The Critical Examination of Traditional Theories of Bureaucracy and Their Applications to the Modern Day Workings of Business

The critical examination of traditional theories of bureaucracy and their applications to modern day organisations.
By David Martin – N0385354
Word Count: 2651

The notion of a bureaucracy was first explored by the German scholar Max Weber, whose work in the areas of politics and sociology led him to great conclusions, such as his theory of rationalisation and its ever increasing nature of this in Western culture, as well as his notion of authority and the famous ‘Iron Cage’ metaphor. As time has passed, these concepts have been delved into to a much more detailed level, leading to results such as Betham’s three models of bureaucracy (Williams 2011: Slide 3-4) and the relevancy of some of the older theories have been questioned at times by the likes of Bendix and Ritzer.
To properly explore this area, some key terms must first be defined and reviewed; the most prominent of these is the term ‘bureaucracy’. A standard definition of this from the Oxford English Dictionary terms a bureaucracy as ‘a system of government in which most of the important decisions are taken by state officials rather than by elected representatives’. The term ‘government’ in this definition has multiple meanings, it can be substituted for any organisation, group or indeed government, and these non-elected officials implement the rules, laws and functions within their government, which are set out in a hierarchical structure. Rationalisation is a term used in sociology to refer to the process where an increasing number of social actions become based on considerations of efficiency and/or calculation rather than on motivations derived from morality, emotion, custom or tradition. This is most dominant in Western countries, where technological advancement has occurred, as well as prominent changes in business, politics and social thinking.
Betham’s models of bureaucracy answer three important questions regarding the existence of a bureaucracy. The definitional model specifies the criteria that determine what can be classified as a bureaucracy and what cannot be classified as one, and goes to answer the question of how we recognise a bureaucracy. In the modern day, this is becoming increasingly difficult, due to the various modifications and veils that are utilised by these organisations, which will be touched upon later. The explanatory model provides a template for the way bureaucracies function, and why the actions that are taken have the consequences on the firm that they do when they implement their policy. This model delves deep into why bureaucracies function as they do, and the positive and negative effects that their actions may carry. The final model, the normative model, defines the necessary conditions of efficiency for a bureaucracy, and explores how for either a single bureaucracy, or in general terms, satisfies these conditions, thus giving a very good idea of the efficiency of the organisation(s). These three models are smartly linked, as first a clear definition of a bureaucracy is needed, then once the basics have been learnt, then analysing the actions of this group, then taking this information and coming to a conclusion of efficiency and effectiveness of policy.
Weber first established three main types of authority, being traditional authority, charismatic authority and legal rational authority (Weber 1958). Traditional authority is where the incumbent system does not change over time, and does not adapt with any social change that may occur. Charismatic authority is found in leaders who impose their ideologies and regulations on others in an inspiring and pleasurable manner, while legal rational authority is the belief of following the law as well as natural law and order, with an observable manifestation of the legal rational type being a bureaucracy. There is quite a large section of blurriness between these three types of authority, especially in the 21st century, as bureaucracies such as national governments elect charismatic leaders to try and soften the restrictive nature of their decision making and of the principles in which they adhere to, an example being the current president of the United States Barack Obama, and more so the First Lady Michelle Obama. This can also be applied to business organisations, such as the late CEO of Apple Steve Jobs and his ‘ten year plan’ and engaging press conferences, which may have contributed to the massive success of his organisation. Any combination of these three types can be employed in any one organisation, and because of the different through processes of different human beings, this allows for the combinations to be made.
Stemming from this came Weber’s most well known research, being the ideal type of bureaucracy (Williams 2011: Slide 10). He created the 7 key characteristics for this ideal type, those being specialisation, a clear hierarchy, formalisation, impersonal rewards and sanctions, career tenure, promotion by merit and separation of careers and private lives. This ‘ideal type’ was merely a theoretical possibility; in fact Weber did not believe it was even possible for this this type of bureaucracy to exist; he intended it to be a benchmark for future research and as a device to aid analysis when examining organisational structures such as bureaucracies. Although this was thought to be unobtainable, some modern organisations come tantalisingly close to this ideal type. Nearly all bureaucracies have a clear hierarchy and are formalised, with responsibility falling on someone at the end of the day, and career tenure is typical of most places. Depending on the type of organisation and the kinds of people that are employed within that organisation, the rest of the criteria set out by Weber may or not be present. For a business organisation, external rules and regulations are set saying that employees must be hired and promoted fairly and equally, as well as following the rules set by that organisation equally. Yet some of these bureaucracies do not follow these procedures, with a form of corruption sneaking in, possibly due to the power that is gained from operating at such a high level within society. In terms of governmental bureaucracy, a modern and extremely controversial example of this would be the UK MP expenses scandal, in which members of parliament bent the rules to claim extra money from government coffers for personal use; thus abusing their position of power within the organisation. Whether Weber understood the devious nature of mankind, and thus concluded that the ideal type could never be met remains to be seen.
However, Weber himself admitted that a fair amount of his work were merely conceptual tools in which proper analysis and application were still required (Bendix 1965), highlighting the somewhat fragile nature of his thinking; that it was merely thinking and not reinforced by solid evidence. But other areas of his work were the exact opposite, so the fact that some areas were lacking application may have come down to the limited knowledge and technology that was available in the time of Weber, and the relative lack of bureaucracies available when compared to those of today.
Weber’s theories, explanations and conclusions are very much based on the historical periods in which he lived and studied, making the transition of application of his theories into the modern day somewhat blurred. Society has undergone massive changes in the past 100 or so years, yet Weber’s prediction of society, especially the developed Western nations, moving gradually towards a rational-legal state of organisational culture has been generally correct.
Another of Weber’s definitive theories was that of rationalisation. Weber believed this to be the guiding principle behind bureaucracy, and is essentially the driving force of the modern economy. It refers to the ever increasing use and exploitation of the natural environment, as well as other people through various social tactics. Weber noted this trend, and foresaw that this type of action was only going to increase in the future, a claim that nobody can deny has occurred. It involves structural reorganisation in a very hierarchical structure, as well as a focus on a systematic and calculable method of production, based on profit maximisation for the majority of organisations. This is clearly visible to see in the world today, production lines being an obvious example of this, as every movement is predetermined and calculated to be the most efficient process possible, which does result in cost savings for that organisation, which then transfers into additional profit.
Relevancy is a key issue in Weber’s theory of rationalisation, and one main criticism is that his work is somewhat vague, and can be relevant in certain situations and irrelevant in others (Bendix 1965). This is mainly due to the vastly different levels and types of social culture in the world, as a country such as the United States has larger levels of rationalisation and a larger concentration of bureaucracies than the likes of Bhutan, for instance. Every bureaucracy is different in some aspect, primarily due to the different people that operate within that organisation and the multitude of social and environmental factors that shaped their thinking over the course of their lives, so finding a universal bureaucratical and rational theory which all bureaucracies can fit under is extremely difficult, if not impossible.
His research has been the basis for many new scholars’ work, perhaps one of the most well-known being George Ritzer. He infers support of Weber’s theory by arguing that the process of rationalisation and bureaucratisation has accelerated moving from Weber’s time to the present day and uses the fast food chain McDonalds as a flagship example of this. In McDonaldisation, Ritzer defined 4 key elements, these being predictability, calculability, efficiency, and using non-human technology as a replacement for humans. These are all essential characteristics of a ‘McDonaldised’ bureaucracy, and the vast majority of modern day organisations employ all of these elements in some manifestation or another, the most obvious being the implementation of non human technology, as either a replacement for humans or as an aid to increase the efficiency and calculability of a process. These appear in a number of formats, from heavy machinery to self service checkouts at supermarkets to faster and more fuel efficient transport systems.
Ritzer then goes on to challenge Weber’s theory of rationalisation, going to call his theory ‘irrational’ (Ritzer 2004 p. 134). He noted several effects of rationalisation that went against the desired effects of it, thus making the concept of it irrational. The implementation of non-human technologies as a replacement for humans prevents people from obtaining jobs, which could eventually lead to the obsolete nature of humans in work, in some sectors, for example the construction industry. One example of this is the mining industry, where hand mining was gradually phased out due to the creation of more and more powerful machinery, leading to an ever reducing workforce, to the very low levels today, although price is another factor that should be considered, especially when referring to the UK mining industry. To extend, the dehumanisation of employees and customers makes rationalisation inherently irrational, as it fails to maintain interpersonal relationships, rather a process that happens to involve a human, and this can be observed though the lack of real communication between a customer and employee at an establishment like McDonalds; the employee only talks about the process of ordering their food in a most efficient way possible, sometimes even speaking in broken English. Rationalisation can ultimately lead to mass homogenisation of product sectors, eliminating competition and different product types, as ‘“Anywhere you go in the United States and, increasingly, throughout the world you are likely to find the same products offered in the same way” (Ritzer 2004 p. 147).

Field research was conducted by this writer into the extent that other organisations are McDonaldised, with the case study being the Walkabout chain of restaurants/bars. The fact that Walkabout is a chain is the beginning of McDonaldisation, as a clear network is developing, and thus the 4 key elements that Ritzer defined come into play. These elements were scored out of 5 on how much they were ingrained into the organisation, with the conclusion being that it adopted a very similar structure and mannerisms, but slightly diverse due to different management beliefs and the differences between the McDonalds product and the Walkabout product. It is a worrying trend, however, that more and more organisations are following in the footsteps of these highly rationalised firms, and this may not necessarily lead to a benefit for all.
The ‘Iron Cage’ metaphor utilised by Weber highlights quite dramatically the restrictive nature of a bureaucracy, as the definition of this requires the workers in that organisation to follow the rules and procedures, and ultimately realises that the worker is just a pawn in a game of chess, and the only real aim of the worker is to become a bigger pawn, or trade up to higher ranks like a knight or rook, ultimately to the prestigious rank of king. Yet this iron cage has been subject to scrutiny, as particularly in the present day some bureaucracies are adapting their methods to a much less restrictive one, although still maintaining their legal rational authority. A new take on this is the ‘Rubber Cage’ and ‘Velvet Cage’ (Ritzer 2004) where the cage of the bureaucracy is still very much in existence, but being inside the cage is much more comfortable and enjoyable. A stark contrast highlighting this change in bureaucratical thinking would be the ‘iron’ nature of the Nazi Party in Germany, where the logic was extremely strict, and failure to comply could result in serious consequences. Today, organisations such as Apple highlight the modern, ‘velvet’ approach to bureaucracy, as while the guidelines by Steve Jobs are still in place, many modifications have been applied, such as job rotation and enrichment, flattened hierarchical pyramids and divisionalisation (Williams 2011: Slide 22). Yet the presence of these new cages does go to show that Weber’s original thinking is not completely relevant today, as made clear above. The reasons for this are mainly due to the unpredictability of the future and not knowing the type of advancement that will occur in that space of time, which Weber clearly did not anticipate.
So do the traditional theories of bureaucracy relate to the modern way of living?
Ritzer’s detailed analysis of modern day bureaucracies like McDonalds, and from others such as Disney by Bryman, provide a much more up to date and relevant application of Weber’s work. He solidified certain areas such as the expansive nature of bureaucracy and rationalisation, but challenged Weber’s viewpoint that rationalisation was beneficial to society, claiming that it in fact did more damage than good.
A post bureaucratic approach may be one solution to this dilemma, and in fact appears to be the most common form of bureaucracy fond today, with only minor exceptions separating firms, and this is the style of command that Ritzer alluded to via his descriptions of McDonaldisation. Although firms like McDonalds are rationalised, employees are given more responsibility and shared responsibility, meaning they can make decisions without clearance from top level management. However, this clouds the hierarchical structure, and decisions made could be detrimental to the organisation, and also carry an increased amount of risk. Ironically, to improve this, a tightening of bureaucracy is in order, which creates a vicious cycle of bureaucratical and post-bureaucratical measures. What seems to have occurred is some sort hybrid structure has been created, where organisations try to employ aspects of both of these methods of thinking to create a ‘best of both’ situation, with firms like Walkabout utilising this to maintain that efficiency and rationalisation with the reduced consequences that it brings. It appears that this model is a hybrid of both aforementioned approaches to bureaucracy, and firms are currently jostling to try and create the ideal balance of measures, as this will ultimately translate into the success and the spread of the bureaucracy. This hybrid system confirms the relevancy of classical theory such as Weber, as without the foundations of bureaucratical study and rationalisation, it is most probable that the post bureaucratical method of operation would have dominated, and coupled with the increase in technology, this could have been an unwise move for the economy and mankind.

References
Bendix, R., (1965). Max Weber’s Sociology Today, International Social Science Journal. 17(1), pp 9 – 23
Briscoe, (2007). From Iron Cage to Iron Shield? How Bureaucracy Enables Temporal Flexibility for Professional Service Workers
Gane, N., (2002). Max Weber and Post-Modern theory: Rationalisation vs Re-enchantment. Palgrave Macmillan

Houghton, (2010). Does Max Weber 's notion of authority still hold in the twenty-first century?, df
Maravelias, C., (2003). Post-bureaucracy – control through professional freedom, Journal of Organizational Change Management, 16 (5), pp.547 – 566

Ritzer, G., (2006). Classical Sociological Theory (5th edition)
Ritzer, G., (2004). The McDonaldization of Society
Williams, H., (2011). BABM Management, Organisations, Work: Organisations at Work Part 1 (Seminar Notes). Nottingham Business School, Nottingham Trent University. (18/10/11).
Weber, M., (1958). The three types of legitimate rule. Berkeley Publications in Society and Institutions
Oxford Dictionaries, 2012, bureaucracy (Online), Available at: http://oxforddictionaries.com/definition/bureaucracy Accessed on 04/04/12

References: Bendix, R., (1965). Max Weber’s Sociology Today, International Social Science Journal. 17(1), pp 9 – 23 Briscoe, (2007). From Iron Cage to Iron Shield? How Bureaucracy Enables Temporal Flexibility for Professional Service Workers Gane, N., (2002). Max Weber and Post-Modern theory: Rationalisation vs Re-enchantment. Palgrave Macmillan Houghton, (2010). Does Max Weber 's notion of authority still hold in the twenty-first century?, df Maravelias, C., (2003). Post-bureaucracy – control through professional freedom, Journal of Organizational Change Management, 16 (5), pp.547 – 566 Ritzer, G., (2006). Classical Sociological Theory (5th edition) Ritzer, G., (2004). The McDonaldization of Society  Williams, H., (2011). BABM Management, Organisations, Work: Organisations at Work Part 1 (Seminar Notes). Nottingham Business School, Nottingham Trent University. (18/10/11). Weber, M., (1958). The three types of legitimate rule. Berkeley Publications in Society and Institutions Oxford Dictionaries, 2012, bureaucracy (Online), Available at: http://oxforddictionaries.com/definition/bureaucracy Accessed on 04/04/12