Relevance of Bureaucratic Principles in Organizations and Openness as a Key Trait of the Firms - Literature review Example

Organisational Behaviour Essays Introduction Organizational behaviour is the study that helps to understand how the individuals and groups behave within the organization and to evaluate the rationale behind their reactions to various organizational structures and attributes such as the flow of communications, extent of power relations etc. Bureaucracy is a specific type of traditional organizational structure that indicates existence of large scale and authoritative administration and management practices. In this paper, the importance of bureaucracy as an organizational principle will be critically analysed. A comparative analyse will also be done to evaluate the degree of openness in the contemporary organizations and the organizations in the past. Discussion Critical Evaluation of the Importance of Bureaucracy as Organizational Principle The theory of bureaucracy was conceptualised by eminent behavioural scientists Max Weber. According to the researchers, the bureaucratic organizational principle proposed by Max Weber gave huge reliance on the structure and complexities of the organization as well as responsibilities assigned to every individual in the organizations following bureaucratic principles. According to Buttrick (1952), in bureaucratic system, the hierarchical structure within the organization is very strong, ensuring the top- down approach of communication. This indicates the strictness of the organizational principles followed in bureaucratic organizational system. Casey (2002) has shown in his research that bureaucratic structure emphasises on the specialization of tasks i.e. the system tends to divide the task of all individuals starting from unskilled labours to executives and managers so that each can perform their duties in the organizational context efficiently. In fact, according to him, Max Weber emphasised on the provision for imparting training sessions so that required skills can be timely upgraded. However, in this context, he also mentioned that because of the strictness of the division of labour, the workers expertise to bring innovation in production and distribution system becomes very limited. Powell and DiMaggio (2012) are of the opinion that in bureaucratic organizations the formal rules are very stringent, orders and other communications are always flowing from the top management to workers. Workers are motivated to follow standard operating procedures (SOP) which are predetermined in the organizational framework. Though significance of bureaucratic organizational principle lies in its complex hierarchical structural regulations, many researchers have criticised the system because of its narrowness. According to Powell and DiMaggio (2012) narrow approaches to bureaucratic principles enhances the inability of the bureaucrats in recognizing any organizational problem outside their expertise. In fact, lack of democracy in problem-solving restricts the managers’ expertise in problem solving. The workers are highly dependent on the orders, instructions and decisions of the supervisors due to lack of freedom in their work. However, as the flow of communication is only downward, the management remains unaware about the problems exists in the grassroots level of the organization. By the time such problems tale giant shape that can affect the overall productivity and performance of the organization, it become beyond the control of management to rectify the situation. From Adler’s (2012) perspective, the characteristics of bureaucracy principles developed by Weber such as formal hierarchical structure in the organizations, impersonal relationship between employers and employees, division of labour etc are so ideal for improving ensuring efficiency on continuous basis that it is impossible for any organization to strictly follow such rules and guidelines in real world. Moreover, though such organizational structure apparently strive to establish uniformity and discipline, it is very difficult for the workers to work in such strict environment. In fact, Adler feared that the provision of close supervision highlighted Max Weber may hinder smooth functioning of the workers and reduce their productivity as well. Eminent behavioural scientist Grey (2013) put forwards a different perspective of the bureaucracy model of Weber. According to him, the core concept of bureaucracy had been explained by Max Weber in a structured manner which is applicable for all organization across the nation. However, organizational functioning involves requirement for much complex situation where it becomes necessary for the management to consult to the employees in order to arrive at a reasonable solution. In fact, such complexities are organization specific, the degree of which varies in different organizations. The reason behind Weber to depict such generalised principle may be attributed as the Weber’s belief that authority and discrete structure yields the organization highest result. The theory was also developed on the notion that oversimplification and organization specific regulations may create ambiguity among the workers which in turn affect productivity. Another criticism was highlighted by Casey (2002) who developed the argument on the basis of efficiency. Considering the parameter of efficiency, the bureaucratic principle proposed by Weber is self-contradictory to what he really used to believe. Weber was always on the side of promoting organizational efficiency. However, his idea of bringing efficiency was to create an organizational structure that would compel the workers to maximize their productivity without emphasising any of their concerns such as legitimate pay structure, working hours and leisure hours etc. Recent organizational experts have nullified prioritization of efficiency is this way because according to them, it is impossible to bring efficiency in the employee performance without providing them reasonable facilities in terms of wage payment, work environment, holidays and routine breaks etc. All these factors indicate the management’s inclination towards securing employee needs and therefore, it provides the employees additional motivation to work harder for achieving organizational objectives (Adler, 2012). Adler (2012) also argued that the bureaucracy principle demands that everything must be it its place and the organizational functioning should continue with infusing minimal changes if required. This is because, according to Weber’s view, this will not necessitate the employees to cope up with changes and they will be able to continue their performance following the structured routine, without any disturbance. However, in this era of rapid transformation and technological changes, business dynamics requires frequent changes in order to sustain in the competitive global environment. Hence, if the latest technologies are not installed and workers are not provided supporting training and development programs to utilize their full potential, it will be difficult for the companies to continue its business. Therefore, it can be inferred from the researchers’ point of view that inclusion of too much red tape, resistance to change among workers and adherence to excessive regulations under bureaucracy principles make the theory much irrelevant for the organizations in the practical world and the organizations tend to be much more “close” as compared to the organizations that follow non-bureaucratic structure. In What Ways Is The Organization More ‘Open’ Today Than In The Past? In contrast to the organizations that used to follow bureaucratic principles, today’s organizations are much more open and action oriented. As the level of contingencies in the business environment has drastically increased, the managements are designing the organizational structure and work environment in such a way that the company can react positively to any kind of contingencies and accordingly, strive towards excellence (Barry, 2000). In the next segment, the attributes that more prove the openness of the contemporary organizations as compared to the traditional organizations will be evaluated. Starting from the management practices to leadership style and employee relations, the modern-day organizations show much openness as compared to traditional organizations. Considering the leadership style, the traditional leaders used to be authoritative in nature. The supervisors used to impose strict and close supervision on the workers. Such leaders used to give huge emphasis on organizational hierarchy and thus used to derive power from their position in the organization. For example, Bill Gates used to exercise authoritative leadership practices in Microsoft Corporation as this famous leader used to involve in supervising the daily operations of the company, even if when he removed himself from such nominal position of the company. In contrast, the leaders in today’s organizations are collaborative in nature. Hence, such leadership emphasises on team work and encourages employees to come up with new and innovative ideas that can help the management to accomplish organizational objectives in a more efficient as well as time and cost effective way. The leaders also influence the workers for individual problem solving without any interruption of managers in order to infuse sense of responsibilities among workers. For instance, The Fruit Guys, a San Francisco based company which is committed to deliver fresh fruits and sociable snacks to a large number of individual and corporate clients, has made their business so large through collaborating strategically with their business partners, employees, suppliers and all other stakeholders. This indicates how long enduring vision and collaborative organizational functioning of today’s organizations can drive the company towards excellence (Greenwood and Hinings, 2012). Considering the flow of information, tendency has been noticed that the management of the traditional organizations tended to retain all the information regarding organizational changes, turmoil in business, industry news etc. along with them. Only that information, which can directly impact the workers’ performances, was communicated to them. Such retention of information is reflected from the authority and control exercised by the management. These kinds of practices often used to create ambiguity among the employees and ignited the scope for grapevine. Such restrictive environment in turn hampered the organizational productivity. Conversely, as frequent organizational changes are inevitable in new organizations, the managements in contemporary organizations consider it important to share all the information with their employees. In fact, it is said to be the foundation of the new organizations where the management not only reveals all the occurrences and future related decisions with the workers but also invite further suggestions regarding the issues. Employee participation in decision making process also helps the management to derive training needs from such open discussion forum (Champoux, 2010). Openness in new organizations is also reflected from the method of resource allocation as well. Resource allocation in traditional organizations used to be reactive where deployment of resources was agreed only upon demand placed to the upper management. In fact, the process used to become so lengthy that the sometimes it became difficult to complete the on-going projects on time. The new organizations have shown better compliance with environmental and economic norms while allocating resources. The resources are allocated in the new organizations very proactively which means employees possess an information regarding the level of organizational resources (money, material and time) and they are provided with access of such materials depending upon their job responsibilities. Indeed, the projects development becomes swifter in the new organizations. Moreover, organizations show broad-minded approach while procuring raw materials as well. Due to massive utilization of technologies, exploitation of critical resources has also increased to a great extent. However, the companies are opting for alternative and renewable sources of energies such as solar energy and energies obtained from recyclable items (Wood and Demirbag, 2012). For instance, the famous San Francisco based furniture retaining company IKEA has reduces the level of wastage up to 90% and the aggregate energy consumption has been declined to one third of the total energy consumption of the company in 2015. Moreover, 30% of the total energy consumed by the company comes from renewable sources. Such concern of this present-day organization, towards securing sustainability issues is definitely an example of openness of these new organizations. Prior to this age of modernization, less emphasis was given upon performance review and appraisal of the employees. Behaviour scientists have proved that lack of recognition for good works in old structured organizations has result in detrimental employee performances and thus, generated considerable employee dissatisfaction. Most of the organizations in present time are performance oriented as well. However, performance of employees is enhanced by such organizations through associating employee performances with various monetary and non- monetary incentives. Appraising performance in a structured way, using scientific tool of performance appraisal, facilitates the employees to receive a constructive criticism regarding their work and motivates them to perform more efficiently so that they can be promoted to the next level of the organizational hierarchy. Most importantly, the new organizations have expressed their view that as employee base is the most important resource of the organization, kind efforts of whom always aids the company to accomplish its objectives. Hence, the company should also never think twice to share a larger part of its profit with their workforce, without whom the business could have never reached the heights (Powell and DiMaggio, 2012.). Such motivation of employers and management in new organizations portrays the openness of such organizations. Conclusion The essay attempts to answer two significant questions from organizational behaviour. The first question deals with relevance of bureaucratic principles in organizational framework whereas the second question involves requirement for identification of the key characteristic of new organizations, based on which openness of the contemporary organizations can be proved. Reviewing the researchers’ opinion regarding bureaucratic principles it can be understood that excessive emphasis on organizational structure, policies and regulations have made the concept inapplicable in the modern-day organizations. In fact, evaluating the characteristics of the contemporary organizations it has become more prominent that such organizations are more “open” in terms of structure, management participation, flow of communications and in all other ways if compared to the old bureaucratic organizations. Reference List Adler, P. S., 2012. PERSPECTIVE—The Sociological Ambivalence of Bureaucracy: From Weber via Gouldner to Marx. Organization Science, 23(1), pp. 244 – 266. Barry, J., 2000. Organization and Management: A Critical Text. Boston: Cengage Learning EMEA. Buttrick, J., 1952. The Inside Contract System. Journal of Economic History, 12(3), pp. 205-222. Casey, C., 2002. Critical Analysis of Organizations: Theory, Practice, Revitalization. London: SAGE Champoux, J. E., 2010. Organizational Behavior: Integrating Individuals, Groups, and Organizations. London: Routledge. Greenwood, R. and Hinings, C. R., 2012. Understanding Radical Organizational Changes, Bringing Together The Ole and The New Institutionalization. The Academy of Management Review, 21(4), pp. 1022-1054. Grey, C., 2013. Bureaucracy and Scientific Management. London: SAGE. Powell, W. W. and DiMaggio, P. J., 2012. The New Institutionalism in Organizational Analysis. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Taylor, F. W., 1919. The Principles of Scientific Management. New York: Harper & Brothers. Wood, G. and Demirbag, M., 2012. Handbook of Institutional Approaches to International Business. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar Publishing. Read More