gittell douglass relational bureaucracy - structuring reciprocal relationship into roles

® Academy of Management Review2012. Vol. 37, No. 4. 709-733,http://dx.doi.org/lu.5465/amr.2010.0438

RELATIONAL BUREAUCRACY: STRUCTURINGRECIPROCAL RELATIONSHIPS INTO ROLES

lODY HOFFER GITTELLBrandeis University

ANNE DOUGLASSUniversity of Massachusetts Boston

We describe a hybrid relational bureaucratic form with structures that embed threeprocesses of reciprocal interrelating—relational coproduction, relational coordina-tion, and relational leadership—into the roles of customers, workers, and managers.We show how these role-based relationships of shared goals, shared knowledge, andmutual respect foster participants' attentiveness to the situation and to one another,enabling the caring, timely, and knowledgeable responses found in the relationalform, along with the scalability, replicability, and sustainability found in the bureau-cratic form. Through these role-based relationships, relational bureaucracy promotesuniversalistic norms of earing for particular others.

Relation is reciprocify.... Inscrutably involved,we live in fhe currents of universal reciprocity(Buber, 1937: 67).

Relational or network organizations havebeen conceptualized as having the capacity forcaring, timely, and knowledgeable responses toothers because of the reciprocal relationshipsthat connect their participants (Heimer, 1992;Powell, 1990). However, these reciprocal rela-tionships tend to be personal rather than rolebased, limiting their scalability, replicability,and sustainability over time. In contrast, bu-reaucratic organizations have been conceptual-ized as having the capacity for scalability, rep-licability, and sustainability because of theirreliance on formal structures. However, theylack the eapaeity for earing, timely, and knowl-edgeable responses to emergent situations

We thank guest editor Jane Dutton and the reviewers fortheir detailed and constructive guidance throughout the re-view process. We also thank participants of the MIT Institutefor Work and Employment Relations Seminar, espeeiallyLotte Bailyn, Joyee Fletcher, Ryan Hammond, Jason Jay, TomKoehan, and Mike Piore; partieipants of the 2010 WhartonConferenee on People and Organizations, espeeially MalikaBanerjee, Diane Burton, Ruthanne Huising, and Holly Slay;and partieipants of the Copenhagen Business Sehool Stra-tegie Management Seminar, especially Nicholas Foss andDana Minbaeva. We also thank Paul Adler, Nielas Erhardt,David Gil, Charles Heekseher, Paul Hess, Kate Kellogg,Seok-Woo Kwon, John Paul MaeDuffie, Karlene Roberts, Ed-gar Schein, Ofer Sharone, and Richard Wexler for their valu-able comments.

(Heekseher, 1994). These observations suggestdifficult organizational trade-offs. And yet weknow of organizations that have become bothlarge and stable without the associated down-sides. For example. Southwest Airlines—dubbed the LUV airline—managed its evolutionfrom a small, quirky Texas airline to one of thelargest airlines in the world while maintainingthe reciprocal relationships that drive its perfor-mance (Gittell, 2003).

Motivated by these observations, we theorizea hybrid organizational form that is not a hodge-podge of misaligned characteristics but, rather,a logically coherent higher synthesis of the twoorganizational forms from which it emerges. Weconceptualize a hybrid of the relational and bu-reaucratic forms, with formal structures thatsupport three processes of reciprocal interrelat-ing—relational coproduction between workersand customers, relational coordination betweenworkers, and relational leadership betweenworkers and managers—each characterized byrelationships of shared goals, shared knowl-edge, and mutual respect. Specifically, we the-orize how formal struetures sueh as hiring andtraining, performanee measurement and re-wards, job design, eonfliet resolution, protoeols,and meetings ean embed reeiproeal relation-ships into the roles of managers, workers, andeustomers. Together, these role-based relation-ships foster partieipants' attentiveness to thesituation and to one another, enabling earing.

709

Copyright of the Academy of Management, all rights reserved. Contents may not be copied, emailed, posted to a listserv, or otherwise transmitted without the copyrightholder's express written permission. Users may print, download, or email articles for individual iise only.

710 Academy oí Management Review October

timely, and knowledgeable responses found inthe relational form, as well as the scalability,replicability, and sustainability found in the bu-reaucratic form.

A Southwest operations agent illustrated re-ciprocal interrelating between workers and cus-tomers: "We treat the customer like family....But that doesn't mean they are always right.They can't be abusive to us or to other custom-ers" (Gittell, 2002b: 2). A Southwest ticket agentillustrated reeiproeal interrelating betweenworkers: "No one takes the job of another personfor granted. The skyeap is just as eritieal as thepilot. You can always count on the next guystanding there. No one department is any moreimportant than another" (Gittell, 2003: 34). ASouthwest ramp manager illustrated this pro-cess between workers and managers: "There'san open door policy so when employees have aproblem, they know we can work on it together.It's a totally different environment here. We sitand listen. When that person walks away, he'llhave self esteem" (Gittell, 2003: 75). These exam-ples suggest that reciprocal interrelating can beembedded into roles whether the relationship isbetween worker and customer, worker andworker, or worker and manager.

This paradox of universalistic norms of caringfor particular others was articulated by Heimer(1992) as a characteristic of effective networkorganizations; it was articulated by Buber (1937)as being at the eore of relational ethies, and weargue here that it is at the eore of relationalbureaueraey. Yet earing is rarely diseussed ordefined in the organizational literature. Caringin the workplace is distinctive, just as caring isdistinctive in other contexts, such as the home,friendships, and eare work (Bowden, 1997). Forexample, caring for a dependent loved one isdifferent from caring in the workplace or infriendships. We draw on the ethie of eare liter-ature to define earing as a praetiee in the orga-nizational context (Bowden, 1997; Fine, 2007; Gil-ligan, 1982; Held, 2006; Noddings, 2002;Waerness, 1996).

Caring as a practice is about the quality ofrelations. Caring relations are characterized bytrust and connectedness, a shared interest inmutual well-being, and identification with an-other's reality (Fine, 2007; Noddings, 2002). Car-ing relations are mutual, attentive, responsiveto others' needs, and they embody a "sense ofresponsibility for the well-being of others, a con-

cern for specific human relations, rather thanabstract or rarefied principles" (Fine, 2007: 54).Caring relations are built on high-quality con-nections characterized by positive regard, feel-ings of inclusion, and a sense of being importantto others (Dutton & Ragins, 2007).

At the same time, caring in a relational bu-reaucracy is embedded in roles, elevating it to auniversalistic principle that applies to particu-lar others. An organization that values caringrecognizes that relationships are a resource andattends to the social relations between its mem-bers; promotes responsiveness to the needs, ex-pertise, and interests of others; and rewards car-ing responses and practices. For example,hiring and training for relational competencecan reflect an organization's valuing of the re-spect, attentiveness, responsiveness, and con-cern for others that define caring relations.These structures uphold a way of being thatgoes beyond any particular customer, worker, ormanager while being attentive to their partieu-lar needs. As a Southwest employee explained,"There is a code, a way you respond to everyindividual who works for Southwest Airlines.The easiest way to get in trouble here is tooffend another employee" (Gittell, 2003: 34).

But for caring to be effective, it must be timely,in the sense of being attentive and responsive tothe situation as it unfolds and to needs as theyemerge. To be effective, caring must also beknowledgeable, informed by a perspectivelarger than one's own. Relational bureaucracysupports caring, timely, and knowledgeable re-sponses through the use of structures that em-bed reciprocal interrelating into the roles of cus-tomers, workers, and managers. We begin byanalyzing the relational and bureaucratic formsand by proposing the relational bureaucratichybrid as a higher synthesis of the two.

DISTINGUISHING THE RELATIONALBUREAUCRATIC, AND HYBRID FORMS

The Relational Organizational Form

The relational organizational form—alsoknown as the clan-based or network form—starts with the notion that people are fundamen-tally social beings and that our identities andunderstanding of the world around us areformed through our interactions with others. Fol-lett (1942/1926a) argued that through reciprocal

2012 Gittell and Douglass 711

interrelating, participants who work in differentfunctions are able to see their own part in rela-tion to the whole, providing them with a moreholistic understanding of their own task and,thus, giving them a greater ability to work to-gether as a whole. Burns and Stalker defined therelational or organic form as one that relies on"the adjustment and continual re-definition ofindividual tasks through interaction with theother"; "a network structure of control, authorityand community"; and "a lateral rather than ver-tical direction of communication through the or-ganization, communication between people ofdifferent rank, also, resembling consultationrather than command" (1995/1961: 121). They con-trasted this organic form with the mechanisticform that is characterized by "the specializeddifferentiation of functional tasks into which theproblems and tasks facing the concern as awhole are broken down"; "hierarchic structure ofcontrol, authority and communication"; and "atendency for interaction between members ofthe concern to be vertical, i.e., between superiorand subordinate" (1995/1961: 120).

Powell (1990) argued further that the relationalor network form is distinguished from marketsand bureaucracies by its reliance on relation-ships of reciprocity. In contrast, markets rely onindividually negotiated contracts, and bureau-cracies rely on hierarchical control. The networkform is neither completely spontaneous, likemarkets, nor prescribed, like bureaucracies, but,instead, is based on patterns of reciprocity. Con-necting to social capital theory (e.g., Adler &Kwon, 2002; Leana & Van Buren, 1999; Nahapiet& Ghoshal, 1998), the relational organizationalform can be understood as a type of organiza-tion that fosters and benefits from the develop-ment of social capital—relationships that areresources for action—among its participants.

In sum, the relational form is characterized bythree primary features. First, it is based on re-ciprocal relationships, resulting in high levels ofinformation processing capacity and communi-cation richness. Second, relationships are emer-gent and informal, not deliberately created orprescribed through formal organizational struc-tures. Because communication channels areemergent rather than prescribed, participantscan create them as needed to accomplish theirwork. Third, these relationships tend to be per-sonal, built on close ties among individual par-ticipants that emerge through experiences they

have shared. The interpersonal nature of theserelationships increases the potential for partic-ipant engagement, bonding, loyalty, and trust,enabling emotional as well as cognitiveconnection.

Because of these features, the relational formis theorized to have distinctive performancecharacteristics. According to Powell,

Networks are particularly apt for circumstancesin which there is a need for efficient, reliableinformation. The most useful information israrely that which flows down the formal chain oícommand in an organization, or that which canbe inferred from shifting price signals. Rather it isthat which is obtained from someone whom youhave dealt with in the past and found to be reli-able. You trust best information that comes fromsomeone you know well. . . . Information passedthrough networks is "thicker" than informationobtained in .the "market" and "freer" than com-municated in a hierarchy.... The open-ended,relational features of networks, with their rela-tive absence of explicit quid pro quo behavior,greatly enhance the ability to transmit and learnnew knowledge and skills (1990; 304).

Networks function through high levels of socialcapital—assets that are embedded in and mo-bilized through relationships. Theorists have ex-plored the performance attributes of organiza-tions with high levels of social capital,including the capacity for knowledge creation,knowledge transfer, and the coordination ofwork (Adler & Kwon, 2002; Nahapiet & Gho-shal, 1998).

Attentiveness to the situation and to one an-other. Follett (1942/1926a) and Heckscher (1994)argued that the relational form draws more fullyon the intelligence of its participants via thecontinual interaction between part and wholecarried out through interpersonal exehanges,fostering attentiveness to the situation as itemerges. These reeiproeal relationships alsofoster partieipants' attentiveness to one another.Dutton and Heaphy (2003) defined a high-qualityeonneetion as one that is life giving and a low-quality eonneetion as one that is life depleting.High-quality eonneetions have in eommon akeen awareness of and attunement to the needsof the other and, thus, are energizing to the in-dividuals involved in them (Dutton, 2003; Dutton& Ragins, 2007; Kahn, 1998; Lewin & Regine, 2000;Williams & Dutton, 1999). The energizing natureof high-quality eonneetions stems from the ree-ognition and validation of one's self by others

712 Academy oí Management Review Oetober

(Dutton & Ragins, 2007). Positive regard is feel-ing "known and loved, or being respected andeared for in the eonneetion" (Stephens, Heaphy,& Dutton, 2012: 386).

These insights from positive organizationalseholarship have deep philosophieal underpin-nings. In the socially embedded view of the hu-man subject, human subjects mutually createtheir identities and their selves through theirsocial relations (Buber, 1937; Gergen, 1997; Un-ger, 1975). Relationships of reciprocity or mutualrecognition, characterized by high-quality con-nections, provide the basis for treating others assubjects rather than objects and, thus, providethe very basis for caring. The ability to fostercaring is a distinctive capability of the rela-tional form.

Vulnerability to favoritism. The pure rela-tional form has some disadvantages, however.Weber (1984/1920) argued that organizationsbuilt on personal ties are particularly vulnera-ble to the abuse of power, to favoritism, and toinefficiencies that arise from behaviors that aredriven by the need to curry personal favor ratherthan by the need to accomplish organizationalgoals. Furthermore, personal ties do not neces-sarily emerge at the critical junctures wherethey are most needed for coordinating work be-cause they are more likely to emerge amongthose who are similar, owing to the existence ofoccupational cultures (Van Maanen & Barley,1984), functional thought worlds (Dougherty,1992), communities of practice (Faraj & SprouU,2000), or homophily more generally (Ibarra, 1992).

Lack of replicability. The reliance on personalrelationships also limits the interchangeabilityof participants. One participant cannot easilysubstitute for another because the personal tiesthat are needed to get work done are embeddedin specific individuals. The relational form istherefore particularly vulnerable to participantturnover and to the temporary absence of spe-cific individuals, making scheduling flexibility,including work/life balance, challenging toachieve (Briscoe, 2006).

Lack of scalability. In addition, the larger,more diverse, and more geographically dis-persed an organization becomes, the less feasi-ble it is that coordination can be achievedthrough personal relationships because of thedifficulty of forming and preserving personalrelationships with more people, who are moredifferent, across greater distances. The rela-

tional form is therefore less sealable (Bigley &Roberts, 2001) and more vulnerable to diversityand géographie dispersion (Carlson & Zmud,1999) than the bureaueratie organizational form,the impersonal relationships of whieh are de-signed for interehangeability, sealability, andgéographie dispersion.

Lack of sustainability. Another weakness ofthe relational form is the shortage of insightsabout how organizations ean reinforee and sus-tain the relationships that are fundamental toits operation. It is eommonly aeeepted that theserelationships are not designed; rather, theyemerge from the eommon experienees of orga-nizational partieipants. As a result, theoristshave tended to see little room for preseribed orformal struetures of any kind in the relationalform and have tended instead to see strueturesas emerging from the informal relationshipsthemselves (Kraekhardt & Brass, 1994).

In sum, the relational form, with its reeiproealrelationships that foster partieipant attentive-ness to the situation and to one another, is wellsuited for ensuring earing, timely, and knowl-edgeable responses. The relational form is ham-pered by its relianee on personal ties, however,beeause of their limited sealability, replieabil-ity, and sustainability.

The Bureaucratic Organizational Form

In eontrast, the bureaueratie organizationalform is designed to segment partieipants intoareas of funetional speeialization, shaping theireommunieation and even their thought pro-eesses into narrow areas of expertise. Informa-tion moves within funetional silos and is inte-grated primarily at the top, while those on thefrontline work with some autonomy but onlywithin their area of expertise (Weber, 1984/1920:18). The bureaueratie form has four key eharae-teristies: reliance on formal rules, functionalspecialization, hierarchy without domination,and professionalism.

Each of these features provides some advan-tages over alternative organizational forms.First, bureaucracy's emphasis on formal rulescan be seen as a substantial improvement overboth the despotic and relational forms, in whichwork is carried out through personal favor (We-ber, 1984/1920). Bureaucracy in its ideal formequalizes all whom it serves by acting withoutregard for the individual person, offering in-


stead a depersonalized application of rules tosituations.

Second, through functional specialization bu-reaucracy leverages the power of the division oflabor as eoneeptualized by both Marx (1886) andTaylor (1911). Aeeording to Weber, "Bureaucraticapparatus . . . rests upon expert training, a func-tional specialization of work, and an attitude setof habitual virtuosity in the mastery of single yetmethodically integrated functions" (1984/1920:988). To protect functional specialization and toaccommodate the bounded rationality or limitedinformation processing capacity of human ac-tors, the bureaucratic form deliberately limitshorizontal connections across roles (March & Si-mon, 1958).

Third, hierarchy without domination offers theadvantage of unified control to facilitate theachievement of organizational goals. Hierarchywithout domination means that a subordinatewho reports to the person in the hierarchy abovedoes so within the parameters of the job—not atthe personal will or whim of the superior, as inthe despotic form.

Finally, professionalism offers the advantageof workers who are obligated to and governedby the requirements of their roles, rather thanpersonal considerations, consistent with thefirst principle of decisions driven by formalrules and the third principle of hierarchy with-out domination. Weber argued that these char-acteristics together would enable bureaucracyto endure over time, to the point of being nearlyimpossible to destroy.

Lack of knowledgeable responses. But bu-reaucracy has its disadvantages as well. FoUett(1942/1926a) noted the failure of bureaucracy tosystematically foster horizontal relationshipsand argued that, as a result, effective coordina-tion in a bureaucracy often depends on whetherpeople in different departments happen to havepersonal relationships with each other. Follettargued further that the functional division ofresponsibility overshadows the sense that allparticipants are responsible for the whole.Other scholars have recognized this shortcom-ing of bureaucracy—referring to it as the loss ofthe gains from cooperation—and have notedother ineffieieneies as well, including limits tothe managerial span of attention when all coor-dination is achieved at the top of the hierarchy,along with the difficulty of evaluating activitiesthat are organized by function (Barnard, 1954/

1938; Taylor, 1911). In particular, March and Si-mon (1958) argued that bureaucracy is vulnera-ble to subgoal optimization, whieh oeeurs whenpartieipants strive to aehieve narrow funetionalgoals, even when their attainment means losingsight of the organization's broader goals or thecustomer's broader needs. Bureaucracy thus fos-ters inattentiveness to the emerging situation,foeusing partieipants' attention instead on theirnarrowly defined tasks.

Lack of caring responses. In the same way,bureaucracy fosters inattentiveness to the needsof others. While Weber believed that bureau-cracy was a superior form that would be nearlyimpossible to destroy because of its replicabilityand scalability, he also worried that the deper-sonalization inherent in bureaucracy and its de-liberate prevention of emotional connectionwould produce alienation and a crippling of thehuman spirit (Weber, 1958/1904). By positioningeompetenee in opposition to earing, rules in op-position to relationships, and fairness in oppo-sition to speeialness, bureaueraey ean "disap-pear" relational work practices (Fletcher, 1999;Noddings, 1990; Stone, 2000). Bureaucracy frag-ments the emotional from the rational, just as itfragments parts from the whole. Losing sight ofthe whole, and thus missing the forest for thetrees, is a fundamental shortcoming of the bu-reaucratic form.

Lack of timely responses. While the bureau-cratic form works well under some conditions, itworks poorly under the conditions that increas-ingly characterize modern life. In particular, tra-ditional bureaucratic structures work relativelywell when the environment is slow moving andpredictable, but in environments that are uncer-tain, ambiguous, or complex, bureaucratic seg-mentation hampers the flexible, earing, timelyresponses that are needed (Burns & Stalker,1995/1961). Bureaueraeies thus beeome vulnera-ble when speed is required or when a holistieperspeetive on the work process is required. Insum, bureaucratic segmentation systematicallyhampers the formation of emotional eonneetionsthroughout the organization while wasting theintelligenee of participants by fosteringbounded rationality.

Relational Bureaucratic Hybrid

Relational bureaucracy is a hybrid of the re-lational and bureaucratic forms. Specifically,


we theorize relational bureaueraey as a hybridthat uses formal struetures to embed reeiproealrelationships into the roles of eustomers, work-ers, and managers, enabling earing, timely, andknowledgeable responses to others. Gittell(2006) has theorized that relationships of sharedgoals, shared knowledge, and mutual respeettend to support frequent, timely, aeeurate, andproblem-solving eommunieation, further rein-foreing relationships of shared goals, sharedknowledge, and mutual respeet. As we arguebelow, this positive dynamie inereases partici-pants' attentiveness to the situation and to oneanother, enabling caring, timely, and knowl-edgeable responses.

But these responses are not scalable, replica-ble, or sustainable if they depend on reciprocalrelationships among particular individuals, asin the pure relational form. The formal struc-tures in relational bureaucracy serve to supportand sustain reciprocal relationships by embed-ding them into customer, worker, and managerroles, enabling caring, timely, knowledgeableresponses to be scaled up, replicated, and sus-tained over time as individual participantscome and go. We theorize below that these for-mal structures therefore enable the practice ofcaring on a larger scale than is possible in thepurely relational form.

Our proposed relational bureaucratic hybridintegrates the strengths of the relational form(reciprocal relationships) with the strengths ofthe bureaucratic form (role-based relationships)while counteracting their weaknesses—exces-sive reliance on personal relationships on theone hand and excessive reliance on fragmented,hierarchical relationships on the other. Anotherrelational bureaucratic hybrid does the oppo-site, retaining the hierarchy and fragmentationof the bureaucratic form along with the personalrelationships of the relational form (see Heck-scher, 1994). This dysfunctional hybrid, found incorrupt, inept bureaucracies around the world,encourages participants to use formal structuresto guard their turf while using relationships forpersonal gain. In contrast, our relational bu-reaucratic hybrid represents a different synthe-sis of the two forms from whieh it arises, promot-ing universalistie norms of earing for partieularothers.

In the following sections we theorize how re-lational bureaueraey works, starting with thecore of the relational bureaucratic form—

reciprocal interrelating among customers, work-ers, and managers—and showing how theseprocesses of reciprocal interrelating foster at-tentiveness to the situation and one another(Proposition la through lc), thus enabling car-ing, timely, and knowledgeable responses(Propositions 2a through 2c). We explicate thestructures that embed reciprocal interrelatinginto roles, over and above individual partici-pants (Proposition 3a through 3f), thus achievingscalability, replicability, and sustainability overtime (Propositions 4a through 4c). See Figure 1.

THREE PROCESSES OFRECIPROCAL INTERRELATING

Three processes of reciprocal interrelatingconstitute the core of relational bureaucracy: re-lational coproduction between worker and cus-tomer, relational coordination between workerand worker, and relational leadership betweenworker and manager. Although any one personcan and often does play all three roles, the rolesthemselves are distinct and so the relationshipsbetween the roles are also distinct. The worker-customer relationship is distinguished by itslinking of organizational participants with theoutside parties for whose benefit the work isdone. The worker-worker relationship is distin-guished by its linking of organizational partici-pants who play complementary roles in the hor-izontal division of labor. And the worker-manager relationship is distinguished by itslinking of participants who play different rolesin the vertical division of labor, with each levelrequiring a more in-depth, focused perspectivethan the level above it. See Figure 2.

Despite their distinctiveness, however, thesethree relationship types have important similar-ities. First, all are characterized by task interde-pendence between the parties in the relation-ship, meaning that each party needs the other insome way in order to fully achieve the desiredoutcomes. Second, the three relationship typesare all characterized by the degree to whichgoals are shared versus fragmented, the degreeto which knowledge is shared versus frag-mented, and the degree to which respect is mu-tual versus hierarchical. To the extent that theserelationships are reciprocal, characterized byshared goals, shared knowledge, and mutualrespect, they enable distinct perspeetives to in-terpenetrate with eaeh other in a way that is


FIGURE 1Structures. Processes, and Outcomes of Relational Bureaucracy

Structures

Hiring and training forrelational eompetenee

Cross-role performaneemeasures and rewards

Cross-role conflictresolution

Relational job design—boundary spanners and

supervisors

Cross-role protocols

Cross-role meetings withrelational space

Propositionsla-lc

Propositions2a-2e

Processes ofrole-based

reciprocal Interrelating

Relational eoordination

Relational coproduction

Relational leadership

Attentiveness tothe situation and

to one another ^̂ r̂

Propositions3a-3f

Propositions4a-4c

Outcome

Caring,timely,

knowledgeableresponses

Scalability,replicability,

sustainability

integrative rather than additive, fostering atten-tiveness to the situation as it emerges. More-over, to the extent these relationships are recip-rocal, they enable participants to treat eachother as subjects rather than objects, fosteringattentiveness to one another. We now describereciprocal interrelating as found in the worker-customer, worker-worker, and worker-managerrelationships.

Relational Coproduction in theWorker-Customer Relationship

The first key relationship is the worker-customer relationship. In the bureaueratie formthis relationship is defined by norms of profes-sional autonomy and role-based "power over"rather than "power with," whereas in the purerelational form this relationship is characterized

FIGURE 2Three Processes of Role-Based Reciprocal Interrelating

Customer

Relational eoproduetion

Worker ^ Relational eoordination «̂ Worker

Relational leadership

Manager


by personalized reciprocity, doing favors, andacting based on personal rather than organiza-tional criteria. In contrast, relational bureau-cracy is composed of reciprocal relationshipsbetween workers and customers that are basedon roles rather than personal favor. In the con-text of mutual respect, each party brings distinetknowledge to the table, eontributing to the es-tablishment of shared goals and enabling re-sponsiveness to eustomer needs.

Conventional bureaueratie norms for worker-eustomer relationships direet workers to main-tain relations with eustomers based on equaltreatment, objeetivity, and emotional detaeh-ment, all from a position of power over the eus-tomer, justified by professional expertise. Thesebureaueratie professional norms ean interfere inthe proeess of reeiproeal interrelating that isneeded to aehieve a holistie, flexible, emergentresponse to eustomers (Douglass & Gittell, inpress). Alternative theories of professionalismartieulate a more democratic, collaborative, re-ciprocal, and flexible relationship with custom-ers (Adler, Kwon, & Heckscher, 2008; Sachs, 2003).Yet as noted previously, reliance on personalrelationships increases vulnerability to favorit-ism and lacks the systematic approach that isconducive to scalability and replicability.

Relational coproduction provides an alterna-tive to both of the above. Coproduction is de-fined as the joint production of services, knowl-edge, or products through the combinedcontribution of the worker and the client (Brud-ney & England, 1983; Needham & Carr, 2009). Theconcept of coproduction has been well exploredin the human and public services literature(Brudney & England, 1983). Relational coproduc-tion is based on relational norms of profession-alism— but relational norms in which role-based relationships predominate over personalrelationships. Rather than workers telling cus-tomers what they need, relational coproductioninvolves reciprocal interrelating between work-ers and customers regarding what is to be doneand how best to do it. As in the other relation-ship types, this reciprocal interrelating is char-acterized by high levels of shared goals, sharedknowledge, and mutual respect that togetherfoster attentiveness to the situation and to oneanother.

Bureaucracy interferes with the process of re-ciprocal interrelating between workers and cus-tomers in three important ways. First, bureau-

cracy shares many common elements withconventional notions of professionalism thatcan reinforce worker-customer relations charac-terized by emotional detachment and profes-sional power over the client. While profession-alism has traditionally been seen as analternative to bureaucracy, we view profes-sionalism and bureaucracy as dual and com-plementary forces that influence worker-customer relationships. Consensus is growingthat professionalism and bureaucracy are posi-tively related, especially as professionals in-creasingly work within an organizational con-text (Adler et al., 2008; Toren, 1976). The historicalautonomy of most professions is lessening. Atthe same time, demands for accountability andconsumer empowerment are increasing, leadingto a transformation in professionalism (Adler etal., 2008). Professional practice within the formalorganizational context can lead to an "accom-modation of professionalism to bureaucracy"(Burbules & Densmore, 1991: 50). While profes-sionals have been traditionally bound by a codeof ethics to represent the interests of clients,bureaucrats have been responsible to the inter-ests of the organization (Blau & Scott, 2003). Pro-fessionalism within the bureaueratie contextmay accommodate the bureaucratic norms thatdeter special consideration for individual cir-cumstances, but it also has the potential to de-velop relational norms that support the interestsof individual customers.

Second, bureaucracy discourages the use ofcaring or knowledge of individual circum-stances to guide decisions and actions. Weberdescribed the bureaucratic administrator's rela-tionship to employees and customers as "per-sonally detached and strictly objective," not"moved by personal sympathies" (1968: 975). Theprofessional boundaries and expert knowledgethat characterize conventional notions of profes-sionalism mirror the emotional neutrality andscientific rationality of Weber's ideal bureau-cracy. Davies argued that the formality and dis-tance in Weber's ideal "are seen as the onlyroute to a rational decision" (1995: 25), therebyexcluding emotion or individual circumstancesas an element of decision making. Weber sawbureaucracy as a way to eliminate unjustifiabledifferences in how people are treated, yet thesedifferences are often justifiable from a humanperspective and, moreover, form the very basisof relational work (Barley & Kunda, 2001).

2012 Giffeii and Douglass 717

Third, not only does this notion of profession-alism impose restrictions on emotional connec-tivity and responsiveness, but it can also posi-tion the worker as an expert with power over thecustomer, disrupting the potential for sharedgoals and shared knowledge (Douglass & Git-tell, in press). The possibility that the customermay have knowledge that enables him or her tocontribute in a fundamental way to the achieve-ment of desired outcomes is not considered,making coproduction impossible. Hwang andPowell have argued that this professional orien-tation "can lead to diminished experimentationas well as an orientation towards doing for oth-ers rather than with them" (2009: 207), ereating abarrier to shared goals and mutual respeet.

These challenges for relational work pro-cesses posed by conventional notions of theworker-customer relationship are well docu-mented, and alternative forms of professional-ism have been proposed that address the work-er-customer power imbalance and theconstraints of rigid, rule-based interactions withcustomers. These theories contribute to our un-derstanding of relational coproduction, charac-terized by the combined contributions of work-ers and customers to outcomes. Collaborative,democratic, and transformative models of pro-fessionalism (Adler et al., 2008; Sachs, 2003) allsuggest moving beyond the exclusive eontrol ofexpertise that characterizes conventional pro-fessionalism. Adler et al. describe a collabora-tive professional as one who learns to "see otherprofessional communities and non-profession-als [perhaps customers] as sources of learningand support, rather than interference" (2008: 15).Gutek (1995) describes the relational dynamicsof service relationships through whieh eustom-ers move beyond being passive recipients toadding significant value by sharing their knowl-edge with that of the service provider. The moveaway from the professional-as-expert suggestsa more "fluid expertise" that aligns with themove toward a more collaborative worker-customer relationship (Fletcher, 2007: 356).Moreoever, a transformative notion of profes-sionalism can embrace both the emotional andthe rational, recognizing that emotions are asource of valuable data about individuals aswell as situations (Kahn, 2005). Rather than mar-ginalizing emotional ways of knowing and con-necting with others, relational eoproduetion af-firms relational eapaeities.

This proeess of reeiproeal interrelating eon-neets workers and eustomers as they eommuni-eate to develop shared goals and knowledge inthe eontext of respeet for the humanity and ex-pertise of the other. Together, shared goals,shared knowledge, and mutual respect fosterworker and customer attentiveness to theemerging situation and to one another. For ex-ample, shared goals and knowledge and mutualrespect between a parent and a teacher fosterattentiveness to the child in the context of his/her school, family, and community life and tohow that particular parent and teacher mightmost effectively partner to support the child. Theparent and teacher together determine what isto be done, and how best to do it, from a holisticperspective gained from shared goals, sharedknowledge, and mutual respect. This attentionto the situation and to the unique needs, inter-ests, and emotions of the other is fostered by theprocess of reciprocal interrelating.

Proposition Ja; ñeJafiona] coproduc-íion between workers and eustomersfosters attentiveness to the situationand to one another.

Relational Coordination in theWorker-Worker Relationship

The seeond key relationship is the worker-worker relationship linking organizational par-tieipants who play complementary roles in thehorizontal division of labor. In the pure rela-tional form the worker-worker relationship ischaracterized by personalized reciprocity—acting based on personal rather than organiza-tional criteria. In eontrast, in the bureaueratieform eoordination is exereised primarily at thelevel of top management, keeping frontlineworkers largely divided within their areas ofexpertise and unaware of the larger pieture,thus eneouraging subgoal optimization and lim-iting employees' ability to share in the processof coordination (March & Simon, 1958; Weber,1984/1920). Relational bureaucracy is insteadcomposed of reciprocal relationships amongworkers characterized by shared goals, sharedknowledge, and mutual respect, supported bystructures that embed reciprocal interrelatinginto workers' roles.

FoUett conceptualized coordination as a pro-cess of reciprocal interrelating:


My first principle, coordination as the reciprocalrelating of all factors in a situation, shows us justwhat this process of coordination actually is,shows us the nature of unity.... This sort of re-ciprocal relating, this interpénétration of everypart by every other part and again by every otherpart as it has been permeated by all, should bethe goal of all attempts at coordination, a goal, ofcourse, never wholly reached (1949: 214).

Follett further distinguished between coordina-tion as an additive total versus coordination asa relational total, arguing that this distinctionplays a role in the social sciences similar to therole that Einstein's theory of relativity plays inthe natural sciences. The process of coordina-tion is not one of adding up all the factors in asituation but, rather, one of understanding theirinterpénétration or interdependenee. Effeetivecoordination requires systems thinking, a shar-ing and integration of knowledge itself. Becausecoordination occurs through the integration ofknowledge, and because that integrated knowl-edge then informs action, Follett contended thatcoordination should occur throughout the orga-nization, not just at the level of top management.

The downsides of bureaucratic coordinationare clear. Follett argued that the functional di-vision of responsibility tends to overshadow thesense that all participants are responsible forthe whole. Referring issues up the chain of com-mand for resolution is not sufficient becausethat solution ignores the proeess of reeiproealinterrelating through whieh people eome to un-derstand and aet effeetively on the world aroundthem. "When you have a purely up and down theline system of management. . . you lose all theadvantage of the first-hand eontaet, that baek-wards and forwards, that proeess of reeiproealmodifieation" (Follett, 1949: 198). One of bureau-eraey's fundamental flaws is its disruption ofthe intersubjeetive eognitive proeess throughwhieh workers gain their understanding of asituation and their ability to respond holistieallyto it (Piore, 1993: 16).

The dominant approaeh by organizationalseholars after Follett was to identify eondi-tions—sueh as uneertainty and interdepen-denee—favoring the relational form of eoordina-tion and then to seek ways to minimize thoseeonditions, enabling the survival of a moremeehanistie, bureaueratie way of eoordinatingwork that was assumed to be simpler and moreeost effeetive. To minimize the need for rela-tional eoordination, organizations were advised

to build buffer inventories—work in proeess in-ventories that enable eaeh task to proeeed rela-tively independently from other tasks and to berelatively robust to unpredieted ehanges thatmight oeeur in other task areas or in the externalenvironment (Mareh & Simon, 1958).

Thompson (1967) deseribed relational forms ofeoordination as "mutual adjustment"—a pro-cess of adjusting all factors of the situation toeach other—similar to FoUett's definition of co-ordination. But like March and Simon, he arguedthat relational forms of coordination are prohib-itively diffieult and can be avoided except underthe conditions of "reciprocal task interdepen-dence," where the outcome of one activity af-fects the performance of another activity andvice versa, a condition that Follett argued isalways essentially present. Inserting buffers toreduce reciprocal task interdependence enabledthe bureaucratic form of eoordination to endureby minimizing the need for direet relationshipsbetween workers.

In the inereasingly high-veloeity, unprediet-able environment of subsequent deeades, arange of innovations emerged to address thechallenge of coordinating work, many of themplacing an emphasis on achieving coordinationdirectly among frontline workers. If frontlineworkers are strategically positioned at the inter-face between the organization and a high-velocity environment, rather than simply opera-tives who respond to orders from above, thencoordination should occur at this interface aswell as at higher levels of the organization. Gal-braith (1972), Tushman and Nadler (1978), andArgote (1982) proposed an information process-ing theory of coordination, shifting the weight ofattention toward relational forms of coordina-tion and demonstrating their increasing useful-ness under conditions of uncertainty.

Relational forms of coordination have beenfurther developed in recent years, highlightingthe intersubjectivity of the coordination proeessby paying close attention to the quality of com-munication and relationships among partici-pants (Beehky, 2006; Faraj & Xiao, 2006; Gittell,2002a; Heekseher & Adler, 2006; Stephens, 2010).Weiek (1995), for example, argued that eoordina-tion oeeurs through the development of mutuallyreinforcing interpretations among participants,enabled by collective sensemaking. The notionof coordination as collective mind was furtherdeveloped by Weick and Roberts (1993) in their


study of heedful interrelating on flight decks,demonstrating that collective mind and heedfulinterrelating enable organizations to achieve re-liable performance under demanding condi-tions. Shared cognitions are at the heart of ex-pertise coordination, as proposed by Faraj andSprouU (2000), suggesting how reciprocal rela-tionships foster awareness of a situation as itemerges. Quinn and Dutton (2005) have arguedthat reciprocal relationships are critical forachieving the state of flow and exchange of en-ergy that enable participants to eoordinate workdireetly with eaeh other by fostering workers'attentiveness to the emerging situation and toone another. For example, staff in a primarycare clinic may use reciprocal relationships ofshared goals, shared knowledge, and mutualrespect to foster their attentiveness to theemerging situation and to one another as sched-uled patients arrive on time, late, or not at all,with both expected and unexpected conditionsto be treated.

Proposifion lb: Relational coordina-tion between workers fosters atten-tiveness fo fhe sifuafion and to oneanother.

Relational Leadership in theWorker-Manager Relationship

The worker-manager relationship connectsparticipants who are assigned to different rolesin the vertical division of labor, with in-depthfocused knowledge associated with frontlineroles and broader, less-focused knowledge as-sociated with managerial roles. This vertical di-vision of labor creates an interdependence be-tween roles, with managers depending on thedeeper, more focused knowledge of workers andworkers depending on the broader contextualknowledge of managers at successive levels ofthe organization. Both are necessary, neither issuffieient, and neither is intrinsieally more im-portant than the other.

In the pure bureaueratie form, in eontrast, theworker-manager relationship is defined bynorms of hierarehy and power over rather thanpower with (Weber, 1984/1920). At the same timethis hierarehy is embedded in roles that providesome protection against outright domination(Weber, 1984/1920). "Hierarchy without domina-tion" means that a realm of autonomy exists

within the confines of a worker's job description,protected by formal rules from outright domina-tion (Weber, 1984/1920). Theories of street-levelbureaucracy (Lipsky, 1980), as well as more re-cent theories of job crafting (Berg, Grant, & John-son, 2010; Wrzesniewski & Dutton, 2001), suggestthat workers do indeed have a realm of auton-omy in traditional bureaucratic organizations,providing them discretion within the confines oftheir job descriptions and even enabling them toreshape their job descriptions. This realm of au-tonomy can be used to withhold work effort butcan also be used to take action on behalf ofparticular customers or to increase the meaningof the work. Effective use of this autonomy islimited, however, when workers lack under-standing owing to their subordinate position inthe hierarchy and their disconnected role in thehorizontal division of labor.

In the pure relational form leaders exercisepower and influence based on their personalqualities rather than positional authority. Theupside of the relational form is that leadersmust find a way to earn the commitment or loy-alty of organizational participants. The down-side of the relational form is that the lack ofrole-based authority means there are no formallimits to the use of that authority, which candegenerate into despotism or nepotism, as We-ber argued when making his case for the supe-riority of the bureaucratic form.

Relational bureaucracy is eharaeterized in-stead by worker-manager relationships that areboth role based and reeiproeal. Follett deseribedthis reeiproeal eontrol as being not eoereive but,rather, "a eoordinating of all funetions, that is, aeolleetive self-eontrol" (1949: 226). Aehieving thiseolleetive self-eontrol, she argued, requires aform of leadership that is distributed throughoutthe organization rather than concentrated in afew positions. Follett observed some organiza-tions in which "we find responsibility for man-agement shot all through a business . . . [and]some degree of authority all along the line . . .[such that] leadership can be exercised by manypeople besides the top executive" (1949: 183).Rather than vesting authority in one person overanother based on his or her position in the hier-archy, authority is shared (Fletcher, 1999). Theheart of reciprocal or relational leadership is torecognize authority in each position, based onthe knowledge associated with it.


Consistent with Follett's argument, McGregorargued that

the capacity to exercise a relatively high degreeof imagination, ingenuity and creativity in thesolution of organizational problems is widely, notnarrowly, distributed in the population .. . (but]under the conditions of modern industrial life, theintellectual potentialities of the average humanbeing are only partially utilized (1960: 47-48).

Realizing these potentialities requires relianceon integration and self-control rather than onexternal direction and control, with managersand workers engaging with each other to artic-ulate the goals of the organization and how bestto achieve those goals.

Ancona and Bresman (2007) explored distrib-uted leadership as a form of leadership that iscarried out by both formal and informal leadersthroughout the organization to facilitateachievement of organizational objectives. Theydemonstrated that leadership is a form of influ-ence that can be exercised by participants atany level of an organization and that leadersare most effeetive when they ean inspire othersto engage in the responsibilities of leadership,rather than attempting to earry out all leader-ship responsibilities on their own. Distributedleadership thus requires faeilitative leadershipbehaviors more so than direetive leadership be-haviors and transformative leadership behav-iors more so than transaetional or passive lead-ership behaviors. Consistent with thisargument, Carson, Tesluk, and Marrone (2007)found that supportive supervisory behaviorsprediet greater engagement of frontline workersin shared leadership.

Relational leadership owes much to the con-cepts of distributed and shared leadership.However, relational leadership does more thandraw upon expertise and leadership from par-ticipants throughout the organization. It is a pro-cess of reeiproeal interrelating through whiehthe expertise held by different partieipants in-terpenetrates, ereating a more holistie perspee-tive that is integrative rather than additive. Re-lational leadership thus requires the ability tofaeilitate the interpénétration of expertiseamong others sueh that their expertise is notsimply added up but, rather, eaeh participant isinfluenced by the other to achieve a more inte-grated understanding of the situation. Rela-tional leadership therefore also draws on the

concept of "connective leadership," as articu-lated by Lipman-Bluman:

Connective leadership derives its label from itscharacter of connecting individuals not only totheir own tasks and ego drives, but also to thoseof the group and community that depend uponthe accomplishment of mutual goals. It is leader-ship that connects individuals to others and toothers' goaJs, using a broad spectrum of behav-ioral strategies. It is leadership that "proceedsfrom a premise of connection" (Gilligan, 1982) anda recognition of networks of relationships thatbind society in a web of mutual responsibilities(1992: 184).

Relational leadership is, thus, a process ofcocreation that requires a particular set of skills,as reflected in Fletcher's concept of "fluidexpertise":

Power and/or expertise shifts from one party tothe other, not only over time but in the course ofone interaction. This requires two skills. One is askill in empowering others: an ability toshare—in some instances even customizing—one's own reality, skill, knowledge, etc. in waysthat make it accessible to others. The other is skillin being empowered: an ability and willingnessto step away from the expert role in order to learnfrom or be influenced by the other (1999: 64).

Willingness to step away from the expert rolein order to learn from the other is also known asleading through humble inquiry (Schein, 2009).When designated leaders demonstrate this will-ingness, they help to create a safe space for allparticipants to set aside egos in order to connectfor a shared purpose. Leading through humbleinquiry is therefore foundational to the proeessof relational leadership. Leading through hum-ble inquiry does not require one to be humble inthe sense of lacking confidence in one's owncontributions. On the contrary, it requires theconfidence to recognize that one's own contribu-tions, however essential, are not sufficient toachieve the desired outcomes given the distri-bution of relevant expertise and the need fordistinct areas of expertise to interpenetrate tocreate a more holistie understanding of thesituation.

In sum, relational leadership requires workersand managers to develop shared goals, sharedknowledge, and mutual respeet, fostering atten-tiveness to the emerging situation and to oneanother, as when engineers and their projectmanagers negotiate revised deadlines, drawingon their differential knowledge regarding the


challenges of the work, the needs of the client,and the scheduling demands posed by otherprojects.

Proposifion Ic: Relational leadershipbetween workers and managers fos-ters attentiveness to the situation andto one another.

CARING. TIMELY, ANDKNOWLEDGEABLE RESPONSES

In this section we outline three key outcomesthat are expected to result from these positiverelational dynamics. As seen above, when work-er-customer, worker-worker, and worker-man-ager relationships are reciprocal, they enabledistinct perspectives to interpenetrate with eachother in a way that is integrative rather thanadditive, enhancing participant attentiveness tothe situation. Moreover, when these relation-ships are reciprocal, participants treat eachother as subjects rather than objects, fosteringtheir attentiveness to each other. By fosteringattentiveness to the situation and to others,these forms of reciprocal interrelating enableearing, timely, and knowledgeable responses.

Caring Responses

Caring responses, by definition, require atten-tiveness to others in the context of the situation.How does role-based reciprocal interrelating en-able caring responses? On a relational level,organizations can be thought of as systems ofattachment or detachment, both cognitively andemotionally (Kahn, 1998). As Kahn explains,"Caring occurs in the context of meaningful re-lationships and attachments. Control occurs inthe context of systems and processes that main-tain distance between people in different roles"(2005: 156). Whereas bureaucracy disrupts at-tachment by "disappearing" emotion and main-taining distance and the relational form relieson personal rather than role-based attachments,relational bureaucracy connects participantsboth cognitively and emotionally. This connec-tivity provides participants with criticial in-sights to enable caring responses. Through thesharing of goals and knowledge, participantslearn about one another, their perspectives, andtheir expertise. Through mutual respect, partic-

ipants recognize, value, and attend to the feel-ings and needs of particular others.

For example, Douglass (2011) describes a sit-uation in which a preschool teacher requested aparticular day off after learning that her adultson would be eoming home unexpeetedly frommilitary serviee abroad. Other teaehers had pre-viously requested this same day off, making itimpossible to honor the teaeher's request. Theprogram direetor shared the situation with allthe staff, enabling an empathie response toemerge in whieh another teaeher volunteered totake a different day off. Caring behaviors suehas this are responsive to the situation and an-other's needs and interests.

Proposifion 2a: By fostering attentive-ness to the situation and to one an-other, reciprocal interrelating enablescaring responses.

Timely Responses

Attentiveness to one another and to the situa-tion as it unfolds enables partieipants to re-spond to that situation, individually and eoUee-tively, in a timely way. This dynamie is wellexplored in the literature on situational aware-ness (Faraj & Xiao, 2006), heedful interrelating(Weiek & Roberts, 1993), and high-reliability or-ganizing (Weiek & Suteliffe, 2003; Weiek, Sut-eliffe, & Obstfeld, 2005). The insight we add hereis the importanee of reeiproeal interrelatingamong all partieipants—customers, workers,and managers—in order to bring their uniqueperspectives to bear on the development of col-lective awareness and, thus, to sense when aresponse is needed.

Proposifion 2b: By fostering attentive-ness to the situation and to one an-other, reciprocal interrelating enablestimely responses.

Knowledgeable Responses

Similarly, attentiveness to one another and tothe situation as it unfolds enables participantsto respond to that situation, individually andcollectively, in a knowledgeable way. The sameliterature on situational awareness (Faraj &Xiao, 2006), heedful interrelating (Weick & Rob-erts, 1993), and high-reliability organizing(Weick & Sutcliffe, 2003; Weick et al., 2005) sug-


gests that collective awareness enables partie-ipants to respond in a knowledgeable way tounexpeeted events. The insight we add here isthe importanee of reeiproeal interrelatingamong all partieipants—eustomers, workers,and managers—for bringing their unique per-speetives to bear on the development of eollee-tive awareness and, thus, to sense the nature ofthe response that is most appropriate given theunique situation that they are faeing.

Proposition 2c: By fostering attentive-ness to the situation and to one an-other, reciprocal interrelating enablesknowledgeable responses.

If reeiproeal interrelating oeeurs only amongindividual partieipants, however, the organiza-tion will fail to ensure the sealability, repliea-bility, and sustainability of these responses overtime. Relational bureaueraey therefore needsformal struetures to embed reeiproeal interrelat-ing into roles, over and above the individualpartieipants.

STRUCTURES THAT EMBED RECIPROCALINTERRELATING INTO ROLES

How do organizations embed reeiproeal inter-relating into roles, over and above the individ-uals who inhabit them? Weiek (1995) reeognizedthis ehallenge, arguing that beeause organiza-tions are composed of patterns of intersubjectiv-ity, their primary challenge is to sustain thesepatterns over time as participants come and go.To sustain these patterns, organizations mustfind a way to bridge intimate intersubjectivityand generic intersubjectivity.

It is precisely the quality of susceptibility of aninteraction to replacement and substitution of theinteractants that is an important defining prop-erty of organizations. If the capability to makemutually reinforcing interpretations is lost whenpeople are replaced, then neither organizationnor sense-making persist (Weick, 1995: 73).

Heimer (1992) argued further that while sociolo-gists like Parsons have tended to elevate uni-versalistic relationships above particularistic orpersonal relationships, the key for an effectivenetwork organization is to move beyond this di-chotomy by applying universalistic principles tothe treatment of particular individuals.

But there are alternative ways to overcomethis dichotomy. Ouchi (1980) argued that partic-

ipants must be socialized from the start intoaccepting the organization's goals withoutquestion, thus enabling the organization toachieve control without either hierarchy or con-tracts. While Ouehi's solution may be eonve-nient, asking partieipants to aeeept organiza-tional goals without question is elearlyantithetieal to the eoneept of relational leader-ship and therefore antithetieal to the relationalbureaueratie form. Another solution is to fosterrepeated interpersonal interactions over time.Lawler, Thye, and Yoon (2008) argued that, overtime, person-to-person ties can become general-ized into person-to-group ties, thus generatinggroup obligations from interpersonal obliga-tions. Leana and Van Buren (1999) identified for-mal practices, such as employment security andreciprocity norms, that build organizational so-cial capital by fostering repeated interpersonalinteraetions.

However, Leana and Van Buren (1999: 545) sug-gested another path, pointing out that formalstruetures ean be used to define relationships interms of roles rather than individuals. Gittell,Seidner, and Wimbush (2010) have taken thisargument further, proposing that organizationsean develop relational work systems—formalstruetures that foster relationships of sharedgoals, shared knowledge, and mutual respeetamong workers—enabling workers to more ef-feetively eoordinate their work. In this sectionwe build on previous work by showing how for-mal structures can foster role-based reeiproealinterrelating between worker and worker,worker and eustomer, and worker and manager.

Selection and Training forRelational Competence

Seleetion and training are typieally used toensure that partieipants have the requisiteknowledge, skills, and abilities for the work athand, and sometimes also to ensure eommit-ment to the organization and its goals. Going astep further, the relational bureaueratie form re-quires partieipants—workers, customers, andmanagers—to be selected and trained for theirrelational competence to develop shared goals,shared knowledge, and mutual respect with oth-ers. Relational competence involves skills suehas perspeetive taking and empathy, whieh aredeeply rooted in personal traits but also ean belearned (Williams, 2011). Perspective taking can

2012 GifíeJl and Douglass 723

enable empathy, thereby motivating earing re-lations (Williams, 2011). Fluid expertise requiresboth managers and workers to have relationalskills, sueh as openness to learning from others,enabling them to move baek and forth betweenexpert and nonexpert roles (Fleteher, 2007). Inaddition, Fleteher (2007) argues that fluid exper-tise also requires a "relational stanee," an un-derlying belief in the potential for humangrowth-in-eonnection. Selection and trainingcan be designed to identify and develop theserelational competencies (Baker & Dutton, 2007).

Selection and training not only have the po-tential to identify and develop relational compe-tence but also have the potential to elicit it.Given that individuals have a range of potentialcapabilities that can be either elicited or sup-pressed, selection and training for relationalcompetence can signal that participants are in-deed welcome to bring their relational capabil-ities to work. Even customers can be selectedand trained with an eye toward their role aspartners in the work process, eneouraging themto develop shared goals, shared knowledge, andmutual respeet with the workers who are serv-ing them, as well as with their fellow eustomers,as in a sehool, for example, where eoproductionmay require collaboration among students aswell as with their teachers. In all three rolerelationships, selection and training can upholda way of being that is attentive to each individ-ual while going beyond any particular individ-ual to reflect a more universal sense of "how wetreat each other here."

Proposition 3a: Selection and trainingfor relational eompetenee help to em-bed reciprocal interrelating into cus-tomer, worker, and manager roles.

Cross-Role Performance Measuresand Rewards

Traditional performance measures and re-wards tend to focus on local goals in order toachieve accountability, but in doing so they en-courage subgoal optimization—that is, optimiz-ing one's local goal at the expense of thebroader goal (March & Simon, 1958). In addition,they often ignore caring altogether, in favor ofmore readily quantifiable goals (Cancian, 2000;Davies, 1995; Eaton, 2000; Fletcher, 1999). In con-trast, cross-role performance measures and re-

wards encompass all roles that are involved inachieving desired outcomes, encouraging par-ticipants to focus on problem solving rather thanassigning blame (Chenhall, 2005; Deming, 1986;Locke & Latham, 1990). Such an approach re-duces finger-pointing and supports the develop-ment of shared goals, shared knowledge, andmutual respect across roles (Gittell et al., 2010).

Cross-role performance measures and re-wards also encourage participants to take abroader perspective on their work, thus fosteringthe quality of relationships among participants.Davies (1995), Fletcher (1999), Cancian (2000), Ea-ton (2000), and Watson (2009) suggest ways toalign relational work with organizational normsin measurable ways, such as creating measuresand rewards for relational work and explicitlyincluding relational work in regulatory or reim-bursement systems. Performance measures thathold workers, managers, and eustomers jointlyresponsible for aehieving desired outeomes eaneneourage the development of shared goals,shared knowledge, and mutual respeet. For ex-ample, when hospital leaders, support staff, andpatients are given shared aeeountability for out-eomes of eare along with elinieians, they aremore likely to partner to aehieve the desiredouteomes.

Proposition 3b: Cross-role perfor-mance measures and rewards help toembed reciprocal interrelating intocustomer, worker, and manager roles.

Structured Cross-Role Conflict Resolution

Follett (1942/1926b) argued that eonfliet is not aproblem to be suppressed but, rather, an oppor-tunity for the ereative juxtaposition of opposingperspeetives, generating new insights and inno-vative solutions. Conflicts have been found toimprove performance when they occur in a con-text that values task-related conflict; however,unresolved conflicts undermine relationshipsand hinder performance over time (Jehn, 1995).Moreover, when participants are divided bypower differences, geographical separation, ordistinct thought worlds, conflicts are not likelyto be resolved spontaneously. In such a contextthe laissez-faire approach—"we just hope peo-ple use common sense and work it out with eachother"—is expected to enable dysfunctional re-lationship patterns to persist (Gittell, 2009).


Cross-role eonfliet resolution struetures pro-vide a systematie way to artieulate and aeeom-modate multiple points of view, eaeh with thepotential to add value to the work proeess. Strue-tured conflict resolution provides opportunitiesfor building shared goals and a shared under-standing of the work proeess and for identifyingand eorreeting disrespeetful interaetions,whether in the context of the worker-worker,worker-manager, or worker-customer relation-ship (Gittell, 2000; Mareschal, 2003). In a schoolcontext, for example, confliet resolution struc-tures should be able to address conflicts be-tween teachers, between principals and teach-ers, between teachers and students, and evenbetween students. While several studies con-clude that relationship conflict should beavoided in favor of task conflict (Jehn, 1995; Si-mon & Peterson, 2000), relationship conflict isarguably just as valuable (Edmondson & Smith,2006). When addressed constructively, bothkinds of conflict have the potential to build re-lationships (Gittell, 2003).

Proposifion 3c: Structured cross-ioleconflict resolution helps to embed re-ciprocal interrelating into customer,worker, and manager roles.

Relational lob Design—Boundary Spannersand Supervisors

Responsive engagement with others inher-ently involves some degree of ambiguity, a fac-tor that bureaucratic systems attempt to eradi-cate (Mumby & Putnam, 1992). Rather thanreducing ambiguity through rigid rules and aone-size-fits-all approach, relational bureau-cracy incorporates role flexibility to allow forambiguity while still ensuring effective workprocesses. To respond in a knowledgeable,timely, and caring way to others, participantsneed the discretion to legitimately go "offscript," and organizations need the structures tocoordinate and align this improvisation with or-ganizational goals. To preserve the richness ofreciprocal interrelating in role-based relation-ships, formal roles must be designed in a waythat is flexible enough to include principled cus-tomization to the needs of individual role inhab-itants, consistent with the ethic of care and re-sponsibility (Grant, 2007; Grant & Parker, 2009).Going beyond existing literature, relational job

design in our model includes not only role ex-pectations to support reeiproeal interrelatingbut also the staffing levels to enable it.

Moreover, relational job design can be used todesign specific roles, such as the boundaryspanner, whose job is to integrate the work ofother people around a project, process, or eus-tomer (Mohrman, 1993). Because boundary span-ners build understanding between areas of ex-pertise, they are expected to add value whenexisting boundaries are highly divisive. Butboundary spanner roles support relational pro-cesses only when they are staffed sufficiently toprovide the time needed to engage in relationalpractice (Gittell, 2000; Gittell et al., 2010). Forexample, ease management jobs ean be de-signed with large easeloads and the expeeta-tion of managing a checklist of clients. As onecase manager explained, "I am responsible forabout 30 patients. . . . With this number, I justlook at the list for problem patients" (Gittell,2003: 139). Alternatively, boundary spanner jobscan be designed with more moderate caseloadsand role expectations that enable ongoing con-versations among themselves, the client, andcolleagues who serve that elient. This alterna-tive, more relational job design was deseribedby a nurse in the following way:

Case managers have to be very, very, very goodcommunicators and negotiators and very asser-tive buf also have a good sense of timing....Willing to be a pafienf advocate but also be ableto balance fhe financial parameters, fhink "out ofthe box" and have a system perspective (Giftell,2009: 143).

Similarly, theorists have argued that rela-tional approaehes to leadership tend to be moretime consuming than autocratic forms of control.According to McGregor,

Roles cannof be clarified, mutual agreement con-cerning the responsibilities of a subordinate's jobcannot be reached in a few minutes, nor canappropriate targets be established without agood deal of discussion. It is far quicker fo handa subordinate a position description and fo in-form him of his objectives for the coming period(1960: 76).

Small spans of eontrol increase the time a su-pervisor can work alongside any given worker,and therefore provide greater opportunities forbuilding shared goals, sharing "fluid expertise,"and providing coaching and feedback (Fletcher,2007; Likert, 1961; Tannenbaum, 1968). Gittell


(2001) found that smaller spans of control en-abled managers to play a more faeilitativeeoaching role, increasing relational coordina-tion and desired performance outcomes.

Proposifion 3d: Relational job designhelps to embed reciprocal interrelat-ing into customer, worker, andmanager roles.

with a client, with fellow staff members whowork with that client, and with managers whocan play a supportive, cocreative role.

Proposifion 3e: Flexible cross-role pro-tocols help to embed reciprocal inter-relating into eustomer, worker, andmanager roles.

Flexible Cross-Role Protocols

Flexible cross-role protocols enable partici-pants to develop a sense of shared goals, sharedknowledge, and mutual respect by providingthem with a mental map of how their individualtasks are connected to the overall proeess, en-abling them to more readily adapt to emergentneeds over time (Feldman, 2003; Gittell, 2002a).Similarly, Adler and Borys argue that

enabling procedures provide users with visibilityinto the processes they regulate by explicatingkey components and by codifying best practiceroutines.... [Although tasks are specialized andpartitioned] procedures are designed to afford[workers] an understanding of where their tasksfit into the whole (1996: 72).

Feldman and Rafaeli (2002) show that routinesean serve as sourees of eonneetions, shared un-derstandings, and shared meanings among par-tieipants, while Faraj and Xiao (2006) show thatepistemie eoordination praetiees sueh as proto-cols contribute to successful outcomes in dy-namic settings by providing a common point ofreference for workers with distinct areas ofexpertise.

For example, organizations can develop "softand selective standards that do not prescribehow trade-offs must be made but provide direc-tion for making trade-offs" (Noordegraaf, 2007:779; see also Davies, 1995). Mass customizationoffers a model for this approach by integratingprinciples of standardization with customization(Selladurai, 2004). In her study of child care cen-ters, Douglass (2011) shows how flexible proto-cols can be designed to support workers' use offlexible and caring responses with clients. Sim-ilarly, in mental health clinics eounselors ean betrained to follow a prespeeified set of rules, orthey can be provided with protocols for respond-ing flexibly and sensitively to the differingneeds of clients. The flexible protocol enables acounselor to engage in reciprocal interrelating

Cross-Role Meetings with Relational Space

Knowledge of the other party's needs, feel-ings, wishes, or individual circumstances is re-quired in order to implement a flexible protocol.Thus, role-based reciprocal interrelating also re-quires scheduled or planned interactions be-tween participants. In a study of nursing homes,Lopez (2006) found that organizations can fosterauthentic worker-customer relationshipsthrough the use of "organized emotional care"—specific organizational structures and practicesthat support, rather than restrict or coerce, work-er-customer relationships. In one of the nursinghomes in his study, Lopez found a hybrid ap-proach to emotional care in which bureaucraticprocedures were used to support interactivework. The organization established rules aboutwhen and how workers should interact with cus-tomers—for example, instructing workers to in-volve customers in decisions about leaving theirrooms and to engage customers in conversa-tions promoting relationship building. Lopez ar-gues (2006: 152) that rather than being coercivebureaucratic structures that impede relation-ships, these rules emphasize the humanity andcontribution of the customer and create "newpossibilities for meaningful relationships" be-tween workers and customers.

Similarly, cross-functional meetings giveworkers a chance to coordinate their tasks inter-actively on the spot (Argote, 1982), thus provid-ing an opportunity to develop relational coordi-nation (Gittell, 2002a). Faraj and Xiao (2006)argue that meetings are a dialogic eoordinationpractice that contributes to successful outcomesin dynamic, time-eonstrained settings by provid-ing a setting in whieh distinet perspeetives eaninterpenetrate and influenee one another. Faee-to-faee interaetions help to ensure effective com-munication because of their higher bandwidth,their immediacy, and their ability to build con-nections among participants through the use of


nonverbal clues (Goffman, 1961; Nohria & ReplicabilityEceles, 1992).

As Kellogg (2009) suggests, however, it is notthe cross-role meeting itself but the creation of arelational space that embeds reciprocal interre-lating into participant roles. One physieian de-seribed her efforts to ereate relational spaee inthe eontext of family-eentered rounds:

We introduce ourselves to the family, and we'llsay something like—"May is your nurse and she'sawesome—she's been a nurse longer than I'vebeen a doctor." We say hello to the family and askhow are things going since J last saw you? Weask the nurses and pharmacists to participateduring the rounds—and they do—then they knowthey are valuable. We show them that there'svalue to them being in the room. Then they feelmore comfortable answering the family's ques-tions afterward (Gittell & Suchman, in press).

Proposifion 3/; Cross-role meetingswith relational space help to embedreciprocal interrelating into customer,worker, and manager roles.

Reliance on personal ties also limits the rep-licability of the relational form relative to thebureaucratic form. As individual participantscome and go to pursue their broader work andnonwork goals, the pure relational form is chal-lenged to create consistent, repeatable out-comes (Briscoe, 2006). Moreover, the need to con-tinually reinvent the wheel results in wastedtime and resources. To the extent that formalstructures succeed in embedding relationshipsinto roles, the caring, timely, knowledgeable re-sponses found in the relational form can bemore readily replicated, resulting in greaterconsistency and efficiency of resource utiliza-tion while giving individuals the freedom tocome and go as needed.

Proposifion 4b: Role-based reciprocalinterrelating enables the replicabilityof caring, timely, and knowledgeableresponses.

ENABLING SCALABILITY, REPLICABILITY,AND SUSTAINABILITY

The formal structures described above alloworganizations to go beyond the fleeting, precar-ious nature of the pure relational or networkform, enabling reciprocal interrelating to bescaled up, replicated, and sustained over time.

Scalability

As noted earlier, one key weakness of the purerelational form is its reliance on personal ties,which limits its scalability (Bigley & Roberts,2001) and its vulnerability to diversity and geo-graphic dispersion (Carlson & Zmud, 1999) rela-tive to the bureaueratie form, with impersonalrelationships designed for interchangeability,scalability, and geographic dispersion. To theextent that the formal structures describedabove succeed in embedding relationships intoroles, the caring, timely, knowledgeable re-sponses found in the relational form can bescaled up to enable large-scale endeavors to becarried out across geographic boundaries.

Proposifion 4a: Role-based reciprocalinterrelating enables the scalability ofcaring, timely, and knowledgeableresponses.

Sustainability

As noted above, another key weakness of thepure relational form is the shortage of insightsabout how organizations can sustain the rela-tionships that are fundamental to its operation.Theorists have tended to see little room for pre-scribed or formal structures of any kind in therelational form and have tended instead to seestructures as emerging from the informal rela-tionships themselves (Krackhardt & Brass, 1994).To the extent that formal structures succeed inembedding relationships into roles, the caring,timely, knowledgeable responses found in therelational form can be sustained over time.

Proposifion 4c: Role-based reciprocalinterrelating enables the sustainabil-ity of caring, timely, and knowledge-able responses.

DISCUSSION

In this article we capitalize on the creativefriction that comes from the integration of alter-natives that are commonly considered to be mu-tually exclusive (Ashcraft, 2001: 1316; Follett,1942/1926b). Specifically, the relational bureau-cratic hybrid seeks to preserve the reciprocalinterrelating among customers, workers, and


managers found in the relational form whileredesigning the formal struetures found in thebureaueratie form to embed these reeiproeal re-lationships into roles rather than individual par-tieipants, resulting in a higher synthesis of therelational and bureaueratie forms. In short, thesynergies of relational bureaueraey arise fromcombining one eore aspeet of the relationalform—reeiproeal interrelating—with one eoreaspeet of the bureaueratie form—formal strue-tures—to support the development of somethingthat neither form is able to aehieve on its own—role-based reeiproeal interrelating.

Alternative Relational Bureaucratic Hybrids

Previous hybrid models have eoneeptualizedthe interplay of the relational and bureaueratieforms differently than we have here. Heekseher(1994) deseribed a dysfunetional hybrid thateombines the rigid hierarehy and fragmentationof the pure bureaueratie form with the relianceon personal relationships to get things done, asfound in the pure relational form. Heekseher pro-posed, in eontrast, a postbureaueratie form thatis eonsistent in many ways with the relationalbureaueratie model that we introduee here, butwithout embraeing or developing the role of for-mal struetures. MaeDuffie (1995) proposed a flex-ible produetion model, now more eommonlyknown as lean produetion, drawing from thebureaueratie form its use of struetured method-ologies to standardize work, while drawing fromthe relational form the idea of plaeing this strue-tured methodology into the hands of frontlineworkers, enabling them to eonneet with eaehother aeross their speeialized roles and to eon-neet with eustomers by pulling eustomer infor-mation into a highly responsive lean produetionsystem. Adler et al.'s (2008) eoUaborative com-munity model pulls together this stream of work,with its emphasis on fostering cognitive respon-siveness, describing an organizational form inwhich reeiproeal interrelating ean be found inworker-eustomer, worker-worker, and worker-manager relationships.

Asheraft's (2001) feminist bureaueraey modelintroduced a new approach to relational bu-reaucratic hybrids by explicitly integrating theemotional aspects of organizational life alongwith the rational, seeing each as part of an in-tegrated whole that contributes to workers' ca-pacity to perform their jobs, focusing in partieu-

lar on integrating hierarehieal and egalitarianmodes of power. Lopez's (2006) organized emo-tional eare model further explored the emotionalaspects of organizational life, striving to under-stand the management of emotion in care worksettings and illustrating how formal rules andflexible protocols enable caring relationshipsbetween workers and customers. Conceptualiz-ing this stream of work more broadly, Dutton,Worline, Frost, and Lilius (2006) described the"social architecture of the organization"—theuse of formal structures to enable delivery ofcompassionate responses.

Building on these two streams of work, we havearticulated an organizational form that promotesboth eognitive and emotional responsiveness. Insum, relational bureaueraey eoneeptualizes reeip-roeal interrelating in three relationship types thatare fundamental to work organizations—worker-eustomer, worker-worker, and worker-manager—while theorizing how struetures ean embed theseproeesses of reeiproeal interrelating into roles, ul-timately eoneeptualizing how these role-based re-eiproeal relationships foster attentiveness to thesituation and to one another, enabling earing,timely, and knowledgeable responses that ean besealed up, replieated, and sustained over time.

Contributions

Our model of relational bureaueraey offersfour distinetive eontributions to organizationaltheory. Most broadly, we have artieulated a newtheoretieal framework for understanding howorganizational forms ean faeilitate positive rela-tionships among eustomers, workers, and man-agers. This framework addresses the intermesh-ing of personal life in organizations andimpersonal bureaueratie strueture, using a rela-tional perspeetive to address the "spaees be-tween" (e.g., Bradbury & Liehtenstein, 2000) anddrawing on a number of theoretieal lenses thatprivilege relationships (e.g., Dutton & Heaphy,2003; Fleteher, 2007; FoUett, 1949; Gittell, 2002a;Weiek & Roberts, 1993). By framing the issue inbasie terms, sueh as worker-eustomer, worker-worker, and worker-manager relationships, wehave provided a framework that is both under-standable and generalizable.

A seeond eontribution of this model is our eon-eeptualization of how formal organizationalstruetures ean embed reeiproeal interrelatinginto the roles of partieipants. Role-based rela-

728 Academy of Management Review October

tionships help organizations aehieve sealabil-ity, replieability, and sustainability by enablingindividuals to eome and go without disruptingthe web of relationships through whieh work isaeeomplished, thus faeilitating seheduling flex-ibility for the benefit of organizations as well asfor the benefit of partieipants (Briseoe, 2006). Re-lational bureaueratie struetures are designed tofoster reeiproeal eonneetions between roles,rather than diseonneeting them or eonneetingthem through power hierarehies, as traditionalbureaueratie struetures are designed to do. For-mal struetures in relational bureaueraey thusserve as the soeial arehiteeture of an organiza-tion (Dutton et al., 2006), one that systematicallyenables connectivity and caring throughout alllevels of the organization. In doing so relationalbureaucracy preserves role specialization whileidentifying structures that foster both cognitiveand emotional connections between roles, con-sistent with relational approaches to job design(e.g., Gittell, Weinberg, Bennett, & Miller, 2008;Grant, 2007; Grant & Parker, 2009). Relationalbureaucracy highlights the potential for proto-cols to structure patterns of interaction in a waythat enhances connection and visibility into thewhole, facilitating rather than inhibiting adap-tation to changing needs (e.g., Adler & Borys,1996; Feldman, 2003).

The third key contribution of our model isshowing how reciprocal interrelating fostersparticipants' attentiveness to the situationand to each other, thus linking the growingliterature on relational practice with the liter-ature on high-reliability organizing. In effect,the relational bureaucratic model works be-cause role-based reciprocal interrelating pro-vides a foundation for developing collectiveawareness of both emerging situations andthe needs of particular individuals in thosesituations, enabling the achievement of de-sired outcomes.

A final contribution of our model is the res-olution of a fundamental paradox at the heartof any attempt to integrate the bureaucraticand relational forms: embedding reeiproealrelationships into work roles to ensure theirsealability, replieability, and sustainabilitywhile retaining their eognitive and emotionaleonneetivity. One ean question whether role-based relationships are "real," in the senseof having the potential for emotional eonnee-tion that gives relationships their power to

shape organizational life in a positive way(e.g., Dutton, 2003; Dutton & Heaphy, 2003; Dut-ton & Ragins, 2007). However, earing ean in-deed exist in role-based relationships as wellas in personal relationships. Relationships ofreeiproeity eall for treating others as subjeetsrather than objects (Buber, 1937; Hoffer, 1985;Unger, 1975), thus supporting universalisticprinciples of caring for the needs of particularothers. The structures of relational bureau-cracy reinforee this reeiproeal interrelatingby embedding it into roles through hiringand training, struetured eonfliet resolution,flexible protoeols, relational job design, andso on.

These reeiproeal relationships serve as a ba-sis for eoproduetion, eoordination, and leader-ship between roles while at the same time serv-ing as a souree of positive eonneetion betweenindividuals themselves. Consistent with thisidea, Dutton and Ragins (2007), Fleteher (2007),and Fleteher and Ragins (2007) have argued thatpositive personal relationships need not pre-eede positive role-based relationships and thatrole-based relationships need not preelude thedevelopment of personal relationships. Indeed,positive role-based relationships ean serve as astarting point for the development of positivepersonal relationships, eonneeting even thosewho are dissimilar.

Clearly, our model of relational bureaueraeyowes mueh to the theory of relational eoordina-tion, but relational bureaueraey extends thattheory in three distinet and important ways.First, we conceptualize two additional processesof role-based reciprocal interrelating—rela-tional eoproduction between workers and cus-tomers and relational leadership between work-ers and managers—each with its owntheoretical underpinning, in effect tripling thetheoretical scope and impaet of the model. See-ond, we develop the theoretieal argument forhow structures foster relational coordination, aswell as relational eoproduction and relationalleadership, and show how these three forms ofreciprocal interrelating foster participant atten-tiveness to the situation and to one another.Third, we extend relational coordination theoryby exploring the significance of role-based rela-tionships and how they foster universal normsof caring for particular individuals.


Limitations and Directions forFurther Theorizing

Although we have theorized the three forms ofreciprocal interrelating as distinct from eachother, we have reason to believe they are mutu-ally reinforcing. We anticipate that engaging inone reciprocal relationship will increase thelikelihood of developing reciprocity in one'sother relationships, through positive spirals inwhich "positive acts are met with positive acts"(Kahn, 2007: 281). Conversely, engagement in anonreeiproeal relationship may inerease thelikelihood of developing nonreeiproeity in one'sother relationships. This mutual reinforeementean work both within and aeross role relation-ships. For example, the laek of relational lead-ership is likely to hinder the development ofrelational eoordination, and the lack of rela-tional coordination is likely to hinder the devel-opment of relational eoproduetion. Other rolerelationships might also be eonsidered, sueh asreeiproeal interrelating among eustomers, giventhe growing importanee of eustomer eommuni-ties. While synergies aeross role relationshipsand the development of additional role relation-ships are beyond the scope of this article, ourmodel is amenable to extension in thosedireetions.

Another limitation of the model artieulatedhere is its overly simplistic, unidirectional pathof causality between struetures and relation-ships. Those who develop this model furthershould eonsider the possibility of a mutuallyreinforeing eausality between struetures and re-lationships as suggested by strueturation theory(e.g., Orlikowksi & Yates, 1994; Perlow, Gittell, &Katz, 2004). In partieular, a relational bureau-cratic theory of change needs to account forfeedback loops between formal structures andthe relationships they support. Rather than in-tervening in formal struetures and expecting re-lationship patterns to change in response, a mu-tually reinforcing model of causality wouldsuggest the need to intervene in both structuresand relationships to enable an organization tobreak out of its current state into a new state ofbeing (e.g., Fletcher, Bailyn, & Blake-Beard, 2009).

Reciprocal interrelating is an inherent humancapability that has been key to human develop-ment (Mitchell, 2003; Wexler, 2006); however, ourwork identities tend to be entrained toward non-reciprocal interrelating. These nonreeiproeal re-

lational patterns are deeply embedded in exist-ing roles and self-eoneepts and are not easilyehanged. A relational bureaueratie theory ofehange will require deeper understanding of re-lational transformation and serious consider-ation of the role that our schools play in foster-ing nonreeiproeal interrelating. A relationalbureaueratie theory of change will also requireexplicit attention to power differentials, whichtend to prevent people from engaging in recip-rocal interrelating. One key insight for movingforward is that neither party, regardless of itsrelative power, can fully accomplish its task-related goals without cooperation from the otherunder conditions of task interdependence. Thechange process could begin, first, by establish-ing the salience of task-related goals to the par-ties; second, by enabling the parties to discovertheir task interdependence; third, by creating arelational space in which to experiment withnew patterns of interrelating; and fourth, bychanging formal structures to support these newpatterns.

Conclusion

We have theorized how formal structures canreinforce reciprocal relationships betweenworker and customer, worker and worker, andworker and manager—each characterized byshared goals, shared knowledge, and mutualrespect—by embedding them into roles. In sodoing, relational bureaucracy fosters caring,timely, and knowledgeable responses to oth-ers—responses that are scalable, replicable,and sustainable over time. There are severalmanagerial implications of this relational bu-reaucratic model. For example, in the humanservice sector there has been pressure for smallorganizations to merge to achieve economies ofscale but also concerns about undermining thecaring that is central to human services, as wellas concerns about creating diseconomies ofscale owing to the fragmentation that accompa-nies bureaucratization. The relational bureau-cratic form has the potential to mitigate thesetrade-offs and is therefore useful when endur-ance is valued but must not be achieved at theexpense of earing, timely, and knowledgeableresponses to others.

The most fundamental theoretieal insight ofrelational bureaueraey is arguably its resolu-tion of the tension between personal and role-


based relationships in organizations. As Buber(1937: 67) reminds us, the reciprocity that we findin high-quality relationships is universalizable.Similarly, Gilligan (1982) describes female de-velopment as particularizing norms through anethic of caring and male development as univer-salizing norms through an ethic of rights. To-gether, Gilligan (1982) argues, the two representa more complete moral development than eitheron its own. Taking these insights to the organi-zational level, Heimer (1992) argues that the keyis to move beyond the univeralistic/particularis-tic diehotomy by applying universalistie prinei-ples to the treatment of partieular individuals.Our eoneeptualization of relational bureaucracyprovides substantial new insight into how orga-nizations can do just that, as well as insight intothe outeomes they ean expeet to achieve inreturn.

REFERENCES

Adler, P., & Kwon, S. 2002. Soeial eapital: Prospeets for a neweoneept. Academy of Management Review. 27: 17-40.

Adler, P. S., & Borys, B. 1996. Two types of bureaueraey:Enabling and coercive. Administrative Science Quai-terly, 41: 61-89.

Adler, P. S., Kwon, S., & Heekscher, C. 2008. Professionalwork: The emergenee of eoUaborative eommunity. Orga-nization Science, 19: 359-376.

Ancona, D., & Bresman, H. 2007. X-teams: How to build teamsthat lead, innovate and succeed. Boston: Harvard Busi-ness School Press.

Argote, L. 1982. Input uneertainty and organizational eoordi-nation in hospital emergeney units. Administrative Sci-ence Quarterly, 27: 420-434.

Ashcraft, K. L. 2001. Organized dissonance: Feminist bureau-eraey as hybrid form. Academy of Management Journal44: 1301-1322.

Baker, W., & Dutton, J. E. 2007. Enabling positive social cap-ital in organizations. In J. E. Dutton & B. R. Ragins (Eds.),Exploring positive relationships at work: 325-334. Mah-wah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Assoeiates.

Barley, S., & Kunda, G. 2001. Bringing work baek in. Organi-zation Science, 12: 76-95.

Barnard, C. 1954/1938. Functions of the executive. Cam-bridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

Bechky, B. 2006. Gaffers, gofers and grips: Role-based coor-dination in temporary organizations. Organization Sci-ence, 17: 3-21.

Berg, J. M., Grant, A. M., & Johnson, V. 2010. When callings arecalling: Crafting work and leisure in pursuit of unan-swered occupational callings. Organization Science, 21:973-994.

Bigley, G. A., & Roberts, K. 2001. The incident eommandsystem: High reliability organizing for complex and vol-atile task environments. Academy of Management Jour-nal 44: 1281-1299.

Blau, P. M, & Seott, W. R. 2003. Formal organizations: Acomparative approach. Stanford, CA: Stanford BusinessBooks.

Bowden, P. 1997. Caring gender-sensitive ethics. London &New York: Routledge.

Bradbury, H., & Lichtenstein, B. M. B. 2000. Relationality inorganizational researeh: Exploring the spaee between.Organization Science, 11: 551-564.

Briseoe, F. 2006. From iron cage to iron shield? How bureau-cracy enables temporal flexibility for professional ser-vice workers. Organization Science, 18: 297-314.

Brudney, J. L., & England, R. E. 1983. Toward a definition ofthe eoproduetion eoneept. Public Administration Re-view, 43: 59-65.

Buber, M. 1937.1 and thou. New York: Simon & Schuster.

Burbules, N. C, & Densmore, K. 1991. The limits of makingteaching a profession. Educational Policy, 5: 44-63.

Burns, T., & Stalker, G. M. 1995/1961. The management ofinnovation. Oxford University Press.

Cancian, F. 2000. Paid emotional care: Organizational formsthat encourage nurturanee. In M. H. Meyer (Ed.), Carework: Gender, class, and the welfare state: 136-148. NewYork: Routledge.

Carlson, J. R., & Zmud, R. W. 1999. Channel expansion theoryand the experiential nature of media richness percep-tions. Academy of Management Journal 42: 153-170.

Carson, J. B., Tesluk, P. E., & Marrone, J. A. 2007. Sharedleadership in teams: An investigation of antecedent eon-ditions and performanee. Academy of ManagementJournal 50: 1217-1234.

Chenhall, R. H. 2005. Integrative strategic performanee mea-surement systems: Strategic alignment of manufactur-ing, learning and strategic outeomes. Accounting Orga-nization and Society, 30: 395-422.

Davies, C. 1995. Competence versus eare? Gender and ear-ing work revisited. Acta Sociológica. 38: 17-31.

Deming, J. E. 1986. Out of the crisis. Cambridge, MA: MITPress.

Dougherty, D. 1992. Interpretive barriers to successful prod-uct innovation in large firms. Organization Science, 3:179-202.

Douglass, A. 2011. Improving family engagement: The orga-nizational context and its influence on partnering withparents in formal child care settings. Early ChildhoodResearch and Practice, 13(2).

Douglass, A., & Gittell, J. H. In press. Transforming profes-sionalism: Relational bureaucracy and parent-teacherpartnerships in ehild care settings. Journal of EarlyChildhood Research.

Dutton, J. E. 2003. Energize your workplace: How to create andsustain high-quality connections at work. San Franeiseo:Jossey-Bass.

2012 GittelJ and Douglass 731

Dutton, J. E., & Heaphy, E. D. 2003. The power of high-qualityconnections. In K. S. Cameron, J. E. Dutton, & R. E. Quinn(Eds.), Positive organizational schoiarsiiip: Foundationsof a new discipline: 263-278. San Franeiseo: Berrett-Koehler.

Dutton, J. E., & Ragins, B. R. 2007. Exploring positive relation-ships at work: Building a theoretical and research ioun-dation. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrenee Erlbaum Assoeiates.

Dutton, J. E., Worline, M. C, Frost, P. J, & Lilius, J. 2006.Explaining eompassion organizing. Administrative Sci-ence Quarterly, 51: 59-96.

Eaton, S. C. 2000. Beyond "unloving care": Linking humanresource management and patient care quality in nurs-ing homes, internationai Journal oi Human ResourceManagement, 11: 591-616.

Edmondson, A., & Smith, D. M. 2006. Too hot to handle: Howto manage relationship eonfliet. Caliiornia Manage-ment Review, 49(1): 6-31.

Faiaj, S., & Sproull, L. 2000. Coordinating expertise in soft-ware development teams. Management Science, 46:1554-1568.

Faraj, S., & Xiao, Y. 2006. Coordination in fast responseorganizations. Management Science, 52: 1155-1169.

Feldman, M. S. 2003. A performative perspective on stabilityand change in organizational routines, industriai andCorporate Change, 12: 727-752.

Feldman, M. S., & Rafaeli, A. 2002. Organizational routinesas sources of eonneetions and understandings. Journaloi Management Studies, 39: 309-331.

Fine, M. D. 2007. A caring society? Care and the dilemmas oihuman service in the twenty-iirst century. Basingstoke,UK & New York: Palgrave Maemillan.

Fletcher, J. K. 1999. Disappearing acts: Gender, power, andrelational practice at work. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

Fletcher, J. K. 2007. Leadership, power, and positive relation-ships. In J. E. Dutton & B. R. Ragins (Eds.), Exploringpositive relationships at work: Building a theoreticaland research ioundation: 347-371. Mahwah, NJ: Law-rence Erlbaum Associates.

Fletcher, J. K., Bailyn, L., & Blake-Beard, S. 2009. Practicalpushing: Creating discursive space in organizationalnarratives. In J. W. Cox, T. G. LeTrent-Jones, M. Voronov,& D. Weir (Eds.), Critical management studies at work:Negotiating tensions between theory and practice: 82-93. Northampton, MA: Edward Elgar.

Fletcher, J. K., & Ragins, B. R. 2007. Stone Center relationalcultural theory: A window on relational mentoring. InB. R. Ragins & K. E. Kram (Eds.), The handbook oi men-toring at work: Theory, research and practice: 44-50. LosAngeles: Sage.

Follett, M. P. 1942/1926a. Business as an integrative unity. InH. C. Metealf & L. Urwiek (Eds.), Dynamic administration:The collected papers oi Mary Parker Follett: 71-94. NewYork: Harper and Brothers.

Follett, M. P. 1942/1926b. Constructive conflict. In H. C. Met-ealf & L. Urwiek (Eds.), Dynamic administration: The

collected papers oi Mary Parker Follett: 30-49. NewYork: Harper and Brothers.

Follett, M. P. 1949. Freedom and co-ordination: Lectures inbusiness organization by Mary Parker Follett. London:Management Publications Trust.

Galbraith, J. 1972. Organization design: An information pro-cessing view. In P. Lawrenee & J. Lorsch (Eds.), Organi-zation planning: Cases and concepts: 49-74. Homewood,IL: Irwin.

Gergen, K. J. 1997. Realities and relationships: Soundings insociai construction. Cambridge, MA: Harvard UniversityPress.

Gilligan, C. 1982. in a different voice: Psychoiogicai theoryand women's development. Cambridge, MA: HarvardUniversity Press.

Gittell, J. H. 2000. Organizing work to support relationalcoordination, internationai Journai of Human i?esourceManagement, 11: 517-539.

Gittell, J. H. 2001. Supervisory span, relational coordinationand flight departure performanee: A reassessment ofpost-bureaucracy theory. Organization Science, 12: 467-482.

Gittell, J. H. 2002a. Coordinating mechanisms in care pro-vider groups: Relational coordination as a mediator andinput uneertainty as a moderator of performance effeets.Management Science, 48: 1408-1426.

Gittell, J. H.. 2002b. Soutiiwest Airiines site visit. Unpublishedfield notes, Brandeis University, Waltham, MA.

Gittell J. H. 2003. The Southwest Airlines way: Using thepower oi relationships to achieve high periormance.New York: McGraw-Hill.

Gittell, J. H. 2006. Relational coordination: Coordinating workthrough relationships of shared goals, shared knowl-edge and mutual respect. In O. Kyriakidou & M. Ozbilgin(Eds.), Relational perspectives in organizational studies:A research companion: 4-94. Northampton, MA: EdwardElgar.

Gittell, J. H. 2009. High periormance healthcare: Using thepower oi relationships to achieve quality, efficiency andresiiience. New York: McGraw-Hill.

Gittell, J. H., Seidner, R. B., & Wimbush, J. 2010. A relationalmodel of how high-performance work systems work. Or-ganization Science, 21: 490-506.

Gittell, J. H., 8z Suehman, A. In press. Relational leadershipand organizational ehange. In M. Plews-Ogan & G. Beyt(Eds.), Leading change and changing the way we lead.London: Radeliffe.

Gittell, J. H., Weinberg, D. B., Bennett, A. L., & Miller, J. A. 2008.Is the doctor in? A relational approach to job design andthe coordination of work. Human iîesource Manage-ment, 47: 729-755.

Goffman, I. 1961. Encounters. Indianapolis: Bobbs Merrill.

Grant, A. M. 2007. Relational job design and the motivationto make a prosoeial differenee. Academy of Manage-ment Review, 32: 393-417.


Grant, A. M., & Parker, S. K. 2009. Redesigning work designtheories: The rise of relational and proactive perspee-tives. Academy oí Management Annals, 3: 317-375.

Gutek, B. A. 1995. The dynamics oí service: Reflections on ihechanging nature oí provider/customer interactions. SanFraneiseo: Jossey-Bass.

Heekseher, C. 1994. Defining the post-bureaueratic type. In C.Heekseher & A. Donnellon (Eds.), The post-bureaucraticorganization: 14-62. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Heekseher, C. C, & Adler, P. S. 2006. The iirm as a collabor-ative community: Reconstructing trust in the knowledgeeconomy. New York: Oxford University Press.

Heimer, C. 1992. Doing your job and helping your friends:Universalistic norms about obligations to particular oth-ers. In R. Eccles & N. Nohria (Eds.), We/works and orga-nizations: Structure, form and action: 165-188. Boston:Harvard Business School Press.

Held, V. 2006. The ethics oí care: Personal political andglobal Oxford & New York: Oxford University Press.

Hoffer, J. 1985. The socially embedded human subject: Amoral standpoint ior achieving social justice. Thesis pre-sented to Division of History & Social Sciences, ReedCollege, Portland, OR.

Hwang, H., & Powell, W. W. 2009. The rationalization ofcharity: The influenees of professionalism in the non-profit sector. Administrative Science Quarterly, 54: 268-298.

Ibarra, H. 1992. Homophily and differential returns: Sex dif-ferences in network structure and access in an advertis-ing firm. Administrative Science Quarterly, 37: 422-447.

Jehn, K. 1995. A multi-method examination of the benefitsand detriments of intra-group confliet. AdministrativeScience Quarterly, 40: 256-282.

Kahn, W. 1998. Relational systems at work. Research in Or-ganizational Behavior, 20: 39-76.

Kahn, W. 2005. Holding iast: The struggle to create resilientcaregiving organizations. Hove, UK & New York: Brun-ner-Routledge.

Kahn, W. A. 2007. Commentary: Positive relationships ingroups and communities. In J. E. Dutton & B. R. Ragins(Eds.), Exploring positive relationships at work: Buildinga theoretical and research foundation; 277-288. Mah-wah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Kellogg, K. 2009. Operating room: Relational space and mi-cro-institutional changes in surgery. American Journaloí Sociology, 115: 657-711.

Kraekhardt, D., & Brass, D. 1994. Intraorganizational net-works: The micro side. In S. Wasserman & J.Galaskawiecz (Eds.), Advances in social network analy-sis: Research in the social and behavioral sciences; 207-229. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.

Lawler, E. J., Thye, S. R., & Yoon, J. 2008. Social exchange andmicro social order. American Sociological Review, 73:519-542.

Leana, C, & Van Buren, H. 1999. Organizational social cap-ital and employment praetiees. Academy oí Manage-ment Review, 24: 538-555.

Lewin, R., & Régine, B. 2000. The soul at work. New York:Simon & Schuster.

Likert, R. 1961. New patterns oí management. New York:McGraw-Hill.

Lipman-Blumen, J. 1992. Connective leadership: Femaleleadership styles in the 21st century workplaee. Socio-logical Perspectives, 35: 183-203.

Lipsky, M. 1980. Street-level bureaucracy: Dilemmas oí theindividual in public service. New York: Russell SageFoundation.

Locke, E., & Latham, G. 1990. A theory of goal-setting and taskperformance. Englewood, NJ: Prentiee-Hall.

Lopez, S. H. 2006. Emotional labor and organized emotionaleare: Coneeptualizing nursing home eare work. Worltand Occupations, 33: 133-160.

MaeDuffie, J. P. 1995. Human resouree bundles and manufac-turing performance: Organizational logic and flexibleproduction systems in the world auto industry. Indus-trial and Labor Relations Review, 48: 197-221.

March, J., & Simon, H. 1958. Organizations. New York: Wiley.

Maresehal, P. M. 2003. Solving problems and transformingrelationships: The bifoeal approaeh to mediation. Amer-ican Review oí Public Administration, 33: 423-449.

Marx, K. 1886. Capital: A critique oí political economy. NewYork: International Publication.

McGregor, D. 1960. The human side of enterprise. New York:McGraw-Hill.

Mitehell, S. A. 2003. fielationality; From attachment to inter-subjectivity. Hillsdale, NJ: Analytic Press.

Mohrman, S. A. 1993. Integrating roles and struetures in thelateral organization. In J. R. Galbraith & E. E. Lawler(Eds.), Organizing ior the future; 109-141. San Francisco:Jossey-Bass.

Mumby, D. K., & Putnam, L. L. 1992. The politics of emotion: Afeminist reading of bounded rationality. Academy oiManagement Review, 17: 465-486.

Nahapiet, J., & Ghoshal, S. 1998. Social capital, intellectualcapital, and the organizational advantage. Academy oíManagement Review, 23: 242-266.

Needham, C, & Carr, S. 2009. Co-production; An emergingevidence base for adult social transformation. London:Soeial Care Institute for Exeellence.

Noddings, N. 1990. Feminist critiques in the professions. He-view of Research in Education, 16: 393-424.

Noddings, N. 2002. Starting at home: Care as the basis iorsocial policy. Berkeley: University of California Press.

Nohria, N., & Eecles, R. 1992. Face-to-face: Making networkorganizations work. In R. Eccles & N. Nohria (Eds.), Net-woris and organizations; Structure, form and action;288-308. Boston: Harvard Business School Press.

Noordegraaf, M. 2007. From "pure" to "hybrid" profession-alism: Present-day professionalism in ambiguouspublic domains. Administration and Society, 39: 761-785.


Orlikowski, W. J., & Yates, J. 1994. Genre repertoire: Thestructuring of communicative practices in organiza-tions. Administrative Science Quarterly, 39: 541-574.

Ouchi, W. G. 1980. Markets, bureaueraeies and elans. Admin-istrative Science Quarterly, 25: 129-141.

Perlow, L., Gittell, J. H., & Katz, N. 2004. Contextualizing patternsof work group interaction: Toward a nested theory of struc-turation. Organization Science, 15: 520-536.

Piore, M. 1993. The social embeddedness of labor marketsand cognitive processes. Labour, 7(3): 3-18.

Powell, W. 1990. Neither market nor hierarchy: Networkforms of organization. Research in Organizational Be-havior, 12: 295-336:

Quinn, R., & Dutton, J. E. 2005. Coordination as energy-in-eonversation. Academy oí Management Review, 30: 36-57.

Sachs, J. 2003. The activist teaching profession. Philadelphia:Open University Press.

Sehein, E.H. 2009. Helping: How to offer, give and receivehelp. San Francisco: Berrett-Koehler.

Selladurai, R. S. 2004. Mass customization in operations man-agement: Oxymoron or reality? Omega, 32: 295-300.

Simon, T., & Peterson, R. 2000. Task conflict and relationshipconflict in top management teams: The pivotal role ofintragroup trust. Journal oí Applied Psychology, 85: 102-111.

Stephens, J. P. 2010. Towards a psychology oí coordination:Exploring feeling and focus in the individual and groupin music-making. Unpublished doctoral dissertation.University of Michigan, Ann Arbor.

Stephens, J. P., Heaphy, E., & Dutton, J. E. 2012. High-qualityconnections. In K. S. Cameron & G. M. Spreitzer (Eds.),The Oxford handbook of positive organizational schol-arship: 385-399. New York: Oxford University Press.

Stone, D. 2000. Caring by the book. In M. H. Meyer (Ed.), Carework: Gender, class, and the welíare state: 89-111. NewYork: Routledge.

Tannenbaum, A. 1968. Control in organizations. New York:McGraw-Hill.

Taylor, F. W. 1911. Scientific management. New York: Harperand Row.

Thompson, J. P. 1967. Organizations in action: Social sciencebases oí administrative theory. New York: McGraw-Hill.

Toren, N. 1976. Bureaucracy and professionalism: A recon-sideration of Weber's thesis. Academy oí ManagementReview, 1: 36-46.

Tushman, M., & Nadler, D. 1978. Information processing asan integrating concept in organizational design. Acad-emy oí Management Review, 3: 613-624.

Unger, R. M. 1975. Knowledge and politics. New York: FreePress.

Van Maanen, J., & Barley, S. 1984. Occupational eommuni-ties: Culture and control in organizations. Research inOrganizational Behavior, 6: 287-365.

Waerness, K. 1996. The rationality of caring. In S. Gordon, P.Benner, & N. Noddings (Eds.), Caregiving: 231-255. Phil-adelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press.

Watson, J. 2009. Assessing and measuring caring in nursingand health sciences. New York: Springer.

Weber, M. 1958/1904. The Protestant ethic and the spirit oícapitalism. New York: Charles Scribner's Sons.

Weber, M. 1968. Economy and society: An outline of interpre-tive sociologry. New York: Bedminster Press.

Weber, M. 1984/1920. Bureaucracy. In F. Fischer & C. Sirianni(Eds.), Critical studies in organization and bureaucracy:24-39. Philadelphia: Temple University Press.

Weick, K. 1995. Sensemaking in organizations. ThousandOaks, CA: Sage.

Weick, K., & Roberts, K. 1993. Collective mind in organiza-tions: Heedful interrelating on flight decks. Administra-tive Science Quarterly, 38: 357-381.

Weick, K. E., & Suteliffe, K. M. 2003. Hospitals as cultures ofentrapment. California Management Review, 45(2): 73-84.

Weiek, K. E., Suteliffe, K. M., & Obstfeld, D. 2005. Organizingand the proeess of sensemaking. Organization Science,16: 409-421.

Wexler, B. E. 2008. Brain and culture: Weurobiology, ideology,and social change. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

Williams, M. 2011. Perspective taking. In K. Cameron & G.Spreitzer (Eds.), Oxford handbook of positive organiza-tional scholarship: 462-473. Oxford: Oxford UniversityPress.

Williams, M., & Dutton, J. E. 1999. Corrosive political eli-mates: The heavy toll of negative politieal behavior inorganizations. In R. E. Quinn, R. M. O-Neill, & L. St. Clair(Eds.), The pressing problems oí modern organizations:Transforming the agenda for research and practice: 3-30.New York: American Management Association.

Wrzesniewski, A., & Dutton, J. E. 2001. Crafting a job: Revi-sioning employees as active crafters of their work. Acad-emy oí Management Review, 26: 179-201.

Jody Hoffer Gittell ([email protected]) is a professor of management atthe Brandeis University Heller School for Social Policy and Management. She receivedher Ph.D. from the MIT Sloan School of Management. Her research explores howcoordination by frontline workers eontributes to quality and effieieney outeomes inservice settings.

Anne Douglass ([email protected]) is an assistant professor of early ehildhoodeducation at the University of Massachusetts Boston. She received her Ph.D. in socialpolicy from Brandeis University. Her research interests focus on early childhoodpoliey, child care quality improvement, professionalization, and the preservation ofcaring in organizations.

Copyright of Academy of Management Review is the property of Academy of Management and its content may

not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written

permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use.

gittell douglass relational bureaucracy - structuring reciprocal relationship into roles

Documents

relational leadershipinto

relational coordination

reciprocal relationshipsthat

weknow of organizations

paul hess

paul adler

participants attentiveness

participants heimer