Agency segregation: Difference between revisions

From Segregation Wiki
(Creating page)
(Creating page)
 
(One intermediate revision by the same user not shown)
Line 20: Line 20:
<references />  
<references />  
{{NoteAI}}  
{{NoteAI}}  
==Agency Segregation appears on the following literature==  
==Agency segregation appears in the following literature==  


Kim C.-K. (2006). Minority employment in the largest U.S. municipal governments. ''International Journal of Public Administration'', ''29''(4-6), 437-451. Taylor and Francis Inc..https://doi.org/10.1080/01900690500436784
Kim C.-K. (2006). Minority employment in the largest U.S. municipal governments. ''International Journal of Public Administration'', ''29''(4-6), 437-451. Taylor and Francis Inc..https://doi.org/10.1080/01900690500436784

Latest revision as of 16:15, 25 September 2024

Date and country of first publication[1][edit | edit source]

2006
United States

Definition[edit | edit source]

Agency segregation refers to the practice of separating employees or work responsibilities within an organization based on specific criteria such as job function, department, or division. This segregation can result in distinct units or agencies within the larger organization, each with its own set of responsibilities and authorities.

The purpose of agency segregation is often to achieve greater specialization, efficiency, and clarity in decision-making within the organization. By separating different functions or groups of employees into distinct agencies, it becomes easier to allocate resources, assign tasks, and ensure appropriate coordination within each unit.

For example, in a large government organization, agency segregation may involve creating separate agencies or departments for specific functions like finance, human resources, or public relations. Each agency would then have its own staff, budget, and decision-making authority, allowing for focused attention and expertise in addressing specific organizational needs.

However, agency segregation can also have drawbacks. It can lead to silos of information and communication breakdowns between different agencies, hindering collaboration and coordination across the organization. It may also create power imbalances or barriers to interdepartmental cooperation, as each agency may prioritize its own objectives over the overall goals of the organization.

To overcome these challenges, organizations often employ strategies such as cross-departmental committees or task forces to facilitate collaboration and information sharing. They may also implement performance metrics and incentives that emphasize the importance of cooperation and alignment towards common organizational goals.

Overall, agency segregation can be a useful organizational practice when done strategically and with clear communication channels between the segregated units. However, it is essential to balance the benefits of specialization and efficiency with the need for integration and collaboration across the organization.

See also[edit | edit source]

References[edit | edit source]

Notes[edit | edit source]

  1. Date and country of first publication as informed by the Scopus database (December 2023).
At its current state, this definition has been generated by a Large Language Model (LLM) so far without review by an independent researcher or a member of the curating team of segregation experts that keep the Segregation Wiki online. While we strive for accuracy, we cannot guarantee its reliability, completeness and timeliness. Please use this content with caution and verify information as needed. Also, feel free to improve on the definition as you see fit, including the use of references and other informational resources. We value your input in enhancing the quality and accuracy of the definitions of segregation forms collectively offered in the Segregation Wiki ©.

Agency segregation appears in the following literature[edit | edit source]

Kim C.-K. (2006). Minority employment in the largest U.S. municipal governments. International Journal of Public Administration, 29(4-6), 437-451. Taylor and Francis Inc..https://doi.org/10.1080/01900690500436784