Using All Available Organizational Resources to Reach Stated Organizational Goals - Essay Example

Introduction For most of our lives, we are members of one organization or the other – a college, a sports team, a theater group, a religious or civicorganization or a business. Some organizations are structured very formally while others are casually structured. But there is common factor in all the organizations. These organizations, whether formal or informal, are put together and kept together by a group of people who see that there are benefits available from working towards a common goal. The goal would vary in each case, but without a goal no organization would have a reason to exist. The process of planning, organizing, leading and controlling the work of organization members and of using all available organizational resources to reach stated organizational goals is called management. In fact, management is an attempt to create a desirable future, keeping the past and present in mind. It is not only practiced in a specific time frame but is also the reflection of a particular historical era. Therefore management specializes in dealing with matters of time. Management plays another significant part of making and sustaining relationships. Management specializes in the art of juggling multiple simultaneous relationships. Management is a process to emphasize that all managers, regardless of their specific aptitudes and skills, engage in certain interrelated activities to achieve their goals. It is the journey towards the fulfillment of these goals that requires planning and organizing as pre-requisites. Planning implies that managers think through their goals and actions in advance and that their actions are based on some method, plan or logic, rather than a hunch. However to execute these goal-reaching plans effectively, a proper organizing is required. Organizing is the process of arranging and allocating work, authority and resources among an organization’s members so that they can achieve the organization’s goals. Therefore organizational design becomes very significant. Bureaucratic Management: Different perspectives The dynamic engagement approach recognizes that an organization’s environment is not some set of fixed, impersonal forces. Rather, it is a complex and dynamic web of people interacting with each other. Consequently, every organization’s management operates according to certain systems to take care of all in-built and ever-emerging intricacies. There are numerous schools of thought that inspire various management processes. Bureaucracy is one. In the words of Schumpeter Joseph. A (Austrian Economist and Political Scientist), “Bureaucracy is not an obstacle to democracy, but an inevitable compliment to it.” Bureaucracy has been a highly successful form of organization in the preceding century. Though it has been a subject of trial and error evolution, yet it has been considered very rational. Bureaucracy is the concept in sociology and political science referring to the way that the administrative execution and legal rules is socially organized. The experts’ opinion: What the researchers say Noted German political economist and sociologist, Maxmilian Weber considered bureaucracy to be inseparable from the concept of rationality. According to Weber these are some defining characteristics of a bureaucracy: Specification of job with detailed obligations, responsibilities and scope of authority System of supervision and subordination Unity of command Extensive use of written documents Training in job requirements and skills Application of consistent and complete rules Delegation of work and hiring personnel based on competence and experience As per Weber’s contention, bureaucracies offer very systematic processes that not only help to streamline operations but also specify functional areas as well as effective decision-making. Bureaucracy, as per Weber, is a way of organizing large number of people and interactions in a well-laid out hierarchical framework interspersed with rules and a certain code of conduct. Weber saw bureaucracy as the rational product of social engineering as machines were the rational product of Industrial revolution. Max Weber wrote, “ The decisive reason for the advance of bureaucratic organization has been its purely technical superiority over any formal organization. The fully developed bureaucratic mechanism compares with other organizations exactly as does the machine with non-mechanical modes of production." [Weber, 1946]. Philip Selznick, Professor of Law and Sociology, University of California raised serious concerns about the application of bureaucratic systems to certain organizations, as the entire system was too mechanical. He contested that humans are not machines and thus could not imitate such a system. The classical management school advocates for a highly rational system of management where managers make long-term plans and staff members develop control systems and feed data to managers so they can make rational and optimum decisions. Bureaucracy provides an idealistic framework for such an approach. But there are serious reservations to this school of thought. These reservations stem from certain innate loopholes in the bureaucratic system. Bureaucracies excel at businesses involving routine and well-specified tasks. However, they fail to deliver in an ever-expanding and rapidly changing ambit of technology. A concise criticism of this approach is: Bureaucracy advocates a public servant model, while modern systems consider it progressive to voice dissent. Keeping in view the pace and culture of today’s corporate world, approaching every issue through the usual hierarchical mode seems obsolete and regressive. Bureaucracy fails to excel as a neutral administrative system and rather qualifies as a political form of organization, given the fact that there are attempts to disguise its political problems in order to conform more closely to the model of administrative neutralism and accountability. The corporate world is on a spree. What is an innovation today becomes outmoded tomorrow. The pace of change is unbelievable. To add to the trend is the need to go global rather than focus on the local. Globalization of management is a fact of life. It is common to read about Japanese companies making inroads into America and American firms getting into Japan. It’s not just the large organizations that have a global focus. Increasingly small businesses are also becoming global. Companies have internationalized. There has been a sea change in the economic, political and technological environment as well. Globalization has ramified in all its complexity and possibilities. Global economic businesses are affected by a host of economic, political and technological conditions that differ from nation to nation. In this era of changes and advancement, organizations shape and structure themselves to adjust in these circumstances. The organization’s structure also changes accordingly. If Weber’s contention is believed, bureaucracy can be well implemented as a system. Though some inherent problems might ail effective implementation, yet after all the discussion about the strengths and method in the entire system might seem an ideal way out. Significant cases in point There have been numerous companies that adhered to the bureaucratic set up. One of the examples of a high technology industry that used bureaucratic principles in its management operations was TCI. The company’s product was designed as niche software product in a vertical market in order to narrow down the range of competitors. The company was involved in the process of developing new products everyday. It was striving to match with the pace of emerging technology. The work pressure on employees became very high and so did their stress levels. Since everything was bureaucratically organized, a change in systems (which, in fact was the need of the hour) could not be implemented with ease. There was complete chaos and the organization realized that it needed much more than a formal gradation of arbitrary hierarchies. The company was taken over by International Thomson Publishing (ITP) in late 1993. The prevailing bureaucratic set up gave way to cross-functional work teams. Consequently, the individual employees felt more empowered. The hierarchy was given a flat dimension. The sales, marketing, operations and technology managers were designated as team leaders. However, all employees were accountable only to the president. They were not accountable to their managers and team leaders. Ironically, even this trend failed. In fact, the matters got complicated further. The entire set up was again organized autocratically and bureaucratically. It seemed as if coherence and control was coming back. It was then that the company realized that this order was seeping in as the company had initially got over chaos and learnt form past mistakes. It also struck to a realization that systems need to be changed according to changing conditions. A bureaucratic management might be a good option at one point in time, while at other times flexibility becomes the norm. Some bigwigs who have believed in the concept of bureaucratic management include Charles Sorensen (executive in Henry Ford’s empire) and Frank Kulick (Benett). Several studies took place to discuss the role of bureaucracy in any management. Hawthorne studies of 1920 are very significant in this regard. These studies propounded that bureaucratic management was suspicious of the heroic style. This steeps in intuition and mystic callings, which is a dangerous way of operating. The bureaucratic executive, as per these studies, would want to set out with a new vision and direction. This leader adorned transformational attire. But for today’s leader, the journey is different. The present leader reads the situation and keeps a low profile. They are not too risky or too innovative, but they are practically flexible. Two sides of the coin Bureaucracy has several advantages. But it cannot be implemented effectively and efficiently in the current scenario because of so many factors. The foremost factor is its inability to change with the changing conditions. There is so much of rigidity and inertia of procedures that is inherent in any kind of bureaucratic set up. Another disturbing factor is the prevalence of the concept of over-specialization. This discourages individuals to participate in other areas of activity. Consequently, they become ignorant of the wider perspectives. There is an attitude of always correct in the group mentality of any bureaucratic management. Subsequently, they conveniently ignore their weaknesses and limitations. There is lack of critical thinking. There is huge disregard for dissenting opinions in such a set up. Even if there is sufficient data and logic to prove a certain plan of action or agenda as wrongly placed or pitched, dissenting perspectives are criticized. This limits the scope of progress. In fact, this is a setback to the developmental school of thought. Precisely, bureaucracy leaves no stone unturned to frame regulations and procedures. The irony of the situation is that the gamut of these procedures becomes so very complicated that it leads to poor co-ordination and rise of contradictions. There are also some other constraints in a bureaucratic management. Real bureaucracy is less effective in practical situations. Vertical hierarchy in itself is a chaotic pattern. The channels of communication take a closed approach. Since the diffusion of information is very one-directional, the horizons remain stunted. There are conflicts of competence. Many departments remain aloof from major decisions that might be taken exclusively by a certain department. More often than not, competencies might seem unclear and contrary to the spirit of law. At times certain degeneration might happen to a level when the decision dominates over the effect. This is opening the Pandora’s box of troubles. An automatic multiplication of problems like nepotism and corruption could ensue. A situation might arise where people could shun taking responsibility and therefore just make the circumstances more chaotic. Moore’s laws describe bureaucracy very typically. In fact, these laws explain the concept of bureaucracy to be a hurdle in itself in order to achieve goals. The contention offered here is that even if the message that has been communicated were correct, it would get lost in the realms of hierarchy. The ramifications would go till the stage when feedback is obtained. Consequently, a communication process with progressive intentions would just boomerang. Bureaucratic management might also lack fairness and even-handedness. Since all processes are executed as per a documented process, an open exchange of ideas violates the hierarchical flow. Subsequently, transparency takes a backseat. Further criticism goes on to stress upon individual as being more important than the organization. Thus individuals expect returns on their performances. As a result, the organization’s goals convert into short-term goals thus developing a myopic vision. Conclusion Bureaucracy might seem to be a threatening system in the light of the above discussion. In fact, the modern generation equates it to redtapism and worthlessness. But this is not true. The conception of bureaucracy was made on a rationale that is both practical and effective. If applied to the management of any organization, bureaucracy offers a structure of highly operating routine tasks achieved through specialization. It provides the management with a formal framework of rules and regulations to carry out its day-today activities. Bureaucracy implies division of tasks into functional departments to streamline all the operations. Centralized authority, narrow spans of control and decision making, key characteristics of bureaucracy, impart a specificity of function and purpose to any management. The distinct division of labor and segregation of ownership give the management an authority to execute all its functions methodically. Precisely, bureaucracy in management helps in standardization of all the activities. Thorough documentation serves as the beacon of task and workforce management. It is correct to say that bureaucracy may be useful in guiding contemporary organization management given advancements in technology, globalization and transition to a service economy in the light of aforementioned characteristics. But here arises the big question. A service economy is customer-centric. How could a management, which is so rigid in form and function (as per the bureaucratic norms), match up to the changing needs of the contemporary consumer segment? Where does it provide the much needed flexibility? How fast can the documented procedures change, given the pace of changing technology and increasing demands? The answers to these questions are not simple. In fact, a purely bureaucratic management is not an answer to these questions. No doubt, bureaucracy does provide a formal pattern to go about, but the pattern cannot be copied in totem. There has to be a blend of flexibility and patience with respect to the ever-changing circumstances. If these features are incorporated into a bureaucratic framework, things can work out. It is a fact that globalization cannot operate in the gamut of an archetypal hierarchy. Therefore the chain of authority also has to accommodate U-turns and crashes! Given the technical upsurge, the management has to be open towards the environment and its issues. Bureaucracy discourages openness; hence there is a functional block. There have been massive improvements in process, technology application, business planning methods, logistics, use of software, training and other areas. Therefore single point efforts to yield bottom line improvements are becoming less effective. This could also be attributed to external constraints and business pressures. A few examples are competitors, market fluctuations, fast-evolving customer needs, obsolescence of processes and technologies, global competition, off-shoring work, business partnerships, changing laws, international standards and employee trainings. These challenges require a deconstruction of the bureaucratic structure. It is this bureaucratic structure that bars a business to achieve a state of responsiveness, which is indispensable in the modern business age. This is critical to the success of any business because it is totally dependent upon how an organization is structured and how it interacts both internally and externally. The Footnote Bureaucracy is a classical school of thought. If applied in spirit, its benefits are immense. But it cannot do without alterations, mixes and matches to be applied in contemporary management situations. Though organizations may claim abolition of this structure, yet no organization can get rid of it completely. There is bureaucracy in one form or function or the other and it would go on in some form or function always. To put it in the words of Schumpeter Joseph. A (Austrian Economist and Political Scientist), “Bureaucracy is not an obstacle to democracy, but an inevitable compliment to it”. If democracy were replaced with management, the verdict is clear! References Borgatti, Stephen P, Revised April 02,2002, ‘Bureaucracy’, http://analytictech.com/mb021/bureau.htm, viewed on December 3, 2006 Kent, Ray; Martin, Brian; Plumwood, Val; Thomson, Ann, Walters, Rosemary; Watson, Ian, November 1983, ‘1984 and Social Control’, http://www.uow.edu.au/arts/sts/bmartin/pubs/85bureaucracy.html Read More