The Structure of Bureaucracies

Groups and Organization SOCI 1306 The Structure of Bureaucracies The optimum kind of formal organisation is a bureaucracy. Sociologists use the term ideal rather than "best." Instead, bureaucracies share a set of traits that most of them possess. A bureaucracy is defined by the pioneering sociologist Max Weber as having an impersonal structure, a distinct division of labour, a hierarchy of power, and specific norms (1922). People frequently criticise bureaucracies, saying they are unpleasant, cumbersome, regulated, and sluggish. To learn more about the terminologies used to characterise bureaucracies, let's examine them. The line of command that sets one person or office in charge of another, who in turn has to account to her own superiors, is referred to as the hierarchy of authority. For instance, your shift manager assigns you assignments if you work at Walmart. The CEO reports to the board of directors, who in turn report to the owners. Your shift manager reports to his store manager, who reports to her regional manager, and so on. In this system, everyone is subordinate to the chain of command. In bureaucracies, there is a distinct division of labour, with each person assigned a specific duty to do. For instance, psychology instructors at a university teach psychology, but they make little effort to give financial assistance paperwork to students. This work is frequently done by the Office of Admissions. This split makes perfect sense in this situation. However, what would happen in a restaurant if the kitchen was overflowing with food and the hostess was standing close by, chatting on her phone? She doesn't bring meals; her duty is to seat people. Is this a wise allocation of work? The rules of bureaucracies are clear, defined, documented, and standardised. For instance, the student handbook at your college or institution contains the rules for students. Organisations struggle to make sure their stated policies address these new challenges as they emerge, such as identity theft, cyberbullying, and other issues that campuses face due to technological advancements. Lastly, impersonality—which removes personal sentiments from professional settings—is another trait of bureaucracies. This trait developed, in part, as a result of the need to safeguard clients and other people the company serves while avoiding favouritism of any kind, including backroom dealings and nepotism. Lack of individuality Bureaucracies can swiftly and successfully handle large numbers of clients. But its rigid authority structure, distinct roles, and clear division of labour make it difficult for them to adapt to novel or unusual circumstances. Customers sometimes claim that bureaucratically structured retailers, such as Walmart, don't seem to care much about people, other companies, or the community as a whole. Bureaucracies are frequently meritocracies, which means that qualifications for employment and advancement are verified and recorded rather than determined by chance or nepotism. Gaining admission to a renowned institution requires both a strong SAT score and an appealing transcript. You must complete law school and pass the state bar test in order to practise law and represent clients. Naturally, there are countless well-researched instances of people who achieved success without following the conventional meritocratic route. Consider artists who gained fame after a YouTube video went viral, or tech firms whose founders left college early. Moreover, meritocratic organisations have difficulties in their endeavours. How effectively do you believe talent is recognised in well-established meritocracies? To assist their children get into the top schools, wealthy families engage advisers, test-prep services, tutors, and interview coaches. In New York City, where there is intense rivalry for the most prestigious institutions, this begins as early as kindergarten. Are these universities truly giving all candidates a fair shot, considering that many of them have large scholarship monies meant to foster a more democratic campus environment? Bureaucracies have a number of advantages. They are designed to service a sizable population, provide equality of opportunity, and increase efficiency. And there are situations in which strict hierarchies are necessary. But keep in mind that throughout the Industrial Revolution, many of our bureaucracies expanded to enormous proportions concurrently with the creation of our educational paradigm. Organisations were established and young people educated for assembly line, mass manufacturing, and industrial employment. An unambiguous chain of command was essential in these situations. In the current era of information, strict procedure observance and training might actually have a negative impact on efficiency and output. A quicker pace, greater problem solving, and a flexible attitude to work are necessary in today's workplace. An organisation may fall behind if there is a strict division of labour and too many detailed regulations followed. Regretfully, bureaucracies sometimes have a life of their own once they are formed. The phrase "trying to turn a tanker around mid-ocean" may be familiar to you; it describes the challenges of reorienting anything big and ingrained in its habits. Current financial problems and state governments are two instances of this difficulty. Making rapid adjustments is very impossible, which makes it difficult for governments to deal with more imbalanced budgets year after year. Ultimately, during a period when affluent white men possessed absolute control, bureaucracies developed as institutions. Even if meritocracy is its apparent foundation, bureaucracies have the ability to maintain the current power structure by only valuing those who follow historically privileged and male-dominated pathways. According to Michels (1911), the Iron Rule of Oligarchy—which states that a small number of elites control the whole organization—is a feature shared by all major organisations. Do you believe that to be true? Is collaboration possible in a vast organisation?