Busting Bureaucracy with Radical Management: Forbes Magazine Article Critique
The article written by Steve Denning is covered in Forbes magazine to display the innovative and forward thinking studies that delves into why the Max Weber structure of management fails in today's management model (Daniels, 2010). The article is not complex and does not create a new basis, but rather reconstitutes the six bureaucratic principals developed by Weber in the early 1900’s (Daniels, 2010). With the six principals as a solid foundation, Denning (2011) explains and proves a modern fit, custom tailored, model of management for the 21st century.
Statement of the Problem
Since the early 1900’s the principals of the bureaucratic management structure have been bred into all white-collar hotshots. This type of management model was ideal with respect to the economical and social environment of that time period. While Webers six principals have stayed the same, the economical and social environment has changed exponentially in time with our societies’ technological advances (Dennings, 2011). With a new society, what was feasible in the 1900’s does not sit well in the 21st century. This type of management hinders rather than helps, for example, Jones (2010) explains, that an over-developed bureaucracy can delay decision-making procedures and increase costs due to a tall and centralized type of hierarchy structure in an organization. When there is a multilayered wall of officialdom between the problem and the solution, this waste of time and causes unneeded corporate stress. Moreover, Denning states that the default mental model of management is not conducive for the once successful bureaucratic management methods (Forbes, 2011).
Descripti...
... middle of paper ...
...lateau with their shareholders or managers. Either way, there are a vast amount of inconclusive variables that could have accounted for the drastic display of data over the ten-year span.
Works Cited
Denning, S. (2011). Busting Bureaucracy with Radical Management | Management Innovation eXchange. Hack Management 2.0 | Management Innovation eXchange. Retrieved May 5, 2012, from http://www.managementexchange.com/blog/busting-bureaucracy-radical- management
Jones, G. (2010). Organizational, Theory, Design, and Change. Upper Saddle River: Pearson. (Original work published 2001)
The MIX: Busting Bureaucracy with Radical Management - Forbes. (2011). Information for the World's Business Leaders - Forbes.com. Retrieved May 5, 2012, from http://www.forbes.com/sites/stevedenning/2011/12/05/the-mix-busting-bureaucracy- with-radical-management/
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...
Top-level managers in bureaucratic organizational structures exercise a great deal of control over organizational strategy decisions, which is ideal for business owners with a command and control style. As for the disadvantages, bureaucratic structures can discourage creativity and innovation throughout the organization. No matter how ingenious a business owner is, it is virtually impossible for a single individual to generate the range of strategic ideas possible in a large, interdisciplinary
management in the business world. How to rethink the old rules of business are presented
Tsoukas, H. (1994), “What is management? An outline of a metatheory”, British Journal of Management, vol.5, pg.289-301
Bureaucracy has been the main form of organisation for over a century and can be characterised by the following: functional specialisation, employees carrying out one function of activity as their primary role; hierarchy of authority, those in superior positions having authority based solely on the virtue of the position itself; a system of rules, the tasks of the organisation following a formal set of procedures and practices; and impersonality, individuals being treated on the basis of the rules rather than emotions and personality (Knights & Willmott, 2012). The mainstream perspective states that a bureaucratic organisation’s central aim is to maximise efficiency, objectivity and fairness and can be thought of as a ‘machine’ with the people making up the components (Knights & Willmott, 2012). This view attributes three problems to this rule-centred organisation: poor motivation, poor customer service and a resistance to innovation and change (Knights & Willmott, 2012). Employees in bureaucratic organisations tend not to be committed to their
Managers nowadays do not actually do what a manager really should do back in the eighties. Changes that occurred in the new economy, the increasing use of technology in business, and the effects of globalisation towards business world have led management into a whole new dimension. New managers are expected to be able to manage on an international scale, act strategically, utilize technology, establish values, and of course, act responsibly as well. (Crainer, 1998) Henry Mintzberg once asked, "What do managers do?" After conducting his research based on a study of five CEOs, he concluded that managerial work involves interpersonal role, decisional role and informational role. And the fact is that, managers get things done through other people. Therefore, managers are required to possess certain skills and competencies which allow them to play these roles effectively and efficiently throughout the four functions of management. (Mintzberg, 1998)
Weber believed that bureaucracy created stable, and predictable actions and outcomes because it allowed organizations to work in a rational manner, like a machine, and helped account for the fact that humans had only limited intelligence. Though Weber discussed the perfect model of an organization, bureaucracy allows for even imperfect organizations to function in a more reliable and predictable way because it’s structure controls how individuals behave.
Bureaucracy is an organizational design based on the concept of standardization. “It is characterized by highly routine operating tasks achieved through specialization, very formalized rules and regulations, tasks that are grouped into functional departments, centralized authority, narrow spans of control, and decision making that follows the chain of command” (Judge & Robbins, 2007, p.
Over the past hundred years management has continuously been evolving. There have been a wide range of approaches in how to deal with management or better yet how to improve management functions in our ever changing environment. From as early as 1100 B.C managers have been struggling with the same issues and problems that manager’s face today. Modern managers use many of the practices, principles, and techniques developed from earlier concepts and experiences.
According to Sapru R.K. (2008) p370-371 the traditional ideal of public administration which inclined to be firm and bureaucratic was based on processes instead of outcomes and on setting procedures to follow instead of focusing on results. This paradigm can be regarded as an administration under formal control of the political control, constructed on a firmly ranked model of bureaucracy, run by permanent and neutral public servants, driven only by public concern. In emerging nations the administration was true bureaucracy meaning government by officers. In this perspective Smith (1996) p235-6 perceived that“the bureaucracy controls and manages the means of production through the government. It increases chances for bureaucratic careers by the creation of public figures,demanding public managers, marketing boards.
Although there are some differences among bureaucratic and scientific management theories, in actuality, they both share a deliberate and detailed approach towards improving an organization’s efficiency and effectiveness. Dissimilarities seen in these approaches may be due primarily to their points of reference. Where the scientific approach focuses primarily on maximizing the efficiency of work, the bureaucratic approach’s concentration is directed on the structuring of the personnel within the organization. Although there are weaknesses in both management theories time has shown each to be successful models. These two classical approaches to management complement each other and lend well to large organizations. Both theories have been universally adopted and adaptations of each are in practice today.
Traditional public administration is traced back to the works of scholars like Max Weber, Woodrow Wilson and Fredrick Taylor. This form of administration was mostly influenced by Max Weber with his bureaucratic model and theory. Max Weber was a well-known sociologist born in Germany in the year 1864. He came up with his bureaucratic model as a way to try to improve management in organizations. ‘Weber emphasized on top-down control in the form of monocratic hierarchy that is a system of control in which policy is set at the top and carried out through a series of offices, whereby every manager and employee are to report to one person in top management and held accountable by that manager’ (Pfiffner, 2004, p. 1).
There are three well-established theories of classical management: Taylor?s Theory of Scientific Management, Fayol?s Administrative Theory, Weber?s Theory of Bureaucracy. Although these schools, or theories, developed historical sequence, later ideas have not replaced earlier ones. Instead, each new school has tended to complement or coexist with previous ones.
Miles, R. (1975) Theories of Management: Implications for Organisational Behaviour and Development. McGraw-Hill, New York.
Management plays a significant role in how business operates. The diversity of approaches to the theoretical and practical background of management has come up with several versions of what is meant by such key words as management and organization. The academia views expressed in relation to management theories take a different role than that prescribed to managers. There has not been any concrete definition of management even though the classic definition of Henri fayol still remains in contention to be the preferred choice after eighty years. In the context of what is required I would like to elaborate on the following journals.