Bureaucratic Instrumentally Rational Organizations - Essay Example

? of Learning: Are Bureaucratic Instrumentally Rational organizations Introduction The bureaucraticnorms significance on the globalization paying field is in their ability to open to the normative pluralism kinetic dimensions. The same aspect has been employed in the manner in which bureaucratic norms of various organizations ensure that they operate effectively in opening up to international law sphere, normative orders and several strands globally. This implies that bureaucratic norms result in different interaction orders and in some cases into a course of collision with each other. Consequently, the normative pluralism picture can be seen as being static in the event that the crucial role it plays on bureaucratic norms in associating synchronizing and mediating divergent normative order is not put into consideration. At this juncture, the bureaucratic norms picture viewed as a normative pluralism dynamo as mentioned above would be incomplete if the classic critique of Max Weber on bureaucratic rationalization on organization is not mentioned. In his critique, Weber concentrates on one bureaucratization; that is rationality. Rationality and in this context, within organizations implies a deeper phenomenon in the society than the normal bureaucratic competition as it involves a pervasive mindset that is profit-seeking involving the assessment of every organization aspect including moral pursuit in relation to the organizations risks and potential benefits irrespective of the organization’s inherent value. Modern organization have taken after the ‘pure intentions flame’ motive by Weber some of which have blindly pursued their selected normative and strategic objectives without putting into consideration the intentions expense that are being pursued by the wider socio-ethical factors or bureaucratic considerations (Cuff, Sharrock and Francis 1998,p. 67). In such a case, rationality bears advantages such as boosting organization performance through motivating the expansion of their desired normative orders in an effective manner as well as leading to the downfall of the organization through generating an expansionist and bind zeal. In the current situation facing organizations globally, rationality can in some cases overheat spilling over beyond all other theorists thus leaving Max Weber to be regarded as the bureaucracy systematic study founder. This makes most of the arguments and discussions on bureaucratic rationality being developed on his theories. This paper has been formulated and fountainhead from his empirical and theoretical inquiry into organization bureaucracy. The main anxiety according to Weber’s argument is based on the political and social system of organizations. This paper focuses on the history of bureaucracy, post bureaucracy, the ideal type of bureaucracy with regards to the superiority of rationality in relation to legal authority. Despite the different perceptions of the ideal type of bureaucracy, rationality in organizations has been fountainhead for much empirical and theoretical inquiry into bureaucracy. History and Ideal Bureaucracy In the past, bureaucracy was looked at the main institution characteristic of differentiated and complex societies (Giddens 2000, p. 35). In his definition, Weber tries to come up with an operational system that merits in the society and is determined by what can be referred to as the ideal type of bureaucracy with regards to its essential characteristics whose validity remains in the whole idea of rationality. The ideal type of bureaucracy was in the past employed to resolve multiple situations as well as other factors that existed in society and organizations. The characteristics of such type of bureaucracy were based on to describe how each given situation should perform in an effort to effectively reach an organization as an individual. This has however received much criticism and has been termed as being imaginary and that it cannot be applicable in real organization situations. Some of the sociologists who came out strongly criticizing this kind of bureaucracy includes Clegg and Courpasson and had their own definition of an ideal type of bureaucracy. According to the two, an ideal type of bureaucracy does in no way correspond to the reality but is out to condense the important features of it in one model to enable one recognize better its real characteristics in the event that it is encountered. To them, ideal bureaucracy does not involve the embodiment of a selected aspect or position but the ideational representation synthesis of complex phenomena putting them into reality (Giddens 2000, p. 35). In his argument, Weber came up with three types of power that gives rise to the authority structure of the organization namely; the traditional form, the charismatic form and the rational-legal form. Traditional authority was developed on in traditions beliefs as well as the person’s legitimacy that represents such traditions even as charismatic authority is meant to pursue people with magical convincing powers (Haralambosn and Holborn 2006, p. 90). Weber regards the third authority as being the superior of the three as it offers bigger spectrum of people who are in a position to gain authority in justified means. The rational-legal authority remains on the legitimacy patterns belief of standard rules which offer certain privileges to the people brought up to authority in the issuing of orders. The authority is considered as being held responsible by legally coming up with impersonal commands as well as expanding to people only through the virtue of the positions they occupy. According to Weber, in the event of legal authority, obedience remains in the hands of impersonal order that have been legally established. In relation to organization structure, the ideal type of bureaucracy is characteristic of the legal rules and norms applied to all organizations that have been officially constituted. Weber looks at bureaucracy as organizations goals oriented on rational principles so as to attain their goals in the most effective ways. For the rational-legal authority of any organization to be able to attain its complete effectiveness, it has to lead the acceptance validity of specified characteristics. Rationalism has the organization’s administration divided to a number of departments with each department having special workforce. Each office has areas of responsibility that have been clearly defined resulting to the effective establishment of manageable tasks and not complex duties that are time consuming and slow. More so, employees in the identified departments are not selected by appointed and this is on the basis of their technical competence. By working together, such characteristics are in such a manner that they promote a joint goal shared within the organization and increase the organization administrative efficiency. By referring to the ideal type of bureaucracy in a social system that is rational may be regarded as an approach to do away with nepotism and facilitate meritocracy. Following the acknowledgement by Weber on formal rationality in relation to goal achievement and effectiveness, formal rationality was considered as the direction principle of action meant to abstract formal norms and rules to an impersonal order (Weber 2007.p. 41). Power and Authority Weber described power as the ability of a person to showcase his or her will upon others regardless of available opposition (Weber 2000, p. 82). However Hamilton contradicts the original version of the definition of power by Weber as he points out an error in the specific phrase when it is translated in English. He argued that power means any opportunity to implement once an individual or collective will against resistance. In regard to Parsons, he defines power as the chances within a social relationship that one can be able to meet his or her own ends despite opposition. From observation we can see that the definitions vary from one author to another for example Weber wrote his book using his own language and later translated it to the second language and thus its meaning changed .In summary from the analysis by all authors power can be generally defined as the ability to display a greater domination over others . Power can further be divided into two types. The first one is the ability to determine the desires of others that makes one to be able to control them thus have authority over the person .This can be seen where the officer commands for authority and the workforce follow the orders. Etzioni stresses on the fact power can be reduced greatly if the omission of Weber investigation of how the domination is brought about. Internal power within an organization is vital because a person in authority can be tempted to manipulate his or her power and go beyond the limits of the authority not considering the official rules that is supposed to abide by and force a worker with less authority to perform acts that are way out of his working line. Authority, as the controller in the ideal type of organization is orderly inherited from the down most power to the top power of the organization. It is based on the faithfulness of the members of the organization to the requirements that are associated with their official rules. The officer will deal with the main difficulties that contribute towards a good and sustainable relation to the targeted goals of the organization. Weber differentiate the three types of authority as the charismatic, traditional and the rational -legal authority as stated in the ideal type of bureaucracy. He states that in reference to the legal authority, people obey the person kept in charge of authority and this constitutes the individual carrying out the legal authority. However in terms of rational legal authority the society is given the will to search for a competent person to take the leadership position. This may be mostly due to the negligence of authority by unreliable person that took power by inheritance. In Weber perception authority can be termed as power accepted to be suitable to the people the power is exercised upon. Authority is constant and it is distributed evenly to certify the people it acts upon. This is achieved through calculations of technical knowhow’s and with experience individuals although this is different in organizations where the authority varies according to ranks. Rudolph and H.Rudolph pointed out that if officers may have more demands than those highlighted in the rules this may give a negative appeal to the essential of power in society. Weber believes that officers are guided by their desire to deliver effectively and their knowledge of how best to work and they will not seek any guidance in the name of exercising power . Centrally Weber believes that struggles in power are brought about by more than expertise in bureaucrats. He stated that the subjects will not be afraid of opposing the bureaucrats power and in turn they will abide by the rules and provisions of the formal role but he did not imagine they will see the power as against authority or did he anticipate that the lower participants could need so much supervision thus increasing the need for more officers to promote effectiveness in delivering for organizations. STRENGTHENERS AND WEAKNESSES STRENGTHENERS Weber ‘s type of bureaucracy has been a topic of discussion following the little research on the same and this was proven not worthy by several scientists .He is being characterized as one of the founders of modern sociology by Blau and responds to the public remarks by pointing out that it is the fate of every scientist ,but especially the innovator with new trails who establishes new trends and further points in new direction. His wish to clear the way for the upcoming innovators has made his personal work in efficient. The demerits of the best type of bureaucracy differ but sociology is boosted by most of its merits. A number of offices which are arranged according to their rankings in the formal rational organization which operate in accordance to the rules of the organization. The authority exercised by the officers is influenced by the rules of the organization ,they do not execute their roles or functions to other employees in regard to their personal relation. This plays a big role in reducing the discrimination cases witnessed. More so this greatly reduces conflicts between the staff members because the universal rules and orders in an organization does not favor specific staff members. The senior staff members do not make orders to the junior staff basing on their personal relationship. The division of the organization into various departments promotes the specialization of work thus increased commitment is observed contributing to the achievement of set goals of the organization . Adler and Borys also pointed out that work is more fulfilling and a vital utility if the cooperation of the members in an organization is maintained (Boucock 2000, p. 102). The organization works on the basis that every department has its own specialized staff that performs specific tasks which in the long run influence the effectiveness delivery of the organization and boost the technical sector rather than the promotion sector. To contribute more to the success of the organization ,an initiative of appointing candidates and giving them promotion based on their merit specifically in regard to their technical experience and knowledge. This practice by the rational legal authority reduces favourism and also promotes justice. Weber version of bureaucracy about the stress theory and how it is associated with formalization provides a better advantage. WEAKNESSES Bureaucratization for the Weber process needs equalization , that differs with the use of calculations to solve problems through formal rules by an organization. Formal rules can negatively influence autonomy and an individual’s ability transforming the people into machines like an objects to a level that the humans could no longer depend upon their own ideas of formulation when calculations are done in regard to the ratios of people (Hess, B & Stein 2000, p. 49). Organizations have concentrated on looking for ideas and skills that benefit their growth alone forgetting to handle the issues affecting the employees and this can better be described as dehumanization. Humanization makes a person meaningless by creating machines which tend to work without the help of man. This requires the obedience of the bureaucrats with regards to the rules of formalization because it needs permanent dedication to their outlined tasks . This gets so serious that there are moments when employees can only refer to their workmates as their department or group not as they had earlier identified them as of specific personality. The division of an organization into departments reduces communication of individual within an organization because the cases are mainly handled at a group level. The competence of the bureaucracy is greatly reduced by the fact that it is created on the basis that it works only within the rules they are ordained to work upon .The main target of organizations is to achieve its goals. This is realized through the division of labour and the creation of job departments for them to be more competitive. This move may be attributed by the rise in competition in the market thus the previous goals are done away with to sooth the growth of the organization. Weber’s perception on the issue of bureaucrats and professionals has received massive critic. A notably huge number of researchers like Abrahamson,Blau and Scott, Hall shown that Weber incorrectly defined professionals and pointed out six differences between professionals and bureaucrats (Hess and Stein 2000, p. 90). The inability of Weber to ascertain the prove that the role in authority of professionals from that of bureaucrats. A further analysis in reference to the roles of the professionals and bureaucrats in an organization mostly in the leadership role showed that Weber gave a good account of the differences between the two. Legal-Rational on Bureaucracy Weber sees Bureaucracy as a result of the legal rational authority form which is also a result of rationalization process that defines the current societies. He considered rationalism as the modern society hallmark by making clear distinctions between the actions and behaviors of people. Through these classifications, Weber came up with four forms of meaningful action and they include; emotional, traditional, value-rational and instrumentally rational. The three types were mostly based on emotional ties, traditional customs or social or personal values. Instrumental-rational on the other hand remained unique as the actors included the ends, means and consequences that last for a long time. Weber views modern civilization as being driven by a broad tendency directed towards actions of instrumentally rational. He came to the conclusion that the bureaucratic system on an organization came from the modern tendency to achieve a legal-rational authority. This is based on the rationalization process. Bureaucracy operates best in an organization system in which efficient in its control. Bureaucracy according to Weber is widely applicable to the public administration and institutions, military systems and religion. More so, bureaucracy can be considered as being apparent and possible under both socialist and capitalists systems but it is capitalism that has been credited more for fueling the increase in bureaucracy (Weber 2000, p. 130). This follows the emphasis associating capitalism with efficiency and the ability of capitalist’s societies to offer technology and monetary resources in the communications systems form. Some of the bureaucratic organizations key elements that can be regarded as being pure include elements that consider organizations as being continuous in its official functions that remained bounded by rules. This implies an organization that is not controlled by an overreaching group or individual and that such management end up influencing the upper officials. Bureaucracy organization operates within a sphere that is specialized so that it can focus in the depths upon which its functions are. In such a situation, the organization will remain separated from its ownership of the production means and thus will not be influenced by the market forces that have proved to be erratic. The office remains the central and that’s where bureaucracy focuses on and provides rational and removed settings for rules and decisions to be made. Offices within the bureaucracy are normally organized hierarchically with its officials being technically trained. Such bureaucratic organizations characteristics are designed in such a manner that it maximizes the effectiveness and efficiency in its functions. This demonstrates emphasis and awareness in fulfilling relationships ends and means of action and social functions that characterize rational action, legal-rational authority and rationalization process. Is Bureaucracy Irrational? Normally, bureaucracy while considering the behavior of organizations can either refer to a management style and a given organization type. Organizations that operate under bureaucracy procedure normally show similar qualities and they include; a discretionary budget, standardized procedures and relationships that are impersonal among employees. The staff’s main objective is to gain respect and power within the organization. However, this is not the case in modern organization leading to the conclusion that bureaucracy is irrational in the current age and day. In his conclusion, Weber sees mankind as to be living in an iron cage full of rationality (Weber 2000, p. 84). In his work, bureaucracy has been brought out as a significant part of the culture of organizations and a necessary structural inclusion that is required for an organization to operate in its maximum efficiency. Taking an in depth look at rational, Weber places it into four categories one of them being instrumental rationality that focuses on the relationship of people with fellow employees in the working environment. According to Weber, the organization has certain expectations about his employees and these results to desire a specific end result that may end up being very influential within the organization working environment. Weber has it that the results organizations desire were rationally calculated and pursued (Weber 2000, p. 50) hence impacting organizations now that it leads to the application of applied laws, rules and regulations which characterize instrumental rationality in organizations with regards to legal, economic and scientific institutions (Weber 2000, p. 82). Conclusion Weber take on bureaucracy is that it is a quintessence of legal-rational authority (Weber 2000, p. 29). Legal-rational in this context is viewed as a part of the larger rationalization process and rational action. This distinguishes between rational societies in the modern times with the societies that employ concepts of domination and meaningful action. Modern organizations have been characterized by legal rational authority and instrumentally rational action. Through study, the principles of rationalism that are found within the organizations are brought out and have been based on to demonstrate the way modern bureaucracy remains a legal rational authority. The idea of an ideal type of bureaucracy is important in any organization with regards to its value concept as the efficiency of its authority has been developed on the validation and basis of their characteristics. According to Weber’s model, the key concepts include legality, efficiency, technical expertise, rationality, impersonality and the authority power which any member of the organization as well as his or her relationship with the rest of the members form basis of the development of every organization. The combination of both authority and power as we as their role when it comes to bureaucracy has resulted in critique plethora with coercive power ignorance and power struggle forming the main subject. Some philosophers and sociologists have come out openly criticizing the manner in which Weber regards ideal bureaucracy outlining his weaknesses and strengths. The main argument is that although Weber’s contribution is highly appreciated, it remains crude in modern organizations. Bibliography Boucock, C., 2000. In the Grip of Freedom: Law and Modernity in Max Weber, University of Toronto, 165 Cuff, E., Sharrock, W., & Francis D. 1998, Perspective in Society, Routledge: London Giddens, A. 2000. Sociology, Polity: Cambridge Hamilton, P., 2000. Max Weber: Critical Assessments. Routledge: New York Haralambos, M & Holborn, M., 2006. Sociology: Themes and Perspectives, Longman: Melbourne Hess, B & Stein, P., 2000. Sociology, Prentice Hall: New York Weber, M. 2000. From Max Weber: Essays in Sociology, 412 Weber, M. 2007. The Theory of Social and Economic Organization, Free Press: New York Weber, M., 2000.From Max Weber: Essays in Sociology, Routledge: London Read More