Essays on Bureaucracy Is Irrelevant to the Study of Organisations Coursework

Download full paperFile format: .doc, available for editing

The paper "Bureaucracy Is Irrelevant to the Study of Organisations" is an outstanding example of business coursework.   Even though the contemporary world is, for the most part, lacking in guilds castes as well as other socially embedded ways of organizing workers, bureaucracy tends to exist in many organizations. Many scholars argue that rules and procedures that govern how work should be done may not be effective or rather efficient as they may simply reflect longstanding customs. For a long time, many aspects that revolve around work organization have been governed by a typical formula known as bureaucracy.

However, management scholars have criticized this approach as unprogressive. For instance, Goodsell (2012) posits that bureaucracies are encompassed by collections of semi-competent plodders, which are hopelessly ensnared in red tape. Aucoin (2007) defines bureaucracy as a complex means of managing administrative elements in institutions. These elements include regulations, rules, procedures and patterns, which are designed to simplify the day-to-day running of complex organizations. A perfect example of bureaucracy is the procedure of paying income taxes using forms. In the income tax form, an individual is required to fill in specific information concerning his or her total income at the end of each fiscal year.

However, the form often contains rules and laws, which dictate what should and should not be included. Seemingly, bureaucracy is meant to simplify the procedure of paying taxes by organizing the procedure into a formulaic structure. However, the inclusion of rules and regulations in the form simultaneously complicates the whole process. As such, this paper aims to justify the statement ‘ bureaucracy is irrelevant to the study of organizations’ . To achieve this, the paper will start by discussing the concept of bureaucracy by looking at its history as well as its elements. Coined in 1910 by Frederic Taylor, the theory of Scientific Management also known as Taylorism played a significant role during the industrial revolution (Sautet & Frederic, 2000).

Accordingly, scientific management was developed for the purpose of economic efficiency as well as labor productivity. The application of the systematic method along with Taylor’ s scientific management, which was complemented by the discovery of ‘ high-speed steel’ , improved the performance of metal cutting.

Studies indicate that the application of scientific management contributed significantly to improvements in productivity. Moreover, Lane, (1987b) points out that scientific management worked out well for reutilized jobs as well as organizations that were typical of the assembly line setups. Between 1901 and 1915, 181 American factories adopted the scientific management approach (Lane, 1987b). As structures of governance and administration advanced, modern bureaucracies emerged during the industrial revolution as the government expanded (Christensen & Læ greid, 2004). In the late nineteenth century, Max Weber (1946) came up with a set of principles (bureaucratic), which according to him suited all types of large-scale organizations.

Weber’ s bureaucratic approach was typical of a firmly ordered hierarchy of supervision-management and subordination. Moreover, his approach incorporated written records of management and expert training. In addition, Weber’ s approach dictates that the official activity should take priority over other activities in the organization. Webber’ s bureaucracy management approach was to be used in pushing the organization to attain its goals inefficiently (Weber, 1947). According to him, the bureaucratic structure is efficient as it is developed through a rational-legal authority (Weber, 1947).


Anderson, William P. 2004. “Mises versus Weber on Bureaucracy and Sociological Method.” Journal of Libertarian Studies 18 (1): 1–29

Aucoin, P. 2007. The design of public organizations for the 21st century: Why bureaucracy will survive in public management. Canadian Public Administration 40 (2): 290–306.

Christensen, T., and P. Lægreid. 2004. Governmental autonomisation and control: The Norwegian way. Public Administration and Development 24:129–35.

Cremer, J. 1980. A partial theory of the optimal organization of a bureaucracy. The Bell Journal of Economics, 683-693.

Dugger, W. M. 1980. Corporate bureaucracy: the incidence of the bureaucratic process. Journal of Economic issues, 399-409.

Eisenstaedt, S. N. 1959. Bureaucracy, bureaucratization and debureaucratization. Administrative Science Quarterly 4 (December): 302–20.

Elzinga, A. 1985. Research, bureaucracy and the drift of epistemic criteria. The University Research System: The Public Policies of the Home of Scientists, Almqvist & Wiksell International, Stockholm.

Feldman, G. D., & Seibel, W. (Eds.). 2005. Networks of Nazi persecution: bureaucracy, business, and the organization of the Holocaust (Vol. 6). Berghahn books.

Goodsell, C. T. 2012. The case for bureaucracy: A public administration polemic 2d ed. Chatham, NJ: Chatham House Publishers.

Grey, C., & Garsten, C. 2001. Trust, control and post-bureaucracy. Organization studies, 22(2), 229-250

Hendry, J. 2006. Educating Managers for Post-bureaucracy The Role of the Humanities. Management Learning, 37(3), 267-281.

Hülsmann, Jörg Guido. 1998. “Toward a General Theory of Error Cycle.” The Quarterly Journal of Austrian Economics 1 (4): 1–23.

Ikeda, Stanford. 1997. Dynamics of the Mixed Economy, Toward a Theory of Interventionism. Foundations of the Market Economy. London: Routledge.

Jaffee, D. 2001. Organization theory: tension and change. McGraw-Hill Humanities/Social Sciences/Languages.

Lane, J. E. 1987b. Introduction: The concept of bureaucracy. In J. E. Lane (Ed.), Bureaucracy and public choice (pp. 1-32). London: Sage.

Merton, R. K. (1940). Bureaucratic structure and personality. Social forces, 560-568.

Migue, J. L., & Belanger, G. 1974. Toward the general theory of managerial discretion. Public Choice, 17(1), 24-43.

Niskanen, William N. 1994. Bureaucracy and Public Economics . Fairfax, Va.: The Locke Institute.

Randma-Liiv, T. 2002. Small states and bureaucracy: Challenges for public administration. Trames, 6(4), 374-389.

Redding, S. G., & Whitley, R. D. 1990. Beyond bureaucracy: Towards a comparative analysis of forms of economic resource co-ordination and control. Capitalism in contrasting cultures, 79-104.

Sautet, Frédéric E. 2000. An Entrepreneurial Theory of the Firm. Foundations of the Market Economy. London: Routledge.

Tullock, Gordon, Arthur Seldon, and Gordon L. Brady. 2002. A Primer in Public Choice. Washington, D.C.: Cato Institute

Weber, M. (1997) `Legitimate Authority and Bureaucracy` in Pugh, D. S. (ed.) (1997), Organization Theory: Selected Readings, Penguin Books

Weber, M. 1946. Bureaucracy. From Max Weber: essays in sociology, 196-244

Weber, M. 1947. Legitimate authority and bureaucracy. Pugh, DS (1997) Organization Theory. Selected Readings, 3-15.

Download full paperFile format: .doc, available for editing
Contact Us