private organizations (Moon & Bretschneider, 2002). Especially, IC has influenced and changed the
bureaucracy. The pressures generated by technological progress are helping to transform old bureaucratic
structures and corresponding processes (Argyriades, 2010, p. 290). Zuurmond and Snellen (1997) argued
that through ICT, bureaucracies are being replaced by infocracies, which have different structures, less
hierarchy, and greater decentralization, contrasted with the Weberian ideal type bureaucratic structure.
Such an argument is based on technological determinism. As technological determinism has many
meanings, it is difficult to create a clear definition to address all of aspects of it. Generally, technological
determinism assumes that only technology can advance the development of society. Edge (1998) defined
technological determinism as technology having a necessary and determinate “impact” upon work,
economic life, and society as a whole; thus, only technological change produces social and organizational
change.
However, such technological determinism dismisses the social and humane power in organizations and
society. The social or organizational power can construct the technology, i.e., social determinism about
technology, contrasted with technological determinism. Hence, if we accept the social determinism about
technology, we should pay the attention to the social and human factors shaping or directing the
technology. Even though technology is a key factor of change in organization and society, it is also a
byproduct of human action and reaction. Zack and McKenney (1995) argued that since communication
through ICT is a social process, hence, in order to better understand the organizational change by
technology, we must understand how existing structures and social contexts influence patterns of
communication. With holding more balanced views, Murphie and Potts (2003) believed that the
relationship between technology and society cannot be reduced to an exact cause-and-effect formula;
rather, technology and society are interrelated.
2
Such arguments from social constructionism also apply to bureaucracy in public organization.
Technology and bureaucratic organization cannot be regarded as separate beings. Social settings shape
technologies, and the reverse is also true (Williams & Edge, 1996). Change by (information) technology
occurs under a social context embedded in bureaucracy, which leverages the direction of (information)
technology’s influence on bureaucracy. Kernaghan and Gunraj (2004) acknowledged that the use of ICT
in public organizations tends to lead to certain changes in those organizations, but they argued that the
nature and extent of the changes is greatly influenced by technological, political, and other forces (p. 528).
Moreover, Moon and Bretschneider (2002) demonstrated endogeneity between bureaucratic
characteristics and ICT innovativeness through the simultaneous interactive relationships of reciprocal
causality between red tape and ICT innovativeness—perceived red tape affects the level of ICT
innovativeness and vice versa.
Our study explores the relationship between bureaucracy and ICT, in particular, information systems (IS)
among bureaucracy in Korea. First, we analyzed how ICT influences the effectiveness of bureaucratic
organizations as short-term outputs—utilization, time-saving and decision quality—and the structural
changes of bureaucracy as long-term outcome—such as centralization, de-red tape, and de-sectarianism.
Second, we analyze how bureaucratic characteristics such as hierarchy, technical competence, and red
tape influence and intervene the organizational effectiveness and structural changes which have initiated
by ICT in bureaucratic organization.
2. Theoretical Background: Technology and Bureaucracy
1) Bureaucracy and Technology
Bureaucracy is a popular term that has a variety of ambiguous and overlapping definitions. Bureaucracy
is an organizational prototype. According to Max Weber (1958), the ideal type bureaucratic organization
exhibits characteristics such as precision, speed, unambiguity, knowledge of the files, and continuity; thus,
it enjoys technical superiority over other forms of organization (p. 214).
Additionally, ideal type of bureaucracy has the characteristics such the hierarchy, rule-based operation,
and technical competence. First, bureaucracy maintains the principle of office hierarchy with graded
authority—a firmly ordered system of super- and subordination in which there is a supervision of the
lower offices by the higher ones (p.197). In a fully bureaucratic organization, the office hierarchy is
3
monocratically organized. Hierarchy is a kind of centralization, and centralization is the extent to which
decision making authority is dispersed or concentrated in an organization (Pfeffer, 1981).
Second, bureaucracy generally follows rules that are stable, comprehensive, and learned. Officials in a
bureaucracy possess the knowledge of these rules. Contrasted with patrimonialism, management in
modern public administration does not regulate matters with consideration for each case; rather, it treats
matters abstractly. Calculable rules are a paramount feature of modern bureaucracy and are desirable for
the development of capitalism. The more complicated and specialized modern culture becomes, the
greater the demand for impersonal and objective experts (p.216).
Red tape is a negative byproduct of rule-based bureaucracy. Red tape is a set of procedural
characteristics of an organization that reflect structural, cultural, and environmental factors (Bozeman
2000: Moon & Bretschneider, 2002). Rosenfeld (1984) defined red tape as guidelines, procedures, forms,
and government interventions that are perceived as excessive, unwieldy, or pointless in relationship to
decision making or implementation of decisions (p. 603). Bozeman (2000) defined red tape as rules,
regulations, and procedures that remain in force and entail a compliance burden but do not advance the
legitimate purposes the rules were intended to serve (p. 12). The term red tape is derived from the 17thcentury English bureaucratic practice of tying official documents with a reddish tape. More recently, red
tape has become synonymous with procedures, rules, and regulations that often lead to feelings of
alienation on the part of the public (Bozeman & Crow, 1991, p.31).
Third, bureaucracy is managed by specialized officers who have technical competence and have
received expert training. In a bureaucracy, appointment to an office and subsequent employment is solely
based on technical competence. In particular, bureaucracy is” the exercise of control on the basis of
knowledge” (Weber, 1947, p. 339). Weber believed that those having the technical competence in
bureaucracy bring about positive output such as greater efficiency.
In organizational studies, technology has been identified in terms of technical complexity (Woodward,
1965), operations technology and variability (Hickson, Pugh, & Pheysey, 1969), and interdependence
(Thompson, 1967). In organizational settings, technology, as an agent of change, leads to changes within
an organization. Technology systems play a key role in creating organizational structures.
For example, Woodward's (1965) classical work describes how technological complexity based on a
production system—unit based (small), mass based (large), and continuous based processes—influence
structural characteristics such as number of management levels, range of control, ratio of managers to
subordinates, worker skill, and overall structure.
4
However, in contrast to Woodward’s “technological imperative,” later research by Hickson, Pugh, and
Pheysey (1969) found that there is little evidence between technology and structure. Instead, they
suggested that organizational size is the main determinant of organizational structure.
Although there have been many studies over relationships between technology and organization, few
have questioned the relationships between long-lived bureaucracy—bureaucratic organization—and
technology. There are different views about the relationships between bureaucracy and ICT.
On one hand, Taylan (2010) believed that technology conflicted with bureaucracy: ICT has transformed
traditional bureaucratic organizations by making them hierarchical and centralized, so they are inefficient
and uncompetitive. On the other hand, some studies have argued that there is no conflict between ICT and
bureaucracy because they share the same values—mechanical rationalization. Lee (1984) explained that
the computerization of a bureaucratic process is the ultimate form or organizational rationalization. The
computer can be the idealization of Weber’s dictum to eliminate “love, hatred and all purely personal,
irrational and emotional elements from the organization’s procedures” (p. 298). In the next section, we
will review the existing research on ICT and bureaucratic organizations.
2) Technology’s Impact on Bureaucratic Organization
(1) ICT’s impact on Bureaucracy in terms of Efficiency and Effectiveness
One of the myths of an information-based society is that increases organizations’ efficiency (quantitative
factor) and effectiveness (qualitative factor). ICT integration in public organizations aims at their lowentrepreneurial ethos to induce higher effectiveness. Moreover, ICT offers the efficiency through storing,
accessing, combining, and retrieving large amounts of information more quickly, selectively, accurately,
and inexpensively (Dewett & Jones, 2001). ICT may also affect the decision making by increasing the
number of decision makers through improved communication channels (Heintze & Bretschneider, 2000).
Our analysis analyzed whether or not information system enables the bureaucracy to utilize the
information, save the time and make the more enhanced decision making. (See Figure 1).
(2) Deconstructing the Hierarchical Centralized Structure
IT reshapes the basic structure of bureaucracy. Leavitt and Whisler (1958) and Heintze and
Bretschneider (2000) predicted that ICT should decrease the number of middle managers by permitting
top managers to communicate with workers at lower levels. However, Wynne and Otway (1983) argued
that ICT increases the number of middle managers because it increases the complexity of organizations,
5
requiring more middle managers as coordinators. In a survey of 155 city governments, Pinsonneault and
Kraemer (1997) found that ICT was both positively and negatively associated with the size of the middle
management workforce.
Such structural change is accompanied by changes to the authority and power structure: centralization or
decentralization. There are conflicting views concerning whether or not ICT centralizes or decentralizes
authority structures. Taylan (2010) explained that ICT requires flattened, flexible, decentralized
organizations. In the other hand, ICT opens possibility for centralized decision power. Daft (2004)
mentioned five main impact from ICT on organization: decrease of staff in the organization, increasing
decentralization, improving internal coordination, improving inter-organizational cooperation and better
outsourcing. Also Mintzberg (1983) describes the influential role of information technology on
organizational centralization. If we see the information as a source of power, we can predict that
traditional information holders, who are usually the employers at lower level of organization, may lose
such information power if the top of organizational hierarchies directly control and collect the information
through ICT.
However, third views that acknowledge both centralization and decentralization are persuasive. Dewett
and Jones (2001) explained that ICT centralizes organizations by enabling upper managers to manage
more information more efficiently and quickly, endowing them with greater decision power. They added
that ICT also creates the decentralization by enabling lower- and middle-level managers to obtain
information about their organization’s overall situation and issues, allowing them to be more globally
optimized in their work. On the topic of federated organizational structure, Keen (1990) argued that
telecommunications can be employed to permit simultaneous centralization and decentralization,
permitting organizations to reap the benefits of both organizational forms.
(3) Decreasing Red Tape (i.e., De-red tape)
ICT is generally believed to decrease red tape and regulation. The OECD (2007) stated, “In terms of
administrative simplification tools there is a trend towards greater use of electronic and web-based
platforms to support traditional tools such as one-stop shops.” (p.4). The Red Tape Reduction
Commission's Recommendations Report released by The Treasury Board of Canada Secretariat
recommends enhancing the use of electronic services and increasing the use of electronic single windows
for information on regulatory requirements for reducing compliance costs and benefit.
Welch and Pandey (2006) showed that the use of ICT (i.e., intranet) is associated with a reduction in red
tape. Moreover, on the basis of the technology-push hypothesis, Moon and Bretschneider (2002)
demonstrated that an organization with a high level of ICT innovativeness decreases the level of red tape.
6
(4) Beyond Sectarianism: Toward Active Information Sharing
Information tends to flow faster across organizations with horizontal—rather than vertical—
organizational structure. Such information streams tend to remove or reduce boundaries between and
within organization.
After distinguishing traditional street-level bureaucracy from the system-level bureaucracy that has
emerged with the Information Age, Bovens and Zouridis (2002) pointed out that ICT in the public sector
changed organizational boundaries from strict to fluid, both within and between organizations. Dewett
and Jones (2001) argued that perhaps the most fundamental benefit from the use of ICT in organizations
is the ability to link and enable employees within and between functions and divisions (p.321).
Hence, ICT promotes information sharing and work collaboration within organizations, overcoming the
sectarianism, one of traditional cultures of bureaucracy.
3) Bureaucracy’s Response and the Impact on ICT
None of the aforementioned studies mentioned bureaucracy’s response to ICT. We argue that
bureaucracy is not passive agent but active one, which means that bureaucracy, can act from an
independent position to influence the affects of ICT. Moreover, such argument bases on the assumption
that the relationship between ICT and bureaucracy is not unilateral from ICT to bureaucracy but the
interactive one between them. In the same vein, Moon and Bretschneider (2002) argued that previous
studies did not consider the interdependence between red tape—i.e., one of bureaucratic characteristics—
and ICT innovativeness.
Bureaucracy is social things or contexts that influence the effectiveness and structure coming from ICT.
Zack and McKenney (1995) suggested that social context is an important explanatory variable to
determine the effects and outcomes of ICT. Hence, in the following section, we speculate how hierarchy,
red tape, and technical competence as social force can affect and intervene the impact of ICT on
organizational effectiveness and structural change.
Hierarchy can influence the effects of ICT in multiple ways. For example, traditional hierarchy structure
acts as a barrier to sharing and disseminating information. Kernaghan and Gunraj (2004) explained that
while the use of ICT predisposes public organizations to share and disseminate information, vertical
departmentalism acts as obstacle to information utilization and dissemination.
7
Red tape decreases the innovative effectiveness of organizations by creating an organizational climate
that reduces motivation or by breaking the internal processes related to adoption of innovation (Bozeman
& Crow, 1991). Through empirical study, Welch and Pandey (2006) hypothesized that greater levels of
red tape will negatively affect intranet technology implementation—in terms of reliance and information
quality—in public organizations. Yu and Bretschneider (1998) reported that red tape negatively
influences ICT innovativeness. However, on the basis of the demand-pull hypothesis, Moon and
Bretschneider (2002) suggested an alternative view that red tape may create an incentive for change in
organizations: the stronger the perception of red tape (particularly by top managers), the greater the
motivation to seek alternative technological solutions. Therefore, they suggested that the perception of red
tape is a facilitating factor rather than a constraining factor for new technology. Similarly, Pandey and
Bretschneider (1997) found that red tape produced an organizational demand for new ICT.
Technical competence may facilitate the acceptance of ICT use. According to Lee (2010), the more
bureaucracy understands a task, the more they accept and utilize ICT.
4) Analytical Model
To analyze the relationship between bureaucracy and ICT, based on above discussions, we set up an
analytical model as shown in <Figure 1>. We set up six test propositions that explore the bureaucracy’s
impact on the organizational effectiveness as output, i.e., short-term impact, and structural change as
outcome, i.e., long-term impact, in bureaucratic organizations.
In test proposition 1, we explore the quality of ICT and bureaucracy’s impact on the organization
effectiveness. In test proposition 1-1, we explore the impact of the quality of ICT on three organizational
outputs: utilization of ICT, time savings, and the quality of decision making. It is expected that ICT has a
positive influence on these outputs. Next, in test proposition 1-2, we test how both the enhanced quality
of ICT and three bureaucratic attributes—hierarchy, red tape, and technical competence—influence the
organizational effectiveness. From Proposition 1-3, we examine whether or not the bureaucratic attributes
intervene, i.e., moderating effects, the impact of ICT on organizational effectiveness.
In test proposition 2, we examine how the quality of ICT, organizational effectiveness from ICT, and
bureaucracy have impact on structural changes in bureaucratic organizations, such as centralization, dered tape and de-sectarianism. First, we analyze the effects of both the enhanced quality of ICT (test
proposition 2-1) and the organizational effectiveness from ICT (test proposition 2-2) on the structural
8
change in bureaucracy. In test proposition 2-3, we examine the bureaucratic characteristics’ impact on
structural changes in bureaucracy, along with the quality of ICT and its effectiveness. From test
proposition 2-4, we examine whether or not the bureaucratic attributes moderate the impact of ICT and
effectiveness on structural change in bureaucracy.
<Figure 1> Analytical Model
3. Sample & Measures
This study uses survey data collected from civil servants in 13 government organizations. The survey
was conducted from September 16, 2008 to October 9, 2008. After 569 questionnaires were distributed,
323 were returned (57% response rate). Twelve cases involving inadequate responses were removed,
9
leaving 311 responses for the analysis. The sample consisted of 161 males (51.8%) and 150 females
(48.2%).
The questions measured the degree of agreement or disagreement about the statement by using a 5-point
Likert scale from 1 (strongly disagree) to 5 (strongly agree). All statements were related to ICT,
particularly knowledge management systems (KMS), a kind of IS, used by civil offices. KMS include
functions for e-mail, groupware, intranet, message boards, online-community, and the creation of a
knowledge database. <Table 1> shows the ten variables that were measured by more than two statements,
which we composited by averaging the mean scores.
<Table 1> Variables and Measurement
Variables
Quality of
Information
System
ICT Utilization
Time Saving
Quality of
Decision
Hierarchy
Question Statement
QG1. The IS is designed for ease of use / QG2. We can easily fix the errors in IS / QG3. I can
easily do work that I want to do using the IS / QG4. The operation of the IS is stable / QG6. The
IS is customizable and well equipped to work / QG7. The IS was developed with consideration of
input from workers / QG8. IS consider and change itself by request from users
QF1. When I review existing projects, I utilize the KMS first
QF2. When I review on-going projects, I utilize the KMS first
QD1. The KMS has saved time when performing a task
QD4. The KMS has saved time collecting information on a related task
QO1. After introducing the KMS, there were increases in the speed of decision making related
with tasks
QO4. After launching the KMS, there were enhancements in the quality of decision making
QK11. I ask for my superior’s opinion, even if I am exclusively responsible for a task
QK5. At our affiliated organization, I have too much of discretion when performing tasks
(Reversed)
Red Tape
QK15. Our organization has many laws and procedures that govern the work
QK16. Our organization performs tasks according to predetermined procedures and laws
Technical
Competence
QJ1. I can clearly identify problems and suggest alternatives related to my work
QJ2. I have thorough knowledge of the laws and regulations related to my responsibilities
Centralization
QO22. After the KMS was introduced, it provided opportunities for making decisions according
to individuals’ independent judgment. (Reversed)
QO23. After the KMS was introduced, it was possible to make work-related decisions without
conferring with superiors (Reversed)
QO25. After using the KMS, the procedures and regulations related to tasks decreased
QO26. After using the KMS, the unnecessary procedures and regulations related to tasks
decreased
QO27. After using the KMS, there were increases in information sharing between organizational
units
QO28. After using the KMS, there were decreases in the time required to exchange information
with other departments
De-red tape
De sectarianism
10
4. Empirical Analysis of Relationships
1) Output: Organizational Effectiveness from ICT
To examine the statistical significance and explanation power of the determinants for organizational
effectiveness from ICT, such as the utilization of ICT, effects of time savings and improved decision
quality after introducing ICT, ordinary least square (OLS) regression models were used for estimation.
Proposition 1-1, which concerns the ICT’s effect on short-term outcomes, was tested by regressing the
system utilization in Model 1, the time savings in Model 3, and the decision quality in Model 5 on quality
of ICT. The result from the regression analysis is shown in <Table 2>.
Based on the adjusted R², two models explained 11.5%, 13.4%, and 000% of the variance in the
dependent variables. Moreover, the F-value in Models 1 and 3 appears significant, but it does not in
Model 5. Moreover, the coefficient of independent variable, i.e., quality of ICT, revealed its significance
in Models 1 and 3 but not in Model 5. These results suggest that the quality of ICT influences the
utilization and time savings (technical) but not the quality of decision making (managerial).
Proposition 1-2, which concerns the additional and independent explanation power of bureaucratic
characteristics such as hierarchy, red tape and technical competence was tested by regressing system
utilization in Model 2, time savings in Model 4, and decision quality in Model 6 on the aforementioned
three bureaucratic variables after controlling for the quality of ICT.
Based on R², the independent variables explained 48.7% of the variance in Models 2 and 4, and 5.6% in
Model 6. Regarding change in R², there was, to a large extent, an increase in R² (37.2% in Model 2, 35.3%
in Model 4, and 5.3% in Model 6) when adding bureaucratic variables to Models 1, 3, and 5. Those
changes signify the important role of bureaucratic characteristics in determining the organizational
effectiveness from ICT. Moreover, bureaucratic characteristics’ significant impact on dependent variables
remained when controlling for the quality of ICT. In particular, in Models 2 and 4, the standardized beta
coefficients demonstrated that bureaucracy’s technical competence has more explanation power than the
quality of ICT does. The results from R² change and the coefficients imply that bureaucracy plays a
significant role in creating the effectiveness from ICT in public organizations.
From the significance of the coefficients of the independent variables, it implies that as the quality of
ICT increases, there is a greater possibility of enhanced system utilization, time savings, and improved
11
decision making. Among the bureaucratic variables, hierarchy had a negative impact on time savings but
not on the quality of decision making. Red tape also negatively influenced both dependent variables.
However, the technical competence of bureaucracy positively increased the organizational effectiveness
from ICT in terms of system utilization and time savings. Such contrasting effects imply that bureaucratic
characteristics have different effects—some attributes increase the impact of ICT, whereas other
decreases it.
Moreover, three independent bureaucratic variables in Model 4 possess different statistical explanatory
power; According to standardized regression coefficients, technical competence explains the variance
more than hierarchy and red tape. It suggests that there are some crucial attribute among bureaucratic
characteristics to influence ICT on structural change.
When compared to the coefficients in Models 2, 4, and 6, technical competence influenced the system
utilization and time savings but did not impact on decision-making quality. This implies that the
significant role of bureaucratic characteristics may depend on the dimension of ICT effectiveness.
In short, we confirm that in public organization, quality of ICT and bureaucratic characteristics influence
the organizational effectiveness from ICT. The power and significance of the three bureaucratic
characteristics changes according to the dimension of the dependent variables.
We expected that the bureaucratic characteristics would influence technology’s impact on the
organizational effectiveness from ICT while not affecting it directly. The moderating role of bureaucratic
characteristics between ICT and its’ effectiveness is based on the assumption that bureaucratic variables
change the direction and degree of ICT’s impact on effectiveness. In the other words, the impact of ICT
on organizational effectiveness depends on bureaucracy.
In proposition 1-3, to understand the moderating effect of the three bureaucratic characteristics, we
examined the significance of their moderating effects on the quality of ICT and the dependent variables
by adding interaction terms in Models 2, 4, and 6. We observed the significant effects of thee interaction
terms in the regression analysis: ① quality of ICT × hierarchy = utilization (Coefficient = -.221, P-value
< .01), ② quality of ICT × red tape = utilization (Coefficient = -.360, P-value < .01), and ③ quality of
ICT × red tape = time savings (Coefficient = -.256, P-value < .05).
Since it is hard to interpret those three significant interaction terms in regression model, we created
<Figure 2>, <Figure 3>, and <Figure 4>. <Figure 2> shows the moderating effect of hierarchy and
<Figure 3> and <Figure 4> show the moderating effect of red tape. To create the figures, we divided the
respondents into two groups based on mean score, that is, those who scored higher than the mean and
12
those who scored lower. Then, we calculated how each group on the x-axis has different scores for the
dependent variables on the y-axis. Those scores vary according to each moderating group.
Figure 3: Quality of ICT × Red tape →Utilization
Figure 2: Quality of ICT × Hierarchy→Utilization
3.60
3.40
3.30
3.298
3.20
3.244
Strong
hierarc
hy
2.90
2.80
2.863
2.70
Weak
hierarc
hy
2.60
2.50
Utilization
Utilization
3.10
3.00
2.519
3.403
3.40
3.20
3.00
3.044
2.688
2.80
2.60
High
red
tape
Low
red
tape
2.599
2.40
2.40
Worse system
Worse system
Better system
Better system
ICT
ICT
Figure 4: Quality of ICT × Red tape→ Time saving
3.60
Time-Saving
3.40
3.359
3.20
3.243
High
red
tape
3.00
2.80
2.60
2.688
Low
red
tape
2.599
2.40
Worse system
Better system
ICT
According to <Figure 2>, <Figure 3>, and <Figure 4>, we know that quality of ICT increases ICT
utilization; however, those effects change according to degree of hierarchy and red tape. Even if a better
system increases the utilization of that system, a weak hierarchy and low red tape will facilitate such
effects. Conversely, a strong hierarchy and high red tape could obstruct the ICT’s impact on
organizational effectiveness. Fore example, <Figure 4> shows that lower level of red tape, contrasting
with higher level of red tape, facilitates the effects of ICT on time savings.
Moderating effect means that the effect of X on Y depends on the value of M (Moderator). We
confirmed that hierarchy and red tape have served as moderators that reduce the positive effects of quality
of ICT on organizational effectiveness as output.
13
2) Outcome: Structural Change in Bureaucracy by ICT
To test Propositions 2-1 and 2-2, we examined technology and its effect in determining the structural
change in bureaucracy. We regressed three dependent variables—centralization, de-red tape, and desectarianism—on the quality of ICT and organizational effectiveness from ICT in Models 7, 9, and 11, as
shown in <Table 3>. Model 7 shows that the higher the quality of ICT, the more centralized the
organization, which is consistent with argument from Mintzberg (1983) and Daft (2004). Second, the
enhanced quality of decision making decreases the degree of centralization while reducing red tape and
sectarianism.
To confirm Proposition 2-3, we test the additional power of the three bureaucratic characteristics in
Models 8, 10, and 12 after controlling for the quality of ICT and its effects. There was a slight increase in
R² (1.5 % in Model 8, 13.8% in Model 10, and 6.3% in Model 12) when the bureaucratic variables were
added to each previous model. Even this slight change in variance indicates the bureaucratic
characteristics paly little significant role in structural changes in bureaucratic organizations.
Hierarchy decreased the positive effect of de-red tape and de-sectarianism from ICT. Such result
implied that bureaucracies tend to maintain their own inherent attributes, such as red tape and
sectarianism. Moreover, the largest standardized beta coefficients of hierarchy in Model 10 demonstrate
that the hierarchy can block structural changes from ICT.
However, technical competence in Model 12 increased de-sectarianism. This is an interesting finding in
that hierarchy decreases structural change while technical competence increases it.
Furthermore, the significance of bureaucratic attributes changes according to the dimension of structural
change; technical competence increases de-sectarianism but not centralization or de-red tape. Hierarchy
only affects de-red tape.
In short, we observed that the quality of ICT, the organizational effectiveness from ICT, and
bureaucratic attributes influence structural changes within public organization. Also, different
bureaucratic attributes have the different impact on structural changes. Moreover, the statistical
significance and explanation power of bureaucracy can vary according to the dimensions of the structural
change.
To test Proposition 2-4, we explored that the three bureaucratic characteristics would intervene the
relationships between the quality of ICT and structural change. To check the moderating role of
14
bureaucratic characteristics in the quality of ICT’s impact on structural change, we examined the
significance of the interaction terms by adding them into Models 8, 10, and 12. Then, we observed the six
logical and significant interaction terms in the regression analysis: ① quality of ICT × hierarchy =
centralization (coefficient = .444, P-value < .01), ② quality of ICT × de-red tape = centralization
(coefficient = -.425, P-value < .01), ③ quality of ICT × technical competence = centralization (coefficient
= .322, P-value < .01), ④ quality of ICT × hierarchy = de-red tape (coefficient = -.270, P-value < .01), ⑤
quality of ICT × technical competence = de-red tape (coefficient = -.171, P-value < .5), ⑥ quality of ICT
× hierarchy = de-sectarianism (coefficient = -.468, P-value < .01).
To shows the moderating effect in figure, we make <Figure 5> to <Figure 10>. According to <Figure 5>,
a strong hierarchy facilitates the positive effect of quality of ICT on centralization. This suggests that the
inherent centralized attributes embedded in a bureaucracy produce such a result. From <Figure 6>,
<Figure 7>, the centralization brought about by better ICT increases under weak red tape and lower
technical competence. In other words, excessive red tape and high technical competence reduce potential
centralization caused by ICT.
According to <Figure 8> and <Figure 9>, the de-red tape occurs more in organizations with weak
hierarchy and lower technical competence than in those with a strong hierarchy and high technical
competence, even under the same conditions of quality of ICT. Moreover, as the quality of ICT enhances,
weaker hierarchy or low technical competence increases the de-red tape effect, while stronger hierarchy
or higher competence decreases this effect. This implies that the impact direction of the quality of ICT
largely depends on the degree of hierarchy and technical competence.
According to <Figure 10>, the de-sectarianism effect from ICT depends on the degree of hierarchy:
under a strong hierarchy, the quality of ICT decreases the positive effect of de-sectarianism, whereas
under weak hierarchy, it increases the positive effect of de-sectarianism.
Figure 5: Quality of ICT × Hierarchy →Centralization
Figure 6: Quality of ICT × Red tape →Centralization
3.50
3.25
3.40
3.20
Strong
hierarc
hy
3.00
3.013
3.022
2.90
2.80
2.788
Weak
hierarc
hy
Centralization
Cecntralization
3.30
3.10
3.214
3.20
3.442
3.15
3.115
3.154
3.10
High
red
tape
3.05
3.00
2.95
Low
red
tape
2.90
2.85
2.817
2.80
2.70
Worse system
Worse system
Better system
Better system
ICT
ICT
15
Figure 7: Quality of ICT × Technical competence
→Centralization
Figure 8: Quality of ICT × Hierarchy →De red tape
3.40
3.30
3.267
3.20
3.171
3.10
3.00
3.30
High
technical
compete
nce
2.90
Low
technical
compete
nce
2.80
2.70
2.758
3.10
3.00
Strong
hierarc
hy
2.90
2.80
2.813
2.70
2.60
2.50
2.487
Weak
hierarc
hy
2.40
2.60
Worse system
Worse system
Better system
Better system
ICT
ICT
Figure 9: Quality of ICT × Technical competence →De red tape
Figure 10: Quality of ICT × Hierarchy → De-sectarianism
3.30
3.60
3.221
3.20
De-red tape
3.10
High
technical
compete
nce
3.00
2.913
2.90
Low low
technical
compete
nce
2.758
2.70
3.518
3.50
De-sectarianism
3.146
2.80
3.320
3.279
3.20
De-red tape
Centralization
3.146
3.40
3.363
3.30
3.20
Strong
hierarc
hy
3.165
3.10
3.00
2.90
2.853
2.80
2.60
Weak
hierarc
hy
2.70
Worse system
Better system
Worse system
ICT
Better system
ICT
In short, even if the quality of ICT has a positive impact on centralization, de-red tape, and desectarianism, such effects partially or largely depend on bureaucratic attributes. Hierarchy can increase
the effects of ICT on centralization and decrease the effects of ICT on de-red tape and de-sectarianism. As
the quality of ICT increases, weaker hierarchy facilitates the positive change in de-red tape and desectarianism, whereas stronger hierarchy constrains those changes. The red tape decreases the positive
effects on ICT on centralization. Higher technical competence decreases the positive impact of ICT on
centralization and de-red tape.
16
<Table 2> ICT versus Bureaucracy on System Effectiveness
ICT Utilization
Model 1
B(SE)
(Constant)
Quality of ICT
Hierarchy
Red rape
Technical
competence
F-Value
Adjusted R²
R²
R² Change
Beta
1.805(.198)
Time Savings
Model 2
B(SE)
Beta
.339
-
-
.249 (.051)***
.206
-.057 (.050)
-.014 (.069)
-.046
-.008
.648 (.044)***
.625
40.244**
.112
.115
-
72.576***
.480
.487
.372
Decision Quality
Model 4
B(SE)
Beta
1.796(.197)***
.349 (.372)***
.411 (.065) ***
Model 3
B(SE)
Beta
.895 (.374)**
.445(.064)***
.366
-
-
47.809***
.131
.134
-
.282
(.051)***
-.087 (.051)*
-.12 (.070)*
.624
(.044)***
72.598***
.480
.487
.353
Model 5
B(SE)
.232
3.385(.161)**
*
.053(.053)
-.071
-.071
.598
-
Beta
Model 6
B(SE)
Beta
.057
4.627(.386)**
*
.033(.053)
.035
-
-.129(.052)**
-.253(.072)***
.004(.045)
-.138
-.197
.005
1.023
.000
.003
-
4.547***
.044
.056
.053
Note: P-value * <.1, **<.05, ***<.01
<Table 3> ICT versus Bureaucracy on Structural Change
Centralization
Model 7
B(SE)
(Constant)
Quality of ICT
ICT Utilization
Time Saving
Quality of
Decision
Hierarchy
Red rape
Technical
competence
F-Value
Adjusted R²
R²
R² Change
4.360 (.334)***
.228 (.073)***
-.056 (.066)
-.075 (.067)
-.448 (.072)***
Beta
.182
-.054
-.072
-.330
11.964***
.124
.135
De-redtape
Model 8
B(SE)
Beta
3.642 (.609)***
.214 (.074)***
.010 (.077)
-.003 (.077)
-.420 (.074)***
.170
.010
-.003
-.310
.100 (.069)
.117 (.095)
-.145 (.088)
.079
.067
-.134
7.670***
.131
.151
.015
Model 9
B(SE)
1.628 (.322)***
.032 (.070)
-.035 (.064)
-.098 (.064)
.502 (.070)***
Beta
.026
-.035
-.098
.380
13.756***
.141
.152
Note: P-value * <.1, **<.05, ***<.01
17
De-sectarianism
Model 10
B(SE)
Beta
2.712 (.541)***
.034 (.065)
-.083 (.069)
-.147 (.068)***
.460 (.066)***
.028
-.082
-.147
.349
-.449 (.061)***
.105 (.085)
.117 (.079)
-.364
.062
.112
17.680***
.274
.290
.138
Model 11
B(SE)
1.280 (.290)***
-.007 (.063)
.032 (.057)
-.016 (.058)
.562 (.063)***
20.201***
.199
.209
Beta
-.006
.034
-.017
.457
Model 12
B(SE)
Beta
2.295 (.510)***
.004 (.062)
-.037 (.065)
-.090 (.064)
.523 (.062)***
.004
-.040
-.096
.426
-.281 (.058)***
-.034 (.080)
.158 (.074)**
-.244
-.022
.162
16.136***
.255
.272
.063
5. Conclusion and Implication
After accepting the arguments of social determinism about rechnology, we assumed that not only
technology but also bureaucracy influences the technological output and structural outcome in
bureaucratic organizations. To validate the relationships between bureaucracy and ICT, we examined how
technological and bureaucratic factors influence the organizational effectiveness from ICT (short-term
output) and structural change in bureaucracy (long-term output).
From our analysis of the empirical data, we can say that an ICT’s quality influences ICT utilization and
time savings. Moreover, in structural change in bureaucracy, higher quality of ICT enables bureaucratic
systems to become more centralized. Improved decision making coming from ICT decreases the degree
of centralization while reducing red tape and sectarianism. These results confirm the assumption of
technological determinism in which technology plays a key role in determining the attributes and changes
in organizations and society.
Second, analysis shows that not only quality of ICT but also bureaucratic characteristics influence the
organizational effectiveness. Additionally, three factors—the quality of ICT, the organizational
effectiveness from ICT, and bureaucratic attributes—have an impact on the structural changes caused by
ICT in bureaucratic organizations. In effectiveness from ICT, after controlling the quality of ICT,
hierarchy and red tape had a negative impact on time savings. Moreover, red tape also negatively
influenced the quality of decision making. However, the technical competence of bureaucracy positively
increased the system utilization and time savings. In structural change, hierarchy decreased the positive
effect of de-red tape and de-sectarianism coming from ICT whereas technical competence increased the
positive effect of de-sectarianism. Those findings confirm the validity of social determinism about ICT
issues, i.e., explanation power of bureaucratic characteristics in our case.
Third, we know that the explanation power and significance of the three bureaucratic characteristics
changes according to the dimensions of the dependent variables. This means that all the significance of
bureaucratic characteristics did not always influence ICT effectiveness and structural change. Each
bureaucratic attribute has an area in which it can be most effective.
Fourth, the bureaucratic attributes were found to have contrasting effects on effectiveness of ICT and
structural change. For example, hierarchy decreased structural changes, whereas technical competence
increased them.
Fifth, bureaucratic characteristics did not only directly influence the organizational effectiveness and
structural change but also they intervened the relationships between the quality of ICT and the
effectiveness/structural change. According to the test of the moderating effects, we confirmed the
18
bureaucratic attributes take a role of context variables that change the direction and degree of
technology’s impact on effectiveness and structural change. In effectiveness from ICT, hierarchy and red
tape as moderators reduce the positive effects of quality of ICT on organizational effectiveness whereas
technical competence facilitates such effects. In structural change, hierarchy can increase the positive
effects of ICT on centralization and decrease the positive effects of ICT on de-red tape and desectarianism. The red tape decreases the positive effects on ICT on centralization. Higher technical
competence decreases the positive impact of ICT on centralization and de-red tape.
The above findings demonstrate that technology and bureaucracy have significant influence the
effectiveness and structural change from ICT. Those results suggest that there are significant interactive
relationships between technology and bureaucracy, because well designed technology—e.g., quality of
ICT in our case—increases the organizational effectiveness from ICT and structural changes in
bureaucracy, whereas some bureaucratic attributes reduce or facilitate some of those effects. This is
reason why we pay attention to the bureaucracy.
Reference
Argyriadesm, D. 2010. From bureaucracy to debureaucratization? Public Organization Review, 10:275–
297
Blau, P. M., Falbe, C. M., McKinley, W. & Tracey, P. K. 1976. Technology and organization in
manufacturing. Administrative Science Quarterly, 21, 20–40.
Bovens, M. & Zouridis, S. 2002. From street-level to system-level bureaucracies: How information and
communication is transforming administrative discretion and constitutional control. Public
Administration Review, 62(2): 174-184.
Bozeman, B. 2000. Bureaucracy and red tape. Upper Saddle River, N.J.: Prentice-Hall.
Bozeman, B & Crow, M. 1991. Red tape and technology transfer success in government laboratories.
Journal of Technology Transfer, 16:29–37.
Daft, R. 2004. Organizational theory and design. Mason, Ohio: Thomson South-Western, (2004)
Dewett, T. & Jones, G. R. 2001. The role of information technology in the organization: a review, model,
and assessment. Journal of Management, 27: 313–346.
Edge, D. 1988. The social shaping of technology. Edinburgh PICT working paper No.1. Edinburgh
University.
19
Heintze, T. & Bretschneider, S. 2000. Information technology and restructuring in public organizations:
does adoption of information technology affect organizational structures, communications, and
decision making? J-PART, 10(4):801-830.
Hickson, D., Pugh, D. & Pheysey, D. 1969. Operations technology and organizational structure: An
Empirical reappraisal. Administrative Science Quarterly, 14: 378-397.
Keen, P. G. W. 1987. Telecommunications and organizational choice. Communication Research, 14(5):
588-606.
Kernaghan, K. & Gunraj, J. 2004. Integrating information technology into public administration:
Conceptual and practical considerations. Canadian Public Administration, 47(4): 525-546
Leavitt, H.H. & Whisler, T.I. 1958. Management in the 1980's. Harvard Business Review, 36(6): 41-48.
Lee, C. 2010. Empirical studies of use and determinants of information technology in bureaucracy.
Comparing the individual, organizational and technological factors. Korean Journal of Public
Administration, 44(2): 221-260.
Lee, R. M. 1984. Bureaucracies, bureaucrats and information technology. European Journal of
Operational Research , 18: 293-303.
Mintzberg, H. 1983. Structure in fives: designing effective organizations. Englewood Cliffs: Prentice Hall.
Moon, M. J. & Bretschneider, S. 2002. Does the perception of red tape constrain IT innovativeness in
organizations? Unexpected results from a simultaneous equation model and implications. Journal
of Public Administration Research and Theory, 12 (2): 273–91.
Murphie, A. & Potts, J. 2003. Culture and technology. London: Palgrave.
OECD. 2007. Cutting red tape: National strategies. Policy Brief, January: 1-8.
Pfeffer, J. 1981. Power in organizations. Boston: Pitman.
Pandey, S. & Bretschneider, S. 1997. The impact of red tape's administrative delay on public
organizations' interest in new information technology. JPART, 7:113-130.
Pinsonneault, A. & Kraemer, K. L. 1997. Middle management downsizing: An empirical investigation of
the impact of information technology. Management Science, 43(5): 659-679.
Rosenfeld, R.A. 1984. An expansion and application of Kaufman's model of red tape: The case of
community development block grants. The Western Political Quarterly, 37:603-620.
Pandey, S. K. & Scott, P. G. 2002. Red tape: A review and assessment of concepts and measures. Journal
of Public Administration Research and Theory, 12:553–580.
Taylan, O. 2010. The strategic role of an organization in developing a modern information system.
Journal of Naval Science and Engineering, 6(3): 25-39.
Thompson, J. 1967. Organizations in action. New York: McGraw-Hill.
20
Yu, P. & Bretschneider, S. 1998 Executive perceptions of innovativeness in information management.
Korean Review of Public Administration, 3:179-213.
Zack, M. H., & McKenney, J. L. 1995. Social context and interaction in ongoing computer-supported
management groups. Organization Science, 6 (4): 394–422.
Zuurmond A. & Snellen, I. T. 1997. From bureaucracy to infocracy: Towards management through
information architectures. In A. Taylor, I. M. Snellen and A. Zuurmond, eds. Beyond BPR in
Public Administration: Institutional Transformation in an Information Age. Amsterdam: IOS Press.
Welch, E. & Pandey, S. 2006. E-Government and bureaucracy: toward a better understanding of intranet
implementation and its effect on red tape. JPART, 17: 379-404.
Weber, M. 1958. Bureaucracy. In H. H. Gerth and Wrighr Mills. (translated). From Max Weber: Essays
in sociology. New York: A Galaxy Book.
Weber, M. 1947 Max Weber: The theory of social and economic organization. Translated by A. M.
Henderson & Talcott Parsons. NY: The Free Press.
Williams, R. & Edge, D. 1996. The social shaping of technology. Research Policy, 25: 856-899.
Woodward, J. 1965. Industrial organization: theory and practice. Oxford: University Press.
Wynne, B. & Otway, H. J. 1983. Information technology, power and managers. Office, Technology and
People, 2: 43-56.
21