Toward a Definition of Organizational Incompetence: A Neglected Variable in Organization

Theory
Author(s): J. Steven Ott and Jay M. Shafritz
Source: Public Administration Review, Vol. 54, No. 4 (Jul. - Aug., 1994), pp. 370-377
Published by: Wiley on behalf of the American Society for Public Administration
Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/977385 .
Accessed: 15/06/2014 08:35

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at .
http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp

.
JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of
content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms
of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.

Wiley and American Society for Public Administration are collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and
extend access to Public Administration Review.

http://www.jstor.org

This content downloaded from 185.2.32.89 on Sun, 15 Jun 2014 08:35:31 AM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
 Thisarticle
presents ofthenature
an exploration oforganiza-
tionalincompetence bothas a socialconstructand as an
"objective"
reality.
Incompetence is a vitally
importantbut
Toward
aDel
nidon
of
Organizadonal minimallyexplored inorganization
variable theory.

Incompetence:
ANeglected
in
Vadiable
Thetopicofincompetence hasbeenaddressed systematical-
lyinonlya fewcontexts, andthese havelimited generalappli-
cability
to organizations. Anyone desiringto learnaboutthe
Organizafon
Theory nature,extensiveness,
commonly
types,
experienced,
causes,
seemingly
andconsequences
ever-present
ofthis
phenomenon
willbesurprisedtodiscover thatthelibrary shelves
arevirtual-
lyabsentofserious workinthisarea.Therearethree notable
J.Steven Ott,University
ofUtah exceptions.Military incompetence hasreceived considerable
JayM.Shafritz,University
ofPittsburgh attentionfrom historians and studentsof strategy.'
Medical
ethicists,
attorneys,andadvocacy groupshavedevoted consid-
erableattention incompetence,
to medical-legal whenindividu-
Whatis "organizational
incompetence?" Whyhasthesubject als'constitutionally
guaranteed rightsmaybe stripped from
remained unexamined
virtually oforganization themlegally
in theliterature becausetheyarenotableto makedecisions in
theory?J.StevenOttandJayM. Shafritz arguethatincompe- theirown bestinterests (Rhea,Ott, and Shafritz,
1988). A
tenceisprimarily
an organizationalissue-notan individual thirdbodyofliterature dealswithprofessional
incompetence,the
issue-which hastwofaces.It isa socialconstruct
andan "objec- absenceofability,
judgment, ormorals so total,
incurable,and
potentially
damaging thata professional's
right topracticecan
tive"reality.
Asa socialconstruct,organizational
incompetence
beterminated. Forallpracticalpurposes, however,there isno
results
in withdrawnorwithheld supportfor publicorganizations
other school
identifiable ofinquiryintoincompetence.2
andinstitutions.
Asan "objective" it isa repeated
reality, pattern
ofanorganization notableorwilling tolearnfromitsenviron- Further,incompetence justisnotwhatitusedtobe. Tradi-
ment, oritssuccesses.
itsfailures, Theauthors examinethelitera- tionallyoneperson couldbefully fora majorfail-
responsible
urewhether incityhall,business,
orbatde.Although itisstill
tureoforganization theory
forinsights in
thatcanhelp defining
possibletoproperly creditoneindividualfora majorinstance
whatitis,as afirststepin thedevelopmentofageneraltheory
of
ofmission thefarmorelikely
failure, is thatan
explanation
organizationalincompetence.
organization's culture,
structure, areatfault.Stillit
orpolicies
isfarmoreemotionally satisfyingtolayblameona singleindi-
vidual.Captainswereexpected togodownwiththeir ships,or
at leastbe thelastoff.Butthisattitude doesnottakeinto
account thenatureofmodern organizations.
Leaders leadworkers,
areno longer theyarebuildersand
oforganizations.
maintainers theyarejudgednot
Increasingly
on their
personal ofphysical
qualities courage orintellectual
butonwhether
daring, theorganizationtheyheadcanfunc-
without
tioneffectively-especially them.Youcouldsurely
blamea manageriftheorganizationhe orsheheadsfailsto
perform but
properly, your levelofanalysis should
rightfully
betheorganization.

370 Public Review

Administration Vol.54,No.4
* July/August
1994,

This content downloaded from 185.2.32.89 on Sun, 15 Jun 2014 08:35:31 AM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
ItIfthe isnot
answer individual howcanone
stupidity,
asa SocialConstruct
Incompetence
Organizational incompetence
tionorstateofbeingthatexists
cannot
inpeoples'
beseendirectly.
minds
Itisa condi-
andemotions. All
explain
somuch
organizational
incompetence-so
many thatcanbeseenisevidence orindicators ofincompetence. Weseeon-
goingpatterns ofmistakes, grievous errors, orstupiddecisions and
stupid
outcomes? conclude thatincompetence hascausedthebehavior (Berger and
Luckmann, 1966).Ifenough peoplein important reference groups
To be sure,there arealways scapegoats tobe sought, found, and (Gouldner, 1957;Reissman, 1949)decidethatevents indicate the
"punished" publicly. Thereis something very satisfying aboutblam-
presence ofincompetence, thenforallpractical purposes, incompe-
inga failure ona symbolic figure. A state experiences a revenue short- tenceexists. Theperceived reality ofincompetence involves twocom-
fallora company filesforbankruptcy under Chapter 11,andthechief plexdecisions. First, a decision thatanaction thatweconsider stupid,
executive immediately becomes a villain toallthelaidoffworkers. A signals thepresence ofincompetence; andsecond, a decision regarding
politicalparty losesan election, andthestandard bearer,theheadof
actiononcethejudgment ofincompetence hasbeenrendered.
theticket, is quickly denounced bytheparty faithful as a person
unworthy ofhighoffice inthefirst place.Before their defeatsincom- Itishardly surprising thatdecisions aboutorganizational incompe-
merce, politics, orwarthese samepeoplewerehailedas thebesttheir tencevaryamongobservers. Judgments as to whether particular
nation, company, orparty couldputforth.Thisphenomenon is so actions ordecisions reflect thepresence ofincompetence areinflu-
commonin so manycontexts thatit cannotbe explained bythe encedbyinterpretations ofcircumstances, expectations, personal val-
chance occurrence ofa stupid person inexplicably risingtothetop. If ues,important others (reference groups), andsocietal norms ingener-
theanswer is notindividual stupidity, howcanoneexplain so much al. Constructs areperceptions thatexistin distinctive forms and
organizational incompetence-so manystupidoutcomes (Carey, patterns intheminds ofthemany shareholders (Mitroff, 1983)-peo-
1991)? ple,groups, andcultures whoareaffected directlyorindirectly byan
Atleastpartoftheanswer organization. The perceptions of clients, employees, suppliers, tax
liesinseparating thestupidity ofindi-
viduals(Welles,1986; 1988)fromorganizational payers at-large, and
legislators, retirees ad infinitum are all part of the
incompetence.issue. Anorganization's
Genuinely stupid peoplehardly evergetthechance tobeincompetent competence thuscannot beassessed indepen-
on behalf dent of the expectations of itsmyriad constituencies. Not only will
ofa wholeorganization. Boardsofdirectors, CEOs,and stakeholders'
votersinallcultures seektoweedoutthetruly expectations vary among types oforganizations in differ-
stupid forobvious rea-
sons.Becauseonlythebestandthebrightest entenvironments andcultural settings, theywillalsovaryamonga
areusually allowed to
riseto thetop,their failures given organization's constituencies or stakeholder groups at a given
cannot be explained awaybystupidity.
in
Verysmart peopledo very dumbthings allthetime-butthisis not point time.
organizational incompetence. To theextent thatorganizational incompetence is a socialcon-
The mostfamous statement evermadeon incompetence struct, the reality of incompetence in government organizations
in an
organizational context is theprinciple reflects
the level of public receptivity to characterizations madebythe
promulgated byLaurence J.
Peterin his 1969worldwide massmedia,opinion leaders, andpoliticians-perhaps morethanit
bestseller,ThePeterPrinciple: Why
Things Always Go Wrong (written withRaymond doestheactualquality oforganizational performance ordecisions.
Hull).In a bureau-
cracy,allemployees risetotheir levelofincompetence. Further, the public's receptivity to such characterizations is highly
"Intime, every
posttends tobeoccupied byanemployee influenced by its limited understanding of the complexity of govern-
whoisincompetent tocarry
outitsduties." ThePeter Principle constitutes theonlyknown mentagencyoperations (Bryson andCrosby,1992).Failures to
attempt
todevelop a general theory ofincompetence. ButPeter's accomplish goals and mistakes are attributed erroneously to lack of
theory isfar
toosimplistic. Peter merely observed a symptom (being instead
effort, of to theproblems of highly complex social and techno-
promoted to
a jobforwhich youareincompetent onthebasisofbeingcompetentlogical workperformed undersystems ofrestrictive rulesandproce-
ata lower leveljob)andfrom itfalsely deduced thathehaddiscovered dures designed to ensure administrative accountability. Although
thecauseofthedisease-incompetence. thesesystems ofruleswereinitiated toprotect valuesthatarecentral
toa democratic system ofgovernment, they reflect
a concept ofpublic
Thus,outside ofthemilitary, medical-legal, andprofessional con- accountability thatwasfarbetter suited tothefirst halfofthiscentury
texts,verylittlehasbeenwritten directly aboutincompetence. The thantothe1990s(Barzelay, 1992).
PeterPrinciple andnotions ofscapegoating andstupidity areinterest-
ingbuthardly useful forunderstanding organizational incompetence.
Yet,incompetence
andacademicians
hasvitally important
alike.Organization
implications
theory
forpractitioners
cannotignore incompe-
ThePractical
Importance
of
tence, particularly organizational incompetence-any longer. Organizational
Incompetence
for
If onlyincompetence
withhistidylittleprinciple!
werewereas simpleas Peterexplained
Justas there is notonekindofcancer
itGovernment
andGovernance
withonecure,thereis nota singlecause,typeof,or remedy for Whether organizational incompetence actuallyexists is usually a
incompetence inorganizations. Indeed, incompetence isanextraordi-judgment madewithout standards, a verdict rendered without rulesof
narilycomplex phenomenon because itisnota single "thing" atall:It evidence. A socially constructed reality canbe created bya wellcon-
hastwoseparate anddistinct faces. Organizational incompetence isa ceived anddelivered mediablitzorpolitical campaign theme. Reality
sociallyconstructed reality(a perception), anditisalsoa pattern that testsarenotneeded.Examples ofincompetence aboundin part
isobservable overtime-apattern ofanorganization notableorwill- because judgments ofincompetence aresoeasytorender.
ingtolearnfrom itsenvironment oritsfailures (anobjective reality). Thesocially constructed reality ofincompetence evolves from fed-
Administrators
needto understand
andappreciate
bothfaces. ingsofadvancedfrustration,
contempt,
andalienation.
Thisreality
of

Towarda Definition
ofOrganizational
Incompetence 371

This content downloaded from 185.2.32.89 on Sun, 15 Jun 2014 08:35:31 AM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
incompetence
larlyas itgainspervasive
example,
drawn
government
orwithheld support
fordamaging
justification
provides
as a reality.
acceptance
bashing"
"bureaucrat
In recent
andmany
particu-
behaviors,
for
years,
ofwith-
forms
andinstitutions3
forpublicorganizations
I Theobjectiveand
really the
perceived
are
of
reality
phenomena
distinct
incompetence
organizational
havebeenjustifiedon thegroundsoftheperceived of
incompetence
bothelectedandappointedgovernment officials.4
In recentdecades, theprobability ofgovernment (orspecific gov-
must
that separately.
beaddressed
ernment agencies)beingperceived andlabeled as incompetent seems
to risewithevery majorpolitical campaign, every downturn in the 7. Wearenotcertain thatorganizational competence andincom-
economy thatthegovernment cannot turnaround rapidly,andevery petence arepolar opposites-the two ends ofa continuum. "The
revelationofpublic or private fraudor When
deceit. incompetence is oppositeofjob is
dissatisfaction not job but
satisfaction, no job dissat-
forus,weexpect-simply
a reality assume-that government cannot isfaction" (Herzberg, 1968,p. 56).Arethefactors thatcausecompe-
orwillnotperform. We "see"(interpret actions as) incompetence, tence and incompetence separate and distinct? Are organizational
evenwhenincompetence maynotbean"objective fact." competence and incompetence opposites? Does elimination ofincom-
petence leadtocompetence,
necessarily orsimply tonoincompetence?
Perhaps theanswers tothese questions liehidden behind thetwofaces
reality of
Toward of
a Definition oforganizational
organizational
incompetence.
competence
Although
andincompetence
theobjective
maybe on thesame
Incompetence
Organizational continuum, possibly theperception isnot-orviceversa.
Defining thenature andconsequences oforganizationalincompe- Thesepreliminary, tentatively offered assertionsaboutorganiza-
tenceasa socialconstruct is onlya first toward
step understanding its tional incompetence suggest the need for proceeding cautiously
essence.Whatdo we knowaboutorganizational incompetencetoward establishing First,
a definition. untilitisclearwhether incom-
beyond thedetermination thatoneofitsfacesis a socialconstruct?petence andcompetence trulyareopposites, incompetence needsto
Thefollowing listisaninventory ofthethings webelieve we"know" be dealtwithdirectly, notas theopposite ofcompetence. Second,
relatingtotheobjective reality incompetence.
oforganizational insightsaboutthenature ofincompetence probably canbe gleaned
from relatedconstructsthathavereceived attentionintheliterature of
1. Intoday's usage,organizational incompetence denotes a stateof administrative andorganizational theory.Third,competence and
unworthiness.5 It meansmorethana failure to accomplish goalsor incompetence aredistinct from otherconstructs thathavereceived
mission, inabilityto deliver orthepresence
services, ofsomeinept attention intheliteraturerecently, including ineffective-
effectiveness,
managers. ness,quality,andexcellence. Theapplicability oftheserelated con-
2. Thetermincompetence is neitherneutralnorvaluefree. It is ceptsprobably willbe limited. Fourth, theobjective reality andthe
an emotion-laden statement aboutsystemic Useoftheword perceived
failure. realityoforganizational incompetence aredistinct phenom-
signalsthepresence ofstrong suchas disdain
feelings, andcontempt.enathatmust beaddressed separately.
Theymaybe as intense as ifthewordsuttered hadbeen"morally
bankrupt" or"crooked office holder."Theuseoftheterm incompe-
tencesignalsfrustrationthathasturned intoanger andperhaps alien- From
Insights Constructs
Related
ation.
Whatarethepotential contributions thatrelated may
concepts
3. Competence is notthesameas effectiveness, excellence, or maketo a definition oforganizational incompetence? A review of
quality.Competence meansadequacy; possessionofnecessary skill, themwillleadto a definition which, in turn,is a steptoward the
knowledge, qualification,orcapacity; ora sufficient
sufficiency, quan- development ofa general theoryoforganizational incompetence.
Similarly,
tity. competent denotes having andsuitable
sufficient skills,
knowledge, andexperiences toaccomplish a purpose;properlyquali- andOrganizational Pathology
Systems
Living Theory
fied;adequate butnotexceptional. Thus,theextant onorga-
literature
nizationaleffectiveness, andquality
excellence, provides insights,but Generalsystems theory 1951;KastandRosenzweig,
(Bertalanffy,
itwillnot define orexplain competence.
organizational 1972)describes and analyzescomplex things-from amoeba tointer-
societies-as
national setsofdynamically intertwined andintercon-
4. Although competence andincompetence werereferred toearli- Interconnectionsamong systemelements
nectedsystems ofelements.
erasstates,they arevariablestotheextent thattheyvary indegree and toidentify.Systems
tendtobecomplex, dynamic, andoften difficult
pervasiveness.A fewexamples ofcommonly usedadjectivesthatiden- andOtt,1992a).Liv-
theorists
study theseinterconnections(Shafritz
tifylooselevelsofincompetence include:bordering on,somewhat, theory isanadaptation ofgeneral systems thatsees
theory
ingsystems
moderately, totally,andabsolutely. organizationsas complex,living(biological),opensystems (Miller,
5. Incompetence involvespatternsofseemingly avoidable bad 1978).Problems insystems (includingorganizationalsystems)canbe
decisions orunwise actions.Peoplein an incompetent organizationanalyzed (diagnosed)andremedied (treated)assubsystem pathologies.
demonstrate consistent patterns orunwillingness
ofinability tolearn Because systems atalllevelsofcomplexity share thesamecriticalsub-
from orfrom
failures theenvironment. Theyfailtoseekoutortouse system functions,whatislearned aboutpathologies insimplerbiologi-
information to avoidmistakes, eventhough suchinformation could calsystems mayalsobe applicable to morecomplex "sick"organiza-
havebeenaccessed or utilized. tional
systems (Ruscoe etaL, p.
1985, 10).
6. Patterns ofapparently that
behavior
irrational over
persist time Although livingsystems theoryandother biologicalmodelshave
inanorganization reflect
assumptions thatarerootedinorganization- intuitiveappeal,theyhavesevere limitations.Firstandofutmost
of importance,
cultureis theissue,nottheintelligence
al culture.Organizational theycan notbe takenliterally. is nota
"Anorganization
individualsin theorganization. with
thing
lifelike an inherent
almost to
right exist of
because itsmis-

372 Public Review

Administration * Jul/AugustVol.54,No.4
1994,

This content downloaded from 185.2.32.89 on Sun, 15 Jun 2014 08:35:31 AM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
 The
giesfirst
onissuesandproblemsthataffect
outside
stakeholders-the
theory and
oforganizational
entropy rot
dry ofan organization
probability
areinternally
oriented.6
is lessthanifthey
beingincompetent

provides
potentially
important about
insights Thisspeculation
isparticularly because
intriguing, itpermits
usto
weaveintotheanalysis
boththeobjective
factandthesubjective
reali-
organizational
incompetence-unless
wefallprey
to tyofincompetence-as
ers.Thus,thetheory
itisperceived
bydifferent
oforganizational
external
stakehold-
anddryrotprovides
entropy
potentially
important
insightsaboutorganizational
incompetence-
seduction
and
anthropomorphic lose ofthe
sight unless
wefallprey
toanthropomorphic seductionandlosesight
ofthe
problems
inherent
inbiologicalmodels.
problems
inherent
inbiological
model.
Organizational Excellence andTotalQuality
sionto accomplish utilitarianpurposes" (Shafritz andOtt1992a,p. Bothorganizational excellence (Peters, 1988;Peters andWater-
344).Anorganization is an "artificial
construct under thelawwhich man,1982)andtotalquality management (TQM) Uuran,1988;
allowscertain organizations to be treated as individuals" Jensenand Deming,1988;Walton,1986)assumethatorganizational excel-
Meckling, 1976,p. 310).Anthropomorphic approaches areseductive.lence/quality isachieved bychanging organizational culture,notindi-
Theyallowustocreate clearmental images ofcomplex, obscure phe- viduals. Thiswasillustrated famously byRobert Townsend in his
nomena. Unfortunately, they alsocreate mental trapsandleadtofatal 1970bestseller, UptheOrganization. (Whenhetookoverthetrou-
errors oflogic. bledAviscarrental agency, hewastoldthathewouldhavetogetrid
Second,justas it is important to establish a cleardistinctionofthecentral officestaff. But,hekeptthem on,andsixmonths later
between theperception andtheobjective reality oforganizational thesame people who advised firingeveryone wereasking howhehad
incompetence, it is alsonecessary to ask,pathology as seenthroughrecruited sucha great staff.)Other keyfactors oftotalquality indude:
whoseeyes? Because mostpublicorganizations areopensystems, who customer satisfaction,transformational leadership, sharedvision, par-
iscapable ofmaking anobjective diagnosis ofpathology? ticipatoryrelationships,andsubstantive expertise (Ballard,
1992).
Itisnecessary tobecognizant ofthelimitations ofbiological mod- Organizational excellence proponents identify symboliccommuni-
els,including life-cycle theories (Downs,1967)whenborrowing theo- cation as a primary means fortransmitting vision andchanging orga-
ryorresearch from theliterature onliving systems orother anthropo-nizational culture (Peters andWaterman, 1982).Forexample, atthe
morphicsystemsmodels."We seldomfall into the trapof timeofthecourt-ordered breakup oftheBellsystem, AT&T manage-
characterizing thewheatorstockmarket as an individual, butwe ment eliminated the metaphor "Ma Bell" from thecompany's lan-
often makethiserror bythinking aboutorganizations as iftheywere guageandliterature. Itcarried meaning thatwasassociated withfami-
persons withmotivations andintentions" Jensen andMeckling, ly,maternalism, protectiveness, andjob permanence-an ideology
1976,p. 311).We borrow constructs from living systems theoryand and an image that the company had to shed.During a management
organizational pathology onlywithgreat caution, eventhough thelit- training session,a high-level manager inoneofthelarge AT&T sub-
erature on organizational pathology (MillerandMiller,1991)and sidiaries "suddenly openedhisdressshirt to reveal a T-shirtwiththe
organizational decayandtermination (Miller, 1978)is a potentiallyslogan 'Lean,Clean,andMean.'Thisheannounced wasthewaythe
fertilesource ofideasandinsights aboutorganizational incompetence.company wouldhavetobeinthefuture" (TriceandBeyer, 1992,p.
364).
Organizational Entropy andDryRot
Organizational Decline
ChrisArgyris (1970)artfully labeled thefinal stageoforganization-
al entropy, dryrot.According toArgyris, anorganization indryrotis A smallbodyofliterature focusesonorganizational decline caused
ina near-terminal stateofholistic, systemic decay: aninevitable stage byexternal forces andfactors andtheappropriateness ofmanagerial
ofdecline initslifecycle(unless conscious organization developmentresponses toit(Cameron, Sutton andWhetten, 1988).7Seriousanaly-
stepsaretaken toreverse theprocess). Dryrotischaracterized bylost sesaboutdecline caused byincompetence within organizationsdonot
energy, zeal,enthusiasm, andsenseofpurpose. Anorganization indry exist. Also,theorganizational declineliterature yields
totheliterature
rotprobably is alsolikely to be holistically inefficientandineffec-on organizational effectiveness forconcepts andmeasures ofsuccess
tive-or,incompetent. andfailure inresponding todecline stimulated byexternalfactors and
forces.Thus,perhaps theonlyorganizational declineconcept that
Argyris hypothesized thatas organizations advance through mid- maycontribute
lifestageson theirpathsofinevitable toa theory oforganizational incompetence, concerns
decline intodryrot,thekey thefailure oforganizations
issues andproblems thatdemand and executives to avert,ameliorate, or
andgethighpriority attention from reverse externally causeddecline(Cameron, SuttonandWhetten,
executives (andthusalsofromemployees lowerin thehierarchy)1988;Guy,1989)-failure
switch from tolearn from their environment.
external tointernal. Inthe1990slanguage oftotalquality
management (TQM),theorganizational culture losesitscustomer ser-
viceorientation (Swiss,1992;Wagenheim andReurink, 1991).It is Organizational Effectiveness andIneffectiveness
worthat leastspeculating, then,thatas longas thecorecultural Ofallthetheoretical constructs wehaveidentified, effectivenessis
assumptions (Ott,1989;Schein, 1981)ofan organization areexter- therichest source ofpotential ideasandinsights. Thankfully, theory
nallyoriented-organization members focus their attention andener- development andresearch on organizational effectiveness
hasbeen

Toward
a Definition
ofOrganizational
Incompetence
373

This content downloaded from 185.2.32.89 on Sun, 15 Jun 2014 08:35:31 AM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
moving awayfrom butgenerally
theprevalent goals-attain-
simplistic
mentmodels(Etzioni,1975;Hall, 1980).8The goals-attainment
approachesdefineorganizational as theaccomplishment
effectiveness
Organization one,
isnot
effectiveness or
two,
goalsandobjectives
ofa setoforganizational 1975).Ineffec-
(Steers,
goalsandobjectives.
toaccomplish
thenisfailure
tiveness anything.
three inthe of
minds
indiferentforms
Itexists
In theearly1980s,dissatisfaction
hadbecome so widespread
withgoals-attainment
thatsomeacademicians
models
beganadvocating
people,
various
the and
groups, who
cultures directly
are
theabandonment oforganizational effectiveness as anobjectofschol-
arlyactivityaltogether (Goodman, 1979).Withhindsight, thereasons affected by the organization, including customers,
areobvious. Virtually all goals-attainment models face two insur-
mountable problems: (1) Theyassume thatorganizational effective- shareholders, employees, clients, suppliers, directors,
nesscanbe operationalized as anobjective, measurable thing, and(2)
asissuggested in(1),they assume theexistence ofa single setofeffec- dealers, legislators, andretirees.
tiveness expectations foranygivenorganization. It wasnotuntilthe
mid-1980s thatadvocates ofseveral alternative approaches to effec-
andassumptions, arrivesat different conclusions, andthereby
tiveness discarded theassumptions ofthegoals-attainment models and values
illuminates a different realityofeffectiveness, ineffectiveness-and
wereabletocircumvent thesetwoproblems (Cameron andWhetten,
perhaps incompetence.
1983).
Therelativistic approach represents thevaluesandassumptions of
Aswepropose herefororganizational incompetence, organization- (Shafritz and
thehumanresource perspective oforganization theory
al effectivenessis nota thing. It mustbe recognized as a construct.9 argue thatnocon-
Ott,1992b).Advocates oftherelativistic approach
Constructs areperceptions, products ofthemind.Organizational overanyothers (Connolly, Con-
stituency'sgoals should havepriority
effectivenessis notone,two,orthree anythings. It exists indifferent is the
lan, and Deutsch, 1980).Thesatisfaction ofhumaninterests
forms in themindsofthevarious people, groups, andcultures who areulti-
organizational effectiveness (Keeley, 1988).Humans
aredirectly affected bytheorganization, including customers, share- basisof
mate values. Theworth ofindividuals is not-andshouldnotbe-
holders, employees, clients,suppliers, directors, dealers, legislators, contributions.
to or dependent upontheirorganizational
andretirees. Anorganization's effectiveness cannotbeassessed inde- related ability to satisfy
Effectiveness, then,is defined as an organization's
pendent ofitsconstituencies' expectations. Notonlywillstakeholders'
diverse human interests.
expectations vary fordifferent types oforganizations indifferent envi-
ronments andcultural settings, theywillalsovaryamonganygiven Thesocialjustice approach shares many ofthehuman resource per-
organization's constituencies or stakeholder groups.Expectationsspective assumptions thatundergird therelativistic approach, butit
within anygiven stakeholder groupchange overtime, thereby furtheralso advances theargument. The primary criterion fordeciding
diminishing the valueof the univariate goals-attainment and systems among competing constituency interests should be "worth," not
models. So too,withorganizational incompetence. Theperception of "effectiveness." Worthis determined bythesystem ofsocialjustice
organizational incompetence cannotbe dealtwithwithout con- (Rawls, 1971)usedtoensure thatthebasicwell-being ofeachpartici-
fronting theissueofmultiple stakeholders' expectations (Ott,1993). pant (constituent) is given equal consideration in policy making and
implementation (Keeley, 1978)."Every organization is muchlikea
Themeasurement problem alsoisformidable: (1) Individual stake- itsfunctional valuetoper-
sewage pipe;thatis,itacquires worth from
holders frequently havedifficulty identifying their ownexpectations approach thusmoves
sons"(Keeley, 1984,p. 11).Thesocialjustice
foran organization; (2) expectations change, often dramatically, over tofocus on
beyond therelativistic approach's criterion ofeffectiveness,
time;(3) a variety ofcontradictory preferences andexpectations are to satisfy humaninterests in ways
worth-anorganization's ability
usuallypursuedsimultaneously in an organization; and (4) the andharm toindividuals andgroups.
thatminimize regret
expressed expectations ofcentral constituencies frequently areunrelat-
ed ornegatively relatedtooneanother andtoobjective judgments of Thepower approach stands on a verydifferent setoffoundation
organizational effectiveness (Cameron and Whetten, 1983). assumptions and values. Decisions are (and normatively shouldbe)
madeamongcompeting constituencies' interests basedon their rela-
Thefirst problem, effectiveness as a construct, ismorefundamen- Itisa reality thatiscrucial fororga-
tivepower. Power isnotimmoral:
talandcrucial thanthemeasurement problem. Organizations do not AsSalancik andPfeffer (1977)argue convincingly,
nizational survival.
havegoals;rather, constituencies havegoalsandobjectives thatthey arethosewhosefunctions aremost
themostpowerful constituencies
hopeto accomplish through association withan organization. Thus, survival. Thus,organizational effectiveness
essential fororganizational
constituencies havegoalsfororganizations (Ott,1993).Somecon- is theability ofan organization to allocate itsresources to itsmost
stituencies, however, possessenoughpowerthattheyareableto critical-powerful unitsandthereby maximize itsability to adaptto
impose goalsonpublicorganizations. Sometimes, forexample, public environment.
(andpro-act in)itsexternal
administrators havenochoice except topursue goalsimposed bylegis-
lators in order to getto thenextlegislative step-eventhough these Several important systems resource theory approaches define effec-
imposed goalsmaynotbewellthought or
through may conflict with tiveness intheir own unique way:
othergoals.10 Thegoals-attainment models areunableto dealwith, Howwellan organization solves itsessential problems. Twoofthe
reconcile, orresolve inevitable conflict among multiple constituencies' best-known theories thatsharethisapproach include:"Parsonian
preferences andexpectations. functionalism," a viewofeffectiveness thatutilizes goals-attainment,
Several strategiesfordefining anddealing witheffectiveness have environmental adaptation, internal integration, andpattern mainte-
beenproposed bytheorists whoacceptthevalidity andacknowledgenanceas criteria ofeffectiveness (Parsons, 1960;Lyden, 1975);and,
the realityof multiple,conflicting perspectives, preferences, and Chris Argyris's (1970,1986)notion oforganizational competence as
Each of thesestrategies
expectations. a different
reflects system
setof basic theabilityofan organizational its coreactivities
to accomplish

374 Public Review

Administration * Jul/AugustVol.54,No.4
1994,

This content downloaded from 185.2.32.89 on Sun, 15 Jun 2014 08:35:31 AM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
overtimeandunderdifferent
achievingobjectives,
conditions.
maintaining
Coreactivities
theinternal
include:
environment,and
andConclusions
Summary
adaptingto andmaintainingcontrolovertherelevantexternal
envi- Ourexploration hasledustothefollowing conclusionsaboutthe
ronment. natureoforganizationalincompetence. We offerthemas a tentative
steptoward andeventually
defining developinga theory.
How wellan organization acquires, anddisposes
transforms, of
resources,
an economics/systemsresource
process ofeffec- * Organizational
perspective incompetence is a construct,a variable
stateof
tiveness
(Yuchtman andSeashore,
1967). beingthatexistsin peoples'mindsandemotions. It cannotbe
dealtwithwithout consideringtheissueofmultiple stakeholders
Theinteractionofproductivity, andabsence
flexibility, ofintra-orga- withdifferent expectations.
nizational
strain,in essence,
an earlyversion ofthehumansystem
resource/process
perspective
oforganizational thatwas * Organizational
effectiveness incompetence is 'playedout"inrepeated patterns
proposedbyGeorgopoulos andTannenbaum (1957). ofwhatappearto be avoidable baddecisionsorunwise actions.
Theabilitytouse"double-loop" The objectiverealityof organizationalincompetence and the
tolearnfrom
learning, learningand
thusexpandan organization's to adapt(Argyris socially
constructed
perceptionof organizational
incompetenceare
ability andSchon,
1978). separate
anddistinctvariables.
Unfortunately,theimprovement of
an organization's
services(changing theobjective ofits
reality
Theabilityofan organization
tosurviveina competitive
fielathe incompetence)rarely alters
theperception ofitsincompetence.
populationecology ornatural
selection
approach (HannanandFree- The perception ofan organization'sincompetence dependsas
man,1984,1989). muchuponourreceptivity tocharacterizations
madebythemass
mediaandpoliticians asuponitsactualbehaviors ordecisions.
Stupidity * Organizational
incompetenceismorethana failure
toaccomplish
Whilemanyauthors havedealtwithstupiddecision making in goalsorineffectiveness.
Itisa variable
state
ofsystemicfailure
and
government andbusiness (Halberstam,1972,1986;Tuchman, 1984), holistic
unworthiness.
onlyJames Welles(1986,1988)hasaddressed thephenomenon of * Organizational
competence
andincompetence
varyindegree
and
stupidity directly.11
Stupidity,a "learned
corruptionoflearning...is
a pervasiveness.
normal, dysfunctional mentalitywhichinhibitsadaptation...
[derived
from] interactionoftwointerdisrupting faculties-aself-deceptive* Competentcannotbe equatedwitheffective
or excellent.Its
inability to gather accurateinformation anda neurotic to
inability iscloser
meaning toadequate.
match behavior toenvironmental contingencies"
(Welles,1988,p. 2). * Organizationalincompetencehasitsrootsin andis sustained
by
Stupidity hasepistemological, social/cultural
andmoraldimen- culture.The objective oforganizational
reality incompetenceis
sions.Attheepistemological level, isa failure
stupidity togatherand rooted in organizational theperception
culture; oforganizational
useinformation. Thisisoften truewhenestablished
information poli- incompetence is rootedin generally
prevailing
cultural
assump-
cieseffectively forceindividuals withinorganizationsto makepoor tions.Organizational
incompetenceischanged byaltering
organi-
decisions. Forexample, the"fogofwar"isthewonderfully descriptive zationalculture,
notindividuals.
phrase fortheconfusion anduncertaintythatisinherentincombat. It *
is as ifa fogdescends Organizational
incompetence
maynotalways
be theopposite
of
uponthebattlefieldandblindsthecombatants
to whattheenemy organizational
competence.
Instead,
theopposite
ofincompetence
andevenotherelements oftheirownforces are
doing.Wherever maybenoincompetence.
far-flungoperationshavetobe coordinated, fogor
uncertainty isalwaysa possibility. * Itisuseful
tothinkaboutorganizational
incompetenceasfailure
in
Thefieldofmanagement a general
system.
Although wehaveserious
concerns aboutusing
informationsystems(MIS) hasgrown
up in recent
decadesto reduce biological
system
analogies,
organizational
incompetenceis some-
theinevitable
fogtomanageable pro-
portions.Butthereduction whatanalogousto pathologies
thatdevelopin subsystems
ofall
mechanismsthemselves-forexample
computer datain a seeminglyendlessstream-often complex(living)
opensystems,andthusthatcanbediagnosed and
createmore
problemsthanthefogthey weredesigned treated.
todispel.Goodmanagers
withtherightinformationbefore
themcanmakegooddecisions. But * Ifthecorecultural assumptions ofan organization
arefocused
otherwisegoodmanagers withan overwhelming volumeofdatato itis lesslikely
externally, to be (orbecome) incompetent
thanif
digest
become unable
tomaketimely orwisedecisions.
Theyareren- theyareinternally
oriented.Organizational
incompetence
involves
deredincompetentbythesamereduction mechanism (MIS) thatis inability
or unwillingnessto learnfrom mistakes
andfrom the
instituted
tomakethem morecompetent. environment.
Stupidityis alsosocial,in thatpeopleoftenactstupidlyoutofa * Likestupidity, organizational
incompetence hasepistemological,
desireto adhere to culturalnorms andthereby enhance socialcohe- social/cultural,
andmoral dimensions.
sionandcooperation. Culture(including
organizational
culture)thus
*
canprovide a mechanism forpromoting andtransmittingstupidity Organizational incompetenceinvolvesissuesandquestionsof
throughout a society andacrossextended organizational
(suchas an organization) power, adaptation,
pattern
maintenance,learning,
periodsoftime.Thisisanespecially troublesomeproblemintherigid socialjustice,
survival, andworth.
hierarchies
typicallyfound inthemilitaryandcivilservice.
Therethe Thisfirststeptowardcreating a definition
oforganizational
valueofan opinion is directly
related
to rank.Thisoftenforces the incompetenceshould befollowed
byefforts
todevelopa general
theo-
mosttalentedtofleeandthelessable,likehotair,continue torise. ryoforganizational incompetence.
We needto increaseourunder-

Toward
a Definition
ofOrganizational
Incompetence
375

This content downloaded from 185.2.32.89 on Sun, 15 Jun 2014 08:35:31 AM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
standing ofthiscomplex phenomenon anditsimplications beyond J. StevenOtt is an associate professor scienceand
ofpolitical
thePeterPrinciple, bashing
bureaucrat andthenews director
politicians, ofpublicadministrationeducationin theCenter forPublic
media("what do youexpect fromstupid andsuperfi-PolicyandAdministration,
bureaucrats"?), UniversityofUtah. In additionto his
cialnonsequiturs("I don'tknowwhatitis,butI recognizeitwhenI articlesandbookchapters, Otthasauthored,co-authored,oredited
seeit"). sevenbooksonpublicadministration, including ofOrganiza-
Classics
tionTheory3ded.andTheOrganizational CulturePerspective.
We mustnotalloworganizational incompetenceto remain a
neglectedvariable theory.
in organization Becauseincompetence is a JayM. Shafritz intheGraduate
isa professor SchoolofPublicand
socialconstruct,eachmember oftheworldwide oforganiza-International
society AffairsattheUniversity He istheauthor,
ofPittsburgh.
tiondwellerswillsomeday, bysomeone, as incompe- co-author,
be perceived oreditor ofmorethanthree dozenbooksaswellasnumer-
tent-whether justified JohnDunne,send ousarticles
ornot.So to paraphrase ona variety oftopics.Hismostrecentbookis TheDic-
nottoknowforwhoma socialconstruct deemsincompetent, itwill tionary
ofTwentieth CenturyWorldPolitics, withPhilWilliams
written
eventuallydeemthee. andRonald S. Calinger.

Notes
1. Forexample, CohenandGooch(1990),Dixon(1976),Gabriel(1985,1986), 5 In thisarea,ourunderstanding oforganizational incompetence should from
benefit
Regan(1987),Tuchman (1984),Wyden (1979). provided
insights onmedical-legal
bytheliterature andprofessionalincompetence.
2. Overtheyears, therehavebeenseveral booksandarticles
isolated on thesubject, 6 Theopposite couldalsobetrueiftypes ofexternalstakeholdersarenotdifferentiat-
suchas EmileFaguet's(1911)warning aboutdemocracy'sinherent incompetence, ed.Forexample, ifthemanagement ofa public agency weretooresponsivetopub-
TheCultofIncompetence; ArtCarey's ofvignettes
collection thatsupposedly docu- licdemands theorganization
forcostreductions, couldbecome moreincompetent.
mentsthedecayofU. S. organizations, in TheUnited StatesofIncompetence Thisproposition requiresdifferentiationamongtypesofexternal stakeholders,
(1991);andChrisArgyris's1986Harvard Review
Business "Skilled
article, Incompe- asBarzelay
essentially (1992)does,anddifferent responses to
(andaccountabilities)
tence."On theotherhand,there hasbeena plethora ofnewspaper andnewsmaga- these types.
different
aboutreportedly
zinestories glaringexamples organizational
ofblithering incompe- 7 Thus,asonewouldexpect, theinfluence theory
oflife-cycle (Tushman, Newman,
tence, ingovernment.
particularly andRomanelli, 1986)andorganizational ecologyornatural selection
(Hannanand
3. Includingtaxingandspending referendums
limitinitiatives, toexclude legislators Freeman, 1977,1989)ishighlyevident onorganizational
intheliterature decline.
andcitycouncilorsfrom participationintaxincrease
decisions(suchas Colorado's 8 Also,"goals-attainment models"areoften referred effectiveness
to as "univariate
1992"Taxpayer's BillofRights"), andwidespread popular support formovesto models"(Thorndike, 1949;Campbell, 1973).
stateandlocalgovernment
privatize without
ofservices
delivery adequate resources 9 Cameron andWhetten admirablyattempt to drawa cleardistinctionbetween a
forgovernment tomonitor, andcontrol
evaluate, services.
theprivatized anda concept
construct (1983,p. 7). Wechoosetoavoidthatissuehere.
4. The generalpublic'spropensity towithdraw supportobviously by 10 Itcouldbeargued
is influenced thatthisrepresentsa form of"induced incompetence.'
many including
factors, theimportance ofanorganization's
purposes andactivities 11 BarbaraTuchman's 1984book,TheMarch ofFolly,alsomight in this
beincluded
to (segmentso) thepublic,as wellas theavailabilityofalternative methods to listing.
achievethesamepurposes andsubstitutablepurposes.

References
Argyris,Chris,1970.InterventionTheoryandMethod. MA:Addison-Wesley. Connolly,
Reading, Terry, Edward J.Conlon,andStuart JayDeutsch, 1980."Organizational
Incompetence."
, 1986."Skilled Harvard Review,
Business vol.64 (Septem- Effectiveness: A Multiple-Constituency Approach." Academy ofManagement
ber-October),pp.74-79. Review,vol.5,pp.211-217.
Argyris,ChrisandDonaldA. Schon,1978.Organizational A Theory
Learning: ofAction Deming, W. Edwards, 1988.OutoftheCrisis: Quality, andCompetitive
Productivity
Reading,
Perspective. MA:Addison-Wesley. Cambridge,
Position. UK: Cambridge UniversityPress.
Ballard,Steven,1992."HighPerformance A Philosophy
Organization: ofContinuous Dixon,Norman F.,1976.OnthePsychology ofMilitary London:
Incompetence. Jonathan
Performance." Paperpresented at theAnnualMeetingofthe Western Social Sci- Cape.
enceAssociation,Denver, CO. Downs, Anthony, 1967.Inside SantaMonica,
Bureaucracy. CA.RAND.
Barzelay,Michael,1992.Breaking Through Berkeley:
Bureaucracy. of
University Califor- Dwight
Eisenhower, D., 1967.At Ease: I
Stories to
Tell NewYork:Doubleday.
Friends.
niaPress. Amitai,
Etzioni, 1975.A ComparativeAnalysisofComplex (rev.ed.).New
Organizations
Berger, L.
Peter and Thomas Luckmann, 1966.TheSocialConstruction
of Gar-
Reality. York:Free Press.
denCity, NY:Doubleday. Emile,
Faguet, 1911.TheCultoflncompetence. NewYork:E. P. Dutton.
Ludwig
Bertalanffy, von, 1951. "General SystemsTheory.A New Approach to Unity Richard
Gabriel, A., 1985. Incompetence.
Military NewYork: Hill& Wang.
ofScience." HumanBiology, vol.23 (December),pp.303-361. , 1986."Scenes from an Invasion: HowtheU.S. Military Stumbled to
Bryson, John M. and Barbara C. Crosby, 1992. the
Leadershipfor Common Good. San Victoryin Grenada." WashingtonMonthly,vol.18 pp.
(February). 34-41.
Francisco:Jossey-Bass. Georgopoulos, BasilS. andArnold S. Tannenbaum, 1957."TheStudyofOrganiza-
Cameron, KimS., Robert I. Sutton, andDavidA. Whetten, eds.,1988.Readings in tionalEffectiveness."American Review,
Sociological vol.22,pp.534-540.
Organizational Frameworks,
Decline: Research, Cambridge,
andPrescnptions. MA: Goodman, PaulS.,1979."Organizational EffectivenessAsa Decision
Making Process."
Ballinger. Paperpresented at the39thAnnualMeetings oftheAcademy ofManagement.
Cameron, KimS. andDavidA. Whetten, One
Effectiveness:
1983.'Organizational Atlanta,GA.
ModelorSeveral?' In KimS. Cameron andDavidA.Whetten, eds.,Organization-Gouldner, AlvinW., 1957."Cosmopolitans andLocals:Toward anAnalysis ofLatent
A Comparison
al Effectiveness: ofMultiple New
Models. York:Academic Press,pp. 1- SocialRoles - 1." Science
Administrative Quarterly,vol.2 (December),pp.287-303.
24. Guy,MaryE., 1989.FromOrganizational DeclinetoOrganizational Renewal. New
Campbell, JohnP., 1973."Research intotheNatureof Effectiveness:
Organizational York:Quorum Books.
AnEndangered Species?"Working paper, ofMinnesota.
University Halberstam,David.,1972.TheBestandtheBrightest. NewYork.Random House.
Carey, Art,1991.TheUnited States Boston:
ofIncompetence. Houghton Mifflin. , David.,1986.TheReckoning. NewYork.Morrow.
Cohen,ElliotA. andJohnGooch,1990.Military TheAnatomy
Misfortunes: ofFailure Hall,Richard H., 1980."EffectivenessTheory andOrganizational Jour-
Effectiveness."
in War.NewYork:FreePress. nalofApplied Behavioral vol.16,pp.536-545.
Science,

376 Review* Ju/August

PublicAdministration Vol 54,No.4
1994,

This content downloaded from 185.2.32.89 on Sun, 15 Jun 2014 08:35:31 AM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
Hannan, Michael T. andJohnFreeman, 1977."ThePopulation EcologyofOrganiza- Rhea,Joseph C.,J.Steven Ott,andJayM. Shafritz, 1988.TheFactsonFileDictionary
tions."American JournalofSociology, vol.82,pp.929-964. ofHealthCareManagement. NewYork.FactsonFile.
, 1984."Structural InertiaandOrganizational Change." AmericanSociolog- Ruscoe,Gordon C., RobertL Fell,Kenneth T. Hunt,Stephen L. Merker,LorenaR.
icalReview, vol.49 (April),
pp.149-164. Peter,James S. Cary,James G. Miller, Bradford G. Loo,Robert W. Reed,and
, 1989.Organizational Ecology.
Cambridge, MA:Harvard UniversityPress. MarkI. Sturm, 1985."TheApplication ofLiving Systems Theory toU.S. Army
Herzberg, Frederick, 1968.'One MoreTime:HowDo You Motivate Employees?" Battalions." Behavioral vol.30,pp.7-50.
Science,
Harvard BusinessReview,vol.46 Uanuary/February), pp.53-62. GeraldR. andJeffrey
Salancik, Pfeffer, 1977."WhoGetsPower- andHowThey
Jensen, M. C., andW. H. Meckling, 1976."Agency CostsandtheTheory ofthe Hold On To It: A Strategic-.Contingency Modelof Power.'Organizational
Firm." Journal ofFinancial
Economics, vol.3,pp.305-360. Dynamics, vol.5,pp.2-21.
Juran,Joseph J.,1988.OnPlanningfor Quality.NewYork.Collier Macmillan. Schein,EdgarH., 1981."DoesJapanese Management Style Havea Message forAmeri-
Kast,Fremont E. andJames E. Rosenzweig, 1972.'General Systems Theory:Applica- canManagers?' SloanManagement Review,vol.23,pp.55-68.
tionsforOrganization and Management." Academy ofManagement Journal Shafritz, JayM. andJ.Steven Ott,1992a."Systems, Contingency, andPopulation
(December), pp.447-465. Ecology Organization Theory."InJayM. Shafritz andJ.Steven Ott,eds.,Classics
Keeley, Michael,1978."A Social-Justice Approach to OrganizationalEvaluation.' ofOrganization Theory3d ed.PacificGrove, CA:Brooks/Cole, pp.263-269.
Administrative Science
Quarterly, vol.23,pp.272-292. 1992b."TheOrganizational Behavior Perspective,or HumanResource
, 1984."Impartiality andParticipant-Interest
Theories ofOrganizational Theory." InJayM. Shafritz andJ.Steven Ott,eds.,ClassicsofOrganizationTheory
Effectiveness." AdministrativeScience vol.29 (March),
Quarterly, pp.1-25. 3ded.Pacific Grove, CA.Brooks/Cole, pp.143-149.
, 1988.A Social-Contract Theory ofOrganization.NotreDame,IN: Uni- Steers, Richard M. 1975."Problems in theMeasurement ofOrganizational Effective-
versityofNotreDamePress. ness."AdministrativeScience
Quarterly,vol.20 (December), pp.546-558.
Lyden, F.J.,1975."Using Parson's Functional Analysis
intheStudy ofPublicOrgani- Swiss, James E., 1992."Adapting TotalQuality Management (TQM) toGovernment."
zations." Administrative
Science vol.20,pp.59-70.
Quarterly, PublicAdministrationReview,vol.52 U(uly/August),
pp.356-362.
Marx,Groucho, 1967.TheGroucho Letters.
NewYork:Simon& Schuster. Thorndike,R. L., 1949.Personnel Selection:TestandMeasurement Techniques.New
Miller,James G., 1978.Living Systems. NewYork.McGraw-Hill. York:Wiley.
Miller,James G. andJessieL. Miller, 1991."A Living Systems AnalysisofOrganiza- Townsend, Robert, 1970.UptheOrganization. Greenwich, CT: Fawcett Crest.
tional Pathology." Behavioral Science,
vol.36,pp.239-252. Trice,Harrison M. andJanice M. Beyer, 1992.TheCultures ofWork Organizations.
Mitroff,Ian I., 1983.Stakeholdaes oftheOrganizational Mind.SanFrancisco: Jossey- Englewood Cliffs,NJ:Prentice-Hall.
Bass. Tuchman, Barbara, 1984.TheMarch ofFolly:FromTroy to Vitnam. NewYork: Alfred
Ott,J.Steven,1989. TheOrganizational Culture PacificGrove,CA:
Perspective. A. Knopf
Brooks/Cole. Tushman, MichaelL.,William H. Newman, andElaineRomanelli, 1986."Conver-
, 1993."Perspectives on Organizational Governance: SomeEffects on genceandUpheaval: Managing theUnsteady PaceofOrganizational Evolution."
Government-Nonprofit Relations." SoutheasternPolitical
Review,
vol.21,no.1,pp. Management
California vol.29,pp.29-44.
Review,
3-21. Wagenheim, GeorgeD. andJohnH. Reurink, 1991."Customer Servicein Public
Parsons,Talcott, 1960.Structure andProcessinModern Society.
Glencoe,IL: FreePress. Administration.' PublicAdministration
Review,vol.51 (May/June), pp.263-270.
Peter,Laurence J.andRaymond Hull,1969.ThePeter Principle.
NewYork.William Walton, Mary, 1986.TheDeming Management Method.NY:DoddMead.
Morrow. Welles,James F., 1986. Understanding Stupidity:AnAnalysis ofthePremaladaptive
Peters,
Thomas J.,1988.Thriving onChaos. NewYork:Knopf. BeliefandBehavior ofInstitutions
andOrganizations.Orient, NY:MountPleasant
Peters,
ThomasJ.andRobert H. Waterman, Jr.,1982.In Search ofExcellence.
New Press.
York:Harper & Row. _ , 1988.TheStory ofStupidity:A HistoryofWestern Idiocyfrom theDaysof
Rawls,John, 1971.A Theory oflustice. Cambridge, MA:Harvard UniversityPress. GreecetotheMoment YouSawThisBook. Orient,NY:MountPleasant Press.
Regan,Geoffrey, 1987.Great Military A Historical
Disasters: SurveyofMiitaryIncompe- Wyden, Peter,1979.BayofPigs.NewYork:Simon& Schuster.
tence.NewYork.M. Evans. Yuchtman,Ephraim andStanleyE. Seashore, 1967."ASystem Resource Approach to
Reissman,Leonard, 1949.'A Study ofRoleConceptions inBureaucracy."SocialForces, OrganizationalEffectiveness.'
American Sociological
Review,vol.32,pp.891-903.
vol.27,pp.305-310.

Toward
a Definition
ofOrganizational
Incompetence
377

This content downloaded from 185.2.32.89 on Sun, 15 Jun 2014 08:35:31 AM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions