Post Bureaucracy and Bureaucratic Forms of Organisation - Coursework Example

POST BUREAUCRACY AND BUREAUCRATIC FORMS OF ORGANISATION Post bureaucracy Introduction Post bureaucracy as a form of organisation is concept in which the decision making aspect is collective through the use of dialogue and consent between the various stakeholders within an institution. In this case, the organisational hierarchy tends to be horizontal in which many critics have felt that it is a utopian type of organisational structure because it is not applicable in the real world. According to Josserand and Teo (2006), this form of organisation structure is quite contrary to the widely applied bureaucratic form of organisation where there are tight procedures for conducting operations and there is relatively minimal adaptation to change in an institution . According to existing literature, bureaucratic forms of organisation tend to be the most preferred structure because there is strict control command chain that helps in streamlining the operations of an institution. Therefore, post bureaucratic form of organisation is different from the initial concept of bureaucratic organisational forms because the principles applied in both structures are different both in theory and practice. With this essay will explain reasons why post bureaucracy is not part of advanced bureaucratic forms of organisation using theories and documented examples that help in confirming this statement. Setting the stage Ideally, organisations tend to discourage an organisational structure in which the departments in the institution work as independent organs as much as this is likely to influence positive competition for the benefit of the same. The implication of this is that managers and leaders in an organisation prefer to apply a central command system in order for them to achieve their organisational goals, which is proven concept that is able to yield results. With this many organisation prefer this organisational concept as part of its practice because it is an applicable practice in effectively managing projects in order for them to accomplish the organisational goals for an institution. Traditional bureaucratic organisation forms have been known to influence employees to work towards the goals set within n organisation without having to bring in their ideas to be part of the development process of an institution. However theories of post bureaucracy theories have been successful in puncturing holes into the traditional concepts of authority in an organisation through the aspects of globalisation and improvement in technology. Analysts have argued that the introduction of post bureaucratic forms of organisation have made this to be a humane practice in which Damian Hodgson attempts to illustrate the difference between this form and the traditional one. Qualities that make bureaucratic forms of organisations to be distinct from post bureaucratic organisations One of the key aspects that distinguish these two forms of organisations is that in bureaucratic forms is that consensus is a must through the authority that controls the operations of an institution while in the opposite form consensus is through dialogue. Secondly, influencing those working in an organisation to adhere to the directives set in an organisation tends to be through persuasive ways in post bureaucratic organisational forms while in the opposite form of organisation it is through the formal position given to those in charge. This means that those in charge of operations or the management team tend to be symbols of power to those involved in undertaking the task of achieving the organisational goals for an institution. Thirdly, bureaucratic organisational forms only give the expectation of constancy in terms of the execution of duties while in post bureaucratic organisations employees or team members have the expectation of change. This means that there is no constant practice in post bureaucratic forms of organisations as there is flexibility in decision making processes as compared to bureaucratic forms where this aspect is fixed. Further, post bureaucracy is an ideal organisational form because it helps in the creation of functional relationships within an organisation while in bureaucratic systems there can only be communal spirit where the binding factors are the goals that organisations seeks to achieve. In terms of sustainability, post bureaucratic forms of organisations tend to have this aspect more because group members focus on accomplishing the institution’s mission as compared to the other form of organisation where the following of rules and regulations is the top most priority (Styhre 2007, p. 96). The information sharing aspect also tends to be different in these two forms of organisational structures in that the flow of information in post bureaucratic systems tends to be strategic and gets to everyone involved in the mission achieving process for the organisation. As for bureaucratic forms of organisation, information concerning the operations and management aspects of an organisation tend to be privy to the top hierarchy of the same making it to be a part affair for an organisation. As per these characteristics, post bureaucracy does not constitute as advancement to the bureaucratic forms of organisation because they both have different characteristics making them not to complement one another. Theories explaining the application and relevance of post bureaucratic forms of organisations 1. Critical management theory According to Maravelias and Hansson (2005, p. 2), the critical management theory is one of the theories that explains the ways in which posts-bureaucracy has transformed bureaucratic principles in relation to the exercising authority. In this case, these authors intimate that the process of transforming from bureaucratic to post-bureaucratic forms of organisations is one that also influences employees to be free within the same. The shift from applying bureaucratic to post bureaucratic principles began after labour movements failed to influence workers to be more productive under the capitalist regime. In essence, it was a subtle approach in which workers in labour unions no longer saw the need to resist those in authority because they had become equal stakeholders in the process of achieving the organisational goals for the institutions that they works for. Post bureaucratic organisational forms advocate for self-governance of employees rather than the conventional systems of supervised governance. From a critical management theory point of view, post bureaucracy tends to influence autonomy rather than totalitarianism that was the most dominant principle in bureaucratic forms of organisations (Maravelias and Hansson (2005, p. 5). With this, critical management theorists have supported this shift in applying organisational principles as the most effective approach because it extends power to workers rather than them being slaves to this process. The implication of this is that post bureaucracies form of organisation is a progressive development from the conventional bureaucratic forms of organisations because it is more engaging to workers as endorsed by critical management theorists. 2. The contingency theory or situational approach Another theory that explains the relative significance of applying the post bureaucratic forms of organisation is the contingency theory that states that there is no most appropriate way of running an organisation. Ideally, most business in the twenty first century believed that bureaucratic forms of organisation was the most applicable way of operating their institutions, but this has changed under this theory because there are many ways in which an organisation can foster results (Sears S, Sears G & Clough 2010, p. 42). The most dominant factor in this theory is that there is no best way for leading a company and in making decisions meaning that this should not be a rigid approach to conducting the operations ok an organisation. In most cases, the contingency theory requires that a leader applies decisions and course f action depending on the situation that they find themselves in rather than abiding by the former decisions made by other leaders that found themselves in similar situations. In this case, a team leader or those in the top hierarchy may opt to engage the other team members in coming up with decisions that are likely to change the course of the organisation towards the achievement of the organisational goals. This relatively one of the key principles in post bureaucratic forms of organisation in which the decision making aspect tends to be collective rather than this being the work of the top hierarchy that tends to have all the decision making authority (Ackroyd 2006, p. 497). Essentially, the contingency approach as part of post bureaucratic form of organisation is one way of influencing effective behaviour in terms of leadership as proven by numerous researches that have sought to expound n this concept and applicability. Another aspect that is vital in the contingency theory and is also applicable in post bureaucratic organisational forms is that leaders seek to establish a good rapport with junior members of staff as they also tend to support these valuable members to an organisation. The implication of this is that bureaucratic forms of organisation failed because the style of leadership here was one way and that this influenced behavioural attitudes by subordinate employees that did not complement the organisational goals and objectives. Ideally, the contingence theory focuses on satisfying the internal needs of an organisation in which an institution should be able to adapt to the circumstances that they find themselves in rather than staying at the same point because of rigidness in decision making aspects (Ackroyd 2006, p. 498). Therefore, by applying the principles of post bureaucratic organisational forms, people are able to think of other people other than themselves and can also adapt to new environments and challenges making this to be a progressive development from bureaucratic forms of organisations (King & Lawley 2012, p. 94). 3. The scientific management theory The scientific management theory can also help in illustrating the progressive development out of bureaucratic forms of organisation because it applies the principle of trust between the management team and the workers. Essentially, the scientific management theory or the Taylorism theory of management developed by Taylor Fredrick intended to improve on economic and labour productivity for an organisation. Contrary to Max Weber’s bureaucracy application, the application of this theory influenced the productivity of worker’s because it meant that workers had to undergo training in order for them to improve their efficiency (Sears S, Sears G & Clough 2010, p. 46). Like in post bureaucracy, the scientific management theory required the equal sharing of tasks between workers and managers meaning that every individual in an organisation attracted relatively equal value and worth to the institution. Essentially, this is one way of ensuring that workers had motivation to accomplish tasks because those that received training attracted better wages that helped in raising their standards of living. Further, this fostered formidable relations between employees and managers because they are able to share freely about matters pertaining to the organisation, which is a characteristic shared by post bureaucratic forms of organisations. The implication of this is that this theory attracts benefits for both the managers and employees because the latter are able to earn a deserving pay while the former attract more profit margins for an organisation. Further, applying the principle of expanding an worker’s efficiency levels means that there would also be competency in executing organisational tasks rather than on in individual responsibilities. By allowing employees to cultivate their efficiencies, employees are also able to apply the self-governing aspect that is a regular practice in ensuring that they execute tasks. Therefore, this implies that post bureaucratic forms of government is a progressive development out of bureaucratic forms of organisations through the application of scientific management theory because it influences the practice of self-governance and training in order to increase efficiency. Post bureaucracy and project management In order for an organisation’s functions to be executed, it is pertinent for institution’s management structure to assign duties to project teams so as to maximize on efficiency. In management, project management is an effective way of handling the operations of an organisation because it involves the assigning of tasks to individuals within the same. In the past, management influenced the lack of motivation for employees, which attracted negative effects towards the project as this made them not to work towards the achievement of organisational goals. However, project managers saw it best to move from bureaucratic forms of organisations that were inhumane to the post bureaucratic organisational forms because it influenced creativity for employees. Project management began to look into the critics issued from various quarters as managers started to explore the ways in which managers can motivate project teams in order to foster worker creativity. In a way, the view points shared by both the management team and the employees tends to be different in regard to change as one party may view this as a form of exercising control and the other autonomy. All these tend to happen within a post bureaucratic organisations in which employees may feel as an unjustified way of exercising control by the management team, which is a possible risk in this organisational form. In order for a project to be successful, the management team should the post bureaucratic principle of allowing employees o make decisions concerning their own projects and work, which relatively translates to autonomy. This implies that employees are able to make the best decisions because they are free to do so, which can also mean that this can be an applicable way of solving problems. However, the freedom to make these decisions has to be within the limits provided by an organisation, but this managed to solve their own problems because they were the ones that were privy to the history of the problem that were handling. In addition, project management through the application of post bureaucratic principles can be successful only if the parties involved in this process use dialogue. It is also important for project managers to implement the suggestions given by employees during the dialogue process, as this would be a true reflection of the organisation having moved from bureaucratic organisational forms to post bureaucratic forms of organisation. Essentially, when employees are allowed to participate in the decision making process of an organisation then this makes them feel motivated to perform the organisational tasks because they tend to develop organisational commitment. The major point communicated here is that the use of project management can be an applicable tool for leadership, but this can be more effective if it becomes engaging towards junior employees. As per Hodgson’s research work, a management team should not cling to power, but they should relinquish power to the employees as holding on to power is likely to influence more problems for the organisation than solutions. Post bureaucratic form of organisation is a progressive development out of bureaucratic organisational forms because it engages the employees in ascertaining what works and what does not work for an organisation. The implication of this is that project management should be flexible to include approaches that are likely to influence the creativity of employees because this attracts employee motivation that can also translate to profits. Bureaucratic forms of organisations did not support autonomy in decision making meaning that it did not allow employees to give their contributions and enhance their innovativeness as this was likely to hinder the repetition of the same organisational challenges over and over. Using this as a basis, project managers had to make changes in their practice to include post bureaucratic forms of organisations in order for them to encourage employees to increase their outputs and to include them in the decision making aspect for the organisation. This was because bureaucratic forms of organisation were not able to yield the organisational goals that institutions had planned on achieving meaning it had become an outdated practice. Post bureaucracy responds to the disadvantages of bureaucratic forms of organisation Ideally, organisations that apply the vertical management system or the bureaucratic organisational structure tend to have layers and layers of management in which this influences the development of a tall hierarchy. This implies that a bureaucratic form of organisations creates a division between the top management organ of an organisation and the employees that form the bottom tiers of an institution (Aquinas 2006, p. 343). In most cases, this form of organisational structure bestows utmost control to the management team meaning that the aims of this structure is the yielding of results without factoring in the contributions that the junior employees can give. With this, the post bureaucratic organisational form becomes a way of effectively responding to the disadvantages that result from bureaucratic organisational forms. For one, post bureaucracy influences employees to be more innovative because employees that have visions of changing the ways in which an organisation operates can do so freely because this form allows them to do so. Subsequently, allowing employees to be creative can foster the inspiration to innovate solutions to the problems that an organisation may be facing, which can also bring about change for the benefit of the institution. The other disadvantage that post bureaucracy responds to as presented in bureaucratic forms of organisation it influences flexibility that was otherwise unachievable in the latter (Gilmore & Williams 2012, p. 71). The implication of this is that this increases the decision making capabilities for an organisation because lesser time goes into this aspect as flat organisational structures influence an organisation’s operations to move faster and with ease. This creates an advantage for an organisation that operates in a competitive market as employees are able to think of fast solutions to enable them to manoeuvre in such a market without giving its competitors the upper hand. Essentially, the vertical organisational structure tends to isolate employees working within the same institution as they are not able to understand the different functions handled by other departments. This means that operating as independent units as one of the aspects that post bureaucracy seeks to address because if not addressed the individual departments tend to lose focus on the overall ‘goals of an institution. Further, a horizontal organisational structure helps in discouraging negative competition between departments for company resources, which may work to the disadvantage of an organisation because the objectives tend to shift towards solving inter-departmental conflict. On the other hand, communication and coordination in between departments tends to be a challenge for vertical organisation systems because of the lack of cooperation between the departments working independently. A way in which post bureaucracy responds to this disadvantage is that it allows for the selection and appointment of representatives from the various functional units, which tends to foster cohesion and in the passing of information. In turn a management team is able to address the concerns of the employees that are likely to influence them to rebel unlike in the bureaucratic forms of organisation in which employees had to suffer in silence (Menne-Haritz 2005, p. 17). As per research, employee satisfaction tends to influence them to develop a positive mindset towards their work responsibilities because this makes them to be part of an organisation hence creating a feeling of belonging. Ideally, bureaucracy as a form of organisational structure tends to create the machine aspect in that there is no application of humane concept in addressing the problems that employees may be having and that may contribute towards the failed completion of tasks. In many cases, bureaucracy may influence the sacking of non-performing workers as a way of streamlining the operations of an organisation as the management tend to view them as liabilities to the institution. The idea behind this is that the achievement of profitability tends to be the principle factor and not the well being of employees, which is one of the key aspects addressed by post bureaucracy. Ideally, post bureaucracy responds to this disadvantage by empowering employees and influencing meaning to their work-related responsibilities. With this, employees are able to invest their time and energy towards the achievement of the organisational goals that an institution may have for the present and the future. Bureaucracy also influences boredom on employees because they tend to have passive attitude towards their work responsibilities hence decreasing their morale to work for a management team that does not consider their input. In contrast, post bureaucratic improves employee morale because their input becomes valid to the organisation and that they are able to participate in the decision making function of the same (Collings & Wood 2009, p. 25). As a result, employees and the management team alike report to one another in a horizontal form of organisation in which both parties are able to take responsibility for these decisions made and enhancing accountability. Conclusion Post bureaucracy appears to be a progressive development out of bureaucratic systems through theory and practice because of its ability to influence cohesion between employees and the management team that have for a long time been on different levels. The shift from the conventional bureaucratic forms of organisations has been significant in the operations of institutions because it has proved to be a result yielding mechanism. The sharing of power in terms of decision making and execution of tasks makes every individual in an organisation to feel valued as part of the progressive development of an institution (Diefenbach & By 2012, p. 74). Essentially, post bureaucracy has replaced bureaucratic organisational forms as much as it symbolises the change and evolution that business practice have had to undergo in order for organisations to remain relevant in their practice. The major aspect embedded in this revolutionized organisational form is that it responds to most of the disadvantages created by vertical structures meaning that it is not an advanced form of bureaucracy. In this regard, researchers and analysts have advocated for the adoption of this business practice because of the potential advantages that an organisation may achieve by making employees to be a significant part of an institution and the decision making operations to the advantage of the same. Bibliography “Freedom in the Age of Post-bureaucracy:The Example of Strategic Occupational Health”Paper for the 4th The International Critical Management Studies Conference, 4-6 July 2005, Judge Institute of Management, University of Cambridge, UK. Ackroyd, S 2006, The Oxford handbook of work and organization, Oxford [u.a], Oxford Univ. Press. Aquinas, P G,2006, Organisational behavior: concepts realities applications and challenges, New Delhi, Excel Books. Collings, DG & Wood, G 2009, Human Resource Management: A Critical Approach, London, Routledge Press. Self governance Diefenbach, T & By, RT 2012, Reinventing hierarchy and bureaucracy from the bureau to network organizations, Bingley, U.K., Emerald. Emmanuel Josserand, Stephen Teo, Stewart Clegg, (2006) "From bureaucratic to post-bureaucratic: the difficulties of transition", Journal of Organizational Change Management, Vol. 19 no. 1, pp.54 – 64. Josserand and Teo Gilmore, S & Williams, S 2012, Human resource management, Oxford, Oxford University Press. King, D & Lawley, S 2012, Organisational behavior, Oxford, Oxford University Press. Menne-Haritz, A 2005, Business processes an archival science approach to collaborative decision making, records, and knowledge management, Berlin, Springer. Sears, S K, Sears, GA, & Clough, RH 2010, Construction Project Management A Practical Guide to Field Construction Management, New York, John Wiley & Sons, Inc. Styhre, A 2007, The Innovative Bureaucracy: Bureaucracy in an Age of Fluidity, London, Routledge Press. Read More