Introduction
The failures that are generally attributed to the bureaucracy are not really entirely errors or a 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.)Perrow suggests that the important concern to humanize and decentralize bureaucracies - although he recognizes that they are convenient - “have only served to obscure the true nature of bureaucracy for organizational theorists and has diverted us from its impact on society.
Development
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:
- An important degree of specialization.The need to have mechanisms that allow to perceive and control the influences exerted by the different external factors on the internal components of the organization; The need to have to be linked to an external environment that is unstable.
According to this author, there are five main categories of organizational objectives. They are:
- 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. 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.The objectives of the systems that have to do with the way the organization works, regardless of the goods and services that the company produces, or organizational objectives. Some companies may prioritize growth,others short-term stability and others may focus on benefits, income or profits. The objectives related to 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.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, as is the case of 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.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.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, as is the case of 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.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.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, as is the case of 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.As an example we can highlight that some organizations may end up privileging the quantity of products and others the quality.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, as is the case of 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.As an example we can highlight that some organizations may end up privileging the quantity of products and others the quality.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, as is the case of 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.Using this type of power has little to do with the very goals of the product or system.Using this type of power has little to do with the very goals of the product or system.
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 ", to further strengthen Its position on organizational behavior indicates 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. Suggests that efforts to change the personality and attitude of organizational participants in order for behavioral changes to occur,they are not something that can be achieved "reasonably" and even more so the efforts to do so put an extra burden on the company since such efforts are really expensive.
- Some people "would see" as problems at the organizational member or organizational group level, actually (according to Perrow) it is a problem of structure. With 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 one 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.
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.
- The 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. 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 or rather, instead, what the participant initiates is a process that Charles Perrow calls “non-analyzable search procedures” (which has not occurred in the past). This variable would have to do with “the number of exceptions that the person confronts.” 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 situations are familiar to her and othersAnd 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:
- non-routine routine engineering routines
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 quadrant c. (routine) to custodial institutions, and within 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.
conclusion
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. ”
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 the organization and the one that is related to technology.
For Perrow, organizations are "systems that use energy (provided by human and non-human schematics) 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 ”.
