Donabedian, a professor at the University of Michigan, developed an Organizational Performance Theory which stated that structure-->process-->lead to outcome.  It is sometimes called Donabedian's Triad or the S-P-O theory.  He is most famous for applying this approach in healthcare organizations but other institutions and businesses have used this theory to study performance and to increase quality.  I do agree that we determine social norms within an organization through the structure of the organization, implementation or process associated with that structure, in order to elicit a positive outcome.

Dear Arvydas,

Whilst I do agree, in line with institutionalism and institutional theory, that people derive certain norms, values and social rules of conduct from pre-existing organizational cultures, I do wonder whether this has to do with process and structure, rather than purely human behavior that is typified by forced or voluntary cooperation. I would therefore not conclude that concepts as generalistic as 'the public sector' or 'the public administration' have a clear and homogenous structure and process, as there are many different entities, individuals and organizations active within any given public sector. The latter also points towards the overarching cultural that exists within a certain region, group, nation or state, implying that some values and belief systems differ irrespective of the organizational nature within which, one is active. On the other hand, I do feel that many people who feel compelled to work for governmental organizations may share certain beliefs and values (are oriented towards the common good, or are more altruistic), before pursuing a career in or entering into a position within a given public sector organization. Hence the cause and effect here seem hard to pin-point. My answer in short therefore is that the aspect of culture is so immensely complex, that it is hard to boil it down solely to process and structure.

Sincerely,

Geoffrey 

@Geoffrey.  Agree. Structure and Process are not the only constructs of available theories that can be used to inform.  In addition to institutional theory that you mentioned, there are many others.  Another infamous professor comes to mind: Granovetter of Stanford who developed Social Network Theory in the realm of  economic sociology. I have included some links to demonstrate that there are many items that can be proven to be statistically significant and contributory to cause-effect.   

https://www.academia.edu/2007416/What_are_social_norms_How_are_they_measured

http://changingminds.org/explanations/theories/a_alphabetic.htm

http://www.med.upenn.edu/hbhe4/part4-ch15-organizational-development-theory.shtml

Estimado Arvydas

He leído la Agenda de la Nueva tendencia en Administración Pública...un texto que adquirí en Madrid, en la Casa del Libro, encierra la transformación estructural organizacional de la Empresa Pública y Municipal....en donde la Gestión Administrativa permite encarar todos los campos de participación Estatal.

En tanto y en cuanto se atiendan las necesidades prioritarias de la población. 

El impacto socio económico es mantener el buen nivel la calidad de vida de los ciudadanos.

Economista Luciana Coello.

Universidad Técnica Estatal de Quevedo

Quevedo-Los Ríos- Ecuador- Sur América

I'm not quite sure what your question ist aiming at. But nevertheless i guess, that if one reconstructs paths of decisionmaking in public administrations and how the organization of many public administration organizations has changed through the past twenty years, one may find opposing structures. Some of these contradiction may be relicts of classic beuraucratical organizations as described by Max Weber (http://www.palgrave.com/page/detail/webers-rationalism-and-modern-society-tony-waters/?isb=9781137365866). But some may also be an emergent product of modern complexity, public administrations have to face. Institutionalism has provided valuable insight on this issue, see for example Institutions and Organizations by W. Richard Scott (http://us.sagepub.com/en-gb/nam/institutions-and-organizations/book237665) or specifically dealing with public sector reforms Brunsson and Sahlin-Andersson: http://oss.sagepub.com/content/21/4/721.

Finally, i think you'll have to answer the question what status you give the phenomenon of "organizational culture". If it is linked to culture in general as a symbolic horizon, anyone in a specific society is orienting his/her actions, then norms and values have an impact on organizational structures and processes. If 'organizational culture' is more concerned with the way how people are conventionally enacting encounters in a certain public adminstration, then the core structure and processes may (!) not be affected by it.

Hopefully this comment ist helpful to you.

Best regards

Ronald

I deeply appreciate all the previous comments and I'm not quite sure to have understood

Arvydas' question. I suggest to evaluate The Competing Values Framework (CVF). Originally, Quinn & Rohrbaugh (1983) developed the framework to identify the structure among possible criteria used to evaluate organizational effectiveness. Later, the framework was used to classify four culture types as Clan, Adhocracy, Market, and Hierarchy. Probably culture influences the organizational structure and vice versa. So in a static approach you can study a one-way relationship and extract norm, culture, etc. observing the structure.

The questions about culture in public organizations will be a complex phenomena because of the complex modells for leadership and management. We have two different ground of values. On the one side we have professionell caregivers and their interests are to take care of suffering people, to do good, and they are building modell that support the basic idea of healthcare. In the other side we have leadership structiones witch have their ground in politically norms and princips. This this two perspektiv don´t necessary agree with each other. The public healthcare are more and more moved over to organisations with profits as their   most importen interests. We can see the phenomena in the idea of NPM. We have to ask us way we have public healthcare organisations, what kind of modells and processes we have to develop so we don´t forget our mission and everything will be calculated in therms of economic. The two different modells of leadership (professional and political) have their own mission and we have to give the professionell workers possibilities to develop their work in line with the principe of "process based on evident knowledge.  

These comments are insightful and interesting.  I would wish to add that in the British public sector, organisational culture is undergoing a sea-change of some depth.  Pressures resulting from the shrinking of the state under the inexorable march of NPM and neoliberalism have meant that describing organisational culture from one moment to the next  in the public sector is like trying to write your name in water.  (thank you John Keats).   The undercurrents of suspicion and anxiety as institutions see their finances cut away make the nurturing of a positive culture in public sector organisations little more than a beautiful dream for some.  The NHS in Britain is facing it's most serious financial crisis in a generation, funds for running public services are fast disappearing into a well of political idealism and little emotional energy is left for supporting an affirmative culture.  Yet the impression I have as I work with the public sector in the UK is one of dogged determination to preserve the ideals and principles of service provision.   I am afraid I can't offer any answers in terms of extracting norms from current processes within the public sector in the UK (and I am aware that this does not address the issue for other nations) but in terms of values, I can say that my experience is that the values of public service among its practitioners are alive and well, though struggling at the present time.