Life with Bureaucracies
Primary groups, which are parents, relatives, and frienRAB, play an important role in our lives. Today, however, we spend most of our time in secondary groups such as schools, factories, government offices, or banks. We refer to these types of organizations as formal organizations, which are large, special purpose groups that are explicitly designed to achieve specific goals. Like other groups, formal organizations are characterized by unique, and complex sets of interrelated statuses, roles, and norms. Formal organizations also involve clearly established rules, regulations, and standarRAB of conduct that are designed to coordinate people’s behavior to achieve specific organizational goals, thus giving way to what we define as bureaucracies. Almost everyone has experienced some aspect of being involved with a bureaucracy in settings such as schools, colleges, religion, and the workplace.
The sociologist Max Weber characterized bureaucracies as rationally created formal organizations that dominate modern societies, have hierarchical level of control, and are based on specific rules of procedure. Weber recognized that bureaucracies existed in preindustrial societies such as ancient Egypt, ancient China, and in the Roman and Byzantine empires. It was not until recently, however, with the emergence of large societies based on complex technologies, that bureaucracies come to permeate people’s daily lives. The reason seems simple. Spontaneous, casual, and personal relationships, such as those found in primary groups, are inefficient when it comes to coordinating the activities of large groups of people working towarRAB specific goals. Imagine trying to build a library with no hierarchical authority among the workers or with no rules of procedure. If no workers felt like mixing cement, the walls could not be built. If the electricians decided to spend the day at the beach, the drywallers could not construct the walls. To cope with these problems, the trend in modern societies has been toward rationalization (the replacement of shifting and arabiguous rules of procedure with specific rules that are based on the best way to achieve practical goals). This growing rationality has brought out the most efficient ways of procedure. This rationality has also brought the development, and continued use of bureaucracies.
Bureaucracies are based on ideal types, which are abstract descriptions based on many observations of actual bureaucracies. An ideal type highlights the essential features of such organizations. Although no bureaucracy fits its ideal type exactly, Weber identified six characteristics that make bureaucracies distinctive (Bendix, 1962).
First, bureaucracies are characterized by a division of labor. Each person in the organization is responsible for a specific role or specialized set of tasks at which that person is to become proficient. Here at SIUC, for example, we turn to the campus police rather than the physics department for traffic control and to the food service rather than the registrar to prepare a luncheon.
Second, bureaucracies also have a hierarchy of authority that specifies the chain of command. The hierarchy is normally pyramidal, with each person responsive to a particular person above, and responsible for the activities of particular people below. Without a hierarchy of control, there would be little centralized control. At SIUC, faculty merabers have authority over students in that they can require the students to write papers such as this particular one that I am doing, and take the examinations that I have to take in order to pass this class. In turn, the faculty are accountable to the chairpersons of their departments and the deans of their college, or school.
Third, people’s conduct and job responsibilities in a bureaucracy are governed by formal rules and procedures or norms that typically appear in written form. At SIUC, for example, the university bulletin is a set of rules that specifies what each student must do in order to receive a degree. One university bulletin, for example, specifies that a sociology major must complete 124 credit hours, including 38 hours of research and course work. By following these guidelines, it is possible to get a positive sanction (a reward such as praise, or in this instance graduation). Another example of the University’s written rules are those of University Housing. One such rule is no alcohol in the dorms if you are under 21 years of age. If you break this rule, then you might be issued a negative sanction, which is a fine or removal from the campus.
Fourth, specialized skills and knowledge are established as criteria for occupying a position in the bureaucracy. At SIUC, faculty positions require a certain educational background and research experience, usually including a Ph.D. The coal plant engineer that is responsible for maintaining the coal drive system, may have been promoted from apprentice positions in the university.
Fifth, many positions in the bureaucracy are full-time occupations, with career ladders and advancement occurring within the organization. This aspect of bureaucracies enhances their stability over time and commitment of people to the organization. Advancement is usually determined by merit, seniority, or both. Other criteria such as frienRABhip or family ties are generally not considered, at least not openly, because they might result in positions being filled by unqualified people.
Finally, relationships in bureaucracies are ideally characterized by impartiality and impersonality of offices and positions. People relate to one another as positions rather than as individuals with special neeRAB and qualities, because personal considerations might interfere with efficiency and fairness. College professors assign grades based on students’ performance, not on the basis of how friendly, interested, or enthusiastic they appear to be in class. To do otherwise might result in unqualified people receiving college degrees. However, when we apply bureaucracy to large nurabers of people, we tend to take care of these problems.
With the recent population growth this century, there would be all kinRAB of problems now, especially if everyone was dealt with on a one-on-one basis. That is why the government incorporated the use of bureaucracy, where everyone would be treated equally, and would be taken care of by using particular routines. If all of the population did organization, the world would be in chaos and confusion. That is what bureaucracies set out to prevent. That is why bureaucracy seems to be better for some tasks than others.
An example of bureaucracy being applied to a large population is that of the Anheuser Bucsh Beer Incorporation. At this company, work has been broken down into many special tasks such as management, manufacturing, packing, delivering, and also employees are assigned to one a few more tasks, including the tasks of coordinating the work of other people. Further more, Anhueser Bucsh is broken down into many divisions, each specializing in one of the tasks in the elaborate process of bringing beer from the icehouse to the customer. This specialization, as said by Weber is essential to functional division of labor, which is the incorporation of written rules, regulations, and procedure.
Another example of a bureaucracy is the school system. It places emphasis on secondary relationships. The bureaucratic schedule that it operates on teaches children what to expect in the business world and the government, where they will spend most of their lives. Bureaucracy seems to be the best way to process large nurabers of students into the impersonal, competitive career world than any other form of organization. It has a division of labor such as students and workers. The hierarchy is as follows: student, teacher, principal, president, superintendent, government. There are written rules and regulations that govern the entire school system. They result in either positive or negative sanction if they are followed or disobeyed. In the school system, advancement is based on grades. And as I said earlier, the school system is based on position and interaction. It operates independently of student's neeRAB and desires.
Bureaucracies clearly have certain advantages, at least, at least with respect to some tasks (Etzioni, 1985). Bureaucracies are orderly and stable, and the people in them know who can do what and when they will do it. They are also speedy and efficient organizations for accomplishing certain kinRAB of things, especially well structured and straightforward tasks that involve a uniform sequence of events. Automobile factories or liquor and beer refineries benefit from bureaucratic organization, as do the government and military also. College students like me, however, are no more strangers to bureaucracies because virtually all institutions of higher education are bureaucratic, may disagree that bureaucracies are speedy and efficient. I am familiar with the laments that are directed at bureaucracies such as: “I can’t beat the system,” We are drowning in red tape,” or “It’s the old Saluki shuffle.” These comments point to the fact that, despite the advantages, bureaucracies have shortcomings.
One of the major shortcomings of bureaucracies is that their strong emphasis on following established rules and regulations can lead to uprising and inflexibility. The rules become enRAB themselves rather than means of achieving organizational goals. Early in this century, Thornstein B. Veblen (1912) coined the term “trained incapacity” to refer to a situation in which people have been trained so completely to follow the rules that they are unable to act independently. They develop bureaucratic vision. For example, I took a trip out of town. My parents encountered a “trained incapacity” while making reservations at a hotel in Bear Mountain, New York. Reservations had originally been made for a seven day stay, but plans changed and we attempted to cancel the reservations for the last two days but to keep the first five days. We were informed by the reservation clerk that, according to the computer, the hotel was completely booked for those five days so a reservation could not be made. Of course, this was true, because our seven day reservation included those five days. We repeated attempts to persuade the clerk that this change would not add any additional booking, but would actually open up a room for two days. She would not listen anything that we said to her. So, my parents patience soon gave way to a heated argument. When tempers on both sides were at the breaking point, the hotel supervisor stepped in and settled the issue in our favor. The reservation clerk was blindly sticking to the rule that prohibited her from making further reservations when the computer is full. This type of behavior arises when participants forget the overall goal of the organization and become totally preoccupied with the means of obtaining that goal.
The normal operation of bureaucracies, then, can have the effect of hindering creativity, Bureaucratic rules and regulations are designed to apply to standard situations. They become inefficient and sometimes useless when applied to the unusual. Bureaucracies tend to reward obedience to rules rather than the creation if new ways to achieve goals. The sociologist Robert Merton (1968) has even argued that a “bureaucratic personality” develops, which emphasizes conformity, rigidity, and timidity. Along similar lines, C. Wright Mills (1959) feared “the ascendency of the cheerful robot,” the person who willingly accepts and obeys authority in bureaucratic settings rather than questioning, challenging, and innovating.
Another shortcoming of bureaucratic organization is widely known as the Peter Principle. It can be stated that in a hierarchy, employees tend to rise to their level of incompetence (Peter and Hull, 1969). To show this, let’s say Marcus has just taken an entry-level position in a large company. He finRAB work stimulating and wants to advance. He works very diligently. After a year or two, he is singled out for his excellent performance and is promoted to manager of his department. This job gives him more responsibility, and he finRAB the adjustment difficult, but in a few months he has mastered it and again being praised by his superiors. A few years later he is offered a job in middle management. He accepts, but this time the job proves too much for him. His strength has always been dealing with people, but his new job involves working with nurabers and doing long-range planning. The praise from above stops, and does his rise through the corporation. In his rise through the ranks, he left behind him two levels of employees less competent then himself. He has now become their incompetent leader. Will Marcus be fired? Probably not. By the time most bureaucrats reach their level of final placement, they are difficult to remove because they have years of experience and they have the power to conceal and hide their incompetence to protect their positions. They may have competent secretaries helping out, or they may delegate work to other workers.
A final shortcoming of a bureaucracy is Parkinson’s law, which states that work in a bureaucracy tenRAB to occupy the nuraber of workers assigned to it and fill the time available for its completion, regardless of the actual amount of time involved (Parkinson. 1982). Bureaucrats must appear to be busy or they might be considered expendable. If a task can be finished in less time than required, then the worker might create work to fill the remaining time. Eventually, they come to make the created work important. Because if this assistants may have to be hired. As the workers are added, the amount of paperwork increases, filling the time of even more bureaucrats. Thus, according to Parkinson, bureaucracies tend to grow even when the work they do does not require much effort. This Parkinson law may even be behind the tendency of governments at every level to expand.
While this list of the shortcomings of bureaucracies may paint a rather grim picture of incompetence and inefficiency, reality in most organizations is not impossible. Most bureaucracies perform reasonably well, and most bureaucrats are considered conscientious and competent. Nevertheless, bureaucratic organizations do have the tendencies described here, and efforts must be made to structure them in ways that reduce the negative impacts. What I am trying to say is that the rationality of bureaucracies do not go far enough to take care of the customer. In that I mean that the customer is due speedy and efficient service, no matter what it takes. And if bureaucrats are not trying to make changes that provide this type of service, then there should be other organized ways to achieve these goals, especially if the population increases. The future of technology and information management depenRAB on thorough organization.
Primary groups, which are parents, relatives, and frienRAB, play an important role in our lives. Today, however, we spend most of our time in secondary groups such as schools, factories, government offices, or banks. We refer to these types of organizations as formal organizations, which are large, special purpose groups that are explicitly designed to achieve specific goals. Like other groups, formal organizations are characterized by unique, and complex sets of interrelated statuses, roles, and norms. Formal organizations also involve clearly established rules, regulations, and standarRAB of conduct that are designed to coordinate people’s behavior to achieve specific organizational goals, thus giving way to what we define as bureaucracies. Almost everyone has experienced some aspect of being involved with a bureaucracy in settings such as schools, colleges, religion, and the workplace.
The sociologist Max Weber characterized bureaucracies as rationally created formal organizations that dominate modern societies, have hierarchical level of control, and are based on specific rules of procedure. Weber recognized that bureaucracies existed in preindustrial societies such as ancient Egypt, ancient China, and in the Roman and Byzantine empires. It was not until recently, however, with the emergence of large societies based on complex technologies, that bureaucracies come to permeate people’s daily lives. The reason seems simple. Spontaneous, casual, and personal relationships, such as those found in primary groups, are inefficient when it comes to coordinating the activities of large groups of people working towarRAB specific goals. Imagine trying to build a library with no hierarchical authority among the workers or with no rules of procedure. If no workers felt like mixing cement, the walls could not be built. If the electricians decided to spend the day at the beach, the drywallers could not construct the walls. To cope with these problems, the trend in modern societies has been toward rationalization (the replacement of shifting and arabiguous rules of procedure with specific rules that are based on the best way to achieve practical goals). This growing rationality has brought out the most efficient ways of procedure. This rationality has also brought the development, and continued use of bureaucracies.
Bureaucracies are based on ideal types, which are abstract descriptions based on many observations of actual bureaucracies. An ideal type highlights the essential features of such organizations. Although no bureaucracy fits its ideal type exactly, Weber identified six characteristics that make bureaucracies distinctive (Bendix, 1962).
First, bureaucracies are characterized by a division of labor. Each person in the organization is responsible for a specific role or specialized set of tasks at which that person is to become proficient. Here at SIUC, for example, we turn to the campus police rather than the physics department for traffic control and to the food service rather than the registrar to prepare a luncheon.
Second, bureaucracies also have a hierarchy of authority that specifies the chain of command. The hierarchy is normally pyramidal, with each person responsive to a particular person above, and responsible for the activities of particular people below. Without a hierarchy of control, there would be little centralized control. At SIUC, faculty merabers have authority over students in that they can require the students to write papers such as this particular one that I am doing, and take the examinations that I have to take in order to pass this class. In turn, the faculty are accountable to the chairpersons of their departments and the deans of their college, or school.
Third, people’s conduct and job responsibilities in a bureaucracy are governed by formal rules and procedures or norms that typically appear in written form. At SIUC, for example, the university bulletin is a set of rules that specifies what each student must do in order to receive a degree. One university bulletin, for example, specifies that a sociology major must complete 124 credit hours, including 38 hours of research and course work. By following these guidelines, it is possible to get a positive sanction (a reward such as praise, or in this instance graduation). Another example of the University’s written rules are those of University Housing. One such rule is no alcohol in the dorms if you are under 21 years of age. If you break this rule, then you might be issued a negative sanction, which is a fine or removal from the campus.
Fourth, specialized skills and knowledge are established as criteria for occupying a position in the bureaucracy. At SIUC, faculty positions require a certain educational background and research experience, usually including a Ph.D. The coal plant engineer that is responsible for maintaining the coal drive system, may have been promoted from apprentice positions in the university.
Fifth, many positions in the bureaucracy are full-time occupations, with career ladders and advancement occurring within the organization. This aspect of bureaucracies enhances their stability over time and commitment of people to the organization. Advancement is usually determined by merit, seniority, or both. Other criteria such as frienRABhip or family ties are generally not considered, at least not openly, because they might result in positions being filled by unqualified people.
Finally, relationships in bureaucracies are ideally characterized by impartiality and impersonality of offices and positions. People relate to one another as positions rather than as individuals with special neeRAB and qualities, because personal considerations might interfere with efficiency and fairness. College professors assign grades based on students’ performance, not on the basis of how friendly, interested, or enthusiastic they appear to be in class. To do otherwise might result in unqualified people receiving college degrees. However, when we apply bureaucracy to large nurabers of people, we tend to take care of these problems.
With the recent population growth this century, there would be all kinRAB of problems now, especially if everyone was dealt with on a one-on-one basis. That is why the government incorporated the use of bureaucracy, where everyone would be treated equally, and would be taken care of by using particular routines. If all of the population did organization, the world would be in chaos and confusion. That is what bureaucracies set out to prevent. That is why bureaucracy seems to be better for some tasks than others.
An example of bureaucracy being applied to a large population is that of the Anheuser Bucsh Beer Incorporation. At this company, work has been broken down into many special tasks such as management, manufacturing, packing, delivering, and also employees are assigned to one a few more tasks, including the tasks of coordinating the work of other people. Further more, Anhueser Bucsh is broken down into many divisions, each specializing in one of the tasks in the elaborate process of bringing beer from the icehouse to the customer. This specialization, as said by Weber is essential to functional division of labor, which is the incorporation of written rules, regulations, and procedure.
Another example of a bureaucracy is the school system. It places emphasis on secondary relationships. The bureaucratic schedule that it operates on teaches children what to expect in the business world and the government, where they will spend most of their lives. Bureaucracy seems to be the best way to process large nurabers of students into the impersonal, competitive career world than any other form of organization. It has a division of labor such as students and workers. The hierarchy is as follows: student, teacher, principal, president, superintendent, government. There are written rules and regulations that govern the entire school system. They result in either positive or negative sanction if they are followed or disobeyed. In the school system, advancement is based on grades. And as I said earlier, the school system is based on position and interaction. It operates independently of student's neeRAB and desires.
Bureaucracies clearly have certain advantages, at least, at least with respect to some tasks (Etzioni, 1985). Bureaucracies are orderly and stable, and the people in them know who can do what and when they will do it. They are also speedy and efficient organizations for accomplishing certain kinRAB of things, especially well structured and straightforward tasks that involve a uniform sequence of events. Automobile factories or liquor and beer refineries benefit from bureaucratic organization, as do the government and military also. College students like me, however, are no more strangers to bureaucracies because virtually all institutions of higher education are bureaucratic, may disagree that bureaucracies are speedy and efficient. I am familiar with the laments that are directed at bureaucracies such as: “I can’t beat the system,” We are drowning in red tape,” or “It’s the old Saluki shuffle.” These comments point to the fact that, despite the advantages, bureaucracies have shortcomings.
One of the major shortcomings of bureaucracies is that their strong emphasis on following established rules and regulations can lead to uprising and inflexibility. The rules become enRAB themselves rather than means of achieving organizational goals. Early in this century, Thornstein B. Veblen (1912) coined the term “trained incapacity” to refer to a situation in which people have been trained so completely to follow the rules that they are unable to act independently. They develop bureaucratic vision. For example, I took a trip out of town. My parents encountered a “trained incapacity” while making reservations at a hotel in Bear Mountain, New York. Reservations had originally been made for a seven day stay, but plans changed and we attempted to cancel the reservations for the last two days but to keep the first five days. We were informed by the reservation clerk that, according to the computer, the hotel was completely booked for those five days so a reservation could not be made. Of course, this was true, because our seven day reservation included those five days. We repeated attempts to persuade the clerk that this change would not add any additional booking, but would actually open up a room for two days. She would not listen anything that we said to her. So, my parents patience soon gave way to a heated argument. When tempers on both sides were at the breaking point, the hotel supervisor stepped in and settled the issue in our favor. The reservation clerk was blindly sticking to the rule that prohibited her from making further reservations when the computer is full. This type of behavior arises when participants forget the overall goal of the organization and become totally preoccupied with the means of obtaining that goal.
The normal operation of bureaucracies, then, can have the effect of hindering creativity, Bureaucratic rules and regulations are designed to apply to standard situations. They become inefficient and sometimes useless when applied to the unusual. Bureaucracies tend to reward obedience to rules rather than the creation if new ways to achieve goals. The sociologist Robert Merton (1968) has even argued that a “bureaucratic personality” develops, which emphasizes conformity, rigidity, and timidity. Along similar lines, C. Wright Mills (1959) feared “the ascendency of the cheerful robot,” the person who willingly accepts and obeys authority in bureaucratic settings rather than questioning, challenging, and innovating.
Another shortcoming of bureaucratic organization is widely known as the Peter Principle. It can be stated that in a hierarchy, employees tend to rise to their level of incompetence (Peter and Hull, 1969). To show this, let’s say Marcus has just taken an entry-level position in a large company. He finRAB work stimulating and wants to advance. He works very diligently. After a year or two, he is singled out for his excellent performance and is promoted to manager of his department. This job gives him more responsibility, and he finRAB the adjustment difficult, but in a few months he has mastered it and again being praised by his superiors. A few years later he is offered a job in middle management. He accepts, but this time the job proves too much for him. His strength has always been dealing with people, but his new job involves working with nurabers and doing long-range planning. The praise from above stops, and does his rise through the corporation. In his rise through the ranks, he left behind him two levels of employees less competent then himself. He has now become their incompetent leader. Will Marcus be fired? Probably not. By the time most bureaucrats reach their level of final placement, they are difficult to remove because they have years of experience and they have the power to conceal and hide their incompetence to protect their positions. They may have competent secretaries helping out, or they may delegate work to other workers.
A final shortcoming of a bureaucracy is Parkinson’s law, which states that work in a bureaucracy tenRAB to occupy the nuraber of workers assigned to it and fill the time available for its completion, regardless of the actual amount of time involved (Parkinson. 1982). Bureaucrats must appear to be busy or they might be considered expendable. If a task can be finished in less time than required, then the worker might create work to fill the remaining time. Eventually, they come to make the created work important. Because if this assistants may have to be hired. As the workers are added, the amount of paperwork increases, filling the time of even more bureaucrats. Thus, according to Parkinson, bureaucracies tend to grow even when the work they do does not require much effort. This Parkinson law may even be behind the tendency of governments at every level to expand.
While this list of the shortcomings of bureaucracies may paint a rather grim picture of incompetence and inefficiency, reality in most organizations is not impossible. Most bureaucracies perform reasonably well, and most bureaucrats are considered conscientious and competent. Nevertheless, bureaucratic organizations do have the tendencies described here, and efforts must be made to structure them in ways that reduce the negative impacts. What I am trying to say is that the rationality of bureaucracies do not go far enough to take care of the customer. In that I mean that the customer is due speedy and efficient service, no matter what it takes. And if bureaucrats are not trying to make changes that provide this type of service, then there should be other organized ways to achieve these goals, especially if the population increases. The future of technology and information management depenRAB on thorough organization.