Evolution of the Bureaucratic Model - Essay Example

Evolution of the Bureaucratic Model From ic Theories to Managerial Theories This essay discusses the evolution of the bureaucratic model from classic theories to managerial strategies with examples to assess strengths and weaknesses of different theorists’ arguments. Three classic theories that have fundamentally defined how we think about work organisations today, their nature and implications are those of Durkheim, Weber and Marx. They detail in their own way, how organisations should function and the consequences for its employees and the wider society. Karl Marx documented the trend towards increasing bureaucracy but it was Max Weber who studied in detail the bureaucratic structure and processes of organisations. In doing so, he considered “diverse cultural systems of administration” (Nickinovich, 2000, p. 266) and studied the intricate relationship between power and authority. Weber saw all large organisations as bureaucratic in nature and the need to control and regulate work routines. Emile Durkheim was much less concerned with matters of work and organisation than Weber and Marx (Lincoln, 2004) but did write substantially on culture, which has an indirect significance for the study of organisations. Weber argued that organizations are means of coordinating human activities and what they produce in a systematic way, and emphasized the role of controlling information in developing organisations as well as written rules related to its functioning. In short, his concept of the bureaucratic organisation is characterised by a clear hierarchical structure, rules and regulations, division of labour and specialisation etc. In a bureaucracy, roles and relationships are clearly defined, and it is based on a legal-rational type of authority derived “from the belief in the legitimacy of law” (Nickinovich, 2000, p. 267). Also in a bureaucracy, offices are clearly specified and officials are appointed on the basis of a contract being subject to a unified control and disciplinary system (Salaman reader, p. 98-99). Weber regarded bureaucracy as “the most efficient way of running large organisations” (Buchanan, 1997, p. 366) because of its rational basis, and likened them to sophisticated machines. He also associated it with precision, reliability and speed. It is the standardisation in terms of rules and procedures to govern employee behaviour and decisions taken according to set criteria, that gives bureaucracy its strength. This is because “rules serve to direct individual action in ways that promote the technical efficiency of the organisation” (Nickinovich, 2000, p. 268). Contrary to Weber regarding bureaucracy as efficient, in practice it is also considered to be inefficient, so much so that the term ‘bureaucracy’ now has some negative connotations as it did originally. It is associated nowadays “with red tape, inefficiency and wastefulness” (Giddens, 1998, p. 286). An over-emphasis on control leads to “a position where categorisation is so restricted that the search for alternatives that is essential to decision-making becomes self-restricted” (Salaman) making the bureaucracy dysfunctional. Even Weber himself did fear that the success of bureaucracy “would produce a deadening effect on people” (Buchanan, 1997, p. 369) whereby they are found be unresponsive to individuals and groups. There is thus a reduction in personalised relationships. Furthermore, he admitted in an introduction to one of his edited works, “Situations of such pure type have never existed in history…” (Nickinovich, 2000, p. 268). He understood that in reality only some of the properties are exhibited by bureaucratic organisations and in varying degrees. In addition, in spite of the potential technical benefits, Weber noted that bureaucratic systems of administration led to a monopolization of information, and an inability to change structure due to “vested incentive and reward systems” (Nickinovich, 2000, p. 269). In the 1950s, many sociologists produced studies of the ‘dysfunctions of bureaucracy’. For example, in The Dynamics of Bureaucracy, Peter Blau (1955) noted that “for rationality to prevail throughout the organisation it becomes necessary for there to be low discretion roles where individual organisation members are denied the opportunity of using their own judgement…” (Salaman). So he studied two US government agencies viz. a federal law enforcement and a state employment agency, “to examine how the formally and officially defined rules and regulation of these two organisations were carried out in practice” (Salaman). In the latter organisation, it was found that some formal rules and procedures were adjusted so as to allocate the unemployed to jobs more expeditiously. He observed there was more cooperation than competition amongst officials. In the federal law enforcement agency, infringement of rules by not reporting attempted bribery of agency workers was actually found to be “more effective from the point of view of achieving its stated goals” (Salaman). These findings suggest, “the original formal model of bureaucracy could benefit from some modification” (Salaman). The impersonal nature of bureaucracy tends to lead to greater job dissatisfaction and lower productivity. That is why Blau recommends less centralisation, more participatory roles, and greater discretion in interpreting rules and procedures instead. Blau’s arguments for more functional changes to the traditional bureaucratic structure have influenced later thinkers who see organisational structure as being “capable of adaptation to particular circumstances“ (Salaman). This also implies that Weber’s pure form of bureaucracy is not so functional after all. A similar French study by Crozier (1964) of two state bureaucracies also showed a correspondence between greater emphasis on bureaucratic imposition and greater inefficiency and ineffectiveness. However, Crozier suggested that under certain circumstances, bureaucracies can be beneficial. For example, “detailed specifications of jobs have obvious advantages…” as involvement by employees can be kept to a minimum, and employers can give low discretion roles for employees. He also suggests that bureaucratization leads to the emergence of two distinct sub-cultures. In the second state bureaucracy he studied, a tobacco factory, maintenance workers on whom the production workers depended, perceived themselves to be in a relatively greater position of power because only they could carry out necessary repairs or stop production workers from losing money when vital machinery needed repairs. These observations led him to believe that erratic rule following in a bureaucracy becomes “a mechanism of self-protection” (Salaman) due to behaviour becoming less predictable. This creates uncertainty in the organisation. These days the classical bureaucratic model has given way to organisations with different structures and processes though bureaucracies also continue to exist as well. Many western corporations for example are following the Japanese model characterised by bottom-up decision making, less specialisation, and group oriented production. We shall focus on small business organisations as an alternative to the large-scale bureaucratic organisations. Small business organisations also thrive in the modern business environment. Starting a small business has greater risks but offers greater opportunities “in terms of the benefits to the owners, their impact on economic growth, the number of jobs they provide, and their service to the consumer” (Salaman). Self-employment allows owners to be their own boss, and have greater control over running their business, as well as being “the pathway to real wealth, social mobility and perhaps political power in the local community” (Salaman). In practice, it can have its downsides too as risk of failure can mean “serious financial loss for the owner and their family” (Salaman). In addition, the owner can expect to face longer working hours, and have to cope with greater stress and frustration. Then there is a fear that if such businesses do become successful, they can “either become prime candidates for a takeover bid by a larger firm [as in the case of IBM] or fear a loss of control that inevitably comes with growth” (Salaman). As far as the government is concerned it sees small firms “as an essential ingredient of a healthy economy, and functioning as ‘seedbeds’ for future big business besides “filling gaps in the marketplace by offering specialist products that would be uneconomic for the large firm to offer” (Salaman). Their existence also alleviates problems of unemployment and redundancy. Also, in the event of larger firms closing, it lessens the impact from “overdependence on a few large firms for employment” (Salaman) by providing employment diversity. For example, when Courtaulds shut down operations in Skelmersdale, Lancashire it had serious consequences. More fundamentally, compared to large bureaucratic organisations, the smaller firm is “inherently more flexible and innovative” (Salaman). Once larger firms have ‘rationalised their operations” smaller firms plug useful gaps. For example, large bus companies operate major bus routes but smaller companies are better able to cater for rural routes, which would be uneconomic for the larger companies. On the other hand, larger companies have greater purchasing power, and can invest in greater research and development (R&D). But this R&D tends to be “along predictable lines” whereas smaller firms may be inventive but “often lack the development capital for successful innovation” (Salaman). Despite this there are examples of inventions such as air conditioning and cellophane that originated from individual entrepreneurs rather than R&D labs of big companies. Although bureaucracies have been frequently criticised, especially due to the red tape and inefficiencies, they are regardless an important part of modern society in which many everyday tasks are performed. Weber considered the bureaucracy as a highly rational, and the most efficient form of social organisation. The issue of control is central to a bureaucracy as its success depends to a great extent on the laying down of rules and making them known by all, Thus maximising the exercise of control determines how the bureaucratic organisation is to be structured. The contrast with smaller business organisations shows that bureaucracies can also stifle innovation, which is an essential ingredient of modern managerial theories. Hence, although bureaucracies continue to exist for many large organisations, many business organisations are seeking and taking advantage of alternative models more conducive to the competitive demands of the present day. Nonetheless, we see that the bureaucratic model and Weber’s ideas have left an indelible mark on these types of organisations too, not least in the way in which a structured approach can guide the defining of roles and responsibilities within the organisation. References Blau, Peter. (1955) The Dynamics of Bureaucracy. Quoted in Salaman course text. Buchanan, David and Huczynski, Andrzej. (1997) Organizational Behaviour: an introductory text. Third edition. Great Britain: Prentice Hall. Crozier, Michel. (1964) The Bureaucratic Phenomenon. Quoted in Salaman course text. Giddens, Anthony. (1998) Sociology. Third edition. Great Britain: Polity Press. Lincoln, J. R. and Guillot, D. (2004) A Durkheimian View of Organizational Culture. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Sociological Association, Hilton San Francisco & Renaissance Parc 55 Hotel, San Francisco, CA. http://www.allacademic.com/meta/p_mla_apa_research_citation/1/0/9/5/9/p109592_index.html [May 27, 2009]. Nickinovich, David G. (2000) Bureaucracy. Encyclopedia of Sociology. Second edition. Borgatta, Edgar F. (Ed.). Volume 1, pp. 266-273. New York: Macmillan Reference USA. Salaman, Gramem. () Understanding Business Organisations. Routledge, Taylor & Francis Group, The Open University. Read More