Within a bureaucratic structure people should occupy positions because of their performance, and not because of their social standing or personal contacts. Employees are selected and promoted on their qualifications, enabling the most suitable person to be employed for the job. This should therefore mean that each job within the organization is being done as efficiently as possible. Nevertheless some organizations are still affected by ‘social networks’, where relations and personal contacts are able to influence hiring and promotion. This is obviously not skill related and therefore a dysfunction of bureaucracies.
All administrative actions and decisions are recorded in writing which in effect creates a history of the organization, which does not rely on individuals’ memories. It is useful to refer back to when similar situations arise therefore enabling managers to deal with the task in the most appropriate manner. Conversely excessive paperwork can become cumbersome and inefficient as it slows down processes that could otherwise be performed immediately.
Another vital part of a bureaucracy is the rules and procedures that all employees should be familiar with. Managers must create a distinct system of rules and standard operating procedures (SOPs) so that they can effectively control behaviour within an organization. Rules are formal written instructions that specify actions to be taken under different circumstances to achieve specific goals. SOPs are specific sets of written instructions about how to perform a certain aspect of a task (Kast et al. 1985). These provide guidelines for expected behaviour that increase the performance of a bureaucratic organization as they specify the best ways to accomplish each of the tasks. However it is often argued that managers may come to rely too much on rules to solve problems, and not enough on their own skills and judgement, and their behaviour becomes inflexible. A rigid structure of rules and procedures can suppress initiative and creativity that the organization my find helpful in order to keep up with technology and development. In fact adhering to rules in a very strict manner allows the organization no space to adapt to change, which is more or less inevitable as technology changes so rapidly. The secure, predictable environment that is created within a bureaucracy is unequipped to cope with change so the whole system is likely to collapse. Employees then find their skills no longer necessary in running that system, while their capacity to acquire new skills for a new situation has not been developed. Therefore it seems for dynamic and innovative organizations, a bureaucratic structure would not be suitable to achieve high efficiency.
All procedures and rules are impersonal in a bureaucracy and therefore apply to all employees in the same way. In this way the rules are applied to everyone in the same way, which creates consistency and avoids bias. Alternatively it can be seen as standardizing all cases in an inflexible manner. Specifics are not taken into account that could influence decisions, therefore letting down those the system is meant to support.
From the six characteristics of a bureaucracy it is impossible to say that Weber’s ideal type of bureaucracy is the most efficient form of organization for every corporation. In fact every organisation is likely to involve certain characteristics to varying degrees. So in the ideal type of bureaucracy all six principles would exist to a high degree, whereas in a less bureaucratic organization they would be present to a smaller degree. Which is more efficient depends on several other factors concerning the type of organization and what its tasks are.
One major factor that may determine whether a bureaucratic structure is the most efficient form of organization is the size of the firm. Here are two different bits of research that have examined the relationship between size and bureaucracy. The first suggests that as firms grow larger in size, a bureaucratic system leads to administrative efficiencies. The second suggests that increasing the degree of bureaucracy within the firm actually leads to higher performance as firms grow in size.
One part of the research examined whether bureaucracy led to administrative efficiencies as the size of the firm grows. Researchers studied the hierarchical configuration of administrative, clerical and professional staff in various organisations. They found that as the size of the organization expands and as the number of projects and functions expands, not only the size of the workforce, but also its level of specialization increases. These studies led to the conclusion that in larger firms it was more economical as there were less top managers compared to the number of employees. In smaller organizations the ratio of top managers to employees was larger and therefore more inefficient. So larger organizations gained from managerial economies of scale, increasing efficiency and therefore proving that a bureaucratic style is more productive for larger scale organizations.
The second part of the research is where John Child investigated whether increasing the degree of bureaucracy leads to poor performance as the size of the organization increases. Child discovered that as the organizations grew larger, higher productivity was linked with higher levels of bureaucracy. Therefore firms that grew larger without adopting a bureaucratic style underperformed those that took on board bureaucratic characteristics. However, small corporations performed better if they were less bureaucratized. Therefore Child noted that with size should come bureaucracy, if the organization is to operate in the most efficient way.
Together with size, another important factor in deciding whether a bureaucratic environment is the most efficient way of functioning is the task the organization is expected to do. For example high performing corporations in dynamic environments who are constantly adapting to change will need procedures that are flexible. The bureaucratic system will not be appropriate for the highly flexible organization that faces non-routine activities in which creativity and innovation are important. On the other hand bureaucracy will be suitable for routine organizational activities where productivity is the major objective. Jobs that involve very specific actions that are repeated over and over again will benefit from this type of organization. The environment is stable and unchanging, and has no need to respond to changes quickly therefore making it an effective strategy. This shows that environment is an important determinant in distinguishing whether bureaucracy is the ideal organization method to use.
So, in assessing whether bureaucracy is the most efficient form of organization several factors must be taken into consideration. It is also a sweeping generalisation to say one specific form of organization is the most efficient for every corporation. Weber’s idealistic form of bureaucracy should be seen more as a model, rather than specific guidelines for each firm to try and copy. This way varying degrees of bureaucracy can be applied to achieve the most efficient outcome for each organization.
Bureaucracy provides scope for economies of scale and specialization at the expense of flexibility and innovation. Their predictability provides a safe and secure environment for all employees and a clear line of job progression. It is most useful when organizational activities are routine and well understood and when employees are making automatic decisions such as in mass-production settings or in routine service environments, such as restaurants.
Conversely, if organizations are constantly under the pressure of change a highly bureaucratic system will not work. In corporations that experience such change, individuals often have more freedom to grow and mature, due to a more flexible organizational structure. However it is very rare that organizations are either of the extremes. It is more likely that they have a balance in order to work most effectively. It is this balance that combines various other forms of organization, along with the bureaucratic style, to create the desired outcome. Consequently bureaucracy is often used in conjunction with other organization styles, which makes certain aspects of it very efficient. Each individual corporation must be considered in isolation, and appropriate controls applied. It is likely certain aspects of bureaucracy will be applied, but the extent to which it is appropriate will vary from case to case.
Overall bureaucracy has adapted and survived since Weber first put forward his theory. The evidence that it is still in use today must mean it has been efficient to a certain extent. It obviously provides more benefits to certain organizations, but since most firms employ certain characteristics of Weber’s bureaucratic style it must be an efficient form of organization. A high degree of bureaucracy may not be appropriate to all firms, but for the ones it does benefit it seems to be a very efficient way of employing all resources to attain the desired outcomes.
