Bureaucracy Is Irrelevant to the Study of Organisations - Coursework Example

Bureaucracy is Irrelevant to the Study of Organisations.’ (Name) (University Affiliation) (Date) Even though the contemporary world is for the most part lacking in guilds castes as well as other socially embedded ways of organizing workers, bureaucracy tend to exist in many organizations. Many scholars argue that rules and procedures that govern how work should be done may not be effective or rather efficient as they may simply reflect longstanding customs. For a long time, many aspects that revolve around work organization have been governed by a typical formula known as bureaucracy. However, management scholars have criticized this approach as unprogressive. For instance, Goodsell (2012) posits that bureaucracies are encompassed by collections of semi-competent plodders, which are hopelessly ensnarled in red tape. Aucoin (2007) defines bureaucracy as complex means of managing administrative elements in institutions. These elements include regulations, rules, procedures and patterns, which are designed to simplify the day-to-day running of complex organizations. A perfect example of bureaucracy is the procedure of paying income taxes using forms. In the income tax form, an individual is required to fill in specific information concerning his or her total income at the end of each fiscal year. However, the form often contains rules and laws, which dictate what, should and should not be included. Seemingly, bureaucracy is meant to simplify the procedure of paying taxes by organizing the procedure into a formulaic structure. However, the inclusion of rules and regulations in the form simultaneously complicates the whole process. As such, this paper aims to justify the statement ‘bureaucracy is irrelevant to the study of organizations’. To achieve this, the paper will start by discussing the concept of bureaucracy by looking its history as well as its elements. Coined in 1910 by Frederic Taylor, the theory of Scientific Management also known as Taylorism played a significant role during the industrial revolution (Sautet & Frederic, 2000). Accordingly, scientific management was developed for the purpose of economic efficiency as well as labor productivity. The application of the systematic method along with Taylor’s scientific management, which was complemented by the discovery of ‘high-speed steel’, improved the performance of metal cutting. Studies indicate that the application of scientific management contributed significantly to the improvements in productivity. Moreover, Lane, (1987b) points out that scientific management worked out well for reutilized jobs as well as organizations that were typical of the assembly line setups. Between 1901 and 1915, 181 American factories adopted the scientific management approach (Lane, 1987b). As structures of governance and administration advanced, modern bureaucracies emerged during the industrial revolution as the government expanded (Christensen & Lægreid, 2004). In the late nineteenth century, Max Weber (1946) came up with a set of principles (bureaucratic), which according to him suited all types of large-scale organizations. Weber’s bureaucratic approach was typical of a firmly ordered hierarchy of supervision-management and subordination. Moreover, his approach incorporated written records of management and expert training. In addition, Weber’s approach dictates that the official activity should take priority over other activities in the organization. Webber’s bureaucracy management approach was to be used in pushing the organization to attain its goals inefficiently (Weber, 1947). According to him, bureaucratic structure is efficient as it is developed through a rational-legal authority (Weber, 1947). The bureaucratic type of administration promotes dictatorship, as subordinates are often required to follow orders from their superiors. Moreover, the rules and regulations are often stable and can be learned over time. In bureaucratic organizations, officials are required to submit technical qualifications in order to match up with the respective job descriptions. In addition, employment by the organization is considered a career (Weber, 1997). In a bureaucratic structure, personal property is always separated from office property, and the means of production as well, as administration belong to the office. Weber predicted the application of bureaucracy in organizations as he witnessed the environment shift from the older emotions as well as tradition driven values to technological ones(Weber, 1997). Moreover, he also predicted the difficulties that would come along with bureaucracy due to the rise of individualism. In 1920s, there emerged a revolution in morals and manners due to the emergence of a consumer-oriented economy emerged in the United States. In the cultural shift of morals and values, Weber’s concerns where on the society would maintain the then expanding state bureaucracy, which came along with dire consequences. Webber believed that if individuals with specialized positions discovered their significance to the organizations, they would immediately exercise their power within those positions. Through this ideology, leaders of the society turned into bureaucrats: shift in power. Ideally, Weber’s prediction on an ‘ideal’ organization with a completely impersonal organization, where there are minimal human interactions between members came into being from 1940s onwards. However, opponents of bureaucratic structures often argued that personal efforts as well team dynamics create an ideal organization. A historical socialist and economists, Weber believed that manager who wanted to be successful needed to learn his management functions or roles (Jaffee, 2001). Among these functions included the ability to forecast and plan, coordinate and control, organize as well as command. From the look of things, Weber tended to advocate a transactional kind of leadership. In order to explicate why bureaucracy is irrelevant to the study of organizations, it would be imperative to point out the key elements of bureaucratic organizations. Weber (1947) is renowned for his preferred structure of administration, bureaucracy. He believed in the social construct, “bureaucracy is the ideal type.” However, his social construct delineates primary elements of a social phenomenon that may not be in line with the real-world situations. When evaluating the essential features of bureaucratic organizations, Weber was fully aware that none of the functioning bureaucracies hardly reflected his “ideal type hypothesis”. One of the key elements of bureaucratic organizations is that all rights, rules and responsibilities are written (Randma-Liiv, 2002). All bureaucratic organizations have written rules as well as guidelines and as such, workers are required to operate within these rules and guidelines (Cremer, 1980). Moreover, job descriptions, as well as departmental responsibilities are equally stated on paper; thus, workers are expected to work in their designated areas. In effect, an incumbent in any position is prohibited from overstepping his or her bounds of authority. Next, is that bureaucratic organizations are characterized by hierarchical order of authority. In a bureaucratic organization, the division of power is ranked in terms of offices in order to create a clear chain of command (Elzinga, 1985). Moreover, the hierarchy is often complex as many levels provide a highly differentiated design or structure of authority. This feature often causes confusion among the subordinates, as they do not know whose order is superior especially when two or more superiors share the same powers. Another key element in bureaucratic organizations is that appointment and promotions are formal. Accordingly, officers are often appointed and promoted formally with various titles as well as power. Equally, in analyzing the key elements of a bureaucratic organization, specialization appears to be a significant aspect in these organizations. Seemingly, workers are assigned highly specialized duties such that every individual in the organizations concentrates on he or she can do best. Last but least, bureaucratic organizations are characterized by technically trained employees (Sautet & Frederic, 2000). In this regard, bureaucratic organizations recruit worked based on their technical competency in relation to the positions they are supposed to assume. Bureaucracy is irrelevant to the study of organizations given the fact it that is the cause of market failures. Niskanen (1994) is of the opinion that bureaucracies are the main cause of deficiencies in the market as the allocation of resources inside the organization makes bureaucracy inefficient. Similarly, Mises (1944) contends that through bureaucracy, governments hinder the market process. Moreover, Mises asserts that the impossibility of economic calculation is often due to bureaucracy. This means that bureaucracy contributes to the inefficiencies that come along with the allocation of resources and hindrances of human plans. Studies indicate that bureaucracy has hindered the ability of markets to provide goods and services efficiently for a long time (Anderson &William, 2004). When governments intervene with stringent taxation and procedural transactions, the production and provision of goods and services in the market is hindered. Therefore, bureaucracy should not be the point of focus in today’s study of organizations. Evidently, bureaucracy leads to a great deal of inefficiencies such as the free-riding issue, which involves the difficulty businesses undergo in collecting fees (Ikeda & Stanford. 1997). Similarly, bureaucracy often causes external effects such as problems associated with the definition of property rights (Tullock et al., 2002). Consequently, markets will always fail to satisfy the consumer due to the bureaucratic issues organization undergo before they deliver goods and services (Mises, 1944). Bureaucracy is irrelevant in today’s organization as it focuses more on the obedience of rules, rather than satisfying customers’ needs. The administration of organizations should be based on the need to satisfy customers. Mises asserts that the bureaucratic machinery contributes largely to the ever-increasing cost of production due to the complex formal procedures involved in the administration of the organization. While the bureaucratic system is dominated by rule-following behavior, it neglects the significance of entrepreneurship. Moreover, rules and regulation often determine the products and services to be offered. In addition, a bureaucratic system often discourages a check by economic calculation (Niskanen, 1994). Mises points out that the bureaucratic process is often associated with three main aspects. First, bureaucratic systems make it difficult for economic calculation to be applied. Moreover, the system allows for improper allocation of resources within an organization. Second, bureaucratic systems are vulnerable to political and social intrusion. Mises points out that this system makes it possible for the state to interfere with the business. Today, organizations are required publicly to declare their books of accounts, their structure of administration as well as the list of directors. Consequently, for major decisions to be made, the organization will need to involve all the stakeholders including the state. During such a scenario, an organization is bound to suffer from politics due to selfish interests by state officers (Dugger, 1980). The dynamics associated with bureaucracy tend to destroy the existence of free market order. Scholars contend that bureaucracy lacks the ability to correct errors; in fact, it produces a cycle of errors in the business environment (Hülsmann, 1998). The cycle of errors is prevalent in bureaucratic organizations due to the increased rate of hindrances by the state. More often than not, the senior management in bureaucratic organizations also contributes majorly to the inefficiency of these organizations as the officers often misuse their powers in exploiting the junior employees. Seemingly, bureaucratic management often wastes resources, generates losses as well as well frustrates workers due to its deficiencies in the distribution of resources (Hülsmann, 1998). Studies indicate that due to the dynamic nature of a bureaucratic the state is in a position to create new public bodies such as bureaus, public firms as well as public administration. Such bodies often create economical hindrances to existing organizations as they are mandated to assess the management of for-profit companies. Additionally, the creation of these bodies often restrict profits , influence the management of personnel, determine the factors of production as well as determine how much firms should produce. Mises points out that the creation of public bodies is not necessary as organizations can administer their activities from the bottom to top. Notably, bureaucracy characterizes an unnecessary evil as far as the management of private enterprises is concerned. Similarly, the bureaucratization proliferates itself by modifying progressively individual preferences for entrepreneurship. Further, Eisenstaedt (1959) posits that bureaucracy often impede the operations of the market process. Eisenstaedt argues that bureaucracy minimize entrepreneurs’ incentives to reduce the cost of production and make profits. Equally, Migue and Belanger (1974) argue that bureaucracy brings about relatively costly entrepreneurial activities due to the bureaucratic requirements involves. In effect, entrepreneurs are forced to look for new techniques of production in order to satisfy customers, which in turn can result into higher profits or revenue (Sautet & Frederic, 2000). Moreover, these entrepreneurs have no option, but to face uncertainty as they follow orders and abide by the defined rules. Emanuel Kant (1724-1804), a German philosopher, once argued that bureaucracy wipes out individual responsibility of the worker. He also stated, “Rationality revolves around the quest to know, the quest to use one’s own reason rather than to depend upon the authority of others.” However, bureaucracy reflects the opposite of the above statement. In order for the organization to be considered rational, they had to eradicate somewhat irrational behavior that is typical of human beings (Redding & Whitley, 1990). Organizations do these through prohibiting the capacity for discretion ascertaining specific rules, which employees should follow. Bureaucratic organizations find it necessary to maintain the organization’s structure through enforcing rules and order thus taking out unpredictability of individual employees. Bureaucratic organizations do not view humans as individuals, but rather as machines that are bound to work together for the purpose of attaining the organizational goals. Since all the rules, regulations and work descriptions are recorded and written down; all the workers are expected to follow them to the latter (Hendry, 2006). As such, employees are robbed off their responsibility, their right to use their own reasoning in carrying out their duties. Equally, bureaucratic organizations define their workers by their area of specialization: division of labor is paramount. Thus, workers are defined by their specialty and not by their personal character. Further, due to information control, workers are not fully informed about the organization’s activities such as the organization’s plans. Accordingly, workers are often kept in the dark concerning how certain decisions made from one branch will affect the other branch. Moreover, globalization contributes largely to information control as the top management is often far away from the production employees. Thus, the management control of information also robs off employees’ responsibility. Rationality is also viewed as a dichotomy: formal and substantive. A good example of this is the Nazi Holocaust. Accordingly, the Nazi represented an extreme form of bureaucracy full of rules, which enabled them to monitor the Jews population through registration (Feldman & Seibel, 2005). Through their bureaucratic logic, they were able to transport Jews systematically from one camp to the other and later on exterminate them. From this example, it is evident that the soldiers who were charged with carrying out those activities where not substantively rational, but formally rational. They were formally rational as they carried out their duties systematically thus being efficient (Feldman & Seibel, 2005). Equally, majority of organizations are formally rational, but some of them could be substantively irrational. In relation to employees’ individual responsibility, bureaucratic organizations often require employees to do things that may seem substantively irrational to them. This is because bureaucratic originations center their attention on formal rationality. A perfect example was the case concerning Melamine poisoning of milk in China. In this case, a certain organization involved in the processing of milk added Melamine in milk in for it to appear to have high protein concentration. They did this in order to pass a test done by a certain regulatory body, which required the processed milk to have a certain amount of protein concentration. Accordingly, this can be considered formally rational, as the company could have diluted the milk to sell more. However, looking at consequences where many babies died, the public considered the act as substantively irrational. Ideally, the workers who were involved in the production of milk were fully aware of the consequences the milk would have to the consumer and as such, had the option of raising alarm. Unfortunately, these employees could not raise alarm, as they preferred keeping their jobs. Thus, it can be concluded that it would have been substantively rational for these workers to raise alarm. Conversely, it would have been formally irrational for them to raise alarm, as they would have risked losing their investment if the company went down. Formal rationality often affects employee’s decision. Before making any decision employees have to weigh it against the consequences they would make upon making such a decision. In effect, bureaucratic organizations rob off employees’ conscious of standing up to their morals and ethics (Hendry, 2006). Employees often fear to lose their jobs as such, they allow someone higher up in the hierarchy to make decisions for them. This example perfectly points out why bureaucracy should be deemed irrelevant in the study of organizations. According to Merton (1940), bureaucracy tends to focus more on the means and not ends. Merton argues that bureaucratic organizations often center their attention on the means of achieving an objective to the extent that they degenerate the means to be the end in itself. For example, a security guard is supposed to follow a rule such that no one without a pass can enter the firm. Accordingly, the rule is meant to protect the factory and even if the managing director forgot his pass, the security guard would not let him to enter the firm. In this case, the security guard has been reduced to robot and cannot make his decisions based on logic. This depicts how bureaucratic organizations rob off employees’ responsibility of being human beings. Summarily, bureaucracy is irrelevant to the study of organizations as it aims at prioritizing the organizational structures, the rules and regulation, rather than the employee. Bureaucracy is irrelevant as organizations are now changing both customers’ and workers’ expectations in line with economic and technological advances. The contemporary organizations have rendered majority of the elements of classic bureaucratic organization harmful and irrelevant. As such, various organizational arrangements have surfaced as an alternative of bureaucracy in both the private and public sectors. For example, organizations are now adopting the matrix organizational structure. The matrix organizational structure incorporates both the vertical and horizontal dimensions. Unlike the classical bureaucratic organizations, the matrix organization puts the practice of authority in a flux state. Summarily, this paper has discussed why bureaucracy should be rendered irrelevant in the study of organizations. In doing so, the paper has briefly highlighted the history of bureaucracy as well as its key elements. Further, the paper has portrayed the deficiencies of bureaucracy in various areas of administration. . References Anderson, William P. 2004. “Mises versus Weber on Bureaucracy and Sociological Method.” Journal of Libertarian Studies 18 (1): 1–29 Aucoin, P. 2007. The design of public organizations for the 21st century: Why bureaucracy will survive in public management. Canadian Public Administration 40 (2): 290–306. Christensen, T., and P. Lægreid. 2004. Governmental autonomisation and control: The Norwegian way. Public Administration and Development 24:129–35. Cremer, J. 1980. A partial theory of the optimal organization of a bureaucracy. The Bell Journal of Economics, 683-693. Dugger, W. M. 1980. Corporate bureaucracy: the incidence of the bureaucratic process. Journal of Economic issues, 399-409. Eisenstaedt, S. N. 1959. Bureaucracy, bureaucratization and debureaucratization. Administrative Science Quarterly 4 (December): 302–20. Elzinga, A. 1985. Research, bureaucracy and the drift of epistemic criteria. The University Research System: The Public Policies of the Home of Scientists, Almqvist & Wiksell International, Stockholm. Feldman, G. D., & Seibel, W. (Eds.). 2005. Networks of Nazi persecution: bureaucracy, business, and the organization of the Holocaust (Vol. 6). Berghahn books. Goodsell, C. T. 2012. The case for bureaucracy: A public administration polemic 2d ed. Chatham, NJ: Chatham House Publishers. Grey, C., & Garsten, C. 2001. Trust, control and post-bureaucracy. Organization studies, 22(2), 229-250 Hendry, J. 2006. Educating Managers for Post-bureaucracy The Role of the Humanities. Management Learning, 37(3), 267-281. Hülsmann, Jörg Guido. 1998. “Toward a General Theory of Error Cycle.” The Quarterly Journal of Austrian Economics 1 (4): 1–23. Ikeda, Stanford. 1997. Dynamics of the Mixed Economy, Toward a Theory of Interventionism. Foundations of the Market Economy. London: Routledge. Jaffee, D. 2001. Organization theory: tension and change. McGraw-Hill Humanities/Social Sciences/Languages. Lane, J. E. 1987b. Introduction: The concept of bureaucracy. In J. E. Lane (Ed.), Bureaucracy and public choice (pp. 1-32). London: Sage. Merton, R. K. (1940). Bureaucratic structure and personality. Social forces, 560-568. Migue, J. L., & Belanger, G. 1974. Toward the general theory of managerial discretion. Public Choice, 17(1), 24-43. Niskanen, William N. 1994. Bureaucracy and Public Economics . Fairfax, Va.: The Locke Institute. Randma-Liiv, T. 2002. Small states and bureaucracy: Challenges for public administration. Trames, 6(4), 374-389. Redding, S. G., & Whitley, R. D. 1990. Beyond bureaucracy: Towards a comparative analysis of forms of economic resource co-ordination and control. Capitalism in contrasting cultures, 79-104. Sautet, Frédéric E. 2000. An Entrepreneurial Theory of the Firm. Foundations of the Market Economy. London: Routledge. Tullock, Gordon, Arthur Seldon, and Gordon L. Brady. 2002. A Primer in Public Choice. Washington, D.C.: Cato Institute Weber, M. (1997) `Legitimate Authority and Bureaucracy` in Pugh, D. S. (ed.) (1997), Organization Theory: Selected Readings, Penguin Books Weber, M. 1946. Bureaucracy. From Max Weber: essays in sociology, 196-244 Weber, M. 1947. Legitimate authority and bureaucracy. Pugh, DS (1997) Organization Theory. Selected Readings, 3-15. Read More