Bureaucracy in the 21st century: friend or foe

Nowadays is very common to consider ourselves members of the new society, the well developed
one and in continue evolution, taking distance from the past. But actually, the point that we are
missing out is that all our society is based on principles launched almost a century ago, and almost
all what the enlightened minds of that time predicted it’s really actual even in these times. One of
the saddest parts of this fact is that although the expectances grow, we are struggling to keep up
with them and we tend to fail. One of the theoretical models that lays beneath of all-around society
is the one Max Weber put forward, the bureaucratic model.

Starting from the principles of Max Weber ideal model, and also taking account of the presented
study case, “How Kristin died, George Larnder, JR.” we can establish that the pure bureaucratic
model doesn’t really apply, more of that, we can see around us the disadvantages of it, rather than
the benefits.

Regarding the study case, we can analyze it from three large perspectives: Kristin’s, Cartier’s and
the rest of the “system”. One of the major actors, who helped at her murder, it’s Kristin itself. Even
if she noticed there was a problem, in the beginning she didn’t see anyone or asked for the proper
help: “Kristin didn't call the police right away”. She also had reasons for doing that. First, it was
her attitude and also the fact that she thought she can handle herself the “problem” and also the
lack of specialized help in this kind of matters.

The second actor in this case was Cartier. We can consider him a delinquent. Rough childhood, no
implication from his parents, the system didn’t offer him support. He was raised more on the streets
and also “for the streets”. When he encountered difficulties he always found a way and escaped
quickly and with the smallest penalties. "The state supported me all my life, with free doctors and
dentists and everything”. Being multiple times charged, but often considered as a mental ill person
he always received a very soft treatment, and also a lot of benefits in the places he was retained.

Neither Kristin or Cartier aren’t fully responsible for what happened. It was “The System”. Well,
this might sound like a cliché, but actually we can see it now right in front of us. Here, for this

Cătălin Dorneanu, 1st year MSP

study case we can spot a few lacks. Firstly, the system never offered help by himself, missing of
involvement or auto intimation. All the authorities that got involved just did their job, nothing
more and also didn’t try to check the evolution of the problem.

Also, regarding Cartier, the system often left him free, not under observation and also he never
was convicted for all his crimes, summed up. He was an active - problem maker but even that
taken to account, no major penalties were raised for him. “Three months later, Cartier, already on
probation, plea-bargained his way to probation again pleading guilty to malicious destruction.
Charges of burglary and cruelty to animals were dismissed; the court saw nothing wrong with
putting him back on the streets”. The system always found a way to let him go, or just get rid of
him, even if he was dangerous. Actually, even if he was charged, or retained “He denied making
the threats and was released the next day.”, or the authorities just let him go faster because “He's
been a very good prisoner and we're overcrowded”.

Even that if this example sounds incredible and impossible, it’s not just for us. Also, parts of the
system recognized that all what happened was incredible, and a big problem: "There is no such
thing as a routine case. I don't live that, but I believe that. All bureaucrats should be reminded of
that.". The fact is that we are humans, we have different needs, we are not all the same and also
the cases or the problems that may occur, each one is different. The fact was that of all the actors
involved in her case, no one could put all the pieces head to head and also have authority to do
something, and the ones who had authority didn’t use it properly: ““That's amazing”, said another
probation officer who looked at the record. “They dropped the more serious charges””.

Also, one of the other problems that occurred this study case was the lack of communication
between different institutions: “Cartier's record of psychiatric problems, his admissions to the
Boston mental health center in January and April 1991 and his reliance on a drug to control manic-
depression should have disqualified him from the court-run violence program. “lf we had
information that he had a prior history of mental illness, or that he was treated in a clinic or that he
had been hospitalized, then what we probably would have done is recommend that a full-scale
psychological evaluation be done for him””. One of the major flaws of this process was the fact

Cătălin Dorneanu, 1st year MSP

that he was investigated an interned in multiple places, but no one did a full file on him, and also
didn’t shared it further.

Even though she finally took an action, going to the police, and started to file against him, the
papers took too long and till the warrant came out she was already killed. ““Probation have to be
served by the police, who don’t them seriously enough”, said another police officer”.

The actual model presented in the study case has a high level of ambiguity. No one reported to a
higher level of authority. Also, there wasn’t any connection between different actors established,
so that anyone can know the full details of the case.

We can’t say that his model fails, it’s just not updated to the current needs. It should evolve, adding
the informal part and also add the value of the human, which is not just a small part of the system.
Also, more communication is needed, spotting the need to have an interconnected public system.

In conclusion, if it’s about of the current times, bureaucracy has a lot of advantages. It helps in
keeping order, offers an equal sharing of the work, keeps track of the operations and establishes
equal treatment for all the customers. All what we have to do is to complete the model to the actual
needs. Part of the things that need to be changed come along with the New Public Management,
which integrates the essential part needed to the bureaucratic model: development on the horizontal
of the hierarchy, common databases between institutions, leadership skills, teamwork. We can’t
actually loose the bureaucratic model and probably we will never do it, we just have to consider it
our friend and help him evolve to the current needs.

Cătălin Dorneanu, 1st year MSP

Bibliography

Provided class materials:

 Mora Cristina, Balica Dan, Ţiclău Tudor, Organizational theories, Bucureşti, Tritonic
Books, 2013
 Articles, parts of books: How Kristin died, George Larnder, JR.; Max Weber's Theory of
Bureaucracy; The Formal Structure: The Concept of Bureaucracy.

Cătălin Dorneanu, 1st year MSP