Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-v9fdk Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-18T10:11:58.244Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The Diagnosis of Public Mental Health Care Bureaucracies*

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  06 August 2018

Luis Rojas Marcos  and
Rosa M. Gil
Luis Rojas Marcos*
Affiliation:
New York University School of Medicine
Rosa M. Gil
Affiliation:
New York University School of Medicine
*
40 East Ninth Street, New York, NY 10003, USA
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

The proliferation of large-scale organisations is a phenomenon of modern society. As Etzioni (1968) puts it, “We are born in organisations, educated by organisations and most of us spend much of our lives working for organisations”. Most public organisations in modern society are bureaucracies and the field of psychiatry is no exception: a trend toward growing bureaucratisation, of both public and private mental health services organisations, can be observed everywhere. To a large extent, this is because, as standards of care become regulated and quality controls increase, the tasks that mental health professionals and administrators perform become better understood, more predictable, and more programmed. There is still room for creativity and innovation, but only in incremental, well controlled steps.

Type
III. Psychosocial Aspects
Information
The British Journal of Psychiatry , Volume 154 , Issue S4: Psychiatric Diagnosis: Nosological, Biological and Psychological Aspects , May 1989 , pp. 96 - 100
Copyright
Copyright © The Royal College of Psychiatrists 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Footnotes

*

This paper is a modified version of a paper entitled ‘Dysfunctions in Public Psychiatric Bureaucracies’ previously published in the American Journal of Psychiatry, 145 (3), 331-334. Copyright 1988 The American Psychiatric Association. Reprinted by permission.

References

Barnard, C. (1938) The Functions of the Executive. Cambridge, Mass: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Blau, R. M. & Meyer, M. W. (1971) Bureaucracy in Modern Society. New York: Random House.Google Scholar
Campbell, J. P. & Dunnette, M. D. (1968) Effectiveness of T-group experiences in managerial training and development. Psychological Bulletin, 70, 73–104.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Etzioni, A. (1968) Modern Organizations p. 1. New Jersey: Prentice Hall.Google Scholar
Freud, S. (1955) Group Psychology and the Analysis of the Ego. The Standard Edition of the Complete Psychological Works of Sigmund Freud Vol. 18, pp. 66–143. London: The Hogarth Press.Google Scholar
Hamilton, J. R. & Freeman, H. L. (eds) (1982) Dangerousness. London: Gashell.Google Scholar
Kernberg, O. F. (1986) Institutional problems of psychoanalytic education. Journal of the American Psychoanalytic Association, 34, 799–834.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Lawler, E. E. & Porter, L. W. (1967) The effect of performance on job satisfaction. Industrial Relations, 7, 20–28.Google Scholar
Marcos, L. R. & Cohen, N. L. (1986) Taking the suspected mentally ill off the streets to public general hospitals. New England Journal of Medicine, 315, 1158–1161.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
McGregor, J. (1978) Leadership. New York: Harper Torchbooks, Harper and Row.Google Scholar
Oxford American Dictionary. (1980) New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Parsons, T. (1960) Structure and Process in Modern Societies. New York: Free Press.Google Scholar
Perrow, C. (1986) Complex Organizations. A Critical Essay. New York: Random House.Google Scholar
Weber, M. (1947) The Theory of Social and Economic Organization. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Webster's Seventh New Collegiate Dictionary (1961) Springfield, Mass: J. C. Merrian Co.Google Scholar
Submit a response

eLetters

No eLetters have been published for this article.