bureaucracy
Our editors will review what you’ve submitted and determine whether to revise the article.
- Auburn University - Bureaucracy
- Penn State College of Earth and Mineral Sciences - Introduction to Energy and Earth Sciences Economics - Bureaucracies and Power
- University of Minnesota Libraries - What is Bureaucracy?
- CORE - Bureaucracies, Bureaucrats and Technology
- Oregon State University Pressbooks - Classical Sociological Theory and Foundations of American Sociology - Bureaucracy
- UShistory.org - The Bureaucracy: The Real Government
- University of Central Florida - Bureaucracy and the Evolution of Public Administration
- Canadian Encyclopedia - Bureaucracy
News•
bureaucracy, specific form of organization defined by complexity, division of labour, permanence, professional management, hierarchical coordination and control, strict chain of command, and legal authority. It is distinguished from informal andcollegial organizations. In its ideal form,bureaucracy is impersonal and rational and based on rules rather than ties of kinship, friendship, or patrimonial orcharismatic authority.Bureaucratic organization can be found in both public and private institutions.
Characteristics and paradoxes of bureaucracy
The foremost theorist of bureaucracy is the German sociologistMax Weber (1864–1920), who described the ideal characteristics ofbureaucracies and offered an explanation for the historical emergence of bureaucratic institutions. According to Weber, the defining features of bureaucracy sharply distinguish it from other types of organization based on nonlegal forms of authority. Weber observed that the advantage of bureaucracy was that it was the most technically proficient form of organization, possessing specialized expertise, certainty,continuity, and unity. Bureaucracy’s emergence as a preferred form of organization occurred with the rise of amoney-based economy (which ultimately resulted in the development ofcapitalism) and the attendant need to ensure impersonal, rational-legal transactions. Instrumental organizations (e.g., public-stock business firms) soon arose because their bureaucratic organization equipped them to handle the various demands of capitalist production more efficiently than small-scale producers.
Contemporarystereotypes of bureaucracy tend to portray it as unresponsive,lethargic, undemocratic, and incompetent. Weber’s theory of bureaucracy, however, emphasizes not only its comparative technical and proficiency advantages but also attributes its dominance as a form of organization to the diminution ofcaste systems (such asfeudalism) and other forms of inequitable social relations based upon a person’s status. In the pure form of bureaucratic organization universalized rules and procedures would dominate, rendering personal status or connections irrelevant. In this form, bureaucracy is theepitome of universalized standards under which similar cases are treated similarly as codified by law and rules, and under which the individual tastes and discretion of the administrator are constrained bydue process rules. Despite the widespreadderogatory stereotypes of bureaucracy, a system ofgovernment grounded inlaw requires bureaucracy to function.
Nevertheless, the wordsbureaucracy andbureaucrat are typically thought of and used pejoratively. They convey images of red tape, excessive rules and regulations, unimaginativeness, a lack of individual discretion, central control, and an absence of accountability. Far from being conceived as proficient, popular contemporary portrayals often paint bureaucracies as inefficient and lacking in adaptability. Because the characteristics that define the organizational advantages of bureaucracy also contain within them the possibilities of organizational dysfunction, both the flattering and unflattering depictions of bureaucracy can be accurate. Thus, the characteristics that make bureaucracies proficient paradoxically also may produce organizational pathologies.
Jurisdictional competency
Jurisdictionalcompetency is a key element of bureaucratic organization, which is broken into units with defined responsibilities. Fundamentally, jurisdictional competency refers to bureaucratic specialization, with all elements of a bureaucracy possessing a defined role. The responsibilities of individuals broaden with movement upward through an organizationalhierarchy. The organizationaldivision of labour enables units and individuals within an organization to master details and skills and to turn the novel into the routine. Although the division of labour is highly efficient, it can lead to a number of harmful organizational pathologies; for example, units or individuals may be unable to identify and respond adequately to problems outside their competency and may approach all problems and priorities exclusively from thepurview of a unit’s specific capabilities. This feature of bureaucracy also can lead organizational units to shirk responsibility by allowing them to define a problem as belonging to some other unit and thereby leave the issue unattended. Alternatively, every unit within an organization is apt to put a face on a problemcongenial mainly to its own interests, skills, and technologies.
Command and control
Bureaucracies have clear lines of command and control. Bureaucraticauthority is organized hierarchically, with responsibility taken at the top and delegated with decreasing discretion below. Because of the risk of organizational parochialism produced by limited and specific jurisdictionalcompetencies, the capacity to coordinate and control the multiplicity of units is essential. Authority is the glue that holds togetherdiversity and prevents units from exercising unchecked discretion. Yet, few features of bureaucratic life have received so much adverse attention as the role of hierarchical authority as a means for achieving organizational command and control. Popularcriticisms emphasize that hierarchical organization strangles creative impulses and injects hyper-cautious modes of behaviour based on expectations of what superiors may desire. Command and control, which are necessary to coordinate thedisparate elements of bureaucratic organization, provide for increasing responsibility upward, delegation, and decreasing discretion downward.
Continuity
Continuity is another key element of bureaucratic organization. Rational-legal authority necessitates uniform rules and procedures for written documents and official behaviour. A bureaucracy’s files (i.e., its past records) provide it with organizational memory, thereby enabling it to followprecedent and standard operating procedures. The ability to utilize standard operating procedures makes organizations more efficient by decreasing the costs attached to any given transaction. Organizational files record procedures,antecedent behaviour, and personnel records. They also allow an organization to be continuous and, thus, independent of any specific leadership. On the whole, continuity is vital to an organization’s capacity to retain its identity and even itsculture. Without its records, it would be impossible to maintain transactions grounded in legality. Yet continuity also has a dysfunctional side, leading organizations to behave predictably and conservatively or, worse perhaps, merely reflexively. Continuity also may lead a bureaucracy to repeat regularly activities that may be inaccurate and whose inaccuracies thereby cumulate.
Professionalization
Professionalization ofmanagement, another basic element of bureaucracy, requires a full-time corps of officials whose attention is devoted exclusively to its managerial responsibilities. In government, professionalization is vested in the corps ofcivil servants whose positions have generally been obtained through the passage of tests based upon merit. Thecivil service is sometimes considered a permanent government, distinct from thetransient politicians who serve only for a limited time and at the pleasure of the electorate indemocraticpolitical systems.
In businesses and in other nongovernmental bureaucratic organizations, there is also a professional cadre of managers. Professionalization increases expertise and continuity within the organization. Even when organizations are temporarily leaderless or experience turmoil in their top leadership positions, the professional cadre helps to maintain an organizationalequilibrium. The virtues of professionalization are clear: without a professional corps, organizations would suffer from crises induced by incompetency. Professionalization thus contributes to the superior technical proficiency that Weber claimed was the hallmark of bureaucratic organization.
Despite its virtues, professionalization also carries potential risks. Often the professional corps of managerial experts itself becomes a covert source of power because it has superior knowledge compared with those who are itsnominal but temporary superiors. By virtue of greater experience, mastery of detail, and organizational andsubstantive knowledge, professionalbureaucrats may exercise strong influence over decisions made by their leaders. The existence of powerful bureaucrats raises issues of accountability and responsibility, particularly in democratic systems; bureaucrats are supposedly the agents of their leaders, but their superior knowledge of detail can place them in a position of indispensability. In addition, although a permanent corps of officials brings expertise and mastery of detail todecision making, it also deepens the innateconservatism of a bureaucracy. The permanent corps is usually skeptical of novelty because the essence of bureaucratic organization is to turn past novelties into present routines. Professional bureaucrats, be they in the civil or private sector, also tend to favour the organizational status quo because their investments (e.g., training and status) are tied to it. Consequently, the more professionalized the cadre becomes, the more likely it is to resist the intrusion of external forces.
Rules
Rules are the lifeblood of bureaucratic organization, providing a rational and continuous basis for procedures and operations. An organization’s files provide the inventory of accumulated rules. Bureaucratic decisions and—above all—procedures are grounded in codified rules and precedents. Although most people dislike rules thatinhibit them, the existence of rules is characteristic of legal-rational authority, ensuring that decisions are not arbitrary, that standardized procedures are not readilycircumvented, and that order is maintained. Rules are the essence of bureaucracy but are also thebane of leaders who want to get things done their way instantly.
Rules restrain arbitrary behaviour, but they also can provideformidable roadblocks to achievement. The accumulation of rules sometimes leads to the development of inconsistencies, and the procedures required to change any element of the status quo may become extraordinarily onerous as a result of the rule-driven character of bureaucracy. One perspective holds that the strictadherence to rules restricts the ability of a bureaucracy to adapt to new circumstances. By contrast,markets, which can operate with very few rules, force rapidadaptation to changing circumstances. Yet, most major business organizations are arranged in bureaucratic form because hierarchy and delegated responsibility reduce thetransaction costs of making decisions.
Summary
Thus, the most basic elements of pure bureaucratic organization are its emphasis on procedural regularity, a hierarchical system of accountability and responsibility, specialization of function, continuity, a legal-rational basis, and fundamental conservatism. The emergence of capitalism and the emphasis on standardcurrency transactions over and abovebarter systems created the need for bureaucratic forms of organization in both the private and public sectors. However, the critical elements of the bureaucratic form of organization also can conflict with one another and are often at the base of criticisms that regardbureaucracies as dysfunctional. In sum, what makes bureaucracy work also may work against it.