The Concept of Bureaucracy as an Effective System of Organization - Essay Example

 The concept of bureaucracy as an effective system of organization Introduction Various descriptions and concepts have been developed regarding bureaucracy. From definition, bureaucracy can be described as a management system intended to handle the affairs of the state and organize the relationship between the state and the citizens (Alexander and Richmond, 2007). Max Weber, a sociologist, described bureaucracy extensively, and his ideas are more or less acceptable. Some of his works include the Rational Efficient Organization. While political scientists describe bureaucracy as state administration, the economists use the term in describing the non-market organizations. The current paper provides a critical evaluation of bureaucracy concept as an effective organizational system. The benefits of bureaucracy in organizations have been evaluated and works from various authors described. Bureaucracy in organizations To some extent, most organizations have been bureaucratized. Our mechanistic thinking mode has shaped the basic concepts of what entails a good organization. Such thinking has played a major role in defining how an organization defines its responsibilities and accountability involved (Adler and Borys, 2002). According to theorists, institutions and organizations, bureaucracy can adversely affect strategies regarding the way through which they want to achieve their objectives. However, at times, those organizations and institutions may tend to disagree on how to shape and reshape their interests and goals. From an organizational perspective, institutions and organizations can easily endow the individual actors with interests and goals on condition that some specific features of an organization remain in place. Bureaucracy gives bosses control over their subordinates and subordinates should in turn follow the instructions. As a result, subordination and control form the major section of a bureaucratic system to form the organizing principles guiding decisions, directing actions and determining the outcomes. Each employee should follow the instructions given to them by their seniors (Bodley, 2002). Benefits of Bureaucracy Research show that bureaucratic practices create in peoples’ mind lack of curiosity, making them function only within some limits based on set rules and regulations. The bureaucratic mind will therefore, being in control, use the authority to control reformation ability of the system. In such a system, no person has the power of initiating any changes or proposing drastic changes that can disrupt prevailing peace and order (Adler, 2010). Bureaucracy acts as communication channel for a society that comprises of different units like workers, businessmen and landlords among others. Each unit is comprised of a specific working platform. The requirement, aspirations and problems experienced by those units can easily be solved in a bureaucracy. As a repository of information, bureaucracy enhances formulation and implementation of new techniques within the organization. This requires knowledge on reasons for failure and drawbacks of existing techniques and policies. The formulation of the new techniques requires adequate and relevant knowledge. Therefore, bureaucracy helps in finding the drawbacks as well as enhances filing of records (Mises, 2007). As an impartial advisor, bureaucracy helps, especially since an organization comprises of various sections that must be related to each other, either directly or indirectly for various purposes (Goodsell, 2008). Nevertheless, the key aim of bureaucracy is to help in formulating and implementation of policies by acting as a driving force towards the policy after successful implementation. The implementation is accomplished under full control, meaning that bureaucracy is responsible for promotion of successful implementation of policy Normally, a policy comprises of projects that entail programs which are sets of instructions of collected information. Therefore, implementation of a policy involves dividing it into projects with different programs. Setting up of the projects can be based on requirement at same or different location based on nature of the policy. Project planning is basically information collection. Then the plan is prepared and budget proposed. Some plans may take ages before execution. Due to possibility of limited resources, then the budget should be prepared within the set economic range. The management and bureaucracy are interconnected and cannot work independently. While the management sets the targets, then bureaucracy should be in place to ensure execution. Management does all the tasks related to managing the organization which is the integral part of an organization (Bodley 2002). This involves formulation, evaluation, implementation and monitoring of the programs and projects. Bureaucracy on the other hand is concerned mostly with experience, knowledge and time. Therefore, the two: management and bureaucracy are interrelated. Though bureaucracy is unsuitable for the rapidly changing and demanding contemporary organizations due to its synonymy with red tape, its core characteristics like specialization, hierarchy and formalization helps it remain relevant in various facets. Bureaucracy fits well in an organization with high routine tasks and hence, suited to ease any impending conflict between members within the organization. As a result, bureaucracy has been able to keep pace with the rapidly changing contemporary organizations provided the management accounts for all cultural features need for continued improvement and labour force quality (Quang and Vuong, 2002). Though bureaucracy has been associated with negative features like alienation, low commitment and rigidity, most organizations have embraced it. Most organizations have used bureaucracy in administering foreign services and customs. Bureaucracy has been perceived as an assimilated red tape characterized by apathetic employees and over-controlling bosses. Also, it is regarded as incompatible to the liberty and personal accountability of an individual. Such a stereotype against bureaucracy is influenced by the practical adoption of inadequate forms of bureaucracy characterized by particularistic practices within the organizations. This practice encourages excessively heightened hierarchy and formalization in favour of the minority. By contrast, the universalistic bureaucracy enhances employee satisfaction and promotes effectiveness of an organization. Pearce (2000) argues that the organizations having particularistic organizational practices encourage high formalization levels and hierarchy, favoring the minority. The efficiency-oriented goals and transparency of the bureaucracy helps in explaining reasons for organizations to capitalize on certain features of bureaucracy (Jaffe, 2006). Bureaucracy in modern organizations can be attributed to the positive influences that are derived from rules and regulations set so as to be useful to various levels of organizations irrespective of the extent of development. It is apparently evident that members within an organization experience conflict between themselves. For instance, balancing the interest of management and workers has never been easy (Ventriss, 2000). Jaffe (2006) believes that such conflicts of interest result into tensions within the organization. Such tensions can be neutralized through bureaucratic procedures, coordination and rule. It is argued that bureaucratic leadership is enforced and exercised when all the members within the organization pursue a common interest. For example, workers and management may find their interests in complying with principles and rules of safety practices and high bureaucracy levels are critical in ensuring that such rules are strictly enforced and exercised by all members within the organization. Obviously, regarding this, formalized procedures of representative bureaucracy are crucial and relevant for any type of an organization (Baird et al., 2005). Works of Bureaucracy According to Max Weber, bureaucracy can be considered as the most rational management level though it remains relevant even today. However, the bureaucracy leadership is characterized by formalized procedures, staff expertise and hierarchical structures making it remain relevant for large organizations where conformance, orderliness and timelessness are critical in organizational performance. These requirements are, particularly, demanding to achieve success in those contemporary organizations that are constantly under the pressure from the fierce competition globally. Moreover, use of bureaucracy management with high standardization and formalization levels is fairly necessary for certain sectors, especially those where performance depends mostly on high-level formalization procedures and arbitrary rules (Stivers, 2001). Undoubtedly, operations of the organizations that insist on high-level discipline among the workers have high likelihood of achieving high results to enhance security and social order without imposing bureaucratic rules (Quang and Vuong, 2002). With respect to organizational tasks, bureaucracy is necessary for beneficial routine tasks requiring repetition and for the counterproductive non-routine tasks that are typically innovative. Employees become motivated to non-routine tasks with low formalization levels and in routine tasks characterized by high formalization levels (Mises, 2007). Therefore, the efficiency of bureaucracy in terms of routine level of the tasks and employee involvement remains a dilemma for most organizations. Adler (2000) argue that repetitive and un-motivating tasks are typical among employees with low work expectations, and as such, the organization may experience difficulties of highly involving such employees to keep in pace with the increasing competitive advantage. According to Gery (2005), the modern efficiency levels in most organizations involves the achievement of certain ends through focus, and guaranteeing the efficiency enables organizations cope up with the increasing competition. Furthermore, bureaucracy acts as an effective method of management where it fosters and creates motivation and commitment among the employees (Pearce, 2000). Therefore, the controversy in bureaucracy remains critical for contemporary organizations. With respect to the effectiveness in enhancing positive attitudes among the employees towards the workplace, the contradictory view of the bureaucracy compared to other democratic forms of participative management holds. The bureaucratic segmentation limits the workers from their specific job and prevents mobilization of the multiple-intelligence. Nevertheless, such a belief fails in covering the positive bureaucratic features that enhance commitment and motivation of the employees. Pearce (2000) argues that formalized systems used by large-scale organizations in developed countries entail performance appraisal, job descriptions, and procedures in job posting. He further reckons that the inability of an organization to establish the management scheme characterised by transparent accountability, operating efficiency and equity cannot achieve desired employee commitment. Obviously, the management system criteria may be relevant for the bureaucratic style (Goodsell, 2008). For instance, the application of result-based appraisal means that the genuinely competent employees concerned with universal principles instead of existing special relations will have high commitment levels in the workplace. Such a positive attitude encourages them to improve their performances and, consequently, organizational performance improves. Moreover, increased commitment of employees to their organization implies that the tension originating from conflicts of interest with the management can be defused more easily. In other words, productivity and efficiency of an organization is realized through a bureaucratic management regime (Lane, 2011). Bureaucracy is criticized as unable to adapt to the fast changing organizations, and hence, outdated. However, from definition, bureaucracy consist of core features such as staff expertise, formalization and hierarchy makes it to be best suited to various types of organizations and management levels. Significantly, to ensure organizational efficiency and keep in pace with the increasing organizational competitiveness, there is need to account for cultural features and labor force alongside bureaucratic means to enhance continuous improvement (Du Gay, 2012). Conclusion It can be said that bureaucracy is highly dependent on implementation of rules relative to the labor force quality of an organization. Therefore, comprising of instructions, rules and procedures, bureaucracy enables employees within an organization improve their tasks as well as coerce the efforts and related conformance. While the bureaucratic procedures can be considered as obstacles by employers and employees, there remains a need to change the perspective and consider bureaucracy as providing guidelines to be implemented. It is imperative to note that when bureaucracy is punishment-centered, then there is a possibility of emergence of high tensions between employees and management. Obviously, the effects of bureaucracy remain different from the organizations that are culturally homogenous to those of diverse cultures (Jaffe, 2006). References List Adler, P, S. (2010) .Building better bureaucracies. Academy of Management Review 7(4), pp.36-49. Adler, P, S &Borys, B (2002). ‘Two types of Bureaucracy: Enabling and Coercive’. Administrative Science Quarterly 10 (2), pp.61-89. Alexander, J. and Richmond, S. (2007). The Cider House Rules. American Review of Public Administration 37(1), pp. 51-64. Baird, M, Compton, R & Nankervis, (Eds) (2005). Human Resource management: strategies and processes, Melbourne, 5thedn, Thomson. Bodley, J. H. (2002). The Power of Scale: A Global History Approach. London, M.E. Sharpe. Du Gay .P. (2012). In Praise of Bureaucracy. London, Publications Ltd. Goodsell, C. (2008). The Case for Bureaucracy. New Jersey, Chatham House Publishers, Inc. Grey, C. (2005) A very short, fairly interesting and reasonably cheap book about studying organizations. London, Sage Publications Ltd. Jaffe, D. (2006). Organization theory: Tension and change, 1th edn. New York, University of North Florida. Lane, F. (2011). Current Issues in Public Administration (Sixth Edition). Boston, Bedford St. Martin’s. Mises, L, V. (2007). Bureaucracy. New York, Margit Von Mises,. Pearce, J.L. (2000). Insufficient bureaucracy: trust and commitment in particularistic organizations’. Organization Science 4(3), pp.148-162. Quang, T &Vuong, N, T (2002). Management Styles and Organizational Effectiveness in Vietnam. Research and Practice in Human Resource Management 10(2), pp. 36-55. Stivers, C. (2001). Citizenship Ethics in Public Administration. In Handbook of Administrative Ethics, Cooper, T.L. (Ed), (2nd edition), New York, Marcel Dekker, pp. 583-601. Ventriss, C. (2000). New Public Management: An Examination of its influence on contemporary Public Affairs and its Impact in Shaping the Intellectual Agenda of the Field. Administrative Theory & Praxis 22 (3), pp. 500-518. Read More