Bureaucracy Essays Examples Essay

IntroductionGiven the subject matter of this essay revolves around bureaucratism, and disposed that bureaucratism is bear on with rules and order, it percolatems fitting to first begin with an official explanation of the term A arranging of authorities in which most of the all important(p) decisions ar do by state officials rather than by pick out representatives a state or organization governed or managed according to much(prenominal) a system. This essay will break down how this definition came round and where bureaucratism first originated before moving onto explore its fortuitous consequences and some of its extreme uses while counter balancing this with some of its to a greater extent arrogant attri al adeptes. I shall num epochte at the freshistic facial expressions of bureaucratism and weigh up whether at that place is a place for it in the modern world and if non whether bureau bureaucracy is more(prenominal) fitting. Finally I shall conclude by atte mpting to come down on one side of the argument as to whether in fact bureaucracy is bad.Bureaucracy as an exalted qualitycast and sorting of power ground on legitimate consent goop Weber was a German social scientist (1864-1920) who was concerned with the interrogation of what held societies together, he came to the conclusion that it was down to authority which allows those who lease the right of legitimacy to do orders (Wilson, 1999). Weber questioned what the power of this authority was ground on, because in most societies it is non establish on force, fear or coercion. This authority previously came roughly in dickens master(prenominal) instructions authority based on charisma (the person-to-person authority of a mappingicular individual) or authority based on tradition (the established authority of institutions) ( color in, 2009). However, Weber in due(p) forward the idea that these previous instances of authority were increasely being overshadowed by ratio nal-legal authority in modern societies (systems of rules devised for rational reasons).Weber was writing at a beat where organisations were developing at a rate non seen before. He was commentating o the transformation that he was directly seeing. The idea of this reason in society and organisations is not a new one and thence in Webers study insureing the rise of capitalism he argued that it owed a considerable amount to the practices of the Calvinist Church which was itself involved in logicalcalculative apprehension. This rationalisation can be defined as a process whereby the promoter chose to pursue ends can be find out by logical and rational calculation (Wilson, 1999). When applied to organisations, this rational-legal authority meat bureaucracy.When Weber was putting forward his ideas regarding bureaucracy he discussed it as an ideal type however a common mis inventionion is that by this Weber meant bureaucracy was a desirable ideal when in fact he despai blushfu l of how dominant this organisational structure was becoming. The ideal type is only a subjective fraction in social theory and research which formed from characteristics and elements of the given phenomena, precisely it is not meant to correspond to all of the characteristics of any one particular case. harmonise to Wilson (1999) the ideal type of bureaucracy is governed by a formal garnish of rules and procedures that ensures that operations and activities be carried out in a predictable, uniform and achromatic manner.This comes from the four formational aspects that according to Weber bureaucracy consist of useable specialisation (the formal division of labour), hierarchy of authority (the structure that gives those in a superior position authority, simply because they hold that position), system of rules (e rattlingthing is based upon wining a formal set of written rules virtually practices and procedures) and impersonality (rules argon followed without regard for emotions) (Grey, 2009). According to Weber it was these four concepts that meant bureaucracy was the most technically streamlined and rational form of organisations, it was adopted because it was simply ameliorate than any other system.Form of ten powerfulness it promotes (instrumental/formal vs. value/substantive) It is clear to see that bureaucracy promotes an instrumental form of rationality, which is a type of decision devising which is subject to calculation that goes into an action to increase its chance of success. Its decisive suffer is that it eliminates an orientation to values because they atomic number 18 non-technical. Rationality is instrumental (formal) when problems atomic number 18 single- approximationed by the application of technical criteria. In opposition, substantive (value) rationality is a type of decision making which is subject to values and an appeal to honest norms this is not something that bureaucracy isconcerned with especially given substant ive rationality does not take into account the nature of outcomes.Weber excessively cogitate that bureaucracy was substantively irrational chase his land and reading on the boilersuit societal effects of its rise (Grey, 2009). This is where Weber coined his term of The Iron detain of rationality. The idea was that because bureaucracy was becoming so dominant in e real aspect of life and work more and more hoi pollois stretch outs were lived at heart the constraints of a rationalised system. Grey (2009) takes it ones step further and claims that bureaucracy undermines our very benevolentity. Whilst this whitethorn seem ludicrous, he presents a very interesting idea. We live in a world in which every experience is set up from the hospital in which we ar born to the undertakers that take us to our sculpture (Grey, 2009).Unintended consequences/Dysfunctions of bureaucracy (Blau, Gouldner, Merton) It is already clear to see that bureaucracy may not be without its problems, o r unintended consequences. The word itself in the modern day world is often frowned on and associated with issues of red tape as well as a need slight waste and pedantic fixation with rules (Grey, 2009). It is essential in umteen organisations nowadays that there is a write up trail, so that it can be proved everything was done how it was meant to be. However, the unintended consequences of bureaucracy go much further than this and begin with the idea that bureaucracy is thought of as a mechanical form of organisation. Whilst this heart that every part is designed perfectly and operates in a predictable and bill modality, it in any case style that the people within the organisation have to function as if they argon merely cogs which lead to a number of headstone unintended consequences.There is firstly an issue regarding the levels of demand among employees. A privation of personal commitment is bred from having to follow set rules and having no discretion or so doing so . These standard procedures that must be followed also provides little interest or arousal for employees which again weakens their commitment to the organisation. It is not a new idea that motivation is understandably linked to job satisfaction and that higher motivation leads to better work performance. It therefore follows that in bureaucracies where motivation is low employees will simply perform suboptimally meaning they be not as efficient as first thought. Following on from the above problem, is that this lack of motivation often translates into poor customer service. Employees will simply follow rules and procedures imposturely with little regard for the customer in the process. Bureaucratic rules are also designed for the benefit of the organisation, not the customer meaning they will not be changed to suit the demands of one individual.A final trace problem involves a resistance to world and change. In a bureaucracy once rules are make they will only change very slowl y, if at all. This is specifically a problem for organisations that exist in markets with volatile and uncertain conditions. It is well known now that to follow up with rival an organisation must change with the times or will dissolve because it cannot keep up with changing markets. It also stifles individual exemption many of the best ideas within organisations come from the bottom up, but bureaucracy destroys this inaugural as there is little bureaucrats hate more than innovation, especially innovation that produces better results than the old routines. Improvements always make those at the top look inept (Herbert, 1984).There are also a number of dysfunctions of bureaucracy which have been written about by a number of theorists chiefly Merton (1940), Blau (1955) and Selznick (1949). Merton (1940) addressed a core theoretical and practical issue with his concept of goal displacement. His argument is an interesting one, and one that can be intelligibly seen in the working(a ) practices of bureaucracies in modern day organisations. He claims that people in bureaucracies started to see following the rules as the goal or theatrical role rather than the effect that the rule was supposed to produce. Goal displacement became about doing the thing right, rather than doing the right thing (Merton (1940). This is perhaps where the negative connotations about bureaucracy come from, this slavish adherence to rules (Grey, 2009) becomes the end in itself and becomes exchange to the concept of red tape which people have come to loathe. Merton termed this as the bureaucratic personality, where someone was so busy adhering to official rules that they lose megabucks of the aims of the organisation.Selznick (1949) undertook a number of studies that supported Mertons (1940) theory of goal displacement. His studies imbed that the divisionalised structures a key aspect of bureaucratic organisations led to employees being concerned only with the aims, rules and proced ures of their division with total disregard for the organisations aims as a whole. This disjointedness mingled with divisions meant employees pursued divisional interests often at the expense of the organisation with delivers, what Grey (2009) calls organisationally sub optimal outcomes.Blau (1955) looked at one of the dysfunctions of bureaucracy via the trade due north tactic known as work to rule. This means exactly what the monetary value suggests, employees refuse to do anything over and above the formal and established rules of their lease or workplace. Similarly if they are contractual obliged to do something, but the rules are not laid out on exactly how to do it, they constantly ask for assistance or guidance. The reason this is done is to chip organisations. However, Blau addresses the important question that rules under a bureaucratic system are supposedly meant to be a straightforward thing as they are meant to establish the most efficient way of doing something so how can following them religiously disrupt an organisation. Blau answers his own question and states that following the rules to the garner without exploitation your own initiative is actually not the most efficient way of organising which undermines the whole model of bureaucracy.Whilst the work of Merton, Selznick and Blau show that following bureaucratic rules to the letter may not lead to efficiency there is the work of crosier (1964) and Gouldner (1954) which is in diametric opposition to this. The issue is not over adhesion of rules but instead a total disregard for them. Gouldner (1954) introduced the concept of taunt bureaucracy afterward his investigation into a gypsum mine revealed its presence. patronage the telling array of rules and regulations (Grey, 2009) found in formal rulebooks, in practice these were ignored. This was specifically noticed in regard to the safety regulations in the mines and is evident now in the disregard for a number of safety regulations that exist in potentiallydangerous industries such(prenominal) a building sites and chemical plants. Despite the fact that goal displacement and mock bureaucracy are diametrically opposed, both undermine the bureaucratic model.Bureaucracy as a semen of extreme power (Bauman)It would be an injustice not to use the case of the Holocaust to highlight what can happen when bureaucracy is used as a source of extreme power. Wilson (1999) notes that in bureaucracy personal relationships are excluded from everyday life which may go some way to explaining the pullout Nazi soldiers were able to show to their victims. Bauman (1989) wrote prominently on the subject in a book entitled Modernity and the Holocaust. According to Bauman, horrific though the Nazi regime was, the genocide was simply an extreme application of bureaucratic logic with a system of rules, uniformity, impersonality and technical efficiency (Bauman, 1989).Shooting of victims was, after a while, deemed to be insufficiently productive mainly due to the crowing numbers to be killed. The Nazi regime therefore found a new way, in the form of permanent concrete gas chamber in which the perpetrators need not see, hear or feel the human consequences of their actions (Russell and Gregory, 2005). This also backs up a prior foretell I made regarding the instrumental rationality involved within bureaucracy. Such indifference and neutrality to human life shows that bureaucratic practices can in no way, or from no angle, been seen as substantively rational.Contemporary manifestations of bureaucracy, audit cultures (Power, 1997) and McDonaldisation (Ritzer, 1993 and 2003) Contemporary manifestations of bureaucracy are all around us, though the most obvious example is that of McDonaldisation (Ritzer, 1993). At the time, Ritzer claimed that fast nutriment restaurants were the new model of rationalisation however, in the twenty-first century we know that this model of rationalisation, which is built on many ideas found in bureaucracy, is by no means confined to the fast food industry. Ritzer (1993) defined McDonaldisation as a process by which the principles of the fast food restaurant are coming to dominate more and more sectors of US society as well as that of the rest of the world. quartet basic dimensions lie at the heart of the success of McDonalds (and as such McDonaldisation) efficiency, calculability, predictability and increased control. Ritzer was quick to highlight the negatives of McDonaldisation and believes that McDonalised systems through their rules, regulations and scripts encroach upon us and at last threaten the ability of people working within these systems to think intelligently. This was what Grey (2009) was implying when he spoke of employees merely being cogs in a machine. Ritzer also carries on Webers theory of The Iron cage in by describing that this iron cage is being constructed, piece by piece, by the various organisations and institutions that follow McDonald s model. analyse cultures are also an increasing phenomenon in modern day bureaucracies. Power (1977) authored a book called The Audit Society where he argues this culture of auditing is one that has come to dominate more and more areas of our lives. One example is the targets set by the Labour government in the public service, and specifically public health, services where measurements are made according to the outputs (the ends). The problem with this is that it can cause employees to manipulate the system in order to achieve the targets. In addition the fact that audit cultures nidus on what you can measure and see means that it is not based on quality, so the measurement itself holds little value. Power argues that it becomes a self-referential system in that an employee can display they are meeting the targets but it does not show the reality of what they are doing. The reality that is in the documents is not the kindred as the reality that is experiences. In an audit society how something is done is less important than that it is done.One key example of this is the Mid Staffordshire trust. In rough-and-ready heed was often too concerned with hitting targets that surrounded by 2005-2008 it was reported that between 400-1200 patients died from preventable causes. However, at the same time this trust met all of its targets to the lodge that it received foundation status. This demonstrates just how important it is that people look at how targets are achieved rather than just that they are received. Bureaucracy as good because it avoidspatronage (DuGay, 2000) or bad because it doesnt manage to prevent it (Jackall, 1988) DuGay (2000) is a key advocate of bureaucracy and draws upon Webers ideal type of bureaucracy that business is discharged without regard for persons (Weber, 1978). All love, hatred and stringently irrational and emotional sentiments are excluded.Whilst this main seem callous it is this exact bureaucratic ethic of impersonality and cando r that DuGay defends. In note with Baumans great deal of the distinct lack of morality, DuGay (2000) in fact claims that bureaucracy is imbued with morality due to the demands of instrumental rationality for maximum efficiency. DuGay states that for those demands to be satisfied the ethic of impersonality and fairness must come into play. Therefore bureaucracy is actually a way to eliminate discrimination.Jackalls (1988) work regarding bureaucratic careers is in opposition with this however, as he claims much of bureaucracy is based on old authority. His work is based on a large organisation in the US and is recorded in his book Moral Mazes. The idea of the hierarchy within the ideal bureaucracy is that you are trained for a role and then you occupy a role, taking on the authority that came with it. If that ideal occurs than it is an efficient system. However, Jackall found that patronage (an old form of authority associated with traditional authority) was more common within the o rganisation. In other words, doing things to please your boss who is at the top of the hierarchy of authority purely based upon his position.According to Jackall (1988) and deuce years previously to DuGays conflicting ideas, fairness and equity are abandoned in favour of keeping ones eye on the main chance, maintaining and furthering ones own position and career. Subordinate improvement is based upon protecting the boss rather than on hard work, ability and dedicated service. The way to move up the career ladder is to keep your eye on the political gamesmanship of the organisation.Is bureaucracy dead (post bureaucracy?)This brings me onto the question of whether if bureaucracy is bad, then what is the alternative. An alternative has been put forward, and it is that of post bureaucracy. Heckscher (1994) is one of the principal writers in post bureaucracy and has created a type in contrast to Webers which is calledthe post bureaucratic ideal type. There are three key strands to his ideal type. Firstly, formal rules are replaced with a consensus based upon personal influence rather than status employees are also bank to act on shared values rather than rules. Secondly, responsibilities are delegate based on competence and merit rather than hierarchy and individuals are treated as such. Finally, the organisation is much more flexible with regard to employment and working hours.The ideals of post bureaucracy have been developed as the conditions in which bureaucracy worked are becoming increasingly rare. The industrial era has given way to the post-industrial and the economy has moved away from mass turnout of standard products towards short product runs for niche markets (Grey, 2009). To address the final point of Heckschers (1994) post bureaucracy ideal, there is also a growing need for more flexible and innovative working rather than the blind following of orders. Whilst post bureaucracy does seem to address some of the problems associated with modern day b ureaucracies it also generates its own set of problems, many of them being what bureaucracy solves. In opposition to the idea of bureaucracy as a machine, post bureaucracy is portrayed as a living, growing organism which means it is far less predictable and prone to malfunctions. Grey (2009) outlines three key problems with a post bureaucratic ideal.The problem of control is key, the lack of rules means it is difficult to exercise control. Post bureaucracy instead proposes a various form of control based on a culture of anxiety on trust though this is a rather fragile form of control which relies on self-control. This is particularly difficult to sustain given the conditions in which post bureaucracies claim to operate flexible and fast moving organisations which means short term contracts where a trust is hard to build up. other problem is that of risk which is inherently linked to a culture of freedom and innovation. Whilst freedom can result in good ideas, it can also resul t in inaccurate and damaging decisions for an organisation. Finally, the problem of fairness is also inherent in an organisational system that stressed individual treatment as this opens the possibility to irrationalities and prejudices.ConclusionTo come back to the original question, is bureaucracy bad, having evaluated and considered the two sides of the argument. I would have to come to the conclusion that while todays common form of bureaucracy is bad, the Weberian ideal type is not necessarily so. Like any structure, concept or theory, bureaucracy has its downfalls but there can be no denying that bureaucracy in its ideal type is the most rational and efficient form of organisation. However, over the years and into the twenty-first century it has become too rigid in its rules and procedures, people working within bureaucracies have lost their sense of initiative and cannot fathom anything that exists outdoor(a) of their ruled environment.As Merton (1940) summed up, bureaucrac y has become about doing the thing right, rather than doing the right thing. The stifling of innovation can lead to the bereavement of organisations and as James Hayes states Endless meetings, sloppy communications and red tape steal the entrepreneurs time. Through bureaucracy the capacity for discretion is removed, which means that the ability to reason, act and exercise shrewdness is restricted. The individuals are told to enact a role into which they throw themselves whole heartedly.However, that is not to say that the alternative of post bureaucracy is much better and one of the particular pitfalls is the lack of security it provides for employees as well as an intensification of time pressures. Though perhaps this is simply the way organisations have to work in the 21st century in order to keep up. Bureaucracy is clearly more relevant is some industries than others, and this should be kept in mind when evaluating the use of bureaucracy. For example it is far more essential to have a paper trail regarding a patients medication and hospital treatment than it is for an artisan to rigorously note down the materials they have used. As with most things, incomplete of the two extremes of bureaucracy or post bureaucracy is ideal, both have their dysfunctions and both have their advantages and as such a merging of the two (as seems to be the case in most organisations) is the most efficient and effective way forward.