Charles Perrow If a consultant is specialized in Organizational Development and is interested in the transformation processes of organizations, he can greatly benefit as a result of the contributions of this author. Perrow suggests ("Organizational Analysis:
A sociological view ””; Brooks / Cole - 1970) that the conceptions of both the school of scientific administration and the one known under the name of human relations include useful ideas, but that they are applicable to some situations, which it considers as exceptions if we consider what Organizations are currently confronted as a consequence of the changes that have occurred in the context. This necessitates the development of a new conception beyond those.
As a sociologist, Charles Perrow has a perspective that privileges the importance of the context in which the organization operates and feels comfortable starting from the excellent work of Max Weber (“The theory of social and economic organization”; Free Press - 1947) on bureaucracy. This model has been criticized by various authors, including Robert J. Merton ((The unanticipated consequences of purposive social action; "American Sociological Review" - 1936; and Bureaucratic structure and personality; "Social forces" - 1940), Alvin Gouldner ("Patterns of industrial bureaucracy"; Glencoe: Ill. - 1954) and Philip Selznick ("TVA and the grass roots"; Berkeley - 1949).
Not all consultants have learned an old-time lesson from Alvin Gouldner, leading him to conclude that there is no single “bureaucratic” type or organizational arrangement, but rather that there are several different degrees of bureaucratization.
A few years later, Perrow capitalizes on the contributions of all these experts and then suggests that a bureaucratic structure can absorb many changes without meaning a change in its structure.
But in any case, these external changes must influence the internal efficiency of the organization if we are to compare it with the bureaucratically organized entity (initially) (Charles Perrow: “Organizational analysis: a sociological view; already quoted - 1970).
Charles Perrow suggests that bureaucratization is useful to the extent that it is accompanied by efficiency (which is close to tautological thinking), and concludes by affirming that this efficiency does not always compensate for the rigidity with which it is associated ”. It seems that Perrow's model arises from this conception and from there it is that his model tries to answer the following question: What is it that we have to bureaucratize, and what is it that is not convenient to bureaucratize?
In a later book (“Complex Organizations”; Scott, Foresman & Co. - 1972) Charles Perrow points out that after “fifteen years of study of complex organizations he came to two conclusions that have many points of agreement with the organizational literature.
In the first place, that the failures that are generally attributed to the bureaucracy are not really errors of the whole or consequence of the failure to bureaucratize excessively ”. And it is in this sense that Perrow defends the bureaucracy "as the dominant principle of organization in our large and complex organizations." In short, Perrow acknowledges that it would be very difficult to achieve the success of General Motors Corporation, or Hewlett-Packard, or McDonalds, without having a significant degree of bureaucratization (it is obvious that there is a manual that “tells” the Customer service person, who should smile when starting the initial conversation, but still seems like that's better than leaving it to the discretion of every employee at the McDonalds counter.)
Second, Perrow suggests that the important concern to humanize and decentralize bureaucracies - while acknowledging that they are convenient - “has only served to obscure the true nature of bureaucracy for organizational theorists and has diverted us from its impact on society.
The impact on society as a whole is incalculably more important than the impact on the members of an organization, especially ”.
In this second book (“Complex organizations” - already cited - 1972) he concludes by emphasizing that, in his opinion, “the bureaucracy is an organization superior to all the other different forms of organization that we currently know or that we hope to achieve in the near future; it is almost impossible to modify this at least within this (XX) century ”.
And to substantiate his position, Perrow enters the field of the first unit of analysis: the individual or organizational participant. Charles assures that he does not agree that the officials of bureaucratic companies are "nervous, insecure, petty officials, mainly occupied with maintaining the status quo at any price, or whose main interest is to increase their personal power and influence." Perrow assures that he also does not find that non-bureaucratic organizations can embody the democratic spirit, the autonomy of people, good human relations and that all this exists in an environment without fear ”. On the contrary, the author is inclined to assure that the organizational arrangement that takes the form of a bureaucracy “results from a successful attempt to achieve what all organizations pursue;decrease the impact of external influences on its organizational participants, promote a high degree of specialization in people, and professional expertise, in order to guarantee efficiency and competence and to be able to control as much as possible the uncertainties to which the organization as a result of variability in the environment ”.
Hence Perrow is comfortable calling bureaucracy theory as if it were an "instrumental" view of organizations.
Organizations are instruments that adopt rational, conscious organizational forms and arrangements, where there are means to achieve certain ends.
And because of this, the bureaucracy implies the following three aspects:
to. an important degree of specialization;
b. the need to have mechanisms to perceive and control the influences exerted by the different external factors on the internal components of the organization;
c. the need to have to link with an external environment that is unstable.
An interesting innovation and contribution in the field of “bureaucracy” was introduced by Richard Hall (“The concept of bureaucracy: an empirical assessment”; American Journal of Sociology, July 1962) who selected six continuous dimensions for this:
1. a division of labor that is based on functional specialization;
2. a clearly defined hierarchy of authority;
3. A regulatory system that includes all the rights and duties of those who occupy the "key" positions in the organization;
4. a formal system of procedures for the proper management of work situations;
5. an impersonal relationship in the development of inter-personal relationships;
6. a system of personnel selection and promotion in the company, which is based on technical competence.
The establishment of objectives is one of the key aspects in organizations and according to Charles Perrow ("Organizational Analysis: a sociological view" - already mentioned) the setting of them is intentional but not necessarily rational, since it occurs as a result of the interaction between the organization and its context.
The context may be wanting other things to be done, or it may be trying to discourage some particular orientation that does not always coincide with organizational objectives.
According to this author, there are five main categories of organizational objectives. They are:
to. The objectives that are related to society as a whole, such as the production of goods and / or services, the maintenance of cultural values and the maintenance of public order.
This type of objective is aimed at satisfying the needs of society.
b. The production objectives that are directly related to the public that comes into direct contact with the organization.
This is the case of contact for consumer goods, for the provision of services to companies, the delivery of education.
c. The objectives of the systems have to do with the way the organization works, regardless of the goods and services that the company produces, or the organizational objectives. Some companies may prioritize growth, others short-term stability, and others may focus on profits, income, or profits.
d. The objectives related to the products that have to do with the characteristics of the products and services manufactured and marketed. As an example we can highlight that some organizations may end up privileging the quantity of products and others the quality.
and. The derived objectives that have as reference the different uses that the organization makes of power as a result of the search for its objectives, such as the political goals, the investment policy, the services that the organization provides in the community. Using this type of power has little to do with the very goals of the product or system.
One of Charles Perrow's innovations has to do with his identification of two different types of dimensions based on "technology"; to what extent the search is routinized, and to what extent the stimuli are variable. This originates a particular organizational typology - not previously known - where four possible types of organization are presented: artisan; non-routine; routine; engineering. Perrow suggests that Max Weber's model is partially correct since it considers two of these types, but fails in that it does not consider two other types of organization.
The agents of change and consultants in Organizational Development when facing companies, entities and organizations, must be able to observe, identify and catalog the Client in a way that allows him to make use of this interesting work by Perrow.
Charles Perrow is a sociologist and part from a very different point of view than most experts in organizational behavior and organizational development. For Charles what counts are "structure, technology, context and objectives" and that is why these factors are what he has emphasized in his book: "Organizational Analysis»: a sociological view ", Tavistock Publications, 1970.
To further strengthen his position on organizational behavior, he points out that other variables such as "leadership, interpersonal relationships, morale and productivity" have been given less importance.
It is their opinion that if the focus of our interest is placed on organizations, then the structural focus that characterizes sociology is superior to the focus that prioritizes the individual or group processes.
He suggests that efforts to change the personality and attitude of organizational participants in order for behavioral changes to occur are not something that can be achieved "reasonably" and even more so efforts to do so put an extra burden on the company since Such efforts are really expensive.
In the first chapter of his book (mentioned above) he points out that what some people "would see" as problems at the organizational member or organizational group level, is actually (according to Perrow) a problem of structure.
In the second chapter of his book he addresses a question that almost all practitioners, academics and researchers in the field of organizations have asked about the possibility of identifying different organizational typologies since only when the manager identifies "another organizational type" he is in a position to understand his own.
And in relation to this important question, Charles Perrow suggests that saying “that there is no single best way to organize” is not enough and does not lead us anywhere; Furthermore, this phrase is partially valid because there really are systematic differences between organizations and also systematic similarities between them that lead us to different degrees of efficiency for different organizational arrangements.
And this is where he suggests that instead of developing management principles "Henry Fayol and more recent authors like" The 7 habits of… "it is better to dedicate our energies to identifying patterns of variation - in organizational arrangements - that will later help us to predict and explain organizational phenomena.
For Charles Perrow, bureaucracy is a very good mechanism that reduces the impact of influences "from outside the organization", and on the other hand, as a consequence of a high degree of internal specialization based on the expertise of the organizational members, it allows to control and reduce uncertainties regarding the company's processes and products / services.
What has happened in the context in the last 60 years has had a strong impact on companies and that is where the bureaucratic organization has started to have problems.
The risk factor appears as inherent to every company, and this risk factor, with its consequent uncertainties and some out-of-control variables, makes it necessary to operate in a different way from what we had in mind regarding the bureaucratic organization.
In fact, the bureaucracy privileges "routinizing everything routinizable" but not even the strongest proponent of bureaucratic organization is going to be so foolish as to accept that within the organization all units must carry out their tasks and activities routinely. In any organization, "someone" has to be thinking about a new market, a new product, a new way of marketing the product, and how to provide a new and better service; And, of course, this requires a unit (which may be Development and Research) where both people and tasks are not routine.
Considering this new need to take into account the risk variable that has been accelerating over time, especially in developed countries (countries that consume rapidly the natural resources of the least developed countries and above what they can continue to generate) and their impact on organizations, they have to develop within their limits with the context different types of "buffer units" that must necessarily be flexible as work groups and within these groups it is necessary to have highly creative and innovative people.
So, according to Charles Perrow, not only do there need to be both routine and non-routine units, tasks, activities and processes, but it is also very possible that the differences between them have to be ever greater.
And then it goes on to expand further on this concept, distinguishing particularities that had not been previously taken into account, identifying two different types of dimensions on the basis of technologies or techniques (technology being a way of transforming material resources into products and services). degree of routinization of the “search” or “non-analyzable search procedures”. Of course machinery and equipment are not the technology of the company, but rather are simple tools.
Here Perrow observes what happens to an organizational participant when he receives an order or a signal, which he generalizes under the name of stimulus.
When a stimulus hits a person, they start a search (which they call "search behavior") where even "not appreciating the stimulus" is also a certain type of response.
Now, the stimulus that the person receives may be "analyzable" since it has already been presented in some way in the past and is familiar to him or her, but instead, what the participant initiates is a process that Charles Perrow calls "procedures of non-analyzable search ”(which has not occurred in the past).
This variable would have to do with "the number of exceptions that the person faces".
Degree of "stimulus variability".
When confronting the task, people may consider it as a great variability of problems that lead us to a "behavioral search".
Sometimes the variety of stimuli is very large and each task can be viewed as of such a magnitude that it requires a significant search magnitude.
On other occasions the stimulus is not very variable or different in terms of its magnitude and the participant is confronted with a situation where the situations are familiar to him and others are new.
And Perrow cites the case of the automotive industry where every year a new car model with different parts comes out, but the variability of these new stimuli becomes familiar to different people.
From the combination of these two variables, four possible options are presented, which are named by Charles Perrow as:
- Artisan Non-routine Engineering Routine
The bureaucratic organizational model contemplates only two possible options; the ones we have mentioned under b. and c. only.
Under this conception Charles Perrow identifies two types of organizational arrangement additional to the Max Weber scheme. And to show the differences of these different organizational types within a specific area, choose the educational one. Located in the quadrant
c. (routine) to custodial institutions, and within the quadrant
b. (non-routine) to an elite psychiatric agency. The two mixed types, where knowledge in one dimension shows ignorance in the other, are those under quadrant a. (artisanal) as is the case of socializing institutions, while in quadrant d. (Engineering) places schools with scheduled instruction.
It is interesting to note that this particular vision of Charles Perrow questions some myths of organizational life, as is the case of individual creativity as something generalized.
Perrow points out that not all people prefer to have non-routine activities that are continually modified, for which there are no clear results or feedback; not even the general management in companies prefers to operate in this type of situation.
And for this reason “the bureaucratic model can even become - for routine situations - not only the most efficient model but also the most humane.
In addition to paying attention to the organizational structure as a result of the prevailing technology, Perrow considers that the context is also of singular importance and does not hesitate to make it known that "what appears as competence is often not" (in oligopolistic situations and in the At the top of their respective different companies, leaders have more in common with their competitor than those that are not). And in addition to the technology, context and structure, it takes into account the organizational "objectives" variable, for which it is suggested that the reader turn to Drucker's work in relation to management by objectives (MBO).
Finally, it pays some consideration to the individual variable “by suggesting that the transcendence of the organizational leader is achieved when he takes into consideration aspects such as the organizational mission, its character and its degree of response from the authoritarian bureaucratic organization that appears as something inevitable within a supposedly democratic society. ”
In an unpublished paper "Cornell Conference:
"A dissent on technology, structure and environment"), Charles Perrow points out that "the notion that organizations must act flexibly in the face of changes in an uncertain environment is unreal, since neither is the environment uncertain, nor do many organizations achieve survive without adopting bureaucratic standards of operation and structure ”(Introduction to the general theory of administration”: Idalberto Chiavenato, McGraw Hill - 1995).
Charles suggests that many organizations operate quite efficiently under the bureaucratic model as stable, durable entities with well-established boundaries, where processes and procedures are well demarcated.
And all this happens even when many of the organizational members are not, or are at home.
What happens is that the organization continues to operate "as if the organizational participants brought mud from the street in their shoes and can enter through the doors of the company that are always open."
That is why, unlike other authors who privilege the relationship between people, Charles Perrow places particular emphasis on technology and product, and in this way organizations can be viewed in “terms of work and the task to be performed taking as a base the material that is going to be transformed, instead of seeing them as a result of the interaction of the organizational members or depending on the context where it operates ”.
And from there two important definitions are born: the one that has to do with organization and the one that is related to technology.
For Perrow, organizations are "systems that use energy (provided by human and non-human schemas) in a standardized effort, aimed at altering the condition of basic materials in a predetermined way."
While technology is defined as the “actions that a person performs on an object, with or without the help of tools or other mechanical elements and designs, in order to make any changes to the object itself.
The object or the raw material can become a symbol, a human being or an inanimate object ”.
From the combination of both definitions it emerges that it is technology (the independent variable) that determines the organizational structure (dependent variable). Many consultants and organizational leaders are fascinated with new and more modern organizational arrangements, where reference is made to empowerment, matrix organization, teamwork, and the virtual operation of companies.
However, it is paradoxical that despite all the criticism made of the bureaucratic model - the one that has been harshly reviled - it is a more developed model than the prevailing arrangement that is often found within Latin American cultures: the nepotic organization (Eric Gaynor Butterfield - The OD Institute World Congress; Colima, Mexico - 1997).
