The Post Bureaucratic Organization - Assignment Example

The Post Bureaucratic Organization Introduction It is observed that whenever an organization is described, one always says it is either bureaucraticor non-bureaucratic. The concept of bureaucracy as a form of organization has become the basis for scholars and practitioners to determine and evaluate other forms of organizations. However, with all the changes that have challenged bureaucratic organizations, there was the advent of newer forms of organization, which have become more commonly and conveniently called the post-bureaucratic forms of organization. This paper will identify the characteristics of post-bureaucratic organizations and determine the challenges and pressures that managers face in a post-bureaucratic environment. It will be structured according to the following outline: The first part introduces the reader to the idea of the bureaucratic organization. The major characteristics of the bureaucracy will be presented and discussed in order to provide a good background for the post-bureaucratic organization. The second part will be a discussion of the features of the post-bureaucratic organization and the final part will discuss the challenges and pressures that managers face in a post-bureaucratic environment, with some ideas on how managers can cope with such pressures and challenges. The essay will also discuss and evaluate the post-bureaucratic organization on the basis of the characteristics of the bureaucracy as expounded by Max Weber. There have been many views about the bureaucracy as an organizational form. Many have criticized it saying it is very impersonal and is not responsive. The hierarchical structure is also said to be inflexible and does not allow for dynamism. However, there are also those who believe that the bureaucratic structure is here to stay. And still there are those who think that organizations are neither strictly bureaucratic nor non-bureaucratic. In this essay, the characteristics of both the bureaucratic and post-bureaucratic organizations will be presented in an objective manner, with an effort to evaluate the varied views towards the end. The Characteristics of Bureaucratic Organizations Bureaucracy as a concept of organization was a contribution to theory that can be attributed to either Karl Marx or Max Weber. However, since much of the writings of Karl Marx are more focused on the philosophical and social ideologies, especially with his concept of revolutionary communism, Max Weber has come to be known as the proponent of the concept of bureaucracy. This essay will focus on the ideas advanced by Max Weber regarding the bureaucratic organization. The description “Weberian”, referring to Weber’s model, has become a comfortable term to use in readings about the bureaucracy. Weber’s bureaucracy is considered by scholars and practitioners as the “ideal organization” or the “ideal-type” organization. This idea of an ideal structure however draws out varied reactions from different people. Some agree with the idea of achieving order through its prescribed system of doing things. Others condemn it for causing problems like delays, corruption, being too impersonal, etc. In order to put all these in their proper perspective, a good starting point is to define the concept of bureaucracy. The first and most common word one comes across in readings related to bureaucracy is the word rationality. Quoting Weber, Neil Garston defines bureaucracy in the book Bureaucracy: Three Paradigms through an explanation of the categories of rational legal authority. Authority in this sense is equated to bureaucracy and involves the following: 1 1. A continuous organization of official functions bound by rules 2. A specified sphere of competence involving spheres of obligations marked by division of labor; incumbent being provided with authority to carry out functions; clearly defined means of compulsion 3. The organization of offices follows the principle of hierarchy 4. The rules which regulate the conduct of an office may be technical rules or norms 5. Administration is completely separated from ownership 6. Complete absence of appropriation of his position by the incumbent 7. Administrative acts, decisions and rules are formulated and recorded in writing. Garston further describes the bureaucratic organization as “capable of attaining the highest degree of efficiency and is in this sense the most rational means of carrying out imperative control of human beings. (Garston, 1993, p. 337) From above description of bureaucracy, we can derive the characteristics through the following words: rational, rules, division of labor, hierarchy, and competence. Following this, the bureaucracy is a rational organization that is governed by a system of rules, where there is a hierarchy of positions and work is divided among people who have their own special competencies. In addition, being rational means the capability to be efficient through methods of control over the people in the organization. Why is the bureaucracy considered an ideal structure? From an understanding of how Weber defines the bureaucracy, the structure is ideal because it has the capability to be stable and reliable. It is stable and reliable because there are rules which are observed with much discipline and because of this, there is none or very little room for sudden changes which may result in the breakdown of the organizational system. Weber therefore advocates an organization that is governed by rules that are universally and strictly followed by people who are qualified and properly trained. The succeeding sections will further explain the seven characteristics of the bureaucratic organization: 1. A continuous organization of official functions bound by rules The application of rules is for everyone and the rules have to be complied with. Rules are applied universally, irrespective of the position and not the person who occupies the position. 2. A specified sphere of competence involving spheres of obligations marked by division of labor; incumbent being provided with authority to carry out functions; clearly defined means of compulsion. This means that work is divided among the staff, each one with his own set of responsibilities and means of performing his functions. Therefore, a division supervisor has different responsibilities from a line leader and each one performs his functions in different specified ways. 3. The organization of offices follows the principle of hierarchy According to Weber, the organization is characterized by positions of authority structured in a hierarchy. This means that each lower office is controlled and supervised by a higher one and this being the case, the higher positions have more power and authority than the lower ones. 4. The rules which regulate the conduct of an office may be technical rules or norms. The rules may refer to those being followed in employee selection, promotion, evaluation, discipline, and in practically every area of running the organization. 5. Administration is completely separated from ownership 6. Complete absence of appropriation of his position by the incumbent Both characteristics 5 and 6 refer to the aspect of separating administration from ownership in bureaucratic organizations, which means that the position of the official cannot be sold or inherited and it cannot be appropriated and integrated in his private possession. The means of production and administration referred to include the physical equipment like computers, documents, buildings, etc.2 7. Administrative acts, decisions and rules are formulated and recorded in writing. Weber advocates the recording of rules and all acts of administration through written forms, which he referred to as “the files”. With the advent of technology and modernization, this organizational form came to be considered no longer as efficient and applicable to modern day organizations. This will be discussed in the succeeding sections. The Shift to Post-Bureaucratic Organizations Just as there are writings that defend and justify the existence of bureaucratic organizations, there is also a wealth of readings that criticize the bureaucracy. These criticisms paved the way for some in-depth evaluation of the bureaucratic model of the organization. The new organizational forms are variously termed post-bureaucratic, post-industrial, network, cluster, and perpetual mix. The 21st century organization is seen to be networked, information-rich, de-layered, lean, hyper-competitive, boundary-less.3 One study contending that Webers concept of the bureaucratic type is no longer useful is discussed in Roger Mansfield’s Bureaucracy and Centralization: An Examination of Organizational Structure. Mansfield reexamines the study made by the Aston Group that used the scalar quantities, not vector quantities, as main variables in the research.(Mansfield, Administrative Science Quarterly, p. 477) The shift to a post-bureaucratic organizational form is borne out of the changes brought about by advances in technology, in global structures and all forms of development. These changes definitely paved the way for adjustments in the way organizations operated. These also brought about the rise of the new forms of organizations, which have become known as the post-bureaucratic forms. The Characteristics of Post Bureaucratic Organizations What are the characteristics of the post bureaucratic organization? It is believed that organizations of today are emerging and they face different social, economic and political challenges. The general notion is that in today’s organizations, people want to be more flexible, they want to have more room to be innovative, and they are not content with simply following orders. In the book Discourses of Post-Bureaucratic Organization, the author Ric Iedema summarizes the ways by which scholars see organizations as undergoing change. Iedema describes the post-bureaucratic organization as characterized by “the reduction of formal levels of hierarchy, an emphasis on flexibility rather than rule-following and the creation of a more permeable boundary between the inside and the outside of the organization – as denoted by the increased use of sub-contracting, temporary working and use of consultants rather than permanent and/or in-house expertise.” Iedema’s discussions are enriched with references from the commentators who wrote about the idea of post-bureaucracy and these include Grey and Garsten as well as Heckscher and Donnellon.4 Exploring the above post-bureaucratic characteristics, the Weberian bureaucratic characteristics of a hierarchy, of the use of extensive rules, of stable relationships within the organization, these all seemed to be negated, if not lessened or minimized in implementation in the organization. Post-bureaucratic organizations use the less formal structures, they are more flexible, and more open to having relationships or connections with parties outside the organization. In this case, the use of sub-contractors as well as third party consultants is acceptable which allows for more networking and establishment of external linkages. The list of additional characteristics of post-bureaucratic organizations is expanded as further cited by Iedema: 5 Worker participation through self-managing work teams Cross-functional task forces Multi-level consensus Information technology Decision-making capacity building Partnerships across boundaries Horizontal and vertical information sharing Negotiated solutions New managerial roles: leader, change agent, coordinator, broker, boundary-crosser At this juncture, this paper shall attempt to assess the identified characteristics relative to the characteristics of the bureaucracy as advanced by Weber. The concept of the hierarchy is modified through the use of self-managing work teams, cross-functional task forces, horizontal and vertical information sharing. The post-bureaucratic organization is no longer very formal and following only designated lines of communication or authority. Employees are given more focus and roles unlike in bureaucratic organizations by soliciting their inputs and involving them in decision-making (multi-level consensus, decision-making capacity building, partnerships across boundaries). There seems to be more flexibility (negotiated solutions) and there is openness to innovations and roles (information technology, new managerial roles: leader, change agent, coordinator, broker, boundary-crosser). A more comprehensive understanding of the post-bureaucratic organization is provided through a comparison of the bureaucratic and post-bureaucratic organizations, as presented in the book New Public Organization. Though the public organizations are focused here, the organizational structures are those applicable for both public and private organizations. The comparison is made in three areas: policy and management culture, structure, and market orientation. Focus will be given on the first two areas in the succeeding summary.6 The comparison made in Marson et. al. is summarized as: (Marson, p. 3) As to the policy and management culture: Bureaucratic organizations Post-bureaucratic organizations Emphasis on organization Emphasis on clients Power in Position Participative leadership Rule-centered People-centered Independent action/Little consultation Collective action Status-quo-oriented to avoid risks Change-oriented, innovations/risk-taking Process oriented Results-oriented As to the organizational structure: centralized through hierarchy Decentralized in authority and control and controls utilize departmental form in program Use a variety of mechanism in delivering delivery programs The umbrella term used to refer to organizations that have gone through the transformations and have adopted the new forms is post-bureaucracy or post-bureaucratic organization. Charles Heckscher outlines the characteristics of the post-bureaucratic organization: 7 1. Rules are replaced with consensus and dialogue based upon personal influence rather than status. People are trusted to act on the basis of shared values rather than rules. 2. Responsibilities are assigned on the basis of competence for tasks rather than hierarchy, and are treated as individuals rather than impersonally. 3. The organization has an open boundary, so that rather than full-time permanent employment, people come into and out of the organization in a flexible way including part-time, temporary and consultancy arrangements. Work is no longer done in fixed hours or at a designated place. We have seen from all the previous discussions that post-bureaucratic theory is almost the opposite of the bureaucratic theories. The hierarchy no longer exists and instead, it is not the position of one person that is dominant but the person’s capability. The rules are replaced with consensus among the people. The impersonal way of treating employees is replaced with interactions among people based on their shared values and management’s belief that people should be empowered in the organization. The succeeding sections will present the pressures and challenges faced by managers in post-bureaucratic organizations. The Post-Bureaucratic Challenges to Managers It would seem that it is easier to manage bureaucratic organizations than post-bureaucratic organizations. The general reason is that in a bureaucracy, all the rules are given and the managers just have to implement them. In a post-bureaucratic organization, there will be a lot of challenges to the managers and they will be discussed in the succeeding paragraphs. A good discussion of these challenges was made in the Journal article “Challenges to Existing Strategy Theory in a Post-industrial Society. The authors discuss the increasing complexity faced by post-industrial firms, and the complexities are said to be brought about by knowledge and technology dissemination. In this article, it is argued that “these global changes both at the individual level and for society in general affect managers in two ways: they alter the relationships between firms and external stakeholders (e.g., customers), and they alter the relationships between firms and internal stakeholders (e.g., employees)”.8 It is true that changes are happening so fast in all areas. Technology is changing the ways people communicate. From the simple rotary phones of the past that can only receive and send voice signals and are placed in fixed locations, now there are the cellular phones and mobiles that can receive and send not only voice signals but also short messages or what is known as sms in the techno language. How does this affect managers? One effect of this is in terms of employee productivity. Some firms no longer allow employees to bring mobile phones at work because employees spend production time communicating with other people instead of doing productive work. Also, if there are any informal talks or complaints against supervisors or managers or even fellow employees, it is easy for employees to spread the word around and this many create unnecessary idle talk among employees and possible organizing work for mass action, though this may be a worse case scenario. To further reinforce this idea, the Journal article “Electronic Communication and Changing Organizational Forms” discusses the ways by which information technology affects organizational forms. The article advances the view that information technology has definite effects on the structure of post-bureaucratic organizations in the following areas: vertical control, horizontal coordination, size of organization and constituent units, communication cultures, ownership and control, among others. 9 What does this exactly mean? It means that advances in communication technology can cause organizations to change their structures as well as the way managers manage employees vertically and horizontally. The vertical method refers to communicating with employees from top to bottom or the other way around. The horizontal method is communicating with employees along the same positions like with fellow managers. Also, the virtual system enables managers to inform concerned employees about inter-office meetings without having to leave their office or without sending out memos to all offices in all buildings. The filing system is now in digitized form and there is less risk of losing information or losing files because of the use of technology in safekeeping important data. The electronic communication technology enables organizations to overcome problems about distance and about time, minimizing delays. It goes without saying though that another challenge to managers in post-bureaucratic organizations is to be highly skilled and knowledgeable with regards to the latest information and communication technology. The challenges seem to be mostly “technology-caused” as Landry terms it in the Journal article “Scrolling Around the New Organization: The Potential for Conflict in the On-Line Environment”. The author claims that the technological revolution has created as many challenges as opportunities for managers in todays organizations, and these have effects on the methods of negotiation as well as conflict resolution in an electronic environment since communication is just mostly via email.10 Attempting to explain the above in simple terms, instead of having face-to-face resolutions of conflicts, managers are in a more “relaxed” state as they are just communicating the complaints of two parties to each other through email. However, the challenge is in getting various responses from employees. Some employees may be very vocal and may use strong words, while others will just refuse to respond and deal with the issue. How then can managers handle the diversity of reactions in an environment where the rules are not as dominant as in the bureaucratic organizations? The possibility may still be for the managers to have to resolve the conflicts through face-to-face interactions and if this happens, new challenges will surface again. Marson also further explains the effects of globalization and information technology on post-bureaucratic organizations by quoting Nancy Adler, “In today’s interdependent world, no leader, whether government or corporate, has the luxury of narrowing his or her thinking to within predefined political, economic or cultural boundaries.” The effects of globalization also require managers to learn how to manage the interaction between the organization and government as one of the institutions affecting it. Globalization challenges managers to be innovative, to learn continuously, and to be creative thinkers. (Marson, p. 5) In terms of leadership, the challengers for managers are seen in the what Roger Gill, Niall Levine and Douglas Pitt believe to be the four i’s: individualized consideration, intellectual stimulation, inspirational motivation, and idealized influence, all these are what they consider the challenges for the required roles and behavior of leaders of post-bureaucratic organizations. The trend is towards transformational and transactional leadership, which must be the mindset of the leaders and managers in post-bureaucratic organizations. This is what leaders need if they are to survive the pressures brought about by complex and constant changes.11 Conclusion The challenges and changes that modern organizations will be facing are not yet about to end. There is continuing discussion about modern bureaucracies undergoing “reconstruction”, “metamorphosis” “refurbishment”. It can be expected that with this come certain difficulties that organizations, especially the large and complex ones will continue to face. Further, the new organizational forms are being considered as hybrid forms and these means that there are inherent difficulties that can be face as a result of the emerging structures that will be formed.12 From the analytical point of view, available readings from the commentators and analysts indicate that just like bureaucratic organizations, post bureaucratic organizations are the needed organizations for the changing times. These organizations are believed to arise out of the non-observance of bureaucratic principles, and because of the regard for bureaucracies as inefficient, the resulting post-bureaucratic organization becomes very efficient and functional. However, this essay adopts the view that the post-bureaucratic organizations are not the exact opposites of the bureaucratic organizations but instead just an improvement of the bureaucratic features. The structure of the hierarchy is a structure that cannot be avoided especially for large organizations. How bureaucratic or less bureaucratic an organization is may be a good focal point of classification here but this may well be the subject of another discussion. On the whole, managers in post-bureaucratic organizations face the challenging environment where they have to be very broad-minded, and where they need to have creative ideas and not be satisfied with traditional solutions. The use of teams and networks may be an aspect that managers welcome in post-bureaucratic organizations. Because employees are given increasing roles, managers have to find ways to manage such roles. A huge challenge is for managers to handle the extreme complexities that arise on a day-to-day basis. The complexities may vary on a day-to-day basis and managers have to be very creative in trying out alternative options. Innovation and risk-taking are the characteristics that managers in post-bureaucratic organizations have to possess in order to survive the pressures brought about by the constant and complex changes and challenges. Indeed the modern-day organization has come a long way and if it is to survive the increasing pressures brought about by the global changes, it has to be a dynamic and flexible organization. References Fulk, Janet and Gerardine DeSanctis. “Electronic Communication and Changing Organizational Forms”. Organization Science, Vol. 6, No. 4 (Jul. - Aug., 1995), 337. http://links.jstor.org/sici?sici=1047-7039%28199507%2F08%296%3 A4%3C337%3AECACOF%3E2.0.CO%3B2-P&size=LARGE#abstract. Garston, Neil. Bureaucracy: Three Paradigms. Springer, 1993. http://books.google.com/ books?id=4ZtkgMj2DIwC&dq=definition+of+bureaucracy&psp=9.   Gill, Roger, Niall Levine, and Douglas C. Pitt. “Leadership and Organizations for the New Millennium. Journal of Leadership Studies, Vol. 5, 1998. Executive Summary. http://www.questia.com/PM.qst?a=o&se=gglsc&d=5001503040&er=deny. Grey, Christopher and Chris Grey. A Very Short, Fairly Interesting and Reasonably Cheap Book About Studying Organizations. Sage Publications, 2005. http://books.google.com/books?hl=en&lr=&id=tSIuqRPFyfwC&oi=fnd&pg=PP9&sig=pxifb3bLEzWkyIQWGT0bQOqvbu0&dq=grey+and+garsten+c-grey&prev=http://scholar.google.com/scholar%3Fq%3Dgrey%2Band%2Bgarsten%2Bauthor:c-grey%26hl%3Den%26lr%3D%26sa%3DG#PPA84,M1 .   Hall, Richard H. The Concept of Bureaucracy: An Empirical Assessment. American Journal of Sociology, Vol. 69, No. 1, (Jul., 1963), 32-40. Abstract. http://links.jstor.org/sici?sici=0002-9602(196307)69%3A1%3C32%3ATCOBAE%3E2.0.CO%3B2-R . Hamilton, Peter. Max Weber: Critical Assessments 1, 1991, Routledge (UK). http://books.google.com/books?vid=ISBN0415070945&id=pWlzUhdHpnEC&pg=PP1&lpg=PP1&dq=Max+Weber&sig=D1gnNzNPvEbW2-sK9au8y26WKDU . Iedema, Rick. Discourses of Post-Bureaucratic Organization. John benjamins Publishing Company, 2003. http://books.google.com/books?vid=ISBN1588114139&id=rrfJxuHM- LcC&dq=Post+Bureaucratic+Management. Josserand, Emmanuel, Stephen Teo and Stewart Clegg. “From Bureaucratic to Post- Bureaucratic: The Difficulties of Transition”. Journal of Organizational Change Management, Emerald Group Publishing Limited, 2006, Volume19, No.1, 54-64. http://www.emeraldinsight.com/Insight/viewContentItem.do?contentType=Article&hdAction=lnkhtml&contentId=1541241. Landry, Elaine M.. “Scrolling Around the New Organization: The Potential for Conflict in the On-Line Environment”. Negotiation Journal, Springer Netherlands. Volume 16, Number 2, April 2000. Lowendahl, Bente and Oivind Revang. “Challenges to Existing Strategy Theory in a Post- Industrial Society”. Strategic Management Journal. © 1998 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., Volume 19, Issue 8, 755 – 773. Abstract. http://www3.interscience.wiley.com/cgi-bin/abstract/10007521/ABSTRACT?CRETRY=1&SRETRY=0. Mansfield, Roger. “Bureaucracy and Centralization: An Examination of Organizational Structure”. Administrative Science Quarterly, Vol. 18, No. 4 (Dec., 1973), 477- 488. Abstract. http://links.jstor.org/sici?sici=0001-8392%28197312%2918%3A4%3C477%3ABACAEO%3E2.0.CO%3B2-%23&size=LARGE. Marson, D. Brian, Sandford F. Borins and Kenneth Kernaghan. The New Public Organization. Institute of Public Administration of Canada 2000.  http://books.google.com/books?vid=ISBN0920715958&id=JOSzidXfAKwC&dq=Po st+Bureaucratic+Organization . Mouzelis, Nicos P. Organization and Bureaucracy: An Analysis of Modern Theories, Aldine Transaction, 1967. http://books.google.com/books?vid =ISBN0202300781&id=dkvLsDccnbIC&dq=Mouzelis,+Nicos. Weber, Max and Sam Whimster, ed. The Essential Weber: A Reader .Routledge (UK), 2004. http://books.google.com/books?vid=ISBN0415244269&id=OzDFoYpdOWkC&pg=PP1&lpg=PP1&dq=Max+Weber&sig=wdRzUzGc5jxsZ8z6OM1UJEdnBGY. Victor, Bart and Carroll Stephens. The Dark Side of the New Organizational Forms: An Editorial Essay. Organization Science, Vol. 5, No. 4 (Nov., 1994), 479-482. http://links.jstor.org/sici?sici=1047-7039%28199411%295% 3A4%3C479%3ATDSOTN%3E2.0.CO%3B2-N&size=LARGE. Read More