Institutional Pressures and Symbolic Displays in a GAO Context - United States General Accounting Office

Organization Studies, May, 2000 by Mark W. Dirsmith, Timothy J. Fogarty, Parveen Gupta

Abstract

Two key organizational properties have long been studied: (1) the manner in which instrumental work processes are performed, and (2) the symbolic display of rational practice in response to institutional pressures. However, the relationship between these properties has proven to be contentious. For example, at different times, the sociology of professions, institutional theory and loose coupling perspectives have proposed that they should be decoupled and then loosely coupled with one another. Extending beyond these contending propositions, it has also been reasoned that a duality inheres in many elements of organizational structure such that they may be simultaneously instrumental and symbolic in character.

To evaluate the relationship among institutional pressures, instrumental work processes and coordination practices, we administered a questionnaire to audit teams in the US General Accounting Office (GAO). Statistical results, augmented with field interviews, suggest that instrumental work processes are loosely coupled with, rather than decoupled from, institutional pressures and their attendant symbolic displays of rational practice. Extending beyond the loose coupling concept, we also found that institutional pressures incite the symbolic facets of instrumental tasks and coordination practices, while GAO professional activities both embody and incite the instrumental facets of institutional pressures. Implications for future research in alternative organizational contexts are explored.

Descriptors: institutionalization, coordination, technical work, symbolic displays, loose coupling, professionalization

Introduction

Although researchers have long recognized the importance of both instrumental work processes and the symbolic display of rational organizational practice in response to institutional pressures, we know relatively little about how they relate to one another. The sociology of professions (e.g. Abbott 1988; Freidson 1986) and institutional theory perspectives (e.g. Meyer and Rowan 1977; DiMaggio and Powell 1983, 1991) have theorized at different times that instrumental work processes may be decoupled from or loosely coupled with institutional pressures and the attendant symbolic display of rational practice. In addition, confusion has arisen as to which organizational properties are instrumental for actually performing work processes and which are symbolic in nature. It has also been proposed that some properties may be simultaneously instrumental and symbolic (Pfeffer 1981; Fombrun 1986). Not surprisingly, criticism has been levelled that the use of these constructs has been imprecise and underspecified, thus l eading to equivocal empirical results (Orton and Weick 1990).

The relationship between instrumental and symbolic organizational properties is, however, more than merely an interesting research issue. It concerns the practical human affairs of everyday work in contemporary organizations. One such organization is the US General Accounting Office (GAO), which has audit oversight responsibility for the Federal Government's annual budget and national debt (GAO 1995). Established in 1921, the GAO stands as a classic professional bureaucracy (Mintzberg 1979, 1989; DiMaggio and Powell 1991; Scott 1992). Its professional employees, who are organized into teams that are reconfigured for each audit, are subject to administrative rules that channel and constrain their actions, and yet permit them to exercise individual discretion and autonomy. Their work remains subject to routine coordination as the GAO's own codified auditing standards require (GAO 1988: 37). Nevertheless, as an agency of the Federal Government, the GAO must take pains to demonstrate to such external constituents as Congress, the public, the media and administrators of the agencies audited that it performs its audit oversight function in a rational manner via its symbolic displays (Meyer and Rowan 1977, Gupta et al. 1994). However, what if the institutional pressures were to influence the GAO's instrumental work performed by its professionals? The viability of the GAO as an institution and the efficacy of its everyday work processes would be threatened.

Our purpose is to examine the interrelationship between instrumental work processes and symbolic displays within the GAO. Our paper is organized into four sections. In the first section, the sociology of professions, institutional theory and the loose-coupling perspectives are discussed in more detail and a central research question is derived. The second section describes our research methods while the third presents empirical results. Finally, implications are examined in the fourth section.

Connections and Disconnections Within Institutionalized, Professional Organizations

The Sociology of Professions

One can characterize the GAO as a heteronomous, professional bureaucracy (Mintzberg 1979, 1989; Scott 1992: 254-255). As such, the GAO's instrumental work processes are performed primarily by professionals whose activities are circumscribed by codified organizational standards. Within professional bureaucracies like the GAO, the issue of coordinating professional practitioners appears to be contradictory, and, as a result, the relationship between instrumental work processes and symbolic displays is underspecified in terms of it being decoupled versus loosely coupled. On the one hand, the diverse types of entities subject to GAO audits, and the types of expertise that its auditors must apply, suggest the need for both individual professional judgement, and some measure of autonomy. One finds this theme expressed in the more orthodox work on the professions where professional endeavour tends to be associated with a diminished need for bureaucratic rules and a greater reliance on social forms of coordination, c redentials, professional culture and the internalization of appropriate norms by the practitioner. It is reasoned that professional judgement and autonomy are so central that the imposition of bureaucratic coordination can create professional--bureaucratic conflict and can lead to dysfunctional behaviour (Benveneste 1987; Raelin 1986; Mintzberg 1979, 1989).