Olivier
Bureaucracy
Unless we
can clearly understand where the bureaucracy came from and more importantly what
the catalyst is that sustains its existence - then we will have little chance of
changing it. In some cases we may well just add to the
bureaucracy.
Max Weber
(1864-1920) termed this organisational form a "rational-legal system" - its
structure and processes expressly designed to achieve certain goals. The
bureaucracy is rationally designed for optimum functional performance and every
part (dept's., levels, posts) contributes to the whole (unity of purpose). The
bureaucracy is legal. Authority is exercised via rule and procedural systems
& the offices people occupy.
Organisational members and clients accept
(conform to) its authority because the rules are defined and administered
fairly. Rights & privileges protect individuals from organisational
(officer) injustice - equity prevails regardless of "who you are". Rules include
policies and standard procedures for implementing these. They are solutions to
past problems demanding known responses (we avoid reinventing the wheel). Rules
guide behaviour ensuring consistency at every level. Nine out of ten problems
encountered are covered by regular procedures. This is a risk minimising,
consistent apparatus.
Bureaucracy
and Inefficiency
Many feel that bureaucracy is synonymous with inefficiency,
an emphasis on red-tape and excessive writing and recording - especially public
administration. For Weber - the organisation is technically the most efficient
form of structure possible.
"Precision, speed, un-ambiguity, knowledge of
files, continuity, unit, strict subordination, reduction of friction and of
material and personal costs - these are raised to the optimum point in the
strictly bureaucratic administered organisation".
Though a smooth machine its
rules and set procedures can be inflexible instruments of administration -
experience of the past may not be in-tune with present conditions. Some rules
cannot be readily adapted to suit individual needs and they can become barriers
behind which the vulnerable administrators hide. Bureaucratic alienation is
reinforced by conformations with "face-less administrators"
A tension occurs
in organisational design between preserving control and encouraging flexibility
& freedom of expression. Bureaucracy favours the former. Cries of
"bureaucratic inefficiency" marks frustration of taxpayers, drivers, holiday
makers, radical activists, people from other departments - who feel their
personal domain has been infringed. Bureaucracy today is attacked for its
inability to innovate, aspects of its alienating and demotivating effect on
employees, and the dependent "unhealthy" relationships some feel it creates
(rather than self- help).
Bureaucratic culture rewards safe, conformist
attitudes - constrained, risk free work is good. Non-conformist, creative and
outward-looking, opportunistic approaches to management are suspect. The
bureaucratic model by definition embodies depersonalisation. Bureaucrats become
more absorbed with maintaining the official form (the means). They lose sight of
what they are supposed to achieve. Smooth, efficient running removes hassle for
officers but may be effective (as valued by clients)?
Delegation
and the Bureaucratic Form
Bureaucratic structures emphasise specialisation
between jobs and departments, reliance on formal procedures and paperwork,
extended managerial reporting structures and clearly marked status definitions.
Job demarcation is an informal, interpersonal response by individuals and groups
which may be at odds with the firm's objectives. Demarcation may be supported by
trades union preferences. It is manifested also in officer rivalries and
empire-building. If the firm becomes large & complex it bears formal &
informal overheads of possible inefficiency.
Bureaucracies employ a system
of delegation down these hierarchies. Employees use discretion only within
delegated limits. Job roles are defined formally (often in writing) by profiles
of task responsibility and /her authority - scope of discretion to act. An
organisational principle is that job responsibilities require equivalent
authority to carry these out. But authority comprises:-
• formal (job)
authority - others know your responsibilities and their reporting relationships
• personal (interpersonal) authority - secure others co- operation
•
resource authority (hours, staff, budget, rewards) for the task
• expertise
authority: having the skills, knowledge and experience to carry out the
responsibilities
Though posts are hierarchical with successive steps
embracing all those beneath it - problems of role ambiguity, conflict &
overload frequently occur. Delegation is a complex process reliant on managers'
ability to communicate well with subordinates and obtain common perception of
job requirements (so too with colleagues with whom the post interfaces).
Coping with
Contingencies
Within Weber's model, rules and procedures aim to anticipate
every possible contingency. Top management "know" that lower level staff are
acting in controlled ways. This control is underpinned by training, briefing and
observation/guidance by the superior. Loyalty and cooperation is expected.
Officers should carry out their duties to the letter - without overstepping
their role and conflicting with others duties. This assumes a perfect
communication and cooperation - formally and interpersonally.
Of course
where the person in terms of aptitude, skill and motivation is cheesed off or
feels rivalry towards others or feels like being bloody-minded - problems arise.
Fitting the job to the person and the person to the job is a key task for the
personnel management of bureaucracy.
For officers, there clear separation
between personal and business affairs.
"When I am at work, I do my job
without personal feelings/biases entering into it!"
This is bolstered by
contract & technical qualifications (techno-meritocracy). Instructions are
obeyed because appointment assumes competence to issue such commands. A sign of
developing bureaucracy is the growth of professional managers and more
specialist/departmental experts. Manager-experts maintain the fabric of the
existing firm and develop new responses (policies and practices) to external and
internal events/conditions.
Information, Records and Decision-support
The
"bureau" keeps records and files. System rationality demands that information is
written down. The organisation can reference and compare past decisions to
ensure consistency. Records and structure make the organisation concrete. It
will continue even though the people who run it change. Policies, procedures,
minutes, reports, records show it operating dynamically. The bureaucratic model
implies a programmed organisation. Procedures and rules are algorithmic i.e.
routinised solutions to known, common problems i.e. like computer programs.
Records, policies and procedures provide a knowledge-base minimising risk and
maximising consistency in decision-making..
Power and
Bureaucracy
Weber's rational, legal model of organisation is an important
one for members and stakeholders. They accept the purpose of the organisation as
rational. The authority of role relationships, the hierarchical structure of
vertical and horizontal links, the dependencies in duties, obligations and
accountabilities are logical. Authority is accepted or legitimised because the
structures for decision-making and action are defined with objective purpose.
However Weber modelled three forms of power giving rise to authority
structures. Power vacuums and struggles for position result if these structures
fail to provide a holding framework for members. The three forms are
charismatic, traditional and rational-legal.
Charismatic
The organisation is based on the leader. His/her special qualities attract
the support of followers who value the benefits that association with the leader
brings. The leader organises, directs and distributes rewards.
Traditional
Roles, customs and practices have become accepted into the ritual of life.
Things happen because they have always happened that way (precedent). They have
symbolic and even sacred significance. Authority and position is an inherited
commodity vested in those who for reasons of birth or ritual selection represent
the traditional customs e.g. the monarch/dynasty, the temple, the lord-
knight-yeoman and serf, the guild master and journeyman apprentice. The roles
(born into) are not challenged. Rights and duties are accepted for reasons of
this is the way things are done. The ideals and values of the charismatic leader
are carried forward by the apostle successor. Personal servants - appointed by
the leader - benefit from patronage and can become officials. Under feudalism -
even they can inherit titles, demesnes and tithes subject to paying homage to
the appointee leader who may withdraw or disenfranchise these rights.
Traditional
values and behaviours can be found in the modern world - the authority of the
father in some families is an example. Those who are totally willing to dedicate
themselves to a spiritual doctrine or ideology may adopt a very powerful
position - an insular reality - which cuts across secular or scientific logic.
Theirs is the one right way regardless of evidence to the contrary.
Bureaucratic (rational-legal)
Authority in this structure is based on
purposeful reasoning and formally defined, accepted structures of rules and
procedures. The power of those in authority depends on their acceptance of due
legal process and qualification
• ownership according to purposeful, agreed
rules
• appointment on technically defined grounds (merit and technical
expertise)
• election
• membership of a decision-making group and
adherence to the rules of decision-making
Why
consider such models?
Each model simplifies how authority becomes
legitimised in organisations. A family business for example is a hybrid.
Incorporated as limited company, the head of the family may always become the
Chairman, a bright son or daughter may be the admired, energetic entrepreneur.
Employee managers and specialist staff engaged on contracts of employment do
their jobs according to policies and procedures. They respect the entrepreneur
and accept the traditional values and role relationships within the firm.
Well-established, modern business relies on the bureaucratic form - albeit
constrained in what it can do by the bureaucratic regulation imposed by
community legislators - for the community's benefit.
Roles, rights, duties
and behaviour are guided by policies, rules, reporting regulations and controls,
standard operating procedures, hierarchical and functionally specialised work
structures.
Job holders have clear scope within which to act, instruct
others or implement and adapt policy.
Delegation (devolved responsibilities
and tasks from the top down) provides a command and control structure of
hierarchical relations vertical and lateral.
Co-operation is expected as
department and staff must co-operate to achieve the purposes of policies which -
all - agree are necessary (rationality).
People are appointed into their
roles because they have the ability to do the job. Each accepts and supports the
roles of those they report to and must co-ordinate with.
Clearly power is
devolved from the top, down through a hierarchy.
Records are kept of
decisions made - the data of the organisation becomes independent of those who
made the decisions in the first place.
The Dysfunctional Bureaucracy
The
legitimate power of a bureaucracy can be mediated from the bottom upwards.
Individuals and groups may act informally in ways running counter to the
impersonal, one-source of authority assumptions of the model. Such actions of
course would be labelled as being dysfunctional.
Officials become
overbearing.
They may apply administrative systems as ends in themselves -
after all their role, position and continuity depend on them.
Individuals
may protect their position and build up the power of the office.
Union
activity and countervailing collective processes may emerge.
Structural
regulation and control
In a bureaucracy, methods and rules are devised to
support decision-making and operations. Such forms of regulation are solutions
to functional problems such as processing sales transactions smoothly and
efficiently. They are also solutions to political control problems.
Standardisation of methods and rules ensures that members of the
organisation behave in predictable conformist ways and not personal whim. Their
discretion is limited by the methods and rules that apply within the scope of
their duties and responsibilities.
Divide and Rule
In a modern business,
managers may pursue differentiation, rationalisation or out-sourcing as policy
devices to re-assert personal control, maintain and enhance their status. They
may offer reasons for the move but covertly they may have another agenda.
Divide and rule may minimise the influence of a large department or group.
The efficacy of project teams (
Reforming the Bureaucracy
Re-redesign efforts illustrate the workings of organisational power
structures. Senior managers - the top power holders - may see that the
organisation's structures have become rigid. This may partly be a protection of
derived power as departments and people, reluctant to make deep changes in
operations and methods, cling to out-dated roles. This is ironic. Job roles and
standard operating procedures were designed to control employees. But their
complexity and the organisation's need to maintain operational continuity means
that incremental change is preferred over radical. It is easier to close a
department or unit than achieve radical change in the behaviour of employees who
control their jobs and functions.
Rules, regulations and other formal
procedures
Rules and regulations can be used against the bureaucracy as
illustrated by the power of trade unionists if working to rule. Generally the
employee does not forfeit pay.
They do exactly what is required by
regulations. Many such rules were designed to control employees, ensure safety
and protect employees, the public and the railway authorities. If a major
accident occurred then clear regulations/rules define responsibilities and
accountabilities. Yet paradoxically in, say, a railway organisation, zealous
application of rules made over decades and not modified or rescinded means that
few trains would leave on time. Work done to the letter and with all rules being
inflexibly applied together can render a system inoperable. Normal working
requires the application of individual discretion and interpretation of rules to
the situation. The individual learns integration of rules not sequencing. The
procedural aspects of a bureaucracy become streamlined by the skills and
competences of those carrying them out.
If there is a major accident, a
public investigation frequently follows. Investigators compare actual events
with norms of formal regulations - who is in error (and to be blamed) - and try
to record deviations in practice, gaps in rules and where negligence has
occurred. The accident may be an act of god. Such a probability Perrow would
argue is acknowledged by the system itself.
Blame (and a blame culture) is
inevitability in the bureaucratic system as non-conformance with rules,
regulations and other formal procedures by staff who deviate from accepted
practice are managed.
Rules and regulations are often created, invoked and
used in proactive or retrospective ways as part of power play. They give
potential power to both controllers and controlled. Controllers may try to
"streamline" procedures and thus lock the relationships they seek to control.
They are then in a position to use the rules to their advantage. These are
important sources of organisational power. They define a contested
terrain.
The
Bureaucracy and Change
Given what we have already discussed about the
bureaucracy we can conclude that this type of organisation will be subject to
much resistance where change is concerned. Variables as wide as policy, process,
internal politics, structure, unions, self interest, professional regulation and
size of the organisation will all contribute to slowing down change. We can use
the analogy which we are all familiar with of the OIL TANKER, it takes 25 miles
to stop it so if you want to change direction at the next set of traffic lights
it needs to be warned well in advance, everyone needs to know it is going to
change direction, all need to be prepared for the direction change and to
understand what it will mean to them and the change
implemented.
The risks
are that the bureaucracy misses its deadlines (the traffic lights) and its
opportunity to change direction. In a global economy speed of change is a
critical success factor, particularly if the competitors can change faster than
the bureaucracy. It may be better then to split the organisation into a flotilla
of smaller ships (completely separate from the whole) but held together by a
catalyst and good communication conduit. The flotilla can change direction much
more quickly than the oil tanker, communications are quicker, reaction times are
quicker, costs are lower because we can see where resources are deployed and
used and we can manage costs for competitiveness advantage tightly. Biggest is
not always better - in the short term combined resources for efficiency might
seem the right way to go but in reality combining just confuses the issue more,
makes the bureaucracy even more bureaucratic and resource requirements escalate.
In Webber's time costs of labour and production was relatively at low cost, and
in low cost countries this may still be the same – in the highly competitive
costly workforce it is a major issue.
The bureaucracy had its place designed
for organisations of that time, we now need something
new.