Bureaucracy Essays Examples Essay

originGiven the substituteject matter of this bestride revolves around bureaucratism, and given that bureaucratism is catch to with rules and order, it seems fitting to first take off with an starchy definition of the term A dust of g everywherenment in which most of the Coperni fag end decisions ar do by situate officials quite a than by elected representatives a state or organization g everyplacened or served match to such a constitution. This essay bequeath break d aver how this definition came ab off and where bureaucratism first originated onward moving onto explore its unintended consequences and near(a) of its radical physical exercises while counter equilibrate this with some of its oft positive attributes. I sh all t centenarian look at the redbrick slicknesss of bureaucratism and weigh up whether in that location is a place for it in the advanced(a) realness and if non whether office staff bureaucratism is more than than fitting. Final ly I shall conclude by attempting to set about set down on integrity side of the argument as to whether in fact bureaucratism is bad.Bureaucracy as an bringing close togetherl role and organize of provide found on legitimate role Max weber was a German social scientist (1864-1920) who was concerned with the chief of what held societies together, he came to the conclusion that it was down to governance agency which allows those who demand the right of legitimacy to give orders (Wilson, 1999). weber questi singled what the power of this billet was found on, because in most societies it is non found on force, fear or coercion. This authority antecedently came near in two important demeanors authority base on charisma (the personal authority of a ill-tempered psyche) or authority base on tradition (the constituteed authority of institutions) ( grey-headed, 2009). However, weber set up forward the idea that these previous lineaments of authority were inc reasingly organism overshadowed by acute-legal authority in modern societies (systems of rules devised for rational reasons).Weber was writing at a condemnation where institutions were increase at a rate not seen before. He was commentating o the trans public figureation that he was without delay seeing. The idea of this moderateness in social club and arrangings is not a new-made hotshot and indeed in Webers study witnessing the rise of capitalism he argued that it owed a considerable amount to the practices of the Calvinistical Church which was itself involved in discursive calculative thought. This rationalisation can be defined as a puzzle out whereby the agent chose to pursue ends can be determined by logical and rational calculation (Wilson, 1999). When app guiled to organisations, this rational-legal authority agency bureaucratism.When Weber was putting forward his ideas regarding bureaucratism he discussed it as an lofty instance however a common miscon ception is that by this Weber meant bureaucratism was a plummy nonsuch when in fact he despaired of how dominant this organisational structure was becoming. The lofty fictitious character is obviously a subjective divisor in social possibility and seek which formed from characteristics and elements of the given phenomena, but it is not meant to correspond to all of the characteristics of any oneness particular subject field. According to Wilson (1999) the precedent type of bureaucratism is governed by a conventional set of rules and procedures that ensures that operations and activities be carried out in a predictable, uniform and indifferent manner.This brings from the quaternary foundational aspects that according to Weber bureaucracy consist of functional peculiarity (the formal division of labour), pecking order of authority (the structure that gives those in a headmaster identify authority, simply because they h ageing that position), system of rules (eve ry matter is based upon finding a formal set of written rules about practices and procedures) and impersonality (rules argon followed without regard for emotions) (Grey, 2009). According to Weber it was these four concepts that meant bureaucracy was the most technically effectual and rational form of organisations, it was adopted because it was simply infract than any opposite system. get up of rationality it promotes ( submissive/formal vs. value/substantive) It is bear to see that bureaucracy promotes an instrumental form of rationality, which is a type of decision fashioning which is subject to calculation that goes into an action to ontogeny its chance of success. Its decisive feature is that it abstracts an predilection to values because they ar non-technical. Rationality is instrumental (formal) when chores are solved by the operation of technical criteria. In opposition, substantive (value) rationality is a type of decision make which is subject to values and an appeal to respectable norms this is not some involvement that bureaucracy is concerned with in particular given substantive rationality does not usurp into account the nature of outcomes.Weber alike concluded that bureaucracy was substantively false succeeding(a) his puddle and reading on the overall societal effects of its rise (Grey, 2009). This is where Weber coined his term of The bid coop of rationality. The idea was that because bureaucracy was becoming so dominant in every aspect of conduct and work more and more peoples cash in ones chipss were lived in spite of appearance the constraints of a rationalised system. Grey (2009) takes it ones step further and claims that bureaucracy countermines our very sympatheticity. Whilst this whitethorn seem ludicrous, he presents a very inte delaying idea. We live in a world in which every experience is organised from the infirmary in which we are born to the undertakers that take us to our graves (Grey, 2009).Uninte nded consequences/Dysfunctions of bureaucracy (Blau, Gouldner, Merton) It is already clear to see that bureaucracy may not be without its problems, or unintended consequences. The word itself in the modern day world is ofttimes frowned on and associated with issues of red video register as hale as a consume slight shave and pedantic obsession with rules (Grey, 2009). It is inseparable in many organisations todayadays that there is a paper caterpillar tread, so that it can be proved everything was do how it was meant to be. However, the unintended consequences of bureaucracy go much further than this and begin with the idea that bureaucracy is thought of as a mechanical form of organisation. Whilst this operator that every part is designed utterly and operates in a predictable and hackneyed counseling, it in any case means that the people at heart the organisation have to function as if they are merely cogs which lead to a spot of name unintended consequences. at tha t place is firstly an issue regarding the levels of penury among employees. A insufficiency of personal commitment is bred from having to follow set rules and having no prudence about doing so. These standard procedures that must be followed also provides olive-sized interest or stimulant for employees which again weakens their commitment to the organisation. It is not a new idea that motivation is understandably linked to job satisfaction and that high motivation leads to better work performance. It indeed follows that in bureaucracies where motivation is low employees go forth simply perform sub optimally meaning they are not as economic as first thought. avocation on from the above problem, is that this lack of motivation often translates into poor customer service. Employees lead simply follow rules and procedures blindly with small regard for the customer in the process. bureaucratic rules are also designed for the gain ground of the organisation, not the custom er meaning they will not be convinced to suit the demands of one individual.A final key problem involves a resistance to innovation and change. In a bureaucracy once rules are made they will only change very slowly, if at all. This is specifically a problem for organisations that exist in markets with volatile and uncertain conditions. It is intumesce know now that to keep up with competition an organisation must change with the times or will disappear because it cannot keep up with changing markets. It also stifles individual emancipation many of the best ideas deep down organisations come from the bottom up, but bureaucracy destroys this enterprisingness as there is little bureaucrats loathe more than innovation, especially innovation that produces better precedes than the old routines. Improvements al fashions make those at the cash in ones chips look inept (Herbert, 1984). at that place are also a number of dysfunctions of bureaucracy which have been written about by a number of theorists originally Merton (1940), Blau (1955) and Selznick (1949). Merton (1940) addressed a core supposed(a) and practical issue with his concept of cultivation displacement. His argument is an interesting one, and one that can be all the way seen in the works practices of bureaucracies in modern day organisations. He claims that people in bureaucracies started to see following the rules as the goal or part rather than the effect that the rule was supposed to produce. Goal displacement became about doing the thing right, rather than doing the right thing (Merton (1940). This is by chance where the negative connotations about bureaucracy come from, this slavish adherence to rules (Grey, 2009) becomes the end in itself and becomes central to the concept of red tape which people have come to loathe. Merton termed this as the bureaucratic personality, where someone was so quick adhering to official rules that they lose sight of the aims of the organisation.Selznick (1949) undertook a number of studies that supported Mertons (1940) theory of goal displacement. His studies found that the divisionalised structures a key aspect of bureaucratic organisations led to employees cosmos concerned only with the aims, rules and procedures of their division with lend disregard for the organisations aims as a whole. This disjointedness in the midst of divisions meant employees pursued divisional interests often at the expense of the organisation with delivers, what Grey (2009) calls organisationally sub optimal outcomes.Blau (1955) looked at one of the dysfunctions of bureaucracy via the trade union tactic known as work to rule. This means but what the terms suggests, employees refuse to do anything over and above the formal and established rules of their sustain or workplace. Similarly if they are contractual obliged to do something, but the rules are not laid out on exactly how to do it, they constantly fill for assistance or guidance. The reason this is done is to crock up organisations. However, Blau addresses the important question that rules under a bureaucratic system are supposedly meant to be a peachy thing as they are meant to establish the most efficient centering of doing something so how can following them religiously disrupt an organisation. Blau answers his own question and states that following the rules to the garner without using your own orifice is in earth not the most efficient way of organising which undermines the whole mannequin of bureaucracy.Whilst the work of Merton, Selznick and Blau face that following bureaucratic rules to the letter may not lead to efficiency there is the work of Crozier (1964) and Gouldner (1954) which is in diametric opposition to this. The issue is not over attachment of rules but instead a total disregard for them. Gouldner (1954) introduced the concept of sneer bureaucracy after his investigation into a gypsum mine revealed its presence. Despite the impressive o rdinate of rules and regulations (Grey, 2009) found in formal rulebooks, in practice these were ignored. This was specifically noticed in regard to the safety regulations in the mines and is unornamented today in the disregard for a number of safety regulations that exist in potentially dangerous industries such a building sites and chemical plants. Despite the fact that goal displacement and mock bureaucracy are diametrically opposed, some(prenominal) undermine the bureaucratic model.Bureaucracy as a source of extreme power (Bauman)It would be an in erectice not to use the case of the Holocaust to foreground what can slip by when bureaucracy is used as a source of extreme power. Wilson (1999) notes that in bureaucracy personal relationships are excluded from everyday life which may go some way to explaining the detachment Nazi soldiers were able to stage to their victims. Bauman (1989) wrote prominently on the subject in a book entitled contemporaneousness and the Holoca ust. According to Bauman, horrific though the Nazi government was, the genocide was simply an extreme application of bureaucratic logic with a system of rules, uniformity, impersonality and technical efficiency (Bauman, 1989). wound of victims was, after a while, deemed to be insufficiently reapingive principal(prenominal)ly due to the larger-than-life numbers to be killed. The Nazi regime therefore found a new way, in the form of permanent concrete gas chambers in which the perpetrators contain not see, hear or whole tone the human consequences of their actions (Russell and Gregory, 2005). This also backs up a prior bode I made regarding the instrumental rationality involved within bureaucracy. Such indifference and neutrality to human life shows that bureaucratic practices can in no way, or from no angle, been seen as substantively rational.Contemporary manifestations of bureaucracy, analyse grows (Power, 1997) and McDonaldisation (Ritzer, 1993 and 2003) Contemporary mani festations of bureaucracy are all around us, though the most obvious use is that of McDonaldisation (Ritzer, 1993). At the time, Ritzer claimed that troubled pabulum restaurants were the new model of rationalisation however, in the twenty-first degree Celsius we know that this model of rationalisation, which is built on many ideas found in bureaucracy, is by no means confined to the fast food industry. Ritzer (1993) defined McDonaldisation as a process by which the principles of the fast food restaurant are coming to master more and more sectors of US nightspot as well as that of the rest of the world.Four basic dimensions lie at the heart of the success of McDonalds (and as such McDonaldisation) efficiency, calculability, predictability and increased control. Ritzer was quick to highlight the negatives of McDonaldisation and believes that McDonalised systems through their rules, regulations and scripts encroach upon us and finally threaten the ability of people running(a)s within these systems to think intelligently. This was what Grey (2009) was implying when he spoke of employees merely world cogs in a machine. Ritzer also carries on Webers theory of The Iron Cage by describing that this iron cage is being constructed, piece by piece, by the various organisations and institutions that follow McDonalds model. scrutinize cultures are also an increasing phenomenon in modern day bureaucracies. Power (1977) authored a book called The Audit Society where he argues this culture of auditing is one that has come to leave out more and more areas of our lives. One fount is the targets set by the Labour government in the national service, and specifically public health, services where monetary standardments are made according to the outputs (the ends). The problem with this is that it can cause employees to dodge the system in order to achieve the targets. In addition the fact that audit cultures focus on what you can measure and see means that it is no t based on quality, so the measurement itself holds little value. Power argues that it becomes a self-referential system in that an employee can display they are run across the targets but it does not show the reality of what they are doing. The reality that is in the documents is not the same as the reality that is experiences. In an audit society how something is done is slight important than that it is done.One key example of this is the Mid Staffordshire arrogance. Ineffective management was often too concerned with hitting targets that amid 2005-2008 it was reported that between 400-1200 patients died from preventable causes. However, at the same time this trust met all of its targets to the point that it received foundation emplacement. This demonstrates just how important it is that people look at how targets are achieved rather than just that they are received. Bureaucracy as good because it avoids  stage business (DuGay, 2000) or bad because it doesnt manage to pre vent it (Jackall, 1988) DuGay (2000) is a key counseling of bureaucracy and draws upon Webers prototype type of bureaucracy that business is laid-off without regard for persons (Weber, 1978). All love, hatred and stringently irrational and emotional sentiments are excluded.Whilst this primary(prenominal) seem callous it is this exact bureaucratic ethic of impersonality and forthrightness that DuGay defends. In secern with Baumans view of the distinct lack of faith, DuGay (2000) in fact claims that bureaucracy is imbued with morality due to the demands of instrumental rationality for upper limit efficiency. DuGay states that for those demands to be satisfied the ethic of impersonality and fairness must come into play. thitherfore bureaucracy is actually a way to eliminate discrimination.Jackalls (1988) work regarding bureaucratic careers is in opposition with this however, as he claims much of bureaucracy is based on old authority. His work is based on a large organisation in the US and is recorded in his book moral Mazes. The idea of the hierarchy within the ideal bureaucracy is that you are trained for a role and then you occupy a role, taking on the authority that came with it. If that ideal occurs than it is an efficient system. However, Jackall found that patronage (an old form of authority associated with traditional authority) was more common within the organisation. In other words, doing things to please your boss who is at the top of the hierarchy of authority purely based upon his position.According to Jackall (1988) and two years previously to DuGays conflicting ideas, fairness and loveliness are abandoned in privilege of keeping ones eye on the main chance, maintaining and furthering ones own position and career. Subordinate advancement is based upon protecting the boss rather than on gravely work, ability and dedicated service. The way to move up the career persist is to keep your eye on the semipolitical gamesmanship of the organisat ion.Is bureaucracy dead ( location bureaucracy?)This brings me onto the question of whether if bureaucracy is bad, then what is the alternative. An alternative has been put forward, and it is that of post bureaucracy. Heckscher (1994) is one of the leading writers in post bureaucracy and has created a type in contrast to Webers which is called the post bureaucratic ideal type. There are ternary key strands to his ideal type. Firstly, formal rules are replaced with a consensus based upon personal influence rather than status employees are also trusted to act on shared values rather than rules. Secondly, responsibilities are assigned based on competence and merit rather than hierarchy and individuals are treated as such. Finally, the organisation is much more fictile with regard to employment and working hours.The ideals of post bureaucracy have been developed as the conditions in which bureaucracy worked are becoming increasingly rare. The industrial era has given way to the po st-industrial and the economy has moved away from wad production of standard products towards presently product runs for niche markets (Grey, 2009). To address the final point of Heckschers (1994) post bureaucracy ideal, there is also a growing need for more flexible and innovative working rather than the blind following of orders. Whilst post bureaucracy does seem to address some of the problems associated with modern day bureaucracies it also generates its own set of problems, many of them being what bureaucracy solves. In opposition to the idea of bureaucracy as a machine, post bureaucracy is portrayed as a living, growing organism which means it is far less predictable and prone to malfunctions. Grey (2009) outlines three key problems with a post bureaucratic ideal.The problem of control is key, the lack of rules means it is difficult to wreak control. Post bureaucracy instead proposes a different form of control based on a culture of management on trust though this is a rath er imperfect form of control which relies on self-control. This is particularly difficult to sustain given the conditions in which post bureaucracies claim to operate flexible and fast moving organisations which means short term contracts where a trust is hard to build up. Another problem is that of seek which is inheringly linked to a culture of freedom and innovation. Whilst freedom can result in good ideas, it can also result in inaccurate and change decisions for an organisation. Finally, the problem of fairness is also inherent in an organisational system that stressed individual word as this opens the possibility to irrationalities and prejudices. cultureTo come back to the original question, is bureaucracy bad, having evaluated and considered the two sides of the argument. I would have to come to the conclusion that while todays common form of bureaucracy is bad, the Weberian ideal type is not necessarily so. ilk any structure, concept or theory, bureaucracy has its d ownfalls but there can be no denying that bureaucracy in its ideal type is the most rational and efficient form of organisation. However, over the years and into the 21st century it has become too relentless in its rules and procedures, people working within bureaucracies have lost their sense of initiative and cannot fathom anything that exists outside of their ruled environment.As Merton (1940) summed up, bureaucracy has become about doing the thing right, rather than doing the right thing. The smother of innovation can lead to the bereavement of organisations and as James Hayes states interminable meetings, sloppy communications and red tape steal the entrepreneurs time. Through bureaucracy the capacity for discretion is removed, which means that the ability to reason, act and exercise judgement is restricted. The individuals are told to enact a role into which they throw themselves whole heartedly.However, that is not to say that the alternative of post bureaucracy is much b etter and one of the particular pitfalls is the lack of security it provides for employees as well as an intensification of time pressures. Though peradventure this is simply the way organisations have to work in the 21st century in order to keep up. Bureaucracy is clearly more relevant is some industries than others, and this should be kept in mind when evaluating the use of bureaucracy. For example it is far more essential to have a paper trail regarding a patients medication and hospital treatment than it is for an artist to rigorously note down the materials they have used. As with most things, uncomplete of the two extremes of bureaucracy or post bureaucracy is ideal, both have their dysfunctions and both have their advantages and as such a merging of the two (as seems to be the case in most organisations) is the most efficient and effective way forward.