Anthony Downs was born on November 21, 1930 in Illinois. He is one of the prominent scholars who have contributed significantly to the field of public administration and policy. Since the year 1977, Anthony Downs has been working at Brookings Institution as a Senior Fellow. This paper examines the contribution of Anthony Downs The Inside of Bureaucracy to Public Administration. He has other publications on the same field of public administration.
The contributions of Anthony Downs The Inside of Bureaucracy to Public Administration
Anthony Downs has written extensively on bureaucracy. It is incongruous that bureaucracy is still a common term of disparagement even though it is amongst the crucial institutions all over the globe. According to Downs, bureaucracy is defined as a structure of hierarchy. He argues that there are superiors, subordinates and equals for every official working in an organization.
The relationship between superiors and their subordinates is especially described by Downs as important for the reason that the chances for every official to improve his or her level within the bureau favor specific actors; these actors may get a chance for promotion, increased salary and opportunities to further policies.
According to Downs, officials have four kinds of goals. These are social conduct goals, basic personal goals, ultimate goals and basic political goals. Downs argues that there is a specific type of goal which is particularly bureau-oriented. They are sectioned into;
Social function goals: this consists of the values of officials regarding the wide social functions accomplished by the bureau to which the officials belong.
Bureau-Structure goals: entails the values of officials with regard to the design of constitution of the bureaus to which the officials belong.
Broad bureau policy goals: comprises the long term objectives the bureau tracks so as to undertake its main social obligations.
Specific bureau policy goals: this entails the specific actions the bureau undertakes in its attempt to realize its broad policy objectives.
According to Downs, there are five kinds of officials. First type includes wholly self-interested officials who are mainly motivated nearly entirely by goals that only benefit either their constituents or just themselves.
Self-interested type is further divided into two sub-types: climbers who regard power, money and the prestige that come with the positions as the most important in their value structure and there are also conservative sub-type. This sub-type regards security and convenience as the most crucial.
The second type, according to Downs is mixed motivated officials. This type is composed of officials who merge humane allegiance to broader values and self-interest. The third type is zealot. Downs argue that this type is normally dedicated to moderately narrow concepts.
The fourth type is the advocates; they are usually loyal to a broader group of functions than their zealot counterparts. The last type is the statesmen. Statesmen play allegiance to the society in its entirety.
Anthony Downs has also described the behaviors of each type of officials. He argues that climbers are always in search of promotions and seek to find new opportunities with more benefits than their current positions. Conservers, according to Downs, are not happy with any form of losses in their current power, prestige and money. Advocates encourage and support all they can within their authority.
They tend to have double-faced attitudes. Downs argues that each advocate greatly appears to take sides on the outside but appears to be impartial arbiters from inside. Zealots like to upset other officials by their inability to be partial. Statesmen are described by Downs to be doomed to be misfits in an office. They may exhibit behaviors of other types, especially the advocates.
Downs contributions to public administration also include the determinants of the types of public officials. One of the determinants is psychological predisposition. According to this determinant, an ambitious individual is inclined to be a climber while a nervous individual tends be more of a conserver than a climber.
The other determinant is the nature of position an official occupies. According to this determinant, every bureaucratic position occupied exercises a given amount of pressure on the occupants of the position to yield a desired behavior. The last determinant, according to arguments by Downs, is the prospect that an official essentially achieves the goals related to a specific style toward which an official is cognitively inclined.
Conclusion
Anthony Downs has made great contributions to the field of public administration through his book The Inside of Bureaucracy which has gained popularity within the field. Downs has written extensively on bureaucracy and public policy.
Some of his contributions include the goals of the officials within a bureaucracy. He has also written on what officials within a bureau may want. He has also given an in-depth discussion on the types of officials in different levels within a bureau. Besides, Downs has discussed the determinants of the types of officials. He has also given his ideas on the behavior associated with each type of officials.
Bibliography
Clark, William. Crime and Punishment in Soviet officialdom: Combating Corruption in the Political Elite, 1965-1990. New York: M.E. Sharpe, 1993.
The most compelling ideas about Japans political economy
Among the main ideas that I find compelling about the Japanese Political economy is that there was a time its growth was mainly fueled by a weakened Yen (Bellur 67). Because of this, it became much cheaper for Japan companies to access raw materials. I find this fact interesting because there is a chance that the political and bureaucratic heads of the country may at some point have intentionally kept the Yen from gain value in order to maintain this economic growth.
The other idea I find interesting about the growth of Japans economy is the fact that Japan has been able to enhance its export market to such an extent that it can afford to subsidize the costs of production for its small businesses and agricultural sectors. This is a unique approach to development because in most countries, the economic growth starts from small industries before advancing to the export market and not the other way round.
I also found it interesting that Japan was able to maintain a high growth rate in economy than other developed nations for almost a century by ensuring that very little imports were made. This, to me, was a very cunning and selfish way of getting the economy to grow and it is surprising that other countries did not pick it out early.
Muramatsus bureaucracy dominant, triad or tripod, and convergence models
Muramatsus explains that bureaucracy, the ruling Liberal Democratic party and big businesses worked as a unit in fostering the growth of Japans economy. The bureaucracy helped to source for markets for big businesses outside the country, while the ruling party set up structures to discourage the importation of products further increasing the markets for products made in the country.
Domestic and international explanations why Japan stopped growing
Japans economy stopped growing because of a decrease in a productive population, as an ageing population goes up (Mathews and White 164). This has forced the government to dedicate resources that would have been used for economic growth to welfare and supporting the aged members of its population.
Among the international factors that led to the decline in growth of the Japanese economy was the growth of financial globalization. While working towards their economic growth, Japan capitalized on the weak Yen to enhance its earnings from the export markets. However, over time, the Yen has strengthened in relation with other major currencies causing a slump in the earnings from exports.
Neoclassical economic analysis from political economy analysis
Neoclassical economic analysis is fundamentally a descriptive approach that focuses on the transformation of the economic environment as well as the policies (Yamamura 15). The major element distinguishing neoclassical analysis from other forms of economic analysis is that it does not provide an explanation of why the major political characters were successful in installing policies that had an impact in the modification of the economic environment.
Political economic analysis, unlike neoclassical analysis provides a categorical detailing of the involvement of the bureaucratic and political powers in the transformation of the economic landscape (Hook and Hasegawa 1,7). For instance, when evaluating the changes in the Japanese economic climate, if one evaluates the role of the Liberal Democratic Party in the successes attained between 1950s and 1960s, the final product is a form of political economic analysis.
Why Japans prewar bureaucrats survived the Allied Occupation efforts to democratize and liberalize postwar Japan
The prewar bureaucrats survived the democratization efforts because they held a claim to the countrys economic development by controlling the export market.
The occupation also briefly managed to get rid of the old regime, but after sometime the old leaders returned to national and local politics, bring with them the initially released bureaucrats.
Works Cited
Bellur, Aparna. Japanese economy: growth, decline and recovery. India: ICFAI Books, 2006. Print.
Hook, Glenn and Harukiyo Hasegawa. Political Economy of Japanese Globalization. London: Routledge, 2001. Print.
Mathews, Gordon and Bruce White. Japans Changing Generations: Are Young People Creating a New Society? London: Routledge, 2012. Print.
Yamamura, Kozo. The Economic Emergence of Modern Japan. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1997.Print.
Bureaucracy has been described by Max Weber (1997) as the formal division of labor and functions within an administration, and hierarchy of authority. All positions within an organizational hierarchy exist by their own right however, the holders of these positions have no privileges to certain offices, thus a person cannot be said to own his job. Griffin & Moorhead (2009).
The term originates from the French word bureau , which means office, hence decisions arising from an office. Bureaucracy tends to increase as organizations grow in size and functionality, due to the complexity of the hierarchal structure in large organizations.
How it works
In a bureaucratic organization, labor and authority are well defined among personnel and offices. The organizational structure is characterized by rules and routine procedures that are to be followed. Though bureaucracy does not in itself create rules or policies, the structures put in place are there to enforce the established policies. Decisions made are mainly based on written laws relating to the functioning of the particular organization.
Majority of laws and rules are established in the early stages of an organization, with modifications made after a consensus from key decision makers. There are also written rules that govern procedures that deal with recruitment, training and development of employees within an organization. Most organizations, especially corporations, have human resources departments to serve this purpose.
Organizations have hierarchal structures, organized in such a way that gives more authority to upper offices, and day to day operational decision making is delegated to middle management. Consequently, functions of various offices are defined, and participants usually sign contracts that keep them in office while ensuring that they conform to certain performance levels.
In addition, formal networks are evident in hierarchal structures that facilitate the flow of information and bring about co-operation within the organizations. Tullock & Rowley (2005) notes Bureaucracy is applicable in most modern governments, corporations, non-governmental organizations (NGOs), courts, hospitals, professional and academic associations as well as social and sporting clubs.
Characteristics
Bureaucratic organizations are characterized by a set of ordered rules. The administrative regulations are distributed in fixed systems, such as through official responsibilities. Authority to discharge duties is regulated by a clearly mapped organization structure, and only competent people are allowed to serve specific offices.
Also, there are principles relating to office hierarchy grade authority which ensure that there is a structured system that creates super- and subordination whereby, lower offices are under the supervision of higher offices (Tullock & Rowley 2005).
Documentation is inclusive in most organizations, whereby files are used for communication purposes or govern the elements of the organization. Organizations use publications to communicate with the outside world, and memos for internal communication. Management of hierarchal offices follows general rules, which have a slight degree of flexibility.
Duties are specialized, where managers and personnel have assigned responsibilities that work towards broader organizational objectives. These basics in bureaucracy apply to most modern governments and advanced private corporations.
Advantages and Disadvantages
In Max Webers account of the ideal bureaucracy, rules and codes of conduct apply to all, hence impersonal decisions made bring orderliness to the organization and stability for the organization as a whole as noted by Griffin & Moorhead (2009). Division of labor within an organization leads to specialization, which causes efficiency in operations. Well-organized organizations have a clear line of command, which encourage responsibility and effective decision making mechanisms.
Crozier (2009) criticizes bureaucracy in organizations, citing faults that cause bureaucratic dysfunctions. The author argues that power struggles are brought about by internal politics and strategic games, as employees seek to gain control or take over new job positions.
The power struggles discourage co-operation and coordination within the concerned departments, so the organization will not realize its true potential by not having an efficient workforce. Corruption and nepotism may be evident in bureaucratic structures, as people fight for positions, a disadvantage for the organization since job positions may be given to people who do not have the required qualifications.
The decision making process becomes slower, especially in tall hierarchal structures. As a result, the organization becomes rigid and cannot quickly adapt to changing environments or learn from its mistakes.
Another disadvantage is that in the bid to retain impersonal decision making procedures, decisions are likely to be made by persons who will not directly be affected by the outcomes, such as people from other departments. Therefore, people who make such decisions may lack direct knowledge pertaining to certain issues, and inappropriate decisions may be made.
Conclusion
Bureaucracy, in the right amount, can bring effectiveness to an organization due to its influence on responsibility. The same has also been attributed to the fall of many organizations, especially due to power struggles. Organizations that emphasize on bureaucracy fail since such structures discourage creativity, innovation and risk taking.
Consequently, such structures fail to retain quality employees who opt to move to institutions where they will be free to enhance their careers. Organizations should therefore avoid bureaucracy as it causes more harm than good due to its mostly unnecessary regulations and complications.
References
Crozier, M. (2009). The Bureaucratic Phenomenon. London: Transaction Publishers.
Griffin, R W. & Moorhead, G. (2009). Organizational Behavior: Managing People and Organizations. Stanford, CT: Cengage Learning
Tullock, G. & Rowley, C. K. (2005). Bureaucracy. Cambridge, UK: Liberty Fund.
Weber, M. (1997). The Theory of Social and Economic Organization Cambridge, UK: The Free Press.
In recent years, it is clear that the focus of many management scholars and managers have been to depict the concept of bureaucracy as unacceptable in modern-day environment.
Most notably, it is argued that bureaucracy is inflexible, reduces organizational efficiency, and is therefore completely unsuited to todays rapidly shifting world (Grey 2013). The general trend, therefore, has been to replace bureaucracy with flexible organizations that are viewed as more suitable for our increasingly fast-changing business environment. The present paper purposes to assess this view, with the objective of demonstrating that bureaucracy is still relevant in modern-day environment.
One of the reasons proposed for adopting modern paradigms of management (post-bureaucracies) is that they stimulate creativity and innovation by allowing people to act on the basis of shared values than rules (Grey 2013).
While such a predisposition has borne fruits for companies such as Google and Yahoo, it cannot escape mention that lack of rigid rules in organizations was substantially to blame for financial crisis that rocked the world in 2008-2009, and also for the subsequent downfall of big corporations such as the Lehman Brothers, Enron and the Bank of Scotland.
A critical analysis demonstrates that non-hierarchical, personally focused and trust-based organizations reminiscent of post-bureaucracies played a substantial role in triggering the banking bubble that led to the financial crisis.
Another reason progressed by pundits of the post-bureaucracy paradigm is that the bureaucratic approach is dehumanizing and degrading to employees. In attempting to supplant bureaucracy, these pundits argue modern-day flexible organizations should always ensure that responsibilities are assigned on the basis of competence for tasks rather than hierarchy, and that employees should be treated fairly as individuals rather than impersonally (Grey 2013).
However, previous research done on companies such as Nippon CTV (utilizes new forms of management such as lean production, just-in-time approach etc) and ValleyCo (uses traditional practices) found substantial similarity between traditional and new forms of working in things such as employee treatment and participation, task assignment and hierarchy (Grey 2013). This evidence demonstrates that bureaucracy is still implemented in modern-day organizations.
Moving on, advocates of modern-day flexible firms argue that post-bureaucracy does away with the turgid old nonsense about impersonality, yearly promotions and fixed salary scales in favor of individual treatment where reward is based on merit (Grey 2013, p. 84). These are noble virtues for any organization, but implementing them boils down to the fact some rules must first be put in place to determine, for instance, how employees will be rewarded and which measure will be used.
Consequently, it is evident that bureaucracy must be present for flexible firms to be able to operate efficiently and effectively. If these so called flexible organizations fail to adopt bureaucracy to implement practices, they will certainly dysfunction as fairness, consistency and transparency will not be achieved (Grey 2013).
The last reason deals with change management. While it is evident that bureaucratic organizations have been overly accused of resisting change efforts, it should not escape mention that the so called flexible organizations equally resist change.
Indeed, there has been a misconceived perception that post-bureaucracies respond quickly to change and therefore are more efficient by virtue of being faster than bureaucracies. Another misconception is that change is a new concept and therefore modern organizations need to be flexible enough to deal with the fast-changing environment (Grey 2013).
However, the truth is that change has been there since time immemorial and organizations using the old approaches encountered shifts in the environment in as much as modern-day organizations are encountering. To drive this point home, research demonstrates that over 70% of change efforts implemented by the so called flexible organizations result in failure (Grey 2013).
In conclusion, therefore, it can be said that bureaucracies are still relevant in modern-day environment and the solution for the increasingly fast-changing environment cannot be found in the adoption of flexible organizations. Rather, managers must adopt the technical efficiency provided by bureaucracy and then attempt to align their firms with factors both internal and external of the organizations environment.
Reference
Grey, C 2013, A very short, fairly interesting and reasonably cheap book about studying organizations, 3rd edn, Sage, London
According to the online English dictionary the concept of Taylorism is defined as a form of production technology that breaks a job into smaller segments which can be taught easily. This concept aims at;
Minimizing use of skills and learning time.
Separate employees who are directly involved in the production process from those who are not.
Concentrate on precise measurements.
Increase job performance through motion study
Separating work execution and work planning.
The concept of Taylorism aims at maximizing work efficiency through the use of machines and workers. It is also a model that targets mass production. It involves people who are not qualified in specific fields but working there also known as quality control.
This concept was not very reliable in the old times as workers were not willing to work considering the lack of motivation. It was therefore a system that was not very effective in terms of productivity.
Taylorism concept also aimed at increasing the amounts of profits the company makes for the benefit of running of the business and paying workers wages in time.
This implies if the worker is working extra hard the employee is able to make extra profits to pay the workers there wages in time and also remain with a good balance to start the next days work (Winslow,1911).scientific management believes for maximum prosperity an employer depends on the effort put in place by his employees. However, in most cases this is not always achieved due to the following reasons;
Majority of employees do not work efficiently because they want to protect their own interests
Most employees believe that use of machines in trade will result in majority of employees losing their jobs. In addition, the mentality that even if they work hard the payment remains the same.
Rule of the thumb.
One particular disadvantage of the Taylorism concept was; it was believed to suppress and destroy creativity among employees. The process made work easy through the use technology therefore making it easy for workers to be in control of the whole process.
Taylorism process was also bias to low level workers reason being; there was a division among the majority class, which comprised of the rich and able and the minority class that was comprised of the subordinates.
Disintegration among workers meant there was no equality making the low level people less motivated which later led the workers to demand equal payment of salary and be able to participate in the decision making process.
This disorganization was believed to bring embarrassment in the top executive because qualified workers joined hands with their compatriots to demand for change and equal salary. This demonstration led to the beginning of Post-fordism that changed the entire labor organization (Rudra, 2002).
What is the concept of Bureaucracy?
Bureaucracy according to the Online English dictionary is a structure with regulations used to control activities in an organization and government. It shows the division of labor within an organization in terms of power, relationships as well as Hierarchy (Janoski, 2005).
Bureaucracy can be divided into four concepts.
Division of labor within the administration and offices.
A consistent recruitment pattern and linear career.
A form of communication network that connects the organization.
Clear division of authority among staff members.
Use of technology in work setting covers freedom of censorship. It embraces the freedom to discuss truthful and public matters that concern the public without fear of subsequent punishment. Technology should therefore be used to improve peoples condition at work and not be used as a form curiosity with the intension of harming others though messages from fax machines and emails.
This system is well applied in the Taylorism concept of management. It is also imperative that the employee preserves the autencity of information to protect others. This system is well applied in the Taylorism concept of management.
Rules should also be put in place in any work setting to reinforce balance between technology and workers (Lucey, 2004).
This applies much in the concept of Taylorism workers should be aware of the repercussions of being too inquisitive to cause harm to other employees through technology, the concept of bureaucracy gives rights to citizens or persons to assemble peacefully with a view to influence the formulation and execution of policy.
It also goes ahead to explain how workers can construct a case and appeal against unfair treatment by their employees and or, government.
The concept of bureaucracy shows that no individual is above the law it is an illustration of civil liberty. In regards to these the concept of bureaucracy is suppose to operate for the people without judging people on aspects of gender ,religion, rich or poor.
People working together should be respected equally not be judged on prejudices but according to the rules not identity also known as rational bureaucracy. The concept of Bureaucracy therefore frees people from injustices from bad leadership.
Literature Review
Organizational culture
An organization is defined as a dynamic structured process where individuals come together to achieve a certain goal. Organization knowledge is the important resource in the development and growth of a business (Vorbeck et al., 2003). Organizational culture is a set of artifacts, values, and assumptions that emerge from the interaction of organizational members.
It is the umbrella concept for a way of thinking which takes a serious interest in cultural and symbolic phenomena. Organizational culture seems to mean talking about the importance of people to symbolism-of rituals myths stories and legends-and about the interpretation of events, ideas and experiences influenced and shaped by the groups within they live (Druker,1998).
Culture is a system of common symbols and meanings. It provides shared rules, values, and beliefs governing cognitive and affective aspects of members in an organization. It creates meaning that guides human action and interprets their experiences.
It is linked to history and tradition an organization is therefore defined by culture. Each organization is believed to have a culture. Managers and executives express more interested in organizational culture to improve productivity, effectiveness and efficiency (Merkle, 1980).
Culture is also a pattern of shared basic assumptions learned by a group as it solved its problem of external adaption and internal integration that has worked well enough to be considered valid, and be taught to new members as the correct way to perceive, thought, and feeling in relation to those problems.
It is therefore the role of any organization to come up with strategies to use this powerful resource for the positive growth of the business (Berk and Berk, 2011). This can be achieved by developing factors that encourage the spread of information. This is clearly illustrated in the concept of Taylorism.
It clearly shows how knowledge and communication through technology can be used to improve work in the company as well as increase turnover. There are two principals behind how to increase knowledge in an organization (Kallinikos, 2006).
Competitive advantage and management innovation, which has cultivated knowledge creation.
Competition of the jobs, which aims at using people effectively to increase profits for the company.
Organizational culture plays a big role in influencing knowledge. Organizational culture is defined as shared values and or, beliefs through leadership (Keyton, 2011). Value is a tendency to prefer certain states of affairs over another. It determines ones view of reality. Values have both intensity and direction. They are also strategies, goals, principles or qualities considered ideal for organizational behavior.
Characteristics of organizational cultures include: being dynamic, which is composed of; competing assumptions and values, emotionally which are charged and inextricably linked to organizational members. Focus on incremental change (Willmott et al., 2010).
Leaders in any business setting should always be aware of the activities of the organization. Like for example, in any government institution it is the responsibility of leaders to ensure work is done effectively in this type of organization (Clegg, 2008).
The concept of bureaucracy is where information is channeled through a hierarchy of offices (Hill, 1992). There is also a particular line of recruitment with stable careers. The concept of bureaucracy is very rigid as compared to the Taylorism concept, which is flexible and allows for free movement of information within the organization set-up.
It therefore gives people a chance to be heard without passing through a hierarchy of offices hence information is quickly passed, this therefore ensures decisions are made quickly unlike in the bureaucratic form of government where decisions is passed slowly.
Discussion
Advantages of the concept of bureaucracy
The concept of bureaucracy has several advantages: it promises responsibility and the company is able to achieve more because control is done by top executives.
This ensures there is consistency because decisions are entirely controlled by top executives and incase change it starts from the top management. The bureaucratic concept also allows for the government to serve not only the people under its management but the entire the country thus serving the people.
This concept also allows for specialization of jobs. It therefore gives responsibility to people who are capable of doing the job well that in return promises effectiveness and maximum profits. It is also a system where fairness is a priority. It ensures people are respected for who they are, and what they are able to achieve depending on their education.
It gives an equal chance to both the rich and the poor to Christians, Muslims, gay or straight people by ensuring they are treated equally. It is a concept that had a lot of weight in the beginning of the 20 century. The disadvantage of this method was that information took longer.
Advantages of the concept of Taylorism
The Taylorism concept also had several advantages the use of computers in communication ensured information was passed in time meaning orders were delivered in time (Rudra, 2002).
This system also ensured information was passed accurately and communication between customers and client was done effectively such that incase there was a problem the customer was quickly helped out.This therefore increased productivity and improved production. The Taylorism concept also reduced human workload as computers were used more often (Taylor, 1911).
The Taylorism type of concept provides citizens with freedom of expression. The ability to communicate effectively with individuals and groups strongly influences ones professional and personal success (Janoski, 2005). Communication is the fundamental key to the growth of any business.
This concept enhances effectiveness of both individual and team performance. Most employers rank the ability to communicate as the most vital job related skill.
The key to effective communication involves active knowledgeable and Participation. Communication cycle involves two categories of messages verbal and non-verbal (Keyton, 2011). Verbal is unspoken Non-verbal is visual, audible and involves movement clues called signals.
Apart from the verbal and non-verbal knowledge, transfer can be influenced by several factors; Relational channel, partner similarity, Depreciation, what the individual knows, and interest of individuals to learn (Alvesson, 2002).
Types of organizational cultures:
Innovation-this is the type of organization where the manager not only plans the change but also participate in it.
Task-oriented-this is the type of organization where responsibly are distributed among staff.
Bureaucratic-this is the type of organization with a defined form of division of labor and there is no dependency. This form of organization is believed to limit knowledge transfer and discourage interpersonal form of communication among employees.
Completion/confrontation-this form of organization is almost similar to Bureaucratic.
The concept Bureaucracy therefore encourages dependency among employees but at the same time formalize communication, a system mostly used in military units and governments (Janoski, 2005). Although organization may limit transfer of knowledge this should be done partially and allow employees fair opportunities for the divergent of fair views and dissenting opinions (Clegg, 2008).
These are opinions aimed at improving the face of the company for commercial interest. The use of technology should promote freedom of speech, which allows truth to prevail and lies to be discarded (Tummala, 2005). It should not include publication, or broadcasts that represent or dehumanizes a group based on religion, race, color, or ethnicity in any working environment.
Conclusion
The success of any organization depends on both the employee and the employer. The employee should be able to keep up with what the employees are working on and or, the behaviors they are exhibiting. It is not correct for a leader to say he was not aware. He should focus with on means and ends to reach for goals. There are two types of employee performance that is not accepted in an organization.
Not getting results and getting the results in wrong way. Ethical business starts with ethical leadership. Everyone must do their part to make the organization successful; it is the responsibility of leaders to ensure no pitfall. Communication and technology are also important forces for the success of any company because they have an impact on how information is distributed within the company.
References
Alvesson, M. (2002). Understanding organizational culture. London: Sage.
Berk, J., & Berk, S. (2000). Quality management for the technology sector. Boston: Newnes.
Clegg, S. et al. (2008).Managing and Organizations: an Introduction to Theory and practice, 2nd edition. London: Sage.
Druker, P.F. (1998).The coming of the new organization. Harvard Business Review, January-February, 45-53.
Hill, L. B. (1992). The State of public bureaucracy. Armonk, N.Y.: Sharpe Press.
Janoski, T. (2005). The handbook of political sociology: states, civil societies, and globalization. Cambridge [u.a.]: Cambridge University Press.
Kallinikos, J. (2006).The Consequences of information: Institutional implication of technology change. USA: Edward Elgar Press.
Keyton, J. (2011). Communication & organizational culture: a key to understanding work experiences. Los Angeles: SAGE.
Lucey, T. (2004). Management information systems. London: Thomson Learning.
Merkle, J. A. (1980). Management and ideology. Berkeley: University of California Press.
Rudra, S. (2002). Managing modernity : work, community, and authority in late- industrializing Japan and Russia. Ann Arbor, Mich: University of Michigan Press.
Taylor, F. (1911).The principles of scientific management.USA: Harper and Brothers.
Tummala, K. (2005). Comparative bureaucratic systems. Lanham, Md: Lexington Books.
Vorbeck, J., Heisig, P., & Mertins, K. (2003). Knowledge management: concepts and best practices. Berlin [u.a.]: Springer.
Willmott, H., Daft, R. L., & Murphy, J. (2010). Organization theory and design. Andover: South-Western Cengage Learning.
Recently, we have witnessed specialization by people to perform various specific functions, which has been escalated by the fact that students are also encouraged to study strictly a given specialty. Most organizations are out to maximize output from each unit of input employed, which has led to the division of labor to get the best from every employee. This has made a specialization in the area of work inevitable, and people have come to believe that its paramount to employ various individuals in the organization according to their qualifications to perform specified functions. Due to the idea that separation of duties to specific people makes them more responsible for their actions hence increasing efficiency, many organizations have found it worthwhile to centralize authority and decision making or rather bureaucratically arrange the administration. This paper seeks to highlight how bureaucracy affects the governing of various organizations, its advantages, and its disadvantages.
Bureaucracy refers to a system of governance where an organization is split down into several departments run by specialized and highly qualified professions who are employed to perform specific tasks (Edles and Appelrouth 219). In most cases, the departments are again sub-divided further into smaller units, which are even more specialized in performing certain specific roles in line with the major role of their department. On top of that, there exists a clear-cut chain of command where high-ranking administrators supervise the lower ranking ones who in turn oversee the function of even junior employees. Additionally, there is detailed attention to rules of operation where each person is required to strictly follow laid down procedures of performance that guide what has to be done at a specific time and how it should be done (Hummel 74). Nowadays at least every organization has disintegrated its functions and assigned them to people who are specialized in the areas concerned.
In a more complex organization, it may be quite cumbersome to control the employees if everybody was left to act to his or her discretion. Many people would be staying at home yet pretending to have worked and demand payment for the output they did not produce. People would be making impromptu decisions that only favor them and follow this in their performance, hence leading to departure from the main aim of the organization. Without clear-cut instructions on what should be done or what is the main focus of the organization, every person will put personal agenda first leading to conflict of interests (Edles and Appelrouth 217). Surprisingly, though grown-ups seem to be more responsible they need supervision to adhere to the requirements of the organizations hence protecting the organizations reputation. Therefore, complex organizations must break down management of their affairs, and various units are given specific mandates to accomplish in a move designed to increase the efficiency of the employees.
For instance, the government is divided into various ministries which concern themselves with given duties that help the government in serving the public, and in every ministry, duties are also assigned to various personnel in different sections within the ministry for advanced performance (Danhardt 31). If a company like coca-cola had one manager to oversee the production and at the same time manage the sales department, then one of the sections would not be accorded deserving attention and there is the likelihood that this section would not be performing to the optimum. On the other hand, if every department is given the mandate to hire employees then the possibility is that unqualified or unnecessary people would be incorporated into the organization hence the need to have a centralized human resource department (Hummel 72).
Smaller organizations might not require bureaucracy as this might bring about unnecessary expenses by increasing the number of employees, but it should be noted that authority needs to be centralized. It is of importance to note that these organizations on most occasions have clearly defined visions of how to grow which calls for the professional handling of the administrational matters hence bureaucracy.
Bureaucracies help in achieving the goal of the organization in a unified manner, where the goal is spelled out clearly and the means to achieve it are given, therefore everybody is required to perform his or her duty which is also well defined to achieve the common goal (Danhardt 29). In a nutshell, bureaucracy helps in unifying the interests of every person in the organization to one common goal. Though it is expected that bureaucracy enhances efficiency, in some instances it brings about scapegoats for those who are lazy. It is not a surprise to get a person in an office who declines to render service to you because the person claims the duty does not fall within the mandate of the office he bears; this is mostly the case in public offices or large organizations.
Running huge organizations involved in large-scale production and government operations would be a nightmare were it not for bureaucracy, which makes coordination of the various duties possible. Bureaucracy promotes the culture and core values of the organization in a more rationalized manner (Edles and Appelrouth 218). However, it should be noted that bureaucracy offers a high degree of defense on consequences of actions by officials who might be weak in their performance if they strictly follow the laid down protocols.
Employees in a bureaucratic environment are recruited on merit by their qualifications, and they are aware of what their position requires of them making execution of duties faster and efficient. The reaction to changes in demand is also timely because of the detailed mandate requirement which eases the procedure of decision making (Hummel 73). It is, however, notable that in very large firms and governmental organizations, it is a rule that an order from the higher authority must be obtained before a decision is made, which takes long before important steps are taken regarding technological or economical changes.
The criteria in the bureaucracy are clear as appertains promotions and succession when one employee exits, this enables handing over to be carried out smoothly causing minimal disruption to daily operations of the firm in case one office is left vacant (Danhardt 30). But on the other hand, the flow of information is majorly top-down where managers pass information down through various levels to frontline workers, while information from the low-ranked employees sometimes does not reach the managers. This discourages ingenuity since one individual seems unable to institute desired changes especially if it is the low-ranked employee.
From the onset it may look like bureaucracy is unnecessary to a certain extent if one looks on the dark side too much. On the contrary, corporations that are involved in large-scale production and the government will require separation of duties and specialization to perform efficiently. Though other firms might perform efficiently without having to institute bureaucratic governance, evaluation needs to be done to see which kind of governance is the best. Bureaucracy has its bright and dark side, but it is impossible to do without it necessitating the importance for the organization to monitor the performance always to make sure its mission is kept.
Works Cited
Danhardt, Robert. Theories of Public Organization. Connecticut: Cengage Brain, 2010. Print.
Edles, Laura and Appelrouth Scott. Sociological Theory in Classical Era: Text and Readings. Thousand Oaks: Pine forge, 2009. Print.
Hummel, Ralph. The Bureaucratic Experience: The Post Modern Challenge. New York: M. E. Sharpe, 2007. Print.
A set of regulations and guidelines is inherent, like bureaucracies. This results in a lack of adaptability, leading to wasteful spending. A bureaucratic system with a tangled web of regulations frequently results in interminable wait times. High-level bureaucratic corruption has the potential to be terrible for the economy. In a bureaucratic system, getting anything done takes forever, and the process often precedes the final product. Even the most straightforward job can necessitate a substantial amount of documentation (Hill, 2020). As a result of the categorization of work, it is not easy to collaborate with persons in other categories. Managers at the top tend to give preferential treatment to those close to them, even if others are more worthy. A set of rules and regulations governs a bureaucracys decision-making process. Because of this rigidity, newer options are typically overlooked while the old ones are chosen.
In bureaucratic institutions, techniques that have worked well in the past are often identified. Entrepreneurs and innovators favor forward-looking thinking and look for methods to improve procedures, which puts them at odds with this backward perspective. As an illustration, consider agile processes characterized by self-organization and accountability and improved iteratively. When compared to other organizations, high bureaucracy harms operational efficiency over time. When the bureaucracy is also utilized to protect established power structures from competition, efficiency losses are more pronounced. The U.S. government is characterized by old-school bureaucratic inflexibility and protectionist policies. For example, getting rid of weak players is difficult because of a strict termination process.
With bureaucracy, businesses may run more efficiently and effectively. Processes and procedures can be organized, allowing large companies to improve their efficiency and effectiveness. Organization and workflows are made simpler as it entails a clearly defined division of labor that characterizes bureaucracy. As a result, they ensure everyone is treated the same, without favoritism (Hill, 2020). For perks like student loans, the government requires everyone to fill out the same (sometimes tedious) paperwork. Bureaucracy has greater job security than any other form of oversight. They are granted unique benefits and a consistent wage if they adhere to the laws and regulations that govern their position, this allows them to live the lifestyle they desire. The bureaucracy can give health insurance, vacation time, and even an old-age pension.
Successful bureaucracies have particular advantages because of the impersonal ties that are formed. It establishes a framework that emphasizes equality in which friendship has no bearing on ones ability to succeed. The power that comes from outstanding work consistently trumps political pressure every time. This establishes a level playing field for all participants. Bureaucracy dictates the roles and responsibilities of employees, allowing them to have clear guidelines for production. It is easier for managers to keep an eye on output because each step is clearly defined. Individuals are treated fairly because they are part of a team, but no one can dispute who is in charge because the organization is hierarchical. Because a bureaucracys fundamental objective is to ensure competence, society generally supports specialization.
The U.S. Department of Agricultures (USDA) responsibility is to run 250 programs that address significant national needs in areas like these, including agricultural income, food safety, and conservation. Much criticism has been leveled against USDA policies and practices in the popular press in the last few years. The division of the departments headquarters and field groups, as well as the departments size and budget compared to farmers, were the focus of this criticism. Although some of the criticism is warranted, the issue is oversimplified. Since the 1930s, the United States Department of Agricultures (USDA) mission has substantially changed. The USDA now spends 60 percent of its budget on nutrition programs, 35 percent on forestry programs, and substantial amounts on rural economic development initiatives that go far beyond agriculture. There is Less than a third of the federal governments annual spending devoted to agriculture.
In the competitive business environment of the 21st century, managers must concentrate and focus all their efforts on ensuring their organizations retain a competitive advantage in the market. Failure to adhere to this basic principle means failure for the organization (Weber, 2008).
As such, many conscientious and assiduous managers are dumping traditional approaches of running organizations in favour of more conventional approaches that guarantee the concentration of synergies and addition of value in all organizational endeavours (Xi-Ping, 2010). One traditional management approach that is fast fading into oblivion is bureaucracy. Against this backdrop, it is the purpose of this paper to show why bureaucracy is no longer applicable in todays business environment.
According to Tikhonova (2007), a bureaucracy is an organizational structure with inflexible hierarchy of officeholders, regulated by impersonal uniform rules, protocols, and procedures. In most occasions, all the personnel within the organization have well defined positions and titles.
The rules and procedures specify the type of duties that each worker must perform, and organizational functions are structured into set offices, which are holistically organized into a vertical hierarchy that adheres to technical rules and norms (Rao, 1997; Garston, 1993).
The characteristics of a Bureaucracy were first formulated by Sociologist Max Weber, who believed that it was technically the most effective type of organizational structure since all formal functions are bound by rules and procedures, and each function within the hierarchy has its own specific competence (Tikhonova, 2007; Adair-Toteff, 2005).
Many business analysts are of the opinion that such a system cannot function in todays competitive business environment, especially in the private sector (Adizes, 2004). However, others feel that it is the best mode of organizational structure, especially when it comes to evaluating staff performance since personnel have clearly defined duties and functions (Ashkenas et al, 1998).
As such, it is imperative to briefly look at some of the characteristics of bureaucracy with a view of finding tangible evidence that it is no longer applicable in todays business environment.
Characteristics of Bureaucracy
A Bureaucracy, according to Max Weber, must have a formal hierarchical structure, where each level exercise control over the level below for purposes of centralized planning and decision making (Adair-Toteff, 2005; Busting Bureaucracy, n.d.). Second, a bureaucracy is managed and controlled by rules, which inarguably permits decisions made at high echelons to be executed consistently and without question by all lower levels.
Third, work within such an organizational setup is organized by functional specialty, implying that personnel are organized into functional units depending on the type of work done and the skills held. Another characteristic of bureaucracy is that all employees and customers must be treated equally and the organization must never be influenced by individual differences, otherwise referred as purposely impersonal.
Also, employment within a bureaucracy must be based on technical qualifications, and in most cases, employees are protected from arbitrary dismissal (Busting Bureaucracy, n.d.). It is imperative to note that managers within bureaucratic organization posses a rational-legal form of authority obtained from the office they hold (Rao, 1997).
Why Bureaucracy is No Longer Applicable
Todays business environment demands a swifter market structure, innovativeness and expeditious organizational flexibility as competition is soaring by the day (Benerjee, 2010). Businesses must adapt aggressive means to remain afloat in this competitive environment, fuelled by factors such as globalization and technological advancements.
Organizations need to be flexible enough to speedily adapt to the changes occurring in the market (Ahmed et al, 1996; XI-Ping, 2010). Yet bureaucratic organizations can never have the capacity to adapt to the changing market trends since they are bound by rigid and complex rules, procedures, and protocols, which inevitably impedes action (Jochimsen, 2009).
For instance, a marketing executive in a bureaucratic organization cannot adjust product prices to fit market trends without consulting his seniors, a process that may take weeks, even months, putting the organization at real risk of making a loss. This is unacceptable in todays business environment.
According to Adizes (2004), an organization practicing bureaucracy is fundamentally incapable of creating sufficient resources to sustain its operations. It has many systems, rules and procedures that run on ritual rather than reason, and its managers have little sense of control. Whats more, a bureaucratic organization is internally disassociated, often creating impediments to reduce turbulences from its external environment.
Such a characterization does not befit an organization that can surmount the challenges of operating in todays business environment. Modern organizations are embracing lean management techniques, and must remain focused on what is happening today while forecasting the future (Ruffa, 2009).
The management must firmly remain control of the daily activities of the organization, but must never come up with rules and procedures that concentrate power at the top as is the case in a bureaucracy. It is therefore safe to argue that applying bureaucracy in todays business environment is tantamount to failure.
Another weakness of bureaucracy is that it curtails inspiration and creativity at the workplace, while favouring impersonality and regularity of organizational life (Pires, 2009). This is totally unacceptable in todays business environment as creative and innovative ideas should be given room to grow and blossom in an organizational context.
Today, more than ever before, businesses are operating in a highly unstable and competitive environment. In such a hyper-charged business environment; organizations cannot sustain or improve their performance by just undertaking cost-cutting measures or by focusing on core business. To the contrary, creativity and innovation must be nurtured to give the organization a competitive advantage in the market (Weber, 2008; Sloane, 2006; Quigley & Stupak, 1994).
However, not only does bureaucracy fails to guarantee creativity and innovation in business organizations, but it also fragrantly and nondescriptly disregard any attempt to spearhead the same in organizations due to centralized decision making processes and impersonal top-down rules and regulations.
Bureaucracy is averse to change, a fundamental factor in deciding if organizations survive in todays business environment (Bellinger, 2004). According to Sloane (2006), &sometimes the situation you are in [organization] is so tough that you just cannot work your way out of the problem.
You have to think your way out of the problem&.But most organizations are resistant to rapid and discontinuous change (p.1). In most occasions, such organizations exercise bureaucratic principles that block the forces of change from taking their natural course due to rules, procedures, and protocols involved.
As Max Weber argued, bureaucracy must be managed by rules, which permits decisions made at high levels to tickle downwards and be executed consistently and without question by all lower levels (Adair-Toteff, 2005; Busting Bureaucracy, n.d.). In most occasions, change is blocked at all costs since those high up the ladder want the status quo to remain. Unfortunately, an organization with this type of bureaucracy is hard to sell in modern business environment.
Lastly, bureaucracy involves a lot of administrative procedures, inefficient processes, and burdensome paperwork, otherwise known as red tape. This is a distinct weakness in todays competitive business environment, where time is seen as an asset, and is calculated in monetary value (Bozeman, 1999).
The business needs of todays organizations require expeditious executions of processes and procedures to stay ahead of competitors. For instance, a customer may place an order with a lead time of 12 hours. An organization expecting to indulge such a customer in extensive paperwork will definitely loose out to an organization with automated services where orders can be placed online.
Tied to this is the fact that bureaucracy often make an organization to become ruinously inefficient as it detaches the profit motive from the whole process (Carter, 2010). Organizations in todays business environment exist to make profit for their shareholders, and therefore any process that limits this objective must be considered a nullity.
Conclusion
The fact that bureaucracy is no longer applicable in modern business environment has been clearly illuminated by the discussion above. The hyper-competitive business environment witnessed today does not have any room for organizations with rigid structures and systems, and incapable of creating sufficient resources to sustain their operations.
In the same vein, todays business environment does not have room for firms that exercise strict inflexible rules and procedures at the expense of creativity and innovation, or organizations that are averse to change.
Still, organizations with inefficient procedures and burdensome paperwork can rarely compete with others with automated operations in todays super-charged business environment (Bednar, 2007). All the above factors are hallmarks of bureaucracy. It is therefore safe to conclude that bureaucracy is no longer applicable in todays business environment.
List of References
Adair-Toteff, C (2005). Max Webers Charisma. Journal of Classical Sociology, Vol. 5, Issue 2, p. 189-204
Adizes, I. (2004). Life Cycle Stages: Bureaucracy. Web.
Ahmed, P. K., Hardaker, G., & Carpenter, M (1996). Integrated Flexibility Key to Competition in a Turbulent Environment. Long Range Planning, Vol. 29, Issue 4, p. 562-571
Ashkenas, R. N., Ulrich, D., Jick, T., & Kerr, S (1998). The Boundaryless Organization: Breaking the Chains of Organizational Structure. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. ISBN: 0787940003
Bednar, J. (2007). Red Tape Blues. Business West, Vol. 23, Issue 21, p. 15-64
Bozeman, B. (1999). Bureaucracy and Red Tape, 1st Ed. Prentice Hall. ISBN: 0136137539
Busting Bureaucracy. Bureaucratic Form according to Max Weber His Six Major Principles. Web.
Carter, S. (2010). Advantages and Disadvantages of Bureaucracy. Web.
Garston, N. (1993). Bureaucracy: Three Paradigms. Kluwer Academic Publishers. ISBN: 0792393775
Jochimsen, B. (2009). Service Quality in Modern Bureaucracy: Parkinsons Theory at Work. Kyklos, Vol. 62, Issue 1, p. 44-64
Pires, R. R. C. (2009). Flexible Bureaucracies: Discretion, Creativity and Accountability in Labour Market Regulation and Public Sector Management. Web.
Quigley, W. S., & Stupak, R. J. (1994). An Experiment in Managerial Creativity. Training and Development Journal, Vol. 28, Issue 6, p. 22
Rao, N. P. (1997). Dynamics of Modern Leadership, Bureaucracy, and Administration. Kanishka Publishers Distributors. ISBN: 8173911886
Ruffa, S. A. (2009). Going Lean as a Solution for Navigating Uncertainty and Crisis. Web.
Sloane, P (2006). The Leaders Guide to Lateral Thinking Skills: Unlocking the Creativity and Innovation in you and your Team, 2nd Ed. London: Kogan-Page. ISBN: 0749447974
Tikhonova, N. E (2007). The Bureaucracy. Sociological Research, Vol. 46, Issue 6, p. 9-18
Weber, L. E (2008). Competition and Cooperation. Harvard International Review, vol. 30, Issue 3, p. 40-45.
Xi-Ping, Po-Young, & Chia-Y. C (2010). Perceived Managerial Discretion and Firm Performance: The Moderating Role of Market Competition. Social Behaviour and Personality: An International Journal, Vol. 38, Issue 2, p. 145-157.
It was noted by Max Weber that, it is inevitable to live independently from rationalization in today’s societies and Organizations therefore it safe to state that Bureaucracy is impossible to destroy. Bureaucracy and rationalization became an important tool instrument of organizing our society and corporations. Furthermore, bureaucracy seems no longer a stable truth, with the flattening of hierarchies and delaying, the question of whether this is an end of bureaucracy or the shift from bureaucracy to another sort of new governance is still controversial. Annesh (2001) argues that is not from more to less governance, in fact, the old form of governance is increasingly amended in the technology itself without mitigating the effect of earlier bureaucracy and its efficiency. Therefore, it is worth stating that bureaucracy and rationalization is still predominant in the 21st century. More specifically, the argumentation shall be centered on the importance of discretion in modern organizations. The theoretical-based evidence shall be explored from these modes of organizational governance which incorporate bureaucracy.
The Rise of Bureaucratic Organization
According to Anon (2007) Bureaucracy have been around for a long time. They were an essential feature of preindustrial empires such as Rome and dynastic China. These empires have attributed to the endurance of development and use of effective bureaucracies. They both had administrative which governed territories far as hundreds and thousands of miles from the empire’s capital and defended their territories from their enemies. In addition to imperial governments, complex bureaucratic structures have survived throughout the 19th and 20th centuries thriving in Christian churches which were effectively adapted from the Roman organizational principles. However other world’s greatest religions Hinduism, Buddhism and Islam have successfully thrived with many linear organizational structures. By the second half of the 19th-century Bureaucratic organization began to spread from a few political and religious domains into private enterprise as economies became larger and more complex., the scope of management.
In the 21st century, bureaucracy has been imposed in computer systems, events are being automatically monitored each event which leaves no freedom for action staff, and people are skeptical about it. monitoring and control devices of the ‘information panopticon’ which are vital tools for intelligent systems, smartphone and cameras has dominated the organization of which weber referred to as the process of rationalization of the workforce. however, it seems as people would be totally controlled by technological machines in the next few years to come. It is even evidence in the working environment and other corporations that humans are being replaced by machines to fulfil functions that would have required human capabilities. Many sociologists have argued that innovation and rationality is evolving and influenced and has become more efficient throughout time, by the rationalization of organizations. Furthermore, bureaucracy has been revised in computer technologies by storing vital information about the organization involved. Employees from many of these organizations are no longer utilize for their creativity; rather they are dehumanized by the rise of information and technology that has become prominent today. In the current state of organizations, rules are ideals to most, of which people are mainly concerned about the use of non-human technologies. Machines become the most vital most leading workforce in the 21st century, resulting in most of the corporations like McDonald to use computers to record information about customers, with tracking devices and tracking system to pinpoint their customers. As a result, bureaucracy and rationalization remains relevant today and it has been instilled on individuals around the world.
Algocracies is still finding its way for utility with its dominance in most governing organization. Lan (2009:11) . As many systems analysts are coming with ways to findings in the inefficiencies of institutions that prefer to replicate the previous work structure into software systems despite the systems (Annesh, 2001). By placing algocracies into bureaucratic turns to shift structures on different forms. This attempt of involving algocracy is to completely restructure their organization through various Enterprise systems. Attempts of avoiding the inefficiencies of earlier systems is by reevaluating the very structure of the organization. An organization like McDonald’s tends examine these principles in their franchises around the world, which allows the possibility to create work organization coded in software programs to customize business’s needs (Gregory 2003). In India software companies are in the business of selling customized organizations, a ready-made templates and modules of supply chain management, payroll, job costing, sales force automation, product lifecycle management, and customer relationship management. Corporations have experienced different physical structure through Algocratic governance. The Corporations’ ability to be involved in information that is globally based in the same organizational template can be accessed through remotely located data servers. Algocratic workflow seem to be appropriate for this middle managerial role, this information enables networks to provide and safe passage between distribution and production without the need of a middleman. Algocracies employ a different network codes that govern workflows according to underlying schemes of complex of techniques for control and access such as electronic firewalls, gateways, packet filters, and proxy servers. Algocratic governance is itself a combination of all such techniques, such as network codes with their electronic protocols, coordination, and architecture.
Conclusion
According to Max weber (1978),’ bureaucracy is structure of domination, which indicates power of the office’. It is marked by authority relations that destroys old modes of trust and social hierarchies of estate and honor, replacing them with ‘rational techniques’ of domination and has dominated the whole world by the 21st century. He further emphasized that bureaucracy dominates its power through knowledge ‘The fate of our times is characterized by rationalization and intellectualization and, above all by the disenchantment of the worldâ (Weber 1978:18). With many arguments in the years that pass and years to come it is safe to conclude that Bureaucracy operates independently which in its nature is impersonal, ’without regard for personsâ or people that are brought into the bureaucratic organizations to fulfil their obligation
Bureaucracy theory was introduced by Max Weber, one of the greatest sociologists in the history of the early twentieth century. According to Max Weber, a bureaucracy is an administrative organization or system that enforces the rules of law in society. Bureaucracy is not only a rational system, but also an effective management system, and it has greatly promoted the industrialization of capitalism. On the one hand, bureaucracy meets the needs of complex industrial production models and management. It is better than some other types of social institutions in terms of accuracy, speed, and predictability (Weber & Andreski, Max Weber on capitalism, bureaucracy, and religion: a selection of texts, 1983). On the other hand, due to its impersonal and institutionalized features, it has been culturally recognized in the era of scientific rationality. Nevertheless, Weber claims bureaucracy has created an ‘iron cage’ dilemma. He believes that people are trapped by rationalization forces, such as control systems that chase efficiency and threaten people’s freedom. This article will introduce the three main attributes of bureaucracy and explain why Weber announced that it might become the ‘iron cage’ of humanity.
Key Characteristics of Bureaucracy According to Weber
In the first place, one characteristic of bureaucracy is the regular division of labor among participants. It clearly divides the responsibilities of each member in the company and fixes this division of labor in the structure of regulations. For example, if you want to apply for a course study at a university. There are lots of processes that you have to finalize. In the first place, you need to get some professional suggestions about course selection from the university advisement department. Then you need to choose your courses and register your personal details in the school system through the registration department. Next, you have to pay your tuition fee to the financial department. If you have trouble with money, you can also ask for financial aid. In the end, you will get the final confirmation from your course department. The university system is a very good example of division of labor. It basically divides work into small steps. Weber emphasized the relationship between specialization in the separation of labor and human reason in the organization (Weber, Economy, and Society: An Outline of Interpretive Sociology., 1922). The practical significance of the division of labor is not only to improve efficiency but also to remove the personal privileges of a hierarchical society. Professional competence replaces personal allegiance. Powers and responsibilities belong to positions rather than individuals. These powers and responsibilities are fixed in the organization in the structure of legal systems.
The Hierarchical System of Power in Bureaucracy
Another significant feature of bureaucracy is a hierarchical system of power. The positions in the bureaucratic organization form a pyramid-shaped hierarchy according to the power level and the ‘command-obedience’ relationship. At the bottom, pyramid are all the employees, and above that, there are supervisors and managers, and finally, on the top, it is the big boss. This hierarchy is different from previous social stratification. Previous social stratifications, such as kings, nobles, and free people, were designed according to their status. Hierarchy in bureaucratic organizations is structured according to organizational power.
Impersonality and Indifference: Core Aspects of Bureaucracy
In the end, impersonality and personal indifference is also very distinctive feature of bureaucracy. From Weber’s point of view, bureaucracy is a regulatory system, not an individual system. Therefore, bureaucracy is exclusive. The operation of the organization is not transferred according to the will of the individual and is not subject to the affection of the individual. Another expression of rationalization is impersonality (Lutzker, 1982). Bureaucracy changed personal attachment and personal loyalty in traditional societies. Bureaucrats accepted superiors’ orders and orders because they obeyed the laws and rules, not the charismatic appeal of the commander himself, or obeyed him because of his traditional status. Status is not subject to the social hierarchy determined by traditional customs. However, this bureaucratic organization, which completely excludes emotions, will turn the organization into a cold machine, which will cause human alienation (Maley, 2004). Weber also pointed out the shortcomings of bureaucracy, and he tried to explore the use of personal charm to correct the alienation of bureaucracy, but he did not finish the corresponding research.
The Dual Nature of Bureaucracy: Efficiency and Alienation
Even though bureaucracy obviously brings lots of benefits to society, some sociologists, including Max Weber himself, still hold a negative stand against bureaucracy. On the one hand, bureaucracy is the form, structure, and operating mechanism, manifested by highly rationalized laws, regulations, and institutions. Its rationality is a kind of instrumental rationality, which is specifically manifested as if it is a well-designed machine with a precise structural design so as to have a specific function of every component. The function is performed by the tight meshing and thread cooperation of all components. Therefore, efficiency is the core of bureaucracy, and legitimacy is the spirit of bureaucracy. First of all, bureaucracy centralize the authority and make organizing effective. In addition, it encourages specialization in jobs. These bureaucrats need to have professional skills to take the job. These undoubtedly increase efficiency for many organizations or companies. Such as the car manufactory assemble line. It is precise because of the bureaucratic system that each employee is corresponding for a small part of the work, and through the assembly line operation, the time required to manufacture a vehicle is greatly reduced. Also, any members of an organization act in accordance with this rule from the top leader of the organization to the ordinary staff. They obey the public rules, not individual actions, or personal preferences. This has a positive effect on breaking the strict hierarchy of the traditional agricultural world.
Specialization and Its Impact on Society and Individual Creativity
On the other hand, in the bureaucracy theory, efficiency is a very important part, it is all about order and organization. A very famous example was introduced by Henry Ford about building cars with an assembly line. In the assembly line system, each worker has a very specific task. One car is made by hundreds of workers but each worker only focuses on a very small part of the car. This is a very efficient way to build cars. You are able to make a huge number of cars with a very fast speed and pretty high-quality standard. In addition, the skill of each worker can be relatively low. Some workers only know how to put on the tires and some people maybe only have the capacity to bolt the engine to the frame. Other workers may be familiar with how to assemble the fuel tank in the car. This is the process of specialization. Weber claimed that the increasing specialization in their labor caused a negative impact on society. People could lose the spirit of creativity and enjoyment in their work (Paul J. DiMaggio, 2000). For example, a student enters the university to study engineering and his dream is to become a famous engineer, one day he can design a powerful car by himself. However, when he starts to study at the university, he has been told to study how to make a small component of the car. That is the need for a bureaucratic car manufactory. He needs to learn specific skills to get the job. During the process, he loses the spirit of creativity about how to design a car. Weber believes that the emergence of capitalism is the result of a process of rationalization, and rationalization is a process that must have occurred in human history.
The Iron Cage: Weber’s Critique of Rationalization and Its Consequences
However, the process of rationalization also brings another problem: the iron cage. When we enjoy the benefits and convenience that rationalization brings to us, rationalization also brings us greater restrictions and constraints at the same time. Hierarchy is a negative product brought about by rationalization, and it is the embodiment of a reasonable life. The characteristics of bureaucratization are the division of labor system, the hierarchical system, the conventional system, the initial system, and the instrumentalization. Under management, everything has become more and more regular and systematic than before, but relatively speaking, human freedom has become smaller. It was like living in an iron cage. People feel less control over themselves. Life becomes predictable without surprise (Mitzman, 1970). Weber argues that rationalization will extend beyond production and labor and go into our homes and daily life. For example, we always associate home life with intimacy, personal connection and love, and even sexuality. Weber thinks that specialization and rationalization will spill over into home life. Nowadays things like pornography and other online ways of experiencing sexuality what was a personal intimate endeavor are now simply a product that we can purchase. We are hedonists but we do not have the same personal relationship. In the past, we went back home in after work to enjoy our time with our family and our children, but nowadays we just sit back to watch a movie or play online games. We do not have the same level of human connection as we did in the past. Entertainment is a product rather than a source of relationships. Because rationalization is an inevitable process, the hierarchy of human beings is unavoidable, and we will lose the human quality (dehumanize) in the hierarchy (Baehr, 2001). It has become a tool of organization, the world has become too rational, the ultimate meaning is missing, and life lacks layers, which is exactly the problem facing society today.
Conclusion: Reevaluating Bureaucracy for a Human-Centered Approach
To sum up, Weber introduced the idea of bureaucracy characterized as a fixed division of labor, hierarchical system of power, and impersonality. It does bring some merits to society, such as fixed division of labor and a hierarchical system of power establishing an effective system. Such as the example of the different university departments and the building car assembly lines. University helps the students solve different kinds of problems through different departments and a specific person. It obviously increases the efficiency and reduces the time of resolving students’ issues. The assembly line of car manufactory can not only rise the speed of car making but also can guarantee the good quality standard at the same time. Impersonality also reduces social injustice, and the people obey orders from superiors due to the rules rather than orders from nobles because of their social status. However, Weber was concerned about the impact that bureaucracy may bring. First of all, everyone in society is like a component of the huge machine mechanism. People keep repeating the same job day by day. They could lose their spirit of creativity gradually. People are forced to be specialized and learn some specific skills to get a job. Specialization will no longer be a matter of pride or personal satisfaction. Too much specialization will make humans lose their personal meaning. Then people will not feel connected with their jobs anymore. In the end, the excess of rationality restricts individuals’ minds. Weber’s ultimate fear was that the rationalization of bureaucracy will spill over into all aspects of our daily lives. In the iron cage, we will become less human and more like robots. We may simply fulfill the role both at work and at home without real human enjoyment or spirituality (Weber, ‘The Spirit of Capitalism and the Iron Cage,’, 1905). Weber’s analysis of bureaucracy and the iron cage is absolutely wonderful. However, his analysis relies too much on experience and ignores the requirement for the accumulation of economic facts. Bureaucracy should not be a management system that eliminates people but should be a people-centered system. It needs to highlight the subjectivity of people, and it needs to affirm the value of people and the role of human values. In this way, the objectivity and rationality of bureaucracy can transform into human subjectivity and moral priority, so that we can prevent the predicament of the “iron cage”.