The Bureaucracy as an Effective System of Organization - Essay Example

The bureaucracy concept While an organization has a certain structure and conducts its activities in accordance to its policies, procedures and rules, it is obvious that it follows the bureaucratic way of its performance. Thus, regulations, standing orders, protocols and different requests for statistics are the integral part of any bureaucratic organization. However, the performance of the bureaucracy nowadays is more negative. In order to abide laws and regulations, more employees of the organizations perceive the bureaucracy as inefficient and self- seeking. They consider that it is insensitive to the needs of employees and acts with its own interest (Venkatachalam 1998). The following paper will evaluate the concept of bureaucracy in different organizations showing the “ups and downs” of bureaucratic organization. In addition, it will represent the bureaucratic principles and theories to the organizations and their necessity and role for the organizations. The evaluation of the concept of bureaucracy Bureaucracy as the system has grown into the complex, which over the years neither the employees nor the leadership have been able to understand and control effectively. With its main goal to control productivity of work and its successful completion, the concept of bureaucracy felt the urgent need in improving its reliability, efficiency and effectiveness (Venkatachalam 1998). Inside the bureaucratic organization, the concept of bureaucracy helps the leaders and managers to design their work in an effective way by breaking down process of performance into departments that in the same time breaks down work into simpler tasks. When the organization uses the bureaucratic system, it keeps power and directs control, creating at the same time more people with limited knowledge whose actions are more mechanical (Barzelay 1992). However, such structural way of performing one’s activities limits employees in their ability to execute their tasks effectively. While the organizations have too many rules and regulations, the way they work and conduct their policy is too severe toward cooperation with the other organizations and own employees. The situation has become even more alarming, as the top level of the bureaucracy has become less effective instrument. Many people do not think regulations and procedures so important; however, bureaucracy within the organization guarantees proper and equal treatment to its all members. On one hand, the procedures and rules serve its best in order to ensure excellent performance of an organization’s activities. On the other hand, they take much time by involving in the communication and decision‐making processes and this stops the work of the organization. This is the reason why some organizations do not push themselves in creating and following procedures. For example, the religious organization of the Salvation Army has many branches throughout the nation, but they have no structure complex. It supports different units and takes new challenges, but creates procedure for every single situation, fulfilling its mission anyway (Gay 2000). The need in bureaucracy Bureaucracy is a product of two specific ways of managing organizations, which are the profit versus bureaucratic. When it deals with the external defense, internal protection or the court system and the government services in general, the bureaucratic system is necessary. However, in all other types of organizations the bureaucracy may be destructive (Anderson 2004).Organizations that have bureaucratic structures cascade layers from senior executives to regional managers and then to the departmental managers, which move supervisors who work at the same time with the usual employees. Decision-making process within such organizations passes long way through many layers. The procedures, the technologies and the values that are passed from the managers to usual employees may be vividly seen through the work of the one of the world’s largest hamburger chain McDonald’s. Some research supports the idea that the Company acts as the bureaucratic organization, because its management uses many rules and procedures, prepared scripts that employees should follow when dealing with the customers. For example, dispensers should supply the exact quantity of ketchup and the cash registers should tell the cashier workers of the amount of change they should give back to the customer (Volti 2008). Organizations with the bureaucratic structure control over strategy decisions, which benefits the business owners. The process of decision-making within such organizations can be shorter because less people are involved in it. The disadvantages of bureaucracy Procedures and best practices ensure work to be consistently completed in an efficient and effective ways. On the other hand, bureaucratic structures depress employees’ creativity. It does not matter whether the owner’s purposes are good or bad, it is impossible for a single employee to create strategic ideas inside the interdisciplinary group. According to Mises, a researcher of the bureaucracy, the choice between the profit- based management of the organization and bureaucratic way of performing its activities is a certain struggle between availability to act free or abide rules, perform one’s duties individually and take responsibility for them or to listen to the collective decision (Anderson 2004). His concept also means that bureaucracy accomplishes no value on the market, beginning from the work of front-line employees, which obtain less satisfaction from the duties they perform and thus it increases rates of employees’ turnover within a certain organization (Niskanen 1971). Moreover, among the disadvantages of the organizations that conduct their operations by procedures is the inability to adapt themselves to the changing conditions in the market and business environment (Styhre 2007). That is why bureaucracy cannot be implemented to all organization equally. However, the influence of the government on different sectors and private lives force organizations to act according to the regulations that are established. One of the negative sides of bureaucracies is that they serve as the perfect environment for Authoritarians (Han 2008). Many recent articles have stated their criticism of bureaucracy in the organizations. Among them, one can mention the inability to differentiated ideas among the staff that depresses their creativity. If such creative ideas are in conflict with the perceived ones on the level of official hierarchy, they will be subjected to vetoes. Bureaucracy does not see the necessity of personal growth and the development of mature employees, which is the biggest disadvantage of such organization. Even if such availability appears, the structure within the organization does not allow reviewing the decisions. While the organizations that focus on their personnel as the main force that keeps the organization on the first place among others, allow themselves to innovate and implement programs for the development of their staff, the bureaucratic organizations use reward system rather than innovation (Kimbroug & Todd 1967). Weber’s considerations about bureaucracy In the 1930s, Max Weber described the bureaucratic as the perfect form for organizing agencies of government. His principles obtained popularity in public and private sectors, even if his considerations were challenged (Singhi 1974). According to his views, the internal organizational characteristics of bureaucracy led to an efficiency of such type of the organization. Efficiency, in turn, provided superiority over other organizations (Gajduschek 2003). The main features of the best type of bureaucracy Weber consider are the goal orientation, division of labor, hierarchal order in organization, written and true to life rules, well-trained staff, full working capacity of the officials and application of impersonal rules. However, such characteristics of bureaucracy did not always help organizations to achieve its goals or perform them in the efficient way (Merz 2011). Top management should provide quality objectives of the relevant functions and levels within the organization. Written rules, regulations and documented procedures should sustain the stability of the organizational processes. Well-trained employees will ensure assistance of customer requirements. Bureaucratic organizations, which follow the principle of hierarchy, conduct supervision of a higher authority. Mises’s considerations as to the concept of bureaucracy is much different from Weber’s. He starts with the human action and sees bureaucracy by its style of management. The organization that follows the bureaucratic way of its performance is not formed by means of social forces, but is modernized by people, they determine societal development. Bureaucracy is a benefit for those who desire for power and influence (Anderson 2004). The realities of bureaucracy There are undoubtedly those who do not welcome the implementation of any bureaucratic approaches in agencies or offices. However, public opinion polls tell that most people like the current programs. Moreover, they are satisfied with their challenges with bureaucratic agencies. One of the most complicated realities for bureaucracies is that Americans show unstable opinions as to their wants of the bureaucracy. It is the bureaucrats’ task to adapt the policies of the national government establishments, to reality. They stand between the lawmakers, public programs and the people, positioning themselves as those who see both sides of the picture, the political and practical side (The Realities of Bureaucracy, n.d.). Mostly those who are unable to cope with the purposes, tasks, circumstances of the democracies, criticize the bureaucracy. They find bureaucracy too lazy, incompetent, wasteful, hierarchical, rule- bound, inhumane and harmful for democracy. Bureaucratic organizations belong to authoritarian and legalistic society. It has nothing common with the dynamic and individualistic societies. That is why some demand for administrative reforms and others wait for market, enterprise and network organizations to change the bureaucratic machine. Today it is not obvious that modern organizations are less rule- bound than they were before. They run and abide certain laws that lie at the heart of the theory and practice of public administration. Moreover, with the development and implementation of new businesses, scandals in private and public sector have increased the demand for legal and ethical rules to be created and followed (Mouzelis 2013). E- Government and the development of new information technologies needs standardization and rule- oriented behavior, as well as ISO standards. That is why bureaucracy is necessary to sustain the system together, notwithstanding the fact that there are the opponents of it (Olsen 2007). Nowadays, critics argue not only about the modern compatibility of organization's internal values with human’s values. They also point to examples where the bureaucratic values contort human values. If people outside the system know life as the completely different from how bureaucrats know it, the accordance of all modern civilization about the knowledge what human life is questioned (Diefenbach 2012). Bureaucracy can be essential and positive when generates to meet a perceived need. However, bad bureaucracy results from a hierarchical relationship. Sometimes the value that is better for the organization is not discussed and agreed and then the system becomes a source of abuse that involves the organization and also becomes a convenient sacrificial goat for those who wants to lay aside own responsibility. Absenteeism, high turnover rates and bad levels of performance and productivity within the organization are the traditional costs that are caused by bureaucracy. Workers receive little feedback that leads to low job satisfaction and creates their want to search for another job. The employees that go on working in such organization have reducing job satisfaction because they have no longer any positive benefit. All of this demonstrates a great and unnecessary burden on the economy of not only the organization but also on the national level. Providing workers with the locus of control and increasing their motivation and commitment to the organization will ensure the further successful cooperation and will bring benefit to both employees and organizations (Hornstei & Guerre 2006). One of the advantages of bureaucracy system is that it carries objectivity to employee choice by decreasing nepotism and other forms of favoritism by decision makers. It also replaces it with job competence criteria. The strengths of a bureaucratic system within the organization are in control of the employees abiding the rules and regulations. There is no confusion in relationships. The system is centralized, which gives possibility to its managers to make corrections and improve the processes. The decisions are also monitored. Weber had identified the advantages of his view on bureaucracy. He decided to separate the division of labor into spheres of influence. The definite hierarchy of official offices will give the clearer vision of who rules the organization. Every organization should have clear norms and rules. The selection of specialists should be performed by technical qualification. Promotions should be established by seniority. Organizations should conduct the disciplinary control over the employee of each office (Gay 2000). The ways for proper implementation of bureaucracy Theorists, public practitioners and many organizations may argue that bureaucracy makes all the processes complicated by imposing its system to everyone and everything. However, the absence of rules and procedures would stop certain processes. The most efficient ways to start organization and its employees under certain circumstances and environments is possible only when all activities are regulated, recorded, monitored and then methods for improvement and enhancement are chosen. First and the most important about bureaucracy is that it should serve users’ needs. To be implemented in a right manner, any rule or regulation should be first represented for discussion with all its potential users; it should take into account their needs and preferences. Inside the bureaucratic organizations, the system should care about front- line employees, customers and management. For better understanding, bureaucracy should pass public common sense, health and safety test and unwelcome additional burden. Then it will prove its purpose of the one that makes life easier by systematizing and standardizing processes, creating positive for the person’s environment. References Anderson, W. 2004. “Mises versus weber on bureaucracy and sociological method”, Journal of Libertarian Studies, Volume 18, no. 1, pp. 1–29, Available from http://lgdata.s3-website-us-east-1.amazonaws.com/docs/380/49275/Harvard_LibGuide_-_All_Examples_PDF.pdf [16 August 2014]. Barzelay, M., 1992. Breaking Through Bureaucracy: A New Vision for Managing in Government, University of California Press Diefenbach T., 2012, Reinventing hierarchy and bureaucracy: From the bureau to network organizations, Research in the sociology of organizations, Volume 35, Bingley, and Emerald. Gajduschek, G., 2003, “Bureaucracy: is it efficient? Is it not? Is that the question? Uncertainty Reduction: An Ignored Element of Bureaucratic Rationality” Administration & society, Vol. 34 No. 6, pp. 700-723 Available from http://cc.scu.edu.cn/G2S/eWebEditor/uploadfile/20121216002248421.pdf [16 August 2014]. Gay P., 2000, In praise of bureaucracy: Weber, organization, ethics, London, SAGE. Han Y., 2008, Institutional Logics, Extended Rationality, and the Effects of Military Background of Business Leaders. Tucson, Ariz., University of Arizona. Horsten, H. & Guerre D., 2006, “Bureaucratic Organizations are bad for Your Health” Ivey business Journal, Available from http://iveybusinessjournal.com/topics/the-workplace/bureaucratic-organizations-are-bad-for-our-health#.U_Biffl_tig [16 August 2014]. Kimbrough R. & Todd E., 1967, Bureaucratic Organization and Educational Change, The Association of Supervision and Curriculum Development, Available from http://www.ascd.org/ASCD/pdf/journals/ed_lead/el_196712_kimbrough.pdf Merz F., 2011. Max Weber’s Theory of Bureaucracy and its negative consequences, München: GRIN Verlag GmbH. Mouzelis, N., 2013. Organization and Bureaucracy: An Analysis of Modern Theories, Ils 157. Hoboken: Taylor and Francis, pp. 170-177 Niskanen, W., 1971. Bureaucracy and representative government. Chicago: Aldine, Atherton. Olsen J., 2007, “The Ups and Downs of Bureaucratic Organization”, Center for European Studies, University of Oslo, Available from https://www.sv.uio.no/arena/english/research/publications/arena-publications/workingpapers/working-papers2007/wp07_14.pdf [16 August 2014]. Styhre, A., 2007. The innovative bureaucracy bureacracy in an age of fluidity. London: Routledge. The Realities of Bureaucracy, n.d. American government & politics, Available from http://www.thisnation.com/textbook/bureaucracy-reality.html. [16 August 2014]. Venkatachalam, D. 1998, Bureaucracy: An evaluation and a scheme of account ability. New Delhi: APH Pub. Volti, R., 2008, “An Introduction to the Sociology of Work and Occupations”, eds Pine Forge Press, 2008, p.79-89 Read More