Origins of bureaucracy theory
The theory of bureaucracy was developed within the administration, based on the following aspects:
- The fragility and partiality of the classical theory and the theory of human relations, opposite and contradictory to each other. Both revealed 2 extremist and incomplete views on the organization, creating the need for an approach. More comprehensive and complete, of the structure and participants of the organization. A rational organization model was necessary, capable of characterizing all the variables involved, and the behavior of the members, applicable to the factory and all forms of organization The growing size and complexity of companies began to require better defined organizational models. "Large-scale industry depends on organization, management, and people with different skills."Men and women must be located in different sectors of production and at different hierarchical levels: they must carry out specific tasks, and be directed and controlled. The classical theory and the theory of human relations proved insufficient. The resurgence of the sociology of bureaucracy. According to this theory, a man can be paid to act and behave in a certain predetermined manner, which must be explained accurately and thoroughly, preventing her emotions from interfering with her performance. The sociology of bureaucracy proposed an organizational model, and administrators were quick to try to apply it to their companies. From there arises the theory of bureaucracy in administration.The classical theory and the theory of human relations proved insufficient. The resurgence of the sociology of bureaucracy. According to this theory, a man can be paid to act and behave in a certain predetermined manner, which must be explained accurately and thoroughly, preventing his emotions from interfering with his performance. The sociology of bureaucracy proposed an organizational model, and administrators were quick to try to apply it to their companies. From there arises the theory of bureaucracy in administration.The classical theory and the theory of human relations proved insufficient. The resurgence of the sociology of bureaucracy. According to this theory, a man can be paid to act and behave in a certain predetermined manner, which must be explained accurately and thoroughly, preventing his emotions from interfering with his performance. The sociology of bureaucracy proposed an organizational model, and administrators were quick to try to apply it to their companies. From there arises the theory of bureaucracy in administration.let your emotions interfere with your performance. The sociology of bureaucracy proposed an organizational model, and administrators were quick to try to apply it to their companies. From there arises the theory of bureaucracy in administration.let your emotions interfere with your performance. The sociology of bureaucracy proposed an organizational model, and administrators were quick to try to apply it to their companies. From there arises the theory of bureaucracy in administration.
Bureaucracy Theory
Bureaucracy is a form of human organization that is based on rationality, on the adaptation of the means to the intended objectives, in order to guarantee maximum efficiency in the pursuit of those objectives. The origins of the bureaucracy go back to antiquity. The bureaucracy, as the basis of the modern production system, had its origin in the religious changes that occurred after the Renaissance. Weber points out that the modern, rational, capitalist system of production originated from a new set of moral norms, which he called the "Protestant ethic": hard work as a gift from God, thrift, and asceticism that provide reinvestment of surplus income, instead of spending and consuming it in material symbols. He verified that capitalism,bureaucracy and modern science constitute 3 forms of rationality that emerged from these religious changes. The similarities between Protestant and capitalist behavior are striking. These 3 forms of rationality were supported by religious changes.
Weber viewed bureaucracy as a type of power.
Types of Society
Weber distinguishes 3 types of society:
- Traditional society, patriarchal and hereditary characteristics predominate. (family) The charismatic society, mystical, arbitrary and personalistic characteristics predominate. (political parties) The legal, rational or bureaucratic society, impersonal norms and a rationality in the choice of means and ends predominate. (big enterprises)
Each type of society corresponds to a type of authority.
Types of Authority
"Authority means the probability that a specific order will be obeyed"
Authority represents institutionalized and officialized power. Power implies the potential to exert influence over other people. Power means the probability of imposing one's will within a social relationship, even against any type of resistance and whatever the basis of that probability is. Power is the possibility of arbitrary imposition by one person on the conduct of others. Authority provides power: to have authority is to have power. Authority depends on legitimacy, which is the ability to justify its exercise. Legitimacy is the reason that explains why a certain number of people obey someone's orders, giving them power. That acceptance, that justification of power, is called legitimation. Authority is legitimate when it is accepted.If authority provides power, power leads to domination. Domination means that the dominator's order influences the dominated, in such a way that the content of the order becomes obedience to the subordinates. Domination is a power relationship in which the dominator has the right to exercise power and the dominated considers that her obligation is to obey her orders. The beliefs that legitimize the exercise of power exist in the minds of the leader and subordinates, determining the relative stability of domination, reflecting the basic differences between the various systems of domination. Weber establishes a typology of authority based on the sources and types of legitimacy applied.in such a way that the content of the order is transformed into obedience for the subordinates. Domination is a power relationship in which the dominator has the right to exercise power and the dominated considers that his obligation is to obey his orders. The beliefs that legitimize the exercise of power exist in the minds of the leader and subordinates, determining the relative stability of domination, reflecting the basic differences between the various systems of domination. Weber establishes a typology of authority based on the sources and types of legitimacy applied.in such a way that the content of the order is transformed into obedience for the subordinates. Domination is a power relationship in which the dominator has the right to exercise power and the dominated considers that his obligation is to obey his orders. The beliefs that legitimize the exercise of power exist in the minds of the leader and subordinates, determining the relative stability of domination, reflecting the basic differences between the various systems of domination. Weber establishes a typology of authority based on the sources and types of legitimacy applied.The beliefs that legitimize the exercise of power exist in the minds of the leader and subordinates, determining the relative stability of domination, reflecting the basic differences between the various systems of domination. Weber establishes a typology of authority based on the sources and types of legitimacy applied.The beliefs that legitimize the exercise of power exist in the minds of the leader and subordinates, determining the relative stability of domination, reflecting the basic differences between the various systems of domination. Weber establishes a typology of authority based on the sources and types of legitimacy applied.
Domination requires an administrative apparatus, when domination is exercised over a number of people and a vast territory, it needs administrative personnel to carry out orders and serve as a point of union between the ruler and the ruled.
Weber describes 3 types of legitimate authority:
- Traditional authority Charismatic authority Legal, rational or bureaucratic authority
a) Traditional authority
When subordinates consider that superior orders are justified because that was always the way things were done. The patriarchal dominance of the householder represents the purest type of traditional authority. Traditional power is not rational, it can be inherited and it is conservative. All social change implies a breakdown of traditions.
In traditional domination, the legitimation of power comes from the belief in the eternal past, in justice and in the relevance of the traditional way of acting. The traditional leader is the lord who commands, by virtue of his status as heir or successor. Although his orders are personal and arbitrary, his limits are set from customs and habits, and his subjects obey out of respect for their traditional status.
When the traditional domination spreads, it can assume 2 forms of administrative apparatus to guarantee its survival:
- patrimonial form: the officials who preserve the traditional domination are the servants of the "lord" and depend economically on him. feudal form: the administrative apparatus has a greater degree of autonomy in relation to the "lord", since the officials are his allies, lending him an oath of allegiance. The vassals exercise independent jurisdiction, have their own administrative domains, and do not depend on the "lord" for remuneration and subsistence.
b) Charismatic authority
Subordinates accept superior orders as justified, because of the influence of the superior's personality and leadership with whom they identify. Charisma: extraordinary and indefinable quality in a person. Charismatic power is a power without a rational basis, it is unstable and acquires revolutionary characteristics. It cannot be delegated, nor receive it as an inheritance.
The leader is imposed by being someone out of the ordinary, possessing magical abilities or displays of heroism or mental power of persuasion and not because of his position or hierarchy. It is an authority based on affective and personal devotion and on the emotional outburst of the followers towards the person who possesses the aforementioned charisma.
The legitimation of charismatic authority comes from the charismatic personal characteristics of the leader and the devotion and rapture he manages to impose on his followers.
When the charismatic domination includes a number of followers, the administrative apparatus is made up of the most loyal and devoted disciples and subordinates, to play the role of intermediaries between the charismatic leader and the crowd. This administrative apparatus is fickle and unstable. The administrative staff is chosen and selected according to the trust that the leader places in the subordinates. Selection is based on the subordinate's devotion, authenticity, and trustworthiness. If the subordinate ceases to deserve the trust of the leader, he is replaced by a more reliable one.
c) Legal, rational or bureaucratic authority
When subordinates accept orders from superiors as justified, because they agree with a set of precepts or norms that they consider legitimate and from which the power of command is derived. It is the type of technical, meritocratic and administrative authority. It is based on enactment. The basic idea resides in the fact that laws can be freely promulgated and regulated by formal and correct procedures. The ruling group is elected and exercises authority over its subordinates, following certain rules and laws. Obedience is due to a set of previously established legal rules and regulations.
The legitimacy of rational and legal power is based on rationally defined legal norms.
In legal domination, the belief in the justice of the law is the foundation of legitimation. The people obey the laws because they believe that they are decreed by a chosen procedure, by the rulers and the ruled. The ruler is seen as a person who achieved such a position, through legal procedures and by virtue of his position achieved, he exercises power within the limits set by the legally sanctioned rules and regulations.
The administrative apparatus that corresponds to legal domination is the bureaucracy, and its foundation is the laws and the legal order. The position of officials and their relationships with the ruler, the governed and their colleagues are defined by impersonal and written rules, which delineate the hierarchy of the administrative apparatus, the rights and duties inherent in / position, etc. Bureaucracy is the typical organization of modern democratic society and big business. The legal authority encompasses the modern structure of the State and non-state organizations. Through the "contract" the hierarchical relations in it become schemes of legal authority.
Weber identifies 3 factors that favor the development of modern bureaucracy:
- the development of a monetary economy: the currency facilitates and rationalizes economic transactions. The currency takes the place of remuneration in kind for officials, allowing the decentralization of authority and the strengthening of bureaucratic administration; the quantitative and qualitative growth of the administrative tasks of the modern State: only a bureaucratic type of organization could sustain the complexity and size of the tasks; the technical superiority of the bureaucratic type of administration: it served as an internal autonomous force to impose its prevalence.
Technological development made the administrative tasks destined to accompany it, tend towards its improvement. When social systems grew too large, large companies began to mass produce, destroying small ones. In large companies there is a growing need to obtain control and greater foresight regarding their operation.
Characteristics of the bureaucracy according to Weber
The bureaucracy is presented as a company or organization where paperwork multiplies and grows, preventing quick or efficient solutions. The term is used to designate the officials to the regulations and routines, inefficiency occurs in the organization.
The concept of bureaucracy: it is the efficient organization par excellence. To achieve that efficiency, the bureaucracy needs to describe in advance and in detail how things should be done.
The bureaucracy has the following characteristics:
- legal character of the rules and regulations; formal nature of communications; rational nature and division of labor; impersonality in relationships; hierarchy of authority; standardized routines and procedures; technical and meritocratic competence; specialization of the administration, regardless of the owners; professionalization of the participants; Complete forecast of the operation.
Legal nature of the rules and regulations
The bureaucracy is an organization united by rules and regulations established in writing. It is an organization based on a kind of legislation that defines how the bureaucratic organization should function. These rules and regulations are exhaustive, they seek to cover all areas of the organization, foresee all possible situations and frame them within a defined scheme, capable of regulating everything that happens within the organization. Rules and regulations are rational because they are consistent with the intended objectives. Bureaucracy is a rationally organized social structure. They are legal because they confer on persons invested with authority a power of coercion over subordinates and the coercive means capable of imposing discipline, and they are written to ensure a systematic and univocal interpretation.Efforts are saved and standardization within the organization is made possible.
Formal character of the communications
The bureaucracy is an organization united by written communications. All actions and procedures are done to ensure proper verification and documentation. The unambiguous interpretation of communications is also ensured, and the bureaucracy uses routines and formats to facilitate communications and to ensure compliance.
Rational character and division of labor
The bureaucracy is an organization that is characterized by having a systematic division of labor. This division of labor attends to a rationality, it is adequate to the objectives to be achieved: the efficiency of the organization. There is a systematic division of labor, law and power, which establishes the powers of each participant, the means by which the necessary rules and conditions are implemented. C / participant is now in charge, their functions and their specific field of action and responsibility; She must know what her task is, what is the amount of command over others, and what are the limits of her task, her rights and her power, so as not to damage the existing structure. Administrative responsibilities are differentiated and specialized,distributing the activities according to the objectives to be achieved.
Impersonality in relationships
This distribution of activities is done impersonally, in terms of positions and functions. The power of c / person is impersonal and is derived from the position they occupy. The subordinate's obedience to the superior is impersonal; It is due to the position he occupies. The bureaucracy needs to guarantee its continuity over time: people come and go, positions and functions remain. C / position covers an area of action and responsibility.
Hierarchy of authority
The bureaucracy is an organization that establishes positions according to the principle of hierarchy. C / lower post must be under the control and supervision of a higher one. No position is left without control or supervision. The hierarchy is order and subordination; the levels of authority correspond to the various categories. All positions are arranged in hierarchical levels that contain privileges and obligations, defined by limited and specific regulations.
Authority is inherent to the position and not to the individual who performs it officially. The distribution of authority within the system serves to minimize friction through official contact. The subordinate is protected from the arbitrary action of his superior.
Standardized routines and procedures
The bureaucracy is an organization that sets the technical rules and standards for the performance of c / position. Whoever holds a position cannot do what he wants. The rules and technical standards regulate the conduct of the person who occupies the position, whose activities must be carried out in accordance with the routines and procedures established by the rules and technical standards.
The structure of the bureaucracy is projected in accordance with rational principles: discipline at work and performance in the position are ensured through a set of rules and regulations that seek to adapt the official to the demands of the position and the organization: the maximum productivity. This rationalization of work finds its extreme form in scientific administration.
Technical competence and meritocracy
The bureaucracy is an organization that bases the choice of people on merit and technical competence. Necessity of exams, contests, tests and degrees for admission and promotion.
Administration specialization
Bureaucracy is an organization that is based on the separation between property and management. The members of the administrative body must be separated from the ownership of the means of production. The administrators of the bureaucracy are not its owners. With the bureaucracy comes the professional who specializes in running the organization. The official cannot sell, buy and inherit his position or his position, and these cannot become his property or integrated into his private patrimony. "There is a principle of total separation between the property that belongs to the organization and the personal property of the official."
Professionalization of the participants
The bureaucracy is an organization characterized by the professionalization of its participants. C / official of the bureaucracy is a professional, for the following reasons:
- He is a specialist: he is specialized in the activities of his position. Their specialization varies. Those who occupy positions in the high position are generalists, those who occupy lower positions become more specialists; They are salaried: they receive salaries corresponding to the position they occupy. The higher the position, the higher the salary and the power.He is the occupier of a position: this is his main activity within the organization absorbing his time of permanence.He is nominated by a hierarchical superior: he is a selected and chosen professional by their competence and capacity, appointed, salaried, promoted or fired from the organization by their hierarchical superior. The hierarchical superior has full authority over his subordinates. His command is for an indefinite period: there is no rule or rule that determines his length of stay.Makes a career within the organization: you can be promoted to other higher positions. The civil servant is a professional who works for a career throughout his life. He does not have ownership of the means of production and administration: the manager manages the organization on behalf of the owners, while the civil servant, to work, needs the machines and equipment provided by the organization. As these machines and equipment become more sophisticated and expensive, only large organizations have the financial conditions to acquire them. The administrator runs the organization, but does not own the means of production. The official uses the machines and equipment, but does not own them; He is faithful to the position and identifies with the objectives of the company:The civil servant goes on to defend the interests of his position and his organization, to the detriment of the other interests involved; The professional administrator tends to completely control and c / time the bureaucracies: bureaucracies tend to be controlled by professional administrators, by following reasons:
- Increase in the number of shareholders of organizations, which causes dispersion and fragmentation of ownership of their shares; The owners who controlled a single organization, began to distribute the risks associated with their investment in many organizations. At present, stock control is subdivided and diminished with the growth of the number of shareholders; Professional administrators reach command and control positions, without owning what they command and control. A manager may have more power over the organization than a large shareholder.
Complete performance forecast
The desired consequence of the bureaucracy is the anticipation of the behavior of its members. All officials must behave in accordance with the rules and regulations of the organization, in order for it to achieve the maximum possible efficiency.
The bureaucracy seems to be based on a standardized view of human behavior. Weber does not consider informal organization. Informal organization appears as a factor of unpredictability of bureaucracies, since the pure rational social system presupposes that relationships and human behavior are predictable, since everything is under the control of rational and legal, written and exhaustive norms. The informal organization arises as a direct derivation of the bureaucratic system, as a consequence of the practical impossibility of regulating and standardizing human behavior in organizations.
Advantages of Bureaucracy
The advantages of bureaucracy are:
- rationality in relation to the achievement of the organization's objectives; precision in the definition of the position and in the operation; speed in decisions, since each person knows what should be done and who should do it; univocity of interpretation guaranteed by specific regulations and written; uniformity of routines and procedures that favors standardization and the reduction of costs and errors; continuity of the organization through the replacement of retiring personnel; reduction of friction between people, c / official knows what is demands of him and what are his limits between his responsibilities and those of others; consistency, since the same types of decision must be taken under the same circumstances; subordination of the newer with respect to the older reliability,the business is conducted according to known rules. Decisions are predictable and the decision-making process. Eliminate personal discrimination; there are benefits from the point of view of the people in the organization, the hierarchy is formalized, the work is divided among the people, they are trained to become specialists, being able to make a career within the organization, depending on his personal merit and his technical competence.based on your personal merit and technical competence.based on your personal merit and technical competence.
Bureaucratic Rationality
Rationality implies adaptation of the means to the ends. In the bureaucratic context, this means efficiency. An organization is rational if it chooses the most efficient means for implementing the goals. The more rational and bureaucratic an organization becomes, the more individual members become cogs in a machine and ignore the purpose and meaning of their behavior. This conception of rationality, which underpins the theory of scientific administration which implies the discovery and application of the best way to carry out industrial work.
Weber uses the term bureaucratization, referring to the ways of acting and thinking that exist in the organizational context, and all of social life. The term bureaucratization coincides with the concept of rationalization. Rationalism can refer to rational means and their adequacy or inadequacy to reach an end, or it can refer to the rational vision of the world through more precise and abstract concepts, developed by science, rejecting all religion and metaphysical or traditional values..
Bureaucracy Dilemmas
Weber noted the fragility of the bureaucratic structure, which faces a typical dilemma: there are pressures from external forces to force the bureaucrat to follow rules other than those of the organization; and subordinates' commitment to bureaucratic rules tends to weaken. The organization, to be efficient, requires a special type of legitimacy, rationality, discipline, and limitation in its scope.
The ability to accept orders and rules as legitimate requires a level of resignation that is difficult to maintain. Bureaucratic organizations have a tendency to fall apart, either in the charismatic or traditional direction, where disciplinary relationships are more "natural" and "caring" and less separate from each other. The capacity for renunciation demanded by the rational organization cannot be developed within, it depends on the broader social relationships, which occur in the traditional family or in the charismatic group. The rationality of the rational structure is fragile and needs to be protected against external pressures in order to be able to direct it towards its objectives.
Bureaucrats are people who form the administrative body of the hierarchy and structure of the organization, who follow the imposed rules and serve the objectives of the organization. Weber points out the existence of non-bureaucratic bosses who select and appoint subordinates, who establish the rules, who determine the objectives and who are elected or inherit their position. These heads of the organization play the role of stimulating the emotional union of the participants with rationality.
In bureaucratic organization, identification refers to the position and not to who is in charge. If individuals are absent, they are replaced by others with the technical qualification criteria, and the organization's efficiency is not impaired. The absence of a non-bureaucratic head of the organization causes a crisis (succession crisis), which is accompanied by a period of instability. Such a crisis is most evident in totalitarian states.
Bureaucracies establish rules and regulations that they need to enforce. They give orders that must be obeyed in order for the organization to function efficiently.
Dysfunctions of the Bureaucracy
The bureaucracy is an organization whose desired consequences are summarized in the forecast of its operation, with the purpose of obtaining the greatest efficiency of the organization.
In studying the expected consequences of bureaucracy, Merton noted the unintended consequences that lead to inefficiency and imperfections.
For this author, there is no rational organization and formalism does not have the formality described by Weber. The popular concept of bureaucracy suggests that the degree of administrative efficiency of this rational system is very low, since the ideal type of bureaucracy undergoes transformations when operated by men. In the Mertonian conception, man, when he participates in the bureaucracy, makes all the foresight of human behavior escape the pre-established model. The dysfunctions of the bureaucracy are verified. C / dysfunction is a consequence not foreseen by the Weberian model.
The dysfunctions of the bureaucracy are:
- internalization of the norms and exaggerated adherence to the regulations; excessive formalism and paperwork; resistance to change; depersonalization of relationships; hierarchization as the basis of the decision process; superconformity with routines and procedures; display of authority signs; difficulty in attending to clients and conflicts with the public.
Internalization of the rules and exaggerated adherence to the regulations
Rules and regulations become targets. They become absolute and priority: the official assumes a rigid role. The bureaucratic official becomes a specialist, not by knowing his tasks, but by knowing perfectly the rules and regulations of his position or function. Regulations cease to be means and become the main objectives of the bureaucrat.
Excessive formality and paperwork
Paperwork constitutes one of the most outstanding dysfunctions of the bureaucracy.
Resistance to change
Everything within this type of organization is routinized, standardized and planned in advance, the official gets used to the stability and repetition of what he does, which provides total security about his future in the bureaucracy. The official becomes an executor of routines and procedures, which he begins to master with security and tranquility. When any possibility of change arises, he tends to interpret that change as something that he does not know about, and something that can bring danger to his safety and tranquility. The change becomes undesirable for the official, who will resist any type of change that wants to be implemented in the bureaucracy.
Depersonalization of relationships
Impersonality in relations between officials. Emphasize the positions and not the people who occupy them. The bureaucrat does not consider the other officials as people, but as occupiers of positions, resulting in the depersonalization of the relationships between the officials of the bureaucracy.
Hierarchy as the basis of the decision process
The bureaucracy is sustained by a rigid hierarchy of authority. The one who decides is always the one who occupies the highest hierarchical position, even if he knows nothing about the problem to be solved. Hierarchy means a way of classifying things, in order to handle them more easily.
Super conformance with routines and procedures
Bureaucracy is based on routines and procedures, as a means of ensuring that people do what is expected of them. The impact of these bureaucratic demands on people causes a profound limitation in their personal freedom and spontaneity, in addition to the growing inability to understand the meaning of their own tasks and activities within the organization. The official is limited to the minimum performance; loses its initiative, creativity and innovation.
Externalization of signs of authority
The use of status signals to demonstrate the hierarchical position of officials.
Difficulty in serving clients and conflicts with the public
The official is oriented to the interior of the organization, to its internal rules and regulations, to its routines and procedures, to the hierarchical superior who evaluates its performance. This internalized action towards the organization leads him to create conflicts with the clientele. All clients are treated in a standardized way, according to regulations and routines, which makes them irritated by the lack of attention and discourtesy given to their particular and personal problems. The public puts pressure on the official.
With these dysfunctions, the bureaucracy becomes sclerotic, closes itself off to the customer, who is its own goal, and prevents creation and creativity.
The causes of the dysfunctions of democracy lie in the fact that it does not have in the informal organization, which exists, in any type of organization, nor is it concerned with the human variability that introduces variations in the performance of organizational activities.
Merton Bureaucratic Model
Merton tries to represent the bureaucracy through a complex set of relationships that are established between a large number of variables.
Merton's model is based on the unintended consequences of organizing according to the principles of the machine:
- It begins with the organization's demand for control; this demand for control emphasizes the anticipation of behavior; trust in the rules and their enforcement leads people to justify individual action and unforeseen consequences, such as rigidity in behavior and a mutual defense within the organization, which does not meet the expectations and desires of the client, causing difficulties in serving the public, which leads to a feeling of defense of individual action.
Rigidity reduces organizational effectiveness by risking customer support. When presenting any type of external pressure, the official attends to the internal rules of the organization and does not worry about the client's problem, but about the defense and justification of his own behavior in the organization.
According to Selznick the bureaucracy is neither rigid nor static, but adaptive and dynamic. When the results of an organization are not accepted by the environment, its activity and its structure must be altered before reaching local acceptance. When the product or service of an organization is not accepted by its environment; it ceases to exist, unless it receives a subsidy from a parent organization or modifies the product or service.
A bureaucratic structure can absorb many superficial changes without modifying its structure. Internal efficiency is lower compared to bureaucratically organized entity.
Any organization can face the problem of adapting to change.
Degrees of Bureaucratization in Organizations
Gouldner said that there is no single type or model of bureaucracy, but different degrees of bureaucratization.
- The company was managed informally, wide intervals for lunch, permission for employees to use company material for their own use, a policy of not firing anyone and only admitting new employees considering family ties. The pattern of staff attitudes towards the factory was favorable and positive. This attitude created an important source of job satisfaction, role fulfillment, dedication and loyalty to the company. Despite the precarious environmental working conditions and the mortal risks of confinement inside the gypsum mines, work morale was high due to ties of friendship and informality. The administration adopted a "standard of leniency" characterized by:
- Management loosely and infrequently controlled worker behavior; Formal rules were ignored and commitments were personal; Violations were not punished and violators always had new opportunities; There was little pressure to produce; There was a favorable attitude and positive of the workers in relation to the factory, and the atmosphere was friendly.
- the belief system and expectations of the miners; the dangers and threats of physical risk in the mines; the informal solidarity of the workers.
- The supervisor exerts supervision and under pressure on the worker; the supervisor perceives the worker as a person not motivated for the job; controls the worker with more pressure, to obtain greater performance from him; it is pressure arouses resentment and apathy in the worker; the supervisor perceives the worker more as unmotivated for work, and so on, in increasing tension.
Gouldner's conclusions
- Gouldner's central hypothesis is that close supervision deteriorates superior-subordinate relationships and violates informal
group norms. The excessive formulation of bureaucratic norms works as a symbol of mistrust in people and their intentions, since they represent
an attempt to achieve things without people.For Gouldner, bureaucratic rules have several functions:
- They equip for close supervision, in that:
- They are a form of communication aimed at those who are perceived to be willing to evade responsibilities, avoid obligations and not perform their tasks; they offer a substitute for the repetition of orders by the superior;
personal inferiority; they legitimize punishment and sanctions. They constitute an advance notice of the consequences of the infractions to the established norms and legalize and
legitimize the punitive measures; they specify a minimum level of acceptable performance.
generated. 3 types of bureaucratic behavior:
- the pseudo-bureaucracy: in which the rules are imposed from outside, the representative bureaucracy: the rules are promulgated by specialists, whose authority is accepted by supervisors and workers. Standards are
widely supported, as they are part of the prevailing value system in the factory. Punitive bureaucracy: Standards are enforced through pressure from management or employees.
Any bureaucratic model leads to consequences not foreseen by Weber. Gouldner's model can be explained as follows:
- la exigencia de control por parte de la organización conduce a la imposición de reglas burocráticas:esas reglas buscan la adopción de directrices generales e impersonales que definen lo que es permitido y lo que no es y establece un patrón de
comportamiento mínimo aceptable;esto hace que los participantes tengan una mayor visión de las relaciones de poder;las normas constituyen a provocar un aumento del nivel de tensión en la relación impersonal, debido a la adopción de directrices generales e
impersonales, lo cual reduce la motivación a producir;la adopción de directrices generales e impersonales induce al conocimiento de los estándares mínimos aceptables;al verificar la diferencia entre los objetivos de la organización y su realización, debido al comportamiento estándar, la organización reacciona;la organización impone mayor rigor a la supervisión, con el propósito de formar a las personas a trabajar más;se reinicia el ciclo, el círculo vicioso de la supervisión estrecha.
organization is perceived as an unstable system.
There is no single type of bureaucracy, but an infinity of types that vary within a continuum ranging from excess bureaucratization to
no bureaucracy.
- They equip for close supervision, in that:
Critical evaluation of the theory of bureaucracy
According to Weber, bureaucracy provides a conscious way to organize people and activities in order to achieve goals. Bureaucracy emphasizes rational and efficient organization based on certain objectives.
Perrow said that the errors attributed to the bureaucracy are not errors at all or a consequence of the failure to over-bureaucratize. Concern for reform, "humanization," and decentralization of bureaucracies, has served to obscure the nature of bureaucracy from organizational theorists and diverted us from its impact on society.
Bureaucracies have not been properly judged, they represent a superior alternative to all other organizational alternatives.
Main critical aspects of the theory of bureaucracy
The excessive rationalism of the bureaucracy
Katz and Kahn point out that the bureaucratic organization is super rationalized and does not take into account the organizational nature, nor the environmental conditions. Its advantages have been exaggerated. The bureaucratic system manages to survive and is efficient only when:
- Individual tasks require a minimum of creativity; The demands of the environment on the organization are clear and their implications obvious, the information is redundant and can be ignored; The speed of decision making; The organizational circumstances are close to those of the closed system, with minimal requirements for changes in the medium.
Perrow calls the theory of bureaucracy an "instrumental" view of organizations: they are perceived as conscious, rational arrangements of means for particular ends. Bureaucracy implies:
- Specialization; Need to control the influences exerted by external factors on the internal components of the organization; Need to deal with an immutable and unstable external environment.
The dimensions of the bureaucracy
Bureaucracy is understood more as a condition that exists as a continuum, than as an absolute condition. Hall proposes that the variable degree of bureaucratization is determined by the measure of the dimensions of the bureaucracy, the concept of bureaucracy as a series of dimensions, each of which forms a continuum. C / continuum can be measured. Hall selected 6 continuous dimensions of organizational structure:
- A division of labor based on functional specialization; A defined hierarchy of authority; A system of norms that includes all the rights and duties of those who occupy certain positions; A system of procedures to handle work situations; impersonality in impersonal relationships; Promotion and selection for employment, based on technical competence.
Hall defends the idea that organizations vary in terms of their structure and processes. These elements are present in the ideal type of bureaucracy described by Weber: their presence makes it possible to determine to what degree an organization is bureaucratized. Organizations carry characteristics of the bureaucratic model to varying degrees, across the various dimensions of the bureaucracy. These attributes vary independently. An organization can be highly bureaucratized in terms of the set of operational specifications, while loosely bureaucratized in terms of its division of labor.
Mechanism and limitations of the "machine theory"
The traditional theory - whose 3 models are Taylor (scientific adm), Fayol (classical theory) and Weber (bureaucratic model) - paid attention to the character of its internal structures, taking organizational problems more in terms of a closed system than an open one.. The expression "machine theory" can be applied to all 3 models, since the organization, made up of people, is considered a machine built to fulfill a task. Katz and Kahn explain that some of the explicit or implicit concepts of machine theory are:
- Specialization of the process in tasks, to obtain efficiency by dividing the operation into its basic elements; Standardization of the performance of the function, to follow the division of operations and guarantee the absence of errors; Unity of command and centralization in making decisions. Decisions must be centralized in a single command and there must be unity of command through the responsibility of man for man within the hierarchical chain; Uniformity of institutionalized practices. Manners of dealing with personnel are uniform for each level or status; no duplication of functions, in order to ensure centralization.
Katz and Kahn point out the weaknesses of the "machine theory":
- Little importance of the exchange of the system with its environment and negligence regarding the influences of the environment, constantly changing, which requires constant modification of the organization; Limitation in the conception of many types of exchange with the environment. Products are restricted to the physical product that the organization places in the environment; Little attention to the subsystems of the organization; Negligence regarding the informal organization, which arises within the formal organization, as a reaction to institutionalization; Conception of the organization as a rigid and static arrangement of parts and organs.
The Weberian model is mechanistic and has more in common with administrative management theorists than with authors who developed studies based on the bureaucratic model.
Conservatism of the bureaucracy
Bennis notes the following criticisms of the bureaucracy:
- The bureaucracy does not take into account personal growth and the development of mature personality in people; It develops conformity and "groupthink"; It does not consider the "informal organization" and problems that arise and are not foreseen; Its system of Control and authority is obsolete; It does not have an adequate legal procedure; It does not have means to resolve conflicts between classes and, between functional groups; Communications are blocked or distorted due to hierarchical divisions; The human resources of the bureaucracy are not fully used for various reasons; Can not assimilate the influence of new technologies or the scientists who enter the organization; Can modify the personality structure of those people who reflect the obtuse, dark man
All bureaucratic actions are complex units designed to achieve objectives. To survive, the bureaucratic organization must fulfill secondary tasks such as:
- Maintain the internal system and integrate the "human side of the company", adapt and adapt to the external environment.
Bureaucracy has proven to be a conserved process and contrary to innovation: the bureaucrat behaves like a ritualistic individual, attached to the rules, who goes through a process of "dismantling of objectives." The bureaucracy has been vulnerable to the conditions of the world today. The bureaucracy revealed itself as a creative solution to new and different conditions, it is being driven to its demise by new and different conditions of the modern industrialized world. Bennis synthesizes these conditions in 4 threats imposed on the bureaucracy:
- Environmental transformations; Increase in size; Increasing complexity of modern technology; Changes in administrative behavior and in business philosophy, which impose the need for greater flexibility in the organization.
Kast and Rosenzweig point out that the modern way is to use Weber's bureaucratic model as a starting point, while recognizing its limitations and dysfunctional consequences. At the risk of oversimplification, the prevailing view is that:
- the bureaucratic form is the most appropriate for the routine and repetitive activities of the organization, activities in which efficiency and productivity are the highest objective; the bureaucratic form is not suitable for flexible organizations that face non-routine activities, and in which the creativity and innovation are important.
Closed system approach
Gouldner perceived 2 models:
- the "rational" models of organization that adopt the closed system strategy, in search of certainty and exact foresight. (Taylor, Fayol and Weber), the "natural" models of organization that adopt an open system strategy in the expectation of uncertainty, since the system contains more variables than we are capable of understanding.
The closed system strategy seeks certainty, incorporating variables associated with the initiative that is aimed at. The open system strategy shifts its attention between goal initiative and survival, incorporating uncertainty.
The theory of bureaucracy conceives organizations as if they were absolute entities, existing in a vacuum, as closed systems. The bureaucracy defines its own way of recruiting its officials, the relationships between them, etc., without depending on the community that supports it or the environment that surrounds it. The bureaucracy is free from any outside intervention.
Descriptive and explanatory approach
All the administrative theories studied have been prescriptive and normative, are oriented and concerned with schemes according to which the administrator must manage organizations, these theories are prescriptive because they aim to establish prescriptions and recipe books and are normative because those prescriptions are considered the best way to manage organizations and should function as rules for the administrator.
The bureaucratic model is concerned with describing, analyzing and explaining organizations, so that the administrator can choose the most appropriate way to manage them, taking into account their nature, tasks, etc., aspects that vary.
The theory of bureaucracy is characterized by a descriptive and explanatory approach, capable of making the administrator understand the situation and verify what is the most appropriate way to manage the organization.
The descriptive and explanatory approach has the advantage of providing a deeper knowledge about the object of study and a wide flexibility and versatility in solving problems, without the concern of confining it to prescriptions or prefabricated standards that seek a universal extension.
Various criticisms of the bureaucracy
- Weber did not include the informal structure in his ideal type of bureaucracy. Members are perceived as followers of norms and procedures, in a mechanistic sense; Weber's distinctions between types of authority are exaggerated; in the organization, internal conflict is considered undesirable. It assumes that the conflict does not appear to exist; the concept of organizational objectives presents a variety of problems.
Position of the theory of bureaucracy within the theory of organizations
The bureaucratic model constitutes the 3rd pillar of the traditional theory of the organization.
Weberian theory resembles the classical theory of organization in that it emphasizes technical efficiency and the hierarchical structure of the organization, as well as the predominance of industrial organization, proposing a solution to the problem. Both theories present certain differences:
- The classical theory was concerned with details such as the maximum breadth of control, the assignment of authority and responsibility, number of hierarchical levels, grouping of functions, while Weber's theory was more concerned with the large schemes of the organization; To the method, the classics used a deductive approach, while Weber is inductive; Classical theory refers to modern industrial organization, while Weber's theory is integral to a general theory of social and economic organization; Classical theory presents a normative, prescriptive orientation, while Weber's orientation is more descriptive and explanatory.
When verifying the similarities between Weber's theory and those of Taylor and Fayol, they can be compared like this:
- Taylor was looking for scientific means, methods to carry out the routine work of organizations. His greatest contribution was to management; Fayol studied management functions. His greatest contribution was to leadership; Weber was concerned with the characteristics, sentiment, and consequences of bureaucracy. His greatest contribution was considering the organization as a whole;
All 3 dealt with the structural components of the organization.
Download the original file
