Introduction
The bureaucratic management theory is attributed to Max Weber, a German author and sociologist. Weber introduced the approach in 1922 when he was the first to describe and use bureaucracy (Abun et al., 2021). The interest e mainly drove this in industrial capitalism, which led him to the discovery of rational authority. From this, he believed that organizations were best set up and administrated through bureaucracy as it brought a sense of efficiency. In his definition, bureaucracy is a kind of organization characterized by a high degree of formality and impersonality in how work is divided and performed (Anjali, 2020). As such, the theory held that for successful firm management, it was pivotal to have a proper authority line with adequacy in rules, regulations, and procedures, ensuring optimal control of all business operations. Therefore, this research paper breaks down this theory by highlighting its multiple critical elements.
The Theory and Legal Responsibility
The bureaucratic management theory brings forth three types of power wielded in organizations. The first is traditional power, wherein workers are considered servants and are entirely dependent on their leaders and blindly follow the provided rules and regulations. The second is charismatic power, which arises from managers having extraordinary personalities, leading to deep motivation within workers to perform exceptionally (Anjali, 2020). The final type of power is legal-rational, where workers must follow specific, consistent principles. This is what Webber referred to as bureaucracy and structured it through official duties, imposed rules, and respect for regulations.
Principles of the Theory
Authority Hierarchy
The theory proposes that companies should have a systematic hierarchy that defines each employee’s position. This should be organized from top to lowest to enable employees to know who to report to. It also accords employees as the source of their authority as they understand whose orders to follow and the role of the different team members within the firm (Serpa & Ferreira, 2019). With these, positional functions and chain of command are established, leading to power dynamics within formalized channels.
Formal Rules and Regulations
If a bureaucracy functions well, its official rules and regulations will be followed as blueprints for action. It creates a sense of universality as everyone abides by the said regulations regardless of position (Mulder, 2022). These rules and regulations are documented in policies, manuals, handbooks, directives, and instructions and essentially define an organization’s functionality. They are also seen as a way of exercising control for effortless decision-making.
Division of Labor
Weber held that division of labor was vital to efficiency and productivity within a functional bureaucracy. The principle thus champions task assortment, ensuring that tasks are assigned to those most capable of accomplishing them (Serpa & Ferreira, 2019). This provides order and organization while leading to high-quality standards and reduced costs. It also creates a sense of responsibility as employees only focus on their areas of expertise while balancing responsibilities and power.
Career Orientation
The career orientation principle motivates employees to focus on establishing long-term careers within the organization. This is through performance-based incentives and job security provisions. In line with this is the appreciation of unique skills borne by each employee, which employers use to put the employees in roles that they can grow over time (Mulder, 2022). In this regard, careers can be built based on expertise and experience, and optimal human capital utilization is also ensured.
Impersonality
Webber held that for bureaucracies to be successful, they had to be impartial, autonomous, and impersonal. In this regard, professionalism must be prioritized, fostering decision-making guided by critical thought and evidence (Serpa & Ferreira, 2019). Consequently, there is a clear definition of rules and their application, preventing nepotism and favoritism, which are likely to emerge with heightened interactions. As such, a sense of rationality is promoted, and any personal biases are extinguished, ensuring no interference from outsiders.
Formal Selection Process
In line with this principle, Weber believed that workers’ recruitment should be based on expertise and technical skills rather than on those that came first. This is an appreciation of the level of education, experience, and training that employees have undergone (Mulder, 2022). The principles also blend with the salary rates as employees are essentially compensated based on their services. As such, the code also guides promotion practices, ensuring that merit and performance are checked for elevation into a higher position, ensuring better productivity for the firm and heightened employee growth and satisfaction (Abun et al., 2021). As such, the selection process should involve announcing available openings, applications for the stipulated positions, interviews, selection from the pool and applicants, and seeking replacements whenever vacancies arise.
Advantages and Disadvantages of the Theory
Advantages
When appropriately embodied within an organization, the theory offers multiple benefits. Primarily, it provides a pathway to expertise within a firm through its provision for work division between employees based on capabilities, expertise, and skills. Additionally, it ensures that recruitment is skill-based which accords organizations the best pool of workers available in the market (Suzuki & Hur, 2019). The theory is also a function of predictability through its provision of a systematic hierarchy and defined methods and rules, thereby ensuring similarity in how tasks and even decisions are determined by management. The theory also provides that there is equality as it facilitates rationality in the handling of problems and fairness in judgment. Besides, the approach brings structure to an organization which is critical to how it operates and achieves its goals. It is also lauded for creating a systematic record-keeping process that promotes accountability in operations. Ultimately, the theory is associated with a sense of control and consistency within companies ensuring optimal and efficient output delivery.
Disadvantages
Despite the multiple benefits the theory brings, it has a fair share of shortcomings. Primarily, it leads to one-way communication as it is opined on information passing from the top to the bottom. However, feedback is not well integrated into its overall structure, which is quite concerning. The other disadvantage is that it leads to power exploitation (Suzuki & Hur, 2019). This is because it accords managers with higher authority which they can easily misuse to drive self-interests and dominate their juniors. Application of the theory in an organization can also waste time and resources due to the sequences required. Further still, the approach delays decision-making since this authority is ingrained in the management. As such, there is overdependence on top-level managers, which can be costly when emergencies occur.
The approach is also associated with limits on creativity and innovation as supervisors are the ultimate decision-makers making them likely to impose their ideologies on others without promoting the freedom of thought. Besides, the theory’s foundational principles also lead organizations to rigidity since the approach has little to no provisions for modification in management systems (Mulder, 2022). Bureaucracy is also linked to massive paperwork and red tape, which many view as old school and draining. The theory also makes employees less loyal as they become distanced from each other and focus on achieving the organizational goals rather than building quality interactions.
Criticisms of the Theory
Over the years, the theory has been critiqued based on its various shortcomings. Primarily, it is seen as a rigorous and rigid approach to managers and employees, creating high standards that some view as unachievable (Anjali, 2020). Another criticism is that the theory does not consider informal groups such as contractors, yet they are pivotal to the success of businesses in the marketplace today. Opponents of the idea also see it as well suited to government organizations rather than businesses that need certain levels of flexibility and informality for success. Critiques also believe that the approach limits the scope of operationalization of human resources based on the structures and lines of responsibilities created. Besides, the theorist is seen to be more interested in technical skills and ignores the soft ones, which are just as pivotal. It also triggers employee boycotts and strikes (Abun et al., 2021). As such, critiques posit that it only works in government agencies and remains inapplicable in the corporate world.
Conclusion
In conclusion, the bureaucratic management theory is a critical approach to handling management. Its principles and legal motivations give organizations multiple benefits from which managers and employees can benefit greatly. However, the theory has its pretty limiting disadvantages. These critiques have capitalized on viewing the approach as inapplicable in the corporate world and only remains suitable for government agencies guided by multiple rules and regulations. Nonetheless, despite the criticisms and disadvantages, organizations that find the theory the best fit for their operations should inform their employees before contracting them for ease of applicability and functionality.
References
Abun, D., Calamaan, S. M., Magallanes, T., Encarnacion, M. J., & Sallong, M. (2021). Bureaucratic management style and workplace well-being of the divine word colleges. International Journal of Research in Business and Social Science (2147- 4478), 10(3), 477–489. Web.
Anjali, J. (2020). Max Weber bureaucracy theory – Definition, advantages, disadvantages. The Investors Book. Web.
Mulder, P. (2022). Bureaucratic theory by Max Weber: Definition and principles. Toolshero. Web.
Serpa, S., & Ferreira, C. M. (2019). The concept of bureaucracy by Max Weber. International Journal of Social Science Studies, 7(2), 12. Web.
Suzuki, K., & Hur, H. (2019). Bureaucratic structures and organizational commitment: Findings from a comparative study of 20 European countries. Public Management Review, 22(6), 877–907. Web.