Feminist and Bureaucratic Perspectives of Organisational Theory - Essay Example

Feminist and Bureaucratic Perspectives of Organisational Theory Number Department Introduction In social work, there is no restriction that is placed on the kind of leadership or organisational model that is to be used. Instead, organisations are accorded the freedom to choose the preferred model by organisational leaders, founders and major stakeholders. For this reason, there are organisations that use feminist or bureaucratic models of leadership, communication and management. Although prevailing opinion may depict bureaucracy pejoratively, yet, in social sciences circles, bureaucracy is deemed as a viable option in organisational management. Bureaucracy may be referred to as a professional organisation of officials who are organised in a pyramidal hierarchy and function under uniform impersonal rules and procedures. The classical form of bureaucracy has its origin in the German sociologist, Max Webber (1864-1920). According to Marx Webber, there are four foundations which define a bureaucratic entity: division of labour in that organisation; the assigning of individual positions and roles of an office to an individual member; authority structure; and the formation and execution of rules that define and regulate relations among organisational employees and stakeholders (Acker, 1990 & Runte & Mills, 2006). Conversely, feminist approaches to management are interested in addressing gender discrimination that has been caused by sex segregation in an organisational set up, as a way of heightening management efficiency. As has already been mentioned, specialisation of tasks and a highly developed division of labour features heavily in bureaucracies and bureaucratic approaches to social work. This is achieved by a clear and detailed definition of duties and responsibilities that are due to every office. The allocation of limited number of tasks to a specific office functions according to the principle of fixed jurisdictional areas which are determined by administrative regulations (Morten and Jarle, 2009). The case above is evident among leading nongovernmental organisations [NGOs] such as the Mercy Community Services, the Australian Human Rights Commission and the Australian Human Rights Commission. In all these organisations, there are duties that are specific to every officer. The same is applicable to governmental organisations such as the Australian Federal Police, the Australian Institute of Marine Science and the Australian Law Reform Commission. In all these aforementioned NGOs and governmental organisations, there are duties that are office-specific so that all offices are unitarily accountable (Lounsbury & Carberry, 2005). The foregoing is similar to feminist approaches to organisational management and leadership. Feminist approaches to leadership also maintain that an office should be defined by rules, roles and responsibilities. The point of commonality between bureaucrats and feminists’ approach to social work is underscored by the fact that feminists are largely concerned about Again, according to Beddoe and Maidment (2009), the bureaucratic organisation is characterised by rational and impersonal regulation of inferior-superior relationships. The inferior-superior relationship is personal with the legitimacy of the authority being based on the belief of the sacredness of tradition. In this light, authority is legitmised by belief in the soundness of the process by which administrative rules are enacted. The loyalty of the bureaucrat is patterned after an impersonal order, to a position that is superior; and not to a particular individual who holds the position. Whenever one shifts attention from an organisation to the status or role of an individual member, the bureaucrat is recruited based on formal qualifications [such as university degrees and diplomas], as the determining yardstick for measuring merit and an individual employee’s sole or principal occupation, so that he develops a career out of it. There is also an elaborate system of promotion in place, based on the principles of achievement and seniority. There is both a point of commonality and divergence in regard to the manner in which feminists view the rational and impersonal regulation of inferior-superior relationships which characterise bureaucracy as is discussed immediately above. The point of commonality is found in feminism not disagreeing with the need for the rational and impersonal regulation of inferior-superior relationships in an office or organisational setting. The crux of the matter herein is that both feminists and bureaucrats are aware of the fact that it is this rational, impersonal and hierarchical relationship between low-ranking and high-ranking that accountability can be fostered. Feminist approaches to management are not against values such as accountability to the executive. The point of divergence can only be induced when the rational and impersonal regulation of inferior-superior relationships is solely predicated upon gender-based issues or sexual segregation (Ely & Padavic, 2007). As touching remunerations, bureaucrats receive emoluments, based on the status of the portfolio he occupies. The size or volume of emoluments or remunerations that is extended to an office is commensurate to the officer’s merit [academic qualifications, experience and skills and talents due to the office holder] and his progress in the office. The same applies to feminists’ approach to management. In like manner, the feminist approach to management or social work adopts meritocracy when it comes to determination of salaries and allowances. The two exceptions to this observation are that: feminist approaches to management may resist this arrangement, if it is a consequence or a tool for extending gender disparity; or the same approach may want the meritocratic reviewing of salaries and allowances as part of enacting gender empowerment. The latter especially applies when a field in social work is inundated by male workers. In this case, it will be expedient for feminist idealists to call for the lowering of the benchmarks needed for recruitment and promotions (Drummond, 2000 & Germov, 2005). The import of the foregoing is that the entire rank and file of an organisation is likely to gain a competitive edge in discharging day-to-day duty. This is bound to make social work more effective and efficient. The rationale behind this standpoint is that all employees will see the need to account for the emoluments and perks that are being extended to them. It is also important to acknowledge the fact that there is a distinct separation between the public and private sphere in the life of the bureaucrat. There is also a distinction between property belonging to the bureaucrat and that of the organisation the bureaucrat is working for. The property belonging to the bureaucracy is distinguished as the means of administration. The same applies to feminism and feminist approaches to organisational management. Just like the bureaucratic approach to management, the feminist approach to leadership recognises the difference between private and organisational property. This distinction extends widely to cover property and even time management. For instance, both bureaucracy and feminist organisational set-ups recognise the need for proper stewardship with an organisation’s time. This demarcation is important since it helps define office theft. Particularly, in both bureaucratic and feminist organisational set-ups, organisations are shielded from theft and mismanagement of resources because of this demarcation (Jones & May, 1992). Feminist and bureaucratic approaches to leadership and organisational management have a point of convergence in social work. The point of convergence lies in the fact that both are anthropocentric in nature: both are geared towards man’s good. While feminist approaches to organisational management seeks to seal sexual segregation as a way of increasing organisational efficiency, the bureaucratic set-up is concerned with having all offices of the bureaucracy fully and efficiently functioning, for the furtherance of organisational goals. When put in the context of social work, this aspect of convergence is accentuated. Particularly, in the mind of the feminist, removing sexual segregation will inevitably increase the effectiveness and efficiency of social work. Organisations that have inordinately distribution of male employees in their personnel workforce will seldom reach communities with gender-sensitive problems such as wife-battery, sexual abuse, gender empowerment and equal and equitable representation of women in the workplace and in political leadership. Because of this, the feminist approach to organisational management and social work is venerable and geared towards efficiency. Likewise, bureaucracies and bureaucratic approaches to leadership seek to inject organisational life and operations with efficiency, transparency and accountability by having every officer in the organisation to have its role, duties, responsibilities and protocol. This ensures that every officer is accountable, as far as performance, meeting of deadlines, professional conduct and adherence to work ethics. It is only after the upholding of values such as accountability, transparency and professionalism that there can be proper execution of social work. Pilferage of organisational funds, behind-schedule projects, inchoately crafted social work programmes and projects and office work that are shoddily done. It is impossible for any organisation to effectively engage in social work if it is characterised with financial scandals, tardiness, mediocrity and indiscipline. Particularly, the hierarchical relation between junior and senior officers in bureaucratic organisational set-ups and the protocols and duties and responsibilities due to an office are what bring about accountability, timeliness and punctilious ratification of organisational policies in social work (Page, 1994). In regard to the above, it is important to acknowledge the fact that both feminist and bureaucratic approaches to management catalyse and promote social work by considering the human aspect in organisational set-up. The only point of convergence herein is that while feminist perspective on administration seeks to inject social work with humanity by bringing in gender balance, equality and balanced contribution, while the bureaucratic approach seeks to rein in the human aspect. The human aspects that bureaucracy seeks to rein in are indiscipline, tardiness and financial misappropriation. These are the very factors that defeat the attainment of organisational goals such as reaching the marginalised communities or successfully carrying out several projects such as sinking boreholes, opening up educational or learning programmes, establishing medical or nutritional programmes to help the marginalised communities. The foregoing clearly shows that there are aspects of similarities and differences between bureaucratic set-ups and feminist organisational set-ups, generally and in social work. The aspect of similarity is underscored by the fact that the feminist organisational model intrinsically embraces the processes and arrangements of bureaucracies. The hallmarks of bureaucracies such as the hierarchical distribution of power, flow of information, professional problems and protocol are all left unchallenged in or by the feminist approach, on the one hand. On the other hand, the bureaucratic approach exists and operates based on the assumption that there are no social problems such as gender or sexual segregation in organisational set-ups. It is against this backdrop that neither does the feminist approach to management countermand the principles of bureaucracy, nor does bureaucracy gainsay the principles or theory of feminist approach to management. Nevertheless, it is also important to acknowledge the fact that sociologists such as Calas and Smircich (1989) see the feminist approach to management as being more progressive than bureaucracy, when it comes to social work. According to Hughes and Wearing (2007), unlike bureaucracy, the feminist approach to management tampers the human aspect with bureaucratic arrangement. Particularly, the feminist approach goes past the issue of effectiveness, to embrace human values such as equality and balanced representation. The crux of the matter herein is that the main drawback of bureaucracy is its failure to maintain human touch through its automated processes and protocol. From a personal standpoint, Ross-Smith and Kornberger (2004) are right to posit that the incorporation of human touch into organisational frameworks by the feminist approach also heightens success and efficiency in social work. The target audience of social work is human beings who must be accorded the human touch. For instance, child welfare, domestic problems, gender and economic marginalisation and promoting literacy levels among marginalised communities may be largely unsuccessful when the gentle and intuitive female touch is not incorporated into social work. References Acker, J 1990, ‘Hierarchies, jobs, bodies: a theory of gendered organizations’, Gender and Society, vol. 4, no. 2, pp. 139-158. Beddoe, L & Maidment, J 2009, Mapping knowledge for social work practice, Cengage Learning, South Melbourne. Calas, MB & Smircich, L 1989, ‘Using the F word: feminist theories and the social consequences of organizational research’, Academy of Management Best Papers Proceedings, pp.355-359. Drummond, H., 2000, Introduction to organizational behaviour, Oxford University Press, Oxford. Ely, R & Padavic, I 2007, ‘A feminist analysis of organizational research on sex differences’, Academy of Management Review, vol. 32, no. 4, pp. 1121-1143. Germov, J 2005, ‘Managerialism in the Australian public health sector: towards the hyper-rationalisation of professional bureaucracies’, Sociology of Health and Illness, vol. 27, no. 6, pp. 738-758. Hughes, M & Wearing, M 2007, Organisations and management in social work, Sage Publications, London. Jones, A & May, J 1992, Working in human service organisations, Longman Australia, Melbourne. Lounsbury, M & Carberry, EJ 2005, ‘From king to court jester? Weber’s fall from grace in organizational theory’, Organization Studies, vol. 26, no. 4, pp. 501-525. Morten, Egeberg and Jarle, Trondal, 2009, Political Leadership and Bureaucratic Autonomy: Effects of Agencification. Governance, Volume 22, Issue 4, p. 673. Page, Edward C., 1994, Bureaucratic politics and political leadership in Brussels. Public Administration, Volume 72, Issue 3, pp. 445 – 459. Ross-Smith, A & Kornberger, M 2004, ‘Gendered rationality? A genealogical exploration of the philosophical and sociological conceptions of rationality, masculinity and organization’, Gender, Work and Organization, vol. 11, no. 3, pp. 280-305. Runte, M & Mills, AJ 2006, ‘Cold war, chilly climate: exploring the roots of gendered discourse in organisation and management theory’, Human Relations, vol. 59, no. 5, pp. 695-720. Read More