Webers Bureaucracy Style in Contemporary Society - Essay Example

Weber’s Bureaucracy Style in Contemporary Society Max Weber’s theory of bureaucracy has been considered as sociological ic and it has provided afoundation for studying organizations since the beginning of twentieth century. He was concerned with the key features in the industrial societies of the modern period and sought to identify the underlying spirit of the Western capitalism that came to dominate every business and political establishment. He noticed that the prime tendency of the capitalist force was “towards rationalization, towards logical, rational and calculating models of thought, action and planning”. He forwarded the model of bureaucracy as the example of this trend of institutionalization and organization of society (Slattery, 2003, p.27). There is a tendency of coexistence between the capitalist order and the bureaucratic form of government because, capitalism, as conceived by Weber, required a “reduction of uncertainty and the greater capacity to plan and predict on the basis of technical knowledge” (Suleiman, 2003, p.27). Although capitalism and bureaucracy have their source in different historical contexts, capitalism is strongly inclined to foster bureaucracy on one hand. Again bureaucracy is the only form of government that is consistent with the dynamics of capitalism and the development of rational form because the bureaucratic structure can supply the investment for production. It can be said that capitalism and bureaucracy are virtually symbiotic. The key argument of Weber’s concept of bureaucracy is that authority should be based on legality of the norms of a state and the rights of the bureaucrats who assume the authority to command. Weber began his discussion of bureaucracy by identifying three types of authority based on the relative legitimacy of the three forms—legal authority, traditional authority and charismatic authority. Charismatic authority has derived its legitimacy from the devotion to exceptional heroism and sanctity and the character of a person like the authority of Napoleon. Traditional authority had its acceptability in the long-standing tradition of a particular type of norm. But the legitimacy of the legal authority was based on the ‘legality of normative rules’ (Johnson, 2009, p.37). Weber believed the rational form of authority was most powerful for sustaining the stability of an organization and its administrative structure. The rational authority of the bureaucracy is acceptable because of its established impersonal nature. The legal authority is extended to the persons and their commands have a formal legality, which is legitimate within their official work. The bureaucratic administration is characterized by the use of technical knowledge, which serves as the parameter for the selection of the officers. This structure is a form of social and economic control that is exercised on the basis of knowledge. The ideal form of bureaucracy has certain principles that are related to the bureaucrats within the hierarchical structure that bureaucracy looks up to. Staffs are personally free but subjected to the authority of the organization for their impersonal work. Within the hierarchy labors of the staffs are divided according to their capacity and duty. The staff selection process is transparent based on ability rather than loyalty or personal relation. The officers are paid and enjoy the promotion depending on their achievement. Staffs are also required to abide by strict rules, norms, regulation and they must obey the impersonal order mandated by their seniors (Johnson, 2009, pp-37-38). Weber believed that the bureaucratic form of organization had an existence in its own and therefore it was likely to be more stable than any other organizational structure. Bureaucracy gets its sustenance from the rules and laws that give legitimacy to the action of the staffs within it. Slattery observes that a bureaucrat’s power is ‘legitimized by consent and authorized by office—rather than by tradition and personal charisma’ (Slattery, 2003 p.27). Weber defined bureaucracy as a “hierarchical organizational structure designed rationally to co-ordinate the work of many individuals in the pursuit of large scale administrative tasks and organizational goals” (Slattery, 2003 p.28). He argued that bureaucracy was distinguished from all other types of organizational structure that being used previously and they were characterized by corruption, nepotism, personalization of duty and as a result the production was short of the expected volume. Naidu (2005) has done an analysis of the factors that contributed to the development and survival of bureaucracy in the capitalist society. First, bureaucracy was based on the presupposition that the development of the money economy by the way of pecuniary compensation of the serving civil servants can bring sustained economic growth. Secondly, the demands of the rising middle class for social and economic equality largely generated by the spread of democracy advocated the bureaucratic form of governance. Since practice of the bureaucratic system was impersonal in nature relying on laws and rules applicable on all alike, it was a negation of the practices based on personal relationship and social privilege. Thirdly the protestant social ethic was a great force in the emergence of bureaucracy. Weber believed that bureaucracy allowed an entrepreneur or worker to work to the fullest capacity. This work ethic was opposed by traditionalism and old customs that often allowed greedy acquisition and blind pursuit for economic gain. The new work spirit generated a social psychology that supported organization, planning, discipline and technology, which inn turn resulted in greater productivity and economic expansion. Another factor inherent in the capitalist framework that greatly necessitated the bureaucratic structure was the fierce competition of the economic enterprises. Efficient bureaucratic form was essential for meeting the organizational goal (Naidu, 2005, p.84). In the developed countries bureaucracy has served to offer a sustainable political and economic system but in there are difference in the bureaucracies on the nations. Although certain aspects of the Weberian bureaucracy have been adhered to by the nations, their political structures have other components that have been necessitated by the particular constitutional patterns of them. The chief element of bureaucracy that has been adopted in states like The United States is the decentralization of power. The federal form of government in US has intentionally fragmented the authority of bureaucracy. In addition to that the US has a “politically active business sector that possesses a tremendous amount of informal veto power vis-à-vis decisions made by the federal government and/or the state governments” (Zamor, 2001, p.59). Moreover US federal system has career bureaucrats and political appointees, which serve the pleasure of chief executives. So America has allowed less neutrality in the bureaucratic agencies. In contrast, the European governments have developed a corporation of civil servants that have absorbed administrative neutrality to a greater degree (Zamor, 2001, p.60). From the above example it can be seen that Weber’s bureaucracy is anything but ideal. His model of bureaucracy has been criticized from a number of perspectives. According to Sullivan, Weber’s bureaucracy should be evaluated in the context of democracy and domination. Naidu has good observations on the Weberian ideal bureaucracy. According to him emphasis on the control through rules and hierarchical monitoring can lead to behavioral rigidity and reluctance to take risky decision. Weber in his stress on the impersonality of the duty ignored the humanistic aspect of the civil servant. He attached little importance to the official’s fears, prejudices and ignored the psychological influences on the individual working in the bureaucratic organization. Adler writes that certain humanist critics have noted that the bureaucrats “take individual moral responsibility for otherwise ‘technicist’ decision making” (Adler, 2009, p.157). Naidu also points out that in bureaucratic system the instrumental formalistic aspect become more important the expected service supposed to render for the public and as a result bureaucracy often finds it impossible to good relation with public. Another important model of the Weberian model was that it did not recognize the relation between the bureaucracy and the environment within which it functions. It is impossible to realize the ideal model without considering the political and economic factors that have subsumed the rules of bureaucracy. As a result of this the bureaucratic system accommodates a “tendency to form a group of its own, in fact striving to establish itself as the only ruling caste over the other classes, and its seemingly neutral is motivated by a partial class interest thinly disguised as a universal interest” (Kim, 2004, p.182). In the late capitalist society, where standardization and efficiency became the key mantra of business, Weber’s concept of ideal bureaucracy as a means of efficient production has been characterized with the phrase irrationality of rationality. This phrase is applicable to Weberian model from more than one perspective. The process by which business institutions try to get standardized and focus on predictability and efficiency is described as McDonaldization, to borrow a metaphor of the fast food chain in West. The efficiency of bureaucracy as conceived by Weber gets limited due to the high investment necessary for standardization and in contrary, this inability can force the company to limit and compromise its rationality. Kivisto also points out that this drive for efficiency and rule-governed system of production can “be viewed as leading to inefficiency, unpredictability, incalculability and loss of control” (Kivisto, 2004, p.52). Another reason for collecting the principles of Weberian bureaucracy under the banner of irrationality of rationality is its dehumanizing intonation. It denies the basic humanity of those who work within the system. Thus Weber’s rationality can be considered as an antithesis to reason. In Western society, Fordism is believed to have characterized the economic market from mid 1940s. It was a principle that emphasized on mass production regulated by proper spatial division of labor, standardized output, and balancing the demand with supply through high wages to workers, advertisements and credits. In a word the manufacturer could monitor the capitalist demand-supply chain. This was in tune with Weberian bureaucratic control of capitalist production regime. But according to Ray and Reed “more recent analysis of changes in the political economies and social structures of advanced capitalist societies suggest that both the dynamics and direction of institutional development might be very different from the bureaucratic ‘iron cage’ anticipated by Weber” (Ray and Reed, 1994, p.176). In this post-Fordist economy cultural technological and socio-political changes are taking place, which overlap the ideological bureaucratic structure of modernity. Structural shift in management challenges and destabilizes ‘the regulatory capacity and managerial effectiveness of the bureaucratic assumptions that were the basis of Fordism. Dynamics of globalization, technological possibilities and political deregulations have contributed towards the decentralization of bureaucratic powerhold and its ‘directive strategies and mechanism’ (Ray and Reed, 1994, p.177). Neo-liberalist point of view of the highly developed countries like, The United States, with their focus on privatization and relaxing of centralized control has further undermined the bureaucratic model. Focus on the subcontracting, small-batch productions and reinvestment of profit has outperformed the efficacy of Weberian bureaucracy. Another important aspect of post-Fordist economy is its emphasis on consumer choice. In order to cater to the rapidly changing choices of consumers, flexibility of this post-modernist capitalist market is a crucial characteristic to note. Bureaucratic rationalization and regularization of a centralized production system cannot change their focus as frequently as is necessary to supply the new products every moment. ‘Increased market segment’ is inevitable because of the ‘greater volatility of consumer preferences’ and increased preferences for non-mass forms of production and consumption’ (Williams, 1998, p.180). Weber’s concept of bureaucracy was rather motivated by the necessity of organization of the society and its production units. He believed that bureaucracy is the only form to maximize rationality and efficiency in production. The hierarchy of authority was taken to be chain of individuals, all of who are subordinates to the organizational power that come from top. Weber was aware that rationality in bureaucracy would give way to oppression. Wright (2001) observes that Weber consciously wanted to exclude all human emotions and compassionate values from bureaucracy. Weber thought that the efficiency of industry is more important than communism because even if communism brings an end to private property, industry still needs to be efficient. References Adler P. S., (2009), The Oxfords handbook of sociology and organization studies, Oxford University Press Johnson J. A. (2009), Health organozations: theory. Behavior and development, Jones and Barlette Learning Kim S. H. (2004), Max Weber’s politics of civil society, Cambridge University Press Kivisto P., (2004), Illuminating Social life, Pine Forge Press Naidu S. P. (2005), Public Administration: concepts and theories, New Age International Ray L. J. and M. I. Reed, (1994), Organizing Modernity, UK, Routledge Slattery M. (2003), Key Ideas in Sociology, Nelson Thorns Suleiman E. N. (2003), Dismantling Democratic States, Princeton University Press Williams S. (1998), Tourism Geography, UK, Routledge Wright W. (2001), The Wild West, London: SAGE Zamor J. C. G. (2001), Administrative Ethics and Development Administration, University Press Of America Read More