The Theory of Social and Economic Organizations - Essay Example

Running head: Bureaucracy Student’s name Institution Course Professor Date The advantages and disadvantages of Bureaucracy as an organizational form (Economic, Ethical, Social and System-theoretic considerations) Introduction The modern theory of bureaucracy, postulated by Max Weber is a formal codification of the idea of rational organization and a vital element in the rationalization of modern capitalism. Bureaucracy as an organization form uses rules and hierarchical ranking with a view to achieve efficiency. According to Max Weber, bureaucracy has five distinct characteristics. They include; clearly defined division of labour, written rules and regulations prescribing performance criteria, hierarchy of authority, impersonality and employment based on technical qualifications (Weber, 1946). With the above elements, every workforce is recruited on the basis of relevant qualifications for a particular task and is assigned a position with fixed duties, responsibilities and authority. Also, these elements if properly designed will guide and direct individual behaviour toward the larger objectives of the organization (Walton, 2005). Bureaucracy is associated with routine, paperwork, lengthy procedures and centralized and rigid hierarchy. The rational-bureaucratic model of organization includes the explicit structural arrangements and administrative practices that work to achieve defined goals and objectives (Adler& Borys, 1996). These strategies include formal positions and procedures that can coordinate and monitor the human labour. However, the strict and rigid conformity to procedures can have unintended effect of displacing objectives and undermining goal attainment (Weber, 1966). The principles of formalization, instrumentalism and rational-legal authority influence rational bureaucracy in any organization. Bureaucracy in an organization has been assimilated to red tape, over controlling bosses and apathetic employees (Adler, 1999). The efficiency under bureaucratic organization is greatly influenced by how its rules and regulations are implemented in regard to the quality of the organizational labour force (Adler & Borys, 1996). According to Nguyen and Truong, (2002), bureaucracy is influence by the social cultures under which an organization operates and also the management style do vary in any given culture. Advantages With the core features of the bureaucratic form, bureaucracy has proven to remain relevant in the organization in regard to the following facets. The form fits well in organizations with routine tasks and normally comes up with exceptional requirements of some particular organizations (Weber, 1966). It is well suited in easing the tension of interest conflicts among the members of the organization. A suitable style of bureaucracy if well implemented in the organization can create and foster trust, commitment and motivation among the workforce (Pearce, 2000). Bureaucracy can change human life socially, culturally, politically and psychologically. It brings people physically closer to each other by making them more independent. In a theoretical context, formal organizations are bestowed as instruments used to achieve specific goals, develop administrative mechanisms that can maintain the organization and coordinate the required activities. The management style represents rationalization process in its very existence and via its internal structures and way of operation (Adler& Borys, 1996). Bureaucracy acts as a central component of the public sphere and is involved in the functioning of the capitalist economy. Due to calculability of its rules, it has been of great decisive significance. Specialization, division of labour and expertise in an organization directly lead to increased productivity (Adler, 1999). The rules and regulations describe and enforce the one best way of handling cases and aids in increasing efficiency as well as a tool of coordination in the organization. It minimizes uncertainty thus able to maximize predictability and calculability of actions, procedures and the outcomes (Riggio, 2010). Reduction in uncertainty has become crucial in every sphere of modern society. The use of bureaucracy as management style in an organization has contributed to overall social utility and also it is inevitable for the democratic mode of governing. It acts as an agent and an expression of key modern social innovations that are manifested in the non-inclusive terms by individuals who are involved in the organizations (Adler& Borys, 1996). Consequently, it is essential to the expansion of industrial capitalism and embeddedness of fundamental social and economic objectives such as growth, progress, meritocracy and egalitarianism. In addition, this form of organization shapes the contribution of people without demanding any changes in their personality except those that are related to skill mastery and attitudes (Kallinikos, 2000). Bureaucracy has a social significance since it represent a functional change in how people relate to one another. It has transformed the society by harnessing the energies of the people to particular goals and monitoring progress of those objectives (Olsen, 2005). It has become a dominant form of organization due to its humanizing effect of a work setting such that the work environment is organize to develop human potential. The work setting has offered access to opportunities on the basis of ability and contributions as oppose to personal characteristics, made power to be distributed equally and also rules made less rigid to allow open decision making process (Olsen, 2005). An ideal bureaucratic management system contributes to unity and coordination, obedience and loyalty, reduction of friction in an organization. A merit based bureaucracy can foster economic growth and greatly involved in poverty reduction. The rules and regulation under bureaucratic system contributes to democratic equality since the system is relatively blind to the wealth and other resources of the clients the organization is serving (Olsen, 2005). It is an institutional custodian of democratic-constitutive principles and procedural rationality since it is a tool for legislators and representative democracy and also it is positively related to substantive outcomes that are valued in contemporary democracies (Olsen, 2005). Bureaucratic form of organization ensures that objectives are put in place by rational, systematic, standardized techniques that eliminated the effects of interpersonal relationships. This form reflects the confidence that maximum efficiency in the company can be arrived at through logical planning and calculation. They impart guidelines and standardized procedures that give uniformity in goods and services and if properly implemented can result to fair treatment (Adler, 1999). Being a form of social organization, bureaucracy is able to achieve its laid down objectives through elaborate division of labour that resulted due to diversification and compartmentalization of duties which eventually led to specialized chores such as implementation, management and special expertise. It works for a rational model of administration. The recruitment under bureaucratic organizations is normally conducted according to recognized rules and regulations such as competitive system often employed in the public service. Bureaucratic form of organization can maintain pace with the fast-moving contemporary organization so long as the organization management takes into consideration quality of labour force, cultural features and the need for continuous improvement (Olsen, 2008). It acts as channels of representation since the practice lead to a conduit of effective and well-rounded governance. Rational bureaucracy aids the organization to have clearly defined goals that can be best achieved within the formal structure of the organization. The organizational decisions can be based on a survey of relevant information and an analysis of costs and benefits. Consequently, efficiency is greatly enhanced till the entire workforce follows the formal rules and policies of the organization. This management style remains appropriate for medium and large scale organizations in which timeliness, conformance and orderliness are fundamental to get the whole system run smoothly. With respect to organization tasks, bureaucracy is very helpful for routine tasks that are featured by repetition and to be counterproductive for non-routine tasks that are typical of innovative (Adler, 1999). Furthermore, bureaucratic management style allows the following to be carried out; performance appraisal systems, job posting procedures and job descriptions due to transparent accountability, equity and operating efficiency. Under the influence of bureaucratic management style, efficiency and productivity can be achieve in a contemporary organization, Disadvantages The Max’s concern was that bureaucracy could lose sight of its purpose and begin to act as a special interest group. In such instance, it could not meet some societal needs. As an organizational form, bureaucracy is able to create sclerosis in the organization. For example most of the workforce can become obsessed with the adhering of the rules and procedures of the organization rather than doing the job most efficiently (Adler, 1999). The major obstacle that comes up with a bureaucracy is the emphasis on the laid rules and regulations in the organization. Moreover, bureaucracy lessens effectiveness especially at delivering products or services the system was designed to carry out. This can cause loss of faith from the consumer side and will disengage them from the system (Pearce, 2000). Varied forms are required for any operation in the organization; however, bureaucracies are inefficient and wasteful since incompetent people may occupy senior positions due to nepotism within the organization. The belief in contemporary theory of bureaucracy has been put in doubt due to various malfunctions in bureaucratic systems such as insufficient dynamism from the ritualistic behaviour. However, these problems and conflicts from bureaucratic systems were resolved via the imposition of new controls and rules that eventually reinforce the bureaucracy (Kallinikos, 2004). For instance, during the resolution process, bureaucracies tend to reproduce themselves by diverting energy to maintain their existence rather than accomplishing their original goal. Consequently, the technical aspect of bureaucracy could not be suitable to the entire types of organizations. Thus, this form can be inefficient and harmful especially when applied to government activities which cannot be reduced to pure repetition and controls (Adler, 1999). Adherence to bureaucratic systems without prior critical analysis can have broader implications including neglecting the overriding missions and goals of the organizations. Bureaucracy fails in an organization when it impedes progress, conflicts with the goals and missions (Hall, 1963). People within the organization may use the bureaucracy for their own selfish gain such as to avoid work or punish the workforce they do not like. If more than one basis for legitimate authority existed in the organization can generate instability and ambiguity though Weber had emphasized that bureaucratic form of authority is stable and clearly defined. As stated by Parsons (1947), organizational efficiency can be undermined if less competent workforce makes authoritative decisions since efficiency is driven by merit-based allocation of positions. The normative attachment to formal rules and regulations that bureaucratic form of organizations champions for give rise to rigid bureaucratic personality type that often becomes obsessed with laid down procedural compliance (Pearce, 2000). According to Melton’s analysis, a bureaucratic personality maintains on the unconditional conformity to the organizational rules and organizations regardless of whether they can advance the aims of the organization or the efficiency of the company (Blau & Meyer, 1971). The rules have become an end in themselves and not the means to an end since organizational behavior took on ritualistic character as opposed to rational one. There is a strict adherence to procedures and methods at the expense of the larger organizational objectives by the employees. Eventually, it can lead to dysfunctional and counterproductive organizational behaviour (Quang & Vuong, 2002). According to Heckscher (1994), argued that mobilization and application of knowledge in the organization can be restricted by bureaucratic segmentation. Therefore, this strategy cannot compete favourably with other new conception of work that is based on collective efforts, teamwork, multiple skills, increasing autonomy and evaluations on results and outcomes. The classical social theory of Weber and Marx accused bureaucracy of suffocating the human spirit and robbing organizational people of their freedom and dignity (Blau & Meyer, 1971). The emergence of instrumental social relations and the division of labour raised the specter of disintegration, normlessness which had negative human consequences. Bureaucratic organization is unable to adapt in a timely fashion to changing conditions. For example, it the organization is faced with varied goals, conditions, then the formal structure can become a rigid obstacle (Pearce, 2000). Consequently, the rational bureaucratic organization is inflexible in nature and is unable to rapidly shift its structures and aim. The segmentation in bureaucratic organization creates a mind-set that fixes the attention of the workforce only on their specific job which produces a kind of parochialism that produces subgoals, conflicting interests and restricted loyalty in place of a universal attachment to the larger organizational mission and vision. Some of the negative consequences due to bureaucracy are rigidity, alienation and low commitment and also it is under criticism for dehumanizing people (Grey, 2005). Personal emotion and moral judgment are liable to distort the bureaucratic system in an organization. Therefore the ability to work without affections is the personal condition for the existence of bureaucracy. The rigidity and inability of adaptation under bureaucratic system becomes a major obstacle to efficiency since outputs may be undervalued by potential clientele (Olsen, 2005). Conclusion Bureaucratic form of organization remains relevant and vital to contemporary organizations which are characterized by routine tasks, large-scale size and that performance hugely relies on high degree of hierarchy and formalization of bureaucratic form. Formalization, hierarchy and staff expertise represent the core characteristics of universal bureaucracy in order to improve the efficiency of the organization. More people in the organization feel freer to participate and are readily involved in the major decision making process with their contributions readily recognized. References Adler, P, S & Borys, B 1996.Two types of Bureaucracy: Enabling and Coercive. Administrative Science Quarterly, pp. 61-89. Adler, P, S 1999. Building better bureaucracies, Academy of Management Review, pp. 36-49. Blau, P. M., & Meyer, M.W, 1971. Bureaucracy in modern society (Rev., 2nd ed.).New York: Random House. Bureaucracy and Formal organization retrieved on 20th December 2012 at http://www.thecanadianencyclopedia.com/articles/bureaucracy-and-formal-organization Bureaucracy, Rationalization and Organization Theory, retrieved on 20th December 2012 at https://www.unf.edu/~djaffee/Org%20Theory/chap5.pdf Erick J. Walton, 2005.The Persistence of Bureaucracy: A Meta-analysis of Weber’s Model of Bureaucratic Control, Organization studies: Sage Publications; 26:569 Grey, Ch 2005 .A very short, fairly interesting and reasonably cheap book about studying organizations. Sage Publications Ltd, London. Gyorgy Gajduschek, 2003. Bureaucracy: Is it efficient? Is it not? Is that the question? Uncertainty reduction: An ignored element of Bureaucratic rationality, Administration & Society, vol.34 No.6, 700-723 Hall, R. H. 1963. The Concept of Bureaucracy: An empirical assessment. American Journal of Sociology, 32-41 Is bureaucracy still relevant to contemporary organization?, retrieved on 21st December 2012 at http://myzon.wordpress.com/2010/10/01/is-bureaucracy-still-relevant-to-contemporary- organization/ Jaffe, D .Organization theory: Tension and change, 1th edn. University of North Florida, New York. Jannis Kallinikos, 2004. The Social Foundations of the Bureaucratic Order, London School of Economics, UK: Sage Publications, vol.11 (1):13-36 Johan P. Olsen, 2008. The Ups and Downs of Bureaucratic Organization: Annual Review of Political Science, Vol. 11: 13-37: Arena Center for European Studies, University of Oslo Johan P.Olsen,2005.Maybe it is Time to Rediscover Bureaucracy, Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, Center for European Studies, University of Oslo, K. Kernaghan, ed, Public Administration in Canada (1982); M. Weber, Economy and Society (vol 3, 1968). Pearce, J. L, 2000. Insufficient bureaucracy: trust and commitment in particularistic organizations. Organization Science, pp. 148-162. Quang, T & Vuong, N, T, 2002. Management Styles and Organizational Effectiveness in Vietnam. Research and Practice in Human Resource Management, 10(2), 36-55. Ronald E. Riggio, 2010. Is the bureaucracy killing you and your organization?, Cutting-Edge Leadership retrieved on 19th December 2012 at http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/cutting-edge-leadership/201003/when- bureaucracy-kills-leadership-and-your-organization The negative consequences of bureaucracy retrieved on 25th December 2012 at http://www.enotes.com/soc/discuss/describe-negative-consequences-bureaucracy-120470 Weber, M, 1966. Max Weber on law in economic and society. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press Weber, M, 1966. The Theory of social and economic organizations. New York: Free Press Read More