The reciprocal dynamics of organizing and sense‐making in the implementation of major public‐sector reforms

Abstract: Drawing on a longitudinal study from the early years of implementation of health‐care networks in Quebec, this article describes how public‐sector managers deal with complex challenges when both organizational structures and organizational strategies are radically transformed simultaneously. The new organizations studied had to completely re‐shuffle roles and responsibilities of their management teams while making sense of their new mandate of developing a population‐focused approach to health problems – all the time maintaining day‐to‐day operations. The four health‐care networks studied proceeded somewhat differently to meet these reciprocal challenges. The study reveals the importance of balancing organizing initiatives (focused on structures) with “sense‐making” initiatives (focused on strategies), of developing capacities for sense‐making through the creation of key “sense‐maker/sense‐giver” positions whose occupants are able to ensure that conceptual activities engage people working at different levels, even as organizational structures are in flux, and of mobilizing external constraints and influences as opportunities and resources in sense‐making and organizing. Sommaire : Se fondant sur une étude longitudinale des premières années de la mise en œuvre des réseaux de soins de santé au Québec, cet article décrit la manière dont les gestionnaires du secteur public font face à des défis complexes, alors que les structures et les stratégies organisationnelles sont radicalement transformées simultanément. Les nouveaux organismes étudiés ont dû complètement remanier les rôles et les responsabilités de leurs équipes de gestion et comprendre leur nouveau mandat d'élaborer une approche axée sur la population pour ce qui est des problèmes de santé, tout en maintenant leurs activités au jour le jour. Les quatre réseaux de soins de santéétudiés ont travailléà relever ces défis réciproques d'une manière assez différente. L'étude révèle l'importance de trouver un équilibre entre les initiatives consistant à organiser (axées sur les structures) et les initiatives consistant à interpréter les faits (axées sur les stratégies) ; de perfectionner les capacités à interpréter les faits grâce à la création de postes clés d'«interpréteurs de faits», dont les titulaires veilleraient à ce que des activités conceptuelles fassent intervenir les gens travaillant à différents niveaux même lorsque les structures organisationnelles fluctuent continuellement; et enfin de tirer parti des contraintes et influences externes comme autant d'occasions et de ressources pour interpréter et organiser les faits.     

Really Responsive Regulation

Really Responsive Regulation seeks to add to current theories of enforcement by stressing the case for regulators to be responsive not only to the attitude of the regulated firm but also to the operating and cognitive frameworks of firms; the institutional environment and performance of the regulatory regime; the different logics of regulatory tools and strategies; and to changes in each of these elements. The approach pervades all the different tasks of enforcement activity: detecting undesirable or non-compliant behaviour; developing tools and strategies for responding to that behaviour; enforcing those tools and strategies; assessing their success or failure; and modifying them accordingly. The value of the approach is shown by outlining its potential application to UK environmental and fisheries controls. Putting the system into effect is itself challenging but failing to regulate really responsively can constitute an expensive process of shooting in the dark.     

What Do We Mean by ‘Rethinking Regulation’?

This article identifies and discusses several different conceptions of regulatory reform. It subsequently looks at available evidence on trends in regulatory burdens and on the results of regulatory reform activity undertaken over the past 30 years. Thirdly, it identifies and briefly discusses the range of tools that are typically employed in implementing regulatory reform policies. It then examines some of the regulatory problems that implementation of the reform agenda has itself brought forth. It concludes with some comments which seek to assess the report of the Better Regulation Taskforce in the context of the broad overview of regulatory reform set out in the preceding sections of the article.