Max Webers influence on Modern Management Theories - Essay Example

Introduction Max Weber, a German sociologist and economist tried to logically relate the tenets of Protestant ethics with prosperity and material development of an individual within the framework of a capitalist society. Though Protestant ethic did not as such encourage the craving for upward mobility that was so very apparent in a society dominated by Roman Catholics, this very aversion to climb up the social ladder fostered a pride in one’s vocation and a dedication to it that naturally led to bestowing an aura of religious sanctity to the all important capitalist virtues of thrift and an insatiable desire to earn more. The ethics of Calvinists that related dedication to profession as another means of worshipping God also quite obviously ensured a higher level of productivity and the near absence of that perennial problem of a capitalist society – a backward bending supply curve of labour. In fact, Weber argued that the Catholic desire to move higher up the pecking order in a society left members not only dissatisfied about their present status but also made them less interested in excelling at their current vocation and occupation leading to lower levels of productivity in the entire society. Thus, a Catholic society earned/produced less and, as the Catholic Church preferred to look the other way when members indulged in conspicuous consumption, saved less too. However, the Protestant ethic motivated more production and dedication to ‘beruf’ coupled with thriftiness resulted in capital accumulation – the basic requirement of development and prosperity of capitalist societies. Weber was essentially a social historian who endeavoured to locate the logic behind different forms of social development that have taken place through the twists and turns of history. But in his search for the reasons behind why people obey orders of leaders, he generated enough material to influence management experts and their theories for nearly a century. Weber’s concept of leadership While trying to rationalise why people obey orders, Weber described three types of leadership: charismatic, hereditary and bureaucratic. While each type of leadership ensured obedience from subordinates or followers, the suitability of each depended on the circumstances of their application and a successful entrepreneur was one who opted for the right variety at the right situation. Charismatic Authority: The followers obeyed the leader because of his supernatural or exceptional qualities that set him apart from ordinary people and thus made him the leader. The word ‘supernatural’ must be viewed in proper perspective as meaning qualities that are not generally found in ordinary people and it does not relate to anything that is paranormal or extrasensory or anything like that. However, an organisation might need a charismatic leader in its initial stages but for continued motivation and leadership every organisation needed something more stable and sustainable than only charisma. Hereditary Authority: The leader derived authority and power by virtue of inheritance mostly by birth and lineage and also sometimes by custom, usage and precedence. One has to only look around to find hereditary authority at work in so many organisations around the world. A very good example would be the management structure of the media empire of Rupert Murdoch. The appointments in such organisations depend not on competence but on family ties and, quite obviously, efficiency is given a go by. The other problem with such organisations is that unnecessary importance is attached to custom and precedence as a result of which innovativeness and lateral thinking, two vital ingredients for success in today’s highly competitive world, are totally ignored. Thus, such organisations fail to react as competitors catch up or markets slip away and they gradually lose their pre-eminent position in their chosen spheres of operation. Bureaucratic Authority: The third and the most enduring form of authority arises from the bureaucratic structure of an organisation. This type of authority is both rational and has a legal base too as it follows a set of rules and procedures that are attached to the office an individual occupies. Weber felt a bureaucratic system has a personality of its own where everything works like clockwork with individuals exercising authority that is based on their levels of knowledge and competence. He cited military as a prime example of a bureaucratic organisation. Under bureaucracy, the organisational hierarchy revolves around functions which are further structured into offices that are guided by technical norms and rules and incumbents are provided adequate training so as to become capable of discharging the responsibilities associated with a particular office in an efficient manner. With such a structured setup it is only natural that written method of communication is the norm. This obviously removes all elements of ambiguity and lack of proper direction that so often plague other forms of organisations. An obvious corollary of a bureaucratic form of organisation is clinical separation of administration from ownership of capital. This promotes a level of efficiency that can rarely be achieved by other forms of organisation. An impersonal set up such as bureaucracy also guarantees continuity in approach and actions of the organisation as a whole. This generates an enormous sense of stability that is so very essential for any organisation to prosper in the long run. However, the impersonal structure and insistence of written communication that guarantees efficiency and clarity in direction generate certain negative consequences as well. The channel of communication becomes so cumbersome over time that it becomes almost impossible for a bureaucracy to react quickly to exigencies and the excessive dependence on precedents as guidelines also makes it very difficult for it to deal with individual cases. Weber realised the pitfalls of bureaucracy and admitted that excessive bureaucratisation and overemphasis on measurement processes often turned people into mere cogs in the giant wheel of production process. At this instant he almost echoed Marx’s alienation theory. But he also admitted that the only way individuals could make significant contribution was by subordinating their personal goals and ambitions to the impersonal larger corporate goals. This was a paradox and Weber realised this better than anybody else. So he felt the only way to escape this conundrum is through the advent of a charismatic leader who would periodically infuse new life and vibrancy in a bureaucracy that has gone stale through years of impersonalised management. Though bureaucracy became the chosen form of management in large and eminently successful multinational corporations during twentieth century, there has always been a strong undercurrent of resentment against the bureaucratic method of depersonalised and precedence bound approach to human element in every organisation. Scott Adams in his Dilbert Principle was at his sardonic best in depicting the emotional detachment of bureaucracy. Max Weber and Frederick Taylor One is not quite sure whether Weber had ever heard Taylor’s name but in some uncanny way Weber’s theories almost echoed what Taylor had to state in his principles of Scientific Management with the only difference that Taylor postulated for shop floors while Weber theorised for entire societies. Industrial revolution had set in motion tectonic movements in western societies and Weber observed how these societies slowly but surely shifted from wertrational thinking and affektual actions to zweckrational thinking. He sincerely believed civilisation demanded optimum results through technical competence at the expense of human or emotional content. One feels fascinated at the immense possibilities of what would have happened if Weber integrated Elton Mayo's experiences in the Hawthorne Works Experiments in his theories of an efficient bureaucracy. Bibliography Hughes, J. A., Sharrock, W. W., & Martin, P. J. (2003). Understanding Classical Sociology: Marx, Weber, Durkheim. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications. Pugh, D. S., & Hickson, D. J. (1993). Great writers on organizations. Dartmouth: Aldershot. Weber, M. (1930 ). The Protestant Ethic and the Spirit of Capitalism. London: Allen & Unwin. Weber, M. (1947). Theory of Social and Economic Organisation New York. New York: Free Press. Read More