3.7. Critics of Weber
Weber's bureaucratic model was criticised by subsequent social scientists on various grounds as follows:
i. It was characterised as "machine theory" due to its over concern with the formal structure of the organisation to the neglect of human dimension.
ii. It was described as a "closed system model" as it did not take into account in detail the interaction between organisation and its environment.
iii. It cannot function in an unstable environment (i.e. in changirig environmental conditions).
iv. It is suitable for routine and repetitive jobs but not for jobs involving creativity and innovation.
3.5.1. Opinions of various critics of Weber
Talcott Parsons: He questioned the internal consistency of the ideal type of bureaucracy.
To him, the two attributes of Weber's administrative staff, that is, professional expertise and the right to give orders, give rise io conflicts within the bureaucracy. This is because, it is impossible to ensure that high position in the hierarchy of authority will be matched by equivalent professional skill. This creates the problem of whom to obey.
Robert K. Mert&n: He argued (in his edited book Reader in ^Bureaucracy) that the adherence to the rules results in the "displacement of goals" whereby an instrumental value (means or rules) becomes a terminal value (ends). This develops into rigidity, formalism and ritualism. In other words, he questioned the rationality of the Weberian legal-rational model of bureaucracy as it also produces certain dysfunctional consequences. His phrase 'dysfunctional consequences' implies those consequences which are unexpected arid detrimental to the attainment of the organisational goals. He also opined that rigid rule orientation leads to 'trained incapacity',
Phttlip Setznick; He argued (in his book TVA and the Grass Roots) that decentralisation and delegation of authority results in departmentalisation and an increase in the bifurcation of interests among the sub-units, in the organisation. He says that the conflict between the goals of the sub-units and the organisation as a whole results in the
"displacement of goals". He also criticized the Weberian model for its neglect of the power which a bureaucrat assumes whereby he becomes increasingly preoccupied with his own social position and in the end subverts the professed goals of the organisation by concentrating only on his own power position.
Alvin Gouldner: He opined (in his book Patterns of Industrial Bureaucracy) that the promulgation of additional rules as a control mechanism produces tension between the managers and the .subordinates, leading to the displacement of organisational goals. He distinguished two major types of bureaucracy: punishment-centred bureaucracy in which the organisational members conform reluctantly to the rules that they consider to be imposed on them by an alien group; and representative bureaucracy in which the members regard
rules as necessary on technical grounds and in their own interests- He also classified bureaucrats into "cosmopolitans" and "locals".
Michel Crozier: He described (in his book The Bureaucratic Phenomena— 1964) bureaucracy as a rigid "Organisation that cannot correct its behaviour by learning from its .errors",
Thorstein Veblen: He argued that the bureaucratic model due to its obsession with rules, engenders inability to cope with changing conditions. In other words, it socialises the officials incapable of dealing with nqW things. He described this as "trained incapacity".
He said that the officials in bureaucracy do the same type of work for a long period of time and thus develop some preferences and antipathies. He described this as "occupational psychosis". The same phenomenon was called as "professional deformation" by Warnotte, Victor A. Thompson; He described the unintended consequences of bureaucracy as
"bureaupafeology" (a disease of bureaucracy) and said that they are produced by
"bureaupathic" behaviour.
Simon and Barnard: They said that Weber developed his thesis on the basis of structural approach. Hence, his model reduces administrative efficiency, which can be enhanced through informal relations and unofficial practices.
4.0. CONCLUSION
Bureaucracy is a term adopted by Max Weber to represent his ideal type of authority - the Legal Rational Authority. It is ideal because it takes care of the major shortcoming of the charismatic authority, which lacks continuity and it takes care of the shortcoming of the traditional authority which lacks adherence to the merit system in succession.
5.0. SUMMARY
According to Weber, bureaucracy unlike other organizational arrangements is a rational legal type of authority. The bureaucratic form of organization, is distinguished by such structural and behavioral characteristics like: Division of Labor which involves a specified sphere of competence; Hierarchy where there is a clear separation between superior and subordinate offices, i.e. each lower office is under the control and supervision of a higher one; Rules showing that bureaucracy operates in accordance with a consistent system of abstract rules laid down regarding the performance of official jobs;
Rationality indicating that bureaucracy is capable of attaining a higher degree of efficiency since the means used to achieve goals are rationally and objectively chosen towards the desired ends and personal whims of the leaders and traditional pressures are no longer effective in such a system; Impersonality where there is no place for personal whims, fancies or irrational sentiments. Official activity is conducted in a businesslike manner with a high degree of operational impersonality; Rule Orientation indicating that rationality and impersonality are mainly achieved through formulation of rules and
procedures which clearly define official spheres of authority and conduct; Neutrality depicting bureaucracy as apolitical and neutral in its orientation but supporting the political regime it serves purely in administrative status.
6.0. TUTOR-MARKED ASSIGNMENT Question:
What differentiate bureaucracy from other types of authority?
Answer:
Bureaucracy is different from other types of authority like Charismatic and traditional authorities in the sence that it is a type of authority built on laid down principles or rules and regulations which followed a systematic scientific process.
Bureaucracy is a permanent type of authority which continues as long as the organization exists and the office is different from the officer occupying it. Recruitment into the bureaucratic office is based on merit and each person handles a portion of the work according to his specialization.
The student should continue with all the characteristics of bureaucracy mentioned in section 3.3 above.
7.0. REFERENCE/FURTHER READING
Sharma, M. P., et all, (2012), Public Administration in Theory and Practice, Kitab Mahal, New Delhi
Laxmikanth, M, (2011), Public Admiistration, Tata McGraw Hill‘s Series, New Delhi Shafritz, J. M. (2007), Introducing Public Administration, Fifth Edition, Pearson Longman, New York.
MODULE 3: NEO-CLASSICAL OR HUMAN RELATIONS THEORY