The Conflict Between Formal Organization and Bureaucracy
*No Works Cited
The early theorist of formal organisation neglected the average individual in the organisation. Max Weber focused on management personnel but had little to say about workers in industry or clerk in government.
Karl Marx saw bureaucracy as an unnecessary evil, which enables the owners of the means of production to maintain control of organisations. Through hierarchy, the ruling class assures that everyone in the organisation works in a way to maximise the owners profit. Max Weber has a similar view, he believed that the modern worker has lost control at work, the modern worker is not in control of his fate and is forced to sell his labour to private capitalist. The worker is alienated from the process.
The Symbolic-interactionist theorists do not support this view. They believe that the informal structure of the organisation, the things people actually do on a day-to-day basis in contrast to what the official rules say they are suppose to do impacts on the productivity of the organisation. Blumer saw that the action of each person was not based on the position they held in the formal complex structure of a bureaucracy but on their own personality, objective and understanding of the organisation and their position within it. Rothlisberg and Dickson in their famous study of the Hawthorne plant found that productivity was governed by these norms. In the Hawthorne studies investigation was made of the switch board-bank wiring room, where 14 men were making parts of switches for telephone equipment. These men were found to be producing far below their physical capabilities. This was in spite of an incentive for increase production. They had a fear of loosing their job or a reduction in pay if they were to increase production. It was found that these men were carefully subverting the scheme to boost production. They had established their own unofficial norms for a proper day’s work. and created informal rules, and sanctions to enforce this standard. Whatever the official rules of the organisation workers have their own ideas and will collectively develop their own norm.
In contrast to Marx and Weber view that organisations must be governed by strict rules, they must operate with a certain amount of flexibility. The rules do not always work. Workers usually follow informal norms instead of obeying strict rules because they work best. Peter Blau observed agents working in a federal law agency, and found the agents operated in violation of the rules.
To conclude, the analysation of the Hawthorne studies and the six texts that either support or disagree with it has changed my perception of contemporary management functions and the employer-employee relationship and how this relates to the Hawthorne studies. The critics and supporters of the theory have equally valid points; “Fraught with inconsistencies…” (Izawa et al., 2011). And “Improved performance…” (Sonnenfeld, 2001). My Opinion is that the Hawthorne Experiments helped shape contemporary management and has effectively established the importance of a socially working environment with relation to productivity.
Max Weber and Karl Marx, two prolific Sociologists who share different views with the origins and development of modern capitalism. They wanted to understand the rise of capitalism, the causes of it, as well as the direction it was heading. As they started to dissect capitalism they developed two separate conclusions generated from completely different factors. It’s hard to fathom the fact that Weber and Marx could arrive at two distinct conclusions while studying a similar event. They took two separate angles of approach, which caused them to have to opposing theories. Due too Weber and Marx approaching capitalism from different angles, their views of the dynamics, and the understanding of the origins differed.
While sociologists have often studied social change, Max Weber was particularly focused on understanding the progression of rationalization. Many of his works detail his analysis of the growth of rationality in the Western world, as well as the development of bureaucracies as a sign of this process. Although his argument that the modern world is marked by an increase in both does provide a valuable and multifaceted view, it does have its problems. Namely, Weber’s conceptualization of rationality fails to properly separate the different forms, which weakens his subsequent argument on the growth of rationality. In contrast, Weber is highly effective in determining the characteristics of bureaucracies, which allows for a strong discussion on increasing bureaucratization.
Though the bureaucracy began simply, with George Washington’s creation of the Department of Foreign Affairs, over the last 226 years, its size and power have increased exponentially. From homeland security to the delivery of mail, this “fourth branch of government” possesses a wide scope of responsibilities. However, the necessity for such a structure often comes into question. According to Max Weber, who believed that “the bureaucracy was likely to acquire an ‘overpowering’ power position, the bureaucracy is an “inevitable consequence” of modern day life (“The Rise of the Bureaucratic State”, Wilson). A specialized bureaucracy provides valuable expertise, an asset which the Founders did not take for granted, as they had suffered a committee
Karl Marx and Max Weber both expressed an interest in the social class. Social class as defined in the class is an individual’s relation to the organization of production. (Nakhaie 2015) Weber discusses class in the context of social stratification, which can be defined by many resources as “a society’s categorization of people into socioeconomic strata.” This social stratum is based on a person occupation, income, wealth and social status. Webers treatment of class and status indicates the manner in which the material basis of society is related to. It can be said that Weber identifies a variety of social classes; with the analysis of his classes overlapping his theory that rationalization comes to dominate modern societies and class systems. “Weber and Marx both regard society as characterized by conflicts over resources and power.” (Bratton and Denham 2014:255) Marx, on the other hand, had many views on social classes and class systems, however, his view of the capitalist stage of production consists of two classes that are seen as his most influential. The first of the two classes is the bourgeoisie or the “means of production”; this is the middle-class citizens who are seen as having materialistic values. The second is known as the proletariats, or the “working class”; they are seen as having collective values. As mentioned above, Weber agreed with Marx’ views on classes, however, our
The management of today prefers a sort of flexibility along the lines of drifting. They want a networklike arrangement light on its feet (Sennett 23). This form in which businesses are taking make them readily decomposable and redefinable than the fixed hierarchies of old. In being able to be redefined a company is able to roll with the punches and make itself into whatever is necessary to accommodate the drifting workers and the ever-changing work place. It is in essence the perfect form in which a company can readily adapt to their surroundings (Sennett 23). This ability to adapt makes businesses able to receive the drifting workers such as Enrico( a character in the book) which shows how not only are the drifters being flexible but so are the business which makes then operate at a higher level of competence.
Under, Douglas McGregor’s theory Y it states that “people enjoy the mental and physical purpose that work provides”. Without having a structure which provides managers, no one person can give formal recognition to good employees, therefore not allowing for more contributions from employees. Without a clear authority figure, such as a manager, employees might not feel that there concern is acknowledged, and may even threaten to strike, or even completely stop working if they don 't receive acknowledgement for their
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.
Many authors have utilized his writings as the basis for their own research. Consider, for instance, Robert K. Merton whose Bureaucratic Structure and Personality shares many explicit similarities with Weber’s thought. Merton is also, for instance, a strong proponent of bureaucracy as the ideal type of administrative form: “The ideal type of such formal organization is bureaucracy and, in many respects, the classic analysis of bureaucracy is that by Max Weber” (Merton, 1940,). Merton’s writings already began incorporating the troubling aspect of dehumanization inherent to bureaucracy: “As we know from Merton, bureaucrats often seek refuge in rules and procedures as protection from criticism” (Lerner & Wanat, 1983, p. 506). Modern authors have studied this important disconnect as
The three perspectives can be compare and contrasted by using the organization structure which is the social and physical structure. Social structure is defined as connection and interaction between employees each department in an organization whereas physical structure is the actual layout of organization (Lecture slides, week 4, 2014, structure, culture and design). The social structure concept is developed by Max Webber for the purpose of looking through the division of labor, hierarchy of authority and corporate rules and procedures (Hatch and Cunliffe, 2009, p.103). Therefore, from a modernist perspective, it is clear that, structure differentiates through characteristic such as a flat or tall organization structure. Tall organization structures are those with divisions of labor through having many vertical hierarchy levels from top to bottom with only a few departments. Tall organizations on the other hand are those structures with a big number of divisions while having less hierarchical levels (Lecture slides, week 4, 2014, structure, culture and design). Modernists believe ...
When asked if the workers obeyed his orders, Undershaft replies that, “‘I never give them any orders’” (Major Barbara 143). Later, he goes on to say that they keep discipline amongst themselves, and he does not have to intervene to provide disciplinary action. Amongst the men there is a social hierarchy in which there is no bullying, and order is kept because all workers will drive those who are below them on the hierarchy. (Major Barbara 143). This idea of a social hierarchy and the driving of one group of workers by the worker above them without being ultimately ruled by a tyrant seems to resonate with the idea of Utopian Socialism put forth in Marx’s Manifesto, “...the proclamation of social harmony...These proposals, therefore, are of purely utopian character” (The Communist Manifesto 107). Overall, Undershaft’s management system seems to keep the peace between workers, keep morale high, but also provide him with a very high
Similarly in Weber’s bureaucratic approach, organizations are divided into different echelons with each varying in its degrees of influence. Each unit being commanded by the one above it, a system that promotes stability and has a predictable line of communication. Both approaches of management rely heavily on regulated control. Whether governing task scientifically of people authoritatively. A solid form of control is mus...
Although it maximized efficiency and productivity but its main limitation was ignoring human aspects of employment. This is manifested in the following:
Since the end of the 19th century, when factory manufacturing became widespread and the size of organisations increased, people have been looking for ways to motivate employees and improve productivity. A need for management ideas arise which lead to classical contributors such as Frederick Taylor and Henri Fayol generating management theories such as Taylor’ Scientific Management and Fayol’s Administrative Management. In the late 1920’s and early 1930’s the Hawthorne studies were conducted where Elton Mayo was the predominate figure and contributed to the Behavioural viewpoint. This brought about a Human Relations Movement which included Douglas McGregor’s Theory X and Theory Y approach. Similarities and differences can be found between the theories due to the relevant time period they were implemented, the motives or goal of the theory and how they view organisations. However the use of contingency theory can help negate the dissimilarities which occur as it allows the relevant elements from each theory to be applied to specific situations.
First of all, they criticise that Fayol’s theory is too formal to the extent of it can hardly be applied to informal organisations. His theory is too rigid and it will only shows its effectiveness in formal organisation structure.