Has New Technology Led to the Decline of Bureaucracy - Coursework Example

Has new technology led to the decline of bureaucracy? Contents Contents 2 Introduction 3 Discussion 4 Bureaucracy 6 Rise of technology & fall of Bureaucracy 8 Conclusion 13 References 14 Introduction The following essay deals with the bureaucracy and bureaucratic structures in general. In particular the focus of this essay is on the topic whether new technology has led to the fall of democracy. However before the essay can proceed on the lines of the topic it is important to first define the term bureaucracy. For understanding the term Bureaucracy it is important to understand the term rationality. Rationality and Bureaucracy are two terms that are much related to each other and signifies modern era. Lukes and others define the pursuit of real interests as rational action. When defining rationality it is important to remember that there are two types of rationality. One is substantive rationality and other is instrumental rationality. Scholars like Weber stated that the rise of capitalism was related to the growth of instrumental rationality. Rationality was linked to modernity and a decline of traditional or charismatic authority structures was related to rationalization. Rationalization is sometimes thought of as an over dominance of the western thought. That is the belief that the west is best as compared to the rest of the world is thought of as a feature of rationality. However Weber stated that the Rationalization is the process of making things of nature more calculable. It aims at trying to expand this calculability feature into the future so that the future becomes more predictable. The essential features of rationality are defined as knowledge, impersonality and Control. When the above features of rationalization are applied to the organizational context it leads to bureaucracy. Bureaucracy is defined as government by the officials. Bureaucracy refers to the increased use of quasi scientific methods in order to control our environment. This in turn means that the rise of bureaucracy means the decline of substantive rationality or need to have shared belief systems. Bureaucratization has several advantages like the timely delivery of services, impartiality in the labour market, and meeting professional standards. However it is seen that the bureaucracies over time fail to reach the objective for which these rules are set up. Over bureaucratization leads to compromise of the organizational agility and rule following and structure becomes more important that the objective for which they were originally created. The following essay carries this discussion forward to understand how rise in technology leads to the decline of democracy. Discussion Rationality and bureaucracy are mutually inclusive. The latter is the function of the former. Bureaucratic organizations are characterized by planning, orderliness, direction and control. These are the basic rationality of bureaucratic organizations. Rationality is incumbent on the degree of being rational. Rationality has two thoughts i.e. substantive and instrumental rationality. Substantive rationality is definitive of the outcome, objectives and our ends and not the means employed to achieve the objectives, meet the ends and outcome. There are various beliefs to rationality. Marxist’s view is that any action is said to be rational if it adds to human value unlike in religious views rational action is the one that is in conformity with the word of God. Instrumental rationality considers the means to achieve the goals and not the ends. Under instrumental rationality actions are considered to be rational if it increases the probability of achieving the pre defined goals. The sole differentiating criterion between a primitive form of organization and a bureaucratic organization is rationality. Earlier there was lack of technological innovation that led to more physical work which could not be accurately measured. Line of work was not differentiated i.e. high degree of job similarity. Organizations over time have witnessed sea change in their approach of management. Jobs have changed, with more learning and knowledge newer forms of jobs which require more mental abilities than physical labour evolved. Jobs were better matched against the level of learning and specialization. Organizations now have hierarchy that defines the authority responsibility role. It ensures effective and efficient utilization of resources by allocating departments based on the nature of work and workforce availability. Better recording and reporting standards leading to effective communication and information sharing system. Such changes in organizational system was driven by rationale i.e. job requirements to be met by optimum resource utilization and minimum cost. Organizations follow rational approach in identifying, evaluating, resolving and monitoring problems. Manpower is better managed so as to prevent overutilization of resources. Developing rational systems that can be quantified, achieved and measured have led to rational behaviour of employees. Earlier organizations failed to establish effective system to evaluate performance. With better use of rationality in management practices, performance evaluation could be achieved that led to identifying learning gaps so as to maximize the organizational value. Rationality has led to the formation of rational-legal organizations. Rationality in organizations and process tries to make things calculable and predictable. Quantifying the goals of an organization relative to time and money makes it calculable. Moreover employees are remunerated based on their performance, which is also calculated. Work is calculated by investment of productive hours on a job. Hourly and piece rate wage system is another indicator of how rationality makes action calculable. When calculations are projected in the future it makes it predictable. It shows how using rational approach expected or desired level of performance can be achieved. Rationality has led to the formation of bureaucratic organization structure which has over the years helped to increase the individual and organizational productivity (Merz, 2013). Max Weber discussed how rationalization led to bureaucratization. The former does not consider social beliefs and order and tries to apply numbers and codes to ones understanding. This leads to increased efficiency, high degree of organizational control, power and authority. These are the critical factors that lead to bureaucratization. Rationalization of our social lives has led to less freedom and high degree of order and rules that has led to ‘Iron Cage’ situation, as described by Weber. Such is believed to be the influence of the capitalist societies in the west where it is characterized by high degree of rigidity and order and low degree of autonomy and individuality (Brubaker, 2013). Bureaucracy As discussed in the earlier section rationalization of organizational practices has led to bureaucracy. In the late 1800 organizations were characterized by informality i.e. it was run like family. Such form of organization was criticized by many schools of thoughts. There existed an informal relation between the supervisor and the employees that inhibited organizational productivity. It was observed that employees were committed to their supervisors and managers and to the organization as a whole. Limitations in the earlier structure of organizations led to rationalization. It witnessed changes in management practices (Mouzelis, 2003). The changes were observed in development of a formal structure, clear authority responsibility, rigid rules and policies, high degree of power, control and authority. Work became a function of employee productivity. Targets are calculated and set accordingly based on employee competence. Bureaucratic organization has a rigid hierarchy where those who are higher up in the hierarchy enjoy high degree of authority and power. They are characterized by division of labour. The total work is divided into smaller jobs that are allocated to various departments. Organizations are internally divided into separate groups or departments which specialize in the defined area. Earlier types of organization witnessed low productivity owing to lack of evaluation. Rationalized efficiency has led to increased productivity of the organization and its employees. Such kinds of organizations are mostly observed in government agencies which follow such high degree of chain of command, power and authority. It refers to the administrative system of large organizations. Bureaucratic organizations evolved over time i.e. initially it saw changes in the structure from informal to formal with clear authority responsibility chain. With the expansion of organization, rational approaches became a dominant factor in bureaucracy. Earlier goals were set irrespective of the level of competency and resource availability. Under bureaucratic structure long term goals are transformed into short term achievable targets which can be measured against the given level of resources. Rigid and high degree of formalization are not only the key indicators of bureaucracy but rationalization as discussed above is another critical aspect of the theory of bureaucracy. It has also led to elimination of work bias owing to high degree of formalization. Bureaucracy evolved as there was a need to organize human activity within an organization in a rational way. Developing processes and hierarchy were imperative for organizations to achieve efficiency, maintaining order, fostering formal relationships between managers and employees, eliminate favouritism and nepotism (Gay, 2000). Problem that is associated with the bureaucracy and the bureaucratic structures is problem of too little. This states that at the superficial level a structure may appear to be bureaucratic but deep down the structure may be very complex and have informal organization structures. These fallacies of bureaucracies have led scholars like Bennis predict that the bureaucracy and the bureaucratic processes are on the decline. Bennis states that this will happen due to the changing functional response that is associated with a changing socio economic environment. This will also mark a switch from mass production by large industries to a period when small scale niche products would be produced. The period of collective bargaining by the employees of general improvement in conditions would gradually be replaced. Collective bargaining will be replaced with demands for individualised and flexible working conditions. The post bureaucracy as defined by Hecksher is defined by an organization where rules are replaced with consensus and dialogue that is based on personal influence. In these organizations merit is what is more important than hierarchy. In such an organization people are treated as individuals rather than as someone who is holding posts. Boundaries of an organization are more open in such types of organizations. Rise of technology & fall of Bureaucracy The idea of Bureaucracy is based on the belief that the environment is to some extent predictable and calculable. When Weber thought of a Bureaucratic organization he thought of as an organizational expression of rational thought. Rational thought says that the environment we live in is calculable and predictable. Rational thought and in particular instrumental rationality states that an action can be said to be rational if it is the best way to achieve an objective. The development of instrumental rationality led to the decline of subjective rationality which held the belief that it is within man’s power to control the environment. The development of instrumental rationality led to the gradual decline of subjective rationality where commonly held belief systems were much more important. Weber tried to incorporate these concepts of rationalization into the organizational perspective. He viewed organizations as an epitome of perfection that included characteristics of rationalization. When Weber thought of a bureaucratic organization he envisioned an organization that would incorporate the positive sides of rationalization. He believed that such an organization would incorporate features such as knowledge, impersonality and control. He thought that a bureaucratic organization would be the ideal rational-legal organization and will contain characteristics such as impersonality, efficiency and instrumental rationality. However it is found that although at first the ideal behind the creation of bureaucratic organization is associated with the goals of forming a more rational organization, ultimately the organization becomes too rigid and inflexible, slow, inert, inefficient and inhuman. There are lot of studies that have been carried on bureaucracies and bureaucratic organizations (Thompson, 2015). Through these studies it is found that many of the commonly held beliefs and folk lore are not true in practice. Although at the time of creating a bureaucratic organization the ideal is to bring in more organization efficiency, impersonal, and above all rational. The scholars in their studies have pointed to the fact that bureaucracies ultimately become dysfunctional (Hickson, and Pugh, 2012). The studies that relate to dysfunction of bureaucracies point to the fact that bureaucracies have not been ultimately able to achieve the objective for which they were created. These studies have focussed on three parts. The parts relate to goal displacement, working to rule and mock democracy. The goal displacement was developed as an idea by American sociologist Robert Merton in the year 1940. In this theory Merton focussed on the fact that in a bureaucratic organization originally the rules are created to reach a definite objective. However over time it is found that the rules become more important than the objective itself (Zastrow, and Kirst-Ashman, 2009). That is when the organization becomes rigid and inflexible. Philip Selznick on the other hand focussed on a different kind of goal displacement that occurs in a bureaucratic organization. He states that in a large organization there is complex division of labour and the organization is divided into several divisions. However in an organization where there is large no. of divisions the workers are more in trying to achieve the goals of the particular department and not the goals of the organization (Kirst-Ashman, 2007). In an organization that has too many departments the workers are more oriented towards the persuasion of the interests of the departments rather than the goals of the organization. This leads to the situation of conflict in between the different workers who work in different departments of an organization. As per working to rule model which was stated by peter Blau in 1955 most of the organizational contracts were ill defined in terms of particular quality. This had a result that the workers in the organization left their workplace exactly at 5pm as per the timing of contract without completion of tasks at hand. This is the most common scenario that is to be noted in a government organization. Workers in such an organization are more specific about the time they spend in their jobs. That is they spend their time or rather kill their time so that they stay in the organization until the stipulated time somehow before they leave the organization. Workers in a bureaucratic organization are not likely to do any work that is out of the contract and will demand an explanation for the same (Barrow, 2002). According to mock bureaucracy, there are large differences in between a formal and an informal organization. When in an organization formal organization structure is suddenly introduced, which long followed informal organization structure then it is found that there is organization conflict that results. In Gouldner’s gypsum mine new management actually enforced that the workers adhere to formal procedures (Clegg, 2009). This resulted in low morale, conflict in between the management and the workers of the organization and resulted in strikes in the strikes in the organization. The real strength of the workers of the organization was informal expertise and not rules that were enforced by the organization for the benefit of others (Elsbach, and Bechky, 2009). The main fallacy of a bureaucratic organization and especially over bureaucratization of an organization is that the organization loses its flexibility and agility. The structures and organizational chart which were established in order bring in more efficiency to the organization in turn brings in more rigidness to the organization. The structures become so important that the organization tends to forget the organization goals and objectives. There are mainly two types of problems that are associated with a bureaucratic organization. The two types of organization are either two much or too little. Two much refers to the fact that excessive rigidity in the application of rules with respect to the organization results in suboptimal performance. With respect to the technology it is often found that the bureaucratic organization fears from the application of new technology and there is tendency by the bureaucratic organization to not to go in for new technologies. This is found not only in the case of the organization but also the decline of many civilization and countries due to the fact over bureaucratization many a times led to the fact that the civilizations were little receptive to the changes. For example this was the case in respect to Russia. From 1970 onwards, the Russian economy was exemplified by a period of economic stagnation and economic decline. It was in this period that the bureaucratic methods and principles on which the Russian civilization was organized led the country not being compatible with new technology and style of production (Socialist party. 2015). Same is the case which led to the downfall once mighty Mughal Empire. When the Mughals came to India they were examples of a perfect empire and the empire was classified as a bureaucratic organization and hierarchy based to bring in more efficiency to the running of the empire. However as time passed the hierarchy became too rigid and the top levels became too complacent with their position. The empire shunned changes in the organization in terms of technology. They shunned modernization and feared that the new technology would lead to their doom. The bureaucratic structures had made them too complacent in their roles. This led to their downfall as although the weaponry of the Mughals was superior to the rest of India, they could not stand to the latest weapons of the foreign countries (Eraly, 2004). The technology giant IBM also faces the same problem. IBM follows a bureaucratic structure with thirteen levels of management and a steep hierarchy within the organization. In addition to that the company is following relentless cost cutting and is off shoring most of its operations. These factors lead to fear within the organization and over bureaucratization leads to the fact that the organization is tending to be more rigid and lacks agility in general (Denning, 2014). Similar was the case of Algerian oil industry. In Algeria the oil reserves are mostly owned by the government and have the lions share in producing oil in the country. The country has used bureaucracy in order to implement a development model that is static. The country emphasized on the development of heavy industry and acquired the best available technology in order to support the same. The type of development followed by Algeria took precedence over employment, housing and agricultural development and others. In order to reach the development goals of the Algerian state those in power in the country chose to favour the rapid economic growth. The socio-economic equality was overlooked. The problem of the Algerian development model was related to the fact that it failed to create mass employment opportunities in Algeria. It created vast pools of unemployment and under employment. In case of Algeria thus it is evident that the bureaucracy is at the heart of the problem. Although in case of Algeria the problem is also related to the fact that the bureaucracy in Algeria is not inefficient. But the rigid model that they were following for development needed to change and the bureaucracy and the bureaucrats needed to understand the fact. Technology thus leads to the fact that the organizations have to be more flexible and agile. It is a common notion that the demand of modern technology and continuous development in technology requires that the organizations become more flexible so as to be ready to accept the new technology and be ready to accept the challenges that are posed by the new technology. In a bureaucratic organization what happens is that over time the same structures which helped the organization to grow at a point of time and increase profitability becomes too rigid for the organization. The organizations starts being complacent and deviates from the path of innovation, incorporation of new technology and entrepreneurial spirit that existed in the organization when it started its operations. So technology can be said to be the factor that is actually detrimental top democracy. Technology and bureaucracy often does not go hand in hand and there is a consistent collision in between them. Conclusion The essay in the above pages the discussion focuses on the question whether the emergence of technology led to the decline of bureaucracy. The discussion on the topic focuses on rationality, bureaucracy and then comes to the discussion about the fallacies of bureaucracies and has new technology led to the decline of democracy. It is found that the bureaucratic organization is very systematic and based on hierarchy. In such an organization employee motivation is a problem. As such the profitability of such an organization suffers. Due to the fact that there is too much hierarchy in the organization the organization often becomes too rigid and inflexible. This creates serious problems when new technologies are introduced in the market. The bureaucratic structure of the organization prevents it from accepting the changes of technology and changing to the requirements of time. In order to incorporate the new technologies often a restructuring of the bureaucratic order is required. So it can be safely said that change in technology does lead to the decliner of bureaucracy. The problem however means answering the question of whether the organization and especially the top management are ready to accept the change. Does post bureaucratic organization prove to be the solution to the problem or not? The question is difficult to answer as both bureaucracy and post bureaucracy has problems associated with them and the best of these can be derived by the organization that can use them efficiently. References Barrow, C., 2002. Industrial Relations Law. London: Cavendish Publishing. Brubaker, R., 2013. The Limits of Rationality. New York: Routledge. Clegg, S. R., 2009. SAGE Directions in Organization Studies. London: SAGE. Denning, S., 2014. Why IBM Is In Decline? [Online]. Available at < http://www.forbes.com/sites/stevedenning/2014/05/30/why-ibm-is-in-decline/>[Accessed 14 April 2015]. Elsbach, K. D., and Bechky, B. A., 2009. Qualitative Organizational Research: Best Papers from the Davis Conference on Qualitative Research. NY: IAP. Eraly, A., 2004. The Mughal Throne: The Saga of Indias Great Emperors. London: Phoenix. Gay, D.P., 2000. In Praise of Bureaucracy: Weber - Organization – Ethics. London: SAGE. Hickson, D. J., and Pugh, D. S., 2012. Great Writers on Organizations: The Third Omnibus Edition. NY: Gower Publishing Ltd. Kirst-Ashman, K., 2007. Human Behavior, Communities, Organizations, and Groups in the Macro Social Environment: An Empowerment Approach. CA: Cengage Learning. Merz, F., 2013. Max Weber ́s Theory of Bureaucracy and Its Negative Consequences. Germany: GRIN Verlag. Mouzelis, P.N., 2003. Organization and Bureaucracy: An Analysis of Modern Theories. UK: Taylor & Francis. Socialist party., 2015. What about Russia? [Online]. Available at < http://www.socialistparty.org.uk/russia/r2frame.htm?intro.htm>[Accessed 14 April 2015]. Thompson, F., 2015. Why a new public management? Why now? [Online]. Available at [Accessed 14 April 2015]. Zastrow, C., and Kirst-Ashman, K., 2009. Understanding Human Behavior and the Social Environment. CA: Cengage Learning. Read More