Advantages and dysfunctions of a bureaucracy

 

Advantages and dysfunctions of a bureaucracy

Introduction

 

In the previous lesson we discussed the major characteristics of a bureaucracy as postulated by Max Weber.  In this lesson we will discuss the advantages of a bureaucracy to an institution and to the public that the organization has been established to serve.  We will also discuss the dysfunctions of a bureaucracy.

 

Objectives

The objectives of this lesson are:

1. To identify and discuss the advantages of a bureaucracy.

2. To discuss the dysfunctions of an bureaucracy.

Introductory activity

Why do you think Max Weber thought a bureaucratic system of running an organization was the best way to run an organisation? You probably know by now from experience that no matter how good anything is, it always has a bad side to it.  Can you think of any of the dysfunctions or weaknesses of a bureaucracy?

 

Explanation on the introductory activity.

Understanding the strengths and shortcomings of an bureaucratic organisation will help you differentiate organizational problems from the failures of office bearers. Below is a detailed discussion of the dysfunctions of a bureaucracy. You should have come up with a lot of answers to the above question, as you think of different reasons as to why Max Weber thought a bureaucratic way of running an organization way better than any other. Understanding these advantages will help you to understand why many organizations run they way they do. Below is a detailed discussion of the advantages of a bureaucracy.

Advantages of a bureaucracy

 

1.                According to Weber, one of the most striking features of industrial society was that when organisations were administered in strictly ‘bureaucratic’ way, they were capable of achieving the highest degree of efficiency.  The bureaucratic division of labour combined with technological innovation has greatly increased the production of goods and services.  Bureaucratic administration is ‘superior to any other form in precision, in stability, in the stringency of its discipline and in its reliability.  It thus makes possible a particular high degree of calculability of results and is formally capable of application to all kinds of administrative tasks.  Therefore, far from being synonymous with irrelevant form-filling, red tape and inefficiency in general, bureaucracy, Weber says, can be the most efficient and rational means known of co-ordinating human resources to obtain desired ends. Weber stated that Bureaucracy was the efficient, effective and cheapest way of doing things. Olive Banks (1968) states that bureaucracy also ensures good utilization of resources.  These resources are human, natural and financial resources. 

2.                Secondly, a bureaucracy usually ensures a degree of predictability: production quotas are pre-determined.

3.                Thirdly, partly because of its very impersonality, bureaucracy is often a condition of fairness.  People are appointed to offices on the basis of qualifications and merit rather than patronage.  Further, clients are dealt with by bureaucrats on the basis of equality and need, not favouritism.

Dysfunctions of a bureaucracy

 

Bureaucratic organisations are no longer functioning as defined by Weber.  They have become pathological, they have undermined their goals and objectives, and they are not meeting the need of their clients. According to Chakulimba (2002) sick bureaucracy can be defined as a type of administration which largely undermines its goals and objectives through the structures and processes it has instituted and primarily schools are examples of bureaucratic systems.

1.  Compulsive rule following.  No interest in looking at specific issues as presented but tending to apply some rules blindly to all problems. There is a danger that those rigidly trained to obey rules rather than to consciously achieve goals will become ritualistic.  This means that they attach more importance to observing rules and procedures than to achieving the purpose for which they exist.  This is referred to a goal displacement.  As lower level bureaucrats are often not kept informed about general organisational goals, ritualism must be considered as potential fault of bureaucracy, rather than an individual failing. Functional utility of the hierarchical authority structure in these organisations may encourage willing coordination and compliance which leads to rigidity and compliance to rules becomes an end and not a means to production.  There is no room to argue against the rules.  There is a welldefined chain of command. A lot of implicit contradictions exist, for example, expert superiors may not be experts all round and subordinates may have more knowledge in certain areas than their superiors.

 

Rigid adherence to bureaucratic rules may prevent an official from improvising a necessary response to unexpected circumstances.  This stifles initiative, confidence and imagination.  Bureaucracy does not always teach these qualities can actually smoother them.  This limits the capacity of bureaucrats to adapt to changing circumstance which were not envisaged by those who drew up the rules.  The officials still think in terms of rules which are not to be questioned, and overlook the fact that absolute rules which make for efficiency in general produce inefficiency – even injustice in specific cases.  And yet to be effective, bureaucrats must behave consistently, and follow regulations strictly. These pressure for formal, impersonal treatment may be harmful when clients come to the bureaucracy, as in a maternity clinic or employment exchange, because they desire and need more individual attention.  If impersonal treatment is stressed, relations with clients maybe unsatisfactory.  ‘Clinical treatment of clients’.  Rules and regulations may have adverse effects. Division of labour stifles initiative among the workers (job ceases to be challenging) and leads to excessive boredom. They have become rigid.  They were initially established to ensure efficiency but they have created red tape and inefficiency. too much red tape (rigid adherence to rules and regulations).  Procedures bog employees down and this forces them to take shortcuts. 

2.  Tendencies to make decision in committees so that no single official will be held responsible. No one is personally accountable for decision making.  Committees are usually responsible for making policy decisions. In addition, there is a tendency of running away from authority and responsibilities when a school is faced with a problem among the members of staff. For example, if a pupil is discriminated against and left out of a school drama group on tour, the patron might say it was the clubs committee which sat and made the final judgment. This manifests issues of sick bureaucracy.

3.  Rebellion of the lower officials against the directives from the top

4.  Peer-pressure – this is how we do things here.  New members as a result find problems since they are just expected to follow the procedures that they find in an institution however bad they may be.  Officials want to protect their positions and so initiative is stifled.

5.  Self-centeredness – protection of erring lower/junior officials by their subordinated.  Junior officers protect each other. They are interested in themselves (in self-preservation).  jealousy of other departments (conflicts).

6.  Horizontal division in the organisation – each division is interested in only what it is doing and not in what the other section of the same organisation is doing.  Again issue of protectionism comes in.  Tendency to create jobs for relative and friends. They have become self-centered and protective.

7.  The sometimes alienating effect of bureaucracy on both bureaucrats and the public with whom they deal can be dysfunctional.  Bureaucratic or ritualistic characters are not the most adaptable and efficient of people, and clients who have to submit to long bureaucratic procedures before, say, they can receive needed social security are unlikely to be very co-operative.  Impartiality may lead to low morale and alienation. It is precisely because men in bureaucratic structures perfume specialised, segments roles which they may have no control, and in which they have little or not opportunity of using their rational judgement – the very feature Weber praises-that they so often feel a sense of

‘alienation’ in industrial society.  Instead of a man being responsible for his own behaviour at work, he feels that he is controlled by it and separated from the product of his labour.  Bureaucratic institutions are not conducive solely to efficiency.

8.  Bureaucracies tend to focus too much on formal impersonal components of their oragnisation/formal relationships.  Informal relationships are ignored, thereby failing to understand that workers benefit more from the social and psychological needs/informal relations among the workers (occurrence of informal leaders).  Emotional plus social aspects of the employee are ignored.  Alongside this formal aspect of the organisation, however, are networks of informal relations and unofficial norms which arise out of the social interaction of individuals and groups working together within the formal structure.

9.  Bureaucracy relies in being convertible into routine.  The more unforeseen contingencies arise, the less comprehensive and effective are the rules and regulations. 

10.            It brings about inefficiency. Procedures are usually elongated due to many offices.

11.            There is rampant nepotism despite ideal of impartiality. Nepotism destroys the smooth running of the bureaucracy.  

12.            There is a lack of delegation of duties.  Managers can’t trust anybody so that others do not know the privileges available to some offices.  There is the fear of juniors taking over from them fear of power-sharing hence ending up with less influence. 

 

Dysfunctions of a bureaucracy

1.      I nstead of being specific they are diffuse meaning that they cut across all activities or you are a teacher by virtue of your profession all the time, everywhere, through and through, it also means that the socialization levels of teachers cut across boundaries he is a model, a mirror

2.      A ffection: A teacher’s role has affection meaning you have a liking for some and a dislike for others. Naturally you may dislike some students so, establish the reason why the dislike and deal with it. So that there is a balance.

3.      T eachers are diverse: Diverse relationships with students, formal relationships .e.g. in boarding schools like during sports. Teachers to maintain a formal relationship. If it becomes in formal, the teacher might run into problems. The

level of affection for students comes on slowly for expatriate teachers than for local teachers.

Practical activity 

Discuss the major advantages of running any organization that you are familiar with. Discuss the dysfunctions of a school as a bureaucracy and how these can affect education delivery . Ask yourself the following questions: Have I learnt anything from this lesson, and if so then what?  What knew knowledge do I need to remember? How well can I best remember this new knowledge?  Ask yourself the following questions: Have l learnt anything from this lesson, and if so then what?  How best can I use this new knowledge to work better with my fellow teachers and the school administrators?

 

Summary of Lesson

All these lead to pathology in bureaucratic organizations. Sick bureaucracy always undermines its goals and objectives the school has put in place. It leads to confusion, rebellion and inefficiencies with the administration of the school and may result in poor delivery of services hence producing low caliber graduates. It provides springboard of in competencies and mismanagement of the schools at all levels in society. This should be criticised highly so that such vices are minimized by the culprits involved to a larger extent.

However, inspite of the above shortcomings, without bureaucracies society could not exist and any criticism of them will have to be about how they can be improved.  Some bureaucracies are more efficient than others.  

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

References

 

Banks O. (1968) Sociology of Education. London: B.T. Baltstord Limited

 

Chakulimba, O.C. (2002) Selected readings in the Sociology of Education.  Lusaka: University of Zambia Press.

 

Datta, Ansu (1984) Education and Society; Sociology of African Education.  London: Macmillan Publishers.

 

Etzioni, A., (1964). Modern Organisation. Englewood Cliffs: Prentice –Hall

 

Ministry of Education (1996) Educating Our Future; National Policy on  Education. Lusaka: Government Printers.