The Concept of the Bureaucratic System of Organization - Essay Example

POST BUREAUCRACY CONSTITUTE AN ADVANCE ON BUREAUCRATIC FORMS OF ORGANISATION INTRODUCTION Organizational structure and operations have been the subject of discussion for an extensive period now. In time past, there were different forms and structures through which organizations operated. Max Weber (2000) a classical writer introduced the concept of the bureaucratic system of organization (Weber 2000, p. 3). Under this method, Weber noted that there was to be a system of rationality based on some legal procedures. While Weber’s system of bureaucracy has been adapted to some extent a number of institutions have sought it as a means to an end in organizational management. Over time, there has emerged some post bureaucratic tendencies in organizational management. Although there have been a number of transformations in the management system in terms of bureaucratic wellbeing, post bureaucracy constitutes an advance on bureaucratic forms of organization. CONVENTIONAL BUREAUCRACY Weber (2002) derived the theory of rationality to help explain some aspects of human behavior in specific set ups (Weber 2000, p. 35). Being rational has to do with thinking through a decision before implementation. Weber came up with two types of rationality in his theory. The types of rationality coined by Weber were Substantive and instrumental rationalities. Substantive rationality is when the actions of an individual are in tandem with the predominant values inherent in a person (Weber 2000, p. 122). On the other hand, instrumental rationality is when a person decides to use the most appropriate means to achieve an objective. Substantive has all to do with the individual’s well being and no consideration is laid on the means through which satisfaction is derived. Substantive is where the decisions that a person makes are based on values and ethics. The means through which output is achieved in substantive rationality is not a matter of concern. Weber notes that in a bureaucratic system, the outcomes are more critical than any other thing. Substantive was replaced by the formal procedures in the sense that emphasis is laid on technical means through which outcomes are enhanced (Weber 2000, p. 122). Instrumental rationality has all to do with having the best outcomes without considering how it is done. Bureaucratic system demands that the end product must be of high quality without any considering how quality is achieved. It can lead to workers employing dirty tactics or going extra miles to achieve some ends (Weber 2000, p. 123). Max Weber (2000) is synonymous with coining the concept of bureaucracy to a large extent (Weber 2000, p. 13). What Weber coined has been stated as the conventional bureaucracy (Weber 2000, p. 13). In his assertions, Weber (2000) noted that the bureaucracy was a means through which individuals were guided in the organizations (Weber 2000, p. 13). Merz noted that there was a need for some administrative forms of managing organizations (Merz 2011, p. 13). To this extent, it became clear that there were conventional means through which organizations are operated. Weber noted that a bureaucracy had to constitute some forms of characteristics in order to fit the bill as being bureaucratic. To this end, it should be noted that Weber’s thoughts of a bureaucratic system were aimed at coming up with rules, norms and regulations capable of guiding operations in a given institution in terms of procedures (Weber 2000, p. 13). One of the major characteristics of the Weberian bureaucratic system was that no organization had to be hierarchical in nature. This means that there had to be some structural operations in the leadership and the manner in which organizations handled operations. For instance, an organization had to have a pyramidal organizational structure where decision-making was top to bottom. Every instance had to be procedural and nothing was allowed to take the informal nature. Consequently, the system was characterized by specialization. This in essence meant that one had to carry on with duties for which the individual is trained. For instance, if one was a human resource manager, it was expected that the persons only had to maintain a specific role without jumping the gun to perform another operation indifferent from the line of study. On the other hand, the system was characterized by role allocation (Merz 2011, p. 45). Under this system, it was expected that one had to be conscious about the duties to be performed. Job allocation potentially dealt away with job duplication. To a large extent, the system ensured that there was every person give a specific role to play in the context of the job operation. A bureaucratic system had to be based on fairness that meant that biasness was to be eliminated and people’s rights and wellbeing are respected to a great extent (Merz 2011, p. 112). PROBLEMS OF CONVENTIONAL BUREAUCRACY Impersonality is ne of the problems that are faced in the bureaucratic system. In this sense, there is no focus on the wellbeing of the employee as the person is being treated as being artificial in some sense. This aspect does not take into consideration the emotional part of the employee to the extent that the employee becomes withdrawn. On the other hand, the customers to an organization could be affected in the sense that they may not be seen as important to the organization. Impersonality is a problem that faces the bureaucratic systems to a large extent. Another critical problem is that bureaucracies are characterized by slow procedures. Strict procedures may confine individuals into adhering to some particular norms. This then means that one is not able to operate outside the set rules and regulations. It makes the employees be indoctrinated by the laws of the organization to the extent that nothing becomes possible without following the law as appropriate. On the other hand, one classical issue that arises from the strict adherence of the law is delayed either in decision-making or organizational operations. Not all the time does one have to follow the law in order to produce concrete decisions. At times one has to use own discretion and wisdom to decide on an issue. In a bureaucratic system, decisions can potentially be delayed due to the fact that one only has to follow the set rules in order to make headway in a particular issue. One of the major problems of conventional bureaucracy has to do with rigidity. A bureaucratic system does not allow for flexibility, as it is dependent on rules and regulations. The norms have to be adhered to as appropriate as they are thought to be the drivers of success in organizational success. Rigidity is two sided in the conventional bureaucratic system. One is that the organization does not allow a change in the organization (Merz 2011, p. 33). Change is elusive in this system to the extent that the organization may not be alive to any form of change even though it can be of strategic importance. Case in point is that workers, in a bureaucratic system find it hard to derive satisfaction from their duties. Employees are virtually remote controlled and restricted to their duties. They are not able to perform their functions with flexibility (Merz 2011, p. 55). In this sense it means that employees are only but able to work within the boundaries of their operations. Event though an employee may have some strategic incentive capable of enhancing the performance of the organization, the same is suppressed by rigidity to a large extent. On the other hand, structures in the bureaucratic system do not allow for innovation and creativity (Jacobides 2007, p. 455). Great ideas are derived when the people sit down to come up with a collection of ideas that are capable of offering transformation in the manner in which business is done. A bureaucratic system is less cognizant of the benefits of innovativeness and creativity. Bureaucratic systems are characterized by red-tapism. Case in point is that the system is marred by rules and procedures that have to be adhered to the letter. Nothing can possibly be done outside the confines of the set regulations of the organization. This in effect slows down decision making and coming up with measures capable of ensuring that issues are solved as appropriate. All these issues boil down to the issue of rigidity. There is no space for apt operation. The problems of the bureaucratic system are varied and diverse. DYSFUNCTIONAL BUREAUCRACIES When goals of the organization are not displaced, dysfuctionality is the resultant factor. On some occasions, the predetermined objectives of an organization are not able to be met for a number of reasons. When a system becomes less flexible to the extent that it cannot be able to allow some room for change, the system is said to be dysfunctional because goals cannot be achievd as appropriate.. Under these circumstances, the operations of the organization become tied to the norms and regulations of the organization. Such tendencies affect and incapacitate the ability of the organization to move to the next level. In a dysfunctional bureaucratic system, a number of issues are eminent. One of such issues has to do with the fact that through the rigid nature of a bureaucratic organization, some departments may cease to cooperate (Mieczkowski 2000, p. 10). Consequently, there may be a lack of communication within the system to the extent that there may be little of the valuable information given to the other departments. Work is another phenomenon that causes dysfunction in bureaucratic systems. Case in point is that there are no well laid down structures for industrial actions. In this case, the workers have no right to question any procedures that affect them either directly or indirectly. In essence, the workers withdraw their services in a systematic manner, though not leaving the workstations. They do not go for strikes, but ensure that they slow down on service delivery (Mieczkowski 2000, p. 20). Mock bureaucracy is where the employees do not pay attention to the norms and regulations of the organization. Ogbonna argues that dysfuctionality has been experienced in the bureaucratic system due to the fact that employees fail to adhere to the rules, procedures and norms of the organization ton the extent that failure becomes the norm of the day (Ogbonna and Wilkinson 2003, p. 153). THE DEATH OF BUREAUCRACY AND THE RISE OF POST BUREAUCRACY Since the time of inception, bureaucratic systems have undergone through some serious scrutiny. A number of people have in the recent past put the system under intense evaluation to note if it is the best method to use to ensure that the organization becomes successful. Weber was first to bring about the idea of bureaucratic systems of operations in organizations. According to Max Weber, his ideal bureaucratic system was one that ensured division of labor, specialization, and the formal structures of operations and the strict adherence to the rules and regulations of a given administrative system. A number of organizations, both governmental and non-governmental borrowed heavily from Weber to ensure the establishment of their organizations. Over time, the bureaucratic system has been condemned as being rigid and less influential. The system cannot, however, be condemned wholesale for some of the inefficiencies experienced. In some instances, the functional nature of the system has ensured success to a large extent. Bureaucracies have died simultaneously due to the fact that it has been found to be less effective in some areas, especially when it comes to allow for change in the organization. On the other hand, the system has been discredited for being rigid and less able to ensure flexibility both in operations and the manner in which individuals carry themselves through the various duties they partake. Over time, the bureaucracy has faded away, giving way to a new dispensation order known as the post bureaucratic order. POST BUREAUCRACY Pundits have argued that Post bureaucracy came into limelight as a means of correcting the shortfalls of the bureaucratic system. Heckscher (1994) notes that the changes that have been seen in the post bureaucratic era are nothing but the enhanced bureaucratic tendencies (Heckscher & Donnellon 1994, p. 11). Even though it has been claimed that there has been a total paradigm shift from the bureaucratic system, it should be noted that the Weberian tendencies are still alive and enhanced. In the Post bureaucratic era, there are a number of bureaucratic tendencies such as hierarchy, authority, legalities and the rules and organizations are still eminent in so many of the organizations. Therefore, one might ask what really constitutes the post-bureaucratic era. There are some features that characterize the Post bureaucratic. The features to a large extent make a difference between the two different systems of organizational management. FEATURES OF POST BUREAUCRACY Charles Heckscher (1994) is one of the scholars who is synonymous with coining the theory of post bureaucratic organization (Heckscher & Donnellon 1994, p. 23). Through this theory, a number of features are drawn. The features present a totally different system of the bureaucratic organization. One of the features under this system is that decision making is based negotiations and agreeing in principle to perform certain issues. The employers and the employees have to agree on a given decision before it is implemented. Heckscher notes that under this system, no one has the express command and authority in decision-making, as all the stakeholders have to agree on a formula of implementation. Secondly, is that the organization is choreographed in the form of a network. In this sense, there are no hierarchical tendencies instead the leadership is spread across the board with different entities presenting themselves as critical entities in the organization. Consequently, under the Post bureaucratic system, there are no boundaries or barriers on the openings. In this case, decision-making is not vertical, but horizontal (Thareja 2008, p. 67). In this case, the individuals in the organization are involved in every instance, irrespective of the cultural orientation. Another critical feature of the system has to do with trust. In a Post bureaucratic system, there are no suspicion whatsoever between the employee and the employer. This helps in building the relationship between the two variables to the extent that performance is enhanced to a great extent. Employees in the Post bureaucratic system are empowered to develop their abilities to the level where they are able to be beneficial to the wellbeing of the organization as a whole. On the other hand, under Post bureaucracy, the focus is based on employee wellbeing and the aspect of sharing responsibility. Under this measure, the wellbeing of the employee is the main point of focus while responsibilities are shared between the employee and the employer. Through this system, the employees feel as though they are part of the system and therefore gladly partake in safeguarding the interest of the organization. The features of the Post bureaucracy are indicative of the various differences that lay between bureaucratic and post bureaucratic systems. The two are different in principle and in fact are invariant in a number of ways. A comparative analysis of the two features is testimony that there are critical differences between the two systems and through an objective look; Post bureaucracy appears to be more flexible than the Weberian bureaucratic system (Grey & Garsten 2001, p. 30). THE DEATH OF BUREAUCRACY AND THE RISE OF POST BUREAUCRACY IN PERSPECTIVE There are a number of reasons that have ensured the death of bureaucracy and given birth to the post bureaucratic system (Amaral and Uzzi 2007, p. 23). Innovation has been one of the major advancement in the modern age that has brought bureaucracy to an alt. Today, industries are sometimes pronounced broke while others go to other places to ensure better productivity. It has been realized that for different nations and states to ensure proper and steady economic recovery, they have to be able to enhance innovation as a means to an end. In the post bureaucratic era, technology has taken over the place of the human beings. This is quite different from what used to happen in the bureaucratic system where employees were at the center of the management system. More focus has been today placed on the innovative systems and models of management. The individual systems and tools as it is known were developed through the bureaucratic system and therefore they are seen as outdated (Clegg et al 2011, p. 15). A number of organizations still have the bureaucratic elements in them though they are not meant for a creative system as other in the initiative have to be put into place to ensure growth. In the post bureaucratic era, the focus has been shifted from employees, as being the central line of duty and other areas enhanced. Consequently, technology has taken over the organizations. This can be seen from the areas of innovation where models and systems have been developed to ensure modernity and new ways of doing things. Some of the principle advancements from the time of bureaucratic era has brought into being the post bureaucratic elements. CRITICAL ASSESSMENT Post bureaucracies constitute advancement of the bureaucratic organization to a greater extent. This can be understood from the point of view of putting the advantages of post bureaucracy into perspective. Heckscher (1994) is credited for coming up with some of the tenets of the post-bureaucratic system (Heckscher & Donnellon 1994, p. 4). Post bureaucracy allows for innovativeness and creative. The world today has moved to greater lengths where technology has taken center stage. For instance Google is one of the technological transformations that have been experienced in the post-bureaucratic era (Koivunen & Rehn 2009, p. 243). Through Google, people are able to get information without any monopolization. Consequently, Facebook and other social network platforms have made it easy for people to connect and share. Such tendencies were not inherent in the bureaucratic systems. Instead information and intelligence could only be found in the top hierarchy. Technology has taken the place of workers in different organizations all across the globe. In manufacturing and production plants, technology has been used to enhance production potentially down sizing the employee influence. Post bureaucracy constitutes the advancement of trust in the bureaucratic organization. Heckscher (1994) notes that trust motivates the individuals in the workplace to work to the extent those workers feel as though they are major stakeholders in the system (Heckscher & Donnellon 1994, p. 12). Under a trust, there are no severe rules and procedures that guide relationships and duties in the organization. Everyone is left to operate based on own discretion. Trust is employed in the post bureaucracy so as to break the barriers created in the bureaucratic system where rules and regulations are the order of the day (Grey & Garsten 2001, p. 15). When there is trust among the people it allows for individual assessment and emotions to be enhanced to some significant levels. For example, at Facebook, the employers have a lot of trust bestowed on them to the extent that they are given company secret codes to allow them to offer change settings of every client’s details and beyond. This is different from what would ordinarily happen in the bureaucratic system. The trust bestowed on the employees can sometimes be betrayed and could as a result be detrimental to the organization. Under post bureaucracy, there is the element of sharing of responsibilities. Knight (2007) notes that sharing of duties is a critical element of the organization set up (Knights & Willmott 2007, 21). Under this system, everyone is involved in the day to day running of the organization. In essence, every worker is given an opportunity to voice their opinion based on what they feel is critical and important to the organization. Hilton Corporation is one of the organizations where shared responsibilities have been enhanced to a larger extent. Heckscher (1994) notes that role allocation in the organization is based on merit and competence irrespective of the position in the company (Heckscher & Donnellon 1994, p. 24). Shared responsibilities are an advantage in the sense that it discards authoritarian leadership in the organization. When duties and responsibilities are spread across the board, the people feel relative comfort with the system of operation. When employees get to work through the different challenging issues in the organization, they get motivated as they see themselves as being agents of change when it comes to solving issues. Post bureaucracy in this context helps individual employees to develop themselves in terms of skills and intellectual wellbeing. Another critical advantage of post bureaucracy that constitutes advancement to bureaucratic organization is empowerment of those down at the organizational level. Under the bureaucratic system, there was the issue of hierarchy to the extent that decision making was only based at the top management level. Under the post bureaucratic system, everyone is given the discretion to participate in the decision making process. Knight (2000) argues that the employees at the lowest level of the organization are considered as critical entities in the decision making process (Knights and McCabe 2000, p. 89). Ladema (2003) notes that when organizations, empower employees to be able to be able to take part in the decision-making they feel as though they are major stakeholders in the organization (Iedema 2003, p. 54). On the other hand, post bureaucracy lays emphasis on the personal treatment of the employees. This is quite different from the bureaucratic system where impersonalization was the order of the day. Under the bureaucratic system, the employees or other stakeholders are treated as though they are not important entities. This tendency in effect brings about division in the organization. Post bureaucratic system sought to correct the vice by ensuring that employees are treated as important personalities in the organization. Kamenka (1999) argues that employees should be treated as human beings and not as machines (Kamenka & Krygier 1999, p. 34). Heckscher (1994) supplemented Kamenka’s when he noted that organizations ought to hold the employees as individuals who have emotions and feelings and who can be affected to a large extent by the how they are treated (Heckscher & Donnellon 1994, p. 33). When individuals are treated well in their organization, they are able to derive motivation to ensure that they perform as appropriate. DRAWBACKS OF POST BUREAUCRACY Even though the tenets of post bureaucracy were seen as a means of correcting bureaucratic evils, there are a number of notable drawbacks. Under post bureaucracy, employees are left to operate under limitless freedom. In essence, they are able to do as they wish under the disguise of trust. It, therefore, becomes difficult to enhance discipline in the organization. Employees may also abuse, the individual privileges given by the organization to the extent that an organization could easily disintegrate (Knights and McCabe 2000, p. 92). Treatment under this system has all to do dealing with employees at a personal level. This tendency could easily breed discrimination. Under the bureaucratic system, employees are dealt with as a single whole. When there is the element of shared responsibility, there is a tendency of free flow of intelligence information (Iedema 2003, p. 67). This could potentially affect the organization as important and crucial information could be leaked to departments not intended to lead to sabotage of a given crucial process within the organization. CONCLUSION Post bureaucracy constitutes an advance on bureaucratic forms of organization to a large extent. The emergence of post bureaucracy has brought numerous changes in the manner in which organizations carry out their managerial operations. Even though post bureaucracy has sought to clean up the bureaucratic system, it should be noted that bureaucratic elements are still rife in a number of organizations. Post bureaucracy has brought with a number of glad tidings in the sense that it has broken different barriers brought about by a rigid system. Flexibility characterizes post bureaucracy to a larger extent. However, it should be clear that the post bureaucratic system has got notable drawbacks that could prove detrimental to the organizations wellbeing. Bibliographies: Amaral, L.A.N. and B. Uzzi. (2007). Complex Systems—A New Paradigm for the Integrative Study of Management, Physical, and Technological Systems. Management Science, 53, 7: 1033–1035. Clegg, S., Harris, M., & Höpfl, H. (2011). Managing modernity: Beyond bureaucracy?. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Grey C., Garsten C., (2001). Trust, Control and Post-Bureaucracy, Sage Publishing). Heckscher, C. & Donnellon, A. (1994). The Post-Bureaucratic Organization: new perspectives on organizational change. Newbury Park, CA: Sage. Iedema, R., (2003). Discourses of Post-bureaucratic Organization. Amsterdam, the Netherlands: John Benjamins Publishing Company. Jacobides. M. G. (2007). The inherent limits of organizational structure and the unfulfilled role of hierarchy: Lessons from a near-war. Organization Science, 18, 3, 455-477. Knights, D., & Willmott, H. (2007). Introducing Organisational Behaviour & Management. London, United Kingdom: Thomson Learning. Koivunen, N., & Rehn, A. (2009). Creativity and the contemporary economy. Malmö, Sweden: Liber. Knights, D. and D. McCabe (2000) ‘“Ain’t Misbehaving?” Opportunities for Resistance under New Forms of ‘Quality’ Management’, Sociology, 34 (3): 421-436. Kamenka, E. & Krygier, M. (1999). Bureaucracy: The Career of a Concept. London, United Kingdom: Edward Arnold. Mieczkowski, B. (2000). Dysfunctional bureaucracy: A comparative and historical perspective. Lanham, Md: University Press of America. Maravelias, C. (2003) ‘Post-Bureaucracy – control through professional freedom’, Journal of Organizational Change Management, 16 (5): 547-566. Merz, F. (2011). Max Webers Theory of Bureaucracy and its Negative Consequences. München: GRIN Verlag GmbH. Ogbonna, E. and B. Wilkinson (2003) ‘The False promise of Organizational Culture Change: A Case Study of Middle Managers in Grocery Retailing’, Journal of Management Studies, 40 (5): 1151-1178. Robbins, S.F., Judge, T.A. (2007). Organizational Behaviour. 12th edition. Pearson Education Inc., p. 551-557. Thareja P. (2008), "Total Quality Organization Thru’ People, (Part 16), Each one is Capable", FOUNDRY, Vol. XX, No. 4, July/Aug 2008 Weber, M. (2000). From Max Weber: Essays in Sociology, translated, edited and with an introduction by H. H. Gerth and C. W. Mills. London: Routledge and Kegan Paul. Read More