The organizational setting of an evaluation has a sign$cant impact on the resources available f o r managing individual evaluation prOj,,ts+

Organizutional Contexts f u r Evaluation

Social scientests prefer to compare themselves with autonomous professionals, such as lawyers or doctors, not with administrators. Yet, much of what the project director or principal investigator of a moderate- to large-size applied social research project does on a day-to-day basis involves tasks similar to those performed by middle managers in other contexts. Middle managers are typically in close contact both with subordinates, whose work they supervise, and with administrative superiors, who set policy and control organizational resources that the middle manager needs in order to complete the job effec- tively. Research on this role suggests that the job of middle manager differs from that of top manager across many different types of settings. First, middle managers have less well-differentiated roles. They perform almost all tasks in the organization to some degree, but they often spend less time on each one (Campbell and others, 1970). The work of the middle manager entails less overall responsibility in such areas as finance and personnel, but in some ways there is also more pressure, because decisions must be made much faster (Campbell and others, 1970). In other words, the middle manager deals with crises, while the top manager deals with long-range planning (Pfiffner and Sherwood, 1960). The pressure associated with the middle manager’s role is affirmed by Kahn and others (1964), who find that role conflict is higher among middle managers. In sum, the middle manager position can be viewed as inherently stressful.

R. G. St. Pierre (Ed.) . Mamgement and Organization of Program Eualuation. New Directions for Program Evaluation, no. 18. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass, June 1983. 99

111

methods conflict with the management controls offered by the Research Shop. Directors who are less well established may function most effectively in a Visionary Band or Grand Master Center, since their energies will not be dis- tracted by the effort to obtain research monies. The director who prefers the traditional professor-with-graduate-students model will work better in an Empty Shell than the director who flourishes in a collaborative research team.

Thus, the project director should consider his or her own professional strengths and weaknesses when choosing a research setting. Once that choice has been made, the research director should attempt, insofar as possible, to plan projects to compensate for research needs that cannot be filled in that set- ting. In addition, the design of management structures for evaluation and pol- icy research projects must take into account what is feasible or practical in the given setting. On the whole, if the gaps between what is needed and what is available are large, it can be easier to move to another organizational setting to conduct one’s research than it is to restructure one’s current setting in any radical way.

Finally, there are some implications for funding agencies. When pro- posals are being reviewed, current practice tends to emphasize the professional qualifications of the principal investigator and the center‘s track record on research in the particular topic area. However, if the different kinds of center do create distinctive environments for management, then funding agencies should attend to the match between the research process and product that they desire and to the agency’s ability to support that match.

Rcfe re nces

Bernstein, I., and Freeman, H . Academic and Entrepreneurial Research. New York: Russell

Campbell, J . , Dunnette, M. D., Lawler, E. E., and Weick, K. E. ManagerialBehauior,

Coleman, J. Methodr ofPoliGy Research. Morristown, N.J.: General Learning Press, 1972. Kahn, R., Wolfe, D., Quinne, R., and Snoek, J. Organizational Styes: Studies in Role

Conzict and Ambiguity. New York: Wiley, 1964. Louis, K. S. “Social Policy and Evaluation Research: Sick Giant or Healthy Baby?” In R. G . Corwin (Ed.), Research in Sociology $Education and Socialization. Vol. 3. Green- wich, Conn.: JAI Press, 1982.

Pelz, D., and Andrews, F. Scientists in Organizations (Rev. Ed.) Ann Arbor: Institute for Social Research, 1976.

Pfiffner, J., and Sherwood, F. Administrative Organization. Englewood Cliffs, N.J. : Prentice Hall, 1960.

Rossi, P. H . , Wright, j. D., and Wright, S. R. “The Theory and Practice of Applied Social Research.” Evaluation Quurterb, 1978, 2 (2), 171-191.

St. Pierre, R. uManagement of Federally Funded Evaluation Research.” Eualuution Review, 1982, 6 (l) , 94-113.

Sieber, S. Reforming lhe Upliuersig: The Role ofthe Research Center. New York: Praeger, 1972. Sieber, S., and Lazarsfeld, P. Organizing Educational Research. New York: Prentice Hall,

Sage Founation, 1975.

Performance, and Eflectiueness. New York: McGraw-Hill, 1970.

1964 I

112

Karen Seashore Louis is associate director and senior research fellow at the Center for Survey Research, a facility of the Uniuersity of MassachuseWEoston and the Joint Center for Urban Studies at Harvard and M.I . T She has conducted policy and evaluution research since 1968.