Bureaucratic Management Essay

The concept of bureaucracy as a form of organization has become the basis for scholars and practitioners to determine and evaluate other forms of organizations. It is observed that whenever an organization is described, one always says it is either bureaucratic or non-bureaucratic. This paper will identify the characteristics of bureaucratic organizations and determine whether these characteristics are still present among organizations of today. This essay is outlined according to the following structure: The first part introduces the reader to Max Weber and his idea of the bureaucratic organization. The major characteristics of the bureaucracy will be presented and discussed in accordance with the original ideas propounded by Weber himself, either through his own writings or those who have exhaustively studied his works. The second part will be a discussion of why the bureaucratic forms developed, interpreted to mean a discussion of their causes as well as the reasons why the bureaucracy flourished as a model of an organization. The final part is a qualified assessment of whether the bureaucratic model of organizations is still being used by present-day organizations or whether organizations have outgrown it and have found the more effective form. Some examples will be given as to what organizational structures or forms are being used by modern organizations. From these will be determined if organizations are now in the post-bureaucratic period. Bureaucracy as a concept of organization was a contribution to theory attributable to either Karl Marx or Max Weber. However, since much of the writings of Karl Marx are more ideologically focused on the philosophical and social aspects, especially with his concept of revolutionary communism, Max Weber has come to be known as the proponent of the concept of bureaucracy. It is safe to believe at this point though, that Max Weber was highly influenced by the writings of Karl Marx and from whose ideas some his bureaucratic concepts are anchored. This essay will focus on the ideas advanced by Max Weber regarding the bureaucratic organization. The description â€Å"Weberian†, referring to his model of bureaucracy, has become a comfortable term to use in bureaucratic literature. Being the major contributor to social theory with his idea of the bureaucratic organization, Max Weber finds himself in major written works, proving his important place in social and political theory. The reasons for his importance are discussed in the Weber book edited by Sam Whimster entitled The Essential Weber: A Reader.   Some reasons provided are: the concept of the work ethic; the idea of rationality as applied to the capitalist enterprise, the bureaucratic organization, and legal systems; discipline; the legitimacy of power and leadership; a general theory of power based on the Marxist idea of social classes; among others.[1] Having said this, one wonders why Weber’s bureaucracy is considered the â€Å"ideal organization† or the â€Å"ideal-type† organization. What makes it become the model for future organizations? What are the main characteristics of the bureaucratic organization? To know these characteristics will help one understand why his model is considered to be an ideal model. The Main Characteristics of Bureaucratic Management The idea of bureaucracy elicits varied reactions from different people. Some agree with the idea of achieving order through its prescribed system of doing things. Others though condemn it for causing problems like delays, corruption, being too impersonal, etc.   In order to put all these in their proper perspective, a good starting point is to define the concept of bureaucracy. The first and most common word one comes across in literature related to bureaucracy is the word rationality. Quoting Weber, Neil Garston defines bureaucracy in the book Bureaucracy: Three Paradigms by way of the categories of rational legal authority.   Authority in this sense is equated to bureaucracy and involves the following: [2] 1. A continuous organization of official functions bound by rules 2. A specified fear of competence involving spheres of obligations marked by division of labor; incumbent being provided with authority to carry out functions; clearly defined means of compulsion 3. The organization of offices follows the principle of hierarchy 4. The rules which regulate the conduct of an office may be technical rules or norms 5. Administration is completely separated from ownership 6. Complete absence of appropriation of his position by the incumbent 7. Administrative acts, decisions and rules are formulated and recorded in writing. Garston goes on to describe the purely bureaucratic organization as â€Å"being from the technical point of view, capable of attaining the highest degree of efficiency and is in this sense the most rational means of carrying out imperative control of human beings.[3] From above description of bureaucracy, a rational organization for Weber is an organization that is governed by a system of rules and procedures. The rationality in his ideal organization is its capability to be efficient through methods of carrying out control over human beings. The aspects of being stable and reliable make the organization ideal. The rules which are observed with much discipline make the organization less prone to instability because there will be none or very little room for sudden changes which may result in the breakdown of the system. In short, Weber advocates an organization that is governed by rules which are universally and strictly followed by people who are qualified and properly trained. Below is a further explanation of the characteristics of a bureaucratic organization, as presented in the initial part of the essay: 1. A continuous organization of official functions bound by rules The application of rules is for everyone and the rules have to be complied with. Rules are applied irrespective of the position and not the person who occupies the position. 2. A specified sphere of competence involving spheres of obligations marked by division of labor; incumbent being provided with authority to carry out functions; clearly defined means of compulsion. Work is divided among the staff, each one with his own set of responsibilities as well as the means of doing them.   The different position titles reflect the nature of how work is divided among the staff, each position has corresponding obligations and responsibilities. 3. The organization of offices follows the principle of hierarchy The organization is characterized by positions of authority structured in a hierarchy, which means that, according to Weber, each lower office is controlled and supervised by a higher one. And consequently, there are positions that have more power. 4. The rules which regulate the conduct of an office may be technical rules or norms. This means that the organization is staffed by qualified people because only those who pass the standards get hired. The basis of both the selection and promotion of employees is the employees’ technical qualifications. As an example, in the specific area of HR, the Personnel Manual codifies the qualification criteria for the selection and hiring of employees. 5. Administration is completely separated from ownership 6. Complete absence of appropriation of his position by the incumbent Both characteristics refer to the aspect of separating administration from ownership in bureaucratic organizations. The means of administration do not belong to the bureaucrat but are concentrated at the top. Thus the position of the official cannot be sold or inherited and it cannot be appropriated and integrated in his private patrimony.[4] The means of production and  administration referred to include the physical equipment like computers, documents, buildings, etc. 7. Administrative acts, decisions and rules are formulated and recorded in writing.   Weber advocates the recording of rules and all acts of administration through written forms, which he referred to as â€Å"the files†. Weber uses the terms â€Å"rational† and â€Å"bureaucratic† in his model. From this, bureaucracy is sometimes called the bureaucratic rationality theory. An assessment of this idea was made by   Stanley Udy Jr. in the article â€Å"Bureaucracy and Rationality in Weber’s Organization Theory: An Empirical Study. The specifications made by Weber were reformulated as either â€Å"bureaucratic† or â€Å"rational† variables. The study proposed the positive and negative associations between the variables from a comparative analysis of 150 formal organizations in 150 non-industrial societies: â€Å"(a) bureaucratic variables are positively associated; (b) rational variables are positively associated; but (c) rational variables are negatively associated with bureaucratic variables†.[5]   This is interpreted to mean that there are certain characteristics of Weber’s bureaucracy that are considered rational, some are considered bureaucratic but not all of them are both bureaucratic and rational. This is really proof of how much dissected the bureaucratic theory is. How about the effect of bureaucracy to the people within the organization? The bureaucracy, with all its characteristic features, is seen as producing two views of the human outcomes, the positive and the negative views. According to the negative view, the bureaucratic form of organization stifles creativity, fosters dissatisfaction, and demotivates employees while in the positive view, bureaucracy provides the needed guidance and clarifies responsibilities, thereby easing role stress and helping individuals be and feel more effective.[6] The Development of Bureaucratic Forms In the writings of Weber, there were already indications of a bureaucratic organization as early as in the middle ages under the rule of the kings. Kings during that time ruled on traveled around ruling the country on horseback, bringing with them sometimes an army of men who took his orders. We have seen this scene fully documented in movies of ancient times where the king, with just a simple signal, can get his men to follow all his orders, from simple documentation to the complex instructions about going into battle. Weber saw this  as a sign of bureaucracy with his idea of the â€Å"bureau†. From this ancient practice developed the concept of the modern bureaucracy.   Presently though, the bureau as Weber described it is structured in a variety of ways, but the main idea of having staff and having an office still remains. Weber called the ancient practice as the â€Å"bureaucratization of the army†.[7] Weber’s works are dominated by the term â€Å"rationalization†. This seemed to have moved him to write about the bureaucratic model as an ideal type organization. According to him, this concept of rationality can help organizations achieve their objectives. The early theories and models of organizations, which are considered traditional, were highly criticized by Weber, saying they are either irrational or non-rational. Being a sociologist mainly, he believed that the use of religion or even magic in ruling is not effective. The traditional forms were not systematic and there were no rules, leaders only relied on feelings and supernatural explanations or perhaps their charisma. While Max Weber considered history to be a force in motivating him to write about bureaucracy, another author provides another dimension to how bureaucratic forms of  organizations developed. Contentions were made relative to Hegel’s Theory of Bureaucracy.   One is that Hegel’s theory is as comprehensive as Weber’s ideal type of bureaucratic organization in that the paradigm of Weber could fit in a reformulation of Hegel’s model.   A second contention made is that Hegel adapts the Aristotelian category of practical judgment to characterize the bureaucratic activity as subsumption. The Weberian concept of rationality is even helpful in the clarifying the difficulties in Hegel’s political thought. This leads to the third contention that Hegel’s model can contribute to a theory of bureaucracy that is more applicable to modern political and social reality.[8] This whole idea of comparing Hegel and Weber and even using the ideas of Aristotle proves that the bureaucracy is an idea that is not only forced by history but also one that is a natural way of organizations. The scholars and other students of bureaucracy only attempted to improve what has already been an idea and a model in the minds of the thinkers. Thus it can be said that the bureaucracy developed as a result of the need to improve the traditional methods of establishing the structures for organizations. While organizations were not really devoid of structure then, the weaknesses in their models became a motivation to come up with better models. The ideas of the bureaucracy were borne out of the need to make them more efficient by following the structure proposed by Weber. The presence of a system of rules governing administration is believed by Weber to be an important component of being able to run the affairs of the organization very smoothly. This is especially true among formal organizations as they are more applicable to them. Another reason is the need to do away with the subjectivity and personal biases governing human organizations. This means that when there are standardized rules, the  possibility of a lot of personal favors may be avoided. It is considered ideal to have the rules universally applied so that there are no personal biases that may arise. The â€Å"personalization† of the positions sometimes cause complex problems arising out of differences in perceptions and attitudes. The impersonal touch of organization is seen to be beneficial in order that rules may be universally applied more easily. The bureaucracy also developed further as it was seen to be continuously pertinent   .. even in today’s socioeconomic and cultural life. This is the position espoused in the book Max Weber and the New Century. The book advances the position that Weber’s ideas are still preeminent and continue to have lasting vitality within social theory. By applying them to topics of contemporary concern, they are expressed in different cultural forms. Sica calls the study of Weber’s works â€Å"a universe of Weberian analysis†.[9]