Organizations use various management approaches depending on their needs. One should note that various administrative techniques apply to different situations implying. Thus, case-specific characteristics determine the kind or type of governance in an organization. Among the various forms of governing used bureaucracy has received negative reviews as its strengths are underrecognized. An author, Paul du Gay, argued for bureaucracy stating that it provides organizations with a rational outlook on its operations. In this regard, having a body of non-partisan officials, for instance, avoids bias in decision-making thereby steering the organization towards realistic and achievable goals. While such a type of governing might be subject to limited understanding of some issues, it is, nevertheless, an efficacious approach.
Exploring the perception of bureaucracy, du Gay (2000) noted that “… bureaucrats are rendered inhuman through their representation as specialists without soul and ‘automata of the paragraphs’” (p. 4). Based on the foresaid description of bureaucracy and in particular, those who champion it, one could notice the bias the phenomenon in question. The critics largely concentrate on the structure of a bureaucratic system whereby non-elected officials will the power to make decisions on behave of a particular system, in this case, a community, society, or organization. However, in support of a bureaucratic form of governance, Nielsen and Moynihan (2016) cited that there is no clarity in responsibility attribution in a governing structure run by elected officials. Their partisan representation is aligned with differing ideologies which undermine reaching a consensus on critical matters. Therefore, a comparative look at the influence of elected officials on the quality and smoothness of governance demonstrates that the bureaucratic approach has great potential in realizing organizational goals and objectives.
Delegate your assignment to our experts and they will do the rest.
Marx Weber is a renowned scholar whose works have had considerable impact in various fields such as religion, politics, economics, education, law, among others. When it comes to governance, Weber is known for the concept of rationalization. Thomson and McHugh (2009) noted that emergence of large-scale organizations established a link between bureaucracy thereby creating a reliable form of rationalization. The implication is that bureaucracy, compared to other forms of governing, bases on a rationalistic evaluation of an organization’s operations relative to its access to resources, among other factors. Heinrichs (2016) explained that when leaders rationalize, “… they can reformulate events as abstract beliefs or principles, cognitive models to be applied at the discretion of the user” (p. 289). Understandably, rationalization implies that the administrative body in an organization consciously controls behavior in terms of managing resources and making decisions based on an evaluation of the entity’s capacity. Thus, bureaucracy allows for the management to assess its position in the market addressing any in house gaps or limitations that could be affecting its operations. From such an assessment, it becomes easy to identify measures that can help improve the entity’s overall performance.
Despite the efficiency of bureaucracy in governance, Nielsen and Moynihan (2016) explained that in most cases, bureaucracies are regarded as being at greater risk of blame compared to being avenues for credit-claiming opportunities. The argument is that, for instance, proponents of Weber’s rationalistic approach are more of blame minimizers rather than credit-claiming maximizers. The argument here is that bureaucracy is subject to manipulation and that instead of looking to demonstrate the effectiveness of the said approach as a governing technique, it is used to minimize blame. However, Du Gay (2000) provided support for bureaucracy arguing that bureaucracy appreciates the uniqueness of different entities which explains its inclination towards rationalization. Du Gay (2000) noted that “… highly differentiated societies are comprised of many discrete ethical domains and these neither represent different versions of some single homogenous good nor fall into any natural hierarchy” (p. 5). Therefore, those who criticize bureaucracies should consider the variation in different entities or societies thereby making it hard a universal governing technique. Thus, a major strength of bureaucracy is that rationalization promotes a rationalistic assessment of the facts or features of a particular case thereby leading to formulation of informed measures. In this regard, the concept that bureaucrats are blame minimizers as opposed to credit-claiming maximizers is refuted.
Authors King and Lawley (2016) noted that the bureaucratic system is characterized as being a petty officialdom, inflexible and unthinking. Its critics base their arguments using the perspective that bureaucracy undermines an open-minded outlook on the possibility of positive future outcomes and is, instead, limited to the current hence its rationalistic approach. The idea is that bureaucrats have limited vision regarding the future thereby making them unable to take risks as they govern using a conservative approach which is limited in nature. Nevertheless, Du Gay (2000) explained that the hierarchy in a bureaucratic system ensures a steady control on behavior. One ought to consider that managing the workforce in a larger organization there is a likelihood for indiscipline and disorganization. However, bureaucracy has provision for an extension of hierarchy which means that management of a considerable large body of employees is possible (King and Lawley, 2016). Therefore, it becomes evident that bureaucracy has and continues to have great potential in promoting success in an organization.
Conclusion
Bureaucracy is negatively perceived and is described as being inflexible. However, the said approach of governance is efficient in various ways. The use of a rationalistic approach ensures the organization addresses its challenges or needs from a realistic point of view and not in basing decisions on abstract expectations. Furthermore, the ability to extend hierarchies means that through a bureaucratic system, the management can control the behavior of workers who can, in some cases, become undisciplined leading to disorganization.
References
Du Gay, P. (2000). In Praise of Bureaucracy: Weber-Organization-Ethics . SAGE.
Henricks, T. 2016. Reason and Rationalization: A theory of modern play. American Journal of Play , 8(3), pp. 287-324.
King, D. and Lawley, S. 2016. Organizational Behavior . Oxford University Press.
Nielsen, P. and Moynihan, D. (2016). How Do Politicians Attribute Bureaucratic Responsibility for Performance? Negativity Bias and Interest Group Advocacy. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory , 27(2), 269-283.
Thompson, P. and McHugh, D. 2009. Work Organisations: A Critical Approach . Macmillan Education.
