Hazardous Materials Compliance for Public Research Organizations, 2nd Edition

29

3

Organizational Framework:

Organizational Drift, Life

Cycle, and Agency Theory

ORGANIZATIONAL THEORY WITH

REGARD TO RESEARCH ACTIVITIES

In theory, research centers can be seen to rely on an “ideal type” contin-

uum between two loci of control. At one end is the investigator-controlled

research center that allows all decisions for research activities to be made

by the individual researcher. At the other extreme are research activities

almost totally controlled by the institution, an “organization centric” model

with regard to research activity-related decisions, for example, Edgewood

VX nerve gas facility in Maryland. Between these two extremes, research

centers and universities’ research activities are controlled, formulated, and

implemented with various amounts of researcher–organizational controls.

One hypothesis is that research centers and universities vary between the

two points of individuality and centralized organizational control as the

life cycle of the organization progresses; more specically, as the research

governance process matures, the research center or university will move

to greater organizational controls given increased environmental pres-

sures from funding agencies. With the case study university, evidence was

found to support this occurrence (see Chapter 7). Other variables aecting

the mix of investigator- and organizational-centered structures include

the following: funding source (federal, state, or private), materials type

(e.g., U-235), research design, and facility functionality for use of hazard-

ous materials (HAZMAT).

e life cycle theory dictates that the organization will either grow or

contract throughout the existence of the organization. Life cycle theorists

30 • Compliance for Public Research Organizations

argue that changes occur to the organizational structure over time as the

organization, process, or product goes through dierent stages of develop-

ment. e organization in its initial development has a specic set of prop-

erties. e organization in response to both external pressures and internal

dynamics has its characteristics change over time—either staying in inter-

nal–external alignment, or failing to do so. us through time, the orga-

nization may expand, contract, or cease to exist. Bertram M. Gross (1968)

describes business organizations uctuating as the life cycle progresses by

either adjusting to the economic uctuations or by ceasing to exist.

Life cycle theorists generally argue that public organizations, not sub-

ject to market forces, are less likely to perish and more likely to undergo

“renewal.” A university or the research components of it, for example,

would grow aer initial creation and success, and contract as resources

dissipate. At the time of contraction, the university will have to “renew”

itself by nding more resources, new research areas and perhaps reden-

ing its purpose. Public universities will also expand under the life cycle

theory model if new directives are imposed upon the organization from

an external force.

When new federal or state regulations are imposed on public institutions,

universities expand organizationally, that is, devote resources, to comply

with the new guidelines. Marshall W. Meyer (1979) states that environmen-

tal pressures outside public bureaus have substantial inuence over expan-

sion and contraction. In research areas, for example, a line of inquiry may

fall out of disfavor with funding agencies. Internal sunk costs in laboratory

equipment and personnel may not be adaptable to this environmental shi.

How quickly the organization adapts to the environment is not the central

issue for this research. e informing perspective is that over the course

of the development of research into areas involving hazardous materials,

environmental inuences, especially in the form of funding agencies and

their regulations, will cause aspects of the organization to change, grow,

decline, and renew. Consistent funding, for example, from the National

Institutes of Health (NIH) will lead the university to institutionalize NIH-

specic compliance procedures beyond any single researcher.

e life cycle perspectives on organizations argue that there are pre-

dictable patterns as organizations are born, mature, and end (Da 1995).

Organizational structure in the research center or university’s case will

change as the life cycle progresses. ese changes will dictate who the

actors are and what role the actors will play in the organization. Da

(1995) has four stages outlined for progression of the organization. e