Bureaucracy as a Form of Leadership - Essay Example

BUREAUCRACY By Bureaucracy refers to a system of legislative leadership, in which most of the decision are carried out by a group of officials rather than elected councils. Examining the key elements of bureaucracy provided by Weber and probing the aspect of goal displacement by Robert Merton, will aid in the determination of the bureaucratic system. Weber wrote a rationale in a bid to describe bureaucratic leadership as being the most efficient way of organizing governmental agencies. In this rationale, there is an advent of six key elements associated by bureaucratic leadership. These concepts include, hierarchy, jurisdictional competency, command and control, technical expertise, and system of rules, and written documentation. An organizational hierarchy is the “arrangement of the organization by level of authority” in reference to the ranks above and below it (Grimsley 2014, para. 6). This therefore implies that in bureaucracy, there is existence of certain levels of authority ranging from the top level management to the normal employees. For instance, in a company a sales marketing director is below the overall chief executive officer (C.E.O), at the same level with the advertising marketing director and above the secretary. Therefore, this system dictates that each level should answer to the rank above it with the ultimate leader of the company at the very top of the hierarchy. Jurisdictional competency is another key concept of bureaucracy. Fundamentally, huge roles are broken down into smaller and simpler tasks which are then assigned to employees throughout the organization. This division of labor across the organization enables employees to master the skills and details of repetitive duties thereby increasing efficiency. However, though the division of labor could be highly proficient, “it can lead to a number of harmful organizational pathologies” (Rockman 2013, para. 5). This implies that division of labor could at times turn out to be ineffective due to a number of reasons. For instance, employees can be unable to adequately respond to problems outside their areas of jurisdiction, and may approach them from their own perspective. This could lead to an overall destruction of the organization’s performance. Command and control is another key feature of bureaucracy that weber discussed. Due to the fact that a bureaucratic authority is organized hierarchically, “responsibility is taken at the top and delegated with decreasing discretion at the lower levels of the organization” (Rockman 2013, para. 6). This therefore implies that there is a strong chain of command, from the high level of management downwards. Technical expertise is also another key feature of bureaucracy. In a bureaucratic set up, officials are basically selected in terms of technical qualifications. They are usually appointed through professionalism assessments and technical expertise is compensated by salary. Weber states that officials are appointed by a ‘superior authority’ on the basis of “demonstrated technical expertise” (Hamilton 2001, p. 125-126). This therefore implies that highly ranked officials possess a higher level of technical expertise as compared to the lowly ranked ones. A system of rules and a clearly written documentation are also key aspects of bureaucracy according to Weber. According to Morrison, bureaucracy is “a system of impersonal rules” (1995, p.382). This therefore implies that there exists a clearly well defined, rational and legal decision making set of rules. Weber ideal bureaucracy is characterized by a “system of rules and procedures” (Griffin et al. 2014, p.431). This set of rules and procedures therefore help the top level management to ensure that all the standards set are adhered to. Doing this will increase the performance output of the organization. According to Bauman bureaucracy refers to the “prime institutional carrier in the civilizing processes of modernity” (Martin 1997, p. 1). A bureaucratic leadership is therefore one of the most prevalent forms of management not only in governments but in many businesses as well. The phenomenon of goal displacement, is often a case of pursuing derived goals. Goal displacement could refer to the displacement of one goal by another, in order to make it continue to exist. Merton’s theory scrutinizes how members of a society adapt their goals to the means that humanity provides of accomplishing them. According to Merton, “anomie resulted from the interplay of goals and means” (Merton 2003, p.513). This implies that most individuals who do not possess legitimate means of achieving societal values tend to turn to non-legitimate means. According to Merton, “bureaucracies are often plagued goal displacement” (2003, p. 513). This therefore implies that, a situation that was merely set to achieving a societal goal, becomes an ultimate goal. Therefore, Merton irrefutably argues that displacement of goals is whereby “an instrumental value is always a terminal value” (Hurst 2012, p. 269). It is therefore essential to formulate positive but achievable goals in order to accomplish overall results that are positive. Merton explains that goal displacement occurs in two ways (Matkin 2007, p.48). Firstly, when employees find themselves more concerned about following the organizational regulations and procedures rather than achieving organizational objectives. These rules thereby become the ultimate ends as opposed to the set organizational goals. Secondly, employees may also tend to pursue the goals and objectives of their departments and sub-units rather than concentrating on the overall goals of the organization. Since the overall goal of the organization is the main reason for an organization’s existence, goal displacement might be sometimes challenging. For bureaucracy to work perfectly therefore, the organizational model should be formulated in a way which can be able to perform complex tasks more effectively. Moreover, for a bureaucratic system to ensure that goal displacement does not occur, some aspects should be examined. For instance, the bureaucratic scheme must attain a high degree of reliability in how the employees are behaving. This can be achieved through conformity with the prearranged patterns of action. In most organizations, the members are always driven with a common sense of destiny. They usually have similar interests and they are characterized by a relatively low competition since promotion is usually in the basis of seniority. According to Cheon, bureaucrats are likely to achieve high levels of “outputs rather than outcomes” (2013, p. 2). To avoid this situation of goal displacement, the leaders should ensure that there is proper oversight, resources are enough, and core tasks are relatively simplified. According to Raadschelders, “decision making, policy making and planning” do not necessarily result to proper implementation (2003, p.267). Performance paradox is therefore a major concern of bureaucratic leadership and performance evaluator should always be put into place by management to ensure that the overall goals of the organization are achieved. Pearce argues out that, to avoid goal displacement managers should always “assess performance quality and contextual performance along with quantity measures” (para. 7). For instance, a sales and marketing employee can be adjudged on the number of sales made to clients and the client’s evaluation of the employee. A good judgment and performance could be deliberated during annual general meetings (AGMs) and awards may be given as a form of motivation. Even though bureaucratic form of leadership has several flaws, it is an ideal form of governance. Putting correct measures into existence will ensure the achievement of correct results and the disappearance of goal displacement. Goal displacement therefore is not an inevitable outcome of the bureaucratic organizing since managing a bureaucracy more effectively will lead to an overall achievement of the set organizational goals and objectives. Works Cited Cheon, O & Zhu, L 2010, Desperately seeking efficiency? Goal complexity and contracting out in the federal sector enforcement, Allen Building, 4348 TAMU College Station. Griffin, W & Moorhead, G 2014, Organizational behavior: managing people and organizations, Mason, OH: South-Western/Cengage Learning. Grimsley, S 2014, Bureaucratic Management Theory: Definition, Lesson & Quiz. Hamilton, R 2001, Mass society, pluralism, and bureaucracy: explication, assessment, and commentary, Westport, Conn. Hurst, K 2012, The new ecology of leadership: business mastery in a chaotic world, New York: Columbia University Press. Matkin, T 2007, Corporations, State Agencies, and the Management of State Corporate Income Tax Incentives, M.P.A., Brigham Young University. Merton, K 2003, Proceedings of the American Philosophical Society, Vol. 148, No. 4. Morrison, K 1995, Marx, Durkheim, Weber: formations of modern social thought, London, Sage. Raadschelders, N 2003, Government: a public administration perspective, Armonk, N.Y. M.E. Sharpe. Rockman, B 2014, Bureaucracy, Encyclopedia Britannica, retrieved 24 October 2014, . Read More