The Relevance of Bureaucracy to Contemporary Organizations
Bureaucracy is supposedly unsuitable to quickly changing and highly demanding features of contemporary organizations as this type of management is synonymous to red tape and it represents dozens of negative effects such as rigidity, alienation, and low commitment (Adler, 1999, pp.37). However, with core characteristics of the bureaucratic form (e.g. formalization, hierarchy and specialization) (Adler & Borys, 1996, p.1) as well as evidence of ongoing existence of this management method, bureaucracy is proved to remain relevant in terms of following facets: it very fits organizations characterized with routine tasks; it comes up with exceptional requirements of some specific organizations; it is very well-suited to ease the tension of interest conflict between members of organization; and an appropriate style of bureaucracy will create and foster trust, commitment and motivation among employees. This paper argues that bureaucracy will keep pace with fast-moving contemporary organizations provided that organization management takes into account cultural features, quality of labor force, and the need of continuous improvement.
Despite the fact that bureaucracy possesses some negative consequences such as rigidity, alienation, and low commitment (Adler, 1999, p.37) or bureaucracy is under criticism for dehumanizing people (Grey, 2005), there is evidence of bureaucracy existence in today world. For example, in America, the democratic government uses the rules of bureaucratic management; and bureaucratic principles are applied in administration of the customs and the foreign service alike (Mises, 1983, p.47). Normally, when bureaucracy is discussed, this management style is usually assimilated to red tape, over-controlling bosses, and apathetic employees (Adler, 1999, p.36); or it is regarded as incompatible to individual liberty, personal accountability and other virtues (Du Gay, 2000, p.67); or it is even regarded as one of the great evils (Adler, 1999 p.46).
Despite the fact that bureaucracy possesses some negative consequences such as rigidity, alienation, and low commitment (Adler, 1999, p.37) or bureaucracy is under criticism for dehumanizing people (Grey, 2005), there is evidence of bureaucracy existence in today world. For example, in America, the democratic government uses the rules of bureaucratic management; and bureaucratic principles are applied in administration of the customs and the foreign service alike (Mises, 1983, p.47). Normally, when bureaucracy is discussed, this management style is usually assimilated to red tape, over-controlling bosses, and apathetic employees (Adler, 1999, p.36); or it is regarded as incompatible to individual liberty, personal accountability and other virtues (Du Gay, 2000, p.67); or it is even regarded as one of the great evils (Adler, 1999 p.46).
References: Adler, P, S 1999 .‘Building better bureaucracies’, Academy of Management Review, pp.36-49. Adler, P, S & Borys, B 1996 .‘two types of Bureaucracy: Enabling and Coercive’. Aministrative Science Quarterly, pp.61-89. Baird, M, Compton, R & Nankervis, A (eds) 2005, Human Resource management: strategies and processes, 5th edn, Thomson, Melbourne. Du Gay .P 2000, In Praise of Bureaucracy. Publications Ltd, Lodon. Grey, Ch 2005 .A very short, fairly interesting and reasonably cheap book about studying organizations. Sage Publications Ltd, London. Jaffe, D .Organization theory: Tention and change, 1th edn. University of North Florida, New York. Mises, L, V 1983. Bureaucracy. Margit Von Mises, New York. Pearce, J.L 2000. ‘Insufficient bureaucracy: trust and commitment in particularistic organizations’. Organization Science, pp.148-162. Quang, T & Vuong, N, T 2002. ‘Management Styles and Organizational Effectiveness in Vietnam’. Research and Practice in Human Resource Management, 10(2), 36-55.