Pros and Cons of a Bureaucratic Approach towards Managing Contemporary Organisations - Case Study Example

PROS AND CONS OF A BUREAUCRATIC APPROACH TOWARDS MANAGING CONTEMPORARY ORGANISATIONS: THE CASE OF THE MODERN U.S. ARMY AND GENERAL MOTORS Name Name of Class Name of Professor Institution Affiliation City and State Date Pros and Cons of a Bureaucratic Approach towards Managing Contemporary Organisations: The Case of the Modern U.S. Army and General Motors Introduction Bureaucratic approach to management has been in existence from time immemorial. It draws roots from the reign of the first rulers of the world such as Julius Caesar and Genghis Khan. The quest to find an easy way of governing mega organisations and expansive territories drove these leaders to design regulations and rules alongside hierarchies whose replication would be less challenging. In the modern days, this leadership technique is still synonymous with enormous and multinational corporations. Spahr (2015) describes bureaucratic management as a formal organisational system that operates on definite levels of hierarchy and roles with a view to inducing seamless operability and facilitating efficiency and effectiveness. The bureaucratic approach to management specifies organisational structure as a continuous and definite hierarchy where each subsequent level entirely depends on the control of the management level it succeeds. Besides, every position and department within the particular hierarchy exists in a right of its own with the jobholders having no specified rights to any given position. Weber (2015) adds that the responsibilities and obligations at the individual levels have a clear delineation, thus, each level operates around its own sphere of competence. There are several theories that define bureaucratic management with the most dominant one being the Max Weber’s bureaucratic management theory, which details the specific tenets of bureaucratic management. It is noteworthy that while the approach has been in use from the beginning of time, it is not entirely beneficial. Bureaucratic management has certain cons, which are speculated by the theory of bureaucratic dysfunction. Among the top two organisations that embody the pros and cons of bureaucratic management include the modern U.S. Army division of the military and General Motors respectively. Bureaucratic management improves efficiency in large organisations, but the operation of contemporary organisations is more than just efficiency. Following this hypothesis, this essay will critically discuss the pros and cons of a bureaucratic approach towards managing the contemporary organisation mentioned above. The Place of Leadership in the Success of a Modern Organisation A profound comprehension of the bureaucratic approach to management is only possible following a requisite understanding of the role of leadership in contemporary organisations. The ritualistic operations of the modern organisations are replete with issues and challenges whose solution require heuristic strategies and actions through sheer determination and intelligence. Besides, a modern organisation has a relatively complex structure with a wide spectrum of employees with different abilities, talents, and gifts, thus, leadership or the mode of management plays a central role in ensuring an efficient and constructive workplace. According to Howell (2012), the most pivotal element of the personality of a leader encompasses the holistic understanding of the individual responsibilities as well as the ability to devise the appropriate approach to management that will efficiently combat the issues that the organisation faces. Leadership deconstructs the complexities associated with the contemporary organisational structures and the diversity of employees with the aim of driving the organisation through its challenges to the ultimate success. It is noted that the huge differences that exist between the current organisational structures and the composition of employees and the ancient organisations are the key factors that determine the management approach the leadership of an organisation assumes. Essentially, contemporary organisations consist of employees from all walks of life with a large variety of skills and talents and different backgrounds. Thus, unlike the previous organisations, the contemporary ones must address the expectations of all the employees through effective engagement instead of just concentrating on the task efficiency of task completion. Organisational leadership fills this gap by crafting the most suitable approach to management that considers all the factors in the organisation and harmonising for improved performance (George 2009). The success of an organisation is a culminating function of the individual efforts of the leadership of the particular organisation. Ideal Bureaucracy Bureaucracy is one approach to management whose operation borders on the leadership of an organisation. Therefore, its modern application reflects the role of leadership in an organisation. The concept of ideal bureaucracy offers a special look into bureaucratic management and its specific tenets. Ideal bureaucracy describes the labour division based entirely on the organisational administration. Max Weber’s theory of bureaucratic management illustrates the elements and the specific principles of this approach to management. The theory defines bureaucratic management based on two major elements. The approach requires that an organisation adopts a hierarchical structure. Additionally, there should be specific rational-legal rules of decision making that govern the members of the organisation (Weber 2015). Each of the two elements aims at assisting the organisation in achieving its goals. An organisational hierarchy denotes the structural arrangement of an organisation based on the level of authority vis-à-vis the levels above or below the one in question. On the other hand, rational-legal decision-making rules connote a collection of objective and explicit policies and processes that guide the mode of function of an organisation. Such rules include the human resources and the employment rules and regulations in an organisation. Max Weber’s bureaucracy has four other principles of operation besides these two. Firstly, bureaucratic management requires that the structure of an organisation entirely depends on specialities, in the sense that, people with similar talents are pooled together. Second, the organisation has missions of ‘up-focus’ and ‘in-focus’ where the former means the organisation concentrates on the board of directors or stockholders while in the latter focuses on enhancing profits and building market share (McLean 2005). Thirdly, bureaucratic management is impersonal; thus, it concentrates on performance and not the employees. Finally, employment and recruitment qualifications are the sole functions of technical proficiency. A critical review of these specifications of the bureaucratic approach to management reveals that this approach, for the most part, focuses on enhancing organisational performance through efficient operations with little regards for the welfares of the employees. The Pros of Bureaucratic Approach to Management in the Contemporary Organisations The prevalence of the bureaucratic approach towards management in the contemporary organisations draws on Max Weber’s belief that bureaucracies are efficient and stable. The truth in this assertion is evident in modern organisations such as the U.S. Military Army division. Bureaucracy in the U.S. Army division concerns the definite structure and the dispensation of roles within the levels. The structure takes the shape of an inverted pyramid with the largest chain of command being the lieutenant general, who commands the Field Army divisions, and the lowest chain of command being the serjeant or staff serjeant in charge of a squad or section. From the squad (the lowest division), there are the platoon, company, battalion, brigade, division, corps, and the field army. This is the overall structure of the U.S. Army, which some consider being relatively complex. The simple structure ranges from the battalion to the division, with the brigade division at the intermediary level. For further simplicity, each of these divisions, especially the large ones such as corps, also have a similar structure that ranges from the top to bottom chains of command. According to Weber (2015), the primary focus of this kind of management structure is to increase the efficiency. Essentially, the individual activities and operations of the U.S. Army from training to the actual practice contain the elements of bureaucratic management. Recruitment, for instance, is based on technical proficiency such as the ability to operate various military equipment (Powers 2016). Even during the training, the major focus is to sharpen the technical knowledge of the recruits. It is important to note that, while each level of the hierarchy has definite roles and a bureaucratic management, the overall operation of the entire system is based on the lower level having no power over the division it succeeds. The U.S. Army is among the most efficient organisations in the world. This statement reflects the assertions of Max Weber on the bureaucratic management theory and illustrates the first advantage of bureaucratic management approach. Essentially, the efficiency associated with bureaucracy comes from the fact that the definite organisational hierarchy eases control of the organisation. The contemporary organisations are a bee-hive of overlapping and interlocking activities which fades the boundary between the levels of management. It is common to find employees from different departments performing similar roles albeit unconsciously. The globalisation has made this case worse for multinational organisations with operations in multiple countries. The complexities of the structures of such organisations make it difficult to allocate definite roles and define the individual roles. In particular, the decentralised organisational structure, to some extent, leaves the top management with virtually no control over the operations of the organisation (Ridderstrale 2001). The regional or departmental heads have more control over the activities of the organisation within their jurisdictions. As such, one organisation will be run based on different individual approaches which may end up slowing down the operation of the organisation across the nations and reduce its efficiency. However, as in the case of the U.S. Army, bureaucratic structures operate on strong boundaries and absolute power (Ronald and Gary 1994). This comes with clear chains of command and responsibilities. Thus, each level has its roles defined in a clear manner that prevents them from intruding into the roles of other levels and throwing the organisation into a state of discombobulation. Besides, bureaucratic management entails detailed job specialisations and descriptions for all the employees of the organisation as members of the specific levels of bureaucracy. In this manner, the responsible leaders can easily monitor outcomes and identify the specific levels that are not performing (Hamel 2007). The result is an efficient and stable organisation. Besides, a bureaucratic approach to management allows for easy determination and allocation of the required resources to the specific departments and sections of the organisation. According to Schneider and Barsoux (2003), this is made possible since the organisational structure is repeatable in the sense that it can be implemented even by the individual departments of the organisation. It is noteworthy that most of the modern organisations have a complex organisational structure with several divisions. For instance, the Marketing department of an organisation is divided into the advertising sections, which may branch into sections that deal with electronic advertisements, and online advertisements among others. Such complexities make the determination and subsequent allocation of the resources somewhat challenging. The result is an excessive allocation of resources to one department or section at the expense of the other sections. Bureaucratic management eliminates this situation through the provision of a highly replicable and repeatable organisational framework that allows for predictability of the amount and types of resources that a department or section requires. Consider the case of the United States’ Army above. As already noted, the Army itself is divided into specific levels for ease of management. Similarly, the specific divisions replicate the bureaucratic levels of the main system. For example, the Corps section has the Team as the lowest chain of command with Marine Corps topping the hierarchy. In this case, it is easy and possible to identify the specific resources that each division of the Corps requires, and distinguish these resources from those that the entire system needs. This has a positive effect on the economies of scale of the particular organisation. Given that the structure can be repeated in the subsequent management levels, the resulting similarity prevents resource wastage and contributes to the overall effectiveness of the organisation. Bureaucratic approach to management makes a strong case for ethical conduct within and without the organisation. According to Max Weber, one of the principles of bureaucracy is the strict adherence to the definite rules and regulations. According to Sterns (2001), regulations and rules defining the work behaviour, responsibilities, and rights are properly defined. All the rules serve to facilitate consistency and seamlessness in the performance of the duties and the overall performance of the organisation. The rules are rigid and spell diverse consequences for those who flout any of them. In the bureaucratic systems, it is the individual rules and regulations that differentiate one organisation from the other given their largely similar organisational structures. The specific rules, however, serve a more critical role. They uphold ethical conduct and enhances accountability for the organisations. These rules are crafted in a manner that they apply to all the members and levels of the organisational structure in equal measure (Watson 2002). Given the structure, it is easy to enforce the rules and implement the ethico-moral and legal specifications an organisation. Maintaining high levels of ethics is particularly quintessential for the contemporary organisations in that it enhances their reputation and image (Niall 2013). The importance of image and good reputation in the face of the ongoing fierce competition cannot be understated. The fact that the specific rules also uphold accountability eases the process of disciplinary action on the specific employees found culpable of malpractice. The structure of the U.S. Army allows for the identification and punishment of the specific soldiers in line with the existing laws. Perhaps it is the high levels of ethics that give the U.S. Army the respect it commands from the world. It is also important to note that the bureaucratic approach towards management also encourages innovation through an undivided focus on the technical aspects of organisational operation. A critical ingredient of the bureaucratic management theory is the employment based on technical proficiency. In the U.S. Army, apart from the actual recruitment, the training is mostly based on equipping the soldiers with the technical skills. Most of the exercises and training activities are physical and daunting tasks coupled with equally tough field tests. The recruits come from the training with knowledge of how to operate and manipulate virtually all the military equipment within their levels of command. The technical mastery assists the Army in developing innovative ways of tackling enemies through improved operation of the available equipment and tools. The necessary competitive edge required in the contemporary organisations can only be achieved through high levels of innovation, which leads to product and service differentiation (Wren and Bedeian 2009). The fact that the bureaucratic management focuses on technicality implies the acquisition of the necessary technical skills required for innovation and creativity. The Cons of Bureaucratic Approach to Management in the Contemporary Organisations The cons of the bureaucratic approach to management can be better analysed through the Michel Crozier’s theory of bureaucratic dysfunction as seen in the case of General Motors. The theory states that since the bureaucratic system operates on predetermined outcomes for the organisation, the only way the members can gain control of their lives is through the exploitation of any possible ‘zones of uncertainty’ left (Stewart, Martin and Harro 2011). On that note, the relations within an organisation become strategic attempts at exploiting such zones with the aim of preventing others from gaining an advantage. The result is an inward-looking organisation with a series of internal power struggles that create ‘vicious circles.’ Such circles are detrimental in the attempt of an organisation to learn from its past and existing errors. The explanations in this theory characterise the bureaucratic management of the General Motors. The company’s organisational structure comprises of three general levels of management with the C.E.O topping the ranks. These three major levels are further divided into various governance sections based on the roles and responsibilities of the levels. The C.E.O heads the Board of Directors, which is the main decision-making organ of the company (Bradt 2015). The second level (N-1) is headed by the Secretary and Deputy Legal while the last level of governance (N-2) is headed by the CFO, GM International. These levels consist of departments and sections with descending strengths and responsibilities. The particular disadvantages of the bureaucratic approach to management were evident in the attempt by the company to contain the recent ignition switch defect that forced the company to recall over 2.6 million cars after the death of more than 13 people (George 2014). Over the years leading to the official recall of the defective cars, GM held several committees and group meetings in silence to deliberate on the best way to solve the problem. None of these meetings yielded any significant solution. Despite the fact that every member of the organisation, in line with the codes of ethics, had an obligation to fix the problem, no one took the responsibility. ‘The GM nod’ was a term that reports concerning this problem used to describe a situation where every member of the company agreed that there was a problem but no one did anything to solve the problem. The issue passed from level to level of management of the organisation, including engineers and lawyers to the top management without anyone acknowledging the urgency of the matter. The reports also found out that the fact that the switch was substandard was an issue that had previously been raised, but no one paid attention (George 2014). It is the resulting casualties and complaints, which jolted GM into action even after sweeping the problem under the carpet for years. The case of the faulty ignition switches at GM brings to light one of the nightmares of the bureaucratic approach to management- rigidity. Everything in a bureaucratic arrangement, from the rules to the organisational structure, is rigid and inflexible (Schultz and Schultz 2010). Everyone and every level of the organisation cannot act without the consent of those above them even in cases as extreme as that of the General Motors. Thus, in case the upper level fails to act, the subsequent levels will just sit back and watch the damage happen even if they have the ability to salvage the situation. Such a system is detrimental for the contemporary organisations which require faster and creative solutions to everyday problems. The contemporary business environment is constantly changing and requires an integrated and efficient management that will see to a smooth generation and implementation of the necessary changes. Correspondingly, some of the levels of leadership in an organisation may be ignored to save time in cases where the proposed change is abrupt. The rigidity of the bureaucratic systems does not allow for this kind of a rush, especially when making critical changes in an organisation. Retrogressively, while the reports noted that the GM ‘ignored’ the propositions to probe the quality of the switch, the usage of the term did not consider the rigidity of the bureaucratic approach to management. It suffices to say that from the lowest division, the company was still examining the proposition at its various levels up to the time it blew out. Similarly, the lack of action and ‘the GM nod’ are functions of the fact that the responsible parties had to act first before others could follow. In this case, the Engineer that approved the use of the ignition switches was only allowed to act once his plan of action was approved by the top management, which also took time. Thus, while the solution was already in existence, the bureaucratic system obscured its implementation path. This leads to a situation referred to as ‘Red Tape’ characterised by frustration and inordinate delays that completely impede the path of action. In the contemporary organisations, the damage that rigidity could cause may be irreparable. Such a case would completely ruin the reputation of an organisation, paralyse its attempts to build market share, scare away the prospective clients, and ultimately reduce the profitability of the organisation. The bureaucratic approach to management also focuses on the enhanced outcome of the organisation without giving priority to the critical factors that facilitate such high levels of performance. In this manner, the approach is performance-based at the expense of the welfare of the employees. For instance, bureaucratic management gives the least priority to concepts such as employee wellbeing and the related aspects. The recent past has seen research works contend with the importance of employee wellbeing in contemporary organisations. According to Cloke and Goldsmith (2002), employee well-being is the single magic shot at higher organisational performance and staff productivity. In the bureaucratic framework of management, rules and regulations are structured in a way that they prioritise on the performance of the works over the emotions and needs of the workers. For instance, in the case of the GM, the engineer who approved the faulty ignition switches was fired without considering the dynamics of the bureaucratic system that incapacitated him. The gross ignorance of the welfare of the employees results in a situation of impersonality that hinders employee productivity, raises operational costs, and deters high organisational performance. Thus, the bureaucratic approach would be detrimental to the current business environment that necessitates an employee-centred approach to organisational performance. The last shortcoming of this management approach counters the previous claim that it encourages innovation. A bureaucratic approach to management features compartmentalization of activities, thus, discourages healthy internal organisational competition. Essentially, jobs are compartmentalised into categories, which bar other people from performing tasks outside their category even if they are capable of performing such tasks. According to Martin (2010), the system also involves preservation of tasks long after they cease to be redundant. All these factors limit the exposure of the employees concerning various tasks, which highly discourage innovation and creativity. Contemporary organisations thrive on creativity and innovativeness for competitive advantage without which their peers may overtake them. Conclusion The bureaucratic approach towards management has been instrumental in the management of mega organisations such as the United States’ Military Army division. It provides a simple structure that eases leadership and governance across the organisational divide. The structure also operates on specific rules and regulations that not only lead to stability, but also enhances the efficiency and effectiveness of an organisation. Even so, it is worth noting that in the case of contemporary organisations, the approach would only suit certain organisations and in specific contexts. For example, it cannot be applied to the Small and Medium Enterprises. The statement is justified through the shortcomings that characterise a bureaucratic system. These drawbacks are evident in the case of General Motors despite the fact that it is a multinational organisation. Some of the drawbacks include rigidity, prioritisation of performance over the welfare of the workers, and compartmentalisation of duties which discourages creativity. On that note, the adoption of this approach to management in contemporary organisations requires thorough contextual analysis to determine the feasibility of the approach in the specific organisational context. Bibliography Bradt, G 2015, ‘Banish General Motors-Like Bureaucracy and Embrace Hierarchy’, Forbes, 14 January. Cloke, K and Goldsmith, J 2002, The End of Management and the Rise of Organizational Democracy, Jossey-Bass, New York, p. 27. George, P 2014, ‘GM’s Scathing Internal Inquiry Is a Tale of Bureaucratic Incompetence’, Jalopnik, 6 May. George, R 2009, Contemporary Sociological Theory and Its Classical Roots: The Basics, McGraw-Hill, New York, p. 38–42. Hamel, G 2007, The Future of Management, Harvard Business School Press, Harvard, p. 13. Howell, JP 2012, Snapshots of Great Leadership, Taylor and Francis, London, p. 16–17. Martin, D 2010, ‘Gates Criticizes Bloated Military Bureaucracy’, CBS News, 9 May, viewed 4 November 2016, http://www.cbsnews.com/news/gates-criticizes-bloated-military-bureaucracy/ McLean, J 2005, ‘Management Techniques and Theories’, Manager, The British Journal of Administrative Management, p. 17. Niall, F 2013, The Cash Nexus: Money and Politics in Modern History, 1700-2000, Penguin, UK. Powers, R 2016, ‘U.S Army Military Organization from Squad to Corps: a guide to each building block in the modern army’, The Balance, 8 September, viewed 4 November 2016, https://www.thebalance.com/u-s-army-military-organization-from-squad-to-corps-4053660 Ridderstrale, J 2001, ‘Business Moves Beyond Bureaucracy’, in Pickford, J. (ed.) Financial Times Mastering Management 2.0, Financial Times Prentice Hall, Upper Saddle River, NJ p. 217–20. Ronald, NJ and Gary, DL 1994, The Federal Civil Service System and the Problem of Bureaucracy, University of Chicago Press, Chicago, p. 1–11. Schneider, SC. and Barsoux, J 2003, Managing Across Cultures, Financial Times Prentice Hall, Upper Saddle River, NJ. Schultz, DP and Schultz, SE 2010, Psychology and work today: an introduction to industrial and organizational psychology, Prentice Hall, Upper Saddle River, NJ, p. 171. Spahr, P 2015, ‘What is Bureaucratic Leadership? How Rules Can Guide People’, St. Thomas University Online, 30 October, viewed 4 November 2016, http://online.stu.edu/bureaucratic-leadership/ Stern, S 2001, ‘Guru Guide’, Management Today, 2 October, p. 87. Stewart, RC, Martin, H and Harro, H 2011, Managing Modernity: Beyond Bureaucracy? Oxford University Press, Oxford. Watson, TJ 2002, Organizing and Managing Work, Financial Times Prentice Hall, Upper Saddle River, NJ, p. 254. Weber, M (ed) 2015, Weber’s Rationalism and Modern Society: New translations on Politics, Bureaucracy, and Social Stratification, Palgrave Macmillan, New York. Wren, D and Bedeian, A 2009, The Emergence of the Management Process and Organization Theory: The Evolution of Management Thought, Wiley, Hoboken, NJ. Read More