Institutions and Max Webers Bureaucracy - Term Paper Example

Institutions and Max Weber’s Bureaucracy Introduction An institution, defining any structure or mechanism of social order governing the behavior of a particular group of individuals within a given social economic context commonly describes the customs and important behavioral patterns in the society. They also apply to formal organizations of the government and the public service. In the current organizational context, experts associate government institutions and the public sector with increased levels of bureaucracy and a formalized way of doing things in that particular institution. Organizations, being structures and mechanisms of social order among certain species, more often than not, they have increasingly become important points of reference for researchers interested in the theory of bureaucracy. Max weber, the father of bureaucracy had the social institutions in mind. Bureaucracy, described as the hierarchy and channels of appeal describe a clearly established system of subordination, which allows higher offices to supervise the lower offices, describe the formal way of doing things. According to Weber’s arguments, increased space and the growth of the administered population, the higher the chances of bureaucracy taking shape. With the increased complexity of the societies, argued Weber, coupled with the administrative activities undertaken often required a formalized way of doing things. Characteristics of institutions In order to take a stance on whether there was anything institutional in Max Weber’s argument about bureaucracy, it is important to understand the characteristics of an institution. These characteristics form the very arguments for the institutional theory. Institutions focus in satisfying specific needs. Every institution meets a particular set of needs to the members of the institution. Every institution has prescribed rules that all members of the institutions have to follow. Rules help in maintaining discipline among the members of the institution. Further, they avoid any form of conflicts among the members. All members have to follow the prescribed rules and regulations. Further, organizations are abstract in nature, meaning that they are neither visible nor tangible. Organizations have cultural symbols. They embrace a particular way of doing things, regarded as the acceptable way of operation. All members conform to this normal way of doing things, which gives the institution identity from other institutions. As institutions come into existence due to collective activities of the people, they are social in nature. Sociologists point out that institutions are products of secular and repetitive forms of social relationships of individuals. Another characteristic of institutions is their permanency. As institutions do not undergo sudden or rapid changes, they take a gradual process in order to change. This, they are relatively permanent in their own regard. In fact, many institutions are rigid and enduring. Regardless of the environmental forces exerting on the organization, there is a high likelihood of them not changing over a long time. Sociologists also argue that institutions can persist in the form of written or oral traditions. While in primitive societies with little elements of civilization, persistence occurs with respect to the oral traditions, highly civilized, formalized and organized institutions survive in written traditions. Finally, despite the diverse nature of institutions, they are interrelated. According to this analogy, understanding one institution requires the understanding of other related institutions. For instance, there is an interlink age between the religious, moral, educational, political and economic institutions. Relationship between the bureaucracy and institutions As institutions portray a well-organized way of doing things, Weber argued that this is the best illustration of bureaucracy. A systematic way of doing things means that the organization seldom will allow any foreign forces acting within its processes. Instead, the organization will embrace its actual processes, thus contributing to the desired results. In most cases, it is possible to predict an institution by understanding its processes. Because hierarchical organizations, delineated lines of authority-all fixed in a particular area of activity-actions deliberated based on rules governing the institution makes bureaucracy an institutional affair. It is therefore true that bureaucracy is institutional, just as suggested by Max Weber. One of the major characteristics of bureaucracy is administrative regulations. As bureaucracy follows a particular official way of handling things, such as authority and regular fulfilment of duties and responsibilities of officers guided by the set rules and principles, then such an organization will have to follow a particular way of doing things. The generally acceptable way of doing things, be it in the government, public sector or at the organizational context defines the culture of that institution. Culture defines the uniqueness of the organization, as no institution shares similar culture with others. The existence of culture in a particular context defines an institution. Roth and Wittich (957) argue that bureaucratically, just as rulers of a state assume the highest authority, entrepreneurs too assume such an authority in their organizations. This is an indication of the extent to which social institutions embrace bureaucracy. Although bureaucracy defines a particular way of doing things in an organizational context, such formalities become more profound in social institutions. Current organizational theories describe organizations as being social institutions, an argument Max Weber raised in his theory of bureaucracy. As Max Weber observed, bureaucracy works better in social institutions. Institutional theory addresses the question why organizations in an industry appear to act in a similar manner. Institutional theory holds the paradigm that organizational structures and processes tend to acquire meaning and stability in their own right. However, it stresses based on their effectiveness and efficiency in achieving their goals, mission and objectives (Roth and Wittich, 960). According to the institutional theory, institutions form a critical component of the environment. No organization can function in isolation; instead, they rely on social environment for their success. According to Poole and Van de ven (134), institutional theorists, an institution is a regulative, normative, and cognitive structure, whose activities not only provide stability, but also meaning to social behavior. With this regard, institutions include laws, regulations, customs, social; and professional norms, culture and ethics. Isomorphism, an organizational pressure constraining influence over organizations forces all organizations in the same population and facing similar set of environmental conditions to resemble each other. The theory further argues that new organizations do not emerge backed with the availability of resources, rather, they emerge whenever the society view them as legitimate forms of institutions. Legitimacy points out to the extent with which the society accepts an organization’s actions and approved by various internal and external stakeholders. Further, these actions should be in consistent with widely held norms, rules and beliefs of the society. Subsequently, when organizations conform to the underlying institutional pressures, the reward is on increased legitimacy, resources and survival capability of their operations. Further, institutional theory posits that institutionalized activities occur due to three level influences, the individual, the organizational and the inter-organizational levels. Subsequently, the main interest of institutional experts is the ability of organizations to act as change agents in the society. Institutional theorists Weber appeared to reminisce There are two major institutional theories, the old institutionalism and the new institutionalism. According to institutional theorists, environmental pressures have more profound effect on the organization than market forces acting on the institution. The environment legitimizes the innovative structures, which seek to improve the technical efficiency in the early-adopting organizations. In order for organizations to gain or maintain legitimacy in the institutional environment, Meyer and Rowan argues that organizations have to accept ceremoniously these institutional myths (Poole and Van de ven 134). These theorists argue that organizations adopt concepts of structure prevailing in their environment. Among the various elements these organizations embrace include the processes, the organizational roles and job descriptions. The ability of the organization to conform to these elements more often than not determines its potential to survive in the environment. On the other, these formal structures, argue Meyer and Rowan can be a source of inefficiency in addition to hindering the organization’s competitive position in its industry of operation. There are however formal and informal institutions within a larger organizational context. Formal institutions follow the legal, formal and the constitution. On the other hand, the informal institutions follow local arrangements, and are impediments to the success of the formal organizations (Poole and Van de ven 1340. Max Weber appears to reminisce on Meyer and Rowan, especially by portraying the two elements of an organization as being a formal and informal institution. According to Weber, bureaucracy is important in taking care of these processes in an efficient manner. While institutions contribute to increased levels of inefficiency, especially by their complex natures, Weber observed that through bureaucracy, such inconsistencies and issues with bureaucracy are unlikely. Therefore, his theory of bureaucracy primarily sought to find solutions to the problems formal organizations faced. Works Cited Poole, Marshall S, and Van de ven Andrew. Handbook of Organizational Change and Innovation. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press, 2004. Internet resource. Roth, Guenther and Wittich Claus. The economy and society: an outline of interpretive sociology. Berkeley, London: University of California Press. Print. Read More