DISCUSS THE DYSFUNCTION OF BUREAUCRACY
Bureaucracy
is the administrative structure and set of regulations in place to control
(rationalize, render effective and professionalize) activities, usually in
large organizations and government1 . Its efficiency is a function of the
environment in which it operates. Historically, Max Weber is the most important
exponent of bureaucracy. He described it as technically superior to all other
forms of organization and hence indispensable to large, complex enterprises.2
The word "bureaucracy" stems from the word "bureau", used
from the early 18th century in Western Europe to refer to an office, i.e., a
workplace, where officials worked. The original French meaning of the word
bureau was the baize used to cover desks. The term bureaucracy came into use
shortly before the French Revolution of 1789, and from there rapidly spread to
other countries. The Greek suffix - kratia or kratos - means "power"
or "rule”. Ideally, bureaucracy is characterized by hierarchical authority
relations, defined spheres of competence subject to impersonal rules,
recruitment by competence, and fixed salaries.
 |
| ImageByXulOfThoughts |
Bureaucracy
has some examples which include An application that takes millions of complex
procedures and is followed by strong rules. – A very big organizational
structure and activities. – A very formal communication between employees. –
Formal connection between employee and beneficiaries/customers. – Power &
formal positions & authority in officials.
The
major of dysfunction bureaucracy is a lack of accountability. Much of the current
discussion of accountability has cantered on the latitude available to
administrative agencies for engaging in opportunistic behaviour of their own in
the implementation of congressional statutes and administration policies.
Within the literature on this subject, there is a debate as to how far agency
officials can go in policy making to channel programs and services to favoured
constituents, to expand agency mandates and budgets, or to act on their
personal preferences in ways that deviate from the desires of Congress and the
president. Some authors view the federal bureaucracy as acting in
self-interested ways to promote agency growth and budget maximization.’ Other
authors emphasize strategic alliances made among the bureaucracy and
congressional committees that weaken presidential control of executive agencies
and allow for opportunism (see Sayre 1965, 1-3; Kaufman 1965,57-68). This
problem has often been traced to the rise of professionalism in the civil
service and the formation of close ties between agency officials and
professional interest groups.
An
application that takes millions of complex procedures and is followed by strong
rules. A very big organizational structure and activities. A very formal communication between employees.
Formal connection between employee and beneficiaries/customers. – Power &
formal positions & authority in officials.
They
do not have to be consumer friendly. This can be noticed with many bureaucrats
who do not have good manners to customers/clients. (Not Always!). May be the
result of high job security in bureaucratic organizations.
Delaying
change, and adoption of old procedures to deal with new circumstances. For example: Paper work application steps
rather than e-application procedures. In employee relationship and dealing. –
Rules of bureaucracy can dehumanize workers. Turning them into robots. Focusing
on only money as a motivation and ignoring other psychological motivation.
The
excessive reliance on rules and regulations and adherence to these policies inhibit
initiative and growth of the employees. They are treated like machines and not
like individuals. There is neglect of human factor. The employees become so
used to the system, they resist to any change and introduction of new
techniques of operations.
Bureaucracy
has been criticised because of its inefficiency and has been termed as a symbol
of inefficiency. There are many dis-functional aspects of bureaucracy which is
referred to as bureau pathology.
Looking
into the needs of modern organisations, bureaucracy has many shortcomings and
is, therefore, not suitable. The major problems of bureaucracy are because of
the following factors: invalidity of bureaucracy assumptions, goal displacement
united consequences, in human and closers-system perspective.
The
other dysfunction of bureaucracy is lots of red tape. There
is a mind boggling amount of paper work and forms to be processed in
bureaucracies. It can take a ridiculously long amount of time in order to get
things done in organizations like this. This halts production and growth within
the company.
There
are very bad in unexpected situations. Unpredictable things happen. It is a
part of life and business. Companies and organizations that run on bureaucracy
are not equipped to deal with these emergency or unexpected problems. Whether
it be a market shift or a natural disaster, the paper work must still be done
in order for anything to happen.
The
other dysfunction of bureaucracy is that it cots time and money. When
examining bureaucracy in government, the biggest issue is the sheer amount of
time that it takes to get any sort of goal accomplished. This time translates
into money as well. All of the employees that are involved in completing even
just one goal, is monumental. These employees are paid, and they are paid by
the tax payers. This is the fact that comes under the most criticism from
opponents of bureaucracy.
Bureaucracy
is a facade. The more work that is required to finish something, the busier
people appear to be. It is a fact that bureaucracies grow exponentially every
single year. This is because the managers and other high ups continue to
increase the workload to keep the appearance of being efficient and busy.
There
is no wiggle room. Often times, circumstantial things need to be taken into
account. Whether it be the speed and urgency that something needs to be
accomplished or special problems with an employee. Bureaucracy gives no room
for exceptions, even when they are desperately needed.
In
an bureaucratic organisation there is low morale. When jobs are specialized,
there is the tendency that it would be repetitive. This can lead to boredom is
some employees and may also lead to dissatisfaction. Employees are not judged
on the way they can uniquely deliver a job but on how they fulfill their main
functions. Employee disempowerment rooted from centralized structure. With
bureaucratic structure holding more authority, employees become passive,
helpless and indifferent to the goals of the company.
This
type of structure stops a company from quickly maneuvering. The changes in
certain procedures must pass through chains of evaluations and commands before
getting approval. In stable settings, this rigidity is not really an issue but
in volatile scenarios, the inability to change quickly can pose real problems.
Lumbering companies cannot move abrupt competitive threats.
A
particular company that brings up rear in market forces adjustments is
impossible to become a leader in the industry. Disempowered employees lack the
freedom to innovate for higher or better positions within the company
especially when abrupt market shift happen. Between lack of maneuverability and
difficulty in innovating, companies that are employing bureaucratic structures
has the risk of becoming irrelevant in their own niche or industry.
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 group. Front-line employees may receive
less satisfaction from their jobs in a rigidly bureaucratic organization,
increasing employee turnover rates. Organizations bound by rigid controls can
also find themselves less able to adapt to changing conditions in the
marketplace, industry or legal environment.
Bureaucratic
structures also leads to inefficiency. In bureaucracy, there is less
competition since hiring and promotion is based on merits and
qualifications. Once a civil servant is
appointed, he or she has a fixed salary, works on specialized tasks and cannot
function outside the sphere of the department he or she belongs to. Some people
see this as unproductive and a disadvantage because it can demoralize civil
servants who belong in a bureaucracy.
The
other dysfunction of bureaucracy is
that it results to passive and rule-based human being
Another disadvantage being pointed out by some people who do not like a bureaucratic structure say that the strict rules and regulations imposed in bureaucracies seem to remove the freedom of an individual to act and discern on his or her own because of certain restrictions. This, according to some, is not beneficial.
Another disadvantage being pointed out by some people who do not like a bureaucratic structure say that the strict rules and regulations imposed in bureaucracies seem to remove the freedom of an individual to act and discern on his or her own because of certain restrictions. This, according to some, is not beneficial.
Also bureaucracy results in hamper achievement of
results over time. Critics are arguing that with the certain steps needed to
carry out tasks and the need to follow a chain of command to proceed, lots of
time can be lost especially if decisions and results are needed immediately. If
a government is run by bureaucrats and there is a chain-of-command, a certain
decision like military defence can result to unfavourable outcomes since an
action cannot be carried out without different personalities or officials in
the hierarchy have approved such. This makes the process slow, according to
proponents.
It also creates or breeds boredom and can affect
productivity. Opponents are criticizing the repetitive tasks in specialized
jobs. They claimed that in time, it can bore members of the organization or
agency. They added that even in a business which uses bureaucracy, employees
might not be able to withstand doing the same work daily. The routine might
just be too much from them and may result to absenteeism and less productivity.
Bureaucracies are often impersonal employers, which
can offend workers. Suppose a long-time employee has a family situation that
requires her to temporarily spend more time at home. If a manager rejects her
request for special consideration, citing some policy that forbids exceptions,
the employee will feel slighted. After her many years of loyal service, the
company’s lack of consideration seems like a slap in the face. In contrast, if
the manager bent the rules slightly to accommodate her important needs, the
employee would feel supported and grateful.
A company can’t function well if its rules and
procedures are onerous. For example, a factory’s protocol for reporting
workplace hazards might be effective in theory, but if employees hate filling
out reams of paperwork, they might ignore hazards just so they don’t have to
file the reports. Similarly, if employees can’t act without securing approval
from multiple layers of management, they will opt for simpler, hassle-free
tasks, inhibiting your organization’s productivity.
Inflexibility is the sum effect of these
disadvantages. Red tape, slow decision-making, and low employee morale make it
difficult for a highly bureaucratic business to respond quickly in a fast-paced
business environment, which puts a company at a disadvantage to its
competitors. For example, a company that can’t react to shifts in consumer
demand as quickly as its competitors will never be an industry leader.
In bureaucracy there are lots of conflicts. Agencies
may be working to achieve conflicting goals. For example The Agricultural
Research Service helps farmers grow more and better crops; the Agricultural
Stabilization and Conservation Service pays farmers not to grow crops so the
price and supply will be stable.
There is slowness in bureaucracy. Dramatic change
within the bureaucracy is rare because there are so many points along the way
where different people are involved in the decision-making process.
There is rigidity. Rules and regulations in a
bureaucracy are often rigid and inflexible. Rigid compliance with rules and
regulations discourages initiative and creativity. It may also provide the
cover to avoid responsibility for failures.
The dysfunction or challenge of bureaucracy is empire
building. People in bureaucracy tend to use their positions and
resources to perpetuate self- interests. Every superior tries to increase the
number of his subordinates as if this number is considered a symbol of power
and prestige.
The other dysfunction of bureaucracy is duplication. Sometimes government agencies seem to be doing the very same thing. Both
the Drug Enforcement Administration and the Customs Service, for example, try
to prevent illegal drug smuggling. There is always a chance that their agents
will get in each- others' way in the process.
There is also imperialism in bureaucracy . The bureaucracy is supposed to
promote the good of society, but sometimes agencies just keep getting bigger
and start to take on a life of their own. Then they become little empires with
the tendency to rack up costs, pursue vague goals, and outlive their
usefulness. In the late 1800s, for example, a government agency to regulate the
use of horses and buggies would have been a good idea, but to avoid
imperialism, it would have had to recognize its irrelevancy in the age of motor
cars. Sometimes that doesn't happen in a bureaucracy.
In bureaucracy there is goal displacement. Rules
framed to achieve organizational objectives at each level become an end to
themselves. When individuals at lower levels pursue personal objectives, the
overall objectives of the organization may be neglected.
Also, the other dysfunction of bureaucracy is that
it is involved with compartmentalization of activities. Jobs are divided into
categories, which restrict people from performing tasks that they are capable
of performing. It also encourages preservation of jobs even when they become
redundant.
In conclusion bureaucracy structure might be
considered ineffective by critics but there are also valid arguments posited by
supporters. Other countries run well with bureaucrats but there are also
obvious flaws within the structure which make others critical about it. But the
fact still remains, bureaucracy exists and is here to stay.
REFERANCES
Volume Title: The Federal Civil Service System and
The Problem of Bureaucracy Volume Author/Editor: Ronald N. Johnson and Gary D.
Libecap
Chapter Title: The "Problem of
Bureaucracy" Chapter Author: Ronald N. Johnson, Gary D. Libecap Chapter
URL: http://www.nber.org/chapters/c8632 Chapter pages in book: (pg. 1 -11)
Marquis, B. L. And Huston, C. .J (2009). Leadership
Roles and management Functions in Nursing Theory and Application. 6th Edition
Philadelphia Lippincott Williams
Booyens, S. W. (2002). Dimensions of Nursing
Management Lansdowne Juta
0 comments:
Post a Comment