Introduction
Weber viewed bureaucracy as the “admired enemy” and extolled its virtues to be: a hierarchical structure, impersonality, documented rules of conduct, promotion as a result of achievement, a specialized division of labor, and efficiency. He believed there was no way one could escape it as it was making its presence felt in offices all over the world. Weber explained the ‘ideal type’ bureaucracy as having a number of benefits because of its impersonal nature, the concentration of the methods of administration, its balancing of social and economic disparities, and implementation of authority and decision-making framework that is virtually indestructible (Berkeley & Rouse, 2004).
Main body
Whereas in today’s era the flat organization structures seem to be the only acceptable method, Weber’s views on bureaucracy show one a different perspective on how bureaucracies can work and why they don’t. Weber saw many benefits in bureaucracies but was aware of how they often led to an oligarchy where power was concentrated at the topmost tier. He knew about the possible factors which could lead to the downfall of such a structure (Berkeley & Rouse, 2004).
While he was aware of its possible downsides, Weber still believed that an ideal-type bureaucracy was more rational and led to better results and higher levels of efficiency than the methods of organization that preceded it. He specified the following seven primary principles which govern such a bureaucracy: hierarchy, impersonality, written rules of conduct, promotion based on achievement, a specialized division of labor, and efficiency. These organizations were solely goal-oriented and their design and functioning were in line with rational principles so that they could attain their goals efficiently (Berkeley & Rouse, 2004).
In Weber’s bureaucracy, there is never a time-lapse in the carrying out of official business activities, which are conducted with strict adherence to the following rules: every official has a duty to do specific work which is defined on the basis of impersonal criteria, every official is granted the authority needed to conduct his assigned duties, however, the means of coercion which he is allowed to use are limited and the criteria which define their use are specified (Berkeley & Rouse, 2004).
Furthermore, there is a vertical hierarchy, which defines each official’s responsibility and authority, and also specifies the rights available to each of supervision as well as appeal. The resources required for the completion of the functions within their specified roles will not be owned by officials, but they will be wholly responsible for the use of these resources. Another factor which this ideal-type bureaucracy laid down was that there would be a clear distinction between official and private business, and the income derived from each. Also, the incumbents of offices do not have the right to appropriate their offices and all official business activities would be carried out with thorough written documentation to support it (Berkeley & Rouse, 2004).
Conclusion
Lastly, the official in this ideal-type bureaucracy would be appointed and placed on the basis of his technical merit as well as his conduct. He is to exercise the authority granted to him while adhering to the impersonal rules laid down, and he will be rewarded for faithfully carrying out his official responsibilities by a regular salary as well as prospects of future promotion. While he is to employ his or her own personal judgment and skills, these are subservient to his or her official duties and must be sacrificed if there is a conflict between the two, as his duty warrants that he place these at the loyal service of a higher authority (Berkeley & Rouse, 2004).
References
Berkeley, George & Rouse, John. The craft of public administration. 9th ed. New York: McGraw-Hill, 2004.