Bureaucratic problem by Human Resource Managers - Essay Example

Bureaucratic problem by Human Resource Managers Introduction A bureaucratic or even traditional notion of management is basically unsuited to meet the demands of current dynamic and competitive business environment. . In other words, the concept of bureaucracy that was once an integral part of an organization is making way to other forms of management referred to as post–capitalistic or post-bureaucratic style of functioning. This paper is a review of the key challenges faced by Human Resource Managers in the 21st century so as to facilitate the management of culture within organizations and to cope up with the uncertainties regarding employee performance management, created by the emergence of post-bureaucracies. Bureaucracy, Taylorism, Fordism, and Post- Fordism and the shift towards post-bureaucracy Taylorism was concerned with applying principles of scientific management as propounded by Frederick Winslow Taylor was considered too inhuman. Fordism meant applying the mass production way of manufacture as originally envisioned by Henry Ford. The features of this type of management were specialization, formal management labor relations (labor unions), low skill, low adaptability, uniformity of production etc (Giddens & Griffiths, 2006, p. 745). This too was thought unfit in a dynamic and competitive consumer market. Post-Fordism (which can include post-bureaucracy) is explained by Brusco as “the emergence since the mid-1960s of a significant demand for more varied and customized gods, produced in short series” (Kumar, 1995, P. 43). It can be defined as “a system of administration (either public or private) characterized by specialization of functions, action according to fixed rules, and hierarchy of authority” (Presidency and the Executive » Glossary, 2009). But as the above mentioned definition denotes, the concept required high level of specialization, and adherence to rules and procedures, along with a strongly defined and elongated hierarchy with many layers between the worker and the top management. Post-bureaucracy theories: Post-bureaucracy on the other hand, is a concept that removes these disadvantages in functioning as seen in the earlier management concepts. Johnson et al, referring to Adler and Beneviste, state that “the post-bureaucratic organizational form liberates employees from the increasingly dysfunctional hierarchical constraints engendered by bureaucracies and enhances their ability to deal with the unpredictable requirements of an increasingly volatile workplace caused by the social and economic changes associated with destabilized capitalism” (Johnson, Wood, Brewster, & Brookes, 2009, p. 39). One of primary proponents of this theory was Heckscher and Donnellon, who argued that modern day challenges of competition, cost reduction, and innovation cannot be met with the bureaucratic style of functioning. They state that “organizations need to make some changes and become post- bureaucratic” (Zhang, 2000). In Heckscher’s own words, “this is not just a matter of greater trust, less tension, more niceness; it is a matter of a new configuration, driven by the need to manage complexity” (Heckscher, 1998). Another variation of this theory is the concept of flexible firm as propounded by Atkinson (Storey, 1995). Again another perspective is the post-Fordsim approach which stresses on flexibility, diversity in consumption, and a consumer dominated society (Burrows & Loader, 1994, P. 49). Features of a post-bureaucratic model: HR policies with regard to the above should be designed in such a way as to obtain maximum benefit from the implementation of a post-bureaucratic approach. According to Heckscher, “the most important strength is that decisions result from a thorough "mixing" of the intelligence found throughout the organization. For that reason, one would expect the decisions to be better, especially in the long run” (Heckscher, 1994, P. 39). Employees and mangers have to have a high degree of freedom and cohesiveness among themselves coupled with encouragement from above. The result is a flat hierarchy and ability to be highly responsive to environmental changes. Performance management in a post-bureaucratic setting (people who manage themselves): McAuley et al states that “managers have a role that usually entails their active intervention in their organizations in order to influence the behavior of subordinates so as to get things done in the manner they desire” (McAuley, Johnson, & Duberley, 2006, P. 20). In order to see that their service levels are improved and maintained, the concept of performance management, considered to be a part of strategic human resources management, is implemented within organizations. Michael Armstrong defines this concept as a “strategic and integrated process that delivers sustained success to organizations by improving performance of the people who work in them and by developing the capabilities of individual contributors and teams” (Armstrong, 2000, p. 1). A well planned performance management system, according to the Chartered Institute of Personnel Development, UK, should incorporate the following elements for it to be effective. It should result in the actual improvement in performance, be continuous and not sporadic, and should also be aimed at managing the behavior of employees. It should also be a part of the organizational strategy and should be integrated with every aspect of management (CIPD-Performance management: an overview, 2009). Armstrong and Baron provide the basic framework in the implementation of a performance management system as shown below. Source: Armstrong & Baron, 2005, p. 13). Bureaucracy provides little freedom or discretion for employees and can lead to loss of commitment to the organization (Knights & Willmott, 2007, p. 484). A post-bureaucratic approach, on the other hand, will provide more freedom and responsibilities to employees, resulting in job satisfaction and motivation. Managers should see to it that it is done without bias and in all fairness. Performance management is best limited to providing direction and periodic feedback without too much interference (Cokins, 2006). Formation of cohesive teams is also ideal in such situations (Knights & Willmott, 2007, p. 125). Another technique is to provide team based and individual targets so that a sense of challenge will be present (Knights & Willmott, 2007, p. 484). Theories and practice of culture management in a post-bureaucratic setting: A fairly comprehensive definition of organizational culture is provided by Willcoxson and Millett as “culture devised by management and transmitted, marketed, sold or imposed on the rest of the organization ...; with both internal and external images ... yet also including action and belief — the rites, rituals, stories, and values which are offered to organizational members as part of the seductive process of achieving membership and gaining commitment” (Willcoxson & Millett). Edgar Schein’s theory is that culture has three levels namely artifacts, values and underlying assumptions (Organizational culture theory, 2008). An employee is influenced by these three factors while becoming a part of organizational culture. There four types of organizational culture according to Cooke and Rousseau, namely competitive, passive, positive, and aggressive” (Theoretical Background). Performance management in organizational change towards a post-bureaucratic setting requires the instilling of aggression, positivity, competitiveness, openness, and cooperation as a part of its organizational culture. It can be done with either Lewin’s three step model or Kotter’s eight step one. The first model requires unfreezing of old values and culture, bringing in the required changes or moving as Lewin terms it, and refreezing it in place (Gallos & Schein, 2006, p. 141). John Kotter’s eight step model is more elaborate and requires the following steps or procedures for effective change. Establishing the need for urgency (in this case, the need for a post-bureaucratic based approach), forming a team for implementing change, development of a vision, communicating it to employees, empowering workers (one of the requirements in post-bureaucracy), setting and achieving short terms targets, consolidate the small changes achieved and bring about new ones, and finally cementing the changes in place (Manning & Curtis, 2002, P. 281). Kotter’s model seems ideally suited for bringing in change in culture in a post-bureaucratic setting. Arguments against post-bureaucratic approach in management: Not all management thinkers take the post-bureaucratic approach as ideal, and author Paul Du Gay is one among them. Referring to the works of Weber and Du Gay argues that an honest and well run bureaucracy facilitates rationality, morality, and civilized behavior (Gay, 2008, p. 38). This indicates that an overly enthusiastic post-bureaucratic approach can be dangerous. It could lack morality, rationality, and civilized behavior, in its quest for survival and growth in a dynamic and volatile environment. Du Gay’s arguments should not be taken lightly. The many corporate scandals like Enron and Sathyam Computers (in India) are instances where employee and management freedom has effectively undermined or damaged corporate governance and reputation. Erickson et al state some of the advantages in bureaucratic setting (which may not be found in post-bureaucratic ones). Their formal structures “promote fairness, consistency and transparency in decision making” (Erickson, Bradley, Stephenson & Williams, 2009, P. 171). Accordingly, the existence of lack of equal opportunities and harassment of women and minorities is more in the case of post-bureaucratic settings. Conclusion Post-bureaucracy is seen as a solution for organizations to be flexible and dynamic in an ever changing and highly competitive environment. Performance management becomes important in such a situation especially to ensure that employees remain motivated, has job satisfaction, and remains committed to the organization. The organizational culture has to be managed the following elements namely positivity, aggressiveness, and competitiveness be brought in. the element of passiveness should not become part of the organizational culture.. Effective performance management can help to bring about this required change so that an organization can truly be a post-bureaucratic one. But care should be taken that the situation does not get out of hand due to over enthusiasm, injustice/inequalities in the workplace, or corporate greed. References Armstrong, M 2000, Strategic Human Resource Management: A Guide to Action, Illustrated 2nd edn: Kogan Page Publishers. Armstrong, M & Baron, A 2005, Managing performance: performance management in action, Illustrated 2nd edn, CIPD Publishing. Burrows, R & Loader, B 1994, Towards a post-Fordist welfare state?, Illustrated Edition: Routledge. CIPD-Performance management: an overview 2009, CIPD, viewed 28 May 2009, < http://www.cipd.co.uk/subjects/perfmangmt/general/perfman.htm> Cokins, Gary 2006, The Many Rooms of the Organization Mansion, Information Management Online, Information Management and SourceMedia, Inc, viewed 30 May 2009, < http://www.information-management.com/news/1067773-1.html> Culture Management 2004, Management Systems, viewed 28 May 2009, < http://www.mgtsystems.com/products/culture-management.jsp> Erickson, M, Bradley, H, Stephenson, C & Williams, S 2009, Business in Society, Polity. Gallos, J.V & Schein, E.H 2006, Organization development: a Jossey-Bass reader, Illustrated Edition: John Wiley and Sons. Gay, P.D 2000, In praise of bureaucracy: Weber, organization, ethics, SAGE. Giddens, A & Griffiths, S 2006, Sociology, Illustrated 5th edn: Polity. Heckscher, Charles 1998, If post-bureaucratic organization happened, would it be good?, Academy of Management, viewed 30 May 2009, < http://www.heckscher.us/pboval.doc> Heckscher, C 1994, ‘Defining the Post-Bureaucratic Type’. The Post-Bureaucratic Organization: new perspectives on organizational change. Ed. Heckscher, Charles and Donnellon, and Anne, Newbury Park, CA: Sage. Johnson, P, Wood, G, Brewster, C & Brookes, M 2009, ‘The Rise of Post-Bureaucracy: Theorists' Fancy or Organizational Praxis?’ International Sociology, International Sociological Association, SAGE, Vol. 24, no. 1, pp. 37–61. Knights, D & Willmott, H 2007, Introducing organizational behaviour and management, Illustrated Edition, Cengage Learning EMEA. Manning, G & Curtis, K 2002, The Art of Leadership, Illustrated Edition: McGraw-Hill International. McAuley, J, Johnson, P & Duberley, J 2006, Organization Theory: Challenges and Perspectives, Financial Times Press. Organizational culture theory 2008, Theories Used in IS Search, York University, viewed 28 May 2009, < http://www.fsc.yorku.ca/york/istheory/wiki/index.php/Organizational_culture_theory> Presidency and the Executive » Glossary 2009, American Politics, Liberal Arts ITS, The University of Texas at Austin, viewed 28 May 2009, Storey, J 1995, Human resource management: a critical text, Illustrated Edition: Routledge. Theoretical Background: Linking Organizational Characteristics to Employee Attitudes and Behavior – A Look at the Downstream Effects on Market Response & Financial Performance, Forum for People Performance Management and Measurement, viewed 28 May 2009, < http://www.performanceforum.org/Linking_Organizational_Characteristics_to_Employee_Attitudes_and_Behavior.59.0.html> Willcoxson, L & Millett, B, ‘The Management of Organizational Culture’, Australian Journal of Management & Organisational Behaviour, Vol. 3, no. 2, pp. 91-99, viewed 28 May 2009, < http://www.usq.edu.au/extrafiles/business/journals/HRMJournal/AJMOBarticles/Org%20culture%20paper%20LB1.pdf> Zhang, Ye 2000, A Traditional and Brand New Workplace: A Study of the Work Organization and Employment Structure in the Call Center Industry, Dalhousie University , Canada, viewed 30 May 2009, < http://www.collectionscanada.gc.ca/obj/s4/f2/dsk2/ftp01/MQ57265.pdf> Read More