The lines of communication within a ‘pure’ bureaucracy are always vertical i.e. each employee will only report to his or her immediate superior. Orders are always given from the top of the hierarchy downwards. Given this, there will always be a sharp distinction between the levels of command within the hierarchy.
The bureaucratic structure also provides impersonality for those involved. This is due to the fact that the structure will not enable the employee to communicate with colleagues on a personal level and the functions of those employees are clearly defined.
The monetary rewards for the employees play a major part in motivating the workforce. This is due to there being little else in a bureaucratic structure to do this. This is arguably the main reason why any human being works, but as the reality it is not the only motivating factor.
Max Weber (1864-1920), a German sociologist, was one of the first experts to study the nature of the bureaucracy. He termed this organisational form “rational-legal system” – it structure and processes expressly designed to achieve certain goals.
There are many advantages to this. The bureaucratic structure provides a stable environment for employees to work in. this is because of the predictability that the job provides for its employees. Because of this predictably, employees can also become extremely efficient in the tasks that they are required to do. This can lead to quicker production times and the quality of the final product being very high.
The fact that every process has to be recorded, and checks always have to be made, means that the level of errors and disagreements can arguably be reduced.
These advantages also have down sides to them. The level of conformity of the tasks that the employee has to do mean that creativity is restricted. This leads to the organisation missing out on innovative ideas. This could also lead to a demoralised workforce and efficiency levels being affected.
The amount of paperwork and checks that is associated with a bureaucratic structure means that in reality these systems tend to be slow and incredibly laborious for both the employees and the organisation as a whole. The NHS is a prime example of this.
An alternative this is an organic structure. This kind of structure is the extreme opposite of the bureaucratic structure. It is a more fluid structure appropriate to changing conditions in the external market and internally within the organisation.
“It appears to be required when new problems and unforeseen circumstances arise constantly and require actions outside the defined roles in the hierarchical structure.”
In an organic system, employees are free to offer their experience and expertise to the tasks of the firm. This enables innovation to occur at the base level of the organisation.
The organic system, rather then a hierarchy, is more like network. This enables different departments to communicate with each other laterally. It also means that the specialist knowledge is located throughout the firm rather than just at a managerial level i.e. superior knowledge does not necessarily mean greater authority.
In an organic system, each employee does not have one specific task, as in a bureaucracy. The system allows for the constant adjustment and redefinition of tasks and the roles played by the individual employee.
Microsoft is a good example of a firm which organises its internal structure leaning more towards the organic extreme than the bureaucratic extreme.
I also assume that in this kind of structure, employees will place less emphasis on the monetary rewards of the job and place more emphasis on the way that they complete the tasks i.e. a job that they enjoy.
This structure has a number of advantages. Because of the free communication between employees and even departments laterally as well as horizontally, ideas and tasks can be shared. If one employee finds a better way of doing a certain task, then he or she is free to share that idea.
Also, there is a lack of continuality. This means that employees will not find the job laborious and be encouraged to do the job to a more satisfactory level. It also means that employees are less likely to become demoralised.
As with a bureaucratic structure, the organic system also has disadvantages. Employees in an organic structure are encouraged to multi-task in order that the job does not become laborious. While this may increase the output of the firm, the quality of the products may be affected.
Also, because of the free communication in an organic system, employees may become confused. This may happen because there may be a breakdown of communication. This can happen if two or more senior figures within an organisation are feeding information to employees.
In reality, these two polar extremes cannot be found in any business. These two ideas represent the ideal bureaucratic structure and the ideal organic structure. It is up to a firm to decide towards which extreme they wish to organise themselves.
Burns and Stalker, two theorists who studied both structures, pointed out that “there are intermediate stages between the two extreme systems which represent not a dichotomy but a polarity. The relationship between the mechanistic and organic systems is not rigid. An organisation moving between a relatively stable and a relatively changing environment may also move between the two systems.”
When a firm has to decide on which structure to try to adopt, it depends on the type of business that it is. For a business that has to be creative, they may find more benefits in leaning towards an organic structure. This is because the employees in this type of business will want to exchange ideas and have the freedom to think e.g. for an advertising campaign. An example where a bureaucratic structure would be suitable is a production line.
Both of these systems hold many merits but the fact that it is hard to build a structure which is the extreme of either system proves an advantage. Without elements of both structures, a business will find it hard to succeed.