Weber’s ideal typical model of bureaucracy constitutes the starting point for most scholarship on organizations. Much organizational behaviour, however occurs outside this formalized model. It is thus somewhat surprising that behaviours outside the formal-rational model are, more often than not, treated as aberrations. In contrast, the emerging critical literature on ‘inhabited institutions’ has identified such gaps in our theoretical understanding as foundational, warranting a more agentic conception of organizational life—a conception more fully acknowledging of and sensitive to the dynamics of power in organizational life. In this regard, we highlight four prevalent (though seldom theoretically incorporated) features of contemporary bureaucracies—divergent goals, patrimonialism, unwritten rules and chaos. These features, which we contend are no less critical to organizational functioning than those identified by Weber, constitute an organizational logic more compatible with a Kafkan vision of bureaucracy than with a Weberian one. Theorizing such attributes allows us to explore elements of bureaucratic life that the formal-rational model of bureaucracy renders largely invisible and is conceptually and empirically ill equipped to incorporate. An illustrative analysis, drawing on narrative data drawn from the population of organizational ethnographies ( n = 162) (1) demonstrates the prominence of such dynamics in organizational life; and (2) highlights their implications for rule breaking as a relatively common yet under-theorized occurrence. A core implication of our analysis and critique is that the social sciences need a fundamentally revised theory of bureaucracy capable of understanding bureaucracy’s power laden and often dystrophic features.

Advocates of culture-change management suggest that the right sort of managerial philosophy can transform nursing homes from impersonal institutions into safe, caring communities. However, participant observation carried out at Heartland Community, a nonprofit culture-change nursing home, suggests that culture change founders on the structural problem of inadequate staffing. Resource limitations imposed by Medicaid and Medicare reimbursement rates mean that even nonprofit facilities desiring to maximize staffing cannot afford to hire enough staff to live up to basic care standards. Thus, above-average staffing notwithstanding, Heartland's nursing aides could not complete their work on time without compromising the quality of care by breaking important care rules. Resource limitations also forced management to adopt a series of punitive personnel policies that actively undercut the rhetoric and aims of culture change, turning culture change into a rhetorical device for shifting blame for care problems from structural resource limitations onto the attitudes of nursing aides.

Workplace harassment can be devastating for employees and damaging for organizations. In this article, we expand the literature by identifying common and distinct processes related to general workplace harassment and workplace sexual harassment. Using both structural equation modeling and in-depth case immersion, we analyze content-coded data from the full population of workplace ethnographies-ethnographies that provide in-depth information on the nature and causes of both general and sexual harassment that would otherwise be difficult to gather. Importantly, both forms of harassment emerge in settings characterized by physically demanding work and minority work groups. In such contexts, both general and sexual harassment enforce formal and informal status hierarchies and social exclusion. Grievance mechanisms and "team models" of workplace organization reduce sexual harassment but have no effect on general harassment. We conclude with a discussion of theoretical, legal, and policy implications for identifying and remedying harassment as a widespread and devastating form of inequality and social exclusion in organizations.Workplace harassment can be devastating, seriously harming individuals and organizations by undermining norms of civility and mutual respect (Ashforth 1994). In legal terms, such injuries are termed "dignitary harm" (Kleinschmidt 2005), and studies report that between 10 and 20 percent of employees are subjected to it each year (Rayner, Hoel, and Cooper 2002:23; Zapf et al. 2003:105-108). Moreover, the resulting shame and despair often last long after the harassment has ended (Hodson 2001;Vaez, Ekberg, and LaFlamme 2004).The workplace is an arena rife with power differentials that are at the core of many forms of abusive workplace behavior (Walker and Zelditch 1993). Yet, various types of workplace harassment are, more often than not, examined separately rather than comparatively, and within distinct, nonoverlapping literatures. Consequently, how unique forms of workplace harassment relate to one another is not well understood. In particular, not enough is known about the extent to which different kinds of workplace harassment stem from the same or unique underlying causes-a question with important implications for prevention.In this article, we address the aforementioned question and extend the literature by comparing general workplace harassment with workplace sexual harassment. We adapt the "routine activities" model of deviance to organizational contexts, and then estimate the *Direct all correspondence to

No abstract