Bureaucracy has gained an unfavorable reputation among businessmen and consumers alike for its relentless rigidity and lack of adaptability. However, there are many reasons why Bureaucratic organizational structures still have a place in the ever-changing modern world. Even though bureaucracy restricts most forms of innovation and flexibility, many companies rely on it to regulate their daily operations (Mori, 2017). Bureaucratic organizations have several key advantages that warrant their existence.
The core strength of bureaucracy is in its stability, which keeps the company and its employees secure. Having a strict set of rules that everyone has to abide by guarantees fair and unbiased treatment for all workers, regardless of their personal qualities that do not affect their performance. This also lowers the chance of corruption, as all employees are held accountable for any violations of the company policy. Finally, bureaucratic organizations are unlikely to make costly mistakes, as their decision-making process is comprised of thorough checks and market viability evaluations.
From the human resources management perspective, bureaucratic organizations focus on ensuring that the employees adhere to all company rules. Training tends to be minimal, only including the skills necessary for a specific position, increasing efficiency. The main benefit of bureaucracy in this area is its straightforward and clearly defined reward and promotion system that motivates workers to produce better results and encourages a positive attitude in the workplace.
However, the traditional values of bureaucratic organizations are now challenged by the volatile and complex nature of the modern world. Discipline, which is the focus of the bureaucratic structure, often conflicts with the need to innovate which affects most companies on the market (Rey et al., 2019). Unfortunately, this conflict cannot be resolved by giving preference to one side and eliminating the other, as both rules and freedom to experiment are necessary for an organization to function and develop. Depending on the size and type of the company, a certain degree of bureaucracy may be necessary to maintain order.
Small organizations with few employees rarely need complicated rules and procedures to function, and bureaucratic structures are not suitable for them in the current economy. This can be explained by the fact the people working in such companies often have a high level of mutual dependence, and communicate regularly and effectively, which eliminates the need for corporate guidelines. Young organizations are also the ones that typically have to adapt and innovate to stay relevant, as the environment continues to change (Worley et al., 2018). It is also not wise for such companies to have a rigid rule structure because they might not have developed the most appropriate ways to carry out their daily operations yet.
The situation is different for larger organizations that have complicated relationships between numerous departments. Governmental organizations are affected by this more than others, as they usually have to comply with many regulations regardless of their internal requirements (Rulinawaty, 2020). However, these organizations do not have to compete with quickly evolving companies for market dominance, as they tend to have a monopoly for the service or function they perform for the community.
Commercial organizations are more sensitive to the effects of excessive bureaucracy, as a lack of innovation and delayed decision-making can drive customers away from certain brands. As companies grow, they formulate certain standards for how each action can be carried out in the most efficient manner (Bellows, 2017). Adhering to them saves time and maximizes short-term gains, but it eliminates the possibility for experimentation and new developments. Many corporations realize that their rigid structure does not allow them to invent revolutionary new solutions naturally, which causes them to employ alternative means of finding original ideas for their business.
Some companies compensate by creating dedicated departments that analyze market tendencies and test potentially viable ideas. Other corporations have divisions that monitor emerging companies that have creative products but lack the resources to manufacture and deliver them. Corporations may then choose to acquire such companies or launch competing solutions that often become more successful than the original. This shows that while bureaucratic organizations are less inclined to innovate in the traditional sense, they can function effectively in the dynamic global economy by taking advantage of alternative methods. The bureaucratic structure may not be as universally effective as it used to be in the past, but it can still yield positive results when utilized correctly.
Reference List
Bellows, S. (2017) Bureaucracy that kills good business. Business Daily. Web.
Mori, G. T. (2017) ‘Examining Hindrance of Bureaucracy on Management Innovation for Organisations’, International Journal of Academic Research in Business and Social Sciences, 7(4), p. 601. Web.
Rey, C. et al. (2019) ‘Agile Purpose: Overcoming Bureaucracy’, in Purpose-driven Organizations. Springer International Publishing, pp. 75–86. Web.
Rulinawaty, S. A. L. S. (2020) ‘Leading Agile Organization Can Indonesian Bureaucracy Become Agile?’, Journal of Talent Development and Excellence, 12(3s), pp. 330–338. Web.
Worley, C. et al. (2018) ‘What Can Bureaucracy Teach Us about Agility?’, Academy of Management Proceedings. Academy of Management, 2018(1). Web.