Bureaucratic System of Organizational Leadership - Example

Bureaucratic Systems Name: Tutor: Course: Date: Introduction The aim of this essay was to discuss the major advantages and disadvantages of bureaucratic systems at present and in the past. It also investigated the appropriateness of such systems on ensuring efficient and effective management of current workplace. Bureaucracy as a leadership concept gained increased use in the late 19th up to mid 20th century. Several authors have made contributions into fields of management and how employees can maximize productivity as a result of better and effective leadership (Bigley, Gregory & Karlene 2001). Bureaucratic leadership has been linked to thorough expert training of personnel, division of labor, written rules and full-time commitment to official activities of the organization. Bureaucracy has been criticized for lack of concern and exploitation of workers. Formal structures also bear the brunt of misconducts, disasters and mistakes in organizations. Public organizations are associated with complex institutional and political dysfunctions owing to inherent bureaucracies adopted from the system (Friedman, 1990). The organizational environment is full of red tape, rigid, inefficient and resistant to innovation and change. Most of the authors discussing and contributing to leadership discourse still support the contribution of Marx Weber in employing the factors of production using a hierarchical structure. The essay concluded that though it requires some modifications, bureaucratic structure is still effective and efficient in the current workplace. Bureaucratic System of Organizational Leadership Some scholars have focused on dysfunctions of bureaucracy by criticizing the works of Marx Weber. However, many scholars still support the view of public organizations reigning in effectiveness and efficiency. According to Stazyk and Goerdel (2010), absence of traditional market-based controls is catastrophic. In public organizations, it appears many bureaucratic dysfunctions trace from the desire to secure control and coordination of all employees. As argued by Downs (1967), hierarchy within public organizations is reflected by deliberate attempts to secure cooperation and coordination hence lowering instances of conflict among employees. Organizations which are larger and more diverse ultimately possess higher hierarchy levels. It can be learned that high hierarchical levels have a potential of distorting information flow and communication within organizations. This leads to authority leakage and confusion over goals across the hierarchy (Downs 1967; Tullock 1965). High hierarchical levels potentially increases organizational rigidity and develop pressures among employees to assume the role of conservers. For instance, the US Department of State is hierarchical with clear authority and defined responsibilities. Sorensen (2007) in Bureaucracy and Entrepreneurship: Workplace Effects on Entrepreneurial Entry claims that people working in more bureaucratic organizations are less probable to launch business ventures of their own. This emerged from a net of a range of observable individual characteristics in which people working old and large firms are considerably less probable to become entrepreneurs (Friedman, 1990). It can be seen that variety of analyses note robust organizations as crucial in affecting organizational size. Size is seen as a major driver of bureaucratic processes and structures in organizations (Bigley, Gregory & Karlene 2001). For instance, workers in the UK department of investigations are affected by working conditions which limits then to exposure to entrepreneurial opportunities. Private firms like Siemens, Proctor and Gamble, General Electric are old firms with inherent hierarchical structure in which employees likely retires working. In another twist, Walton (2010) takes a more optimistic approach by providing a model of bureaucratic control for developing new organizational forms. Though abhorred by many, bureaucracy facilitates opportunities. Later structures are temporary, flexible work systems, networked activities and flatter hierarchies (Berger & Luckman, 1966). Innovations can improve opportunities, work intensification, empowerment and involvement for employees to different magnitudes. Apple Company for instance works on a reorganized workflow structure but is still hierarchical since reorganizations and reductions lowers documentation and procedural standardization and while centralizing decision-making (Friedman, 1990). This leadership system offers moderately strong relationships based on model attributes providing adequate versatility for changes to some elements without changing affecting others. Roberts and Bigley (2001) clearly shows how fundamental bureaucratic components like roles, procedures, routines, and reporting relationships are significant sources of organizational responses flexibility in highly demanding situations. Through the redesign process, flexibility of the bureaucratic control model keeps the integrity of all network attributes while supporting the control objectives of senior management (Berger & Luckman, 1966). On the contrary, Johnson et al (2009) argues that post-bureaucratic division of labor is seen as more informal, requires high levels of socio-technical involvement, de-differentiated and flexible to employees so that their roles are extended to their local participation in decision making of implemented strategic decisions (Berger & Luckman, 1966). The dimension by Johnson et al harnesses employees’ local adaptability and knowledge that allow discretion exercise and involvement in self-management in a responsibly autonomous way. Post bureaucratic styles like matrix and functional structures have reinforced the competitive struggle ideologically. The responsible autonomy presence is a principal indicator of the post-bureaucracy development (Friedman, 1990). Post-bureaucratic structures reflect increased involvement in the ability of employees to provide information to management and decision-making. For instance, United Nations have organs running several programs at the same time under different managements but share an array of workforce. It can be realized that larger organizations takes increased utility of responsible autonomy since current hierarchical constraints are undynamic and inefficient bureaucracies no longer sustainable in an increasingly destabilized working environment and the wake of increasing competition (Adler, 2001; Beneviste, 1994). This means that larger organizations can reap economies of scale by freeing up administrative resources and devote to sustenance and implementation of innovative forms and human resource development work in an organization. Balle (1999) in Making Bureaucracy Work opines that bureaucratic organization remains up to now only possibility of organizing largish corporate or social systems. The author suggests that bureaucratic system has lasted for a long time to prove its worth. These examples are collegial systems like old fashioned universities, or highly modern companies operating on the principle of network organizations. These are viable options to the bureaucratic organization (Beneviste, 1994). Fortunately, none of these other organizational forms can handle the high activity volumes like bureaucracy. Overall, bureaucracies merit at the efficient utility of resources (Berger & Luckman, 1966). Outside observers or customers witnesses their wastefulness, but taking into consideration the volume of activity handled by such systems. Bureaucratic waste proportion is not that large when compared to activity/resources volume ratios. The system works through standardization, specialization and coordination. By and large, hospital staff in UK and France still holds to the bureaucracy ideals of dedicated, fair systems for the common good (Friedman, 1990). All leadership structures are burdened by all sorts of basic challenges of effectiveness to actual quality of work and from financing issues. In many modern institutions using post-bureaucratic models, middle managers are lost in ways of effective management and some do not even conjure they have to lead. Consequently, after receiving initial training, the staff is less or more left on their own to handle devices at the expense of quality (Berger & Luckman, 1966). As expected, it sets the scene for many sorts of unnecessary arbitrary practices. For example, a young recruit working in the kitchen of a big French hospital not told of what to do try to give a hand there and here, learning as he goes has the best intentions in the world. In the wake of facing a quality auditor, let alone best practice, the worker may not even comprehend what is required of him/her (Berger & Luckman, 1966). Unfortunately, this situation is frequent in large bureaucracies. Dwyer (2005) maintains that social organizations are blatantly open systems and comprise transactions between environments and the organizations. Furthermore, Dwyer postulate that social systems, inclusive of organizations comprise a pattern of activities drawn from a number of individuals. Organizational activities are bounded by space, time and are relatively enduring (Hoerr, 1990). The author suggests that it is impossible to determine precisely how and when someone invented that tasks could be finished more effectively in formal organizations. It offers an historical perspective where it is convenient and fashionable for man to establish and organize organizations to attain specific goals. For instance, in ancient China and Egypt, the great rulers created organizations to develop great irrigation systems, construct pyramids and build monuments and great walls. These are evidence of engineering accomplishment that may have demanded highly developed structures of a formal organization (Berger and Luckman, 1966). Indeed, other structural developments may have contributed to human dependency on formal organizations and its historical emergence. For instance, the fundamental population increase and resulting shift to urban centers from rural areas demanded growth in formal organizations so as to efficiently coordinate the larger numbers of people. On the same vein, the growth and centralization of capital, the invention of a money economy and the creation of progressively larger global corporations have gone abreast with the formal organizational development (Marchak, 1988). Hoerr (1990) agrees that the metaphor of orchestra may be appropriate for group management but the deskilling of jobs like retail clerk, machine operator, and assembly line worker is appropriate and compatible with the tight control offered by the pyramid-shaped organization. With bureaucracy, the path to the future is open. It is clear that extremely diverse choices are available to the management and the organization at large (Berger & Luckman, 1966). This short excursion into the formal organization ideology has provided but a glimpse of its diversity and complexity. It is also clear the bureaucracy has many avenues for future exploration. Hodgson (2004) downplays the role of bureaucratic organizations in modern times. It asserts that critical and materialist circles are interested in breaking the hierarchical control and traditions of bureaucratic work organizations. Project management has been put forward as an alternative to the challenges of bureaucracy. It cites many tried and tested techniques that have the capability of coping with expert labor, discontinuous work and unpredictable changes while delivering the levels of control and reliability in traditional bureaucracy (Beneviste, 1994). In a study at BuzzBank it was found that rules and regulations as well as high need for internal trust in the organization did not work according the project management methodology or strategic plan. Hales (2002) in Bureaucracy-lite and Continuities in Managerial Work says that despite a radical shift to more networked organizations, there is a limited change from bureaucracy with its rules and hierarchy still in place. It negates the fact that decentralized and empowered organizations reigning in post bureaucracy are being superseded by coordination and facilitation in a new structure. It concludes that managerial roles are still defined by vertical accountability and individual responsibility (Bigley, Gregory & Karlene 2001). Adler (1999) in Building better Bureaucracies argues that some un-bureaucratic organizations can be enabling or coercive with oppressive, stifling and ugly atmosphere. The author points out that organizations should adopt a newer form of bureaucratic system where power is endorsed from below so that workers are encouraged to participate actively in creating documented procedures and encouraged on provides ways and solutions of doing things (Beneviste, 1994). Conclusion The essay has established that bureaucratic system is effective and efficient in current workplace especially involving large organizations. It found that the concept of division of labor, employee training and adherence to rules are some of the advantages that make public organizations to function. The essay also found out that bureaucracy is full of red tape, slow and ineffective when it comes to quick decision making (Beneviste, 1994). Some authors proposed the usage of post-bureaucratic systems which allow for flexibility, quick decisions and close employee input (Tullock, 1965). Many scholars are of the opinion that bureaucratic systems should be blended with matrix or project management system to increase product or service functions. The essay affirms that bureaucratic models are effective and efficient in the current workplace based on the arguments of many conservative scholars. References Adler, PS 1999, ‘Building better bureaucracies’ Academy of Management Executive, vol. 13, no. 4, pp 36-47. Balle, M 1999, ‘Making bureaucracy work’, Journal of Management in Medicine, vol. 13, no. 3, pp 190-200. Beneviste, G 1994, Twenty-First Century Organization: Analyzing Current Trends. San Francisco, CA: Jossey Bass. Berger, P & Luckman, T 1966, The Social Construction of Reality, Doubleday, New York, NY. Bigley, G A & Karlene H R 2001, ‘The incident command system: High-reliability organizing for complex and volatile task environments’. Academy of Management Journal 44/6: 1281–1299. Downs, A 1967, Inside bureaucracy. New York, NY: Boston, Little, Brown. Dwyer, R J 2006, ‘Formal organizations in contemporary society’, Management Decision, vol. 43, no. 9, pp 1232-1248. Friedman, A 1990, ‘Management Strategies, Techniques and Technology: towards a Complex Theory of the Labour Process’, in D. Knights and H. Willmott (eds) Labour Process Theory. London: Macmillan. Hales, C 2002, ‘”Bureaucracy-lite” and Continuities in Managerial Work’, British Journal of Management, vol 13, pp 51-66. Hoerr, J 1990, “Business shares the blame for workers low skills”, Business Week, June 25, p. 71. Hodgson, D E 2004, ‘Project Work: The Legacy of Bureaucratic Control in the Post- Bureaucratic Organization’, Organisation, January, vol. 11(1), pp 81-100. Johnson, P, Wood, G, Brewster, C, Brookes, M 2009, ‘The Rise of Post-Bureaucracy: Theorists’ Fancy or Organizational Praxis?’, International Sociology, pp 24-37. Marchak, P 1988, Ideological Perspectives on Canada, McGraw-Hill Ryerson, Toronto. Sorensen, J B 2007, ‘Bureaucracy and Entrepreneurship: Workplace Effects on Entrepreneurial Entry’, Administrative Science Quarterly, 52, pp 387-412. Stazyk, E C, Geordel, H T 2010, ‘The Benefits of Bureaucracy: Public Managers’ Perceptions of Political Support, Goal Ambiguity, and Organizational Effectiveness’, Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 21, pp 645-672. Tullock, G 1965, The politics of bureaucracy. Washington, DC: Public Affairs Press. Walton, E J 2005, ‘The Persistence of Bureaucracy: A Meta-analysis of Weber’s Model of Bureaucratic Control’, Organization Studies, 26(4), pp 569-600. Read More