Bureaucracy

H.Marks
 What is Bureaucracy
K. Merton (1969) defines bureaucracy as a formal
rationally organized social structure (with) clearly
defined patterns of activity in which, ideally,
every series of actions is functionally related to
the purposes of the organization.
Weber’s Model of Bureaucracy: An Ideal Type

Weber viewed bureaucracy as the most efficient but

not necessarily the most desirable form of social
organization for the administration of work.

Weber’s model of bureaucracy is the ideal type which is

a basic, exaggerated model of reality used to illustrate a
concept. An ideal type is an exaggeration of a situation
that simply conveys a set of ideas.
Characteristics of Bureaucracy
Weber outlined six characteristics of
bureaucracies:

1. A clear cut division of labour. These activities of

a bureaucracy are broken down into clearly
defined limited tasks, which are attached to
formally defined positions (statuses) in the
organizations.
This permits a great deal of specialization
and a high degree of expertise.
For example, a small town department might
consist of a chief, a lieutenant, a detective,
several sergeants and a dozen officers. The
chief issues orders and assigns tasks, the
lieutenant is in charge when the chief is not
around,
the detective does investigate work, the
sergeants handle calls at the desk and do
paperwork required for formal booking
procedure and the officers walk or drive
through the community, making arrests and
responding to emergencies. Each member of
the department has a defined status and
duty as well as specialized skills appropriate
to his or her position.
2. Hierarchical delegation of power

Each position in the bureaucracy is given sufficient

power to enable the individual who occupies it to
work adequately and compel subordinates to
follow instructions. Such power must be limited to
what is necessary to meet the requirements of the
position. For example, a Matron can order a Nurse
to attend to a patient but cannot insist that the
Nurse join the Rotary Club.
3. Rules and Regulations

The rights and duties attached to various

positions are stated clearly in writing and govern
the behaviour of all individuals who occupy those
positions. In this way, all members of the
organizational structure know what is expected
of them, and each person can be held
accountable for his or her behaviour.
• For example, the regulations of the hospital
department might state “ no smoking or drinking
while on duty”. Such rules make the activities of
bureaucracies predictable and stable.
4. Impartiality- The organization’s written rules and
regulations apply equally to all its members. No exceptions
are made because of social or psychological differences
among individuals. Also, people occupy positions in the
bureaucracy only because they are assigned according to
formal procedures. These positions belong to the organization
itself; they cannot become the personal property of who
occupy them.

For example a Chief Executive Officer of a hospital is usually

not permitted to pass on that position to his/her children
through inheritance.
5. Employment based on technical qualifications

People are hired because they have the ability

and skills to do the job, not because they have
personal contacts within the company.
Advancement is based on how well a person does
the job. Promotions and job securities goes to
those who are most competent.
6. Distinction between public and private spheres
A clear distinction is made between the
employees’ personal lives and their working lives.
It is unusual for employees to be expected to take
business calls at home. At the same time,
employees families lives have no place in the
work setting.
Although many bureaucracies strive at the
organization level to attain the goals that
Weber proposed, most do not achieve them
on the practical level.
Bureaucracy Today: The Reality

Just as no building is ever identical to its blueprint, no

bureaucratic organization fully embodies all the features of
Weber’s model. One characteristic that most bureaucracies
do have in common is a structure that separates those whose
responsibilities include overseeing the needs of the entire
organization from those whose responsibilities are much
narrower and task oriented. Visualize a modern industrial
organization as a pyramid. Management (at the top) plans,
organizes, hires and fires and Workers (at the bottom)
Make much smaller decisions limited to carrying
out the work task assigned to them. Although
employees of bureaucracies might enjoy the
privileges of their positions and guard them
jealously, they can be adversely affecting the
system in ways they do not recognize. Alienation,
adherence to unproductive ritual and acceptance
of incompetence are some of the results of a less
than ideal bureaucracy.
Advantages of Bureaucracy

Bureaucracy is a system of administration. It may refer

to a government or corporate structure.

Some advantages include:

 Creativity thrives within a bureaucracy.
• Although a bureaucracy is often viewed as a large
mass of rules and regulations, it is also a place where
responsibility is mandatory. People who work within a
bureaucracy often have a higher level of education
than the general public, have more self-direction, are
more open-minded, and embrace their creativity in
ways that promote the general good compared to
those who are not bureaucrats.
Job security is provided.
• The structure of a bureaucracy creates more job
security than other forms of oversight. If a worker
abides by the rules and regulations that govern their
position, then they are awarded with specific benefits
and a steady salary that allows them to live the
lifestyle they want. Health insurance, vacation time,
and even a retirement pension would all be included
as part of the security a bureaucracy can provide.
It discourages favoritism.
• In a bureaucracy that is run successfully, the
impersonal nature of the relationships that are
formed create unique advantages. It creates a
structure where equality is a point of emphasis.
Friendships don’t influence the outcomes that are
created. Political pressure is secondary to the clout
that comes with doing a good, consistent job. This
creates a starting line where everyone has the same
chance to succeed.
A bureaucracy centralizes power.
• Specific roles and duties are dictated by a
bureaucracy, allowing people to have defined rules for
productivity. These rules allow managers to supervise
production with confidence because each action has
been defined. Everything runs up through the chain-
of-command so that there is a level of individual
equality within the structure because it is a team-
based environment, but with no doubt about who
happens to be in charge.
It encourages specialization.
• Because competency is the primary focus of a
bureaucracy, there is encouragement on a societal
level to pursue specialization within a specific field.
The goal of the worker is to achieve the top position
possible within that specialization to create the best
possible personal outcome. By encouraging
specialization, a bureaucracy naturally promotes
problem-solving and cost efficiencies at the same
time. The best people get put into the best jobs.
Best practices are created.
• Rules and regulations can seem burdensome at times,
but they are put in place to create best practices. In
governmental and corporate structures, the
establishment of best practices can save time and
money when they are followed to the letter. Although
the creation of best practices can sometimes cost
more than the savings they provide, these rules do
create consistent outcomes that allow for
predictability in results.
It creates predictability.
• There is a desired outcome to achieve. In a
bureaucracy, the primary goal that needs to be met is
set. Then the rules and regulations are set so that the
people within that structure can move toward
meeting that goal in a specific way. Although there
will always be unpredictability in any system because
humans make mistakes, the guidelines that are built
into this structure make future results more
predictable than if the structures did not exist.
It provides a foundation for scalability.
• Efficiencies create the potential for increased
productivity from each worker. Rules and regulations
allow for multiple workers to function in the same
way, which increases productivity further. This is how
bureaucracy encourages working within an economy
of scale. Whether a department has 1 worker or 100
workers, the rules in place create a shared efficiency
where every worker produces similar results so that
an outcome of any size can be achieved.
• Limitations of Bureaucracy

- There is no emphasis on creating additional competencies.

Within the hierarchal structures of a bureaucracy, workers are
continually promoted until they reach a position where they’re
initially incompetent. This is the position where people will
remain until they decide to retire because there is no emphasis
on creating new or additional competencies within the
bureaucratic structure. This means a bureaucracy continues to
function only because there are competent employees trying
to achieve positions with more power.
- It fosters a structure that doesn’t create true productivity.
A bureaucracy creates numerous rules and laws that must be
followed to the benefit of all. The problem with this is that
additional rules and laws can be added at virtually any time,
complicating the workloads that people must endure. This
may include additional forms to fill out, new filing regulations,
or new evaluations that must be conducted. It is a process
that fosters safe productivity, but limits the true productive
potential of individuals and departments.
- Expenditures dictate actions.
A budget cycle for a bureaucratic structure is an annual
event. Money is available for the current cycle only. If it
is not used, then the expenditures will not be
accounted for in the next budget cycle. This creates a
policy where people and departments spend money so
they can have it in the following budget. It is an
incentive to waste money by spending it on needless
things so a budget increase can be guaranteed.
- It is a battery for boredom.
Workers may seek to earn merit-based promotions based on
their competencies, but there is no guarantee that
advancement will occur immediately. With quota-based
systems in place, productivity may not lower, but it will not
maximize either. There must be incentives built into the
bureaucracy to reward a worker that can complete a task in 2
hours with the same quality it takes someone to complete the
task in the expected 8 hours. If no incentive exists, you have a
worker twiddling their thumbs for 6 hours and nothing that
management can do about it.
- There is less freedom to act within a bureaucracy.
• Because rules and laws govern the actions of a worker
within a bureaucracy, there is less freedom to act or
make independent decisions. Actions are dictated by
what the rules or laws want. If a worker steps outside
of those rules or laws without permission, even if it is
the right thing to do, they may find themselves facing
consequences, such as job termination or even
imprisonment.
- The potential of inefficiency is as high as the potential
for efficiency.
• Many bureaucracies have structures where workers
are paid with fixed salaries. They are given fixed
benefits. It requires many workers to complete
repetitive tasks or supervise those who are
completing repetitive tasks. Qualifications and merits
may create less overall competition for open
positions, but once those positions are filled, it can
feel like a dead-end street to the worker.
- It is difficult to maintain high morale within a
bureaucracy.
• Repetitive patterns can be difficult to maintain if there
isn’t a vision or purpose to the actions. A bureaucracy
encourages praise because of the way a task is fulfilled
instead of the quality of the fulfillment. This creates
low morale because the goals of the individual
become a higher priority than the goals of the
bureaucratic structure.
- It reduces the opportunity to quickly adapt to changing
circumstances.
• Because a bureaucracy is so dependent on rules and
regulations, changes to a business or international
governmental landscape can be difficult. It takes time for a
bureaucracy to draft new rules and regulations to the new
environments that have evolved. It can take so long, in fact,
that a second evolution can take place before the
bureaucracy has adapted to the first evolution. If enough
market evolutions take place before a company or
government adapts to it, then it will become irrelevant.
Power and Authority
Power refers to the ability to have one’s will carried out
despite the resistance of others. Most of us have seen a
striking example of raw power when we are driving a
car and see a police car in our rearview mirror. At that
particular moment, the driver of that car has enormous
power over us. We make sure we strictly obey the
speed limit and all other driving rules. If, alas, the
police car’s lights are flashing, we stop the car, as
otherwise we may be in for even bigger trouble.
When the officer approaches our car, we ordinarily try
to be as polite as possible and pray we do not get a
ticket. When you were 16 and your parents told you to
be home by midnight or else, your arrival home by this
curfew again illustrated the use of power, in this case
parental power. If a child in middle school gives her
lunch to a bully who threatens her, that again is an
example of the use of power, or, in this case, the
misuse of power.
• Many years ago Max Weber (1921/1978),Weber, M. (1978),
one of the founders of sociology discussed in earlier
chapters, distinguished legitimate authority as a special type
of power.

• Legitimate authority (sometimes just called authority),

Weber said, is power whose use is considered just and
appropriate by those over whom the power is exercised. In
short, if a society approves of the exercise of power in a
particular way, then that power is also legitimate authority.
The example of the police car in our rearview mirrors is an
example of legitimate authority.
• Weber’s keen insight lay in distinguishing different
types of legitimate authority that characterize
different types of societies, especially as they evolve
from simple to more complex societies.

• He called these three types traditional authority,

rational-legal authority, and charismatic authority.
Traditional Authority
• As the name implies, traditional authority is power
that is rooted in traditional, or long-standing, beliefs
and practices of a society. It exists and is assigned to
particular individuals because of that society’s
customs and traditions. Individuals enjoy traditional
authority for at least one of two reasons. The first is
inheritance, as certain individuals are granted
traditional authority because they are the children or
other relatives of people who already exercise
traditional authority.
• The second reason individuals enjoy traditional
authority is more religious: their societies believe they
are anointed by God or the gods, depending on the
society’s religious beliefs, to lead their society.
Traditional authority is common in many preindustrial
societies, where tradition and custom are so
important, but also in more modern monarchies
(discussed shortly), where a king, queen, or prince
enjoys power because she or he comes from a royal
family.
Traditional authority is granted to individuals regardless of
their qualifications. They do not have to possess any special
skills to receive and wield their authority, as their claim to it is
based solely on their bloodline or supposed divine
designation. An individual granted traditional authority can be
intelligent or stupid, fair or arbitrary, and exciting or boring but
receives the authority just the same because of custom and
tradition. As not all individuals granted traditional authority
are particularly well qualified to use it, societies governed by
traditional authority sometimes find that individuals bestowed
it are not always up to the job.
Rational-Legal Authority
• If traditional authority derives from custom and tradition,
rational-legal authority derives from law and is based on a
belief in the legitimacy of a society’s laws and rules and in
the right of leaders to act under these rules to make
decisions and set policy. This form of authority is a hallmark
of modern democracies, where power is given to people
elected by voters, and the rules for wielding that power are
usually set forth in a constitution, a charter, or another
written document.
Whereas traditional authority resides in an individual
because of inheritance or divine designation, rational-
legal authority resides in the office that an individual
fills, not in the individual per se. The authority of the
president of the United States thus resides in the office
of the presidency, not in the individual who happens to
be president. When that individual leaves office,
authority transfers to the next president.
• This transfer is usually smooth and stable, and one of
the marvels of democracy is that officeholders are
replaced in elections without revolutions having to be
necessary. We might not have voted for the person
who wins the presidency, but we accept that person’s
authority as our president when he (so far it has
always been a “he”) assumes office.
Rational-legal authority helps ensure an orderly transfer
of power in a time of crisis. When John F. Kennedy was
assassinated in 1963, Vice President Lyndon Johnson was
immediately sworn in as the next president. When
Richard Nixon resigned his office in disgrace in 1974
because of his involvement in the Watergate scandal,
Vice President Gerald Ford (who himself had become
vice president after Spiro Agnew resigned because of
financial corruption) became president.
Because the U.S. Constitution provided for the transfer
of power when the presidency was vacant, and
because U.S. leaders and members of the public accept
the authority of the Constitution on these and so many
other matters, the transfer of power in 1963 and 1974
was smooth and orderly.
Charismatic Authority
• Charismatic authority stems from an individual’s
extraordinary personal qualities and from that
individual’s hold over followers because of these
qualities. Such charismatic individuals may exercise
authority over a whole society or only a specific group
within a larger society.
• They can exercise authority for good and for bad, as
this brief list of charismatic leaders indicates: Joan of
Arc, Adolf Hitler, Mahatma Gandhi, Martin Luther King
Jr., Jesus Christ, Muhammad, and Buddha. Each of
these individuals had extraordinary personal qualities
that led their followers to admire them and to follow
their orders or requests for action.
Charismatic authority can reside in a person who came to a
position of leadership because of traditional or rational-legal
authority. Over the centuries, several kings and queens of England
and other European nations were charismatic individuals as well
(while some were far from charismatic). A few U.S. presidents—
Washington, Lincoln, both Roosevelts, Kennedy, Reagan, and, for all
his faults, even Clinton—also were charismatic, and much of their
popularity stemmed from various personal qualities that attracted
the public and sometimes even the press. Ronald Reagan, for
example, was often called “the Teflon president,” because he was
so loved by much of the public that accusations of ineptitude or
malfeasance did not stick to him (Lanoue, 1988).Lanoue, D. J.
(1988).
• Weber emphasized that charismatic authority in its pure
form (i.e., when authority resides in someone solely because
of the person’s charisma and not because the person also
has traditional or rational-legal authority) is less stable than
traditional authority or rational-legal authority. The reason
for this is simple: once charismatic leaders die, their
authority dies as well. Although a charismatic leader’s
example may continue to inspire people long after the leader
dies, it is difficult for another leader to come along and
command people’s devotion as intensely. After the deaths of
all the charismatic leaders named in the preceding
paragraph, no one came close to replacing them in the
hearts and minds of their followers.
• Think of someone, either a person you have known or a
national or historical figure, whom you regard as a
charismatic leader. What is it about this person that makes
her or him charismatic?
• Why is rational-legal authority generally more stable than
charismatic authority?
• Power refers to the ability to have one’s will carried out despite the
resistance of others.
• According to Max Weber, the three types of legitimate authority are
traditional, rational-legal, and charismatic.
• Charismatic authority is relatively unstable because the authority held
by a charismatic leader may not easily extend to anyone else after the
leader dies.
References

Henry L. T (2014): Introduction to Sociology