The Evolution of the Bureaucratic Model - Assignment Example

Using B200 Material, discuss the evolution of the bureaucratic model from ic theories to managerial strategies Introduction The current form of managerial organization does not arise without certain foundations laid down by the fundamental or classic theories of bureaucracy proposed by three notable theorists: namely, Durkheim, Weber and Marx. And these three major bureaucratic theories are explicitly discussed by Salaman in this book ( 2001, pp. 84-96) Durkheimism: The division of labor Durkheim proposed the theory of division of labor not as a new model of organization then, but as a means to bring harmony into an organization or society while concentrating or specializing on a particular task that must be accomplished within that society or organization. In order words, Salaman strongly believed that Durkheim’s theory was meant to create stability within a framework, be it at an organization or in a society (2001, pp. 84). When the separate units of a society or an organization depend on one another in order to produce an effective result, Salaman agreed that such a situation would produce an “organic stability”—a circumstance whereby each operating unit of an organization is not or cannot see itself as a separate entity, but as a part of the overall group (2001, pp. 85). While this theory has proved to be effective, it, however, has its demerits: It has been reported that division of labor normally causes the abnormal problem of “anomie” (Salaman, 2001 pp. 85). A condition of “anomie” occurs when a person becomes hopeless and purposeless as a result of carrying out the same routine for a long period of time. In modern terms, this could mean getting bored with one’s job, a situation that could produce inefficiency and operational errors. The other problems associated with the practice of division of labor include the limitation of the freedom of operations and equality and laxity in management structure of an organization (Salami, 2001 pp. 85). Weberism: Rationally working together Weber’s bureaucratic theory has been viewed by many as a principle of rationalization. While Weber didn’t disprove the efficiency of division of labor, but he emphasized that for such a model to work, there must be a good relationship between the superiors and their subordinates (Salaman, 2001, pp.86) Weber discounted the bossy nature of the superiors forcing their subordinates to do work at cost, and without following the laid-down regulations or traditional ways. For any organization or society to achieve optimum productivity, Weber strongly believed that the relationship between the workers must be rational, traditional and charismatic. He discovered that when subordinates are compelled to work against the traditional cultures or business norms, they tend to lose concentration or interest in their duties; which could lead to under-productivity (Salaman, 2001 pp.87). Weber argued on several occasion against the characteristics of Capitalism, which he strongly believed has contributed to the irrepressible urge to acquire materialism; a phenomenon that often leads the superiors to pay little attention to the feelings of the subordinates as they work hard to increase profitability. Weber frowned at the method capitalistic industry employ to totally control the lives of their worker through employment. They undertake routine supervision, coordination, control and discipline: this practice is enough to depersonalize the employees and make their lives subjected to the industry whims and caprices. Weber believed that this would lead to the condition of expropriation whereby the employees have completely lost control over their work (Salaman, 2001 pp. 90). Weber criticized institutionalized capitalism as a destroyer of business culture, norms and working attitudes (Salaman, 2001 pp. 90). But the major problem of rationalizing the working ethic or life of employees is that it could lead to monotony; a condition that would take away the charisma in the employees to carry out their assigned duties perfectly. Marxism: the nature and organization of work The bureaucratic theory proposed by Marx centered mainly on the significance of the nature and organization of work in an organization or a society. Marx opined that better nature and organization, whether in capitalistic setting or a society encourages better employment relationship (Salaman, 2001 pp. 91). Capitalism, as an economic system encourages the purchase of labor power by organizations. And this labor power has been reportedly utilized, violated and stiffly controlled to the extent that the nature or design of work has become quite uncomfortable for the employees. This circumstance often produces workplace conflict caused by the availability of different class consciousness within the organizational framework (Salaman, 2001 pp. 92). Marx agreed at the opinion that intense employment conflict tends to alienate the employers from the employees, due to overbearing control or influence on their work. And when such a situation occurs, the efficiency of the purchased labor power would drastically be affected. And this could cause unexpected huge losses. Marx put forward that for employees to enjoy good work nature, the design of work must necessitate the use of modern technology or system that would alleviate the problem of drudgery. He also stated that allowing all the workers to carry out their duties at the same place, say in the same factory, would help to encourage better interpersonal relationship among them (Salaman, 2001 pp. 93). Referring to the organization of work, Marx explained that the employees would do best when their duties are well organized, taking into consideration important issues like time of work, design of work, rewards and the feeling of homogeneity among their fellow employees (Salaman, 2001 pp. 93). On the other hand, Capitalism creates a hostile environment not necessarily good for higher productivity as result of class struggle and dire exploitation of the employees for the purpose of profitability. This issue would discourage the employees to be cooperative with their subordinates; and it could lead to a situation of persistent employment conflict that could cause a section of the organization to be de-skilled, oppressed and rendered useless by the use of machinery and other equipment (Salaman, 2001 pp. 93). Managerial strategies For an organization to be productive or profitable, the superiors comprising of the decision-makers, directors, and managers expect that their subordinates behave in a way that the organizational goals would be achievable. This confirms the possibility of the superiors enforcing certain new set of rules on the employees in order to make them act predictably and successfully (Salaman, 2001 pp. 99). But this kind of action may end up in failure as the employees, battered by too much control or monitoring, would try to avoid their superiors, therefore causing a friction in employment relationship. Salaman (2001, pp. 104) hinted about the helpfulness of setting up an organizational structure that would enhance better management of the organization. Some of the managerial strategies mentioned include: (a) Representative bureaucracy: This means all the members (employees and superiors) agree on certain rules that would be used to manage an organization: in this scenario, every member of the organization understands why certain standardizations are being enforced and for what purpose (Salaman, 2001 pp. 105). Each employee would see the reason why such a managerial strategy is being employed and be anxious to see what effects they would produce on the overall operations within the particular organization. (b) Punishment-centered bureaucracy: In this case, the superiors are quick to deal out any forms of punishment to any employee who seems to have lost loyalty in the organization he/she is working for. Some lackadaisical attitudes on the part of the employees may have produced undesirable result at the organization (Salaman, 2001 pp. 105). But experts believe that such imposition of uncomfortable punishment may further create employment conflict that could degenerate into more complex problem if not resolved on time. (c) Contingency approach: This is a modern managerial strategy which seems to elaborate on the interdependency between an organization and the environment. The theory explains that an organization is a system itself, comprising of operating sub-systems that are interdependent. And each sub-system of the organization has its independent sections of activities, which include control system, operational, human and managerial (Salaman, 2001 pp. 107). (d) Operational factors: There are some factors that are necessary for any organization to function properly and profitably. These factors include: the structure of activities within the organization; which part of the organization has the most authority? The control of workforce line and the amount of supportive components available in the organization (Salaman, 2001 pp. 109). Conclusion The classical bureaucratic theories proposed by Durkheim, Weber and Marx are all bedrocks of today’s modern managerial strategies. Durkheim’s division of labor has been instrumental to the evolution of professionalism whereby workers are expected to concentrate on only one operation within an organization. Weber’s proposition of working together with achievable rationality has helped Human Resources Manager to successfully handle employment relationship. Marx’s theory about the nature of work and organization being responsible for organizational success has found several applications in today’s business management. One unique characteristic of all these theories is that they are interrelated: one couldn’t stand alone with the help of the others. Bibliographies 1. Salaman, Graeme. 2001. Understanding business: organizations. London: Routledge. Read More