Tsentraliseerimise-detsentraliseerimise dilemma on üks sage külaline avalike organisatsioonide kujundamisel. Tõsi, tihti on tegemist ülelihtsustamisega või lausa kontseptualiseerimata ideede avaldamisega. Siinviidatu võiks huvi pakkuda kõikidele organisatsioonihuvilistele, tudengitele aga ka KOV ametnikele, sest uurimistöös on KOV analüüsi keskmes.
Centralization or decentralization (hereafter abridged as de/centralization) refers to the locus of decision-making authority, which indicates how resources and authority are allocated within an organization or across organizations (Dalton et al. 1980; Pollitt 2005). […] Between centralized and decentralized approaches, the decision-making structure of public organizations can fall anywhere along a continuum. If decision making is concentrated in the upper echelons of the organization where only one or relatively fewer individuals make decisions, the structure is considered centralized. By contrast, the decision-making authority in decentralized structures is shared by lower-level organizational members (Andrews et al. 2009).
Autorid seavad fookust ja väidavad:
In this study, we examine the factors that drive organizational change in municipal governments, focusing specifically on the roles of centralized and decentralized decision-making structures. […] We argue that the interest in studying how the decision-making structure affects public organizations’ performance has overshadowed a critical middle step: the specific organizational changes that facilitate such improvement.
Tõsiasi, mis avalikes organisatsioonides ei ole oodatud:
Still, it is important to recognize – as some studies have shown – that organizational changes do not always lead to improved performance or service delivery. For example, reorganization can lead to goal displacement, reduced staff morale, and higher turnover (Andrews and Boyne 2012).
Organisatsiooniliste muutuste kujundamise kolm karakteristikut:
We propose that the degree of de/centralization shapes the implementation of organizational change through three mechanisms: information flow and quality, coordination, and time management. Any decision-making approach must address these three critical elements.
Poolt ja vastu:
On one side, proponents of centralization contend that it enhances the efficient flow and integration of information, secures coordination, suppresses employee resistance, and enables swift actions. On the other side, opponents of centralization argue that it taxes top executives’ cognitive abilities and generates negative employee attitudes. Instead, they advocate for decentralizing decision making closer to where services are delivered for more responsiveness, efficiency, and effectiveness, and encourage the creation of lateral relationships that build trust, enhance employee sense of ownership, and encourage creativity.
During and after a fiscal crisis, ambiguity and complexity increase, compromising a decision maker’s ability to make sense of reality, track emerging problems and changing priorities, and process information necessary to make calculated decisions. Under stress, hypervigilance may supersede vigilance, which gives rise to anxiety and leads to an incomplete analysis of information and rushed decisions (Marcus, Neuman, and MacKuen 2000).
Hala Altamimi, PhD, Qiaozhen Liu, PhD, Benedict Jimenez, Not Too Much, Not Too Little: Centralization, Decentralization, and Organizational Change, Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 2022;, muac016, https://doi.org/10.1093/jopart/muac016