Advantages and Disadvantages of Bureaucratic Management - Example

Student: ID: Tutor: Course title: Course code: Institutional affiliation: Date of submission: Advantages and disadvantages of bureaucratic systems in the past and the present At the onset of industrialized economies around the world and especially in America and Europe, there emerged a need for devising a way of making the rapidly growing systems work for the benefit of organizations and the economy as a whole. Consequently, large organizations including government entities and big businesses adopted the idea of bureaucracy. It is then that bureaucracy emerged as a preferred way of doing things in organizations (Dwyer, 2005). Bureaucracy has been glorified and castigated in equal measure towards the end of the 20th century. As time goes by bureaucracy is being viewed as an impediment to success and dynamism in organizations today as noted by Johnson, Wood, Brewster, & Brookes (2009). In light of the never ending debate on bureaucracy and its impact on management, this paper seeks to explore the advantages and disadvantages of bureaucracy in the past and the present to build a case on whether bureaucracy is essential in achieving efficiency and effectiveness in organizations today. This will be achieved through exhaustive literature review on bureaucracy and its development, analysis of differences between past and present management in reference to bureaucratic management and analysis of whether bureaucracy can indeed flourish in the current managerial context. Human beings have been using organizations for a long time now to achieve collective goals and objectives. It was only through organizations that the ancient Egyptians built the pyramids and brilliantly working irrigation systems (Dwyer, 2005). According to Dwyer, this would not have been achieved without formal organization. A formal organization is what Dwyer (2009) defines as an entity deliberately ad consciously created to achieve specified goals. Dwyer likens bureaucracy to such an arrangement. According to Johnson et al (2009), bureaucracy is in itself a formal organizations characterized by centralized, hierarchically organised authority that emphasizes impersonal work relationships, technical knowledge and rationality. Bureaucracy roots can be traced back to the ideas and views of classical theorists such as Durkheim who believed labour in the society which is itself an organization had to be divided to achieve organic solidarity. By this Durkheim felt roles should be clearly spelt out for everybody to play their part in an orderly predictable manner which is a key characteristic of bureaucratic system that are known for rigidity and defined way of doing things (Dwyer, 2005). According to Weber who wrote widely on bureaucracy and society as functional organization, bureaucracy should exhibit fixed division of labour, hierarchical positions, administration on written directives and adherence to laid out rules, full time commitment to official activities by highly trained personnel. According to Weber then, bureaucracy was and should be considered a technically superior method of administration, coordination and control which cannot be rivalled by any other. Weber actually stated that once established, it is difficult to phase out bureaucracy (Walton, 2005). Hodgson (2004) narrowly expounds on bureaucracy as dependent on hierarchically imposed rules founded on authority. To Hodgson then bureaucracy is simply a way of extending managerial control of an organization through authoritative means manifested in rules that are to be adhered to strictly by members of an organization. From the definitions and elaboration of bureaucracy it can be seen as a practical way of managing complex activities especially in organizations that are large in size. Bureaucracy has not only been present in the business world. It has been most evident in politics and social attempts to manage societies which form organizations of complex nature (Stazyk & Goerdel, 2010). Socialism was indeed a form of bureaucracy in itself advocated for by the likes of Karl Marx and Lenin. It involved developing skills in people and coordinating economic activities for the benefit of the society at the end. To achieve the results, there had to be a high degree of coordination as opposed to capitalism where everybody plays their own undefined role to contribute to societal welfare. Ultimately socialism could not hold since the bureaucratic system stifled innovation, creativity and dynamism in the system (Dwyer, 2005). All the same bureaucracy has thrived well to ensure organizations are self sustaining as envisioned by Weber who viewed bureaucracy as the most appropriate way of managing human activity to achieve maximum productivity through managerial power and work specialization. All the views converge to one understanding that bureaucracy is indeed a system that specifies what is to be done, by who, how it will be done and when it should be done. According to Walton (2005) this is meant to increase predictability, control and efficiency in the system. Over the years there are some scholars such as Balle (1999) and Hodgson (2004) who feel that bureaucracy is indeed a wonderful invention of the human civilization as it seeks to advance development of the human kind politically, socially and economically. The post-bureaucratic proponents have been advancing the argument that bureaucracy is an inappropriate method of managing organizations that stifles their development and dynamism (Sørensen, 2007). All the same there must be a good thing about bureaucracy explaining why it has been a preference for many organizations over the past one century. The fact that it has been in use for long also should not be a reason to defend bureaucracy as the best management method for today since as times change so do things. Bureaucracy according to (Balle, 1999), brings about order of doing things especially when it comes to management of skilled members of an organization who have different skills knowledge and specialization. Such systems can only survive let alone thrive when coordination between the different functions is achieved. Bureaucracy is then a good way of achieving that by setting out roles clearly and putting in place rules that should be adhered to. This achieves order which members of the organization understand. It brings about a predictable environment that management can rely on to plan about the present and the future. Through the same rules and authority established in bureaucratic organizations, members develop a high sense of discipline since punishment and rewards are clearly understood by members, also everybody is aware of their roles and they know if they don’t accomplish their tasks then the whole system will not succeed and it will be them to blame for such failure (Adler, 1999). Bureaucracy brings about specialization and it was intended for by Weber. Through specialization the system can effectively and efficiently go about its activities. Everybody within a bureaucratic system understands their roles and responsibilities clearly. There is always somebody who does what in a bureaucratic system and that is why it may take time to get things done in such a system since everybody can only do what they are mandated to do and can’t get into another’s job. Specialization increases skill development and high quality of output since an employee is less constrained (Walton, 2005). It is also possible to have standardized output from a bureaucratic system as opposed to a system that lacks clearly defined roles. In large systems there is a high degree of diversity which can only be overcome by standardizing people, procedures and measures. Standardization is a key characteristic of bureaucracy which seeks to eliminate individual variability in an organization for high level of functionality (Balle, 1999). From the highlight then it is clear that big organization will most definitely need a high level of coordination which cannot be achieved without implementing some of the measures that create bureaucracy as defined by Weber. There will be the need to standardize people, procedures and measures. There will also be a need to delegate and coordinate thereby creating positions and authority (Sørensen, 2007). All this is unachievable without a functional bureaucracy as proposed by Weber. Bureaucracy has however been described as a rigid system that reacts slow to changes in the system. Adler (1999) actually suggests that firms whose core mandate is innovation and creativity should shun bureaucracy as it stifles innovation and creativity through the rigid structure. With bureaucracy it is difficult to bend the rules and gets things done quickly. Everything has to follow a well laid down procedure. There are rules and procedures to be strictly adhered to. The rules shield the management from making critical errors but then alienate the management from the outside world. Balle (1999), notes that outsiders find it difficult navigating past the many layers established by bureaucracies and thus get frustrated at how slow the system can get. Members of the organization as well don’t feel part of the organization as positions and authority divide the members between powerful and less powerful with privileges accorded to each depending on position. As a result workers may be less committed to objectives of the organization as they don’t own the ideas used and their personal creativity and innovation is sacrificed for the sustenance of the bureaucracy. The system is favoured for organizations that engage in routine activities but bureaucracy has been blamed for stifling the development of organization that operate in highly dynamic industries such as technology industries where product lifecycles are relatively short. Creative employees in such organizations often get frustrated by system constraints in their quest to be innovative in working styles and product development (Sørensen, 2007). The current business environment is one characterized by rapid globalization, increase in knowledge penetration and heightened access to financial services and technological advancement. The playing ground has become more competitive and unpredictable for businesses necessitating the need for organization to be more dynamic in reacting to external environment. Bureaucratic management may be viewed as rigid and inflexible especially by the highly knowledgeable employees and managers working in organizations today. To these employees, bureaucracy limits their potential to express their creativity and in so doing help the organizations compete effectively. Towards the end of the 20th century Peter Drucker predicted that organizations are going to become flatter eliminating the pyramid kind of structure which glorifies positions and authority at the expense of coherence and organizational dynamism (Balle, 1999). According to Drucker bureaucracy has a high capacity to manage routine and predictable matters through the defined chain of command and rules but it lacks the ability to react swiftly to changes. It presents a challenge then for bureaucratic systems both internally and externally as today’s workforce comprises employees with diverse and specialized competence levels as opposed to traditional work setting where employees had limited diversity in specialization and could thus fit well in a defined system. New management philosophy of behavioural as opposed to scientific management has emerged where managers eek to lead organizations through collaboration with employees effectively eliminating bureaucratic features such as rigid hierarchies and strict adherence to procedures. In light of all this changes and realities it is therefore illogical to expect highly bureaucratic system to fit well in today’s work place (Balle, 1999). All the same Johnson et al, (2009) feels that some level of bureaucracy has to exist especially in large organizations to coordinate activities but then effort should be made to increase efficiency and promote flexibility in response to external and internal changes. Conclusion Bureaucratic management has been hailed in the past as the most appropriate way of managing complex organizations and their activities; it brings about predictability, specialization and standardization of activities within an organization. It however does not encourage dynamism in reaction of external changes and serves to alienate management from external environment and employees from the core of the organization. Due to rapid changes in terms of globalization, technological advancement and diversity of competence in employees, bureaucracy as it was cannot be feasible in today’s management but rather it needs to be redefined in a way that it will reduce the levels of hierarchies and red-tape tendencies to spur creativity, innovation and dynamism in today’s competitive and changing business environment. References Adler, P. 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. Dwyer, R. J. 2005. Formal organizations in contemporary society. Management Decision , Vol.43 no.9, pp.1232-1248. Hodgson, D. 2004. Project work: The Legacy of Bureaucratic Control in the Post-Bureaucratic Organisation. Organisation , Vol.11 No.1, pp.81-100. Johnson, P., Wood, G., Brewster, C., & Brookes, M. 2009. The Rise of Post-Bureaucracy: Theorists’ F ancy or Organizational Praxis? International Sociology , Vol.24 No.1, pp.24-37. Sørensen, J. B. 2007. Bureaucracy and Entrepreneurship: Workplace Effects on Entrepreneurial Entry. Administrative Science Quarterly , 52, pp.387-412. Stazyk, E. C., & Goerdel, 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 , pp.645-672. Walton, E. J. 2005. The Persistence of Bureaucracy: A Meta-analysis of Weber’s Model of Read More