This essay will explain the definition of bureaucratic control and some changes happened on it as management techniques alter. We will firstly illustrate how control changes as management move towards to human relation management. Then, the changes of controls when empowerment is imposed on management and workers become self-managed. However, no matter how bureaucratic controls have changed the controls or the rules always exist.
I will start the definition of bureaucratic control from Weber’s bureaucracy organization. According to Weber, bureaucracy is assumed the most efficient type where workers are all working under an ‘ideal’ situation. One of the characteristics of bureaucracy is that there are well developed rules, procedures and hierarchy in the business, what worker do is finish work, solve problem and behave followed by these rules (Akrani 2011). This is what we called bureaucratic control system. Droege(n.d.) states that bureaucratic controls have levels of authority, people as managers in higher level have right to set rules and procedures. In a word, bureaucratic control can be defined as organizations control workers through defined policies, rules, hierarchies, rewards or sanction system to achieve efficiency (Ganly 2010). Therefore, bureaucratic controls clarify the way to behave in an organization. However, it removes worker discretions, it is short of creative, and adaptability, what the formal rules set is the things you have to follow. Furthermore, what Weber assumed the ‘ideal’ situation is hard to achieve since workers sometimes resist to the rules. Therefore, there are some development and changes make on it.
Control systems have changed with different management techniques, which pays more attention on hum...
... middle of paper ...
...reating-organizational-contro.html>
Ouchi, W.G. 1979, ‘A Conceptual Framework for the Design of the Organizational Control Mechanism’, Management Science, vol.25, no.9, pp.833-848, viewed 26 April 2014,
Ouchi, W.G. 1980, ‘Markets, Bureaucracies and Clans’, Administrative Science Quarterly, vol.25, no.1, pp.129-141, viewed 27 April 2014,
Walton, E.R. 1985, From control to Commitment in the Workplace, Harvard business review, viewed 26 April 2014,
William, C.C. 2006, The Hidden Enterprise Culture: Entrepreneurship in the Underground Economy, Edward Elgar publishing Limited, UK.
Often, when the discussion of American bureaucracy is broached in conversation, those holding these conversations often think of the many men and women who operate behind the scenes within the government. This same cross section of Americans is looked upon as the real power within the federal government and unlike the other branches of government, has little to no oversight. A search of EBSCO resulted in the following definition, an organization “structure with a rigid hierarchy of personnel, regulated by set rules and procedures” (Bureaucracy, 2007). Max Weber believed that a bureaucracy was technically the most efficient form of organization, one structured around official functions that are bound by rules, each function having its own specified competence (2007). This wide ranging group of Americans has operated within the gaps, behind the scenes, all under the three core branches of government: the legislative, executive, and judicial branches. The division of government into three branches and separate powers gives each branch both exclusive powers and some additional power...
Hospital emergency room is a place which requires high efficiency and precision of job performance. Apart from that, it is also a place where many routine jobs are performed daily by healthcare team following a strict set of rules. In 1947, Max Weber explained about the bureaucratic style saying that following normative rules and adhering to lines of authority are the basis. This type of leadership is beneficial in the management where not much creativity and innovation are expected from the team members. On top of that, the bureaucratic leadership is useful for a job which is routine based and a definite set of safety regulations or guidelines.
This leads to one of the major themes of the book, which is that when operating in a bureaucracy, certain people are enabled to put their interests in front of the interests of others, whether it is supporting the interest of their
Max Weber, German sociologist, social theorist, and economist, explicated the theory of bureaucracy in which he details the monocratic bureaucracy “as an ideal form that maximized rationality” (Bolman & Deal, 2008, p. 48). He provided his most complete exposition of theory in his 1922 tome Economy and Society (Casey, 2004). This classic form of bureaucracy is characterized by the following (a) well-defined official functions; (b) specialization of function; (c) clearly defined hierarchy of offices; (d) rules governing performance, which require training to administer; (e) impersonal treatment of clients, in that all are treated equally; (f) merit as the basis of promotion or appointment; (g) compensation based on rank; (h) separation of personal and company assets and interests; (i) discipline and control of daily work; (j) files and record keeping for decisions, acts, and rules (Bolman & Deal, 2008; O’Connor, 2011). There are numerous shorthand versions of Weber’s theory including Harmon and Mayer (1986) in Organization Theory for Public Administration and Heady (2001) in Public Administration: A Comparative Perspective (O’Connor, 2011).
A German philosopher and political economist Max Weber once said “The fully developed bureaucratic apparatus compares with other organizations as does the machine with the non-mechanical modes of production.” Max Weber explained to the audience that each governmental system have their own style of running in a political bureaucratic structural standpoint. For example, Texas governments are ran by a plural executive system. They are very weak and the other being the cabinet system. One can argue that the other is better because these two system are very different.
Perrow, C. (1973), “The short and glorious history of organisational theory”, Organisational Dynamics, vol. 2, no. 1, pg.2-15
Because the production level of the mill was low when the new plant manager arrived, it is no surprise that a quick change in the type of management—to autocratic—quickly pushed all employees to raise production. However, it is likely that the style of leadership has taken its toll on every level of management in the mill, and that is why we’ve seen a drop in production in the last 18 months. Autocratic leadership is a rigid form of management and if any tasks are delegated, they are done so in a very specific way. But, generally, autocratic leaders are not known to delegate tasks effectively and high levels of management are usually the only people with any sort of authority. Empowerment, as discussed in the
Goodsell, T. C. (2004). The Case for Bureaucracy: A public administration polemic (4th ed.). Washington, DC: CQ Press, SAGE, 2004, 208 pages, $33.81 softcover, ISBN: 978-1-56802-907-8.
Weber’s uses his theory of Bureaucracy to point out that it is what society is becoming and how it creates social older in society. This theory is
Weber’s bureaucracy is at the same time protective and dehumanizing. In 1978, Weber reflected again on its superiority over other systems through its “purely technical superiority over any other form of organization. […] Precision, speed, unambiguity, knowledge of the files, continuity, discretion, unity, strict subordination, reduction of friction and of material and personal costs – these are raised to the optimum point in the strictly bureaucratic administration, and specially in its monocratic form” (Weber, 1978, p. 973). This was, in the end, merely a reiteration of the same stance he had held since the 1940s. Weber places the dehumanizing, autocratic monocracy on a pedestal as superior above all other alternatives: “the monocratic variety
The hierarchy of a bureaucracy breeds oligarchy; the greatest power is concentrated within a few individuals. Impersonality within the membership leads to almost dictatorship-like practices executed by the leaders of the membership. Consequently, only the leaders' ideas and interests are addressed and/or instituted and the membership is devalued.
Organizational structure within an organization is a critical component of the day to day operations of a business. An organization benefits from organizational structure as a result of all it encompasses. It is used to define how tasks are divided, grouped and coordinated. Six elements should be addressed during the design of the organization’s structure: work specialization, departmentalization, chain of command, spans of control, centralization and decentralization. These components are a direct reflection of the organization’s culture, power and politics.
Employee empowerment can be described as giving employees' accountability and ability to make choices about their work without managerial authorization. Good managers are expected to assist employees to improve job success by supporting, training, leading and giving advice. Employee empowerment can increase employees' motivation, job satisfaction, and loyalty to their companies. The power that managers comprise should now be shared with employees with confidence, assertion, inspiration, and support. Work decisions and the ability to control an individual’s amount of work are now being relied upon at lower-level management positions (Fragoso, 1999). Groups of empowered employees with little or no supervision are now being formed and these groups are being called self-managed teams. These groups can now solve work problems, make choices on schedules and operations, learn to do other employees’ jobs, and are held accountable for the quality of their finished products.
There are several theories that examine an organization and it’s approach to managing work in an effort to develop efficiency and increase production. Two classical approaches to management are Taylor’s scientific management theory and Weber's bureaucratic management theory. Both men are considered pioneers of in the study of management.
The specialized officials in leadership positions in a bureaucratic system often assume a coercive role that is disguised in a sacerdotal role. The hidden coerciveness of bureaucracy comes along with diminished employee autonomy, and the consequence of this is the creation of social distance between and among employees and employers. Theuvsen (2004) attests to this sentiment by stating that coercive bureaucracies are characterized by low employee autonomy, and mistrust and suspicion in the event of deviations from organizational rules and regulations that are designed to avert shirking. Du Gay (2005) presents a similar argument by mentioning that ideally, jurisdiction rules and regulations meant developed and documented for shirking prevention are one characteristic of bureaucracy. Indeed, the rules are designed as an instrument to be utilized by superiors in evaluating whether or not the employees’ actions align with regulation delineated in strictly maintained policy documents. The abrogation of individual employee autonomy in bureaucratic systems, accompanied by the creation of social distance, makes bureaucracy an irrelevant phenomenon with respect to contemporary organizational studies. This is because rules and regulation serve to not only deny employees the opportunity to respond positively and proactively to certain unique situations, but also the opportunity to recognize