The University of Sydney - Aspects of Bureaucracy - Case Study Example

The University of Sydney Student’s name Code & Course Professor’s name University City Date The University of Sydney Introduction Australia was always one of the best in terms of quality of education. However, over the past 20 years, Educationalists have increasingly seen the country retreat deeper into negative educational changes and reforms (Meyers, 2012). For instance, in the past, when university dons received tuition fees directly, the expenditure on accommodation and administration would be between 15 and 20 per cent. However, central collection has been mentioned as one of the reasons that the average proportion of full time non-academic staff in Universities across Australia is now 55 per cent (Graves, et al., 2013). Bureaucracy has been one of the reasons floated for the general decline in world and Australian higher education standards. The University of Sydney being one of the premier institutions in the country and the world is perhaps the most ideal choice in terms of investigating a bureaucratic organization. I learnt about the University of Sydney from looking at ranking trends of Australian universities in various aspects of life in higher education. They appeared in such prestigious award systems as the QS and the Times Higher education rankings. The main aim of this paper is to highlight various aspects of bureaucracy, bureaucratic organizations and the issues that cause and foster the trend of bureaucracy. It also examines the general effects of bureaucracy in organizations. The paper uses the University of Sydney as a case study organization, to highlight the issues caused by bureaucracy in organizations and in the higher education sector in Australia. It looks at the organizational and task allocation structure of the University of Sydney administrative hierarchy, as well as the crucial elements of higher education systems like tenure. Purpose The major aim and purpose of the University of Sydney is the creation of a university where the best and brightest in both the research and student body, thrive and reach their full potential. In the pursuit of these key values, there are two important enduring values; engaged inquiry and mutual accountability. The University of Sydney believes in an institution that shapes critical thinking. In fostering engaged inquiry, the university strives to create an environment where there is a seamlessness in the learning of the student and researcher, a building of the traditional disciplines so that they might help solve the problems of the modern world, and a University whose work is engaged with the community of which it is part. The university is also committed to creating an institution where the members of the universities and their respective academic communities are accountable to each other both in terms of institution academic and financial health (The University of Sydney, 2015). Structure The structure of an organization describes the mechanisms through which it meets expectations and exchange between both internal and external stakeholders. There are three important aspects of organizational structure that might be used in describing the University of Sydney; complexity, centralization and formalization. Complexity is the extent to which the work, tasks and activities are divided in the organization. Complexity involves both horizontal and vertical differentiation. Horizontal differentiation describes the actual division of work and activities in the organization. The University of Sydney has a divisional structure, with different departments serving the needs of different students, with the professors specializing in their respective fields. This system however leads to lack of coordination and costly replication, factors which are common in bureaucratic organizations. The divisional structure is useful in such large organizations as the University of Sydney, with diversity in terms of products and market diversity. The University of Sydney has numerous courses and departments, and produces graduates in numerous disciplines. There are different functional experts each supporting every division. However, across different geographic locations, like different campuses or offices, product lines line different courses or departments, there might be issues regarding coordination. The University of Sydney Organizational hierarchy (The University of Sydney, 2015). Vertical differentiation describes the depth and structure of the organization. It includes elements of formalization, authority and direct supervision. In terms of vertical differentiation, the University of Sydney’s model might be described as tall. Formalization refers to the rules and procedures that the organization devises and follows. It is a description of the formally laid down procedures in the organization like standards, job description, procedural manuals and policy documents. Formalization is essentially the relationship between the complexity of the organization and the centralization. The University of Sydney’s structure is highly centralized, with the senate being in charge of everything in the university, and the vice chancellor and the academic board reporting to them. Apart from the academic board, which seems to work at the same level with the vice chancellor and principal’s office, all the other offices report to the vice chancellor. Large and high risk organizations need a high level of formalization to maintain adequate control of the diverse activities or operations of the organization. For instance, the university admits and accepts students, non-teaching and teaching staff from various parts of the world. its commitment to hiring on the basis of merit and not discriminating is an example of the formalization of rules or policy. The University of Sydney has its five year plans, which are developed and constantly monitored and improved upon to guide, standardize and improve performance. The University of Sydney’s lateral integration methods include meetings between the Vice chancellor and subordinates, academic board meetings, senate meetings, and correspondence with local or external stakeholders. Coordination mechanisms The governance structure in the University of Sydney fits the profile of max Webber’s theory of bureaucracy. Webber’s model outlines the ways through which humans are recruited, distributed and controlled in the typical bureaucratic organization (reading 3). According to max Webber’s model, in a bureaucratic organization, the organization’s regular activities are distributed in a fixed way through defined official duties. The implication of this is formal job description and titles, and the horizontal labor division, a fact which is very much evident in the structure of the University of Sydney. The organization of offices in the University of Sydney structure is organized along the principals of hierarchy, with each office under the supervision of the next on the hierarchy ladder. For instance, the activities of vice principals and vice chancellors are supervised by the office of the vice-chancellor. The operations of the office in such a system follow a system of set rules and guidelines, with the ideal official doing their job in the spirit of impersonal formality, without any affection or formality of any kind. There are career based elements of in the organization. Although recruitment is based on a system of qualifications and achievement, there exists a system of promotions according to seniority or both. The six elements of a bureaucracy according to Webber are as follows; 1. A defined division of labor and authority 2. Offices arranged hierarchically 3. Written guidelines that describe the criteria for performance 4. Recruitment on the basis of expertise and specialization 5. Office holding is a career or vocation 6. The duties are attached to the office and not necessarily the individual (reading 3) Several issues arise from this conceptualization. The aspect of rules is significant in the definition of the job of the employee. They are like direct orders which give the worker specific ways through which to do particular things in specific ways. However, rules are given or in some instances, presumed to have been given more deliberation than direct orders. They are also more carefully articulated, which makes the obligations they impose perhaps less ambiguous that any perhaps hastily spoken direct command (reading 1). Looked at in this way as a form of communication, one might consider carefully written rules as meant for those prone to evading responsibility and commitment. They are meant to draw the attention of the worker to responsibility and away from other deviations. The rules effectively narrow down the worker’s area of discretion. This is perhaps the most common characteristic of the classic bureaucratic organization. Modern organizations seek efficiency and yet seek particularity about who shall enjoy the results of this efficiency or the privilege of doing the work. Particularism is at the center of this dilemma. It is the situation where characteristics irrelevant to the performance of the job are used to choose workers instead of universal characteristics (reading 2). Particularism and efficiency often clash, since often the most efficient individuals for the job might not have the desired social characteristics for the job. One of the reasons for the development of bureaucracy is the quest to eradicate particularism in an organization. This is difficult since organizations are fundamentally social, and social characteristics affect the workings of most organizations. A perfect example is when in a subordinate organization, a subordinate protects their superior since they will generally be rewarded for covering for them and lightening their workload. This creates a situation where although there is apparent quality, the inadequacies of the boss are not evident (reading 2). In such a situation, it is not easy for the subordinate to put the performance needs of the organization in front of their own needs of a better standing with their boss. Today’s society is one in which organizations provide a livelihood for up to eighty per cent of the economically active (reading 2). The fact that organizations are important for most interests is true especially in the case of the University of Sydney and its place in shaping the general directions of higher education in Australia. A bureaucratic reason for preventing particularism is the fact that it often gets in the way of efficiency. For most organizations, such criteria as class, race or ethnicity do not indicate competence. The University of Sydney has a commitment to eradicating discrimination on the basis of gender or ethnicity, having been one of the first institutions in the world to have a perfect gender equality record. But competence is sometimes difficult to quantify, and institutions end up relying on familiarity (reading 2). As a result of widespread political patronage in the 19th century, the price today is heavy. Many merit systems have nothing to do with merit at all (reading 2). The classic bureaucratic organization is one where workers are expected to pursue a career. This is fundamental characteristic of tenure systems, which are and continue to be at the center of much debate about the quality of higher education (Figlio, et al., 2013). Tenure essentially means that the organization is expected to retain an employee. This even when they burn out, or the role requirements of the job change and the individual does not (Reading 2). Conclusion The intentions and in some cases the consequences, of intentional or unintentional bureaucratic trends do not necessarily make for ineffective organizations. Often, it is a matter of a tradeoff between the negatives and the positives, a case of merits outweighing demerits. For instance, the tenure situation is important in encouraging commitment to the development of skills and knowledge over the long term. Employees would not be confident being invested in the institution if they were not assured of their long term position (Al-Lehaibi, 2013). Yet the effects of bureaucracy have ended up lowering the standards of the educational system. The country has stopped producing the best intellectual figures, the Friedrich Hegel, Alexander Fleming and Frederick Banting type big name. This is despite the fact that it is still considered one of the best study destinations in the world. While universities are addicted to growth, measured by such parameters a journal publishing and citation, there is no true quality breakthrough. This paper looks at the characteristics of one of the iconic higher learning institutions in Australia, the University of Sydney, revealing characteristics that foster bureaucratic characteristics. Reference list Al-Lehaibi, M. S., 2013. Argument for Tenure in Higher Education: the American Example. The Barnolipi Journal, 2(6), pp. 100- 107. Figlio, D., Schapiro, M. & Soter, K., 2013. Are Tenure Track Professors Better Teachers?. Northwestern University Working paper Series, September, pp. 1- 24. Graves, N., Barnett, A. & Clarke , P., 2013. Reform Australian Universities by Cutting their Bureaucracies. [Online] Available at: http://theconversation.com/reform-australian-universities-by-cutting-their-bureaucracies-12781 [Accessed 11 September 2015]. Meyers, D., 2012. Australian Universities: A Portrait of Decline. 1 ed. Melbourne: AUPOD. The University of Sydney, 2015. The University of Sydney 2011- 2015 Strategic Plan. [Online] Available at: http://sydney.edu.au/content/dam/corporate/documents/about-us/values-and-visions/strategic_plan_2011-2015.pdf [Accessed 11 September 2015]. The University of Sydney, 2015. Why study here?. [Online] Available at: http://sydney.edu.au/about-us/our-world-rankings.html [Accessed 11 September 2015]. Read More