Legitimate Authority and Bureaucracy - Article Example

? Reflection: Legitimate ity and Bureaucracy Within this article, one of the main ideas is the concept of a 'pure' form of legal ity based on rational grounds. This concept is based on the idea that there are positions in public, private and non-profit organizations in which individuals achieve legitimate authority through the simple process of being appointed to an office. In this situation, the individual is given authority based on others' subservience to the office he or she holds rather than to the individual him or herself. This is different from other forms of legitimate authority in that the obedience is owed to the impersonal order of the hierarchy rather than to the individual within that position. In its pure form, which the author is quick to point out has not yet been discovered 'in nature', this form of authority rests on the individual's fitness to fulfill the legal obligations of the office he or she holds. This fitness is based on the person's specific training and demonstration of competence to carry out the duties of that office. Obedience is owed to that office and the legal elements it governs, but does not extend outside of this sphere in any way. The office itself is not a personal space for the individual filling it but is rather a space reserved for the carrying out of the legal duties of the position the person fills. Both in seeking redress and in issuing commands, the order of the established hierarchy is followed and each office within the hierarchy is filled with other individuals equally tested and deemed fit to fulfill the duties of that particular office. In theory, a hierarchy established on this pure form would run like clockwork, each individual acting within the boundaries of his or her office to which he or she is perfectly suited and trained and governed by clear laws of operation. Only the business of the office is conducted with little or no personal overlap of outside interests. To ensure all runs smoothly, there are set salaries for each of the positions within the hierarchy and all compensation is fulfilled in terms of money rather than 'in-kind' benefices. This is because benefices are difficult to quantify and often carry with them external, additional obligations. This type of authority, in an imperfect form, is found throughout the world almost every time you turn around. The republic of the United States is formed on such a system in which the President is elected to his office and appoints a number of supposedly qualified individuals to fill specific offices within his administration, each of which has their own set of obligations and responsibilities, their own hierarchical structure below them, and their own set of laws to follow regarding how they conduct business. This is only an imperfect example, though, because it is not necessarily true that the electorate will vote for the most qualified candidate for President or that the elected President will place the most qualified candidates within the individual offices within his administration. Compensation for offices are frequently a mixture of salaries based on money and benefices consisting of favors, gifts, or other positive outcomes for the recipient. While behavior is ruled by law, there is often a great deal of politics occurring within this hierarchy, providing means by which laws are bent, broken, amended or over-ruled based upon a different system of obligation. Many of these same issues are also present in smaller organizations in which this form of authority is in place. These include corporations of all types as well as non-profit, philanthropic endeavors. Of course, in these smaller organizations, the rules can be bent to a greater or lesser degree simply because they are company policies rather than actual laws. In addition, the appointment of individuals to different offices can be based on things such as personal relationships or favors owed rather than actual fitness and training specific to the tasks of the office. In almost all systems of this sort, there is some reliance on the other forms of legitimate authority based on traditional or charismatic grounds (Cline, 2012). An older CEO will automatically receive quicker authority than a 20-year-old CEO placed in the same office simply because of the tendency of people to grant traditional authority to older people. A charismatic 20-year-old can overcome this issue, however, as more people are willing to carry out their functions in hopes of receiving praise from the friendly CEO, and more willing to accept his authority, as compared to the grumpy older man. It is hard not to agree with this concept because reading through it makes it very clear how it could contribute to a very well-run organization, but it doesn't seem possible or necessarily all that desirable. Within this system, everyone has a specific place and a specific function they are expected to fulfill. When problems occur, they have a specific course of action to follow, leaving very little room for doubt or hesitation. However, there is little room for actual growth, no room for innovation and change would be difficult to achieve. Responding quickly to changing conditions would also be difficult as it would require getting all of the possibly involved offices to agree. In addition, I think it's unrealistic to assume that individual people would be able to function within such a mechanized system without something important breaking down. People relate to people as people. As MacDonald (2011) says, "people are not rational authorities," and cannot be expected to behave in a rational fashion at all times as this system would require. Even in its pure form, there is indication that this type of authority relies to some extent on traditional authority and charismatic authority, recognizing that you cannot take the human out of the office which is the only way the pure form could work. Finally, this system seems highly incapable of dealing with exceptions to the rule. There is no way a system of laws can be developed that addresses every eventuality, every possibility. Therefore, there must be a means of looking at the exceptions as exceptions, which itself opens the door for corruption of the system and potential break down. References Cline, Austin. (2012). "Modernized, Rationalized Bonds of Office." Agnosticism/Atheism. MacDonald, A. (2011). "Rational Authority." The Expliment Journal. Retrieved from http://explimentjournal.com/2011/10/05/2-rational-authority/. Weber, Max. (1947). "Legitimate Authority and Bureaucracy." The Theory of Social and Economic Organization. A.M. Henderson & T. Parsons (Trans.) New York: Macmillan. Read More