In the past century,the rapid growth of democratisation and industrialisation has faded people’sfaith away from traditional and charismatic authority to now legal authority,better known as a bureaucracy.
Bureaucratic organisations have had greatpotential to be effective which has resulted them to spread throughout society,’since the degree of organisational coordination achieved by bureaucracy cannotbe outdone by any other rational principal” (Lucas 2012,pp.95). Weberemphasised that rationalisation can only be peaked if organisations followbureaucratic management. “The needs of mass administration make it todaycompletely indispensable. The choice is only between bureaucracy anddilettantism in the field of administration” (Weber 1921,pp.
244) For thepurpose of this essay, bureaucracy is defined as ‘the existence of aspecialised administrative staff’ (Scott 1994). According to Weber (1921),bureaucracies are goal-orientated organisations developed through rationalprinciples to efficiently reach their targets. Weber’s bureaucratic managementtheory concentrates on key characteristics of an ideal bureaucracy; to attainthe highest degree of efficiency from a technical perspective. The aim of thisessay is to examine the effectiveness and rationality of these characteristics:division of labour, hierarchy, formal rules and regulations and impersonality. The firstcharacteristic of Weber’s bureaucratic management theory is the division of labour(Grint and Maclean, 2005). Division of labour is an economic concept popularisedby Adam Smith which relates to the idea of each man doing the job he is mostcapable of.
Essentially, this consists of breaking down the production process andthen assigning employees to work in one isolated area of production. Accordingto Smith (1776), under this regime, learning one job well saved time fromworkers transitioning to other jobs and the close acquaintance to a single jobleads to innovation and invention of new techniques, hence enabling workers tobecome experts. This specialisation of the workforce had resulted into significantimprovements in efficiency as tasks were completed faster with fewer mistakes,’thegreatest improvement in the productive powers of labour… seem to havebeen the effects of the division of labour'(Smith 1776 pp.13). Henry Fordput this concept into perspective by revolutionising the production process ofthe car via the assembly line, where small batch production was extensivelyused.
Best services for writing your paper according to Trustpilot
Even conglomerates today such as Apple have adopted the concept bydesigning their products in California while producing in China. This signifiesproducts of today such as the iPhone has innumerable examples of division oflabour, hence elucidating the importance of this characteristic in rationaladministrations. Alternatively,the division of labour may create new inefficiencies for administrations in thelong run. Marx (1867) criticised that the division of labour brings aboutalienation due to the monotonous repetition of tasks. This may then result to adehumanising effect where the worker loses ‘all sense of responsibilityfor the conduct of the business and to lose with it his ability to calculatehis own advantage’ (Sumner 1883). Therefore, as workers’ skills are supressedthey may struggle to adapt their skill-set to evolving production methods. Hence, with current constant evolvement of organisationsdue to technology, this may cause efficiency in the long run to be hindered.Moreover, the division of labour can increase the risks of the entireproduction process to a halt.
Durkheim (1893) points to this negative aspect ofthe concept which turns workers to be interdependent. Therefore, if oneisolated area of production is stopped, the rise in interdependence may resultthe whole production system to be disrupted. In hindsight, the extent to which the division of labour may improveefficiency depends on how management is able to develop the skills of workers alignwith market adjustments and, control interdependence amongst employees. The secondcharacteristic of Weber’s ideal bureaucracy is a hierarchy of authority(Griffin 2002).
This line of authority is the chain of command that flows fromthe top to the bottom of an administration, ‘unconditionalcompliance of people, resting upon their belief that it is legitimate forsuperior to impose his will on them’ (Weber1921). According to Weber (1921), ahierarchy of authority will lead to effective coordination and accountability.This is because a clearly defined hierarchy establishes a path ofaccountability for every task and activity within an organisation. Therefore,if errors do occur it can be traced to determine who is responsible. Webernotes that the establishment of managerial accountability was not to accuse employeesof being incompetent but to find the point of failure and amend the mistake asefficiently as possible. Furthermore, adopting the hierarchal structure establishesrelationships between managers and subordinates, thus outlining clearcommunication direction.
This serves to unify departments of the organisationwhich helps to effectively distribute tasks and their better execution. Hence, thisshows the hierarchal structure can be extremely effective in administrating anorganisation which has been reflected in organisations such as the army and thegovernment. Although, the increased complexity of multinational organisations has forced many to adopt a new structure that Drucker (1974) called “federal decentralisation.” This is because excessive layering of large organisations may lead to communication barriers, disunity and a lack of innovation. Dontigney (2017) criticises that the quality and speed of internal communication may suffer as employees tend to approve communications through the layers of the hierarchy, resulting into delays and confusion. Also, departmental specialisation may result in no shared jargon amongst departments hence resulting to communication barriers. In hindsight, this may reduce the encouragement of workers to actively share information and work together. Robin (2010) further elaborates this negative consequence by outlining it may prevent employees contributing to decisions, which results errors to be unreported and innovation to be hampered.
Therefore, if the hierarchal structure cannot innovate to new market demands in pace or ahead of other organisations, the organisation is often marginalised. In this case, it may be advised for large organisations to adopt Drucker’s structure of federal decentralisation where, “each unit has its own management which, in effect, runs its own autonomous business” (Drucker 1974, pp.572). Hence the extent to which Weber’s adoption of ahierarchal structure is rational for an administration largely depends with itssize. A basic andhighly emphasised characteristic of bureaucracy is that administration is continuouslygoverned by written formal rules and regulations. Mondy (1988) and Weber (1921)referred to the idea that cultural tradition should not be found inbureaucratic organisations.
To put their idea into perspective, they proposed formalrules must be established to bring individuals of different cultures andbackgrounds together under the same formal umbrella. By this principle, theadministration can maintain a degree of discipline as the rules and regulationscan be learnt and applied by all employees. In doing so, this facilitates consistencyamongst the actions of employees as they know what is expected from them(Robbin 2010). Hence, the establishment of rules and regulations can ensure theactions of hundreds of employees to be uniformed, predicted and coordinated,while their absence may bring concerns of distrust due to a lack of assuranceof workers’ actions. Therefore, formal rules provide greater stability andcontinuity in executing decisions and transactions for the organisation.
Thus, the characteristic of establishingformal rules and regulations in an administration can be seen to inevitable,hence their presence is completely rational.However, the establishment ofwritten formal rules and regulations can be counterproductive. This is because Weber’sideology of extreme commitment to rules and regulations may lead tobureaucratic rigidity. As formal rules govern the actions of workers in theorganisation, it is likely to restrict their freedom to make independent decisions(Robbin 2010). This may result workers to be only compensated for doing whatthey are told and not for thinking.
In doing so, goal displacement may occur asworkers are more interested in applying rules and regulations rather thanachieving the firm’s targets (Mahfooz 2015). Furthermore, Merton (1957) critiquedthat if the administration was highly dependent on rules and regulations, anychanges in the business landscape may cause the organisation to waste time andincur monetary costs by drafting new rules. This is known as red tape costs.Therefore, if the red tape costs incurred are greater than the benefitsreceived from the rules and regulations, we can state the administration is in anirrational state. Thus, the extent to which formal rules and regulations isrational depends on their quantity and how rigorously the organisation followsits own laws.
Impersonality is known to be themost controversial characteristic of Weber’s bureaucratic management theory.Weber (1921) explained that by adopting an impersonal nature when rules and regulationsare applied; personalities, sentiments and emotions are deemphasised orignored. In doing so, decisions are executed on the basis of rational factors,not personal. This ensures equality amongst employees as they are protectedfrom arbitrary actions of their superiors.
Therefore, as employees feelregarded and equally treated it may increase their motivation and thereforetheir progress and ambition to succeed in their task. This may then translateinto greater commitment to work, thus, boosting productivity and efficiency(Martin 1998). Hence, this proves impersonality can be used effectively to discouragefavouritism and biases in order to avoid irrational decisions being made in anadministration (Sara 2005).On the other hand, thisbureaucratic trait has been criticised for creating alienation and disloyaltyamongst employees. Caulkin (1988) specifies that the impersonal nature of a bureaucracyis ‘constructed round the postrather than the person and the ease with which it can be swung behind unsocialor even pathological ends.
‘ This outlines Weber’s characteristic overemphasiseson process rather than purpose. Therefore, even if long-term employees have personalissues requiring them to take temporarily leave, they will be denied underWeber’s bureaucratic management. Thus, after many years of loyal service, theorganisation’s lack of consideration may seem to be selfish and ungrateful. Employeesmay then feel like dehumanised objects which may result to a loss of loyalty totheir superiors and organisation. Moreover, Hochshild’s (1983) work exploredhow certain organisations require expressions of emotions at work to maximiseproductivity.
This is reemphasised in the Hawthorne experiments where it wasproven that worker’s productivity will increase if their opinions, emotions andthoughts are respected and taken into consideration by the organisation (Hart1943). Currently, many organisations in the financial sector have createdinitiatives to exemplify their values of openness andconnectedness to their employees, which cannot be done with adopting animpersonal nature. Thus, asstudies and real-life organisations have shown favourable working environmentsto be a key factor in improving efficiency and productivity, the extent towhich Weber’s impersonality is rational may be unfavourable in anadministration. Since administrationsaim to maximise rationality to fulfil their social and economic goals, it isvital for the organisation to comprehend its own traits to become a well driven,organised entity. Weber conveyed what a formal organisation should consist of:division of labour, hierarchy, formal rules and regulations and impersonality, offeringan efficient and rational administrative system to society. The analysis of thesecharacteristics mirrored significant advantages of predictability, equality andaccountability.
Although a world solely run according to Weber’s bureaucratic managementwould be a miserable place to live in due to alienation and dehumanisation. However,as organisations are evolving continuously due to technological andsociological reasons, it is still very difficult to accurately theorise what arational administration should consist of. Due to this, many believe Weber’sbureaucratic theory has actually provided the foundation a rational administration.Bureaucracy has been an indispensable part of modern life, exemplifying itto a great extent that it is the most rational form of administration. Althoughthe characteristics of current bureaucratic organisations have been altered andadapted to modern life, thus the extent to which Weber’s ideal bureaucracy leadsto the most rational form of administration is questionable.
