he bureaucratic form is the basic organizing form for public sector organizations and for most private sector

organizations as well. There are basic principles of the form and some advantages offered by the form.
Ill use the following conventions when discussing the form: 1. When Im talking about a group of people, Ill always use "the bureaucracy," or "bureaucrats." 2. When Im talking about the organizational form, Ill always link the word form with the word bureaucratic or bureaucracy. (No matter how clumsy that becomes.) 3. Therefore, when you see the word bureaucracy or bureaucraticby itselfthen it describes the negative attributesthe "stupidity," the "nonsense" that you and I mean when we talk about having "too much bureaucracy." The "bureaucratic form..." As you read about the bureaucratic form, note whether your organization matches the description. The more of these concepts that exist in your organization, the more likely you will have some or all of the negative by-products described in the "Effects of Bureaucracy." Max Weber, a German sociologist, wrote in the 1930s a rationale that described the bureaucratic form as being the ideal way of organizing government agencies. The bureaucratic form and its use spread throughout both public and the private sectors. Even though Webers writings have been widely discredited, the bureaucratic form lives on. The bureaucratic form has six major principles. 1. A formal hierarchical structure Each level controls the level below and is controlled by the level above. A formal hierarchy is the basis of central planning and centralized decision making. 2. Management by rules Controlling by rules allows decisions made at high levels to be executed consistently by all lower levels. 3. Organization by functional specialty Work is to be done by specialists, and people are organized into units based on the type of work they do or skills they have.

Classified - Internal use

4. An "up-focused" or "in-focused" mission If the mission is described as "up-focused," then the organizations purpose is to serve the stockholders, the board, or whatever agency empowered it. If the mission is to serve the organization itself, and those within it, e.g., to produce high profits, to gain market share, or to produce a cash stream, then the mission is described as "in-focused." 5. Purposely impersonal The idea is to treat all employees equally and customers equally, and not be influenced by individual differences. 6. Employment based on technical qualifications (There may also be protection from arbitrary dismissal.) The bureaucratic form according to Parkinson has another attribute. 7. Predisposition to grow in staff "above the line." Weber failed to notice this, but C. Northcote Parkinson found it so common that he made it the basis of his humorous "Parkinsons law." Parkinson demonstrated that the management and professional staff tends to grow at predictable rates, almost without regard to what the line organization is doing. The bureaucratic form is so common that most people accept it as the normal way of organizing almost any endeavor. People in bureaucratic organizations generally blame the ugly side effects of bureaucracy on management, or the founders, or the owners, without awareness that the real cause is organizing based on the bureaucratic form. After all, the bureaucratic form has been so common because it promises some major benefits.

What Are the Advantages and Disadvantages of a Bureaucratic Organization Structure?

by David Ingram, Demand Media

Classified - Internal use

Bureaucratic organizations have many layers of management.

Related Articles
What Is a Bureaucratic Organization? Advantages & Disadvantages of the Four Basic Organization Structures Bureaucratic Vs. Flat Organizational Structure Advantages & Disadvantages of a Vertical & Horizontal Organization Benefits & Disadvantages of a Functional Organizational Structure Advantages & Disadvantages of the Structure of an Organization Organizational structure provides a backbone upon which all of a company's operational policies and work processes are built. Managerial reporting relationships and the flow of ideas, decisions and information are formally laid out by a company's organizational structure. Structures can be relatively flat or tall; taller structures tend to operate more bureaucratically. No single organizational structure is inherently better than another. Rather, each structure has unique advantages and disadvantages best suited for specific situations.
Sponsored Link

Business Plan Example

quick, easy and effective business plans that work kimptonconsulting.com/businessplans

Facts
Bureaucratic organizational structures have numerous layers of management, cascading down from senior executives to regional managers to departmental managers, all the way down to shift supervisors who work alongside frontline employees. Due to the many layers of management, decision-making authority has to pass

Classified - Internal use

through a larger number of layers than with flatter organizations. Refund decisions, for example, may have to pass from frontline employees, through shift supervisors, to store managers for a retail outlet in a bureaucratic company.

Significance
In a bureaucratic organizational structure, authority is generally centered at the top, and information generally flows from the top down. This usually encourages a company culture focused on rules and standards, where operational processes are rigidly controlled with best-practices methodologies and close supervision.

Advantages
Top-level managers in bureaucratic organizational structures exercise a great deal of control over organizational strategy decisions, which is ideal for business owners with a command and control style. Strategic decision-making time can be shorter in a tall organizational structure, since less individuals are involved in the process. Standardization and best-practices are often highlights in companies with tall organizational structures, ensuring that work is consistently completed efficiently and effectively.

Disadvantages
Bureaucratic structures can discourage creativity and innovation throughout the organization. No matter how ingenious a business owner is, it is virtually impossible for a single individual to generate the range of strategic ideas possible in a large, interdisciplinary group. Front-line employees may receive less satisfaction from their jobs in a rigidly bureaucratic organization, increasing employee turnover rates. Organizations bound by rigid controls can also find themselves less able to adapt to changing conditions in the marketplace, industry or legal environment.

Considerations
At first glance, bureaucratic organizational structures may seem less desirable than flatter structures, but this is not necessarily so. Some industries, such as software development, may benefit from a more autonomous structure, but others such as fast food benefit from tight controls and tall hierarchies.

Bureaucratic Organization Approach

The Bureaucratic Organization method is structured so that there is a clear line of authority and a direct hierarchy between personnel within the organization. The method allows for employees to be selected for a job by their abilities. The problem with this method is that the bureaucratic method is inflexible. The system adds several layers of paperwork to the process and sometimes resembles a civil service or governmental organization.

Read more: http://www.ehow.com/info_8564459_disadvantages-management-principles.html#ixzz2YYV6wvvR

The Eight Major Characteristics of the Bureaucratic Organization

There are eight major characteristics of what is called the "bureaucratic form." Your organization likely uses most of these. Virtually all organizations that use the bureaucratic form seem to suffer the same suffocating and immobilizing symptoms that people call "bureaucracy." The characteristics of the bureaucratic organization are:

Classified - Internal use

1. Most employees blame their organizations "bureaucracy" on senior management. They assume that management must want it, or it wouldnt be tolerated. 2. Senior managers dont want or like "bureaucracy" any more than the rest of the employees. The detestable effects of bureaucracy victimize everyone, regardless of level. Senior managers havent known what to do to get rid of it. Executives have tried many things to eliminate "bureaucracy," but the "program-of-the-year" approach generally hasnt worked, because they have been fighting symptoms, not the root cause. 3. The root cause of "bureaucracy" is the organizing model, the "bureaucratic form." Yet, the bureaucratic form is so pervasive that its destructive nature is seldom questioned. 4. If you were starting a new enterprise today, you could avoid "bureaucracy" by using a new organizing model called the "mission-driven" model. 5. Existing bureaucratic organizations can reduce the amount of "bureaucracy" by changing one or more of the basic organizing principles, either temporarily or permanently. The steps for de-bureaucratizing by changing basic organizing principles are: a. Make an assessment of the present state of the organization to learn how much permission to change and commitment to change is available from stakeholders and senior management. b. Depending on the amount of available commitment, choose the optimal goal state: a modest goal, a moderate goal, or an ambitious goal. c. The goal state will suggest the strategy for changing the organization. The strategy will range from a minimum effort based mostly on training to a maximum effort based on reorganization and a new way of managing called "continuous improvement." d. Continuous improvement is an entirely new way of operating in which the people closest to the product or customer, working in teams, are empowered to continuously improve the organizations quality, service, or both. Continuous improvement requ ires three things: i. A "shadow" organization chartered to make the changes necessary in the existing organization to achieve the desired goal state. ii. New forms of qualitative customer feedback from internal and external customers to be used to drive changes in quality, service, or both. iii. Training for employees enabling them to work in teams, to accept the offered empowerment, to identify and prioritize root causes of problems, and to find solutions they will use to continuously improve quality, service, or both. 6. Management people in the existing organization will need to learn and use new ways of managing. They will need to learn what they have been doing that adds to the "bureaucracy" in the organization. They will need to learn new ways of doing their jobs that diminish the amount of bureaucracy within the organization. Most importantly, they will need to provide empowerment for those who work for them, and protection and coaching to those who accept and act upon the offered empowerment.

Classified - Internal use

7. People in the organization who currently arent managing will play a vital new role in the de-bureaucratized organization. The labor/management war, if it exists in your organization, must end. Everyone in the organization will need to act as one unified team, driven by a common mission, and aligned by a common vision of the new organization. People who today are not formally managing will be grouped into teams in which the brainpower, skills, talents, and experience of the individuals will be harnessed to continuously improve the organizations quality, service, or both. People who are presently not in managerial positions will be drawn to enroll in the change effort because their new, expanded role offers less bureaucracy and more opportunity for motivation through personal growth, achievement, responsibility, recognition and more interesting work. 8. Finally, the vision of what your organization might look like, and be like, when you have achieved your desired goal state is outlined in detail in "Busting Bureaucracy." You will discover the rewards that come from working in an organization of empowered people who are satisfying or even dazzling their customers, and are doing so with few, if any, of the immobilizing and suffocating effects of bureaucracy.

top | home | contact us |

The major benefits promised by the bureaucratic form

Hierarchical authority promises control and responsibility.
According to organizational design theory, a major benefit promised by the bureaucratic form is that the top executive would have control over the entire organization, and the outside world would know who to hold responsible. "The captain of the ship is responsible for whatever happens on or to the ship." Remember, in the 1920s and 1930s when bureaucracy was beginning to flower, the world of business and government was very different than today. Todays industrialized nations were switching from agrarian societies to industrial societies. Prior to industrialization, organizations tended to be smaller, education and experience had not been so available or important, and management skills were seldom required, except at the very top. So, in an organization in which the senior people were educated and the workers were less soit seemed vital to concentrate on control.

Classified - Internal use

Management by rules promises control and consistency

If the entire organization was managed by rules, then top management could be sure that the organization would be controlled by their decisions. And, top management could be sure that no arbitrary "judgment" was introduced into the operation to make things inconsistent. The top executive could decide how things would be done, and forever after they would be done that way. Consistency seemed desirable because the world prior to the industrial revolution was marked by inconsistency. People were discriminated against because of class, education, race, religion or creed. People were given advantages because of wealth, class or education. In a world where people were treated very differently from one another, consistency must have seemed very desirable.

An up-focused mission promised that governmental agencies would serve the legislative or executive bodies that formed them.
The idea seemed sound, because it promised that an agency of government wouldnt end up serving the people who were in the agency, nor would it end up serving people outside of the agency. Instead, theoretically, it would serve the government hence, all the people. In corporations, an up-focused mission promised that the organization would serve the stockholders, represented by the board of directors, rather than the people within the organization.

Specialization of sub-units promised accountability, control and expertise.

If specialists were in charge of each function of the organization, then top management could be certain that an educated or trained person was responsible for that function. In addition, top management could be reasonably certain that the people handling that function were expert in that function. Both of these benefits promised more certain control and effectiveness. Prior to the twentieth century, people were given responsibility for managing most often because of their wealth, class or familynot necessarily because they were trained or skilled. So, having specialists handle functions seemed like a big improvement over having people manage things because they were the bosss son, or the family had contacts.

Being impersonal promises objectivity, consistency and equality.

The theory suggests that if you wipe out the human elements of the business transaction, and focus only on the "business" side, that you could be sure that no customer or citizen was treated better or worse than another. If you treat everyone identically, as though they had no individual differences, then you could ensure fairness through equal treatment. You could also ensure consistency. This was highly valued in those days because many people felt they didnt get treated equally with those of wealth, power or position. In the various European and North American cultures of the early twentieth century, customers were not always treated equally

Classified - Internal use

by businesses, and citizens were not treated equally by government. Bureaucracy promised fairness and equality.

Employment based on technical qualifications promises equal opportunity, and protection from arbitrary dismissal promises job security to those who can pass a test and follow the rules.
Equal opportunity meant that a middle class educated person had the same opportunity of entry into government as an upper class or wealthy person. That was highly valued in an era when government tended to be controlled or dominated by those with money, power or position. Job security was little known in the early twentieth century, but highly valued and highly prized. Bureaucracy promised protection against arbitrary dismissal. People with wealth, power or position exerted powerful control over businesses and government. Workers were subject to arbitrary dismissal if they offended the wrong people.
Bureaucratic management may be described as "a formal system of organisation based on clearly defined hierarchical levels and roles in order to maintain efficiency and effectiveness." Max Weber embellished the scientific management theory with his bureaucratic management theory which is mainly focused on dividing organizations into hierarchies, establishing strong lines of authority and control. Weber suggested organizations develop comprehensive and detailed standard operating procedures for all routinized tasks. Max Weber was a historian that wrote about the emergence of bureaucracy (or bureaucratic management) from more traditional organizational forms (like feudalism) and it's rising preeminance in modern society. Scott defines bureaucracy it as "the existence of a specialized administrative staff". According to Weber, beaucracy is a particular type of administrative structure developed through rational-legal authority. Bureaucratic structures evolved from traditional structures with the following changes: 1. Jurisdictional areas are clearly specified, activities are distributed as official duties (unlike traditional form where duties delegated by leader and changed at any time). 2. Organization follows hierarchial principle subordinates follow orders or superiors, but have right of appeal (in contrast to more diffuse structure in traditional authority). 3. Intential, abstract rules govern decisions and actions. Rules are stable, exhaustive, and can be learned. Decisions are recorded in permanent files (in traditional forms few explicit rules or written records).

Classified - Internal use

4. Means of production or administration belong to office. Personal property separated from office property. 5. Officials are selected on basis of technical qualifications, appointed not elected, and compensated by salary. 6. Employement by the organization is a career. The official is a full-time employee and looks forward to a life-long career. After a trial period they get tenure of position and are protected from arbitrary dismissal. Max Weber said that bureaucracy resolves some of the shortcomings of the traditional system. Described above was his ideal-type construct, a simplified model (not a preferred model) that focuses on the most important features. Weber's view of bureaucracy (or bureaucratic management) was a system of power where leaders exercise control over others a system based on discipline. Weber stressed that the rational-legal form was the most stable of systems for both superiors and subordinates it's more reliable and clear, yet allows the subordinate more independence and discretion. Subordinates ideally can challenge the decisions of their leaders by referring to the stated rules charisma becomes less important. As a result, bureaucratic systems can handle more complex operations than traditional systems. (all above Scott p. 41-42).

The Ideal Bureaucracy

Bureaucracy is the division of labour applied to administration. 'Bureau', is a French word meaning desk, or by extension, an office; thus, 'Bureaucracy' is rule through a desk or office, that is, a form of organization built on the preparation and dispatch of written documents. In contrast to the commonly held view of bureaucracies, they do not 'rule' in their own right but are the means by which a monarchy, aristocracy, democracy, or other form of authority, rules. Observing the changes that were taking place during the industrial revolution, Max Weber saw Capitalism as 'rational' way to organize activities: rational in the sense that all decisions could based on the calculation of their likely return to the enterprise. Weber's Ideal bureaucracy was therefore devoted to the principle of efficiency: maximizing output whilst minimizing inputs. By studying the organizational innovations in Germany at the turn of the 20th century, Max Weber identified the core elements of this new form of organization. For Weber, the ideal bureaucracy was characterized by impersonality, efficiency and rationality. The key feature of the organization was

Classified - Internal use

that the authority of officials was subject to published rules and codes of practice; all rules, decisions and actions were recorded in writing. The structure of the organization is a continuous hierarchy where each level is subject to control by the level above it. Each position in the hierarchy exists in its own right and job holders have no rights to a particular position. Responsibilities within each level are clearly delineated and each level has its own sphere of competence. An appointment to an office, and the levels of authority that go with it, are based solely on the grounds of technical competence. Max Weber believed that, due to their efficiency and stability, bureaucracies would become the most prevalent form of organization in society. However, he was also concerned that bureaucracies shared so many common structures it could mean that all organizations would become very much alike, which in turn could lead to the development of a new class of worker, the professional bureaucrat.

A Theory of Bureaucratic Dysfunction

In 1964 the French Sociologist, Michel Crozier set out to re-examine Weber's concept of the efficient ideal bureaucracy in the light of the way that bureaucratic organizations had actually developed and constructed a theory of bureaucratic dysfunction based on an analysis of case studies. The core of his theory stems from the observation that in situations where almost every outcome has been decided in advance, the only way for people to gain control over their lives is to exploit any remaining 'zones of uncertainty'. He argues that organizational relations become little more than strategic games that attempt to exploit such zones, either for their own ends, or to prevent others from gaining an advantage. The result is that the organization becomes locked into a series of inward looking power struggles so called 'vicious circles' that prevent it learning from its errors. Thus, in order to be rational and egalitarian, bureaucracies attempt to come up with a set of impersonal rules to cover every event. The result is that because decisions are predetermined, hierarchical relationships become less important and the senior levels loose the power to govern. Secondly, in order to maintain the impersonal nature of decision making, decisions must be made by people who cannot be influenced by those who are affected. The effect of this is that problems are only resolved by people who have no direct knowledge of them. Thirdly, the elimination of opportunities for bargaining and negotiation creates an organization consisting of a series of isolated strata. The result is peer group pressure to conform to the norms of the strata regardless of individual beliefs or the wider goals of the organization.

Classified - Internal use

Finally, individuals or groups that gain control the zones of uncertainty weild disproportionate power in an otherwise regulated and egalitarian organization. This leads to the creation of parallel power structures, which in turn results in decisions being made based on factors unrelated to those of the organization as a whole.

Characteristics of Bureaucracy
According to Max Weber official functions in the following specific manner: I. There is the principle of fixed and official jurisdictional areas, which are generally ordered by rules, that is, by laws or administrative regulations. 1. The regular activities required for the purposes of the bureaucratically governed structure are distributed in a fixed way as official duties. 2. The authority to give the commands required for the discharge of these duties is distributed in a stable way and is strictly delimited by rules concerning the coercive means, physical, sacerdotal, or otherwise, which may be placed at the disposal of officials. 3. Methodical provision is made for the regular and continuous fulfilment of these duties and for the execution of the corresponding rights; only persons who have the generally regulated qualifications to serve are employed. In public and lawful government these three elements constitute 'bureaucratic authority.' In private economic domination, they constitute bureaucratic 'management.' Bureaucracy, thus understood, is fully developed in political and ecclesiastical communities only in the modern state, and, in the private economy, only in the most advanced institutions of capitalism. Permanent and public office authority, with fixed jurisdiction, is not the historical rule but rather the exception. This is so even in large political structures such as those of the ancient Orient, the Germanic and Mongolian empires of conquest, or of many feudal structures of state. In all these cases, the ruler executes the most important measures through personal trustees, table-companions, or court-servants. Their commissions and authority are not precisely delimited and are temporarily called into being for each case. II. The principles of office hierarchy and of levels of graded authority mean a firmly ordered system of super- and subordination in which there is a supervision of the lower offices by the higher ones. Such a system offers the governed the possibility of appealing the decision of a lower office to its higher authority, in a definitely regulated manner. With the full development of the bureaucratic type, the office hierarchy is monocratically organized. The principle of hierarchical office authority is

Classified - Internal use

found in all bureaucratic structures: in state and ecclesiastical structures as well as in large party organizations and private enterprises. It does not matter for the character of bureaucracy whether its authority is called 'private' or 'public.' When the principle of jurisdictional 'competency' is fully carried through, hierarchical subordination at least in public officedoes not mean that the 'higher' authority is simply authorized to take over the business of the 'lower.' Indeed, the opposite is the rule. Once established and having fulfilled its task, an office tends to continue in existence and be held by another incumbent. III. The management of the modern office is based upon written documents ('the files'), which are preserved in their original or draught form. There is, therefore, a staff of subaltern officials and scribes of all sorts. The body of officials actively engaged in a 'public' office, along with the respective apparatus of material implements and the files, make up a 'bureau.' In private enterprise, 'the bureau' is often called 'the office.' In principle, the modern organization of the civil service separates the bureau from the private domicile of the official, and, in general, bureaucracy segregates official activity as something distinct from the sphere of private life. Public monies and equipment are divorced from the private property of the official. This condition is everywhere the product of a long development. Nowadays, it is found in public as well as in private enterprises; in the latter, the principle extends even to the leading entrepreneur. In principle, the executive office is separated from the household, business from private correspondence, and business assets from private fortunes. The more consistently the modern type of business management has been carried through the more are these separations the case. The beginnings of this process are to be found as early as the Middle Ages. It is the peculiarity of the modern entrepreneur that he conducts himself as the 'first official' of his enterprise, in the very same way in which the ruler of a specifically modern bureaucratic state spoke of himself as 'the first servant' of the state. The idea that the bureau activities of the state are intrinsically different in character from the management of private economic offices is a continental European notion and, by way of contrast, is totally foreign to the American way. IV. Office management, at least all specialized office management and such management is distinctly modernusually presupposes thorough and expert training. This increasingly holds for the modern executive and employee of private enterprises, in the same manner as it holds for the state official. V. When the office is fully developed, official activity demands the full working capacity of the official, irrespective of the fact that his obligatory time in the bureau may be firmly delimited. In the

Classified - Internal use

normal case, this is only the product of a long development, in the public as well as in the private office. Formerly, in all cases, the normal state of affairs was reversed: official business was discharged as a secondary activity. VI. The management of the office follows general rules, which are more or less stable, more or less exhaustive, and which can be learned. Knowledge of these rules represents a special technical learning which the officials possess. It involves jurisprudence, or administrative or business management. The reduction of modern office management to rules is deeply embedded in its very nature. The theory of modern public administration, for instance, assumes that the authority to order certain matters by decreewhich has been legally granted to public authoritiesdoes not entitle the bureau to regulate the matter by commands given for each case, but only to regulate the matter abstractly. This stands in extreme contrast to the regulation of all relationships through individual privileges and bestowals of favor, which is absolutely dominant in patrimonialism, at least in so far as such relationships are not fixed by sacred tradition.

Bureaucracy and Unresponsiveness

Often public service organizations are criticized for being unresponsive to their customer's needs. One of Weber's most serious concerns was how society would maintain control over expanding state bureaucracies. He felt the most serious problem was not inefficiency or mismanagement but the increased power of public officials. A person in an important, specialized position will become to realize how dependent their bosses are on their expertise and begin to exercise their power in that position. Furthermore, the staff also begin to associate with the special social interests of their particular group or organization. Over history this has caused the shift in power from the leaders of society to the bureaucrats.

Criticism of Weberian Bureaucratic Theory

One critique was Weber's claim that bureacratic organizations were based on rational-legal authority. Parsons (1947) and Gouldner (1954) note that Weber said authority rests both in the "legal incumbancy of office" and on "technical competence". This works if superiors have more knowledge and skill, but often this is not the case. Thompson notes that in modern organizations authority is centralized but ability is decentralized (Thompson 1961). In fact staff-line distictions seem to be a structural resolution of this authorityability quandary that Weber overlooked.

Classified - Internal use

Weber also doesn't distinguish between definitions and propositions in his model. His list of distinguishing characteristics are linked between each other. Udy (1959) found in examining 150 organizations and found no correlation between the bureaucratic attributes of the organization and it's rational attributes. More recent theorists think that earlier theorists misread Weber and distorted his views. Weber was defining a formal rationality that was not necessarily optimal for efficiency. He realized that formalization could degenerate into formalism, and that bureaucratic forms concentrated power at the top and could cause an "iron cage" to imprison the low-level worker in obscurity and monotonous detail.

References
http://www.chris-kimble.com/Courses/mis/Bureaucratic_Organisations.html http://faculty.babson.edu/krollag/org_site/encyclop/weber_crit.html http://faculty.babson.edu/krollag/org_site/encyclop/bureaucracy.html http://www.cardiff.ac.uk/socsi/undergraduate/introsoc/bureau.html Weber, Max. Essay in Sociology, Bureaucracy, 1946

The Damaging Effects of Bureaucracy: An Example

I will disguise this story enough to avoid embarrassing the organization that experienced the damaging effects of sub-optimizing. Somebody had an idea for more "efficiency." Lets say it was a large telephone company, and one day someone counted up the number of copiers in the 25-story building, and found that there were 118 copiers spread throughout the entire central office building. Eager to be "efficient" and desiring to be a hero, this person presented a proposal to management to replace the 118 different kinds and sizes of machines with 2 "power copiers" in a copying department. The proposal showed how the new copying department could be run by two operators and a supervisor. It would use less space, and would save each secretary in the organization an estimated 14 minutes per day, which was the equivalent of 16 people saved, etc., etc. So, without knowing it, the organization was off and running with a perfect example of optimizing a sub-function.

Classified - Internal use

The company installed the copying department on the seventh floor, picked up all 118 copiers and began saving money. The first day in operation, the copying department was besieged by secretaries (and other people) who wanted copies made, and there was a long line. Secretaries were waiting up to an hour to place their orders for copies. Within a day or two, everyone was aware that there were problems. So, they decided that all secretaries would "mail" their requests to copying, via inter-company mail, and the mail room would bring the finished copies back when they were done. The first problem with that was that the mail room was only making two trips a day around the building, so turn-around on copies went to a minimum of two or even three days. So, they decided to add four people to the mail room, and double the number of trips around the building. This brought turnaround to two days "guaranteed." Well, it turns out that two days was too long for certain "emergency" items, and for certain "high level" people, so a red tag was established to give certain items 24-hour turnaround. By now, however, there were two more people in the copying department. One was organizing inputs so the operators could keep on copying, and the other person took the outputs and addressed them to the people who needed them. The next problem was that things started getting lost. People would send things to copying and never get anything back. And, other people were getting copies they hadnt ordered. So, the copying department decided to add a series of controls to ensure nothing got lost, and a time stamp, because people were complaining that they werent getting a two -day response. This all required two more clerical people in the copying department to handle the complicated forms that were introduced so that nothing ever got lost. By now, secretaries and their bosses were up in arms. They didnt trust the copying department with anything important, so for important items, they would stop by quick copy shops on the way home. And, a couple of departments pooled their petty cash to buy homestyle, inexpensive copiers that they would use for urgent items. Pretty soon, the accounting department became aware of the new "outside" copying costs, and individual departments were attempting to assign the outside copying costs to the copying department. The copying department then went to war (with their own customers!). They got a senior VP to issue a mandate that all personal copiers would be taken out immediately, citing some vague danger of liability or safety violations. In addition, the mandate stated that all "outside" copying would cease, and that the company would not pay for it. In an attempt to mollify the angry customers, the senior VP authorized a full second shift of operators and clerical people in the copying department, with a new guarantee of 24-hour turnaround time for everybody. Well, I could go on with this story, because things actually got worse than this. By the end, every manager of any stature had a personal copier at home. There was a 24-hour quick

Classified - Internal use

copy shop down the street that would make copies, but issue invoices for "office supplies," that quickly became one of the top ten copy shops in the country for the franchisee. And, worse than all of that, meetings couldnt be called on anything less than a one-week schedule to ensure that everyone got notified, and copies of the agenda were prepared, etc. Now, you might think that all of this chaos would generate somebody who would say, "this isnt working, lets go back to the old way." But no. Sadly enough, this was a very bureaucratic organization (as if you hadnt guessed), and the powers that be were reluctant to admit they had made a mistake, so they just persisted. What finally solved the problem was another bright young "efficiency" person who examined the situation and prepared another proposal to management. By now there were 17 people full time in two shifts in the copy department. The new proposal suggested that the 17 people department be disbanded, and replaced by 94 optimally situated copiers (of the same brand, size, and capability, because standardization was highly prized). The justification was the net savings of over $100,000 per year. So, in this case, the centralized copying department was disbanded, the 94 optimally-situated copiers were installed (all of the same size, brand and capability), and once again the organization was able to resume its normal work in a normal way. It is de-bureaucratizing to take sub-optimized functional departments and disband them, re-deploying the people into the line units where they will be mission driven, not function driven. Here are some units to consider: purchasing, personnel, fleet, copying, MIS, training, strategic planning, budgeting, and research and development. In a bureaucracy, departments or sub-units are formed and are allowed to, or even directed to, focus on a sub-optimal mission. "Your mission, in the copying department, is to handle all of the organizations copying needs at the lowest possible cost." "The copying departments mission is to ensure that the organizations quality and customer satisfaction mission is achieved by ensuring that everyone who needs a copy gets one, as quickly and responsively as possible, with responsible regard for costs." This mission statement must be clearly understood to mean that if the copying department doesnt give its internal customers better service than they would get if they ran their own copying, then the unit will cease to function and copying will be decentralized. In addition, the performance of the copying department, and future budget allocations, will depend not on satisfying the manager the sub-unit reports to, but instead on feedback from the customers of the copying department.

The Effects of Bureaucracy

on Customers and Employees There are organizational symptoms that customers and employees describe as "bureaucracy." The effects of bureaucracy i.e. the bureuacratic organizing form, are the destructive by-products we call "bureaucracy."

Classified - Internal use

In nineteen years of interviewing customers and employees of public corporations, Ive heard the words "bureaucracy" and "bureaucratic" used to describe a wide range of behaviors, attitudes and decisions: Customers call an organization "bureaucratic" when i t has rigid policies and procedures that customers describe as"red tape." Customers describe an organization as "bureaucratic" when its policies dont satisfy the customers individual situation, and the employees take refuge behind the idea that the policy is the same for all customers. Customers say an organizations is "bureaucratic" when the organization seems inflexible and unresponsive to a customers individual situation. Customers describe organizations as "bureaucratic" when the organization has standard procedures, policies or practices that seem designed solely for the benefit of the organization and which work to the disadvantage of customers. Customers think of organizations as bureaucratic when the organization makes it seem very difficult to get exceptions approved. Customers link "bureaucratic" and "uncaring," e.g., they complain of being treated more like "numbers" than individuals. Customers think of an organization as "bureaucratic" when the organization is unwilling to admit mistakes and attempts to shift blame for their own mistakes onto the customer. Customers often link the word "bureaucratic" with the idea of not being innovative. When asked to explain what it means to be "bureaucratic," theyll often mention that bureaucratic organizations are slow to innovate, and seem reluctant to change as times change or events dictate. Once customers characterize an organization as bureaucratic, th ey also tend to believe that the organization has products and services of inferior quality (compared with nonbureaucratic organizations). Customers describe organizations that are hard to reach during company hours, and that during busy periods may hardly be reachable at all, as "bureaucratic." Once again, they associate lack of access with being bureaucratic, and they cite inaccessibility as an example of "not caring." Customers of companies described as "bureaucratic" frequently characterize those organizations as being "arrogant" and "lacking in a sense of humor." Customers associate the following things with organizations they characterize as "bureaucratic." a. Getting transferred around a number of times when they call. b. Employees who are not positive about the organization. They give the impression that they arent happy to be working there.

Classified - Internal use

c. Employees who are less than enthusiastic about the organizations products or services. d. Employees who arent friendly, and give the impression they dont care if the customer is satisfied or not. Inside the organization, employees live with some very negative by-products of the bureaucratic form. When employees are asked to give examples of things they think of as being bureaucratic, they frequently cite the following: Each department has its own agenda; departments dont cooperate to help other departments get the job done. The head of a department feels responsible first for protecting the department, its people and its budget, even before helping to achieve the organizations mission. There is political in-fighting, with executives striving for personal advancement and power. Ideas can be killed because they come from the "wrong" person. Ideas will be supported because the are advanced by the "right" person. People in their own department spend much of their time protecting their departments "turf." People in other departments spend so much time protecting their "turf" that they dont have time to do the work they are responsible to do. They are treated as though they cant be trusted. They are treated as though they dont have good judgment. They are treated as though they wont work hard unless pushed. Their work environment includes large amounts of unhealthy stress. The tendency of the organization is to grow top-heavy, while the operating units of the organization tend to be too lean. Promotions are more likely to be made on the basis of politics, rather than actual achievements on the job. Top managers are dangerously ill-informed and insulated from what is happening on the front lines or in "the field." Information is hoarded or kept secret and used as the basis for power. Data is used selectively, or distorted to make performance look better than it re ally is.

Classified - Internal use

 Internal communications to employees are distorted to reflect what the organization would like to be, rather than what it really is. Mistakes and failures are denied, covered up or ignored. Responsibility for mistakes and failure tends to be denied, and where possible, blame is shifted to others. Decisions are made by larger and larger groups, so no one can be held accountable. Decisions are made based on the perceived desires of superiors, rather than concern for mission achievement. Policies, practices and procedures tend to grow endlessly and to be followed more and more rigidly. Senior managers become so insulated from the realities of the front line that they may use stereotypical thinking and out-of-date experience in making decisions. Quantitative measurements are favored over qualitative measurements, so the concentration is on quantities of output, with less and less concern for quality of output. Both employees and customers are treated more as numbers than people. Persona l issues and human needs are ignored or discounted. Summary "Bureaucracy" as defined by customers and employees is an array of negative forces, attitudes or actions that are damaging to customer and employee satisfaction. "Bureaucracy" is damaging to organizational effectiveness. It weakens employee morale and commitment. It divides people within the organization against each other, and misdirects their energy into conflict or competition with each other instead of mission achievement. The negative organizational symptoms we call "bureaucracy" are almost certainly derived from organizing based on the bureaucratic form.

top | home | contact us |

Bureaucracy is no longer applicable today

Introduction
This assignment is about bureaucracy is no longer applicable today's business environment this is expression is support with organisation management theory , which explain bureaucracy with examples of

Classified - Internal use

a current organisation and using bureaucracy theory what are the disadvantages and advantages . Why it is not applicable? With finding if it is not applicable what will be the theory can use today organisation This discussion will end with conclusion and recommendation, limitation of 1500 words.

Organisation theories
Management now know or been used as organisational. It could be private or public. Management is a procedure which involves guild lines to group of people to award structural goals. Business environment change rapidly day to day. This increasing development made management difficult part of taking risk in order to make profit. However the organisation grows problem will be complex and classification to accomplished .therefore the companies are forced to change in responses to the internal and external. Different writers came up with their own thinking point of view; the writers were called classical school this study began in 19th centuries. Classical model is the oldest management thought . The main concern was how to control work place and the work efficiently. Sub division of classical school are scientific management, administrative management and bureaucratic management.

Scientific management (1880)

This management is more likely systemic study of working style in teams of developing efficiency. Frederick. Taylor (1856-1917) defines as the works should know exactly what they suppose to do and do it accordingly, genuinely, responsible way and cheapest way. This system was in used in 20th centuries. The main features are: Job analysis Planning and doing Training their duties Cooperation Specification This method was to root in many developing organisations industries during the heyday of mass production in 21 century. Eg: the success of such business like ford motor companies , uses of Taylor's method, there more such as fast food outlets, call centres and theme parks .there job roles fairly tightly defined and employees action are carefully controlled.

Classified - Internal use

Administrative management (1940s)

The main target is on management process and principal of management. In comparing to scientific management, which deals with jobs and work at personal level of analysis reference of business. Henri Fayol (1841-1925) the father of the Morden management theory .according to his view , day to day management work is characterised by a large number of varied task and problems demanding rapid judgement and responses. Then he divided management role 14 principles. And 5 process which are Planning: looking ahead, evaluate the future and making supply. Dominant: making sure the organisation matching the planning output. Managing (coordinating) Leading Organising

Bureaucratic management (1930- 1959)

Max Weber introduce the term of bureaucratic, which describe large organisational structure. Weber focused on dividing organisations to hierarchies, establishing strong line of authority and control. He suggest organisation develop comprehensive and detailed stand operating procedures for all routed task free management library. General features of bureaucracy is a formal enlisting process .eg china was selected officials cased on their performance by testing Confucian classics The determined reasons for the approach of the bureaucratic organisation have always been it purely skilled of high quality. the fully developed bureaucratic mechanism compares with other organisations exactly as does the machine with the non-mechanical modes of productive Bureaucratic characterised as: It is classified accordingly to various criteria in to successive levels in relationship, completion in one main at the top. Effort to dictated all action and only ruled by rules and regulations. Extended use of writing documents It main target is to hire and promote staff give work according to their specification. Its conduct with strict rules on rationality. Bureaucracy is organizational form used by sociologists and organizational design professionals. It required training in job and skills. All these years it exist because of it strength.

Classified - Internal use

The strength of the bureaucracy This system is useful for routine, programmable operation. It gives a safe working environment and good job opportunities. It has the ability to increase the max size of habitation of a kin group of leaders and also increase the strength of the authority of the leaders. It is very costly, if there is breakdown it is very expensive therefore to control maintains it should be closely supervised and controlled.

Disadvantage of the bureaucracy

A little story to explain there was a resident who has changed in to another apartment ,h e was very happy .what he firstly done was went to the places like bank and call most of the place which needed changing address , after few day later he was trying to pay good by his credit card it did not work, he went to bank customer service passed on to manager and he pass on to branch, he was vary unset about the management this shows that having bureaucratic system customer are not satisfied. Always one person control the organisation and that person has more duty to attend therefore it frustrating. What they do not understand is everything comes down to people, customers are valuable, no customers no business, if they do not server needs have people like: human care, creativity, commitment, frustration despair. If in any case neglect organisation will not exit bruce cryer . Main advantages in government point of view straightforward level of impairment (UN) warning intelligent commentator clear that the organisation structure has issues in the society. The bureaucratic do fail in many occasion due to command digressive space (limiting public debates on their point of view) they destroy the resources (eg:tax), they act above the law. We find a threat to individuality: the conflict surfaces because the organizational rules become more important that the individuals they were designed to serve. (Cheney, 2004, p. 33) Every individual work like machine, they do not have the time space in spare to meet the customers. eg: in the college if you want to see the register it will take at least 3 to 4 days . The customers are not happy about it wasting the time of every one.

why it is not applicable

To become a major player in the software development market, while staying small in order to Guarantee quality and customer service this was the mission statement.

Classified - Internal use

Bureaucracy applies to different people, in different ways in different firms. However, I am of the belief that sole companies are at a distinct disadvantage in today's competitive markets, especially when it comes to innovation and time-to-market. Highly bureaucratic organizational structures, while still fine for companies in old, mature markets that do not rely on innovation, are not able to quickly move on new ideas and are not able to restructure their workplaces to take advantage of new manufacturing techniques or the ideas of their employees.

Conclusion
Today generally people see bureaucratic negatively and realise that bureaucratic have their own limitation .if companies rely on instruction and process they will be unmanageable and inflexible .it will lead to slow response to changing environment more likely to drown long run . According to researcher's burns and stallder in the early 1960 they say that firm's environment .the way they managed and organised stable environment worked well under a bureaucratic. It is boring stable and unchanged environment. They suggest that managers in constantly changing innovation environment need and organisation structure that allow them to be responsive and creative that way organisation is more alive. Modern bureaucratic evidence clarify that it is categorised by impersonality the reason, most people infuriates because they treat you like a number, not a person Finally the vision will be organisation must look alike and be a like when accomplishing craved goal. Therefore the main state will be destroying the bureaucratic structure. As a result of changes shows in a environment of empowered, most people will be happy in their jobs and will make the customers satisfied.

Read more: http://www.essay.uk.com/free-management-essays/bureaucracy-is-no-longer-applicabletoday.php#ixzz2YYYRC9CV

Classified - Internal use