Classical Organization theory (especially as developed by F.W. Taylor), essentially seen as a development of industrial engineering, has by 1930 lost most of its elevance, largely because it lacked any significant theoretical base. Max Weber, the German Sociologist, tried to fill this vacuum through his classical work, the Theory of Social and Economic Organization in 1920.
Meaning of Bureaucracy
The word bureaucracy had an
undisguised negative image even at the very time of its origin. Even today
especially in the eyes of the uninitiated, the term continues to be one of
abuse, even if it is of a mild intensity. Bureaucracy tends itself to two usages. It refers to a
collective word for a body of administrative officials. Frequently, it also
stands for inefficiency and an improper exercise of power on the part of
officials, and thus has become a term of abuse.
In simple terms it implies this proposition: In an ideal sense, the most efficient and rational organization is that in which there is clearly defined hierarchy of offices, each office with a clearly defined area of jurisdiction, each office filled by an individual tested to possess the highest technical qualifications and the entire set of offices linked together by a system of rules, procedures and impersonal relationships. Weber developed the model as a reaction against personal subjugation, nepotism, cruelty and subjective judgments which passed for managerial practices in the early days of industrial revolution.
He believed that bureaucracy provides an ideal weapon to harness and routinize human and mechanical energy which fuelled the industrial revolution. Weber firmly believed that everything about an organization should help in achieving its goals. His views of bureaucracy were thus internally oriented. External pressures on bureaucracies were viewed by Weber as a threat to the organization’s pursuit of its goals.
In simple terms it implies this proposition: In an ideal sense, the most efficient and rational organization is that in which there is clearly defined hierarchy of offices, each office with a clearly defined area of jurisdiction, each office filled by an individual tested to possess the highest technical qualifications and the entire set of offices linked together by a system of rules, procedures and impersonal relationships. Weber developed the model as a reaction against personal subjugation, nepotism, cruelty and subjective judgments which passed for managerial practices in the early days of industrial revolution.
He believed that bureaucracy provides an ideal weapon to harness and routinize human and mechanical energy which fuelled the industrial revolution. Weber firmly believed that everything about an organization should help in achieving its goals. His views of bureaucracy were thus internally oriented. External pressures on bureaucracies were viewed by Weber as a threat to the organization’s pursuit of its goals.
The word bureaucracy was first coined
by Vincent de Gournay (1712-1759), an economist of France. He observed; “we have an
illness in France
which bids fairs to play havoc with us; this illness is called bureaumania.”
In 1965, the Baron
de Grimm, the French Philosopher, wrote: The real spirit of the laws of
France is that bureaucracy... here, the offices, clerks, secretaries,
inspectors and attendants are not appointed to benefit the public interest,
indeed the public interest appears to have been established so that offices
might exist.
The Dictionary of the French Academy
accepted the word in its 1798 supplement and defined it as “power, influence of
the heads of staff of government bureaux.” But it was in the nineteenth
century, under conditions of increasing state intervention, that the term came
into regular use among European Writers. In England, it became current in the
1830s during resistance to the centralization of poor relief and public health
measures. An exhaustive treatment of the concept came in 1895 in Gaetano
Mosca’s Element di Scienza Political, translated in 1939 as The
Riding Class, where the author regarded bureaucracy as being so fundamental
to the governing of great empires that all political systems could be
classified as either feudal or bureaucratic. It was however, Max Weber
(1864-1920) who founded the modern sociological
study of bureaucracy, freed the term from pejorative connotation, and
emphasized its indispensability for the rational attainment of the goal of an
organization.
Max Weber, the distinguished scholar, was born in 1864 in Germany - in that part of which was then a part of Prussia, the Land which perplexed and haunted him all his life. He passed away in June 1920 at an early age of fifty-six. He thus died when he was on the thresh hold of the golden phase of his career: Profound scholarship is late flowering. Any way, his reputation has grown steadily since his death; and his name today is much more widely known than ever in his life. Max Weber’s fame as a scholar is posthumous, in fact, he had died in 1920 two years after the termination of the first Great War. Weber wrote in the German Language and his works were not known to the English speaking world. Under Nazi persecution several German scholars fled from Hilter’s Germany and settled down in U.S.A. These immigrant scholars familiarized the world with Weber’s writings, but that happened after the end of the second world war. In 1946 the Oxford University Press published Gerth and Mills’ translation from Max Weber: Essays in Sociology and a year later followed Henderson and Parsons’ translation: The Theory of Social and Economic organization. With the availability of these works, Weber’s reputation as a scholar began shoring up.
“Why do people obey?” is a question central to political philosophy. What, in other words, constitutes the legitimacy of power? Power, by which is meant naked power or coercion, turns into authority when it gains legitimacy. Legitimacy can be gained by three paths: These are the charismatic, the traditional, and the rational legal. Charisma means divine grace and is adopted by Max Weber to connote the ability to lead and inspire by sheer force of personality and conviction. A charismatic leader, therefore, is one who converts people to massage and secures their obedience by persuasion without any coercion. Divine grace is self-guaranteeing and disobedience to it is blasphemy. But charisma as a legitimizer is not reliable. It is not very long-enduring nor indefinitely extensible. The demands and compulsions of everyday life for order, continuity and predictability cannot be reconciled with a constant eruption of divine inspiration. Chrarisma, then becomes routinized in ritual administration and discipline. According to the traditional path, time makes good: Men have always done things in such a way and obeyed people who have got into office by a recognized quality of holiness or bravery. These are the forms of traditional authority. There is wisdom in old things: Old is gold, as many say.
The rational-legal path is based on
reason. Reason, argues Weber, is science, reason is technical, reason is Law
and these are the foundations of rational-legal authority. Rational-legal
authority is supremely efficient for the attainment of ends of organization.
The form of organization based on rationality and lega1ity is bureaucracy.
Weber’s study of legitimation and authority introduces a whole new dimension to
the study of organizational discipline. He used power to refer to the
ability to induce acceptance of orders; legitimation to refer to the acceptance of
the exercise of power because it is in line with values held by the subjects;
and authority to refer to the
combination of the two i.e., to power that is viewed as legitimate. Weber’s
classification of authority may be applied on at least three levels, one might
apply it on the societal level comparing traditional, bureaucratic or
rational-legal, and charismatic societies. The medieval society is often viewed
as traditional, the modern democratic as bureaucratic or rational-legal, and
societies in revolutionary periods - such as Russia after 1917 and Nazi Germany
in the years following 1933, India in the years of Mahatma Karanchan Gandhi and
the Eastern Nigeria during the civil war 1967-1970 under the leadership of Late
Odumegwu Ojukwu as charismatic. One might compare different kinds of social
units according to the type of
authority base. Here family is seen as traditional complex organizations as
bureaucratic or rational-legal: and revolutionary political parties as
charismatic. Weber suggested that to be effective and efficient as an
organizational instrument, a modern organizational structure requires
bureaucratic or rational-legal authority.
Charismatic relations lack any
systematic division of labour, specialization or stability. Organization
activities in traditional social units are not sufficiently immune from non
relevant political, stratification, and kinship considerations, hence do not
allow the rationality of the productive or administrative process to exert
itself. Bureaucracy as enunciated by Max Weber is based on the notion of
rational-legal authority - that is, an authority which employees recognize as
legitimate being inherent in the administrators in the hierarchical structure.
Included in the rational-legal authority, are written rules, procedures and
their primacy. Each position in the bureaucracy has its duties and rights which
are all clearly defined: rules and procedures have been laid down to determine
how the given authority is to be exercised. Bureaucracy promises a stable
organization, despite the fact that its incumbents come and go. Its functioning
does not necessarily depend on the know-how of individual working in it:
know-how is instead embodied in rules and regulations, procedures and other
written records which always remain within the organization - in contrast to
individuals who could join and leave. Bureaucracies, as we are all aware, are
found in political, religious, business, military, educational and other
organizations. Imagine for a moment human organization without structure,
without stability and without order. Confusion prevails. Chaos results in. What
a difference there is in modern warfare operations where thousands of technical
personnel often combine air, naval, land and space forces through highly
complex command and supply hierarchies.
The same is true in a business; how else - other than with concepts of bureaucracy could the multi-myriad terms of technical and operating personnel who contribute to the manufacture of an automobile be coordinated? According to Marshal E. Dimock, complexity produces bureaucracy. When life is simple, when interpersonal relationships are direct and institutions small, individuals may be lazy, indifferent or even slothful; but rarely do you find an institutional situation which may accurately be described as bureaucratic. In a complex environment, institutions become large, relationships impersonal, organizations and procedures meticulously worked out, and bureaucracy is a natural consequence. It is a small wonder; bureaucracy has been the dominant feature of ancient civilizations as well as modern organizations in contemporary world.
The same is true in a business; how else - other than with concepts of bureaucracy could the multi-myriad terms of technical and operating personnel who contribute to the manufacture of an automobile be coordinated? According to Marshal E. Dimock, complexity produces bureaucracy. When life is simple, when interpersonal relationships are direct and institutions small, individuals may be lazy, indifferent or even slothful; but rarely do you find an institutional situation which may accurately be described as bureaucratic. In a complex environment, institutions become large, relationships impersonal, organizations and procedures meticulously worked out, and bureaucracy is a natural consequence. It is a small wonder; bureaucracy has been the dominant feature of ancient civilizations as well as modern organizations in contemporary world.
Elements of Bureaucracy
Weber has provided a number of
features of bureaucratic structures. These features described the perfect or
ideal bureaucracy. However in practice, organizations meet these criteria only
partially.
1. Hierarchy: Hierarchy is a way of ranking various positions in
descending order from top to bottom of an organization. In a bureaucratic
structure, each lower office is under the supervision and control of a higher
one. Ultimately, no office is left uncontrolled in the organization. The
hierarchy serves as lines of communication and command, and as a means for
delegating tasks. Bureaucracies are organized in clearly defined hierarchy of
offices.
2. Division of Work: All tasks necessary for the
accomplishment of goals are divided into highly specialized jobs. Each person’s
job is broken down into simple, routine, and well-defined tasks. As a result,
each employee knows the areas in which he operates and the areas in which he
must abstain from-action. Jurisdictional disputes are automatically avoided.
Further division of labour allows for specialization of effort and permits
employees to perform a manageable number of tasks. It improves one’s skill at
performing a task through repetition.
3. Official Rules, Regulations and Procedures: To ensure uniformity and to
regulate the behaviour of job-holders, there is heavy dependence on formal
rules and procedures in bureaucratic organizations. These rules and regulations
are more or less stable and exhaustive. The emphasis is on consistency.
Objective rationality is sought through impersonal means. Behaviour is subject
to systematic discipline and control within the frame work of rules.
4. Official Records: Bureaucratic
organization is characterized
by maintenance of proper official records. The decisions and activities of the
organization are formally recorded and preserved for future reference. This is
made possible by extensive use of filing system in the organization.
5. Impersonal Relationships: Another important feature of bureaucracy
is the impersonality of relationships among employees. Official positions are
free from personal involvement, emotions and sentiments in a bureaucratic
structure. The decisions are governed by rational considerations rather than
personal factors. The officials are personally free and subject to authority
only with respect to their impersonal official obligations. Though such total
depersonalization is oblivious to environmental reality, Weber contends that
bureaucratic structures pave the way for rational decisions.
6. Remuneration of Officials: They are remunerated by fixed salaries
in money, for the most part with a right to pensions. Only under certain
circumstances does the employing authority, especially in private
organizations, have a right to terminate the appointment, but the official is
always free to resign. The salary scale is primarily graded according to rank
in the hierarchy, but in addition to this criterion, the responsibility of the
position and the requirements of the incumbent’s social status may be taken
into account. There is a system of promotion according to seniority or merit.
Promotion is dependent on the judgment of superiors.
7. Administrative Class: Bureaucratic structures generally have administrative class responsible for co-ordinating the activities of the members. This class of officials known as bureaucrats are selected based on their competence and skills. They are paid and whole-time employees of the organization. They are selected according to merit, receive special training for their post and enjoy corporate tenure. They are paid salaries with increases according to age and experience and receive pensions when they retire. Promotion is based on seniority and achievement, decided by judgment of superiors. Bureaucracy thus, maximizes vocational security and for this reason it has been suggested that it often attracts persons who value security above all else. Candidates are selected on the basis of technical qualifications. In this most rational case, this is tested by examination or gruanteed by diplomas certifying technical training, or both. They are appointed not elected.
7. Administrative Class: Bureaucratic structures generally have administrative class responsible for co-ordinating the activities of the members. This class of officials known as bureaucrats are selected based on their competence and skills. They are paid and whole-time employees of the organization. They are selected according to merit, receive special training for their post and enjoy corporate tenure. They are paid salaries with increases according to age and experience and receive pensions when they retire. Promotion is based on seniority and achievement, decided by judgment of superiors. Bureaucracy thus, maximizes vocational security and for this reason it has been suggested that it often attracts persons who value security above all else. Candidates are selected on the basis of technical qualifications. In this most rational case, this is tested by examination or gruanteed by diplomas certifying technical training, or both. They are appointed not elected.
8. It is a matter of principle that
the members of the administrative staff should be completely separated from
ownership of the means of production and administration. There exists,
furthermore, in principle complete separation of the property belonging to the
organization, which is controlled within the spheres of the office and the
personal property of the official.
9 The official is subjected to strict
and systematic discipline and control in the conduct of the office. Each office
has clearly defined sphere of competence in the legal sense. The office is
filled by a free contractual relationship. Thus, in principle, there is free
selection.
An organization can be considered
bureaucratic depending on the extent to which the above characteristics are
present. However, in actual practice, the bureaucratic model is rarely found in
pure form. Organizations in the real world vary in terms of the above features.
Bureaucracies exist in degrees, very few conform to the ideal type visualized
by Weber.
Functions of Bureaucracy
Bureaucracy provides several powerful
functions, often described as advantages in organizations. Bureaucracy permits
the logical division of organization into different functional departments.
People can specialize in their respective fields and show improved performance.
Bureaucracy brings rationality to an organization. Judgments are made according
to objective and generally agreed upon criteria. Furthermore, by
structuring the duties, responsibilities and reporting relationship in a
command hierarchy, bureaucracy provides form or substance to an organization.
Such logical structuring of activities brings about orderly execution of
assigned task. The rules, regulations, training, specialization, structure and
other elements of bureaucracy enable it to provide predictability and stability
to an organization. For example, bureaucracy enables a fresh student to predict
with high confidence his university will still be in existence three or
four years later ...he expects to receive a degree from it. He is also sure
about the curriculum he will be required to take and he knows much about the
university’s rules and regulations that will govern his behaviour. How else,
except by bureaucracy could he be sure of such things? Bureaucracy contributes
to democracy by its emphasis on qualifications and merit as important basis for
gaining and holding a job. Favouritism and other arbitrary bases do not have a
premium value in bureaucratic structures; one’s ability counts for everything.
Because the opportunity to train, to
apply and be selected for a job is open to every citizen, a significant degree
of democracy is achieved.
Bureaucracy also performs the
following vital roles in organization
1. Advisory: Since ministers are not experts in science and technology, they depend on civil servant’s advice in the formulation of plans and policies regarding science and technology. They supply information or statistical data used by the ministers for the formation of plans and policies.
1. Advisory: Since ministers are not experts in science and technology, they depend on civil servant’s advice in the formulation of plans and policies regarding science and technology. They supply information or statistical data used by the ministers for the formation of plans and policies.
2. Power of Rule making or Delegated
Legislation: Since
the parliament is a huge body with lack of time or even over burdened with work, it
just frames the policies in broader form, whereas the details are left
to be filled by bureaucracy.
Bureaucracy is not only responsible for execution of policies,
but also plays an important role in policy formulation.
3. Responsible for the implementation
of policies:
Bureaucracy is responsible for the effective implementation of the policies
framed by the legislature.
4. General Administration: It brings stability in government. Leaders come and go, but government stays. In the absence of a well- knit party, the bureaucracy comes to function as the prop of the politicians in power. Bureaucracy is generally perceived to be the most important channel of communication between the rulers and the ruled. This is because of the non existence or weakness of the interest groups and political parties.
The above mentioned elements and functions constituted Max Weber’s ideal, pure or rational type of bureaucracy. At the hands of Weber, bureaucracy emerged a neutral, hierarchically organized, efficient and inevitable in contemporary society. This was ideal type bureaucracy.
4. General Administration: It brings stability in government. Leaders come and go, but government stays. In the absence of a well- knit party, the bureaucracy comes to function as the prop of the politicians in power. Bureaucracy is generally perceived to be the most important channel of communication between the rulers and the ruled. This is because of the non existence or weakness of the interest groups and political parties.
The above mentioned elements and functions constituted Max Weber’s ideal, pure or rational type of bureaucracy. At the hands of Weber, bureaucracy emerged a neutral, hierarchically organized, efficient and inevitable in contemporary society. This was ideal type bureaucracy.
In fact the ideal type is never
actualized. The characteristics of bureaucracy were; precision, continuity,
discipline, strictness and reliability. These characteristics made it technically
the most efficient form of organization. Max Weber has defined bureaucracy in
terms of its structural characteristics. The above mentioned attributes portray
a kind of organization which is impersonal where authority is exercised by
administrators only by virtue of the office they hold and in accordance with
the clearly defined rules and regulations. In other words, bureaucracy emerges
as uniquely impersonal, neutral, passive, and instrumental. Its behavioural
characteristics are objectivity, precision, and consistency.
BUREAUCRATIC THEORY CRITICISED: Amitai
Etzioni has made a critical examination of Weber’s concept of authority. He
criticised Weber’s classification of authority. He pointed out that:
1. An organization might shift from
more bureaucratic or rational- legal to a more charismatic structure and then
back to a more bureaucratic one: Peace time armies are highly bureaucratic. In
time of war, especially in combat, they lose many of their bureaucratic
qualities. Rules and regulations are waived or disregarded; personal leadership
counts more than formal power positions; oral communications replace many
written ones; separation of private and organizational life is largely
abolished. After the war, though not without crisis, the organization then
shifts gears and returns to a bureaucratic structure.
2. Furthermore, the appearance of leaders with
charismatic qualities is not limited to the top organization position.
Lower-ranking combat officers, low-ranking priests, and professors in
Universities occasionally exhibit a great deal of personal charisma.
3. The sharp distinction among the
three modes of authority and social structure is exaggerated. Indeed there are
many “mixed” types. For instance, there were semi-traditional,
semi-bureaucratic organizations in ancient Egypt, Imperial China, and Medieval
Byzantium in which hierarchical structures and adherence to rules and
regulations were combined with a fairly diffuse, totalistic status structure,
such as seems to characterize modern totalitarian regimes.
The Marxist attacked Weber from
ideological angle and regarded his theory as defence of the capitalist
domination over society .They argued that the intentions of his so called
“philosophy of history” were to legitimize authority or domination and there by
characterize class struggle and civil war as mere power politics mystifying
social reality (domination) is the vocation of prophets. It is not difficult
for one to understand whether Weberism is a science or prophecy. It is not for
nothing that Weber, the dead saint is resurrected in recent decades. It is the
historical necessity of imperialism which preaches myth in the name of science.
Bureaucracy is an imperfect tool. It is
inappropriate to the needs of:
1. Highly professionalized workers because of its structure of top
down authority.
2. It lacks the participative climate required for effectiveness in a science-based civilization because the traditional bureaucracy is hierarchical, position oriented and authoritarian in concept.
2. It lacks the participative climate required for effectiveness in a science-based civilization because the traditional bureaucracy is hierarchical, position oriented and authoritarian in concept.
3. It has been found inadequate to meet the needs of rapid
economic and social development in developing countries because of its
behavioural characteristics.
4. It is pointed out that seemingly well ordered and disciplined formal structure of bureaucracy hides the reality of pervasive competition for power and status within the organization.
4. It is pointed out that seemingly well ordered and disciplined formal structure of bureaucracy hides the reality of pervasive competition for power and status within the organization.
Rao has given the following
dysfunctional aspects of bureaucracy:
1. Rigidity: Critics of bureaucracy
claim that it is rigid, static and inflexible. Often strict adherence to
regulations produces timidity, conservatism and technicism. It tends to
encourage status quoism and breads resistance to change. Compliance with rules
and regulations may provide the cover to avoid responsibility for failures.
2. Impersonality: Bureaucracy emphasizes mechanical way of doing things. Rules and regulations are glorified in place of employee needs and emotions. No wonder, bureaucracy has been labeled as an organization without persons.
2. Impersonality: Bureaucracy emphasizes mechanical way of doing things. Rules and regulations are glorified in place of employee needs and emotions. No wonder, bureaucracy has been labeled as an organization without persons.
3. Displacement of Objectives: As organizational procedures become fore formalized and
individuals more specialized, means often become confused with ends.
Specialists for example, may concentrate on their own finely tuned goals and
forget that their goals are means for achieving the broader objectives of the
organization.
4. Compartmentalization of Activities: Specialization and
division for labour are encouraged in bureaucratic structure to improve
organizational efficiency. But such strict categorization of activities may
often restrict people from performing task that they are capable of
performing. For example, a pipe fitter can install a pump, but is prohibited by work rules from making the electrical connections even if he is totally qualified to do so. Bureaucracy would also encourage a tendency to perpetuating existing jobs even when they become redundant. The typical bureaucracy tries to preserve all the old jobs and add new ones for new requirements, resulting in wastage of scarce inputs.
5. Empire Building: Bureaucracies often turn managers into empire builders. The empire builder values the status, power and pay of an important position. The amount of status, power, and pay may be measured by the number of subordinates. Thus, one way of increasing status, power and pay is to enlarge one’s office. By adding more people, more space, and more physical facilities-whether required or not an empire may be built. As Max Weber observed, once it is fully established, it is hard to destroy bureaucracy even if it has outlived its usefulness.
6. Red-Tape: Bureaucratic procedures involve disgusting paper work and routine through endless official channel causing inordinate delays and frustration. Communication is reduced to a feeble walk and members while trying to adhere to rules and regulations may discount the value of arriving at prompt decisions. By encouraging conformity to rules and regulations, bureaucracies leave nothing for original or innovative behaviour.
performing. For example, a pipe fitter can install a pump, but is prohibited by work rules from making the electrical connections even if he is totally qualified to do so. Bureaucracy would also encourage a tendency to perpetuating existing jobs even when they become redundant. The typical bureaucracy tries to preserve all the old jobs and add new ones for new requirements, resulting in wastage of scarce inputs.
5. Empire Building: Bureaucracies often turn managers into empire builders. The empire builder values the status, power and pay of an important position. The amount of status, power, and pay may be measured by the number of subordinates. Thus, one way of increasing status, power and pay is to enlarge one’s office. By adding more people, more space, and more physical facilities-whether required or not an empire may be built. As Max Weber observed, once it is fully established, it is hard to destroy bureaucracy even if it has outlived its usefulness.
6. Red-Tape: Bureaucratic procedures involve disgusting paper work and routine through endless official channel causing inordinate delays and frustration. Communication is reduced to a feeble walk and members while trying to adhere to rules and regulations may discount the value of arriving at prompt decisions. By encouraging conformity to rules and regulations, bureaucracies leave nothing for original or innovative behaviour.
7. Bureaupathology: The bureaucratic structure has also been criticized
for encouraging what Victor Thompson calls bureanpathology. Because managers compete for advancement,
are held accountable for mistakes and direct subordinates who may have superior
technical, knowledge, may feel insecure. Thompson believes that bureaucratic
structures permit counter productive personal insecurities to flourish and that
some managers try to protect their authority and position by aloof and
ritualistic behaviour. This is pathological
according to Thompson, because it. can prevent the organization from
meeting its goal. These troubling criticisms compelled many a writer to dismiss
bureaucracy as hopelessly out-dated and unwanted creature in the present day
adaptive world. Writers have also labeled it as a continental nuisance, a structural dinosaur, an impersonal
monster. Bureaucracy over the years has acquired a distinctly negative flavour
and is viewed as an organized system for not getting things done effectively.
Bureaucrats, too, have been labeled as hopeless company men, experts in
wasting time, money and energy. Writers have even predicted the death of
bureaucracy long back.
Despite these negative pronouncements, bureaucracy remains an integral and
concomitant feature of modern business, an essential ingredient of modern
civilization. Business organizations, schools, governments and other
organizations largely are based on bureaucratic concepts even today. There is
no use casting aspersions on it. As a method of organization, bureaucracy can
offer powerful benefits. Therefore, it seems fruitless to argue whether we
ought or ought not to have bureaucracies. All those energies could be more
profitably spent in better understanding of bureaucracies and in determining
how they can be improved. As a sort of defense we can conclude stating that
many of the problems of bureaucracies probably would be alleviated if the
individual needs and characteristics of every organizational member are
remembered and are considered in making managerial decisions.