Institutional implications of organizational discretion. The case of social assistance

Author/s Paolo Rossi
Publishing Year 2013 Issue 2013/1 Language Italian
Pages 26 P. 87-112 File size 524 KB
DOI 10.3280/SO2013-001004
DOI is like a bar code for intellectual property: to have more infomation click here

Below, you can see the article first page

If you want to buy this article in PDF format, you can do it, following the instructions to buy download credits

Article preview

FrancoAngeli is member of Publishers International Linking Association, Inc (PILA), a not-for-profit association which run the CrossRef service enabling links to and from online scholarly content.

The article proposes a discussion of institutional implications of organizational discretion. This topic has been the subject of a number of empirical studies and the focus of prescriptive theories of organizational design as well. Discretion is a variable which accounts for the differentiation of both the overall action of an organization and the behaviour of its members. It represents neither a limitation nor an inadequacy of organizational structures, but an intrinsic dimension of organizing processes. On these bases, the article analyses the implications of organizational discretion in the sector of social assistance. This sector offers many opportunities for the study of organizational discretion. The institutional arrangement of governance of social assistance policies allows a great autonomy for those organizations (especially Municipalities) who hold the responsibility for the local coordination of the delivery of social services. The implications of this decentralization are particularly relevant in the assessment of the eligibility of applicants for social services. The discretionary power of Municipalities affects the institutional dimension of their action: their institutional mission is shaped both in its form and meaning by the effects of situated organizational practices and decisions. The article presents the findings of an empirical research made of three case studies, conducted in three different Municipalities, focussed on the analysis of the local regulation of the access of citizens to social services. The service of social secretariat, provided by Municipalities in order to inform citizens about social services they are entitled to and select individual applications, has been the focal point of the study. The findings point out the incidence of organizational discretion in the configuration of the service of social secretariat. Organizational discretion produces differentiation in the realization of the service and this brings about a subsequent differentiation of options and opportunities of access to social services. The analysis of organizational discretion in the three cases stresses the relevance of contextual factors, related to the history and the organizational culture of each Municipality and the interplay with some categories of stakeholders (users and political representatives firstly). Organizational discretion is thus the source of different institutional and organizational logics of action in the regulation of the access to social services: in the first case, the Municipality aims at promoting and broadening the options of access; in the second case, the Municipality emphasizes the control of demand in order to prioritize most urgent situations; in the third case, the Municipality is involved in the reorganization of the social secretariat, in order to provide a more professional service to citizens.

Keywords: Organizational discretion, access to services, social secretariat.

  1. Abrahamson, E. (1996), “Management Fashion”, Academy of Management Review, 21(1), 254-285.
  2. Allegri, E., Palmieri, P., Zucca, F. (2006), Il colloquio nel servizio sociale, Roma, Carocci.
  3. Alvesson, M. (1990), “Organization: From Substance to Image?”, Organization Studies, vol. 11, 373-394.
  4. Anfossi, L. (1995), “Il segretariato sociale nella realtà attuale”, Servizi sociali, vol. 2, 22-30.
  5. Anfossi, L. (2005), “Segretariato sociale”, in Dal Pra Ponticelli M. (a cura di), Dizionario di servizio sociale, Roma, Carocci.
  6. Ascoli, U., Ranci, C. (a cura di) (2003), Il welfare mix in Europa, Roma, Carocci.
  7. Bergmark, Å., Minas, R. (2011), “Actors and Governance Arrangements in the Field of Social Assistance”, in Kazepov Y. (a cura di), Rescaling Social Policies: Towards Multilevel Governance in Europe (pp. 241-273), Farnham, Ashgate.
  8. Binder, A. (2007), “For Love and Money: Organizations’ Creative Responses to Multiple Environmental Logics”, Theory and Society, Vol. 36, No. 6, 547-571.
  9. Bjerregaard, T. (2011), “Institutional change at the frontlines. A comparative ethnography of divergent responses to institutional demands”, Qualitative Research in Organizations and Management: An International Journal, Vol. 6, No. 1, 26-45.
  10. Bobbio, L. (2005), “Governance multilivello e democrazia”, La Rivista delle Politiche Sociali, n. 2(51-62).
  11. Brodkin, E.Z., Majmundar, M. (2010), “Administrative Exclusion: Organizations and the Hidden Costs of Welfare Claiming”, of Public Administration Research and Theory, 20 (4), 827-848. Brodkin, E.Z. (2011), “Policy Work: Street-Level Organizations Under New Managerialism”, Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 21 (suppl 2), 253-277.
  12. Bruni, A., Fasol R., Gherardi, S. (2007), L’accesso ai servizi sanitari. Traiettorie, differenze, disuguaglianze, Roma, Carocci.
  13. Campanini, A. (2002), L’intervento sistemico. Un modello operativo per il servizio sociale, Roma, Carocci.
  14. Centemeri, L., de Leonardis, O., Monteleone, R. (2006), “Amministrazioni pubbliche e Terzo Settore nel welfare locale. La territorializzazione delle politiche sociali tra delega e cogestione”, Studi Organizzativi, n° 6, 145-169.
  15. Child, J. (1972), “Organization structure, environment and performance: The role of strategic choice”, Sociology, 6, 1-22.
  16. Costa, G. (a cura di) (2009), La solidarietà frammentata. Le leggi regionali sul welfare a confronto, Milano, Bruno Mondadori.
  17. Costa, G. (2009), “Quale giustizia in un welfare frammentato? Tra ricerca di uguaglianza e attenzione al territorio”, in Costa G. (a cura di), La solidarietà frammentata. Le leggi regionali sul welfare a confronto, Milano, Bruno Mondadori.
  18. Crozier, M. (1963), Le phénoméne bureaucratique, Paris, Editions du Seuil (trad. it. Il fenomeno burocratico, Etas Kompass, Milano 1969).
  19. Czarniawska, B. (1997), Narrating the Organization. Dramas of Institutional Identity, Chicago, The University of Chicago Press ( Narrare l’organizzazione. La costruzione dell’identità istituzionale, Edizioni di Comunità, Torino 2000).
  20. DiMaggio, P.J., Powell, W.W. (1983), “The Iron Cage Revisited: Institutional Isomorphism and Collective Rationality in Organizational Fields”, American Sociological Review, 48, 147-160.
  21. DiMaggio, P.J. (1988), “Interest and agency in institutional theory”, in Zucker, L.G. (a cura di), Institutional patterns and organizations: Culture and environment, Cambridge, Ballinger.
  22. Dubois, V. (2010), The Bureacrat and the Poor. Encounter in French Welfare Offices, Farnham, Ashgate.
  23. Dworkin, R. (1977), Taking Rights Seriously, Cambridge, Harvard University Press.
  24. Ellis, K. (2011), “‘Street-level Bureacracy’ Revisited: The Changing Face of Frontline Discretion in Adult Social Care in England”, Social Policy and Administration, Vol. 45, No. 3, 221-244.
  25. Evans, T., Harris, J. (2004), “Street-Level Bureaucracy, Social Work and the (Exaggerated) Death of Discretion”, British Journal of Social Work, Vol. 34, No. 6, 871-895.
  26. Ferrario, P. (2001), Politica dei servizi sociali. Strutture, trasformazioni, legislazione, Roma, Carocci.
  27. Ferrera, M. (2006), Le politiche sociali, L’Italia in prospettiva comparata, Bologna, il Mulino.
  28. Ferrera, M. (2008), “Dal welfare state alle welfare regions: la riconfigurazione spaziale della protezione sociale in Europa”, La Rivista delle Politiche Sociali, n° 3.
  29. Franzoni, F., Anconelli, M. (2003), La rete dei servizi alla persona. Dalla normativa all’organizzazione, Roma, Carocci.
  30. Gobo, G. (2001), Descrivere il mondo. Teoria e pratica del metodo etnografico in sociologia, Roma, Carocci.
  31. Goodrick, E., Salancik, G.R. (1996), “Organizational Discretion in Responding to Institutional Practices: Hospitals and Cesarean Births”, Administrative Science Quarterly, Vol. 41, No. 1, 1-28. Goodrick, E., Salancik, G.R. (1996), “Organizational Discretion in Responding to Institutional Practices: Hospitals and Cesarean Births”, Administrative Science Quarterly, Vol. 41, No. 1, 1-28.
  32. Goodstein, J.D. (1994), “Institutional pressures and strategic responsiveness: Employer involvement in work-family issues”, Academy of Management Journal, 37, 350-382.
  33. Gori, C. (2004), “I livelli essenziali”, in Gori C. (a cura di), La riforma dei servizi sociali in Italia, Roma, Carocci.
  34. Gouldner, A. (1954), Patterns of Industrial Bureaucracy, New York, The Free Press ( Modelli di burocrazia aziendale, Milano, Etas Kompass, 1970).
  35. Gualdani, A. (2009), “Tutela e obblighi delle istituzioni: perché i diritti siano esigibili”, in Costa G. (a cura di), La solidarietà frammentata. Le leggi regionali sul welfare a confronto, Milano, Bruno Mondadori.
  36. Hallett, T., Ventresca, M.J. (2006), “Inhabited institutions: social interactions and organizational forms in Gouldner’s patterns of industrial bureaucracy”, Theory and Society, Vol. 35, N. 2, 213-236.
  37. Kazepov Y. (a cura di) (2009), La dimensione territoriale delle politiche sociali in Italia, Roma, Carocci.
  38. Kazepov, Y. (a cura di) (2011), Rescaling Social Policies: Towards Multilevel Governance in Europe, Farnham, Ashgate.
  39. Lammers, J.C., Barbour, J.B. (2006), “An Institutional Theory of Organizational Communication”, Communication Theory, (16), 356-377.
  40. Lincoln, Y.S., Guba, E.G. (1985), Naturalistic Inquiry, Newbury Park, Sage.
  41. Lippi, A. (2007), “Il segretariato sociale nei servizi in Italia”, in Fabbri, V., Lippi, A. (a cura di), Il segretariato sociale. Storia e modelli organizzativi (pp. 17-36), Roma, Carocci.
  42. Lipsky, M. (1980), Street-level Bureaucracy. Dilemmas of the Individual in Public Services., New York, Russell Sage Foundation.
  43. Marano, A. (2011), “I tagli all’assistenza in Italia. Motivazioni e conseguenze”, La Rivista delle Politiche Sociali, n. 2.
  44. Martelli, A. (2007), “Verso una nuova governance locale delle politiche sociali?”, Autonomie Locali e Servizi Sociali, n. 1, 97-108.
  45. May, P.J., Winter, S.C. (2007), “Politicians, Managers, and Street-Level Bureaucrats: Influences on Policy Implementation”, Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 19, 453-476.
  46. Meyer, J.W., Rowan, B. (1977), “Institutionalized Organizations: Formal Structures as Myth and Ceremony”, American Journal of Sociology, 83/2, 340-363 (trad. it. “Le organizzazioni istituzionalizzate: la struttura formale come mito e cerimonia”, in
  47. Gagliardi P. (a cura di), Le imprese come culture, Torino, ISEDI, 1986).
  48. Minas, R., Øverbye, E. (2010), “The Territorial Organisation of Social Assistance Schemes in Europe”, in Kazepov Y. (a cura di), Rescaling Social Policies: Towards Multilevel Governance in Europe, Farnham, Ashgate.
  49. Mintzberg, H. (1983), Structure in Fives. Designing Effective Organizations, Englewood Cliffs, Prentice-Hall ( La progettazione dell’organizzazione aziendale, il Mulino, Bologna 1996).
  50. Normann, R. (1984), La gestione strategica dei servizi, Milano, Etas Libri.
  51. Oliver, C. (1991), “Strategic Responses to Institutional Processes”, Academy of Management Review, vol. 16, no. 1, 145-179. Previdi, C., Rossi, P. (2011), “Il segretariato sociale tra organizzazione e professione”, in Carabelli G., Facchini C. (a cura di), Il modello lombardo di welfare. Continuità, riassestamenti, prospettive, Milano, FrancoAngeli.
  52. Prior, D., Barnes, M. (2011), “Subverting Social Policy on the Front Line: Agencies of Resistance in the Delivery of Services”, Social Policy and Administration, Vol. 45, No. 3, 264-279.
  53. Pugh, D., Hickson, D.J., Hinings, C.R., Turner, C. (1968), “Dimensions of organization structure”, Administrative Science Quarterly, 13, 65-105.
  54. Ranson, S., Hinings, B., Greenwood, R. (1980), “The Structuring of Organizational Structures”, Administrative Science Quarterly, Vol. 25, No. 1, 1-17.
  55. Reibling, N., e Wendt C. (2012), “Gatekeeping and provider choice in OECD healthcare systems”, Current Sociology, 60(4), 489–505.
  56. Rosenthal, P. e Peccei, R. (2006), “The social construction of clients by service agents in reformed welfare administration”, Human Relations, vol. 59 (12), 1633-1658.
  57. Rossi, P. (2012), Il segretariato sociale e l’accesso ai servizi socio-assistenziali. Assetti istituzionali, logiche organizzative e pratiche professionali, Milano, FrancoAngeli.
  58. Rummery, K., e Glendinning, C. (1999), “Negotiating needs, access and gatekeeping: developments in health and community care policies in the UK and the rights of disabled and older citizens”, Critical Social Policy, 19(3), 335-351.
  59. Scott, R.W. (1995), Institutions and Organizations, Thousand Oaks, Sage ( Istituzioni e organizzazioni, Bologna, il Mulino, 1998).
  60. Scott, P.G. (1997), “Assessing Determinants of Bureacratic Decision: An Experiment in Street-Level Decision Making”, Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 1, 35-57.
  61. Stame, N., Lo Presti, V., Ferrazza, D. (a cura di) (2010), Segretariato sociale e riforma di servizi. Percorsi di valutazione, Milano, FrancoAngeli.
  62. Taylor, F.W. (1911), The Principles of Scientific Management, New York, Harper & Brothers ( L’organizzazione scientifica del lavoro, ETAS, Milano 2004).
  63. Weber, M. (1922), Wirtschaft und Gesellschaft, Tübingen ( Economia e società, Edizioni di Comunità, Milano 1968).
  64. Yin, R.K. (2003), Case study research: design and methods, Thousand Oaks, Sage.
  65. Zini, M.T., Miodini, S. (1997), Il colloquio d’aiuto. Teoria e pratica nel servizio sociale, Roma, Carocci.

Paolo Rossi, La valenza istituzionale della discrezionalità organizzativa. Il caso della regolazione dell’accesso ai servizi socio-assistenziali in "STUDI ORGANIZZATIVI " 1/2013, pp 87-112, DOI: 10.3280/SO2013-001004