Bureaucracy is the Best Way to Deliver Change and Innovation in an Organization Essay

Introduction

Current theories of organizational leadership tend to argue that bureaucracy is no longer tenable or applicable in the modern context. They base their argument on the disadvantages of bureaucracy as suggested by Max Weber in the 20^th century, which focuses on dividing organizations into subjective hierarchies and establishment of control and authority (Josserand, Teo & Clegg 2006).

They also base their argument on the negative aspects of ‘appointing’ rather than ‘electing’ organizational leaders. However, modern theories of organizational leadership fail to recognize the impact of bureaucracy on innovation and change management. In fact, modern leadership styles are products of 20^th century bureaucracy, which emphasized technocracy in organizational leadership (Browning 2007).

The systematic nature of bureaucracy contributed to the development of large business organizations in the 20^th century because of its effects on change and innovation. It ensured that innovative, visionary, skilled and experienced technocrats led organizations and were appointed to the right positions based on the outcomes of their past work (Josserand, Teo & Clegg 2006).

In this way, bureaucracy ensures that organizations choose the right leader through appointment, rather than risking a poor leader candidate being elected due to majority voting power. In this context, it is evident that the systematic nature of bureaucracy makes it applicable in delivering change and innovation in modern organizations. However, some changes are needed to make bureaucracy fit for the contemporary context.

The purpose of this paper is to develop a critical analysis of bureaucracy to determine its applicability in the modern context. The paper argues that bureaucracy is systematic in nature. Therefore, it is good for delivering change and innovation even in the modern context.

The paper will present a brief analysis of the nature and applicability of bureaucracy, its strengths and weaknesses. It will provide a review of the scholarly work supportive of bureaucracy in organizational leadership, using examples from literature. Finally, it will develop a conclusion in support of bureaucracy in the modern context.

What is bureaucracy and why is it an important topic in organizational management?

First introduced by Max Weber in the 20^th century, the term ‘Bureaucracy’ has been an important topic of debate in organizational and public leadership. In simple terms, it describes an organization as a large structure with dividing hierarchies and establishment of authority and control. In essence, Weber’s bureaucracy has a number of characteristics that make it unique.

For instance, it emphasizes hierarchy of structure and authority. Organizations have a hierarchical chain of command – t he top bureaucrats have absolute control and power (Josserand, Teo & Clegg 2006). Secondly, it emphasizes the specialization and division of labor.

Bureaucracy is based on the premise that an individual is best at a given field or area of specialization and must work in that position for the best performance of the organization (Josserand, Villeseche & Bardon 2012). Thirdly, rules are extensive, written clearly and established in a clear and direct manner that provides a complete guide to individuals in the organization.

Clarity of organizational goals and mission is another important feature of bureaucracy. In this context, goals are set and made known to all the individuals in an organization. This enables every person to strive to achieve these common goals and fulfill the mission of the organization. In addition, it is worth noting that bureaucracy emphasizes merit as the main principle in hiring and promoting individuals (Josserand, Teo & Clegg 2006).

Due to the hierarchical nature of bureaucratic organizations, promotion requires employees to be good performers. Appointment is purely based on merit, which means that jobs are not granted to friends, families or other individuals who do not meet the merit principle.

The aspect of impersonality ensures that job performance is measured or judged based on an individual’s productivity and the amount of work completed within a specified time and with accuracy and efficiency (Josserand, Teo & Clegg 2006).

Organizations in bureaucracy have structures with numerous management layers that cascade upwards from junior employees through supervisors, regional and departmental managers to top executives. The numerous layers of an organization in this model imply that decision-making process must pass through all layers.

Power is created and concentrated at the top layers of a bureaucratic organization, giving the executives the right and power to control the organization. Information and directions must flow from the top downwards, which encourages an organizational culture focused on standards and rules.

In this context, bureaucracy allows operational processes within an organization to focus on methodologies and supervision that introduce and maintain best practices (Rosen 1988).

In this context, standardization and best practice approaches to organizational leadership provide some evidence of the applicability of bureaucracy in instilling a culture that focuses on innovation and change in an organization. Organizations with tall and short structures need change and innovation. However, they must ensure that work is completed with consistency, efficiency and effectiveness.

Non-bureaucratic organizations may find it difficult to establish the changes and innovations they make due to lack of systematic control of the institution, and this may lead to poor organizational performance (Josserand, Teo & Clegg 2006).

Modern Bureaucracy and the management of change and innovation

According to Josserand, Teo and Clegg (2006), modern theories of organizational leadership are mere refurbishments of bureaucracy, configured in a manner that interpolates the ideas of Max Weber. The authors argue that the refurbishment of Weber’s bureaucracy has involved few changes to make it fit the modern forces affecting organizations.

For example, democratic principles have been adopted in many organizations, in order to ensure that they fit modern systems and cultural norms. However, as the article by Josserand et al article shows, the implementation of post-bureaucratic forms is frequently ineffective, as managers are ensnared ‘in the nets of their extant social ties’ (2006: 61).

Accordingly, the authors assert that the conceptions of post-bureaucracy are mere re-combinations of the organizational structure suggested by Weber, and changed modalities that show evidence of indirect and internalized control and power concentration (Josserand, Teo & Clegg 2006).

This means that the modern management and leadership styles have identities that were formed with Weber’s ideas of bureaucracy. In the modern context, change and innovation must be implemented within refurbished bureaucracies in a manner that allows democratization (Dimitroff, Schmidt & Bond 2008).

From this perspective, it is clear that even the modern theories and styles of organizational leadership are principally grounded on the ideas of bureaucracy. In other words, they are mere refurbishments of bureaucracy, which can be best described as modernized and democratized bureaucracy.

However, they still emphasize the systematic nature of organizational structure as suggested by Weber’s ideas of bureaucracy. Therefore, the next step is to determine how the systematic nature of bureaucracy, whether in the old style or in modern bureaucracies, affects the implementation of change and innovation.

Defining Organizational change and innovation

Organizational change management

The ability to manage change is important in any organization. While the effects of change can be positive or negative, it is worth noting that the management of change is the main factor that determines the outcomes.

In the modern context, managing change has become more related to innovation than before, especially due to the incorporation of technology as one of the main methods of managing and driving business processes. In fact, modern aspects of innovation require technology and technological development to improve business and its outcomes.

As such, organizational leadership requires individuals who are ready to accept the inevitability of change and ensure that they communicate this to their subjects within the organization they are leading. Innovative leaders should not raise some expectations that change will slow down, but rather, they should ensure that the employees acknowledge that change is manageable and constant.

Secondly, innovative leaders must ensure that change takes place within an environment defined by openness. There must be trust, which is achieved through open-door policies that allow a two-way feedback and the willingness to address the issues raised in the feedback. In this way, the organizational leader is able to develop change in an effective way.

Thirdly, it is worth noting that employees do not reject or oppose change for the sake of it, but they tend to oppose that change that does not allow them to contribute. If organizational leaders welcome and encourage employee input, they are likely to achieve their appreciation and ensure that employees develop a positive attitude towards change and innovation.

In addition, it is likely that employee contributions and insight will benefit the organization because there will be diversity of ideas in decision-making process. In fact, employees are always in close contact with clients, suppliers or other parties, which means that they are able to have first-hand knowledge of their needs and preferences.

From a bureaucratic view of organizational leadership, it is worth noting that leaders may have advantages or disadvantages when seeking to implement change and innovation. From a positive view of the method, it is clear that the centralization of power plays a significant role in ensuring that organizational change and innovation are achieved within the shortest time possible.

For instance, bureaucracy allows fast decision making because leaders are able to solicit employee suggestions and make immediate decisions on whether to accept technology or not. In addition, it allows leaders to ensure that employees obtain training within a short period before technological innovations are implemented.

They are also able to make and force new guidelines that will ensure a practice of openness is implemented and understood by all employees within a short time, which ensures that technology and innovation are used in business processes.

Delivery of innovation requires innovation management in an organization. Employees at all levels of an organizational structure are involved in order to create new and improved qualities of the workforce that steer organizational growth and development.

How does the systematic nature of bureaucracy help in delivering change and innovation?

The systematic nature of bureaucracy plays an important role even in modern leadership systems perceived to be post-bureaucratic in nature. Several systematic aspects of organizations are of interest in this regard. In answering this question, it is imperative to look at each of these aspects in order to show how bureaucracy can influence the delivery of change and innovation due to its systematic nature.

In essence, change and innovation delivery in an organization relies on the ability of leaders and their subjects to ensure that they implement personal and role development. They are required to ensure that they develop effective approaches to their work. This helps them find and apply ideas that make it possible to deal with internal and external challenges and opportunities.

Therefore, appointment of such individuals based on merit seems to be the best way to ensure that an organization experiences change and innovation (Almeida, Fernando & Sheridan 2012). It would be difficult to appoint such individuals if their qualities and fitness are not judged or measured based on their performance.

Thus, this implies that the systematic nature of bureaucracy provides evidence of a good method of appointing leaders and employees who are change oriented and innovative.

Secondly, the development and establishment of rules and regulations that govern the organization and its people characterize the systematic nature of bureaucracy. An organization that requires change and innovation must have guidelines, which members should follow in their quest to enhance individual and organizational performance (Czarniawska 2008).

Clarity of goals and mission is a major characteristic of bureaucracy, which makes it systematic. For effective delivery of innovation and change, it is imperative to ensure that organizations have a set of clear and well-defined goals and missions that all members must strive to achieve.

In addition, innovative and change oriented leaders can develop effective and achievable goals and organization mission (Josserand, Teo & Clegg 2006). Despite the fact that contemporary theories attempt to describe bureaucracy as an old and anti-democratic model, it is evident that they must also have clear and well-defined goals in order to implement change and innovation.

It would be difficult for leaders to employ change if there were no goals or missions in the organization. Furthermore, the research by Josserand et al shows that, even change aimed at overthrowing bureaucracy relies upon (and, in their case, was constrained by) bureaucratic structures themselves.

References

Almeida, S, Fernando, M & Sheridan, A, 2012, “Revealing the screening: Organizational factors influencing the recruitment of immigrant professionals”, The international journal of human resource management, vol. 23, no. 9, pp. 1950-1965.

Browning, BW, 2007, “Leadership in desperate times: An analysis of endurance: Shacleton incredible voyage through the lens leadership theory”, Advancement in developing human resources, vol. 9, no 2, pp. 183-184.

Dimitroff, R, Schmidt, LA & Bond, TD, 2008, “Organization behavior and disaster: A study of conflict at NASA”, Project management institute vol.36, no. 1, pp. 28-38.

Josserand, E, Teo, S & Clegg, S, 2006, “From bureaucratic to post-bureaucratic: The difficulties of transition”, Journal of organizational change management, vol. 19, no. 1, pp. 54-64

Josserand, E, Villeseche, F & Bardon, T, 2012, being a active member of a corporate alumni network: A critical appraisal, Academy of management, Boston, MA.

Rosen, M, 1988, “You asked for it: Christmas at the bosses’ expense,” Journal of management studies, vol. 25, no. 5, pp. 22-23

Czarniawska B, 2008, A Narrative Approach to Organization Studies, Sage, London, UK.