Does management by objectives stifle organizational innovation in the public sector?

Abstract. Does management by objectives stifle organizational innovation in the public sector? The authors explore this possibility by describing five common characteristics of mbo and then contrasting them with four characteristics of innovative organizations. The comparison suggests that mbo -pressures lead to organizational stress that is often resolved by the creation of two working environments; one for the pursuit of innovative objectives, and one for the pursuit of regular objectives. This could lead to dysfunctionalism in the form of abandoned objectives-objectives that might have been achieved if mbo were not used. The authors conclude with four implications for public-sector managers: (1) the practice of including innovation objectives along with traditional objectives in the same set of objectives is questionable; (2) broader objectives, perhaps pointing in the general direction of the innovations sought, might be more productive in some cases than specific objectives; (3) possible incompatibility between mbo and innovation might be lessened if innovative ventures are pursued in ad hoc organizational structures; and (4) management by objectives and innovation are not necessarily compatible.     

Diversity as a policy goal: The case of television

Diversity in communications is most appropriately understood as a free flow of ideas. In order to implement diversity, a comprehensive model of the communication process must be used for policy research, so that the various participants in the process can be properly restrained from abridging the free flow of ideas. The setting of priorities for implementing diversity has been illustrated using available studies of broadcast and cable television.     

The ordinary and the extraordinary in institutional litigation

Institutional litigation, in which courts are requested to oversee the operation of large public institutions, has been frequently attacked as a departure from the traditional model of litigation. In this Article, Professors Eisenberg and Yeazell argue that the procedures and remedies employed in institutional litigation are not unprecedented but have analogues in older judicial traditions. Nor, they assert, do the doctrines of separation of powers and federalism present any obstacles to institutional litigation. They conclude that the novelty lies in the newly created substantive rights which courts are asked to enforce.