A Very Important Aspect of UK Business Scenario: Management Bureaucracy - Research Paper Example

Introduction: Before going into the ramifications of this paper, it is necessary to consider what managerial bureaucracy is and how it impinges upon employment and legitimacy. It is seen that managerial bureaucracy has been a recent phenomenon that gained significance during the 20th Century. “Organizations are sustained by an expectation of confidence in the obedience of other members. The organizational order is based on the couple [confidence-obedience], which creates the structure of domination.” (Courpasson 2000, p.1). It is first necessary to consider the major interests of each party in the matter; from the point of view of the organization, efficiency or competence is important; however, for employees the main aspect would be in terms of maintaining freedom and independence. Legitimacy of business: Legitimacy is a permanent feature only when freedom of the employees is considered as a valid ingredient. Professional culture in the work environment is flexible and adaptable to changing times and environment. The value system also assumes importance, since if there are changed priorities in terms of centralisation gaining ascendancy over autonomy, and then most executives would prefer to accept the former instead of insisting for the latter in capital organisations. It is necessary that legitimacy needs to be considered from a personal angle, instead of a professional, or official perspective. The human and professional aspects are considered separately. A professional’s individual approach and personality defines his knowledge, competence and work efficiency. Similarly, legitimacy is considered in the form of professional conduct, behaviour and other matters relevant to work ethos. It is seen that legality could be seen in the context of centralising power and authority in the hands of a few, as is obvious in bureaucracy, 'Bureaucracy is a tool, a social tool which legitimizes the control of numerous people by the very few, in spite of the formal look of democracy; and this control generates a social power, not regulated and not perceived.” (Courpasson 2000, p.1). In a bureaucratic set up, it becomes necessary for lower rank and files to obey commands from above. This may sometimes not serve individual or group interests and thus it is seen that employees may form group to protect and further their interests at work. (Palmer 1983, p.83) First of all it is necessary to describe what is meant by bureaucracy and how it impacts upon business. It refers to a strict adherence to protocol and methods, often causing delay and lowered efficiencies. It could also be seen in terms of overabundance on systems and Established norms, which are often very cumbersome and time consuming. Normally, bureaucratic systems are found in Government departments and offices, which are exemplary for procedural delays and other malpractices. In management, the term managerial bureaucracy refers to elements and shades of bureaucratic tendencies shown by managerial personnel, mostly with regard to corruption, unlawful dealings, general tardiness and slowness in work processing and procedures and also presence of nepotism and other kinds of preferential treatment. It could also be seen in terms of using undue use of power and position for material gains. Managerial bureaucracy: In the context of managerial bureaucracy, it could also be seen that in most cases, powerful interest cartels control the functioning of many corporates, to such an extent, that often corporates are in their hands and are unable to function independently. It is seen that in most cases, business trade are no longer small or uncompetitive, and in most cases, most companies are able to compete, not only in local, or regional markets but also in other far flung competitive markets. It is seen that strengths of companies have evolved from competitive trade and, through the use of competitive models, some companies have, more or less, gained monopoly trade, by which they are in a position, in some cases, to dictate prices and terms to buyers. However it is now necessary that more attention to be paid to the kind of market, it is seen that there is now a transition from a secluded manufacturer economy to a market economy, in that more options are available for buyers and the interaction between the buyers and sellers of goods, services and commodities are based on choices of ultimate users and consumers, rather than anything else. Therefore, in an open and free competitive market environment like the present one, the concept of managerial bureaucracy seems rather remote and far fetched. During earlier days, with lesser competition and limited buying scopes, the consumers were often at the mercy of unscrupulous traders, who took advantage of market deficiencies in terms of free and competitive pricing, to charge exorbitant rates, being in monopolistic, or largely bureaucratic settings. However, with globalization and ecommerce deployment in goods, services and utilities, the inherent anomalies have been ironed out and product standardization has been, by and large, received. Profit driven MNCs: However, it needs to be said that in the context of capital organizations, or MNCs, or multi-national organizations, it is seen that most of them are totally profit driven, leading to potent exploitation of labour and production facilities , not to speak of high degree of environmental damages that it could bring about. It is now necessary to speak about bureaucracy and post bureaucracy; there is not really much of differences between the two in that “While bureaucracy says Sennet (2003) used estimates of individuals’ abilities of performing specific work as a yardstick for making employment and promotion decisions, post-bureaucracy uses estimates of potential abilities of learning and developing as its corresponding yardstick.” (Maravelias and Hansson, p.5). It is seen that in large MNC owned by capitalists, the various training programmes, job enrichment courses and Individuals who lack motivation become victims of the will of others and of their own anxiety and inadequacies. They are thus easy meat for profit motivated who use them for meeting their own ends. While attracting young people with large largesse in terms of salaries and benefits, what is not known are the huge profits that accrue to MNC companies through manpower and exercise of intellectual properties. Thus, it is necessary that such highhanded bureaucracy needs to be dealt with appropriately, through the representation with trade union leaders and other influential persons, in efforts to curb malpractices and other evils. In most current political structures, the direct effects of concerns on bureaucracy has been restricted by procedures; may be the most important of these are in terms of the motives of well meaning officers to strictly enforce laws and regulations in order to eradicate treacherous and ungrateful elements in the civil services, for “disloyal civil servants are no better than saboteurs.” (Peters 2001, p.209). It is seen that opposition or dissent can be disastrous for the dissenter in terms of career growth and developments. In certain cases, it could also result in dismissal or retrenchment. It is seen that in business establishments, showing resistance, dissention or opposition could be seen as a part of disciplinary infringements and therefore, it would become intrinsic on the part of management to take necessary action to contain or eliminate it. It is seen that company owners and top management are very much motivated by profits and gains in business, in terms of ROI and growth prospects. Since corporate objectives, goals and enterprise movements are important, it is seen that anything which affects profits and business growth is viewed with suspicion and doubt. Thus, dissenters are seen, not in terms of people taking a disciplined stand against ideology, or a different stand against beliefs, but in terms of the fact that they are keen on curbing the profits or growth prospects of business. Therefore, under such circumstances it is quite likely that “many of those who dissent from accepted policies and practices and thereby threaten profits, corporate image, or commercial prospects, become potential targets for suppression.” (Martin1986). Moreover, it is also seen that most employees dread not being in the good books of the management since it could affect their very existence in the organisation, and also compromise on aspects of promotion, increments and future. In most cases, employees are dependent on the organisation and would therefore, desist from creating problem areas for the management to take stern disciplinary action against dissenters, or opposers. However, it is also seen that certain progressive minded and positive minded management encourage certain types of dissension, in order to improve their performance. This type of opposition is positive, well directed and designed to vastly improve the company in its pursuit for excellence and high growth. Thus, it is necessary that resistance, or opposition to certain plans, policies and procedures of MNC’s, which are not in sync with common good, may be pursued without compromising on overall health and safety aspects of business enterprises. How bureaucracy impinges work ethos: Coming back to the aspect of corporate bureaucracy, it could be said that this is a method of organizing social interactions or interrelationships between people, considering the societal orders of individuals, from the topmost to the lowest rung, or level of individual standing in an organization. The hierarchy could stem from various aspects like job title, emoluments drawn, education and status. It could also been seen in terms of work performance and management culture and ethos. A bureaucracy directs responsibility downwards and accountability upwards. Thus it could be said that bureaucracy is seen as an institution in which people function in various roles with uniform, standard and pre-designated movements and choices. In a sense, individuals working in a bureaucratic set up need to need to follow instructions, while the upper echelons are busy in instilling work ethos along the bureaucratic path. In most managerial bureaucratic institutions, the enforcement of discipline and individual conduct are pre-determined and thus, it would be difficult if not impossible for employees or work force to change the setup, for better, or for worse. Connecting this with need for challenging the actions or policies of bourgeoisie, or the ruling profit seeking set up, it is seen that while it would be at the discretion of the individuals, or groups, which modus operandi to take up. This has to be done with tact and discretion, since unconcealed resistance, or opposing could be lethal, since the management would need to resort with high handedness, sometimes even with use of disciplinary action in order to deal with such kinds of perceived, or potential threats. How to resist adverse bureaucracy: The best way of resisting profit seeking overtures in an organisation would be in terms of using collective methods, or group intervention, that could possibly counter the ill effects of hierarchical mismanagement, or exploitation of resources, labour, at the hands of autocratic management systems of profit seeking business institutions. It could also be seen in terms of the fact that priorities of the management may be different from those of the work force. While management would be more concerned about lowering costs, increasing production and productivity, increasing sales and turnover, controlling marketing expenses, utilising material and non-material resources in the best possible manner, thus increasing returns to shareholders and investors, the perspective of the work force could be seen in terms of fair wages, good working environment, harmonious working and personal rapport with superiors, peers, and subordinate staff. The best way of resisting capitalistic overtures in an organisation would be in terms of using collective methods, or group intervention, that could possibly counter the ill effects of hierarchical mismanagement or exploitation of resources, labour, at the hands of capitalistic business institutions. Case Study – McDonald’s: It is now necessary to consider the case study of McDonald’s food chain in order to understand how large businesses are the cause for the ultimate downfall and ultimate demise of smaller ones, it has been one of the pioneers in the art of mass manufacturing food and reaping the advantages of large scale economic benefits in terms of turnover, profits; the success of McDonald’s lies in its high proliferation and rapid growth of chain stores all over the globe, including China and Russian.. It may be argued that McDonald’s have wiped out millions of small business houses throughout the globe with its thoughtless and profit centered business strategies, and has deprived human rights to countless staff members through its hiring and wage policies. It could be seen in terms of the relentless efforts of “activists such as Helen Steele and Dave Morris in London, who fought a gruelling legal battle to prove infringements on the part of McDonald’s; and health campaigners, who have tirelessly pointed out the devastating consequences of fast food overconsumption.” (Fleming and Spicer 2009). It is seen that the marketing strategies adopted by McDonald’s has become keywords for other industries in the globe. Aggressive advertisement and publicity, central stores, creating demands for standard products, obliterating small businesses trough a flurry of many outlets in cities and towns, and above all, creating food culture adverse to health and nutrition, or junk food , have all come to represent global food culture, hitherto unknown or uncalled for. That McDonald’s marketing strategies are being emulated by other industries speaks of the tremendous success that McDonald’s have achieved in the competitive market place with a plethora of rivals and competitors vying each other to gain the top spot. According to George Ritzer, in his book, The McDonaldization of Society: An Investigation into the Changing Character of Contemporary Social Life, the socio-economic systems propagated by this fast food company links around four interconnected precepts, or four faces of power seen as “efficiency, calculability, predictability, and control.” (Zayani 1997, p.1). According to him, McDonald’s operates in a highly demanding work environment and there are tremendous pressures for optimizing outputs. The accent is clearly on quantity and mass and not quality, which, in turn gives rise to creation of exacting, manipulative, mechanical techniques. Greater degree of control over people is gained by use of systems, standards, norms and methods of delivering food satisfaction to customers. For the purpose of illustration it could be said that mechanical aids hinders human growth and development. A member of service staff has to learn new selling techniques through a wide array of machines, familiarize oneself to automatic systems, devoid of thinking or brain work. “In addition, the types of jobs that ensue from the McDonaldization of society are jobs that require almost no skill or thinking from the worker.” (Zayani 1997, p.1). Thus it could be seen that creativity is not pursued at McDonald’s and the people are seen as no better than the machines they serve. The degree of automation in McDonald’s is so high that it is feared that employees may become subservient to machines and may even be governed by it. The high importance given to automation at McDonalds has ushered in a human free environment where clients and customers are served by automation and not smiling humans. Potential areas of conflict between companies and work force: Profit making corporations often suppress human rights and fair corporate play, especially when their ideologies do not run parallel with those pursued by its work force and trade unions. Thus conflict situations may arise which need to be solved in order to avoid a major confrontation. While trade unions may litigate for better pay and working conditions, management needs to weigh alternatives for enhanced returns to shareholders and interest towards debts. Thus it becomes essential to seek areas of common ground in order to reach a compromise which is acceptable to all parties. This is when Alternate dispute resolutions (ADR) like mediation and/or arbitration could be of great relief, both to the management and the aggrieved workmen. “Alternative dispute resolution has greatly expanded over the last several years to include many areas in addition to the traditional commercial dispute in the form of arbitration; mediation has become an important first step in the dispute resolution process. Arbitrators and mediators have an important role in resolving disputes.” (Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR): Definition. 2008). Next it is necessary to delve into what constitutes organisational bureaucracy and how it could be enforced by superior on subordinates. Bureaucracy is very much like a political system where power lies vested in a central command, and responsibilities are percolated down the hierarchical levels according to pre assessed methods. The lower stratas only obey orders as power is centralised at the top and is not delegated below, as is typical of bureaucratic systems. However, it is often seen that in certain circumstances, bureaucratic systems tend to impose and enforce conformity upon work force, in terms of work accountability and adherence to rigidity of laws. Thus, excess centralisation of powers and privileges may translate into work force unrest, especially concerning sensitive issues, relating not only individuals, but which could compromise trade unionism and collective bargaining powers as a generic whole. Therefore, it is in the best interests of the feuding parties, the management and the work force to seek dialogue or ADR to resolve grievances. As is widely seen “It is through creativity, vision, efforts and interaction of organisational members that goods are produced, services delivered, profits made, government targets met, budgets adhered to, shareholders satisfied, and so on.” (Kociatkiewicz and Mansell 2009). Need to preserve best interests of business: Managerial bureaucracy is needed to enforce commitments and procedures towards preserving best interests of the company and its principal shareholders. It could also be seen in terms of providing fair wages to workforce, instilling positive work culture, healthy competitive spirits and a desire to create growth prospects for the company. It is seen that in most cases, executives who run business houses need to prioritize profit motives as paramount concern of enterprise, but this does not mean that other factors are not important. However, there could be instances when corporate may concede, or bypass moral and ethical aspects of business. This could be seen in terms of unethical practices in vendor interactions, dealing with licensing and other Governmental officials and also controlling banking and financial functions of business. In all such matters as would affect the work force, either collectively or individually, in terms of health, safety, ethical and moral standards, or their very sustenance, it is possibly for them to raise concerns at public or private forums regarding business and its implications. However, it needs to be mentioned in this context that not all large companies are profit oriented, nor does profit motivation exist in smaller concerns also. It is a matter of choice vested on the promoters and office bearers of the company whether they would like their mission to be profit or service, or both. However, it is essential that employee interests be sustained over the useful life of the company, in terms of wages, safety in working conditions, environmental protection and concern for social and community welfare. This is because any corporation, whether profit motivated or not, has an abiding commitment to the community and locale it works in, and needs to make contributions to the local milieu, in both positive and non positive ways. Its positive responses could be in terms of fair dealings with vendors, employees and other constituents that interact, either directly or indirectly with them. It could also seen that the hierarchy or bureaucracy practiced by the corporate is not inhibitive in any manner, and considers common good, not only of the shareholders, employees, directors and promoters, among others, but also performs social responsibilities of business, in terms of community care, ecological protection and adequate health care to employees and others. In the long run, corporate would be as successful in their business endeavours as what useful products, services and utilities they are able to provide to society. Whether resistance to managerial bureaucracy is always legitimate for employees: Finally, coming to answer the question of whether resistance to managerial bureaucracy is always legitimate for employees of capitalist organizations or not. This is a circumstantial issue that needs to focus on a case to case basis. Often, management has to consider long term business prospects and its sustainability in a competitive environment. Therefore, in a bid to attain such successes, it may need to take recourse to aspects like outsourcing, privatization, acquisitions, mergers, and other managerial decisions making that may not always find favour, or approval from the employees or other vested interests. Conclusions: Management bureaucracy in such instances may forego minority or work force interests, without which the business may not be able to move forward, since labour in a very important aspect of UK business scenario and is also the most vexatious issue. Where differences in opinion or lack of common perspectives are apparent, it is necessary that consensus needs to be pursued, especially in the context of maintaining cordial relationships and also moving in unison towards building better business. The overall framework of managerial bureaucracy may give rise to flexible sub systems that could address issues that crop up from time to time, between management and labour. It could also be seen in terms of creating better working scope for creating rapport between the two. Management needs to understand that contemporary business is fast moving and dynamic, highly competive and needs to integrate robust and well maintained labour relations in order to sustain and prosper in the days to come. Therefore, it is necessary that strategic policy changes are made in managerial bureaucracy that could address current issues and ensure that employer: employee relationships do not become a bone of contention and an undermining cause for future growth and prosperity of the business. Bibliography Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR): Definition. (2008). HG.org: World Wide Legal Directories. Last accessed 13 January 2009 at: http://www.hg.org/adr.html COURPASSON, David. (2000). Managerial Strategies of Domination: Power in Soft Bureaucracies. [online]. BNET: The Go To Place for Management. P.1. Last accessed 13 January 2009 at: http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m4339/is_1_21/ai_63510119 COURPASSON, David. (2000). Managerial Strategies of Domination: Power in Soft Bureaucracies. [online]. BNET: The Go To Place for Management. P.13. Last accessed 13 January 2009 at: http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m4339/is_1_21/ai_63510119/pg_13?tag=artBody;col1 FLEMING, Peter., and SPICER, Andre. (2009). Introduction: Prisons, Playgrounds and Parliaments. [online]. Cambridge. Last accessed 13 January 2009 at: http://www.cambridge.org/catalogue/catalogue.asp?isbn=9780521860864&ss=exc KOCIATKIEWICZ, Jerzy., and MANSELl, Samuel. (2009). Module Directory Detail: Course Description. (2009). Last accessed 13 January 2009 at: http://www.essex.ac.uk/courses/default.aspx?coursecode=AC203&level=5&period=AU MARAVELIAS, Christian., and HANSSON, Johan. Freedom in Age of Post Bureaucracy: The Example of Strategic Occupational Health. Last accessed 13 January 2009 at: http://www.mngt.waikato.ac.nz/ejrot/cmsconference/2005/proceedings/flexibility/Maravelias.pdf MARAVELIAS, Christian., and HANSSON, Johan. Freedom in Age of Post Bureaucracy: The Example of Strategic Occupational Health. P.5. Last accessed 13 January 2009 at: http://www.mngt.waikato.ac.nz/ejrot/cmsconference/2005/proceedings/flexibility/Maravelias.pdf MARTIN, Brian., et al. (1986). Elites and Suppression: Corporate Elites. [online]. Last accessed 13 January 2009 at: http://www.uow.edu.au/arts/sts/bmartin/pubs/86is/elites.html PALMER, Gill. (1983). Group Action By Employees. [online]. British Industrial Relations. P.83. Last accessed 13 January 2009 at: http://books.google.com/books?id=cF8VAAAAIAAJ&pg=PA84&dq=Resistance+to+managerial+bureaucracy#PPA83,M1 PETERS, Guy. (2001). Bureaucracy and Political Parties. [online]. The Politics of Bureaucracy. P.209. Last accessed 13 January 2009 at: http://www.questia.com/read/107577966 ZAYANI, Mohamed. (1997). The McDonaldization of Society: An Investigation into Changing Character of Contemporary Social Life. [online]. BNET: The Go to Place for Management. P.1. Last accessed 13 January 2009 at: http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m2220/is_/ai_20183783 Read More