Designing and Evaluating a Conceptual Model of Trained Incapacity in Public Organizations

Document Type : Original Article

Authors

1 MSc., Faculty of Literature and Human Sciences, Ilam of University, Ilam, Iran.

2 Associate Prof., Faculty of Literature and Human Sciences, Ilam of University, Ilam, Iran

3 Associate Prof., Faculty of Literature and Human Sciences, Ilam of University, Ilam, Iran.

Abstract

Background & Purpose: Although many years have passed since the phenomenon of Trained Incapacity was introduced in the field of human resource studies, its visible and hidden indicators has remained undiscovered. Accordingly, the purpose of this study is to explore the concept of Trained Incapacity in Iranian government organizations to achieve a deep understanding of the content of this phenomenon among experts in the administrative system.
Methodology: The research strategy was interpretive mapping of grounded theory and its participants were employees of government organizations in Ilam, Iran. Twenty people were interviewed through theoretical sampling method considering the theoretical saturation rule. The main data collection tool in the qualitative section was a semi-structured interview to enumerate the manifestations of the central phenomenon. And in the quantitative section, a researcher-made questionnaire was used to validate the emerging conceptual model. The validity of the interviews was assessed using two strategies of triangulation and peer review, and the reliability method between the two coders was considered to ensure the quality of the data.
Findings: The results showed that the trained incapacity is conceived and plotted in the form of a three-layer model. In the deepest conceptual layer, the five factors of Administrative panic formation, Inferiority Feeling, Institutionalization of job habits, Job in adequacy form the central phenomenon. The most obvious layer of trained incapacity is manifested in the form of behaviors such as Job Routineness, Job Regressionism, and Job immunization. Furthermore, the results of model validation through a sample test by considering the six indicators of comprehensiveness, brevity, uniqueness, coherence, fit with organizations and fit with the current needs of organizations indicated that the conceptual model has theoretical validity from the point of view of experts and informants.
Conclusion: Awareness of the indicators of the trained incapacity phenomenon in the environment of government organizations is an important step in increasing the knowledge of managers about lesser known phenomena in the context of the dark edge of organizational behavior discourse. Strategies proposed in this field can also provide the necessary platform to reduce its effects on the body of organizations.

Keywords

References

Adler, P. S., Borys, B. (1996). Two types of bureaucracy: Enabling and coercive. Administrative
Science Quarterly, 41(1), 61-89.
Allinson, C.W. (1984). Bureaucratic Personality and Organization Structure. Gower,
Aldershot.
Amabile, T. M. (1988). A Model of Creativity and Innovation in Organizations. In B.M. Straw
and L.L. Cummings (EDS). Research in Organizational Behavior, 10, 123-167.
Amadi, F. A. (2015). Rigidity of News Routines and Social Meaning Construction in Nigeria: a
Reimagination. European Scientific Journal August, 11 (23), 384-394.
Benveniste, G. (1983). Bureaucracy, 2d ed. (San Francisco: Boyd and Fraser Publishing Co).
Bozeman, B., Rainey, H. G. (1998). Organizational Rules and the "Bureaucratic Personality".
American Journal of Political Science, 42(1), 163-189.
Burke, K. (1935). Permanence and Change: An Anatomy of Purpose. University of California.
Chipea, F., Banciu, V. (2013). Bureaucracy Versus New Administrative Management. Annals of
University of Oradea, Fascicle Sociology-Philosophy & Social Work, 12: 5-13.
Cohen, B. (1970). Bureaucratic Flexibility: Some Comments on Robert Merton's 'Bureaucratic
Structure and Personality'. The British Journal of Sociology, 21 (4), 390-399.
Creswell, J. (2012). Qualitative inquiry and research design: choosing among five approaches,
Safar & Eshraghi: Tehran. (in Persian)
Crozier, M. (1961). Power Relationships in Modern Bureaucracies. Indian Journal of Public
Administration, 7 (1), 32-38.
Dalton, D. R., Todor, W. D. (1979). Turnover Turned Over: An Expanded and Positive
Perspective. Academy of Management Review, 4 (2), 225-235.
Denhardt, B. R. (1968). Bureaucratic Socialization and Organizational Accommodation.
Administrative Science Quarterly, 13 (3), 441-450.
Depasquale, J. P0, Scott, G. (1999). Critical Success Factors for Behavior Based Safety: A
Study of Twenty Industry wide Application. Journal of Safety Research, 30 (4), 237-249.
Dorn, C. (2013). An Ecological Approach to Writing Center Studies. Published by ProQuest
LLC.
Dubin, R. (1970). Management in Britain — Impressionsofa Visiting Professor. Management
Studies, 7, 183-198.
Faghihi, A., Danaeefard, H. (2016). Bureaucracy & Development in Iran (A Comparative/
Historical Apporach), Imam Sadiq University, Tehran. (in Persian)
Faghihi, A., Vaezi, R., Aghaz, A. (2011). Bureaucracy and Culture in Iran. Journal of Iranian
Academy of Management science, 5 (19), 1-32. (in Persian)
Fredericks, M., Kondellas, B., Hang, L., Fredericks, J., Rosse, M. W. (2011). Chiropractic
physicians: toward a select conceptual understanding of bureaucratic structures and
functions in the health care institution. Journal of Chiropractic Humanities, 18, 64-73.
Gouldner, A. W. (1954). Patterns of Industrial Bureaucracy. The Free Press.
Grant, M. (2014). The Bureaucratic Personality and Implications for Individuals and
Organizations. University of the West Indies: Mona.
Hall, R. A. (1960). Thorstein Veblen and Linguistic Theory, Journal of American Speech, 35
(2), 124-130.
Herzfeld, M. (1993). The social production of indifference: exploring the symbolic roots of
Western bureaucracy. University of Chicago press.
Hicks, H. G., & Ray, G. C. (1995). Organization, theory and behaviour. NewDelhi: Mac Graw
Hill International Book.
Hudson, M. (2012). Veblen’s Institutionalist Elaboration of Rent Theory. Levy Economics
Institute. Working Paper, No. 656.
Hughes, O. (2003). Public Management and Administration: An Introduction (3rd ed.).
Basingstoke: Macmillan.
Huntington, S. P. (1957). Conservatism as an Ideology. American Political Science Review, 51
(2), 454-473.
Jack, J. (2004). The piety of degradation: Kenneth Burke, the bureau of social hygiene, and
Permanence and Change. Quarterly Journal of Speech, 90 (4), 446-468.
Jung, J., Bozeman, B., Gaughan, M. (2018). Fear in Bureaucracy: Comparing Public and Private
Sector Workers’ Expectations of Punishment. Administration & Society, 52 (2), 233-264.
Khastar, H. (2009). A Method for Calculating Coding Reliability in Qualitative Research
Interviews. Journal of Quarterly Journal of Methodology of Social Sciences and
Humanities, 15 (58), 161-174. (in Persian)
Kramer, R. (2007). How Might Action Learning Be Used to Develop the Emotional Intelligence
and Leadership Capacity of Public Administrators? Journal of Public Affairs Education,
13 (2), 205-242.
Kvale, S. (1996). Interviews: An Introduction to Qualitative Research Interviewing. Thousand
Oaks: Sage.
Langer, J., Feeney, M. K., Lee, S. E. (2017). Employee Fit and Job Satisfaction in Bureaucratic
and Entrepreneurial Work Environments. Review of Public Personnel Administration, 39
(1), 135-155.
McAuley, J., Duberley, J. & Johnson, P. (2017). Organization Theory; Challenges and
Perspective, Imam Sadiq University, Tehran. (in Persian)
Merton, R. K. (1940). Bureaucratic Structure and Personality. Social Forces, 18 (4), 560-568.
Merton, R. K. (1968). Social Theory and Social Structure. New York: The Free Press.
Moynihan, D. P. (2005). Goal-Based Learning and the Future of Performance Management.
Public Administration Review, 65 (2), 203-216.
Newton, K. & Deth, J. (2013). Foundations of Comparative Politics. Cambridge [et al.]:
Cambridge University Press.
Papson, S. (1985). Bureaucratic Discourse and the Presentation of Self as Spectacle. Humanity
& Society, 9 (3), 223-236.
Parker, R., & Bradley, L. (2004). Bureaucracy or Post-Bureaucracy? Public Sector
Organisations in a Changing Context. The Asia Pacific Journal of Public Administration,
26 (2), 197-215.
Rockart, S. & Mitchell, W. (2009). High Point or hobgoblin? Consistrncy and Performance in
Organization. Working paper. Princeton.
Saburi, M. (2009). Sociology Of Organizations, Shabtab, Tehran. (in Persian)
Schut, M., Moelker, R. (2015). Respectful Agents: Between the Scylla and Charybdis of
Cultural and Moral Incapacity. Journal of Military Ethics, 14 (3-4), 232-246.
Scott, P. G. S., Pandey, K. P. (2005). Red Tape and Public Service Motivation. Review of Public
Personnel Administration, 25 (2), 155-180.
Scott, P. G. (2002). Examining red tape in public and private organizations: a further look at the
role of individual perceptions and attributes. The Social Science Journal, 39 (2002), 477-
482.
Shafritz, M, JR., & Hyde, A, C. (2011). Classics of Public Administration, Wadsworth
Publishing Company.
Singhi, N. K. (1974). Bureaucracy, Positions and Persons: Role Structures, interactions and
Value-orientations of Bureaucrats in Rajasthan. New Delhi: Abhinav Publications.
Stroud, S. R. (2014). John Dewey, Kenneth Burke, and the Role of Orientation in Rhetoric.
University of South Carolina Press.
Veblen, T. (1899). The Theory of the Leisure Class. New York: MacMillan.
Veblen, T. (1914). The Instinct of Workmanship and the State of the Industrial Arts. New York:
MacMillan.
Veblen, T. (1918). The Higher Learning In America: A Memorandum On the Conduct of
Universities By Business Men. New York: B. W. Huebsch.
Wais, E. (2005). Trained Incapacity: Thorstein Veblen and Kenneth Burke. KB Journal, 2 (1),
1-8.
Watson, C. (2019). Perspective by incongruity in the performance of dialectical ironic analysis:
a disciplined approach. Qualitative Research, 20 (1), 91-107.
Whetten, D. A. (1981). Organizational Responses to Scarcity: Exploring the Obstacles to
Innovative Approaches.to Retrenchment in Education. Educational Administration
Quarterly, 17 (3), 80-97.
Winter, M. (2011). The Development of a Bureaucratic Personality - Consequences for
Organizational Learning. GRIN Publishing.
Wood, R. C. (1970). When Government Works. In Public interest.18, 39-51.

Files

History

  • Receive Date: 11 February 2021
  • Revise Date: 03 March 2022
  • Accept Date: 03 May 2021

Share

How to cite

Statistics