To begin this writing, the concept of structure will be announced because Max Weber was one of the pioneers in the construction of this concept. This concept means the internal analysis of a totality in its constituent elements.
Said structure is understood as the assembly of a construction which maintains a relatively durable arrangement of the parts of a whole, that is, the structure allows the institutions to remain despite undergoing some changes in their parts. To make it clearer, we are going to illustrate it with a construction. If we look at the structure of a building, it allows it to be maintained even if it undergoes some remodeling.
At this moment it is important to recognize that Weber tried to understand social action through the interpretation of its meaning. Therefore, we understand that this author was interested in knowing the situation that prevailed in the organizations of the world that he had to live, as well as a historical recognition of the conditions in which man has lived in his passage through history.
Through the theory of domination, it illuminates the knowledge of power relations, which are an important part of the organizational structure. Likewise, his theoretical model of the Bureaucracy became an attempt to make known to the organizational leaders a solution strategy to the problems experienced within these institutions and gave the first theoretical concepts of organizational structure such as the rules and procedures necessary to provide to the organization of a skeleton that would give it shape, balance and foundation.
Weber thought that the 20th century would be the century of bureaucracies, which appear together with the birth of the capitalist regime. The theoretical model of bureaucracy arises from the need that prevailed both in the organizations of the XIX and XX centuries as well as of the workers. The former required to have some theoretical guide that would allow them to overcome disorder and the lack of methods and the latter demanded fair treatment, which meant reducing or avoiding inhumane and unjust administrative practices within organizations where cruelty, violence prevailed. nepotism and partiality, situations that still exist in a large part of the 21st century institutions.
Weber is considered the first theorist of organizations because he studied them from a structuralist point of view. This means that he understood organizations as a totality in which there were parts that made up the structure and these parts were related to each other. However, at this point it is important to emphasize that Weber did not reach within his theoretical contributions to visualize organizations as open systems. This situation was due to the fact that within its historical context, the holistic vision that currently supports the systems approach did not yet take on the necessary force. From this perspective, then, we understand that the Theoretical Model of the Bureaucracy was created without considering the impact of the environment, therefore,we will not find in his theory on bureaucracy that there is any theoretical hint that speaks of interorganizational relations.
Currently, the criticism of authors from a modern context is widely used, however, from our perspective we rescue the richness of an author from the historical understanding of the time in which their ideas arise, therefore, we are not in favor of impoverishing a author decontextualizing it from the reality that he had to live. It is important to recognize that each author lays a theoretical foundation that can be subject to enrichment over time. In this writing we intend to rescue the importance that the ideas that support other ideas have to understand the evolution of administrative thought and thereby invite our readers to recognize that every idea is the product of history that unfortunately is little rescued within the understanding of the world organizational.
The theoretical wealth that Weber bequeathed to the development of administrative thinking with which we can understand organizations more fully is to have an ideal model of behavior (rationality) that emerges from the theory of bureaucracy and the theory of domination.
Weber conceived the theory of bureaucracy from a rational point of view, which means that he was fundamentally concerned with creating an organizational model based on rationality where the relationship between the means, the resources used and the intended objectives is taken care of. He also developed his idea of what an organization should be based on the authority variable. It established that within the organization impersonal norms should be established that would allow the implementation of an ideal discipline. For Weber rationality would be able to adapt the means to the intended objectives (ends), in order to guarantee the maximum possible efficiency in the pursuit of those objectives.
To explain efficiency, Weber coined the concepts of rationality, which is reached when the legal and the legitimate coincide. These were other concepts that Weber enriched through the theory of domination. He understood the legal as emanating from a formal structure and the legitimate as the acceptance of this structure by the people who make up the organizations.
Theoretical Model of Bureaucracy
According to the popular concept, the bureaucracy becomes an organization where paperwork multiplies and increases, preventing proper functioning. The term is also used in the sense of adherence of officials to regulations and routines, causing inefficiency.
The concept of bureaucracy for Weber is exactly the opposite. Bureaucracy is the efficient organization par excellence. That is why, through this theoretical model, he proposed to the organizations of his time to establish the following characteristics of the bureaucracy in order to avoid disorder together with unfair treatment.
1. Legal nature of the rules and regulations
The bureaucracy is an organization united by rules and regulations previously established in writing to ensure a systematic and univocal interpretation. For Weber, these rules and regulations allow the formation of a rationally organized social structure. That is, Weber understood that the rules and norms would be instruments that would support the order that institutions required for their operation. Likewise, they are the foundation of the discipline and from there it follows the importance that people have to know and understand them fully in order to comply with them. The rules and regulations must be established through critical thinking that seeks to provide a platform to achieve the objectives.In essence Weber sought to reduce unfair treatment through these guiding instruments of action of all members of an organization.
2. Formal nature of the communications
The bureaucracy is an organization bound by written communications, the rules, decisions and administrative actions are formulated and recorded in writing. For Weber, it was very important that this type of situation be made known to the members of the organization in writing in order to avoid any justification for their ignorance. Hence the formal character of the bureaucracy.
3. Rational character and division of labor
There is a systematic division of labor, law and power, establishing the powers of each participant, the means of enforcement and the necessary conditions. Each participant takes on his / her position, his / her functions and his / her specific field of competence and responsibility. Each participant must know what her task is, what is her ability to command over others, and above all, what are the limits of her task, rights and power, so as not to exceed them or interfere in the competition of others. As we can see, Weber endowed the leaders of his time and ours with valuable ideas to avoid disorder and injustice, because here the Mexican saying that clear long friendships would apply.
4. Impersonality of relationships
The administration of the bureaucracy is carried out without considering people as persons, but as occupiers of positions and functions. The power of each person is impersonal and is derived from the position they occupy. Obedience also acquires the character of being impersonal. Although this concept seems cold, it prevents people from avoiding our responsibility by hiding ourselves in excuses of a personal nature that have more to do with emotional issues.
5. Hierarchy of authority
The organization is established according to the principle of hierarchy. Each lower position must be under the control and supervision of a higher one. No position is left without control or supervision.
6. Standardized routines and procedures
By means of the establishment of technical rules and regulations, the occupant of a position is subject to the provisions of the organization, thereby preventing the occupants of a position from departing from what is agreed in the routines and procedures and in turn avoids acts of indiscipline. By clearly defining the performance standards, the evaluation of the participants and thus the injustice is facilitated.
7. Technical competence and meritocracy
The admission, transfer and promotion of employees is based on evaluation and classification criteria valid for the entire organization, and not on individual and arbitrary merits. This follows the need for exams, competitions, tests and degrees for the admission and promotion of employees. At this point we see the coincidence between Weber and Fayol, who stated as an organizational principle "the right man for the right job."
8. Management specialization
The administrators of the bureaucracy are professionals specialized in their administration. With the bureaucracy comes the professional who specializes in directing the organization and hence the gradual withdrawal of the capitalist from business management, diversifying their financial capital applications. "There is a principle of complete separation between the property that belongs to the organization and the personal property of the official."
9. Professionalization of the participants
Every official in the bureaucracy is a professional for the following reasons:
- He is a specialist in his duties to perform. He is a salaried person. He is the occupant of a position and this represents his way of life. He is nominated by a hierarchical superior as a result of his capacity and competence. His mandate is for an indefinite period. He has a career within the organization. The ownership of the means of production and administration Is faithful to the position and identifies with the objectives of the company.The professional administrator tends to control bureaucracies more and more completely.
10. Complete predictability of operation
The desired consequence of the bureaucracy is the predictability of the behavior of its members. Informal organization appears as a factor of unpredictability of bureaucracies, since Weber's rational social system presupposes that human reactions and behavior are perfectly predictable, since everything will be under the control of rational and legal, written and exhaustive norms.
As we can see Weber considered the bureaucracy an ideal model of bureaucracy. At this point, it is important to consider the richness of these contributions for the benefit of all members of an institution and not focus on their lack to destroy it and detract from their contribution. Like every idea, it is important to analyze it from the intentions of its generator, which as we can see was the search for solutions to serious problems. The bureaucracy as a theoretical model of an organization offers current ideas for the solution of current problems, because how many organizations still do not give the importance to these ideas and continue to make serious mistakes that endanger their subsistence.
The bureaucracy model emanates from the studies it carries out around the types of society and the types of authority, which it classifies as:
Traditional society, in which patriarchal and hereditary characteristics predominate: family, clan, medieval society, etc.
Charismatic society, in which there are mystical, arbitrary and personalistic characteristics: revolutionary groups, political parties, etc.
Legal, rational or bureaucratic society, in which impersonal norms and rationality prevail in the selection of means and ends: large companies, modern states, armies, etc.
Max Weber through his theory of domination, tries to establish the conditions in which the people who hold power justify their legitimacy and the way in which the “dominated” subjects perceive it, therefore, at this point the role is recognized that plays the acceptance or not of those apparently subordinate to the legal order. Weber uses power, authority and dominance as synonyms and defines them as: "The possibility of imposing the will of one person on the behavior of others."
Legitimate authority classification:
Traditional authority, the legitimation of power comes from the belief in the eternal past, in justice and in the validity of the traditional way of acting. The traditional leader is the lord who commands by virtue of his status as heir or successor. Although the orders issued are personal and often arbitrary, subjects follow them due to customs and habits, which means that legitimacy is given because subjects are willing to respect traditional status. For example, the authority of a monarch is accepted because historically people have lived by these kinds of rules and have come to accept them as a way of life.However, throughout history we see acts of insubordination on the part of the dominated because these for multiple reasons generally involved with situations of justice rebelled giving a situation in which the subjects considered that exercise of power illegitimate.
Legal authority, rational or bureaucratic, is rational because the individual who has it has been examined and has demonstrated the necessary skill and capacity, the direction, technical competence and motivation to perform his position efficiently. It is legitimate to the extent that subordinates consider that the exercise of power held by the boss allows the achievement of objectives. It is the type of technical, meritocratic and administrative authority because the exercise of authority is carried out according to rules and laws established in an impersonal way. When subordinates perceive that he is not an adequately qualified person for the position, they will not fully accept his authority and with this there will be no rationality because the legal is not legitimate.
Charismatic authority, its base is charisma, which originates from a person characterized by a unique and magnetic personality to which the followers are willing to submit because of the gift that the leader has. Charismatic power lacks a rational basis, is unstable and easily acquires revolutionary characteristics. The legitimation of authority comes from the charismatic personality of the leader and the devotion and emotions he arouses in his followers. At this point we see how a situation can be illegal but legitimate, as is the case with many strikes.
Through the theory of domination Weber creates a model of theoretical analysis so that we can understand the legitimacy of authority. We must know that within many organizations authority is exercised in a legal but illegitimate way. Legitimacy according to Weber is reached when consensus is given, which means that the will to dominate and the will to subordinate coincide.
In conclusion, we can understand the importance of Weber's ideas to understand the problems of many organizations today. This theoretical perspective will allow us to make an analysis of the organizational phenomenon taking as a theoretical framework the theory of domination and the theory of bureaucracy, which from our point of view have been little considered as theoretical means for solving organizational problems.
BIBLIOGRAPHY
BALLINA RÍOS, F. Theory of administration. An alternative approach. McGraw Hill. México 2001.
CANTÛ DELGADO H. Development of a quality culture. McGraw Hill México 1997.
CHIAVENATO, I. Introduction to the general theory of management. 4th and 5th. Ed. McGraw Hill Mexico 1995 and 2002.
CLAUDE S. History of administrative thought, Prentice Hall. México 1997.
CLAUDE S and ALVAREZ L. History of administrative thought, Prentice Hall. Mexico 2005.
GARCÍA VIDAL and MUNILLA GONZÁLEZ. Where are the theoretical principles of administration? In www.deguate.com/infocentros/gerencia/articulos/principios.htm Document rescued on March 3, 2004.
HERNÁNDEZ Y RODRÍGUEZ S. Introduction to administration. McGraw Hill. Mexico 1999.
HARWOOD M. Classics in management Limusa. México 1990.
RODRIGUEZ VALENCIA Introduction to administration with a systems approach. 3rd ed. ECAFSA. Mexico 2000.
URIS. 101 ideas from the geniuses of management. Limusa, Mexico 1992
