Recently, we have witnessed specialization by people to perform various specific functions, which has been escalated by the fact that students are also encouraged to study strictly a given specialty. Most organizations are out to maximize output from each unit of input employed, which has led to the division of labor to get the best from every employee. This has made a specialization in the area of work inevitable, and people have come to believe that it’s paramount to employ various individuals in the organization according to their qualifications to perform specified functions. Due to the idea that separation of duties to specific people makes them more responsible for their actions hence increasing efficiency, many organizations have found it worthwhile to centralize authority and decision making or rather bureaucratically arrange the administration. This paper seeks to highlight how bureaucracy affects the governing of various organizations, its advantages, and its disadvantages.
Bureaucracy refers to a system of governance where an organization is split down into several departments run by specialized and highly qualified professions who are employed to perform specific tasks (Edles and Appelrouth 219). In most cases, the departments are again sub-divided further into smaller units, which are even more specialized in performing certain specific roles in line with the major role of their department. On top of that, there exists a clear-cut chain of command where high-ranking administrators supervise the lower ranking ones who in turn oversee the function of even junior employees. Additionally, there is detailed attention to rules of operation where each person is required to strictly follow laid down procedures of performance that guide what has to be done at a specific time and how it should be done (Hummel 74). Nowadays at least every organization has disintegrated its functions and assigned them to people who are specialized in the areas concerned.
In a more complex organization, it may be quite cumbersome to control the employees if everybody was left to act to his or her discretion. Many people would be staying at home yet pretending to have worked and demand payment for the output they did not produce. People would be making impromptu decisions that only favor them and follow this in their performance, hence leading to departure from the main aim of the organization. Without clear-cut instructions on what should be done or what is the main focus of the organization, every person will put personal agenda first leading to conflict of interests (Edles and Appelrouth 217). Surprisingly, though grown-ups seem to be more responsible they need supervision to adhere to the requirements of the organizations hence protecting the organization’s reputation. Therefore, complex organizations must break down management of their affairs, and various units are given specific mandates to accomplish in a move designed to increase the efficiency of the employees.
For instance, the government is divided into various ministries which concern themselves with given duties that help the government in serving the public, and in every ministry, duties are also assigned to various personnel in different sections within the ministry for advanced performance (Danhardt 31). If a company like coca-cola had one manager to oversee the production and at the same time manage the sales department, then one of the sections would not be accorded deserving attention and there is the likelihood that this section would not be performing to the optimum. On the other hand, if every department is given the mandate to hire employees then the possibility is that unqualified or unnecessary people would be incorporated into the organization hence the need to have a centralized human resource department (Hummel 72).
Smaller organizations might not require bureaucracy as this might bring about unnecessary expenses by increasing the number of employees, but it should be noted that authority needs to be centralized. It is of importance to note that these organizations on most occasions have clearly defined visions of how to grow which calls for the professional handling of the administrational matters hence bureaucracy.
Bureaucracies help in achieving the goal of the organization in a unified manner, where the goal is spelled out clearly and the means to achieve it are given, therefore everybody is required to perform his or her duty which is also well defined to achieve the common goal (Danhardt 29). In a nutshell, bureaucracy helps in unifying the interests of every person in the organization to one common goal. Though it is expected that bureaucracy enhances efficiency, in some instances it brings about scapegoats for those who are lazy. It is not a surprise to get a person in an office who declines to render service to you because the person claims the duty does not fall within the mandate of the office he bears; this is mostly the case in public offices or large organizations.
Running huge organizations involved in large-scale production and government operations would be a nightmare were it not for bureaucracy, which makes coordination of the various duties possible. Bureaucracy promotes the culture and core values of the organization in a more rationalized manner (Edles and Appelrouth 218). However, it should be noted that bureaucracy offers a high degree of defense on consequences of actions by officials who might be weak in their performance if they strictly follow the laid down protocols.
Employees in a bureaucratic environment are recruited on merit by their qualifications, and they are aware of what their position requires of them making execution of duties faster and efficient. The reaction to changes in demand is also timely because of the detailed mandate requirement which eases the procedure of decision making (Hummel 73). It is, however, notable that in very large firms and governmental organizations, it is a rule that an order from the higher authority must be obtained before a decision is made, which takes long before important steps are taken regarding technological or economical changes.
The criteria in the bureaucracy are clear as appertains promotions and succession when one employee exits, this enables handing over to be carried out smoothly causing minimal disruption to daily operations of the firm in case one office is left vacant (Danhardt 30). But on the other hand, the flow of information is majorly top-down where managers pass information down through various levels to frontline workers, while information from the low-ranked employees sometimes does not reach the managers. This discourages ingenuity since one individual seems unable to institute desired changes especially if it is the low-ranked employee.
From the onset it may look like bureaucracy is unnecessary to a certain extent if one looks on the dark side too much. On the contrary, corporations that are involved in large-scale production and the government will require separation of duties and specialization to perform efficiently. Though other firms might perform efficiently without having to institute bureaucratic governance, evaluation needs to be done to see which kind of governance is the best. Bureaucracy has its bright and dark side, but it is impossible to do without it necessitating the importance for the organization to monitor the performance always to make sure its mission is kept.
Works Cited
Danhardt, Robert. Theories of Public Organization. Connecticut: Cengage Brain, 2010. Print.
Edles, Laura and Appelrouth Scott. Sociological Theory in Classical Era: Text and Readings. Thousand Oaks: Pine forge, 2009. Print.
Hummel, Ralph. The Bureaucratic Experience: The Post Modern Challenge. New York: M. E. Sharpe, 2007. Print.