From Bureaucracy to Post-Bureaucracy - Essay Example

From Bureaucracy to Post-Bureaucracy of the of the From Bureaucracy to Post-Bureaucracy Introduction This essay supports the statement ‘Post-bureaucracy does not constitute an advance on bureaucratic forms of organisation’. It has become one of the most important issues in the organisation studies is the change from the bureaucratic to post bureaucratic principles about exercising control and power enhances or reduces the freedom of people at workplace. The paper will develop the argument that the transformation of bureaucratic principles to the post bureaucratic system involves neither an increase nor a decrease in the freedom of employees at the workplace, but is the reconfiguration of the nature of their freedom. For most of the twentieth century, the relationship among the freedom of individuals and the efficient production had been seen as a problem. By struggling for a better working conditions, shorter working hours and higher wages, the trade unions and the worker movements sought to strengthen the freedom of the workers both outside and inside the walls of the factory. On the contrary, the employers of the companies saw the freedom of the employees as a cost and the potential problem which had to be controlled, restricted or completely removed from the organisation. However, the last two decades have seen a little change in the ideology of the organisations’ employers. The individual freedom is no longer considered a problem that needs to be restricted or controlled, but it is seen as an economic resource that has the potential to enhance the productivity of organisations. On the other hand, in various critical studies of post bureaucratic organisations, individuals are seen with freedom and power only in a superficial way. The findings of these researches suggest that the post bureaucratic organisations do not actually liberate the employees from oppression, but they try to trap them in power relations even more powerfully than the bureaucratic organisations did. The organizations with post bureaucratic ideology attempt to make a commitment to and identification with organization and work that has to be appreciated by the people who want to keep their jobs. As a consequence, the post bureaucratic firms are considered to be geared to a much encompassing form of subordination of their employees. Some of the researchers have even accused these organisations of settling for no less than the exploitation and modulation of the soul of the individual. This paper will assess how the transformation from bureaucratic to post bureaucratic ideology affects the nature of people freedom. In particular, where the bureaucratic organisation considered the freedom as autonomy, the post bureaucratic organisation considers it as a potential. The study will also suggest the ways of how these distinct views of freedom entail different idealizations and forms of the individual subjectivity. While the bureaucratic organisation involves a self-conscious and stable subject that attains the freedom by setting a different course and retaining a distance between self and other, and the work and private life; the post bureaucratic organisation involves a malleable and unself-conscious subject that attains the freedom by mixing into the environment and hence it manages to exploit the opportunities. Discussion By the theories of Hegel, Kant and Descartes, the philosophical tradition of Europe has conceived freedom as an autonomy; autonomy from natural drives and passions and autonomy from constrictions and external influences. The idea of such freedom is related to the capacity of the individual for developing a deep understanding through which reflection and self-consciousness become possible. Thus, self consciousness works as a means for maintaining the distance between the self and other, especially between the self and the world. Clearly, such kind of intellectual distance does not assure the practical autonomy of the individual. However, without understanding and control on the self, the person is considered as incapable of making the choices which are not affected by the negative influence of other people. Therefore, in accordance to this idea, it can be said that a person is free if he controls himself, i.e., if he maintains a relation with his own self and have a distance to the world, which will ultimately provide him with the freedom. Yet the idea of freedom as being able of distancing an individual from the world and himself continuously dominate the western thought, it does not decrease the importance of the expression, “being free”. In the daily language, this expression of being free suggest that a person has concrete possibilities at his disposal, as a result he has the power to start and finish certain tasks. According to this, the freedom does not depend on the idea that a person maintains the autonomous distance to his surroundings. In contradiction, it depends on the notion that the person maintains the intimate relationship with the context of his actions. A person who wants to be a member of the group could not develop a psychological and physical distance from other members of the group, but he has to take part in the practices of the group. In the same way, an individual who has been provided with the fleeting opportunities does not get the time for acting on the foundation of a reflective awareness of his own role and ideals. To act freely in these kinds of cases is a matter of making instinctive and agile choices by having unconstrained confidence in the capacities of own self. Therefore, the idea that an individual is free if they are ready for exploiting the countless chances is offered by the world. This kind of thought about freedom, which is referred here as a potential, suggests that the subject becomes entangled with the environment and such interaction is celebrated due to the fact that, without it, the possibility of accomplishing and doing things is not real. Post bureaucracy While studying the implications of the post bureaucratic systems, the organisation studies are divided into 2 groups. In spite of the democratic appearance of the post bureaucratic organisations, one group is more likely to see in the post bureaucracy the reasons to return to the aspect that the capitalist control of the processes of labour decreases the employee to an instrument that have a little remaining autonomy (Bain and Taylor, 2000). Within the mask of supposedly emancipating and empowering plans, for example, the Total Quality Management, teamwork, corporate culture programs etc, the management of the organisations is noticed to have shifted their old styles of controlling the behaviour of employees towards controlling the selves of the workers. In particular, it has been argued that the management of the organisations uses the techniques and programs for making the commitment to and identification with work a norm which is controlled and enforced by the employees themselves. For creating this statement that the group inclined to depict the works of Foucault about discipline, and specifically his use of the ‘Panopticon’ as a metaphor for the contemporary systems of controlling (Knights and McCabe, 1998). The management of the organisation is hence considered to capable of superseding the panoptic, hierarchical or surveillance and replacing it with the control techniques of post bureaucratic organisations like peer and self control. These are known to have exercised a more proficient surveillance form. In these kinds of circumstances, it looks like there is no control; however, in reality it is present there. This implication convinces the workers to approve for being the subject to the surveillance system that they know would right away evaluate their deviation from the norms and then would automatically trigger approval or sanction (Harris and Ogbonna, 2000). In a nutshell, the above analysis suggests that the post bureaucratic organisations will want to enhance the loyalty and commitment of the individuals towards their job related work, by not changing the relationship of authority and control in their work, but by controlling their emotional relation to the work. In addition, this analysis also depicts that the people will not be allowed, however required, to work by putting their soul and heart into it. In the end and most necessarily, this analysis suggests that the difference among the free sphere of life and disciplinary sphere of work falls apart (Knights and McCabe, 2000). In specific, it can be said that the disciplinary sphere of work will risk taking over the entire life world of employees, while the employee would be left with no freedom, any place would become a place of work, anytime would become a time for work, and people would become the colleague, partner or potential customer. The combination of all these implications would lead the group to see the regime of the post bureaucracy as totalitarian. In spite of offering the people with the autonomy and freedom, it traps them in the responsibilities which do not have the limits or boundaries. For this reason, the people are convinced to believe that the workers in the organisations of post bureaucratic ideology deal with the dictated autonomy. It is the kind of autonomy that is so broad that it is not defined by its opposite, which is the heteronomy that provides it its limits and direction, but instead it is absorbed by it totally (Ogbonna and Wilkinson, 2003). The dictated autonomy conceals the heteronymous determination, as well. In these kinds of situations, the employees will require anticipating the intention of the people in command by internalising their norms, values and intentions in an effective way. This will definitely be the highest point of perfection in the system of bureaucracy: which involves a power system that is highly internalised by its employees. The second group comes out as an attempt of criticising and refining the basic arguments of the first group. In general, it drives the attention towards the ways in which the post bureaucracy leaves the employees more space for freedom movements as compared to the first group (Harris and Ogbonna, 1999). Post bureaucracy - an Alternative Interpretation It is because of the reading of Foucault and the case studies that the second group drives the attention towards the ways in which post bureaucratic system is both liberating and regulating. It hence offers the critical organisation studies a more balanced and civilized opinion regarding the post bureaucracy ideology, whereas the aim to regulate the selves of the employees is not predictable and effective as it was presupposed, but instead it decreases the active and free participation of the individuals. This opinion related to post bureaucracy system has faced considerable validity. However, on the other hand, it does not assist us in distinguishing the bureaucracy from the pots bureaucracy as it doubt liberates and regulates the individuals but at the same time, it also restricts them through the boundaries which provide them the limited autonomy and space. Provided the relative stability of institutional domains in modern society, it is no doubt reasonable to consider that the organisations of the real world come to refer to the post bureaucratic system rather than completely working with the fundamental and primary principles of bureaucracy. Even then, the fact that both groups within the studies of the critical organisation analyse the post bureaucratic power in terms of the regulation and autonomy, for example, in terms that explain the bureaucratic power, and protect them from distinguishing in which respects the post bureaucracy is different from the traditional bureaucracy. Based on the individuals’ judgments regarding the potential post bureaucratic organisations, they give them the independence and opportunities, but no guarantees and protection. For this reason, they generalise the conditions which distinguish the top management of the bureaucratic organisation. The top management of the large organisations is comparatively independent of the bureaucratic command system. The jobs of top management have a lot of opportunities and potentials. On the other hand, the fact that the freedom of top management to act and exercise power and control is not restrained by a command system does not mean that they may do whatever they wish, but it simply means that nobody forces them to do any specific things. The top management is comparatively free of heteronomy but is also without circumscribed and protected zones of autonomy. In this way, the post bureaucracy changes the bureaucratic structure of power and freedom. It locates the people in professional situations where power and autonomy have changed sides. If any employee’s autonomy in a bureaucratic organisation provides him with the limited ability of self determination, the post bureaucratic employee is determined by the autonomy of the prevailing conditions surrounding it. Therefore, it can be seen that the employee of the post bureaucratic system has autonomy in terms of the command system; however, he is not independent with regard to the autonomy of the conditions. Post-bureaucracy and Opportunism It is important to first understand the basic meaning of the opportunism and opportunistic subjectivity. The freedom in the context of autonomy means that the individual who is self-conscious, works on directing the activities and actions towards values of larger extend and scope, and who confirms and sustain the autonomy from the short-lived chances and opportunities at a particular time. On the other hand, freedom in the context of potential means an idealism of an individual who is unself-conscious and hence does not take decision or actions based on his or her own consciousness derived from the specific competencies and roles he or she holds, but base the decisions and actions on impulsive, self-assured, and unimpeded progression in areas of chances and possibilities (Maravelias, 2007). An opportunistic individual does not have the motivation of illumination or liberation, i.e. a motivation to understand oneself better along with the overall situation and environment in which the individual is contributing; but the motivation of impulsively progressing through all prevalent situation and environment with better competence and ease. Hence, it can be said that the opportunistic individual is accepting individual who is uncritical. The opportunistic individual does not try to make any changes to the prevalent situations or criticise or disapprove the circumstances in which that individual is contributing. It can be said that the opportunistic individual is identified as an individual who is politically unresponsive and indifferent, who look forward to adjusting with the obvious and hidden instructions and rules of each and every circumstance and situation without making any genuine or sincere obligation and at the same time having an automotive or natural understanding and awareness of the prevalent situation and the possible short-lived nature of the instructions and rules. The opportunistic individual always ensure that at the least one opportunity or way is open and is ready to take required actions for adapting the new opportunities and potentialities (Maravelias, 2007). On this basis, it can be said that there are two different directions with reference to the work style based on opportunism. First, one can see the opportunism as a behaviour or conduct that is driven by the desire of the individual to learn new experiences and to prove the overall potential to everyone. Hence, according to this dimension an opportunistic individual is the one who is able to take actions and decisions in order to satisfy and accomplish his or her inner desires and drives. Second, once can see opportunism as a response to uncertainty and anxiety. According to this dimension or perspective, an opportunistic individual is the one who make sure that there are many possibilities and options available so that he or she can easily diverge from one closed opportunity to another open one. Hence, it can be said that according to this dimension the opportunism is associated with the work style which has very little protection and safety. Post bureaucratic effort is probable to be infused by an unwarranted equilibrium between these two negative and positive perspectives of directions of opportunism (Maravelias, 2007). The post bureaucracy, hence, makes it sure to drive the capabilities and efforts of the individuals towards the constructive and positive freedom and decisions. The post bureaucratic philosophy tries to keep a balance between the negative and positive sides of opportunism and freedom. Hence, it can be said that the effort is required to keep directing the capabilities of the individuals towards positive outputs, while at the same time giving them the required freedom. Hence, it can be said that the post bureaucracy works for the establishment of the positive freedom and opportunism among the individuals and eventually among the whole organization and management (Maravelias, 2007). This positive type of opportunism thus induces the opportunistic individual to take a conservative attitude or position, and hence the opportunistic individual tends to copy and imitate the power so that they are able to take control of the different possibilities and opportunities of their overall work and life. In post bureaucratic system, employees and individuals have a tendency and propensity to adjust sceptically to the possibilities and opportunities of each prevalent conditions and situations, every new work or project, deprived of any factual belief. Hence, opportunism encouraged and compelled by anxiety arises as the contrary of opportunism compelled by wish or desire. Post bureaucracy makes sure that the individuals tend to follow the positive opportunism and freedom in order to benefit the overall management and whole organization (Maravelias, 2007). Conclusion It has been said by Graham Burchell (1991) that a particular type of governance involves a particular subject type, which is constituted and formed by that system of governance. This study has tried to add to that saying that the specific forms of the governance and the specific types of subjects are constitutive of and constituted by specific types of freedom. Most of the studies on the post bureaucratic organisations focus on the effects the transformation of the bureaucratic system to the post bureaucratic system has on the employees at work. One of the most important questions in the critical organisation studies is if the post bureaucratic ideology liberates the employees from the original power of bureaucracy or if it decreases the power of individuals even more than the traditional form of bureaucracy. To answer this question, it can be said that the focus of the post bureaucracy is to reduce the freedom of the individuals instead of increasing it. However, these critical studies have been conducted in the background which considered the freedom as autonomy, and, therefore, these studies did not acknowledge completely the degree to which the post bureaucracy involves not only the alteration of the power principles, but it also changes the basic idea of the freedom itself. The study has explained the way in which the bureaucracy was prepared around the basic difference of the time, space and culture of work and personal life, and the way in which it did not make it a system to exercise the control, but a system to configure freedom, as well. The ideology of bureaucracy divided its members’ lives into 2 separate spheres; which are the productive professional sphere and the unproductive private sphere. The productive professional sphere subordinates the individuals mutually to their rights, obligations and interests governed by the organisation management; while the second one allows them in pursuing their own individual interests. Therefore, it can be said that the free and private sphere is untouched and safeguarded from the authoritative involvement and is also unproductive, impotent and unorganized. The studies of critical organisation have also discovered the ways in which the post bureaucracy transforms the principles of exercising power. However, these studies do not pay enough consideration to the way in which post bureaucracy transforms the principles of enhancing the individuals’ freedom, as well. In this way, these studies offer us a view of the bureaucracy that assists us in viewing the easy in which the contemporary organisations continue to work. The study has also suggested that the post bureaucracy transforms the employee freedom from being unproductive to productive, and self organised opportunism. It is considered productive in a way that the freedom becomes the necessary element of the post bureaucratic ideology. Though, the post bureaucracy does not provide free choices to the individuals outside work; it presupposes and promotes the active spirit. It is also opportunistic in a way that the post bureaucracy divides the opportunity without providing a guarantee to the ones who are considered to have the potential of developing themselves throughout work. The post bureaucratic ideology and its freedom are not the subject which is forced or lured to fit a community or a specific role, but is a subject which belongs to the continual uprooting of the possibility of authentic tradition. For this subject, freedom is like a potential as it has never been realised and never been experienced completely; and is a practice of self overcoming. In such cases, the most important concern is not the liberation and freedom of individuals, but way in which it may evolve and maintained where the altering opportunities constantly drive the people into the cynical and self satisfied opportunism. Reference List Bain, P. and P. Taylor (2000). Entrapped by the ‘electronic panopticon’? Worker resistance in the call centre’, New Technology, Work and Employment, vol. 15, no. 1: pp. 2-18. Barrat, E. (2003). Foucault, HRM and the Ethos of the Critical Management Scholar, Journal of Management Studies, vol. 40, no. 5, pp. 1069-1087. Bauman, Z. (2004). Work, consumerism and the new poor. Milton Keynes: Open University Press. Burchell, G. (1991). ‘Peculiar interests: civil society and governing “the system of natural liberty’’´, in Burchell, G., Gordon, C., and Miller, P. (eds.), The Foucault Effect, Studies in Governmentality, Chicago: The University of Chicago Press. Du Gay, P. (2000). In Praise of Bureaucracy. London: Sage. Flemming, P. and A. Spicer (2003) ‘Working at a Cynical Distance: Implications for Power, Subjectivity and Resistance’, Organization, vol. 10, no. 1, pp. 157-179. Flemming, P. and A. Spicer (2004) ‘You can check out anytime but you can never leave, spatial boundaries in a high commitment organization’, Human Relations, vol. 57, no. 1, pp. 75-94. Foucault, M. (1991) ‘Governmentality’, in Burchell, Gordon, and Miller (eds.), The Foucault Effect. Brighton: Harvester. Garsten, K. and C. Grey (2001). ‘Trust, Control and Post-bureaucracy’, Organization Studies, vol. 22, no. 2, pp. 229-250. Harris, L. and E. Ogbonna (1999) ‘Developing a Market Oriented Culture: a Critical Evaluation’, Journal of Management Studies, vol. 36, no. 2, pp. 177-196. Harris, L. and E. Ogbonna (2000) ‘Managing organizational culture: insights from the hospitality industry, Human Resource Management Journal, vol. 12, no. 1, pp. 33-53. Hughes, J. (2005) ‘Bringing emotion to work: emotional intelligence, employee resistance and the reinvention of character’, Work, Employment and Society, vol. 19, no. 3, pp. 603-625. Kallinikos, J. (2004) ‘The Social Foundations of the Bureaucratic Order’, Organization Studies, vol. 11, no. 1, pp. 11-36. Kärreman, D. and M. Alvesson (2004) ‘Cages in Tandem: Management Control, Social Identity, and Identification in a Knowledge-Intensive Firm’, Organization, vol. 11, no. 1, pp. 149-175. Knights, D. and D. McCabe (1998). ‘What Happens when the Phone Goes Wild? Staff, Stress and Spaces for Escape in a BPR Telephone Baning Work Regime’, Journal of Management Studies, vol. 35, no. 2, pp. 163-194 Knights, D. and D. McCabe (2000).‘“Ain’t Misbehaving?” Opportunities for Resistance under New Forms of ‘Quality’ Management’, Sociology, vol. 34, no.3, pp. 421-436. Maravelias, C. (2001). ‘Managing Network Organizations’, doctoral thesis, School of Business, Stockholm University Maravelias, C. (2003). ‘Post-Bureaucracy – control through professional freedom’, Journal of Organizational Change Management, vol. 16, no. 5, pp. 547-566. Maravelias, C. (2007). Freedom at work in the age of post-bureaucratic organization. ephemera: theory & politics in organization, vol. 7, no. 4, pp. 555-574. 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, vol. 40, no. 5, pp. 1151-1178. Veyne, P. (1997) ‘The final Foucault and his ethics’, In Davidson (Ed.) Foucault and His Interluctors, Chicago: Chicago University Press Read More