Mary Nell Maico

POM - MPA/ 2nd year

Weberian Model Of Bureaucracy

Max Weber, often described as one of the founders of modern social science, defined
bureaucracy as a system of administration characterized by certain features, namely: a
hierarchical structure; clear lines of authority and responsibility; strict rules and regulations;
impersonality; and an emphasis on efficiency.

He then goes on to show how these features can be used to create an efficient organization. He
argues that a bureaucratic organization is one in which tasks are divided up into small,
manageable units, and each unit is overseen by a specialist who has the necessary skills and
knowledge to carry out the task.

This results in an organization that is efficient and effective, as each unit is able to focus on its
own task and work together towards the common goal (Serpa & Ferreira, 2019; Weber, 2016).

Weber”s theory of bureaucracy has been extremely influential, particularly in the realm of public
administration.

It has shaped the way in which public organizations are structured and operated and has had a
significant impact on the way in which sociologists understand and study large organizations –
and their effects on the human psyche.

Bureaucratic Management Theory Of Max Weber

Bureaucratic theory stresses that organizations are formal, rational systems with well-defined
rules and procedures, defined by specialization, hierarchy, well-trained employees, managerial
dedication, and the impartiality of management.

Weber’s ideal type of bureaucracy was described in Economy and Society, published in 1921.

Weber believed that bureaucracies are the most efficient way to organize large organizations due
to the inevitable rationalization and impersonalization of society.

Summary

● Weber both coined and defined the term bureaucracy and detailed ways that
bureaucratic management can be used to treat all members of an organization equally
with a clearly-defined division of labor.
 ● Bureaucracy, as defined by Weber, is an organizational structure characterized by many
rules, standardized processes, procedures, and requirements, as well as a clear and
meticulous division of labor, clear hierarchies, and professional and almost impersonal
interactions between employees.

● These bureaucracies have six major components: task specialization, formal selection,
impersonality, hierarchy, rules, and career orientation. Each of these features are
functional. The division of labor allows workers to have a clear idea of what exactly
they do and what expertise and skills they will employ. Formal selection, or hiring and
placing employees on the basis of their specialties and technical skills, further clarifies
the division of labor.

● Impersonal relationships, meanwhile, eliminate nepotism, politics, and outsider

involvement and emphasizes rational over emotional social actions in decision-making.

● Hierarchy creates a clear picture of class within an organization; rules and regulations
coordinate employee performance and efforts, and career orientation allows
bureaucracies to select candidates primarily based on their competencies, ensuring that
people wind up in the jobs most suitable to them (Sager & Rosser, 2009).

What Is A Bureaucratic Organization?

Weber considered the rationalization of society to be inevitable, creating impersonality in social

relationships and disenchantment with the world (Pollitt, 2008).

For Weber, bureaucracy is the ultimate affirmation of this impersonality. His definition of a
bureaucracy includes several necessary conditions such as “a division of labor”, “hierarchical
authority relationship”, “formal rules and regulations,” and “impersonality”.

This results in an efficient and predictable work environment, which is essential for
organizations that need to process large amounts of information or coordinate complex activities.

Specialization

Specialization is an important aspect of bureaucracy because it allows organizations to divide up

tasks into small, manageable units.

This allows each unit to focus on its own task and work together towards the common goal. The
use of hierarchical authority relationships ensures that each unit is accountable to a higher
authority, which helps to prevent errors and misuse of resources.

Weber argued that tasks should be divided according to the worker’s own abilities. This allows
for workers to be aware of their own roles and worth in the organization. It also eliminates the
need for excessive training, as workers already have the skills and knowledge needed to carry out
their tasks.

To go beyond one”s role is a violation of Weberian bureaucracy, as it eliminates transparency and

a clear division of labor (Serpa & Ferreira, 2019).

Formalized rules

Formalized rules and regulations are essential for bureaucracy because they provide a clear
framework within which behavior must take place. This helps to ensure that all members of the
organization are aware of the expectations and boundaries within which they must work.

This formalization, in increasing the capacity for an organization’s control and direction, enables
the extension of the institution”s field of action (Serpa & Ferreira, 2019).

Formalization also helps to prevent errors and misuse of resources, as there can be clear
consequences for breaking the rules. Weber believed that rules and regulations should be written
down and made public so that everyone is aware of them.

He also argued that they should be applied in a consistent and impartial manner. This ensures that
everyone is treated equally and that favoritism does not play a role in decision-making (Serpa &
Ferreira, 2019).

Hierarchical structure

Bureaucracies are characterized by a hierarchical structure, which means that there is a clear line
of authority from the top of the organization down to the bottom.

This hierarchy ensures that each unit is accountable to a higher authority, which helps to prevent
errors and misuse of resources. It also allows for decisions to be made in a timely and efficient
manner, as they can be made by those with the necessary knowledge and expertise.

Weber believed that the hierarchical structure should be based on merit so that those who are
more capable and qualified are given positions of responsibility.

He also argued that bureaucracy should be staffed by professional workers who have the
necessary skills and knowledge to carry out their tasks. This ensures that organizations are able
to complete their required tasks as quickly as possible (Serpa & Ferreira, 2019).

Well-trained employees

Bureaucracies require well-trained employees because employees need to have the necessary
skills and knowledge to carry out their tasks.
They also need to be able to work together as a team in order to achieve the common goal.
Training helps to ensure that employees are able to collaborate without losing efficiency due to a
lack of common knowledge.

For instance, if a large organization of corporate lawyers does not have common knowledge of
the latest tax-codes, they may be slowed down by disagreement, or worse, allow their client to
carry out illegal activity.

Weber argued that all employees should be trained in their specific roles and that they should
receive ongoing training as new technologies and methods are developed.

This ensures that they are always up-to-date with the latest information and that they can adapt
quickly to changes in the organization (Serpa & Ferreira, 2019).

Managerial dedication

In Weber’s vision of the ideal bureaucracy, managers need to be fully dedicated to their position
and the organization.

This means that they need to be willing to work long hours and make sacrifices for the good of
the organization. It also means that they need to have a deep understanding of the bureaucracy’s
procedures and rules so that they can ensure that everyone is following them correctly.

Weber argued that they should be given a high degree of autonomy so that they can make
decisions quickly and efficiently.

This helps to ensure that the bureaucracy is able to respond quickly to situations that would
otherwise take a large amount of time to filter through higher management (Serpa & Ferreira,
2019).

Impartiality of management

Weber believed that bureaucracy should be characterized by impersonality. This means that
decisions should be made based on objective criteria rather than on personal relationships or
preferences.

This ensures that everyone is treated fairly. Additionally, management must follow the
established rules and keep private businesses separate from their personal views (Serpa &
Ferreira, 2019).

If management is not impartial, it can lead to corruption and nepotism. For example, if a
manager were to award a contract to a friend or relative rather than the most qualified bidder, it
would not only be unfair, but it would also waste the organization’s resources, such as funding
and mentorship.
If management does not follow the rules, it sets a precedent for others to do the same, which can
quickly lead to chaos.

Advantages And Disadvantages Of Bureaucracy

Bureaucracy was regarded by Weber as the most efficient sort of company on a technical level.
On the upside, it manages, he believed, to “eliminate from official business love, hate, and all the
personal, irrational, and emotional elements that escape calculation.” (Weber, 1982).

The idea of bureaucratic efficiency encompasses everything from the rationality and scientificity
of an organization to how effectively it functions on a day-to-day basis — its quality of behavior,
the extent of its field of action, and effectiveness of operation cost (Serpa & Ferreira, 2019).

On the downside, Weber thought of bureaucracy as a system where individuals lost control over
their work and organization. People become “a cogwheel of the machine.” (Cleg, 1990).

People seeking flexibility in the bureaucracy’s rigid rules create exceptions and re-interpretations
of them. Ultimately, the rule – and how it can be made more flexible – becomes the end in itself.

Weber argued that bureaucracies can be made even more efficient by decisions based on general
criteria; increasing the average competence of officials and managers with training; generous
wages that reduce the temptation of corruption; and assessment by public exams that increase
impartiality (Serpa & Ferreira, 2019).

Whereas the sociologist Max Weber (2015) used the model of bureaucracy to represent the
direction of his changing society, Ritzer sees the fast-food restaurant as being more
representative of how contemporary societies are changing.

Examples Of Bureaucratic Organizations

Max Weber”s bureaucratic theory has been used to explain and analyze the workings of many
different types of organizations. Here are a few examples:

Governments

The hierarchical structure of government bureaucracy ensures that each unit is accountable to a
higher authority, the rule of law.

Well-trained employees and managers who are dedicated to their position help to ensure that the
government bureaucracy is able to function effectively as they process both local and national
matters, ranging from construction permits to court decisions and the printing of currency (Toye,
2006).

Corporate Culture
Large businesses often have a complex structures with many different departments and layers of
management. This can make it difficult to communicate and make decisions efficiently.

However, the hierarchical structure of many businesses ensures that each employee has a
clearly-defined set of tasks week-by-week and that they are overseen by managers, whose
performance is, in turn, overseen by other managers (Toye, 2006).

The Military

The military is a good example of an organization that needs to be able to respond quickly to
changes. The hierarchy of the organization allows for those in control to quickly make decisions
that benefit the military’s strategic objectives.

The employees of the military, who all generally receive the same basic training, are able to carry
out their tasks consistently and with a high degree of precision (Toye, 2006).

References

Clegg, S. (1990). Modern organizations: Organization studies in the postmodern world. Sage.

Ferreira, C. M., & Serpa, S. (2019). Rationalization and bureaucracy: Ideal-type bureaucracy by
Max Weber. Humanities & Social Sciences Reviews, 7 (2), 187-195.

Pollitt, C. (2008). Time, policy, management: Governing with the past. oup Oxford.

Sager, F., & Rosser, C. (2009). Weber, Wilson, and Hegel: Theories of modern
bureaucracy. Public Administration Review, 69 (6), 1136-1147.

Toye, J. (2006). Modern bureaucracy (No. 2006/52). WIDER Research Paper.

Udy Jr, S. H. (1959). ” Bureaucracy” and” rationality” in Weber”s organization theory: An

empirical study. American Sociological Review, 791-795.

Weber, M. (1930). The Protestant Ethic and the Spirit of Capitalism. New York, NY: Charles
Scribner”s Sons
(reprint 1958).

Weber, M. (1936). Social actions.

Weber, M. (1947). The theory of social and economic organization. The Free Press, New York,
NY.

Weber, M. (1982). Ensaios de sociologia [Sociology essays]. Organisation and introduction by

H. Gerth and C. Wright Mills.
Weber, M. (2016). Bureaucracy. In Social Theory Re-Wired (pp. 287-292). Routledge.

Weber, M. (2019). Economy and society : A new translation. Harvard University Press.

Human Relations Theory of Organizations

Definition
Human relations theory: a school of organizational thought which focuses on worker satisfaction,
informal workplace organizations, and a means of influencing employee productivity. Unlike
scientism, human relations theory does not view workers as essentially interchangeable parts.

Definition of Human Relations Management Theory

Human Relations management theory is a premise of organizational psychology from the early
twentieth century, which suggests that employee productivity and motivation can be increased
through positive social bonds in the workplace and acknowledgement of the worker as a unique
individual. It holds that improved working conditions (empowerment, participation, positive
treatment) lead to increased productivity.

A Brief History of Human Relations Theory

Human Relations management theory originated between 1924 and 1932 during experiments
conducted at the Hawthorne plant of the Western Electric Company in Cicero, Illinois.1

These studies were started by scholars from the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT),
but Elton Mayo and Fritz J. Roethlisberger of the Harvard Business School became involved in
1927 and eventually popularized the subject.

Human Relations management theory was started by scholars at MIT, but popularized by Elton
Mayo and other "founding fathers of HR" from Harvard Business School.
Around that time, Western Electric had begun to look for ways to “inspire company loyalty,
discourage high employee turnover and unionization, and present a good face to the public.”2

They attempted to accomplish these goals by increasing total compensation and improving
employee well-being in the workplace. The latter of the two methods, increasing employee
well-being in the workplace, is what prompted the Hawthorne Experiments and marked a shift in
management theory from strictly scientific to multidisciplinary.
The Hawthorne plant of the Western Electric Company in Cicero, Illinois was the birthplace of
Human Relations management theory in the 1920s.
In fact, the Hawthorne studies were the first to focus on the work life of employees. From then
on, companies would have an interest in the applications of behavioral, social, and medical
sciences to management and productivity, and scholars (like George Lombard, Paul Lawrence,
and others) began to develop the field of Organizational Behavior.

What Are the Key Principles of Human Relations?

During the Hawthorne Experiments, researchers discovered that employee motivation is

influenced by many factors.

These factors are categorized in a number of ways, but the simplest for understanding Human
Relations is to do it by actor.

Using this method, you can see that four primary categories of actors influence employee
motivation:

Four "Actors" in Human Relations theory

1. The employee
2. Groups of employees
3. Supervisors and managers
4. The organization

By understanding each actor category’s role in the process, an organization can put in place
working conditions that optimize employee motivation and, in turn, productivity.

In each of the following sections, I’ll go over what was discovered about the category and the
Human Relations principles that came as a result.

1. Treat employees well as individuals

As we all know intuitively, a large portion of employee motivation comes from each person as an
individual. Each individual’s motivation is influenced by their unique personality, experiences,
capabilities, circumstance, thoughts, behaviors, and other factors.

As such, a key principle of Human Relations is for organizations to consider individual factors
and how they can be influenced to increase motivation. This can include initiatives that look to
change/improve an employee’s personal circumstance in and outside the workplace as well as
their personal desires, perceptions, and attitudes.

2. Promote positive group values and relationships

Since individuals have social needs and interact together in the workplace, group factors must
also play a role in employee motivation.

As discovered during the Hawthorne Experiments, cliques form and establish informal rules
within the workplace, in turn exercising power and influence on the attitudes and behaviors of all
the individuals involved.

Therefore, a key principle of Human Relations is that an organization must promote positive
group values and relationships so that social pressure will produce teamwork and positive
employee attitudes and behaviors.

If this can be done, results from the study indicate that group productivity will improve as
desired.

3. Ensure effective management and supervision

In addition to individual and group influences, managers and supervisors also impact employee
motivation.

In fact, the Hawthorne studies showed that “many worker behaviors, attitudes, and emotions
have their genesis in their supervisor’s actions” and that “stress and fatigue can be the result of
interactions with supervisors and coworkers.”

In particular, it became clear that an authoritarian leadership style was substantially less
effective than a more democratic/participative approach.
As a result, another key principle of Human Relations is that an organization must ensure that
managers and supervisors:

1. Understand psychology (including motivation and behavior);

2. Are sensitive to employees’ individual and group needs;
3. Communicate effectively;
4. Are supportive and motivating (including giving positive feedback to employees); and
5. Empower employees and allow for some degree of autonomy/control.
To the other extreme, if managers disagreed with company policies and/or become too closely
allied with workers, they were found to limit production and sabotage performance.

Therefore, an organization must also ensure that managers and supervisors fulfill their roles and
responsibilities as leaders and work in the best interests of their company as well.

4. Establish effective organizational conditions

As you may have noticed in the previous three categories, the organization is clearly at the center
of Human Relations. This is because the organization houses and controls the underlying
conditions for all of the aforementioned parties and interactions.

Thus, a key principle of Human Relations is that the organization must create working conditions
that allow for/promote increased individual and group attitudes toward work. This includes the
organization ensuring that:

1. Physical working conditions are safe and conducive to employee performance;

2. Social and other related working conditions promote employee productivity;
3. Employee compensation and benefits are appropriate and effective;
4. Managers and supervisors have and use appropriate leadership skills;
5. Input from managers, supervisors, and employees is incorporated into the organization’s
policies and procedures; and
6. All parties’ interests are aligned.

As was discovered during the Hawthorne Experiments, if an organization can apply these key
principles, then it can achieve the original goals of inspiring company loyalty, discouraging high
employee turnover and unionization, and presenting a good face to the public.

Add ons:

Schools of Thought Related to Human Relations Theory

The simplest way to determine which schools of thought have a relationship with Human
Relations Theory is to examine the theory’s contemporaries.

In the next few sections, we’ll dig deep on the historical context of management theories that
took root around Human Relations Theory:

Management Theory Prior to Human Relations

Just prior to Human Relations Theory, in the late 1800s to early 1900s, the management
theories of Frederick Winslow Taylor, Max Weber, Henri Fayol, and others were most
prominent. They all shared a similarity with Human Relations in that they were a departure from
managerial norms in favor of improvement. That said, they did have their differences.
Henry Fayol's theories were the primary contemporary to schools of thought associated with
Elton Mayo like Human Relations.
Taylor, who is known as the father of Scientific Management, used science to determine “the
most effective and efficient way to accomplish a given task.” Instead of focusing on the
performer of the task (i.e. the employee) as in Human Relations, this approach focused primarily
on the task itself.

Weber, who is known as the father of Sociology, developed the Principles of the Ideal
Bureaucracy, which provide justification of and rules for management decisions. This theory
shared a focus on the individual with Human Relations, but approached things from a
management and leadership perspective rather than a worker’s perspective.

Fayol, who is known for Fayolism or Administrative Theory, developed the 14 Principles of
Management, which detail the responsibilities of managers. This theory considered human needs
and relationships between parties in the workplace like Human Relations, but it focused
primarily on administrative rather than psychological aspects.

Management Theories Developed Alongside Human Relations

As Human Relations Theory was gaining popularity, the management theories of Chester
Barnard and Mary Parker Follett were gaining ground as well.

Barnard is best known for his work called “the zone of indifference.” This work examined what
could make a worker disobey orders, thus focusing on the individual like Human Relations.
Conversely, unlike Human Relations, his theory promoted logical rather than social or emotional
influences on behavior.
Follett is best known for her work on conflict resolution. In particular, she showed that social
concerns were important to employee relations and that integrative solutions were paramount.
While her work differed by having a more Taylor-like foundation, her work also focused on
social and emotional influences like Human Relations.

In What Ways Is Human Relations Theory Relevant Today?

Despite originating in the late 1920s, Human Relations principles are still very relevant.

Human Relations was widely popularized by psychologist Elton Mayo, and is still a common
way of approaching HR by large companies like Google and Facebook.
First, since organizations are still made up of people, understanding how individual factors
influence motivation is important. In addition to utilizing the psychology of motivation, caring
for employees through internal and external benefits — like parental leave, onsite wellness and
healthcare services, fitness centers, personal and professional development, and more at
Google — is still effective at improving employee productivity (as many studies3 have shown).

Second, while the use of remote technology and groups continues to grow internationally4,
producing in groups is still the norm in business. Thus, it is still true that organizations must
foster positive group dynamics in order to produce teamwork and positive employee attitudes
and behaviors.

Third, over time, it has become more and more apparent5 that effective leadership is critical to
an organization’s success. This must be true given that managers across industries spend about
75% of their time in verbal interaction, most often with subordinates. Therefore, it is still
important that an organization ensures managers and supervisors are equipped to support and
motivate employees.

Finally, it is clear that organizations still must create working conditions that allow for/promote
increased individual and group attitudes toward work. A great example of establishing positive
individual and group working conditions is the work flexibility offered by Cisco. There, you can
time swap 20% or 100% of your job on a temporary or permanent basis and work across various
business groups within the company.

Through these and other types of initiatives, businesses are certain to have a more fulfilled
workforce who will perform better and remain loyal to their company.

Future developments based in Human Relations Theory

While there have been many developments in management theory since, Human Relations
Theory is certainly still relevant today.

If you incorporate its principles into your organization and work as a leader, you’ll surely be
rewarded with better workplace relationships and employee performance.

Further Reading

● Baker Library. (n.d.). The Human Relations Movement: Harvard Business School and the
Hawthorne Experiments. Harvard Business
School. https://www.library.hbs.edu/hc/hawthorne/
● Black, J. S. & Bright, D. S. (2019). Organizational Behavior.
OpenStax. https://openstax.org/details/books/organizational-behavior
● Bright, D. S., & Cortes, A. H. (2019). Principles of Management.
OpenStax. https://openstax.org/details/books/principles-management
● Gitman, L. J., McDaniel, C., Shah, A., Reece, M., Koffel, L., Talsma, B., & Hyatt, J. C.
(2018). Introduction to Business.
OpenStax. https://openstax.org/details/books/introduction-business
● Spielman, R. M., Jenkins, W. J., & Lovett, M. D. (2020). Psychology 2e.
OpenStax. https://openstax.org/details/books/psychology–2e

1. https://www.library.hbs.edu/hc/hawthorne/ ↩
2. https://openstax.org/details/books/principles-management ↩
3. https://www.gallup.com/workplace/215924/well-being.aspx ↩
4. https://www.mckinsey.com/featured-insights/future-of-work/whats-next-for-remote-work
-an-analysis-of-2000-tasks-800-jobs-and-nine-countries ↩
5. https://www.gallup.com/workplace/231593/why-great-managers-rare.aspx ↩