Bureaucratic Management
Max Weber embellished
the scientific management theory
with his bureaucratic management theory which is mainly focused on dividing
organizations into hierarchies, establishing strong lines of authority
and control. Weber
suggested organizations develop comprehensive and detailed standard
operating procedures for all routinized tasks.
Max Weber was a
historian that wrote about the emergence of bureaucracy (or bureaucratic
management) from more
traditional organizational forms (like feudalism) and it's rising
pre-eminance in modern society. Scott defines bureaucracy it as "the
existence of a specialized administrative staff". According to Weber,
beaucracy is a particular type of administrative structure developed
through rational-legal authority. Bureaucratic structures evolved from
traditional structures with the following changes:
1. Jurisdictional areas are
clearly specified, activities are distributed as official duties (unlike
traditional form where duties delegated by leader and changed at any
time).
2. Organization follows
hierarchial principle -- subordinates follow orders or superiors, but
have right of appeal (in contrast to more diffuse structure in
traditional authority).
3. Intential, abstract rules
govern decisions and actions. Rules are stable, exhaustive, and can be
learned. Decisions are recorded in permanent files (in traditional forms
few explicit rules or written records).
4. Means of production or
administration belong to office. Personal property separated from office
property.
5. Officials are selected on
basis of technical qualifications, appointed not elected, and
compensated by salary.
6. Employement by the
organization is a career. The official is a full-time employee and looks
forward to a life-long career. After a trial period they get tenure of
position and are protected from arbitrary dismissal.
Max Weber said that
bureaucracy resolves some of the shortcomings of the traditional system.
Described above was his ideal-type construct, a simplified model (not a
preferred model) that focuses on the most important features.
Weber's view of
bureaucracy (or bureaucratic management) was a system of power where leaders exercise control over
others -- a system based on discipline.
Weber stressed that the
rational-legal form was the most stable of systems for both superiors
and subordinates -- it's more reliable and clear, yet allows the
subordinate more independence and discretion. Subordinates ideally can
challenge the decisions of their leaders by referring to the stated
rules -- charisma becomes less important. As a result, bureaucratic
systems can handle more complex operations than traditional systems.
(all above Scott p. 41-42).
The Ideal Bureaucracy
Bureaucracy is the division of labour
applied to administration. 'Bureau', is a French word meaning desk, or
by extension, an office; thus, 'Bureaucracy' is rule through a desk or
office, that is, a form of organization built on the preparation and
dispatch of written documents. In contrast to the commonly held view of
bureaucracies, they do not 'rule' in their own right but are the means
by which a monarchy, aristocracy, democracy, or other form of authority,
rules.
Observing the changes that were taking
place during the industrial revolution,
Max Weber saw Capitalism
as 'rational' way to organize activities: rational in the sense that all
decisions could based on the calculation of their likely return to the
enterprise. Weber's Ideal bureaucracy was therefore devoted to the
principle of efficiency: maximizing output whilst minimizing inputs.
By studying the organizational
innovations in Germany at the turn of the 20th century,
Max Weber identified the
core elements of this new form of organization. For Weber, the ideal
bureaucracy was characterized by impersonality, efficiency and
rationality. The key feature of the organization was that the authority
of officials was subject to published rules and codes of practice; all
rules, decisions and actions were recorded in writing.
The structure of the organization is a
continuous hierarchy where each level is subject to control by the level
above it. Each position in the hierarchy exists in its own right and job
holders have no rights to a particular position. Responsibilities within
each level are clearly delineated and each level has its own sphere of
competence. An appointment to an office, and the levels of authority
that go with it, are based solely on the grounds of technical
competence.
Max Weber believed that,
due to their efficiency and stability, bureaucracies would become the
most prevalent form of organization in society. However, he was also
concerned that bureaucracies shared so many common structures it could
mean that all organizations would become very much alike, which in turn
could lead to the development of a new class of worker, the professional
bureaucrat.
A Theory of
Bureaucratic Dysfunction
Michel Crozier (1964)
In 1964 the French Sociologist, Michel
Crozier set out to re-examine Weber's concept of the efficient ideal
bureaucracy in the light of the way that bureaucratic organizations had
actually developed and constructed a theory of bureaucratic dysfunction
based on an analysis of case studies.
The core of his theory stems from the
observation that in situations where almost every outcome has been
decided in advance, the only way for people to gain control over their
lives is to exploit any remaining 'zones of uncertainty'. He argues that
organizational relations become little more than strategic games that
attempt to exploit such zones, either for their own ends, or to prevent
others from gaining an advantage. The result is that the organization
becomes locked into a series of inward looking power struggles - so
called 'vicious circles' - that prevent it learning from its errors.
Thus, in order to be rational and
egalitarian, bureaucracies attempt to come up with a set of impersonal
rules to cover every event. The result is that because decisions are
predetermined, hierarchical relationships become less important and the
senior levels loose the power to govern.
Secondly, in order to maintain the
impersonal nature of decision making, decisions must be made by people
who cannot be influenced by those who are affected. The effect of this
is that problems are only resolved by people who have no direct
knowledge of them.
Thirdly, the elimination of
opportunities for bargaining and negotiation creates an organization
consisting of a series of isolated strata. The result is peer group
pressure to conform to the norms of the strata regardless of individual
beliefs or the wider goals of the organization.
Finally, individuals or groups that
gain control the zones of uncertainty weild disproportionate power in an
otherwise regulated and egalitarian organization. This leads to the
creation of parallel power structures, which in turn results in
decisions being made based on factors unrelated to those of the
organization as a whole.
Characteristics of
Bureaucracy
According to
Max Weber MODERN
officialdom functions in the following specific manner:
I. There is the principle of fixed
and official jurisdictional areas, which are generally ordered by rules,
that is, by laws or administrative regulations.
1. The regular activities
required for the purposes of the bureaucratically governed structure are
distributed in a fixed way as official duties.
2. The authority to give the
commands required for the discharge of these duties is distributed in a
stable way and is strictly delimited by rules concerning the coercive
means, physical, sacerdotal, or otherwise, which may be placed at the
disposal of officials.
3. Methodical provision is made
for the regular and continuous fulfilment of these duties and for the
execution of the corresponding rights; only persons who have the
generally regulated qualifications to serve are employed.
In public and lawful government these
three elements constitute 'bureaucratic authority.' In private economic
domination, they constitute bureaucratic 'management.' Bureaucracy, thus
understood, is fully developed in political and ecclesiastical
communities only in the modern state, and, in the private economy, only
in the most advanced institutions of capitalism. Permanent and public
office authority, with fixed jurisdiction, is not the historical rule
but rather the exception. This is so even in large political structures
such as those of the ancient Orient, the Germanic and Mongolian empires
of conquest, or of many feudal structures of state. In all these cases,
the ruler executes the most important measures through personal
trustees, table-companions, or court-servants. Their commissions and
authority are not precisely delimited and are temporarily called into
being for each case.
II. The principles of office
hierarchy and of levels of graded authority mean a firmly ordered system
of super- and subordination in which there is a supervision of the lower
offices by the higher ones. Such a system offers the governed the
possibility of appealing the decision of a lower office to its higher
authority, in a definitely regulated manner. With the full development
of the bureaucratic type, the office hierarchy is monocratically
organized. The principle of hierarchical office authority is found in
all bureaucratic structures: in state and ecclesiastical structures as
well as in large party organizations and private enterprises. It does
not matter for the character of bureaucracy whether its authority is
called 'private' or 'public.'
When the principle of jurisdictional
'competency' is fully carried through, hierarchical subordination--at
least in public office--does not mean that the 'higher' authority is
simply authorized to take over the business of the 'lower.' Indeed, the
opposite is the rule. Once established and having fulfilled its task, an
office tends to continue in existence and be held by another incumbent.
III. The management of the modern
office is based upon written documents ('the files'), which are
preserved in their original or draught form. There is, therefore, a
staff of subaltern officials and scribes of all sorts. The body of
officials actively engaged in a 'public' office, along with the
respective apparatus of material implements and the files, make up a
'bureau.' In private enterprise, 'the bureau' is often called 'the
office.'
In principle, the modern organization
of the civil service separates the bureau from the private domicile of
the official, and, in general, bureaucracy segregates official activity
as something distinct from the sphere of private life. Public monies and
equipment are divorced from the private property of the official. This
condition is everywhere the product of a long development. Nowadays, it
is found in public as well as in private enterprises; in the latter, the
principle extends even to the leading entrepreneur. In principle, the
executive office is separated from the household, business from private
correspondence, and business assets from private fortunes. The more
consistently the modern type of business management has been carried
through the more are these separations the case. The beginnings of this
process are to be found as early as the Middle Ages.
It is the peculiarity of the modern
entrepreneur that he conducts himself as the 'first official' of his
enterprise, in the very same way in which the ruler of a specifically
modern bureaucratic state spoke of himself as 'the first servant' of the
state. The idea that the bureau activities of the state are
intrinsically different in character from the management of private
economic offices is a continental European notion and, by way of
contrast, is totally foreign to the American way.
IV. Office management, at least all
specialized office management-- and such management is distinctly
modern--usually presupposes thorough and expert training. This
increasingly holds for the modern executive and employee of private
enterprises, in the same manner as it holds for the state official.
V. When the office is fully
developed, official activity demands the full working capacity of the
official, irrespective of the fact that his obligatory time in the
bureau may be firmly delimited. In the normal case, this is only the
product of a long development, in the public as well as in the private
office. Formerly, in all cases, the normal state of affairs was
reversed: official business was discharged as a secondary activity.
VI. The management of the office
follows general rules, which are more or less stable, more or less
exhaustive, and which can be learned. Knowledge of these rules
represents a special technical learning which the officials possess. It
involves jurisprudence, or administrative or business management.
The reduction of modern office
management to rules is deeply embedded in its very nature. The theory of
modern public administration, for instance, assumes that the authority
to order certain matters by decree--which has been legally granted to
public authorities--does not entitle the bureau to regulate the matter
by commands given for each case, but only to regulate the matter
abstractly. This stands in extreme contrast to the regulation of all
relationships through individual privileges and bestowals of favor,
which is absolutely dominant in patrimonialism, at least in so far as
such relationships are not fixed by sacred tradition.
Bureaucracy and
Unresponsiveness
Often public service organizations are
criticized for being unresponsive to their customer's needs.
One of Weber's most serious concerns
was how society would maintain control over expanding state
bureaucracies. He felt the most serious problem was not inefficiency or
mismanagement but the increased power of public officials. A person in
an important, specialized position will become to realize how dependent
their bosses are on their expertise and begin to exercise their power in
that position. Furthermore, the staff also begin to associate with the
special social interests of their particular group or organization. Over
history this has caused the shift in power from the leaders of society
to the bureaucrats.
Criticism of Weberian
Bureaucratic Theory
One critique was Weber's claim that
bureacratic organizations were based on rational-legal authority.
Parsons (1947) and Gouldner (1954) note that Weber said authority rests
both in the "legal incumbancy of office" and on "technical competence".
This works if superiors have more knowledge and skill, but often this is
not the case.
Thompson notes that in modern
organizations authority is centralized but ability is decentralized
(Thompson 1961). In fact staff-line distictions seem to be a structural
resolution of this authority-ability quandary that Weber overlooked.
Weber also doesn't distinguish between
definitions and propositions in his model. His list of distinguishing
characteristics are linked between each other
Udy (1959) found in examining 150
organizations and found no correlation between the bureaucratic
attributes of the organization and it's rational attributes.
More recent theorists think that
earlier theorists misread Weber and distorted his views. Weber was
defining a formal rationality that was not necessarily optimal for
efficiency. He realized that formalization could degenerate into
formalism, and that bureaucratic forms concentrated power at the top and
could cause an "iron cage" to imprison the low-level worker in obscurity
and monotonous detail.
References
http://www.chris-kimble.com/Courses/mis/Bureaucratic_Organisations.html
http://faculty.babson.edu/krollag/org_site/encyclop/weber_crit.html
http://faculty.babson.edu/krollag/org_site/encyclop/bureaucracy.html
http://www.cardiff.ac.uk/socsi/undergraduate/introsoc/bureau.html
Weber, Max. Essay in Sociology,
Bureaucracy, 1946
|
