The Metamorphosis of Bureaucracy: A Critical Analysis of the Prophecy of Bennis - Essay Example

The METAMORPHOSIS OF BUREAUCRACY A Critical Analysis of the Prophecy of Bennis What Nostradamus was to history, Warren G. Bennis is to sociology andmanagement. The oracle of Bennis startled the pitch of management and organizations in the mid 1960s, where the inevitable extinction of bureaucracy was enunciated: “Within the next twenty-five to fifty years, we should all be witness to, and participate in, the end of bureaucracy and the rise of new social systems better able to cope with twentieth-century demands”. The term bureaucracy is generally used to refer to hierarchical structure of the workforce and management of an organization, usually large ones characterized by specific tasks, strict control on internal operations and procedures. It is, however, quite ironic that modern society now use bureaucracy as a critical generalization for inefficiency and red tape (Fisher; Heady). This was not how Max Weber visualized bureaucracy. Weber became the foremost exponent of bureaucracy when it was still in its crude form where bureaucracy and rationality were inseparable. Under such intertwined aspect, the four main elements of Weber’s rational bureaucracy were distinct lines of hierarchical authority, practical specialisation, professional training of administrators or supervisors, and efficient decision making (Borgatti). Weber believed that compared to the fuedal system, bureaucracy is a much better improvement, yet he also has apprehensions that it also becomes an “iron cage of control” (Wang). Practitioners have, however, extended Weber’s ideals of bureaucracy into a social structure distinguished by the following elements : job specifications, system of supervision and subordination, unity of command, general use of written documents and records, skills and competency training, use of rules and policies and hiring of personnel and work assignment based on competence and experience (Borgatti). Beyond Weber’s iron cage, Wang compiled the following perceived dysfunctional aspects of a bureaucracy : red tape from all the rules and the signatures required to get things going, difficulty to transform from this system to another and also the tendency to segment attention and response as a result of division of labor. There were some inadequacies pinpointed on the bureaucratic system of organization. Drawn from the thoughts of Bennis and Miner, the most obvious downside of bureaucracy are summarized in the following statements: (1) Owing to the rigidity of rules and procedures and the specialisation typical of a bureaucracy, it does not promote personal growth and professional maturity; (2) Since the system is run based on the principle of “unity of command”, conformity and “group-think” are developed; (3) Its inflexible structure is not tailored to deal with up-and-coming challenges; (4) The centralized nature of its “unity of command” is considered outdated by emerging theorists even at that time like Bennis and Argyris (Scott and Hart); (5) With all its exacting internal policies and procedures, it does not have an ample judicial framework; (6) Its structure does not have a conciliatory scaffold for conflict resolution; (7) The hierarchical partitions obstruct communication processes and stunt the flourishing of innovative ideas; (8) The climate of mistrust and fear of reprisal do not facilitate development of the fullest potentials of the human resources; (9) The structure does not encourage assimilation of new technology; and (10) From the very words of Bennis, bereaucracy “will modify the personality structure that man will become and reflect the dull, gray, conditioned organization man”. The above-mentioned imperfections of the bureaucratic system led Bennis to toll the bells half a century prior to its prophesied demise. From Miner’s analysis, Bennis’s grim outlook of the prospects of bureaucracy in the twentieth century are “environmental”. Despite Bennis’s genius and revolutionary views, he felt that the vigorous advances in science, the explosion of intellectual technology and the synergistic team-up of research and development will impel bureaucracy to its death. For Bennis, the triad of science, technology and research and development are “incurable diseases” which will cause the eventual demise of bureaucracy instead of viewing them as “vitamins” that can nourish and rejuvenate the system. What Bennis failed to consider is the enormous potential of the human resources, who though he considered restrained by bureaucracy in their personal and professional development, have tremendous capacity for self preservation. He failed to see bureaucracy from the angle that inspite of the hierarchies, inadequacies and rigidity in its structure, it is a dynamic system of individuals who can rise to the occasion when threatened, who can benefit from the advances in science, who can imbibe technology and utilize it for research and for development. I surmise that Bennis might have been too engrossed with his thing on organisations and leadership that on the hindsight, he overlooked the most important element: people – a society who have weathered the unimaginable horrors of two world wars. In retrospect, society is in the homestretch of the fifty-year timeline drawn by Bennis. While I do not completely agree with Bennis, I do not scorn his vision. The prediction might, in fact, have been Bennis’s manner of forewarning society so that mankind will be prepared. I take my hat off to Bennis for what he envisioned more than four decades ago about the possibility of organizations being built around provisional project workforces instead of fixed, demarcated groups – which, I believe, is happening now in giant organizations like Google. Be that as it may, however, Bennis’s views are too drastic for his time. The seeming apprehension of contemporary theorists and management practitioners to embrace the avant-garde approach may be summed up from the combined wisdom of Paynter, Hawkesworth and Logan : “Organizational evolution is likely and probably desirable, but whatever its timing and shape, bureaucracies are likely to remain the most prevalent form of organisation for the foreseeable future. Hence, attention must continue to be focused on how to maximise the positive while minimising the negative influences of bureaucracies as they operate in contemporary society.” My initial readings on Bennis and his prophesied death of bureaucracy made me entertain thoughts about how uninteresting the topic would be. However, further readings showed that the topic is more than just interesting because the man behind the prediction showed that he is not just a theorist but a practitioner by resurrecting bureaucracy in 1973 even before it actually died. I should say that perhaps, he learned in practice about the inevitability of bureacracy for large organizations : “Bureaucracy is the inevitable – and therefore necessary – form for governing large and complex organizations” (Bennis 144). Bennis repeated the rejection of his own theory the following year with his declaration that : “ . . . there will always be a bureaucracy; the sun will never set on bureaucracies” (Bennis 57). I felt rather confused why a brilliant scholar would contradict his own theory. Miner’s book Organizational Behavior: Foundations, Theories, and Analyses, however, tided me over to a mini tour of the most important works of Bennis that have impacted much on the tone of this analysis. In 1975, Bennis (in Miner 588) reaffirmed his “death of bureaucracy” theory by declaring its fulfillment, “ . . . my prediction is already a distinct reality so that my prediction is foreshadowed by practice”. There is now a big difference between Weber’s rational bureaucracy or traditional bureaucracy, Bennis’s dying bureaucracy, or should I say dead bureaucracy, and the bureaucracy of the new millenium which was Bennis’s resurrected bureacracy. Though the pyramid-style organization characteristic of bureaucracy has weathered the times, at least the corporate world has risen from its slumber in time to admit the need for a paradigm shift from the pyramidal “command and control” to innovative models like the “connect and collaborate” represented by a series of interlocking circles (Peter), fluidity (Willax) and flatness (Foegen). The element of “flatness” entered the geometry of modern and more effective organizations courtesy of technology, which Bennis said would spell the end of beaurocracy. Instead, technology became instrumental in facilitating the lines of communication obstructed by too many restrictions in Bennis’s dying bureaucracy. In the same vein, “fluidity” rejuvenated the overbearing rigidity which limited the growth, creativity and innovativeness of the workforce. The “interlocking circles” transformed control of the organization from then pyramidal or centralized “unity of command” to that of empowerment and teamwork. During the course of time, some of the ills of traditional bureaucracy were healed by embracing reforms. In essence, such reforms worked like “vaccines” to what Bennis presaged to be “incurable diseases” of his dying bureacracy. Assimilating technology seemed like flu shots that reinvigorated the ailing framework to accomplish its objectives better. In other words, integrating empowerment, teamwork, fluidity and flatness to the otherwise pyramid organization constituted what Argyris envisioned that “the pyramidal organization can be helped to grow more with decentralisation” (Argyris 321) and is basically the core of Bennis’s resurrected bureaucracy. Bennis’s resurrected bureaucracy is not, however, the same as the dead bureaucracy. Without such typical features as pyramid structure, it is not bureaucracy. Without unity of command, bureaucracy ceases to be ideal (Jex). In other words, Bennis’s dead bureaucracy is not the same resurrected bureaucracy, but a metamorphosis of one to the other in response to the dictum of the hour. As a result of this metamorphosis, the bucreaucratic system of the new millenium now treasures professional growth either through continuing education and competency training. Although rules are still rigd, considerable flexibility has been introduced into the metamorphosed system to allow corresponding growth and development of each member of the workforce. Since the pyramid of authority has been flattened, the conformists of the dead bureaucracy have to do better than kowtow and agree to the prevailing ideas in the office, they need to be creative and innovative. Group-think is relegated to the minimum when brainstorming for fresh ideas in the resurrected bureaucrary, where even deviant ideas may shine or may at least be heard without being ridiculed – a chance it will never have in Bennis’s idea of the dead bureaucracy. The fluidity and dynamicity of the resurrected bureaucracy deals and addresses every up-and-coming challenge in a unique way, like Google or IBM and other big companies. Unity of command is replaced in the resurrected bureaucracy with empowerment and delegation of authority. The missing elements of the dead bureaucracy – juducial and reconciliation system is instituted in a resurrected bureaucracy through a system of unquestionable integrity, with laws flexible enough to apply to different situations, amidst a climate of trust and free from fear of reprisal. The technology being feared in the dead bureaucracy is the same technology that powers and scaffolds innovation in the resurrected bureaucracy. And finally, a member of the workforce in a resurrected bureaucracy exudes his own personality into his work or his projects, which serves as his personalized signature in the system apart from whether he holds a distinct position or is a member of a working team. With such metamorphosis, Bennis’s resurrected democracy, which we call today as modern beaureaucracy is believed to have a better chance of thriving in a changing system of ideals, priorities, goals and expected outcomes. It seems remarkable how bureaucracy blossom and survived through thousands of years with the rough versions of this social system having worked well in the administration of irrigation systems for the farmlands earlier in the history of mankind, as well as in winning the battles of the Roman army, in running the day-to-day affairs of the Roman Catholic church, etc. The same basic principles of the bureaucracy in the aforementioned applications have just been reinforced in today’s society where bureaucracy continued its domination of the administration of various large agencies of todays modern corporations – the new bureaucracy. The new bureaucracy, today’s bureaucracry is powered with new technology. Modern times dictate that new technology unlocks the keys to the portals of new potentials. As bureaucracy metamorphosed, the same things are now being carried out in a different manner. Restrained communication is revolutionized by interconnectivity via networks and databases anywhere and everywhere. And this is the trend that has allowed man to be the master of his own time – quite a remote occurrence during Bennis’ dead bureaucracy. New technology allowed society to continuously use bureaucracy in spite of its inadequacies (Davis). It will, however, be grossly inaccurate to claim that the lifeblood of modern bureaucracy is information technology, in the same way that traditional democracy is dependent on administrative power (Bendix). There are two specific traits, according to Bendix, that characterises the modern bureaucracies of western Europe and North America : monopoly of skill and monopoly of power. Monopoly of skill means that the supervisory personnel enjoys some kind of administrative independence because of their relevant technical skills. A monopoly of power, on the other hand, which is usually enjoyed by bureaucratic governments, refers to the control by the bureaucratic structure of essential public utilities, such that overthrowing the government will involve disruption of public services. Corroborating Davis, Riggs acknowledged that bureaucracy has been an essential institution of government for several thousand years tracing its [bureaucracy] existence from the traditional empires and ancient kingdoms where the Chinese, the Roman, and the Ottoman Empires belong to the most familiar and successful bureaucracies. Seen from the perspective of a chain of command with appointed officials of the Ottoman and Roman Empires, another characteristic of the dead bureaucracy is that bureaucracies were never ever democratic either in purpose or organization. During those times, bureaucracies were devised designed to enable monarchs, who where usually autocratic leaders to manage spheres of influence, to inflate those influences into even larger areas of dominion, and at the same time to protect such empires from belligerence of rival empires or rebellion from among its ranks. Little by little … time after time … bureaucracies of antiquity diversified its functions until more modern and advance societies started to infuse democratic procedures to give in to the demands of their time and compelled by popular clamor for representative governance, industrialisation, and the rising tide of nationalism. Man’s quest for development and the new prospects of modernism found vast use and recourse for expanding traditional bureaucracies from its controlling function into formidable dragons able to subjugate and control subject populations with efficacy. Riggs even suspected that some forms of traditional bureaucracy have evolved to approximate the framework of modern imperialism. In such context, democratic modern states formulated bureaucratic mechanisms in order to maintain its foothold of their colonies and its people. Riggs, therefore propounded that “no bureaucracies, modern or traditional, are democratic” – instead, they are administrative and hierarchic . . . and therefore, undemocratic[?]. This is, in essence, is perhaps the underlying rationale that traditional bureaucracy had to die as portended by Bennis in the 1960s. This was why Bennis solicited peoples’ commitment to take part in the death of the old bureaucracy. With all the strengths that embodied bureaucracy, Bennis’ vision of its death may be poetically compared to the legendary phoenix of old who proverbially rose from its own ashes in full splendour and glory. As the new and more powerful evolution of bureaucracy came forth – thus emerged bureaucracy reloaded! Democracies have now assimilated bureaucratic structures now tempered under popular control to boot out traces of the autocratic old nature. With such control possible, democratic governments have utilised bureaucracies to serve the public trust with the power and candour that has made bureaucracy an indispensable social system but less the constrictive control that rendered it autocratic and unpopular. As Riggs feared, however, man’s unchanged desire for power has caused resuscitation of the old bureaucracy and the ills that drive it to function as a mode of dominance, misuse and abuse. And Riggs fears is not without basis. There are simply some people who refused to let Bennis’ dead bureaucracy to rest in peace. This is the bureaucracy that we find in today’s news where tyrannical and despotic governments “rely on bureaucracies to sustain and maintain their ruthless domination” (Riggs). This is the same bureaucracy that Bennis wanted mankind to do without . . . the same bureaucracy that man would be better off without. . . and the very same bureaucracy that Bennis would rather believe to have died. It is only now that I have full grasp of Bennis’ wisdom when he made it look as if he were contradicting his own theory of the death of bureaucracy. What Bennis wished to accomplish then was not to bury bureaucracy per se, but to do away with the autocracy that a bureaucratic structure brought with it. Bennis’s idea of death to bureaucracy is to whisk off the color of tyranny because in such state, bureaucracy and democracy would be antithetical (Peters and Pierre) and could never enjoy a happy marriage. A number of authors have tackled the issue of the feasibility of such marriage between bureaucracy and democracy (Meier; Etzioni-Halevy; Gormley and Balla). Meier who asks “How can the necessity of bureaucracy be reconciled with the values of democracy?”, argued that since the matter concerning the marriage of bureaucracy and democracy have been extended to issues of governance rather than governments, organizational structure has taken many different forms, thus integrating democracy into bureaucracy has remained a foremost concern even in the twenty-first century. There have been three central issues in Meier’s book which described the ensuing tension surrounding the synergy of democracy and bureaucracy, especially in today’s governments and complex institutions. These are : 1. In a strict sense, the ideals of bureaucracy are not exactly congruent to the various contemporary executive settings of modern governance. A common ground in these administrative settings are networks, which do not approximate the theoretical perspectives of either public administration or political science. 2. Bureaucratic values oftentimes take paramount importance over the outcomes of policy. Yet, while bureaucracy is capable of representative or democratic procedures, it is not an affirmation that democratic governance is weaker than that of a bureaucracy. 3. Given the most favourable scenario for a pyramidal organisation control, a bureaucracy can wield pressure over relevant policy outcomes even when there is no political will or intention for such to occur. And conversely, even while performing a representative or democratic function, a bureaucracy can manipulate itself based on its own schema rather than political or popular will. If indeed, bureaucracy is capable of creating such support for democracy, Meier can not help but doubt if such theoretical “representativeness” is a panacea of a Chimera - the panacea that can heal the many ill of today’s democratic societies or Greek mythology’s monstrous Chimera made from different parts of various animals. Is Bennis’ resurrected bureaucracy cured of the illnesses which caused its death be the wonder treatment of society? Or would the combined negative aspects of bureaucracy and democracy be mankind’s ultimate tormentor? Theorists and academics are highly receptive of such a bond between bureaucracy and democracy owing to the appeal of a “values based option for reconciling the ideas of inevitable bureaucratic discretion and responsiveness to popular preferences” (Meier). Seen in such context, this constitutes a panacea for society and governance. However, it can not always be a remote possibility that bureaucrats who are directly representing vox populi (the voice of the people) will force their interests on the bureaucracy, thus exposing the Chimera. Somehow, Bennis foresaw the inevitability of a bureaucracy, hand in hand with the certainty that the despicable element of this bureaucracy should also be made extinct. Putting Meier’s apprehensions on the bureaucracy-democracy nexus on reasonable ground are Gormley and Balla, who considers bureaucracy as a relevant aspect of American governance. It can not be denied, however that bureaucracy in a democratic governance is more often than not misunderstood, maligned and belittled without recognizing the contributions of such structures and the actors supporting its use in the formulation and execution of public policy. I consider the American version of bureaucracy in a democracy as a necessary evil – not because it has done more harm than good but because in spite of its relevant input to the outcomes of policy and implementation, its use allow the government critics to vilify sustained effort for merging the “best of two worlds” giving way for such derogatory phrases as red tape or cutting the fat. In the endgame, thirty-three years after Bennis buried his dead bureaucracy, I wondered if it had died in vain. I am beginning to harbour thoughts that the new bureaucracy – bureaucracy reloaded is all hype, and a treatise of fiction, rather than fact. After all, if the nexus defining bureaucracy and democracy remains enigmatic, society would have lost the chance of scoring a feat towards governance. Be that as it may, I can live for the meantime assured that for all it is worth : “Bureaucracy has become indispensable for the modern state whatever its economic arrangement” (Turner). Works Cited Argyris, Chris. Integrating the individual and the organization. Levittown, New York: Transaction Publishers, 1997. Bendix, Reinhard. "Methods and Theory." Turner, Bryan S. Max Weber:Critical Responses. New York: Routledge, 1999. 158-159. Bennis, Warren G. "The coming death of bureaucracy." Think (1966): 30-35. —. The Leaning Ivory Tower. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass, 1973. Borgatti, Stephen. Bureaucracy. 2 April 2002. 29 April 2008 . Davis, Amy. "Bureaucracy." 2000. 28 April 2008 . Etzioni-Halevy, Eva. Bureaucracy and Democracy. New York: Routledge, 1983. Foegen, J. H. "Management geometry continues to change." 8 November 1996. Minneapolis St. Paul Business Journal. 28 April 2008 . Heady, Ferrel. "Bureaucracies." Paynter, John, Mary Hawkesworth and Maurice Kogan. Encyclopedia of Government and Politics. Oxford: Routledge, 1992. 304-313. Jex, Steve M. Organizational Psychology. New Jersey: Wiley Publishing, 2002. Gormley, William T. Jr. and Steven J. Balla. "Bureaucracy and Democracy: Accountability and Performance." Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory 1 January 2006: 215. Meier, Kenneth J. Bureaucracy in a Democratic State: A Governance Perspective. Maryland: USA: John Hopkins University Press, 2006. Miner, John B. Organizational Behavior: Foundation, Theories and Analyses. New York: Oxford University Press, 2002. Peter, Bill. "Pyramid-style organizations must fall in 21st Century." 23 December 2005. San Antonio Business Journal. 28 April 2008 . Peters, B. Guy and J. Pierre. "Bureaucracy and Democracy." not dated. 28 April 2008 . Riggs, Fred W. "Modernity and Bureaucracy." Public Administration Review 1997: Vol. 57. Scott, William G. and David K. Hart. "The moral nature of man in organizations: a comparative analysis." The Academy of Management Journal (1971): 241-255. Turner, Stephen P. The Cambridge Companion to Weber. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press., 2000. Wang, Kun. "Bureaucracy Defined." not dated. Horse Sense at Work website. 28 April 2008 . Willax, Paul. "Fluid is the word in 21st century organizational structure." 22 June 2001. Business First. 28 April 2008 . Read More