Bureaucracy Disadvantages
Essay Preview: Bureaucracy Disadvantages
Report this essay
Bureaucracy Disadvantages
The disadvantages of a bureaucracy include
Multiplication of administrative functions
Vertical structure
Many levels of management
Much paperwork, routine and “red tape”
Impersonal officials working to a fixed routine
Without necessarily exercising intelligent judgement
BUREAUCRACY
reported by Rafonzel G. Gayanilo
The traditional usage of bureaucracy is the political science concept of government by bureaus but without participation by the governed. In laymen’s terms, bureaucracy refers to the negative consequences of large organizations. In Max Weber’s analyses, bureaucracy refers to the sociological concept of rationalization of collective activities. It describes a form or design of organization, which assures predictability of the behavior of employees in the organization. It was originally develop as a way of managing large organization.
Bureaucracy is characterized by a large, complex administrative system operating with impersonal detachment from people. Its main characteristics are high specialization, rigid hierarchy of authority, tight controls, and impersonality and close adherence to rules. However, stability and unified focus on objectives are some of the advantages of bureaucracy.
To sum it up, classical structure is strong in task support such as specialized assistance, resources to perform the job, security and fairly dependable conditions of work. However it is weak in psychological support. We need to have an organizational system that caters to both task and psychological support. Thus, the modern approach is to have a more flexible organizational system that is changing them accordingly to a contingency relationship with their environment. This is where the contingency organizational design comes in.
Bureaucracy & Organizational Politics
Emergent Characteristics of Structure
It has been said that, “Organizations are perfectly designed and operated to produce the results they get.” Yet, do they get the results they want? Not usually! Have you, as I, puzzled over this to the point utter frustration, without feeling that you had found an appropriate understanding? The following represents a developing set of thoughts as to why organizational design implies the results the organization gets, along with some thoughts regarding alternatives. This article is somewhat an outgrowth of ideas initially developed in Leadership and Management: A Structural Perspective.
Is organizational design limited to traditional thoughts about hierarchy and reporting relationships, or does it encompass more, much more? Are not the organizations policies, procedures, incentives, rewards, goals, management assumptions, conclusions, beliefs, and actions all part of what influences the activities of an organization? Is not the trust employees have for those they work for, how they feel about their work, and how they feel about each other part of the structure of the organization? A structure which has an affect on how things are done, and what is accomplished.
Buckminster Fuller said that rather than attempting to teach people the right things to do, one should design organizations such that doing the right things was simply the path of least resistance. When all the relevant elements of organizational design are considered this seems an appropriate perspective.
Is it the management of an organization which is most desired, or is it the production of results? Traditionally organizations have been designed in a hierarchical fashion because they are easier to manage, or so it is most commonly believed. Suppose the hierarchical structure makes an organization neither easier to manage, nor more results oriented. How would we know? Suppose one could design an organization that was essentially self-managing. Probably a heretical thought from managements perspective, for then what would be managements purpose.
In response to this question, consider for a moment, a ship, if you will, and ask which function aboard the ship is the most important? Is it the Captain, who is responsible for running the ship? Is it the Navigator, who is responsible for plotting the course? Is it the Engineer, who is responsible for ensuring that the ship has the power to follow its course? Or is it none of these? Who really has the greatest influence over the operation of the ship? Is it not the designer who initially designs the ship to be built? Is it not the design of the organization, rather than its ongoing operation, which is the most important responsibility of management.
Organizations consist of two types of functions with different, yet similar intents. There are those processes which begin and end with an external customer interaction, and have relatively easily measurable results. Then there are those functions which are process enablers. Process enabler functions do not begin and end with external customer interaction, but support those processes which do. These functions generally have results which tend to be more subjective than objective, and are more difficult to measure.
With the above consideration an organization may be viewed as per the following diagram.
This diagram is not intended to imply that all the functions identified as processes need to exist as separate processes, but more to point out that within the organization there are various end to end processes which are operational. The relevant question is whether or not there are more advantages than disadvantages to be gained from combining processes. Everything has an up-side and a down-side.
Note that Customer Service exists as a function for which it is difficult to determine whether it is really a process or a support service. I have decided to consider it as a process because it begins and ends with an external customer interaction, mostly. Yet, unlike most processes, it is one the organization should seek to leverage rather than minimize. There will be more about this later.
The above diagram essentially represents what is generally termed a matrix organization, and organizational theorists have