Refine
Document Type
- Article (6)
- Part of a Book (3)
- Doctoral Thesis (3)
- Monograph/Edited Volume (2)
- Postprint (2)
Is part of the Bibliography
- yes (16)
Keywords
- coordination (16) (remove)
Invisible iterations: how formal and informal organization shape knowledge networks for coordination
(2024)
This study takes a network approach to investigate coordination among knowledge workers as grounded in both formal and informal organization. We first derive hypotheses regarding patterns of knowledge-sharing relationships by which workers pass on and exchange tacit and codified knowledge within and across organizational hierarchies to address the challenges that underpin contemporary knowledge work. We use survey data and apply exponential random graph models to test our hypotheses. We then extend the quantitative network analysis with insights from qualitative interviews and demonstrate that the identified knowledge-sharing patterns are the micro-foundational traces of collective coordination resulting from two underlying coordination mechanisms which we label ‘invisible iterations’ and ‘bringing in the big guns’. These mechanisms and, by extension, the associated knowledge-sharing patterns enable knowledge workers to perform in a setting that is characterized by complexity, uncertainty and ambiguity. Our research contributes to theory on the interplay between formal and informal organization for coordination by showing how self-directed, informal action is supported by the formal organizational hierarchy. In doing so, it also extends understanding of the role that hierarchy plays for knowledge-intensive work. Finally, it establishes the collective need to coordinate work as a previously overlooked driver of knowledge network relationships and network patterns. © 2024 The Authors. Journal of Management Studies published by Society for the Advancement of Management Studies and John Wiley & Sons Ltd.
Despite the high hopes associated with public sector digitalization, especially in times of crisis, it does not yet hold up to its potential. Both the negotiation and implementation of digitalization policy presents a challenge for all levels of government, requiring extensive coordination efforts. In general, there are conflicting views if more centralized or decentralized policy processes are more effective for coordination—a tension further exacerbated in the context of digitalization policy within multilevel systems, where the imperative of standardization collides with decentralization forces inherent in federalism.
Based on the analysis of expert interviews (n = 29), this chapter examines how digitalization policy in the context of the German federal intergovernmental relations context is located and negotiated, and how this relates to local policy implementation. Focusing on the decentralized German tax administration as a case study, the analysis reveals a shift from a conflicted to a multi-layered policy process, underpinned by a mechanism of “concentration without centralization.” Strategic and operational competencies are bundled in an institutionalized and legally regulated network for digitalization to achieve necessary standardization of digital infrastructure. Furthermore, the research emphasizes the influence of intergovernmental relations on local implementation and the associated challenges and opportunities.
Migrant integration is a prime example of intergovernmental coordination and multilevel governance; first because no level of government can carry out this task alone, and second because its cross-cutting nature often leads to fragmented institutional structures that must be overcome. Within the research strand of intergovernmental relations (IGR), the focus has been on executive actors and governmental decision-makers, resulting in an underexposure of the role of public administration, known as inter-administrative relations (IAR). Against this backdrop, we aim to remedy some of the deficits in IGR research by (1) adopting an explicit IAR perspective which systematically addresses the role of local governments; (2) including a comparative dimension in IAR research that accounts for different administrative ‘starting conditions’ in European countries; and (3) using the policy area of migrant integration as a case in point to empirically investigate developments of institutional convergence and divergence in IAR patterns. It is argued that the coordination of migrant integration in the three countries examined has moved towards more intergovernmental coordination, on the one hand, and that the role of municipalities in this context has been enhanced—varying degrees of (de-)centralization notwithstanding. While certain convergent patterns of inter-governmental coordination have become apparent during the migration crisis, historical path dependencies and administrative cultures still appear to be factors that influence institutional development.
This open access book assesses the consequences of contemporary economic and political crises for intergovernmental relations in Europe. Focusing on the crises arising from the Covid-19 pandemic, climate change, surges in migration, and the resurgence of regional nationalist movements, it explores the shifting power balances within intergovernmental relations’ systems. The book takes a comparative analytical perspective on how intergovernmental relations are changing across Europe, and how central governments have responded to coordination challenges as recent crises have disrupted established service delivery chains and their underpinning political and bureaucratic arrangements. It also examines the relationship between recent crises and the sub-national resurgence of territorial politics in many European countries. The book will appeal to those with interests in public administration, sub-national governance and European politics.
Im vorliegenden Band wird das lokale Integrationsmanagement in Deutschland, Frankreich und Schweden vergleichend untersucht. Im Mittelpunkt stehen Verflechtungsstrukturen, Koordination und Leistungsfähigkeit der Integrationsverwaltung mit besonderem Fokus auf den Entwicklungen nach der Flüchtlingskrise von 2015/16. Auf der Grundlage von Fallstudien und Experteninterviews in den drei Ländern wird das institutionelle Zusammenspiel von Akteuren im Mehrebenensystem und im lokalen Raum analysiert. Dabei werden jeweils die nationalen Rahmenbedingungen, lokalen Gestaltungsvarianten und krisenbedingten Herausforderungen des Integrationsmanagement kommunen- und ländervergleichend in den Blick genommen. Gestützt auf illustrative Praxisbeispiele und Tiefeneinblicke in die lokalen Handlungsprobleme leitet die Studie Lehren und Empfehlungen für eine Optimierung des Integrationsmanagements und eine krisenresilientere Verwaltungsorganisation in diesem Aufgabenbereich ab.
This article is aimed at analysing local and intergovernmental responses to the COVID-19 pandemic in Germany during the ‘first wave’ of the pandemic. It will answer the question of how the intergovernmental system in Germany responded to the crisis and to what extent the pandemic has changed patterns of multi-level governance (MLG). The article argues that the coordination of pandemic management in Germany shifted between two ideal types of multi-level governance. While in the first phase of the pandemic the territorially defined multi-level system with the sub-national and local authorities as key actors of crisis management was predominant, in the second phase a more functional orientation with increased vertical coordination gained in importance. Later on, more reliance was given again on local decision-making. Based on this analysis, we will draw some preliminary conclusions on how effective MLG in Germany has been for coordinating pandemic management and point out the shortcomings.
This study evaluates the challenges, institutional impacts and responses of German local authorities to the COVID-19 pandemic from a political science point of view. The main research question is how they have contributed to combat the COVID-19 pandemic and to what extent the strengths and weaknesses of the German model of municipal autonomy have influenced their policy. It analyses the adaptation strategies of German local authorities and assesses the effectiveness of their actions up to now. Their implementation is then evaluated in five selected issues, e.g. adjustment organization and staff, challenges for local finances, local politics and citizen’s participation. This analysis is reflecting the scientific debate in Germany since the beginning of 2020, based on the available analyses of political science, law, economics, sociology and geography until end of March 2021.
Turkish is a language described as relying predominantly on non-finite subordination in the domain of clause combining. However, there are also strategies of finite subordination, as well as means of syndetic and asyndetic paratactic clause combining, especially in the informal settings.
Clause combining is and has been one of the focal points of research on heritage Turkish (h-Turkish).
One point is particularly clear: In comparison with the monolingual setting, finite means of clause combining are more frequent in h-Turkish in Germany, the U.S., and the Netherlands, while non-finite means of clause combining are less frequent.
Overall, our results confirm the findings of earlier studies: heritage speakers in Germany and the U.S. prefer paratactic means of clause combining using connectors, as opposed to monolingual speakers.
Our results also reveal that age (adolescents vs. adults) and register (informal vs. formal) significantly modulate the use of connectors.
Moreover, we find that the shift in preferences in means of clause combining triggers an expansion in the system of connectors and leads to the development of new narrative connectors, such as o zaman and derken.
The system of syndetic paratactic clause combining is expanding in heritage Turkish. This expansion calls for multifaceted modeling of change in heritage languages, which integrates language-internal factors (register), dynamics of convergence with the contact languages, and extra-linguistic factors (age and language use).
Field-based sports require athletes to run sub-maximally over significant distances, often while contending with dynamic perturbations to preferred coordination patterns. The ability to adapt movement to maintain performance under such perturbations appears to be trainable through exposure to task variability, which encourages movement variability. The aim of the present study was to investigate the extent to which various wearable resistance loading magnitudes alter coordination and induce movement variability during running. To investigate this, 14 participants (three female and 11 male) performed 10 sub-maximal velocity shuttle runs with either no weight, 1%, 3%, or 5% of body weight attached to the lower limbs. Sagittal plane lower limb joint kinematics from one complete stride cycle in each run were assessed using functional data analysis techniques, both across the participant group and within-individuals. At the group-level, decreases in ankle plantarflexion following toe-off were evident in the 3% and 5% conditions, while increased knee flexion occurred during weight acceptance in the 5% condition compared with unloaded running. At the individual-level, between-run joint angle profiles varied, with six participants exhibiting increased joint angle variability in one or more loading conditions compared with unloaded running. Loading of 5% decreased between-run ankle joint variability among two individuals, likely in accordance with the need to manage increased system load or the novelty of the task. In terms of joint coordination, the most considerable alterations to coordination occurred in the 5% loading condition at the hip-knee joint pair, however, only a minority of participants exhibited this tendency. Coaches should prescribe wearable resistance individually to perturb preferred coordination patterns and encourage movement variability without loading to the extent that movement options become limited.
Organizing immigration
(2020)
Immigration constitutes a dynamic policy field with – often quite unpredictable – dynamics. This is based on immigration constituting a ‘wicked problem’ meaning that it is characterized by uncertainty, ambiguity and complexity. Due to the dynamics in the policy field, expectations towards public administrations often change. Following neo-institutionalist theory, public administrations depend on meeting the expectations in the organizational field in order to maintain legitimacy as the basis for, e.g., resources and compliance of stakeholders. With the dynamics in the policy field, expectations might change and public administrations consequently need to adapt in order to maintain or repair the then threatened legitimacy. If their organizational legitimacy is threatened by a perception of structures and processes being inadequate for changed expectations, an ‘institutional crisis’ unfolds. However, we know little about ministerial bureaucracies’ structural reactions to such crucial momentums and how this effects the quest for coordination within policy-making. Overall, the dissertation thus links to both policy analysis and public administration research and consists of five publications. It asks: How do structures in ministerial bureaucracies change in the context of institutional crises? And what effect do these changes have on ministerial coordination? The dissertation hereby focusses on the above described dynamic policy field of immigration in Germany in the period from 2005 to 2017 and pursues three objectives: 1) to identify the context and impulse for changes in the structures of ministerial bureaucracies, 2) to describe respective changes with regard to their organizational structures, and 3) to identify their effect on coordination. It hereby compares and contrasts institutional crises by incremental change and shock as well as changes and effects at federal and Länder level which allows a comprehensive answer to both of the research questions. Theoretically, the dissertation follows neo-institutionalist theory with a particular focus on changes in organizational structures, coordination and crisis management. Methodologically, it follows a comparative design. Each article (except for the literature review), focusses on ministerial bureaucracies at one governmental level (federal or Länder) and on an institutional crisis induced by either an incremental process or a shock. Thus, responses and effects can be compared and contrasted across impulses for institutional crises and governmental levels. Overall, the dissertation follows a mixed methods approach with a majority of qualitative single and small-n case studies based on document analysis and semi-structured interviews. Additionally, two articles use quantitative methods as they best suited the respective research question. The rather explorative nature of these two articles however fits to the overall interpretivist approach of the dissertation. Overall, the dissertation’s core argument is: Within the investigation period, varying dynamics and thus impulses for institutional crises took place in the German policy field of immigration. Respectively, expectations by stakeholders on how the politico-administrative system should address the policy problem changed. Ministerial administrations at both the federal and Länder level adapted to these expectations in order to maintain, or regain respectively, organizational legitimacy. The administration hereby referred to well-known recipes of structural changes. Institutional crises do not constitute fields of experimentation. The new structures had an immediate effect on ministerial coordination, with respect to both the horizontal and vertical dimension. Yet, they did not mean a comprehensive change of the system in place. The dissertation thus challenges the idea of the toppling effect of crises and rather shows that adaptability and persistence of public administrations constitute two sides of the same coin.