Elements of Bureaucracy

Franz Kafka was one of the most famous writers who criticized bureaucracy in his pieces. In his short story “Poseidon”, Poseidon who is the leader, is doing too much paperwork to take care of administrative problems and is unwilling to delegate his work as well. The joke of the story is that even god cannot handle the amount of paperwork bureaucracy creates (Kafka, 1992). The founder of the bureaucratic leadership theory is a German philosopher, economist, and leader of theoretical knowledge Max Weber. Organisationally, the aim of the bureaucratic structure is to ensure uniformity, predictability, and verifiable activity of the organization and equal treatment of people and interest groups. In Max Weber’s opinion, the bureaucratic theory is ideal for large organizations such as the military, rail, police, and other large public organizations, because of the above-mentioned controllability and uniformity it brings (Baldridge, 1971). Although universities are private sector institutions, they usually work according to public sector legislation. Higher education institutions run according to the business model and are one of the fastest growing industries in the world (Shek et al., 2017). In this essay, we will discuss four bureaucracy theory’s principles/elements and if they are still required in contemporary higher education organizations, and what are the benefits and drawbacks of these principles/elements in educational organizations.

The first idea from Max Weber’s theory is that the organization should have formal rules and regulations that are set and updated by the qualified members of the administrative staff that in the university’s case the chancellor and Board of Trustees. Bureaucratic managers should apply rules that are either ethical norms or prescribed course of action or both. Knowledge of these rules shows special technical expertise that the officials need to possess (Weber, 1947). Already in the old times, it was customary to create various rules and codecs by the officials. One of the oldest known codecs is the 'Athens Vow' in Ancient Greek times that regulated how Athens people should behave, and what is expected from them (Raudla, 2002). On the one hand, such rules are necessary to prevent corruption and, on the other hand, to provide information about the behavioral standards and obligations of a profession. The main idea of it is that if the staff knows how not to act in their workplace then they will not behave in a wrong way. In addition, the administrative strategy that is based on the rules, reduces the arbitrariness of the officials, because if an official treats every person equally due to the regulations, the judgment is fair. The role of the superior is to give orders and control their execution, while the subordinate role is to execute and report orders. In universities, it would be that the lecturer gives out an assignment that is in accordance with the rules of the university, and the student must submit the assignment, again in accordance with the rules of the university. The University of Southampton (2018) has made rules and regulations for students that are general expectations and obligations that are placed upon a person when they become a student there. Higher education institutions' regulations usually concern attendance, student and academic discipline, and other duties that are expected from a pupil. Although all the universities have some kind of regulations, formal rules and structures may impose constraints, increase the bureaucratic burden, etc. and due to that might not be always followed by the teaching staff as well as students. Thus, regulations are rather a way for organizations to appear rational, conform to the institutional environment, and gain legitimacy. Policies need to exist to define obligations, and norms for example borders between the students and personnel and to defend insiders (Musselin, 2007).

The second rule of Max Weber’s bureaucratic theory is that the organization should have a hierarchical management structure and the leadership is centralized (Weber, 1947). That means that each lower division is under the control and supervision of the superior one. The Authority and obligations of each position are clearly defined (Rivett, 1948). Such a system is found in all bureaucratic structures: in countries' governments/parliaments and church administration as well as private enterprises. Parkinson’s Law says that bureaucracies will always grow. Put in a simple way, managers looking to appear busy will up their workload by creating papers and rules (Clegg et al., 2016). This means that bureaucratic growth will only be positive for managers who use their increasing authority and power to control employees. In the past, many university departments had their own autonomy in their curriculums, admissions, research projects, etc. That led to unfair and inconsistent treatment of students across departments, weak research strategies, and more time spent on coordination across departments, etc. which has led to a centralized management structure (Martin, 2017). The main problems for organizations with a high hierarchy are communication problems, motivation problems, and expenditure on bureaucracy (Jones, 2009). That, on the other hand, made many university leaders believe that solutions to university problems are merging departments and other units into larger schools or faculties and therefore, resulting in a simpler structural chart, and fewer individuals reporting to the main officials. However, this all results in a growing sense of disaffection from the university and even alienation among staff (Martin, 2017). To have innovative ideas, it is necessary for divisions to have power over themselves and if not they cannot adapt to the rapid development of the information society changes thus resulting in overall no efficiency. Problems in universities might occur when subunits have conflicts such as which department is going to offer which courses which might result in unnecessary duplication of courses as well as excess costs of resources. Moreover, Weber's theory doesn’t handle non-formal kinds of power and influence that play a big role in today’s administration strategies (Balridge, 1971).

Save your time!
We can take care of your essay

• Proper editing and formatting
• Free revision, title page, and bibliography
• Flexible prices and money-back guarantee

Place Order

The third principle/element of Max Weber’s bureaucratic structure is that there should be a formal selection process. Employee selection is based on experience, competence, and qualifications, usually demonstrated by examinations, education, or training. There should not be nepotism (Weber, 1947). It assists in putting the right people in the right positions and has optimal use of human resources. Universities also choose their students based on experience and qualifications as well as motivation. Student admissions are one of the main functions of the university and its faculty. Admission decisions are usually based on numerical values: GPA, exam points, etc. If you are not a person who has had constantly good grades, usually you are not advised to try elite higher education institutions (Cole, 2016). The bureaucratic way of selecting transforms them into numbers and treats them not a person with their flaws (Clegg et al., 2016). Many universities might not choose students with low grades that usually do not have anything to do with intelligence or passion for the subject. A high score on the final exams does not mean that person is intelligent or mature enough to go to university. At the same time emphasis on qualifications and formal admission make the organization more democratic. Officials are guided by the prescribed rules, policies, and practices rather than by patronage or other privileged treatment. There is no room for discrimination on race, looks, origin, etc. Every application gets equal treatment from the selection board. It is important to bear in mind that universities still usually have demographic goals as well as wanting to be the best at something for example sports, so they might overlook numbers in these cases (Cole, 2016). The formal selection process in universities gives everyone equal opportunities, but to pass elite colleges standards, it is required to be constantly highly ranked in high school.

The fourth rule is impersonality between human relations in the organization (Weber, 1947). Impersonality means that people communicate with each other in a way that does not depend on their personal identity and all conversations are formal. Employees are able to enjoy equal rights with no personal preferences being considered (Wallis, 2010). In that way, the bureaucratic organization stresses a mechanical way of doing things. Organizational rules and regulations are given priority over an individual’s needs and emotions that concern work. Bureaucracy advocates a rationalized and institutionalized spirit that lowers personal growth and definitely to a certain extent influences efficiency (Levin & Sanger, 1994). Interpersonal communication can take unexpected forms that may be important in the development of processes towards efficiency. Higher education institutions have mainly impersonal relations between students and professors. Using personal communication channels to get universities' information might have its negative side. Members of the organization think of non-formal channels compared to formal, as more accurate and more trustworthy, which results from faster information flow but what might not always be truthful. On the other hand, impersonal communication is usually made more difficult. In universities management, impersonal communication usually limits communication overall and when there is little interaction between the members of the organization, there is an unused part of the resources available to the organization, as people in different positions also have different skills, experiences, and competencies that can benefit from certain decisions. Nonetheless, “personalization” of a position and work environment might sometimes cause more problems arising from differences in attitudes and personalities clash. The impersonality in relations is seen to be beneficial when rules are applied universally to everyone. As university officials want to be perceived as authority to students, it is important to remain impersonal relations as otherwise, it might be hard for a lecturer to have control over the crowd (Laks, 2014). Due to historical changes and available resources, universities now take into account personal needs and mental needs and usually have special divisions/positions concentrated on that.

Although bureaucracy has a negative connotation it is still used in contemporary organizational management strategies. The bureaucracy itself is a powerful management tool. Max Weber introduced the bureaucratic theory to emphasize rule, ability, and knowledge, which in fact offered an efficient and rational administrative system to society at that time. Max Weber’s four principles/elements of the bureaucratic theory are essential parts of higher education institutions' administration. The four principles/elements of bureaucracy are rules and regulations, hierarchy, formal selection structure, and impersonality in human relations. No administration theory is perfect and there are two views on the bureaucratic higher education organization. The positive view is that it gives clear guidance through rules and regulations, easing individuals' role stress, it has a non-discriminative formal selection process that is democratic and it gives authority to superiors. The negative view is that it limits creativity and communication, demotivates officials, creates alienation, might decrease innovation and creates unnecessary paperwork. Although the bureaucratic theory has its positive and negative sides, it is certain that it is necessary to make today’s universities sustainable. Overall, rediscovering Max Weber's analysis of the bureaucratic administration of an organization enriches the understanding of administration in general.

Reference list

1. Balridge, J.V., (1971). Models of University Governance: Bureaucratic, Collegial, and Political. California: Stanford University.
2. Clegg, S. R., Kornberg, M., Pitsis, T. (2015) Managing and Organizations: An Introduction to Theory and Practice (Fourth Edition). London: SAGE
3. Cole, J. R. Why Elite-College Admissions Need an Overhaul. The Atlantic. Available from: https://www.theatlantic.com/education/archive/2016/02/whats-wrong-with-college-admissions/462063/ [Accessed 29 December 2018]
4. Jones, G. R. (2012) Organizational Theory, Design, and Change (7th Edition). London: Pearson Education.
5. Kafka, F. (1992) The Complete Short Stories. London: Penguin Books
6. Laks, L. (2014) Organisatsiooni ülesehitus ja selle seosed organisatsioonilise eestvedamisega AS Kaubamaja näitel. Bachelor’s degree. Tartu University.
7. Levin, M. A., Sanger, M. B. Making government work: how entrepreneurial executives turn bright ideas into real results. Journal of Policy Analysis and Management, Vol. 15(1), pp. 121-124.
8. Martin, B. R. (2016) What’s happening to our universities? Prometheus, Vol. 34(1), pp. 7-24.
9. Musselin, C., (2007). Are universities specific organizations? Towards a multiversity? Universities between Global Trends and National Traditions, pp. 63-84.
10. Raudla, H. (2007) Kodaniku raamat. Tallinn: Saarakiri
11. Rivett, K. (1948) Max Weber on Bureaucracy. Australian Journal of Public Administration, Vol. 7(2), pp. 81-82.
12. Shek D.T.L., Yuen-Tsang A.W.K., Ng E.C.W. (2017) University Social Responsibility (USR): Insight from the Historical Roots to the Contemporary Challenges. University Social Responsibility and Quality of Life. Vol. 8, pp. 25-36.
13. University of Southampton, (2018). Rules and regulations. Available from: https://www.southampton.ac.uk/studentservices/academic-life/rules-and-regulations.page [Accessed 22 December 2018]
14. Wallis, J. J. (2010) Institutions, Organizations, Impersonality, and Interests: The Dynamics of Institutions. Academic paper. The University of Maryland.
15. Weber, M., (1947) The Theory Of Social And Economic Organization. New York: Oxford University Press.