adoption practically for forms of bureaucratic nature in nations which are non-traditionally…

adoption practically for forms of bureaucratic nature in nations which are non-traditionally
communist. In accordance to Pearce, 2000, p 151, in such nation’s bureaucracy can be
characterized through specific practices of organizations designed actually to motivate excessive
formalization enhanced level and hierarchies with regard to interest of the minority groups
(Albrow 2008). In opposition to this, bureaucracy of universalistic type has an intention to
further increase satisfaction of employees and organizational effectiveness. The relevance of
bureaucracy today has been derived from these practices of universalistic nature that is inclusive
to appraise performance, making description of job appropriate, systems of financial accounting
being improves and procedures of grievance underlined.
The bureaucratic existence currently can be an attribute primarily of positive impact delivered
from bureaucratic forms that are appropriate at several organizational extents disregarding the
development sorts and levels. It is normally apparently agreeable that there are conflicts present
of inevitable nature in the benefit of organization managers. Example, the workers benefit and
manager’s benefit is not always in alignment. In accordance to Jaffe however, this interesting
conflict is caused inevitable because of the tension in an organization which might be neutralized
by rules of bureaucracy such as methods, supervising and even coordinated as is the interest
found by non-owners while organizational owner’s interest is created. In addition, rules of
bureaucracy are exercised more easily and can be enforces when every member in an
organization has the same interest (Albrow 2008). For example, not only managers but also the
workers find that it is in the best of their interest to follow the rules and regulations related to
safety practices of prevention and this results in enhanced formalization of bureaucracy to make
these rules be exercised strictly by making sure that these rules are accepted by all the
employees. In this regards, obviously the representative bureaucracy formalized procedures are
required and are appropriate also for all kinds of organizations. According to Max Weber,
bureaucracy is that which has the most reasonable management and is appropriate in the world
today. However, from the perspective of this paper it would be acknowledgeable to state that
several applications of bureaucratic extent has a dependence over forms of organizations, sizes
along with tasks of organizations.
Bureaucracy is characterized with structural hierarchies, procedures of formalized expertise and
staff skills and from this style of management perspective, is thought to be suitable for
organizations at larger scale wherein time, conformity and order are important for getting the
complete system to smoothly run. Obviously, these requirements specifically demand
contemporary organizations success itself but they are not able to formalize their success due to
the smooth function of the system which is desired.
Additionally, the bureaucracy management style application with enhanced formalization levels
and standard operations are necessary for particular sectors such as health related, security
related and administration related sectors. The highly disciple organizations such as police
authorities operate in a perfectly organized manner for ensuring security or order in the society
disregard to bureaucratic rules absence (Albrow 2008). Moreover, with regard to tasks of
organizations, bureaucracy has been considered important for tasks routine being characterized
through repeating along with being non-routine tasks counter-productive emergence that are
typically innovative. In accordance, managers are even more encouraged under tasks without
routine with lower formalization level along with tasks of routine with formalization of high
level. Apparently, within organizations working on routine based tasks, most employee’s
satisfaction is dependent on higher formalization levels along with control speculations and in
such situations relevance of bureaucratic forms is apparent. From this perspective, there is
bureaucratic efficiency dilemma for tasks based on routine and involvement of manager’s issues.
According to Adler, 2009, it has been argued that non-motivational and repetitive tasks usually
involve employees with lower involvement levels with deteriorated level of expectation from the
work. This, in turn, results into organizations finding it difficult for getting the employees in
being highly involved for catching up with current environment of competition. The employee
satisfaction, however with higher formalization levels or hierarchical attributes that make sure of
workplace efficiency is that organizations need to achieve tasks routinely. For example, the
methodologies of development at the organization based in Japan, namely, Toshiba Fuchu works
to develop software and this organization has succeeded in getting its name amongst the list of
successful American corporations in the electronic sector wherein structure has higher degrees of
formalization and standardization disregarding the software developer’s alienation. Therefore, in
accordance to what has been stated by Gery, 2005, modern world is the efficiency world wherein
specific ends are met by focused means and by guaranteeing efficiency helping the workplace
environment of the organization to be such that it has the ability of coping with tough
competitive environment.
Bureaucracy, moreover is seen as an important style of management creating and fostering trust,
commitment and employees motivation. From this perspective, the issue outlining controversies
is that whether bureaucratic function is suitable for modern world organizations as compared
with other management styles (Alfred et al 1977).
From the perspective of enhancing positivity in the employees for enhancing their effectiveness,
there exist contradictory perspectives of bureaucracy as compared to forms of democracy. On the
other hand, style of management namely, participative management can be regarded as being
completed with flexibility for promoting the motivation and employees commitment for their
organization. According to the suggestions of Pearce, 2000, formalized structured systems are
applicable for larger sized organizations in developed nations inclusive of systems to appraise
performance, describing jobs, posting jobs using appropriate procedures etc asserting that
motivation and employees commitment cannot be gained when organizations are not able to
create a scheme of management ensuring accountability of transparency, equitable perspective
and efficient operations (Adler 1999). These management system criteria’s obviously can be
evident in the style of bureaucratic management. Example, when performance appraisal is based
on results and the same criteria is applied for activities to perform, employees performance and
genuine competence expecting assessment based on principle universality such as credit instead
of personality or specific relationships becoming highly committed. Additionally, the positive
behavior of the employees according to Adler, 2009, will help the managers or employees to
improvise their performance related to their job and the organization performance in return is
also improvised. Moreover, the enhanced commitment of the employees with their organizations,
the conflicting interest’s generated tension is often easily dissolved in the positivity of the
managers behaviors. In brief, the organizations efficiencies and productivities are often essential
not only for contemporary firms making them more competitively blessed but also the
bureaucratic contemporary firms perspective is positive.
Advantages of Bureaucratic organization forms
Even though the bureaucratic vices are evident, this organizational form cannot be totally
inappropriate. This implies that that proverbial red tape benefits in association to the bureaucratic
forms of organizations are present. For example, regulations of bureaucratic organizations and
associated procedures help in making sure that the administration of food and drug takes precise
precautions for safeguarding the American citizen’s health when within the approving process of
a newly developed medicine (Adler et al 1996). And the documents of red tape are used for
processing so that whenever an issue develops, analysis and re-correction can be done with the
existing data. In the similar manner, bureaucratic impersonality’s can have advantages. For
example, an enormous detail of documents need to be submitted by an applicant for obtaining
student’s loan from the government. This procedure however is lengthy and frustrates various
customers but the process helps in promoting applicants equal treatment implying that each
individual applying will have a consistent option for gaining fund related access from the
government. Favoritism is also often discouraged by bureaucracies implying that in an
organization properly organized, clout of political relationship will not impact the funding
access.
Positive effect of bureaucracy can be evident on managers as well. According to several social
researchers, various employees experience their intellect thrives when environment has
bureaucracy in it and also the research depicted bureaucrats to have higher educational level,
activity of intellect, responsibility of personalities, directing the self and being broad minded in
comparison to other non-bureaucrats. Job security on the other hand is also additional benefit of
bureaucracy to managers because of providing steady salary and several related perks such as
health insurance and coverage of disability and even a pension when retiring.
Disadvantages of bureaucracy
Bureaucracy does have considerable disadvantages apart from making organizations rigid and
stagnant without cooperation and motivation as innovation deprivation can often stagnate
productivity. Bureaucracy has an inability of being adaptive to the fast changing firms currently.
This implies that bureaucracy appears to be getting old especially to tackle the ever increasing
environment of competitive firms in the market (Baird et al 2005). In addition, bureaucracy is
needed supposedly to be substituted through more arrangement with flexibility such as by
making contracts and alliances. Bureaucracy management style however with main features is
specifically properly suited for particular organizations with specific size and sort. Importantly,
for keeping pace with the ever increasing environment of competition along with ensuring
efficiency it is required for bureaucratic procedures to not cause barriers rather needs to
consistently improvise the adaptation to change the organizational structure in the management
style practices. The bureaucratic efficiency is influenced largely through the way in which rules
should be implementation with regard to organizational quality within labor force. In accordance
to Pugh, 1996 and also in accordance to the arguments of Mintzberg, 1996, conformity in forms
of textual rules, methods and guidelines are developed for enabling managers to improvise their
tasks through enabled formalization and for coercing these efforts and conformities through
employees by the process of coercive formalization (Du Gay 2000). Even though various
procedures of bureaucracy are considered not only through managers but also by the
management as barriers instead of implemented guidelines and criticism of coercive
formalization will not give the opportunities to the employees for getting involved within the
process and it seems beneficial to acknowledge that this is not the case always but there are
certain strict rules and procedures that need to be arbitrarily implemented. For example, within
organizations wherever there is incompetency and irresponsibility’s of employees, it is not liable
to consider that their effectiveness depends over awareness and compliance of voluntary nature
with procedures of organizations. Within this perspective, the coercive formalization as a
bureaucratic type has been thought to have operations in an effective manner than enabled
formalization and as considered by Adler and Borys, sometimes this can be applied as an
important disadvantage even though bureaucratic method virtual efficiency has been achieved by
putting creativity and motivation at stake (Jacoby 2003). In contrast to this, formal enabling is
required when employees have voluntariness and competence for contributing to organizational
improvement then this implies that formalization of enabling nature is used for encouraging
employees or manager’s commitment for performing their tasks in an effective manner and for
reinforcing their commitment made.
Advantages of anti-bureaucratic
Anti-bureaucratic organizations can be best understood as non-profit based organizations. The
most advantageous aspect of anti-bureaucratic firms lies in commitment of employees. Most
members of these organizations work because they have a personal interest on the subject and
their commitment also henceforth comes naturally.
Rewards present have an intrinsic nature: the anti-bureaucratic firms need to advantage the
society and population segments such as unemployed people or homeless infants. According to
the Family Homelessness National Centre, reported a research conveying there are
approximately 2 million infants across developed nations without a home as per 2012 reports and
the number will dramatically rise because of recession impact in future. Measuring tangible
impact that non-bureaucratic organizations can have over families in need is not possible but
these benefits with intangible nature are of more value than a business involving monetary
benefits.
Disadvantages of anti-bureaucratic
Funding is Limited: Development of funds and raising funds is the main barrier for a non or anti-
bureaucratic organization especially when economic recession is ongoing and also when rates of
unemployment are high end. As a matter of fact, certain anti-bureaucratic firms are forced for
discontinuing their activities to those in need when funding is itself not present with these firms.
Development of funds on the other hand also needs a grant writer with competence with a higher
rate of success. Grant writer’s hiring service can be expensive turning development of funds into
a problem.
Pressure faced from society: Backlash potential and plague filled societies do not consider the
missions of these anti-bureaucratic organizations to be important whether or not their basis is on
progressive beliefs. Protests are common.
Analysis of Organizations
This section has discussed 4 separate organizations from different industries (some successful
bureaucracies and some unsuccessful) inclusive of McDonald’s, IBM, GM and the social
security administration. Each of these are considered bureaucracies of which McDonalds has
managed to achieve success despite the heavy bureaucracies faced by the organization.
An example of McDonald’s can be considered as a contemporary bureaucracy and its
consequences for life style of employees which has been cited by Ritzer, 2005 wherein he has
clearly invoked this chain of fast foods to be archetypical in nature. In reflection to what Weber
said, Ritzer described McDonald’s to have 4 features inclusive of being efficient, calculable,
predictable and controlling by using technologies that non-human in nature. There is nothing
more dramatic in nature here because Mcdonaldization has had a lot in similarity to the scientific
management theory of Taylor and assembly line of Ford (Grey 2005). The ideas of Taylor
however were never clearly implemented and assembly line usage always remained confined to
the sector of manufacturing but McDonalds has entered a real beyond the industry of fast-food.
The methods, technologies and values of the management that have established McDonalds as
the leading chain of ham burgers across the world are now even applicable to several settings of
organizations such as establishments of retail, education related and even the pornographic
industry. Even though Mcdonaldization has been analyzed by critics as something non pleasant
something alienating the environment of work, carefully researching the actual workers
experience and feelings has helped in formalizing the more broad and complicated image. The
most intensive impact on the workers working at McDonalds in the company’s structure and
their experience of operations was measured in a survey by Robin Leidner, 1990s. In certain
ways the research supported McDonald’s concept of such an organization which is not only
stereotypically impersonal but also bureaucratic. Even though dealing with separate customers,
the main activity across the fast food chain lies in difficulty of routinizing and this is obtained by
using a number of formally based rules and methods along with preparing scripts that are used by
workers when customers interact. Preparing food is routinized highly by the technologies that
need lesser judgment on the cooks such as ketchup by the dispensers is always supplied in exact
amount and the registers for cash that help cashiers to know the accurate change to be given.
However, the perspective of individually owned restaurant managers and owners with respect to
McDonald’s is that it provides a manual which covers every procedure and standard of being
employed (Gerth et al 2002). Additionally, the organizations needs that the franchises
prospective owners are able to attend the Oak Brook Hamburger University, Illinois where
procedures of operations are taught to them and are more basically imbued with the corporate
philosophy and thinking of the organization. The organization has been criticized for making
people to a low paid work and routine based work that needs very less workers of the skills but
still the essential features of the organization have helped the company in associating itself in the
best possible manner.
On the other hand, the culture of GM is also called as bureaucratic in nature and it has remained
to be such since almost a decade. The bureaucratic culture however of the organization has been
resultant from the strategic alignment absence with relation to the Saturn case which was a
differentiated brand of GM intended towards rear guarding tasks in opposition to foreign made
cars efficiency of fuels and high quality. The Saturn models were not bad but they did not have
equally appreciative features causing the plan to deteriorate especially because the management
of this Saturn program did not gave the free will and commitment for running their business on
their own and employees were not given the training to deliver reliability and efficiency of
premium nature. Here, bureaucracy has appeared to fail the structure of a branded name and in
comparison to McDonalds the company did not pay attention on improvising the efficiency of
employees to obtain something which might be routine based.
The case of IBM before its recovery was not different as well that GM. When IBM experienced
change of its CEO, the company received bloating with enhanced bureaucracy and price and its
individuals were made to de-moralize (Henderson et al 2004). Initially, the management team of
Gerstner decided to cut costs by downsizing and this lead to enhance profit but not
organizational growth. The growth started to eventually increase for the company but even now
the company has not managed to come out of the negative consequences experienced by it due to
it being a bureaucratic organization. Mainframes sales were dependent on the cycle of business
within economically developed nations and slow economic growths.
The Social security administration on the other hand is a significantly huge bureaucratic
organization with prime problem of being large faced by the management. The specific issue of
size has also been complicated by the programs nature of complexity because the size of the
organization is not in alignment with the structure of bureaucratic program.
Recommendations for best practices
Bureaucracy centered on punishment has been depicted to develop the enhanced tension present
between the perspectives of management and even the employees which implies that for getting
the compliance of employees within procedures of organizations, certain kinds of strict rules can
be enforced and management can impose the same on the workers (Jaffe 2003). From this
perspective, the most essential issue of management regards the way in which goals can be
achieved in the most appropriate manner or bureaucracy efficiency inevitability is dependent on
how he cultural values of organizations can align with the applicable extent of bureaucracy. For
examples, the managers in Japan are valued highly on processes of communication in relation to
interdepartmental structure by following a paternalistic method whereas on the other hand the
managers in United States are underlined with supervisory style of making decisions and
mechanizing control. At a surprising level however, the employment relation between Japanese
under bureaucratization helps in enhancing the commitment of employees through constitutional
order production with regard to authoritative arbitrary power. In the same way, employment
relation bureaucratization in Corporations of America leads towards establishing market in the
internal labor environment wherein managers are able to apply workers division and
characterization. Additionally, the issue of current management of organizations with respect to
the way effective rules of bureaucracy are applicable within workplace cultural environment
especially when the workplace is culturally diverse (Mises 1983). The bureaucracy impact,
obviously is definitely distinct from organizations with cultural homogeneity for cultural
diversity in the organization. Therefore, the issue of controversies for managers in the HR
department here is with regard to the way in which management of bureaucratic nature are under
the orientation of multi-cultures along with individual organizations based on culture. As culture
of organizations is mostly considered to be within several factors considerations such as the
history of company, current management, the product or service nature or culture of nation
requires managers to understand management style such as bureaucracy along with other styles.
From this perspective it can be stated that it is very important to identify bureaucracy of best
suited manner so that organizations can operate in the efficient way to avoid any unimportant
benefit conflict between different backgrounds of cultures with regard to employees and
employers and most significantly that style of management has to be such that it helps the
organization along with its employees (Pearce 2000). Organizations such as IBM and GM should
focus on directing all their bodies inclusive of units of ministerial framework for disclosing the
complete cost of collected data and provide a clear justification of business for every request
made. It is also important for the informational center of such bureaucratic organization to work
in accordance to larger authorities for enhancing care and quality with regard to products and
services.
Conclusion
Consistent movement of organizations towards efficiency and productivity of higher degree, it is
evident from the discussion above that bureaucracy is required for systems to become highly
flexible. This implies that formal procedures and standard disciplines are required for being
consistently implemented with the bureaucratic characteristics but they are unnecessarily
maintained to be not changing disregard any organizational movement wherein they operate. If
the original design of bureaucracy has been made for consistently changing then it should be in
accordance to match with the organizational change (Quang et al 2002). It has also been noticed
however that any kind of change under applications of bureaucracy cannot be differentiated from
the main functions of making sure that there is efficiency, conformity and organizational
operations are timeless. If design of bureaucracy is original for assuring organizational efficiency
then the bureaucratic rules need to be consistently changed in accordance with the organizational
change. This change within applications of bureaucracy should not be deviated from the main
functions of conformity and flexible style which cannot be ignored. According to the suggestions
of Pearce, 2000, formalized structured systems are applicable for larger sized organizations in
developed nations inclusive of systems to appraise performance, describing jobs, posting jobs
using appropriate procedures etc asserting that motivation and employees commitment cannot be
gained when organizations are not able to create a scheme of management ensuring
accountability of transparency, equitable perspective and efficient operations (Melville et al
2002). These management system criteria’s obviously can be evident in the style of bureaucratic
management.
Bureaucracy as a specific management style remains to be important and required for
contemporary dynamic organizations especially for those that have been characterized as large
scale or routine task based and also for those wherein performance importantly and specifically
depends upon higher hierarchical degrees and bureaucratic form formalization. Moreover, even
after the quick changing international business practices along with the environment as well as
the organization structure diverse movement, the main features of global bureaucracy is inclusive
of formalizing, hierarchies and expertise of staff with regard to time, conformity and clear
accountability remaining important inevitably for organizations at the contemporary level. This
paper comes to a conclusion that shortcomings faced by bureaucratic organizations are apparent
and they are simply reflections of bureaucratic advantages. Bureaucracy is considered to be an
indispensable component of modernization but a world run only in accordance to principles of
bureaucracy will not work appropriately and it would definitely be an inappropriate experience
for the employees at all times (Yates 1999). The engendered dilemmas and paradoxes outlined
by bureaucracies will be the main focus on which newly formulated policies can be delivered
helping in enthusiastically growing the employees and the employers of a particular
organization.
References
Albrow, M., 2008, Bureaucracy, London: Macmillan
Alfred, D., and Chandler, Jr., 1977, The Visible Hand: The Managerial Revolution in American
Business, Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press
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.
Jacoby, H., 2003, The Bureaucratization of the World, Berkeley: University of California Press
Grey, Ch 2005 .A very short, fairly interesting and reasonably cheap book about studying
organizations. Sage Publications Ltd, London.
Gerth, H. H., and Wright, C., 2002, Mills explanation of Bureaucrat, New York: Oxford
University Press, pp 196–244.
Henderson, A. M., and Parsons, T., 2004, The theory of social and economic organizations from
Weber’s perspectives, New York: Free Press, 1964), 184–91.
Jaffe, D., 2003, 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.
Melville, H., Moby-Dick, ed. H. P., and Hayford, H., 2002, The theory of social and economic
bureaucracy, New York: Norton, 157.
Yates, J., 1900, Control through Communication: The Rise of System in American Management.
Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press
Appendix
Related Bureaucratic continuum of several organizations (low range, mid-range and high range)