Municipal technostructure: reacting to team development education from above

ABSTRACT

This paper explains a growing function in today’s public organizations: the technostructure. It reports on the outcomes of an educational programme to develop teams comprising HR, financial and organizational development managers in a Swedish municipality in order to achieve joint support to line managers. The three groups emphasized the importance of their dissimilar work areas and their differences vis-à-vis other administrative occupations with presumably simpler tasks, and showed their indispensability. The groups’ relations were strengthened, but not their actual joint support to line managers. The paper contributes to the literature on professionalized technostructures and organizational change.

IMPACT

The trend towards increasingly diversified and professional technostructures in government is usually motivated by a desire for increased efficiency. But there are also risks, such as the high costs for professionalizing and focusing on metrics and measurement, as well as reduced support for and co-operation with other functions, such as line managers. This paper can be used as an input in critical discussions by top managers about how public organizations should be developed to match the expectations of efficiency and transparency, but also to consciously create functions and roles in the organizations that are attractive, efficient, healthy and interactive.

KEYWORDS:

• Boundaries
• professionalism
• taskwork
• teamwork
• technostructure

Introduction

In Sweden, as in many other countries, the number of people working within the technostructure in public sector organizations has been steadily increasing—as predicted by Mintzberg (1983a). New Public Management (NPM) had a substantial effect on public services in many countries, which has resulted in governance being built on increasingly formal control processes and systems (see, for example, Osborne, 2017; Pollitt & Bouckaert, 2011). Elbanna et al. (2016, p. 1020) also claim that the increasing importance of strategic planning in public organizations has resulted in more ‘priority-setting/strategic planning, budgeting and performance reporting functions as key elements of their performance management and accountability frameworks’—another reason for the growing technostructure. In addition, demands for accountability and control require more personnel with skills in human resources, financial control, and general, strategic administration (Forssell & Westerberg, 2016). The technostructure has also been supplemented with personnel responsible for ensuring that services produced by public organizations are socially and ecologically sustainable. One result of these changes is that governance and managerial control in the public sector has become more complex—line managers at different levels need to manage more aspects of their service than in the past.

Studies of municipal line managers have shown that these managers are often torn between the plans developed by different areas in the technostructure (Cregård & Corin, 2019; Kankkunen, 2014). Managers perceived that plans were not linked with each other, and that there were far too many of them. Systems to report were overlapping and the managers did not get hands-on help. The technostructure actors have been accused of being too detached from supporting managers and too engaged in elevating their own profession and jurisdiction, so operative administrative work becomes amateurishly performed by line managers and professionals in the core services (see Forssell & Westerberg, 2016).

The technostructure has a key function in developing the public organization in relation to complex and changing conditions, and must advance itself accordingly. Consequently, occupations with such knowledge seek professionalism, authority and autonomy (Evetts, 2013).

Increased expertise and elevated jurisdictions can be viewed as a solution to inefficient administrative actions, but also as a problem in itself: with exclusive jurisdictions with no connection to each other (Cregård, 2018). Integrating different functions and departments has been proposed as a way of using resources more effectively (see Stipp et al., 2018).

This paper reports on a municipal project developing teams within the technostructure through skills development to increase the support they provide to line managers. The programme was aimed at senior managers in finance, human resource and organizational development departments. In Bush et al.’s (2018) terms, the project can be viewed as a way of starting a team transition process. Working in teams is a common way of organizing specialized skills in public sector organizations (van der Hoek et al., 2018). Yet, apart from in acute healthcare contexts, team training has rarely been used to develop inter-occupational co-operation in teams (Müller et al., 2015).

This paper makes a contribution to our knowledge of technostructures in today's public sector organizations explaining how they act on an initiative from above to develop as a team. The paper answers two questions:

• Did the programme lead to the development of teams within the technostructure (and, if so, how and why)?

• Did line managers consider that the support from the technostructure improved (and, if so, how and why)?

Theoretical background

In 1967, Galbraith published The New Industrial State describing a modern way of managing large organizations (Galbraith, 1967/1985). He presented the technostructure as a highly influential system of experts within, for example, finance and advertising who, through their specialist knowledge, were creating compelling goals for the organizations in which they work. These technocrats were shaping organizations, fostering organizational expansion, increasing bureaucracy and, thereby, increasing technocratic influence and autonomy.

Mintzberg (1973) further developed the concept of technostructure in several publications. For example (Mintzberg, 1980, p. 323): ‘The technostructure consists of those analysts, out of the formal “line” structure, who apply analytic techniques to the design and maintenance of the structure and to the adaption of the organization to its environment (e.g., accountants, work schedulers, long-range planners)’. This quotation highlights the focus of the technostructure on the organization, where the technocrats have the task of analysing, evaluating, measuring and providing advice for improvement of the organization. Mintzberg distinguishes the technostructure from the support staff, who are expected to offer direct support and services to the rest of the organization (see also Lunenburg, 2012).

The technostructure is characterized by complex knowledge, and techniques that favour and strengthen a bureaucratic control system over the line managers’ personal control and autonomous decision-making (Mintzberg, 1973). Mintzberg (1983b, p. 117) states that ‘the analysts of the technostructure play a key role in designing and operating the bureaucratic control system’. The technostructure is especially important in organizations resembling what Mintzberg calls the ‘machine bureaucracy’—such as many large governmental organizations—in co-ordination and standardization, both concerning work processes and outputs (Kumar, 2015). Operational goals that indicate efficiency from the technostructure’s point of view are favoured and promoted.

The characteristics of the technostructure mentioned here (such as their preference for bureaucratic control, their shaping of the organization, and their exclusive knowledge) indicate that it is an important and influential component of many organizations. How their jurisdictions are defined and how they work (for example by competing or by collaborating with each other) therefore impacts line managers. The technostructure's deepening of its knowledge in widely diverse fields such as HR, financial control and organizational development shape line managers’ conditions for decision-making, but also what and how to focus on. This has become evident in the development of many public organizations following NPM ideas, which emphasize controllability, measurability and the pursuit of objectives that can be evaluated (Osborne, 2006). Also, in the aftermath of NPM reforms, more effort has been put into finding, improving and evaluating evidence for what works, in attempts to integrate evidence-based organizing into public services (Nutley et al., 2019). Planning, evaluating and improving public sector organizations in this way, for example in HR processes, financial efficiency, and communicating/marketing skills, require the input from the planners and analysts within the technostructure.

More specialized, complex knowledge and a cultivation of jurisdictions signal a professionalization of the technostructure. Evetts (2013, p. 786), who examines the concept of professionalism in current work contexts, states that many contemporary public occupations seek to elevate their professional status to establish autonomy and occupational control of their work—based either upon occupational authority (‘from within’, i.e. the occupation itself) or organizational authority (‘from above’, i.e. the organizational hierarchy). Autonomy means being able to decide what tasks to perform, and also to interpret how the jurisdiction should be developed and demarcated. There are several illustrations of this within the technostructure in public organizations, for example the ‘HR transformation’—re-conceptualizing and strengthening the role of HR professionals at the end of the 20th century (Sheehan et al., 2014). With this transformation, HR professionals began to see themselves as specialists and strategic partners with strategic managers (see Parks-Leduc et al., 2018). Further, with NPM, accountants and controllers (often called ‘management accountants’) have received additional and more complex duties and have also obtained more influence in decision-making processes, for example as members of the public organizations’ management teams (Caperchione et al., 2019; Paulsson, 2012).

The development of the technostructure in public organizations has so far had at least two consequences: the planners, analysts and technocrats have become increasingly influential; and they have become increasingly knowledgeable and heterogeneous.

Team development framework

Many researchers conclude that teamwork and inter-occupational co-operation is essential in public organizations for providing quality, optimizing the use of scarce resources, as well as implementing policies and decisions—especially within complex public services (Chen & Rainey, 2014). According to Chen and Rainey (2014, p. 946) there is a ‘paucity of teamwork research’ in contemporary public management research. This paper discusses team development within the technostructure. A team is defined as a group with members who ‘work interdependently on fulfilling a specific task’ (Mueller et al., 2000, p. 1399; see also Bush et al., 2018). Teams perform teamwork as well as taskwork (Salas et al., 2015). The latter concept refers to the activities performed by the individuals within the team in order to accomplish common goals, also called ‘action processes’ (see LePine et al., 2008, p. 276). ‘Teamwork’ as a concept refers to activities related to the actual team—what makes it possible to trust, share knowledge, and perform jointly (Mathieu et al., 2008), also described in the literature as ‘interpersonal processes’ (LePine et al., 2008, p. 276) and, in this paper, as ‘relational teamwork’. Action and interpersonal processes are also accompanied by ‘transition processes’ in which the team reflects upon its performance (LePine et al., 2008, p. 275).

This paper applies Salas et al.’s (2015) team concept. They discuss nine critical considerations for successful teamwork and taskwork:

• Co-operation focuses upon activities performed in order to accomplish taskwork and ‘involves the attitudes, beliefs, and feelings of the team that drive behavioral action’ (Salas et al., 2015, p. 604; see also Supper et al., 2015). When goals are complex, as they often are in public organizations, co-operation and co-ordination are especially important (van der Hoek et al., 2018).

• Conflict may be related to relations, performance and to processes regarding delegation of tasks and distribution of resources; it can be either severe or light. Researchers argue that conflict is detrimental to performance—especially conflicts related to personal relationships (Gamero, González-Romá, & Peiró, 2008; Shaw et al., 2011).

• Co-ordination is a process where team members’ actions are integrated into fulfilling common goals in a formalized or informal way. According to van der Hoek et al. (2018), common and clarified goals are important for co-ordination and team performance.

• Communication between team members influences their work, their attitudes and their capabilities. According to Mesmer-Magnus and DeChurch (2009), information sharing is essential for teams—especially information that is uniquely related to single individuals. Communication enables co-ordination and co-operation, as well as the resolving of conflicts (LePine et al., 2008).

• Cognition is defined as a ‘shared understanding … among team members that is developed as a result of team member interactions’ (Salas et al., 2015, p. 609). The concept is related to communication and, according to Mohammed et al. (2010), co-ordination, communication, and collective norms are some of the outcomes of team cognition. Bush et al. (2018) conclude that teams develop shared mental models on appropriate actions as they mature.

• Coaching is a concept that focuses on what one or more individuals, within or outside the team, do to facilitate the team’s work, i.e. formal and/or informal leadership. Coaching is especially important in locating, interpreting, and solving the team’s problems (Salas et al., 2015), since the team not necessarily has the capacity to do so on its own in the daily work.

• The remaining three concepts mentioned by Salas et al. (2015, p. 603), context, composition, and culture, are ‘influencing conditions’. They relate to the organization’s situation, individuals’ knowledge and skills, and the organization’s shared values—factors that are important for the outcomes of the teams, but are beyond the scope of this paper.

Setting

The empirical data was collected in a Swedish municipality. Sweden has 290 municipalities, all providing the majority of the country’s public services, including childcare, pre-school and school, social welfare, elderly and disabled care, technical services such as water, sewage and waste, as well as leisure and cultural services. The municipal organization is the largest employer in most municipalities.

The case study municipality is one of the largest in Sweden and has been classified as a growing metropolitan municipality according to Statistics Sweden (SCB). During the investigation the municipal organization was facing several severe challenges, for example an increase in demand for elderly care; discouraging results in many schools, especially in low-income areas; an increase in refugees; and problems attracting competent personnel within key services. Central top-level managers and politicians were questioning the municipal organization’s ability to handle these challenges. They concluded that the organization needed bold, knowledgeable, and continuous development. However, the strategic development capacity and inter-occupational co-operation within the technostructure was perceived as poor. Top-level management initiated a change process in order to ease the burden on line managers and at the same time improve the strategic planning capacity of the organization. It was decided that all senior managers of finance, human resource and organizational development departments (the latter including focus areas of sustainability, equality, quality, and citizen participation) should attend an education programme on leadership and strategic planning. The municipal organization had 10 city districts, which resulted in a total of 30 managers invited.

The aim of the programme was not only to enhance the strategic assessment when analysing and developing the organization and improve advice-giving, but also to foster well-functioning inter-professional technostructure teams by advancing joint action between the three technostructure managers within each city district (i.e. 3 × 10) by making them meet and solve examination assignments. The programme was conducted for just over one year and contained seven two-day sessions (most of which included long working hours and an overnight stay), and the participants were expected to meet in their teams during at least one day between the sessions in order to fulfil joint assignments.

The aim of the programme as team-building was only partly communicated to the participants, because the top-level managers wanted teamwork to emerge naturally. Instead, the invitation to the programme spoke about strategic organizational development, strategic leadership, and management of complexity and change.

Methodology

The empirical data was collected through focus group interviews with the technostructure managers and the strategic line managers they were meant to advise. The respondents were interviewed separately in their respective occupational group. Table 1 describes the interviews conducted.

Table 1. Overview of focus group interviews.

	Before	After
Strategic line managers	5 (2)	5 (3)
HR managers	5 (5)	8 (7)
Financial managers	7 (2)	6 (2)
Organizational development managers	8 (7)	6 (5)

Notes: The numbers in Table 1 specify the number of individuals in each focus group, of which the number of women is indicated in brackets. Each box shows one focus group interview, i.e. the total number of focus group interviews conducted was eight.

All of the technostructure managers were invited to the interviews, which means that those who had chosen to attend the programme and those who had not could take part in the investigation. However, since the majority of the managers chose to attend the programme, there were only three technostructure managers who participated in the investigation that did not attend the programme. They served as a good input for discussing the effects of the programme. However, no focus group was attended by all 10 technostructure managers. This was due to scheduling problems: for example managers were out of town or on vacation. From a maximum population of 60 (30 managerial positions and two measurement points), the investigation included a total of 40, fairly evenly divided between the two measurement points and the three occupational groups.

Strategic line managers were chosen in order to find out how they perceived any changes in support. Since there was a large number of potential line managers to interview, a selection had to be made. This was done with the help of the assigned municipal project leader at the central top level who searched potential respondents based on five conditions set by the researchers:

• At least two districts should be included, whose technostructures were perceived to co-operate extensively respectively scarcely across departments and occupations.

• Both technical and social care services should be represented.

• Both women and men should be represented.

• Managers should have worked for at least one year in their current position.

• The respondents should have already expressed opinions about the technostructure, either positive or negative (which was common in the organization), and they should be seen as people who had knowledge of how other managers in similar positions perceived the technostructure.

From eight possibilities, five line managers were selected, based on a short discussion on the probability of them leaving their position within the time of the study and their willingness to contribute. Despite this, there was one manager who had to be replaced at the second interview.

All of the focus group interviews were semi-structured and evolved around three main areas at both measurement points: their role in the organization in relation to the (rest of the) investigated technostructure managers; teamwork and taskwork within and between the investigated technostructure managers; as well as the expected/actual effects of the leadership education programme.

Data analysis process

The interviews were audio recorded and transcribed verbatim into written texts. Data analysis consisted of five steps. First, the interviews were read closely and separately in order to grasp the overall perceptions of team development and support.

Second, the data were coded into four times four categories based on what the four interview groups said about themselves and the other three groups, i.e. in 16 different categories. This part of the analytical process built on the findings concerning the line managers’ perception of support both before and after the programme (see Table 2).

Table 2. Chart for coding the data in the second step of the analytical process.

	Who is it said about?
Who says?		Strategic line manager	HR manager	Financial manager	Organizational development manager
	Strategic line manager	1	2	3	4
	HR manager	5	6	7	8
	Financial manager	9	10	11	12
	Organizational development manager	13	14	15	16

Note: Grey areas mark the third step of the analysis.

Third, nine of the 16 categories were disassembled into even smaller categories, focusing on examples of how the technostructure respondents’ viewed themselves and the other technostructure groups in relation to developing teams and increasing support (see the ‘grey’ areas in Table 2). They were categorized on the basis of the framework as explained above. Table 3 was created in order to facilitate codification and to obtain a good overview of data.

Table 3. Team development framework.

Critical consideration	Empirical examples		Indications of changes in teamwork
	Measurement point 1 (before)	Measurement point 2 (after)
Co-operation
Conflict
Co-ordination
Communication
Cognition
Coaching

Note: The table builds on the work of Salas et al. (2015).

The first three steps were conducted at both measurement points, i.e. before and after the programme.

The fourth step contained comparisons between ‘before’ and ‘after’, in order to reveal any changes in team- and taskwork.

The fifth and final step included reading the interviews separately and in full again to make sure the findings were relevant.

The scope of the study

Since the investigation involved only one case with 10 potential teams, it is not possible to draw general conclusions. The findings from the strategic line managers build on only five respondents in two focus groups, whereas the total number of managers in the investigated municipal organization was over 50 individuals. Hence, the findings need to be viewed merely as glimpses of how the strategic line managers perceive administrative support from the strategic technostructure. However, the findings from the different focus groups corresponded well to each other, which means that the case was internally consistent.

Findings

First, the technostructure managers’ statements concerning team development before and after the programme are presented. Second, a depiction of how the strategic line managers described the support from the technostructure is made.

Development of teams according to the technostructure managers

Co-operation and co-ordination: At both measurement points there were differences in co-operation between the technostructure managers when comparing the 10 city districts. In one district, all three managers had joint planning seminars and an action plan and, in another, they shared office space in order to ‘come closer’ to each other. In several of the other districts, the respondents expressed they had not yet started to co-operate ‘but will soon’. One district mentioned a few, sporadic joint actions, for example when introducing new line managers, and discussing how to evaluate personnel. Co-ordination was, therefore, not necessary in most of the districts—they had little to co-ordinate. Not much had happened after the programme, although some minor activities were tried out during the course of the programme, but were not continued. The managers that were engaged in teamwork activities before the programme were also engaged afterwards. The managers that were not already engaged did not do so afterwards. Examples of testimonies included:

In our district we have worked closely together for three years … And we have joint workplace meetings concerning joint issues. (Organizational development manager, measurement point 1.)

I feel a pressure on us from the line managers within the core services to co-operate with HR primarily … And sometimes I may feel, because we would like to co-operate so much, I and the organizational development manager and the HR manager, we would like to develop our co-operation, but … well …  (Financial manager, measurement point 1.)

We wanted so much during the programme and we'll see if we get started again this autumn. But now there is so much to do so we just run around. (HR manager, measurement point 2.)

Communication and cognition: In measurement point 1, the technostructure managers all said it was difficult to find time to communicate with each another, although they found it important and rewarding. Only in two districts did the managers meet regularly and try to achieve common approaches:

It's an essential meeting; an urgent meeting. But it’s the time. You look at the calendar and I do not think I have a single open day until Christmas. (HR manager, measurement point 1.)

However, the three groups of managers also articulated different ways of interpreting and performing their assignments as providing support and advice. Several said that people in general, and also sometimes themselves, did not know what to expect from the organizational development managers. HR managers and financial managers were more certain of their roles and what were expected from them than the organizational development managers:

Sometimes it feels almost crazy, that is, organizational development is expected to be a part of everything even though we do not really know what they should do. (Financial manager, measurement point 1.)

In measurement point 2, however, there were some changes. The technostructure managers talked about increased communication, both during and after the programme, and they had become more aware of each other’s different competencies. Some said they were making joint approaches (although no actual actions) towards co-operation with each other and also towards providing advice to line managers. This was described as being hard sometimes since too many line managers were expecting hands-on service in daily matters and not actual strategic advice. The technostructure managers said they needed to not only ‘educate the line managers’ in what level of support to expect (‘strategic advice; not hands-on service’), but also in the respective knowledge area of finance, HR, and organizational development. They emphasized clear differences. The technostructure managers said they highly valued the time spent on dialogue, which had resulted in a platform for how to communicate:

If I'm replaced, there is still a good platform to continue building on. So that strength, I think, when we've had so many things together, has increased. (Financial manager, measurement point 2.)

Furthermore, they said they had some common methods available that could be of use in the future, for example when evaluating the performance of the districts’ core services and introducing new line managers. The technostructure managers said they found themselves spending more time on interacting and sharing experiences with each other:

Well, we got a lot of inspiration when we were in the programme that we could work more together. We have, I think, a good dialogue, but we have not established any new forms of work that have given a real imprint for either our employees or for us. (Organizational development manager, measurement point 2.)

Conflict and coaching: There were some potential conflict areas discussed by the technostructure managers in measurement point 1. One was the informal hierarchy between the three managers. The financial managers were perceived not to be always willing to invite the others to do joint work, since their jurisdiction were recognized as stronger. The financial managers also articulated this perception, and gave examples of their way of evaluating, describing and controlling the organization. The organizational development managers said they had a difficult time getting attention for their work areas at all, and the other two groups of managers agreed with them. Only the financial managers mentioned activities resembling coaching at measurement point 1, for example one invited the other two managers to discuss a problem:

There is a high level of trust for us. So we participate in many city issues and a lot of steering groups and … I think we are making a lot of effort … Because it's the icing on the cake, I think it's fun and don’t want it differently … we are good at manoeuvring in our capacity as business people. (Financial manager, measurement point 1.)

The HR work process and the financial work process are very well defined in the municipality. But our work processes are not defined at all … this makes it harder, both from our broad assignment but also the missing structure. (Organizational development managers, measurement point 1.)

At measurement point 2, technostructure managers talked about each other in more equal terms, and at the same time highlighting their differences in knowledge, performance and problem-solving. No one appeared to be willing to discuss informal hierarchies or to take a lead. Following a meeting with the other technostructure managers in the district, one HR manager commented:

It was so good and it was so fun and it was so … I was sitting with two persons who impressed me. They were wise and talented, and they were also wrestling with complex problems. They were great! (HR manager, measurement point 2.)

Coaching was downplayed and was expressed as being unnecessary as they were only three in each group. Questions concerning coaching and conflict were only briefly discussed. The only conflict area mentioned in measurement point 2 was that line managers were too demanding or unknowledgeable about what to expect from the technostructure:

At any rate, there has been an increased polarization … It is probably because the line managers try to sort things out, and have a lot of views on matters that concern us, that’s what I feel. And then it becomes important for us [technostructure managers] to be able to handle it in a joint way between us. (Financial manager, measurement point 2.)

Potential conflicts were downplayed in measurement point 2, but the respondents more highlighted the differences between the respective occupation's jurisdiction and knowledge. Several said that common working methods were not easy to realize since they were so different from each other. They pointed out they had equally important jobs, but had different work areas, different ways of solving complex problems, and were also different in defining organizational performance. See Table 4 for a summary.

Development of increased support according to the line managers

The line managers argued at both measurement points that education with the aim of creating co-ordinated action among HR, finance and organizational development departments was desirable, and that they needed increase their skills in providing service to line managers. The quotation below is from an interview with line managers, measurement point 2:

Respondent: They would need some type of service training.

Table 4. Findings concerning development of teams.

Critical consideration	Empirical examples		Indications of changes in teamwork
	Measurement point 1 (before)	Measurement point 2 (after)
Co-operation	Considerable differences between the city districts	The ones that were engaged in teamwork activities before were still engaged, and the others did not elevate co-operation	Little had happened after the programme
Conflict	The technostructure managers had different status and discussed each other accordingly	They did not talk about their potential conflicts, but they highlighted they were different Only friction towards line managers was mentioned	Concerns about conflicts decreased Better understanding of differences
Co-ordination	Few examples of co-ordinated action	No change that persisted after the programme	Co-ordination of taskwork was not elevated
Communication	It was hard to find time for communication	Increased dialogue, both during and after the program, especially on the importance of co-operation	Increased communication, which was valued
Cognition	Different ways of interpreting and performing their function	They had reached joint approaches towards co-operation and their differences	Shared more
Coaching	Only financial managers had an approach that resembled coaching	Coaching was formulated as not needed since the teams included only three individuals with different complex knowledge	Coaching was downplayed

Researcher: HR, finance or organizational development department?

Respondent: They are not able to distinguish from each other. It is hard to say … 

So, clearly, line managers sometimes found it difficult to distinguish one function from the other. When the line managers discussed the three areas of support (HR, finance and organizational development), they all agreed that the finance department was more defined and able to give advice, while HR tended to be ‘a bit more fuzzy and unsupportive’. They did not understand the purpose of the organizational development department, and they did not know what to expect or how to connect with them:

In the end, I think that finance and HR are OK. We have not really learned to make use of the organizational development department. (Line manager, measurement point 1.)

You don't get what you ask for. The managers ask for summaries, analysis help and you want a lot of support, for example, when you work with the sick leave problem. (Line manager, measurement point 2.)

[Previously] I was in a group of managers reviewing the support functions … we were all of the same opinion. Finance worked quite well, HR less well and we did not understand the organizational development department. (Line manager, measurement point 2.)

When it comes to the perceived development in joint advice giving to the strategic line managers there were not many examples in the findings. Line managers had not noticed any noteworthy changes; neither when comparing their statements before and after the programme, nor when researchers asked direct questions could any development be detected.

The line managers said they understand that change takes time—especially since the finance and HR departments had been working towards becoming separate businesses, which they concluded had led to low interest in the municipal core services.

Discussion

Four empirical findings presented above are discussed in this section:

• Co-operation and co-ordination activities did not increase between measurement points 1 and 2. The technostructure managers emphasized their differences in knowledge and jurisdiction in measurement point 2. Andersson and Liff (2012) claim that team members from different occupations have different ways of viewing what they are supposed to co-operate on and how to do this, depending on the context of the activities performed, which can limit co-operation.

• Communication improved, which was appreciated by technostructure respondents who also said they had more shared cognition. The programme not only offered time for communication, but also topics to start a dialogue on, and the technostructure managers recognized they had things in common, for example their view on line managers.

• Conflict and coaching within the teams were downplayed after the programme. Both conflict and coaching could be viewed as risky activities when creating teams, especially in the beginning of the team’s development (see Chen & Rainey, 2014). Engaging in disagreements could endanger the growing comradeship. Conflict and coaching influence both teamwork and taskwork (Salas et al., 2015).

• The line managers did not perceive they received increased or more joint support. Looking at the first three findings, this is not a surprise. Relational teamwork concerns the team members’ internal processes, but does not affect the functions external to the team.

Developing technostructure within public organizations

Why did relational teamwork improve—and why not taskwork? There are several possible explanations. The ones presented here are anchored in the theoretical perspective presented above, and aim to contribute to the knowledge of technostructures in today's public organizations; how they act on an initiative from above to develop as teams.

The programme and the embedded expectations of working in teams bring the technostructure’s future in the organization to the fore. However, the idea of teams in the technostructure can be seen as both strengthening and weakening from a professionalization perspective (Cregård, 2018). In the case study, the technostructure handled the team development attempts from above by working on their boundaries. Establishing, reinforcing, and sometimes also transgressing boundaries are important in co-operative work between professionals (Apesoa-Varano, 2013). The technostructure performed boundary work between various functions and occupations in at least three modes.

First, the technostructure seized the opportunity to strengthen itself as a joint function in relation to other functions within the organization, which is indicated by statements concerning the line managers. The technostructure shared problems and views, i.e. improved relational teamwork. In order to maintain its function as a technostructure, and perhaps to increase its status within the organization, the technostructure responded to the programme by reinforcing boundaries towards other organizational functions and by strengthening joint cognition as dissimilar to other functions. The programme, in that sense, activated a boundary-setting process towards support staff who had a more practical and often (although not always) simpler role to play in the organization. If it got mixed up with the support function it might lose a bit of the power as designer and evaluator of the organization and its production, and become more of a hands-on service provider with simpler tasks.

Second, the technostructure distanced itself from the line managers in order to display a separation between the line managers’ ‘doing’ and the technostructure’s ‘thinking’. What the technostructure might risk is becoming a compliant support to the line managers, with diluted knowledge, weak jurisdiction and a common language and, hence, with diminishing power vis-à-vis the formal hierarchical line (see Mintzberg, 1983b).

Third, the technostructure did not respond simply by establishing and reinforcing boundaries. The three technostructure occupations distanced themselves from each other, thereby minimizing the risk of being perceived as an indistinguishable mass of people. In hard times, a technostructure is easily terminated or outsourced (Whittington et al., 2011). Mintzberg (1983b) points out that the analysts in the technostructure need to demonstrate the efficiency of their highly complex systems, and hence their indispensability in the organization. Blending different knowledge bases—from different technostructure occupations—with each other could therefore be risky. Taskwork, in the sense of increasing the collaboration with other technostructure analysts and encountering the line management as a team, might therefore not be beneficial to the technostructure. The three occupations strengthened their power by highlighting differences and propagating for their own, highly specialized way of evaluating and developing the organization. Thus, the technostructure functions investigated in this study distanced their jurisdictions from each other, while at the same time displaying their uniqueness and indispensability.

The technostructure team idea is not completely dismissed by this case study. Two districts in the case argued they already worked as teams. How can that be explained? Evetts (2013, p. 786) distinguishes between ‘from within’ and ‘from above’ in professionalization. The former is based on the profession's own strength and legitimacy, and implies discretion and occupational control of the work. While the other is formulated in the same discursive concepts, it is false in that it reinforces managerial control rather than the professional group as such. This could explain why some districts were already trying to work as a team: they had strived for increased professionalism through intensified co-operation and improved status—but in a managerial system. In Evetts’ terms, however, this impedes the profession's control over its own jurisdiction. Professionalism connected to authority from above may be welcomed by the occupation, but its purpose and consequences may also be questioned. This may be an explanation to the different ways of treating the team development attempts.

Despite the fact that top-level management concealed its expectations of team development—or perhaps just because of that—the taskwork did not increase. The lack in development of the teams’ taskwork could be a consequence of the way the programme and the teams were designed: non-temporary teams with time to meet and discuss, but no requirements to perform as a team after or outside the programme. According to Moser and Kämmer (2018), it is important for non-temporary teams to build relationships where there are norms of reciprocity and equality. Chen and Rainey (2014, p. 961) conclude that formalization, concerning for example dispute resolution and performance requirements, enhances teamwork and ‘serves as an antidote to employees’ fear to work in teams’ (see also Stipp et al., 2018). In that sense, the programme could be viewed as unsuccessful: expectations were not formalized enough to challenge the boundary-setting processes. Instead it built uncertainty, and the actors reacted towards ‘blurred boundaries’ (Rushmer & Pallis, 2003, p. 64).

Conclusion

This paper has added to the literature on the technostructure in public organizations by analysing a top-down attempt to develop teams within a municipal technostructure to improve support given to line managers by HR, finance and organizational development departments. The technostructure managers improved relational teamwork but not their taskwork. Hence, team development was only partly achieved. In line with this finding, the line managers did not perceive they were receiving more joint and improved support. Professionalism is discussed in this paper both in its traditional sense and as a discourse reproduced from a managerial point of view. The technostructure reacted towards the top-level management’s disciplinary attempts to control the technostructure occupations’ conducts and practices by initiating boundary-setting processes. One explanation for this is that teamwork endangers the technostructure’s role and desired autonomy in the organization. In order to make themselves relevant for the organization, technostructure analysts from different occupations distanced themselves from and built boundaries towards others within the organization such as other technostructure analysts (although only in joint taskwork), line managers and support staff. They displayed their uniqueness and indispensability, making sure their function and jurisdiction was not reduced.

The technostructure has an important function in evaluating and developing the public sector organizations, and thereby making it relevant to the ever-changing conditions, for example the political will, citizens’ needs, and technical development. It consists of highly educated and professional analysts. When the technostructure is struck by a demand for change that potentially endangers its position it reacts with reluctance and hesitance. In today’s public sector, where the organizations are measured and evaluated in so many ways, the technostructure must also display itself as useful, indispensable, and hence non-replaceable. Development towards a more common, blended and service-oriented function could therefore be risky.

Limitations of the study and further research

This paper discusses possible explanations for the improvement of relational teamwork and not taskwork. These explanations are by no means complete, and that was not the aim of the research. However, it should be noted that there are a number of explanations possible, which could be of vital importance. Furthermore, the investigation embraces the concepts of teams and co-operation as positive—the academic literature on teams, co-operation and collaboration often takes a positive stand. Municipal managers and politicians also consider teamworking and co-operation to be a goal. However, I would, as do Andersson and Liff (2012), advocate a more critical attitude towards different varieties of co-operation.