a. Discuss Bureaucracy in light of the above comments, and compare it to one other organisational form with which you are familiar. (50 marks)
The concept of the management theory has been around for ages. Organisations, new and old, rely on the principles of management to get the job done in an efficient and effective manner. Throughout the years numerous types of management theories have been infused in the business policies and consequently with the operations of the organisation. The existing literature on such practices indicates the presence of two general types of management theories: classical and neoclassical theories. The classical theories of management point to the early management theories which rely mainly on the structure of the organisation. On the other hand, neoclassical theories are the ones which initiate means on which other items directly and indirectly affecting the organisation are considered. In this paper, the discussions shall focus on a classical theory of management: bureaucracy. Being a rather dated model of management, bureaucracy has been acquiring a whole lot of flak from management scholars. With the advent of more recent and more comprehensive models of management, the hostility towards the model of bureaucracy is not surprising. However, there are certain companies that still employ this management model despite these numerous disparagement.
One of the forerunners of scientific management, bureaucratic management is associated with the renowned scholars synonymous with the model is Max Weber. (Miner 2002, 27) Though there were other noted scholars like Karl Marx that espoused the model, Weber’s take on the theory is the one preferred and currently used by organisations as a means to implement management operations. The core of bureaucracy is geared towards the elimination of inefficiency and establishment of stability in the organisation. (Miner 2002, 27) This is achieved by a strict enforcement of law, high regard on hierarchy, and centralisation of the decision making processes in the organisation. As seen in the previous description of the model, there are certain flaws in its nature. Thus, it is inevitable that the model gains considerable criticisms from other management scholars.
One of the prevailing criticisms on the theory of bureaucracy as a management model is the fact that it is outdated. Though the model did emerge several decades ago, it doesn’t necessarily mean that the thrust of the model is entirely obsolete. Studies have pointed out that certain basic principles of bureaucracy are still relevant in the modern society. For instance, companies still accepts the functional division of labour is still at play in most, if not all, organisations. (Gaynor 1998, 31) The modern organisation is based on that basic principle’s intent toward efficiency of operations. In the same manner, the existence of a hierarchy of authority in an organisation is still indispensable. (Miner 2002, 60) A company would be impeccably lost without clear distinct lines of authority and prescribed duties of leadership. Moreover, Weber’s theory of bureaucracy also entails that the employees working to achieve the ends of the organisation possess certain rights. (Gaynor 1998, 41) This means that an organisation implementing bureaucratic theories in its management practice inevitably has to operate within a specific line on which the rights and privileges of the employees are not infringed.
There have also been reports indicating that the theory of bureaucracy should be done away with and totally replaced by a new management model. As seen in the definitions provided by the existing literature, there are flaws in the bureaucratic model that a number of organisations may find destructive. For instance, today’s management style appears to be gearing towards a more customer-centric approach. (Johnson and Gustafsson 2000) This idea is alien to the principles of bureaucracy as a management theory. For companies who implement the bureaucratic model, the element of impartiality is present; hence mobility is based on performance and merit. (Miner 2002, 87) Unfortunately, such attribute also entails that the company be impersonal to the human aspect of the organisation. The model has become too engrossed in instilling efficiency and maintaining stability that the company tends to treat people internal and external of the organisation as mere automatons, as means to the ends of the organisation.
Figure 1. Matrix Structure of P&G
These two observations on the traditional bureaucratic structure of the organisation are manifested in the global monolith Procter & Gamble. In this retail giant, the structure at first glance provides an image of a bureaucratic structure. However, a closer consideration of the “pillars” of their structure manifest that they employ a matrix organisational structure. (PG. com 2008)
b. Examine the strengths and weaknesses of Bureaucracy as an organisational form. Your answer should draw on specific industry examples and should refer to he conditions and circumstances when it is likely to be more appropriate (50 marks)
There are certain companies that come to mind when one speaks of the bureaucratic model, one of these is Nokia. The following figure presents the matrix structure of Nokia as a multinational company taken from the website of the company.
Figure 2. Bureaucratic Structure of Nokia
Seeing the image above, it appears that Nokia have acquired certain principles of the bureaucratic model. However, this does not manifest a clear adherence to the classical theory of Weber. Instead this shows a close comparison on the bureaucratic model according to the theory of Ford. The matrix shows that there is some form of standardisation involved. (Guillen 1997, 682) In the same regard, there is also a considerable manifestation seeking to augment in the volume of production as specific elements of the company concentrates on a particular niche in the market. (Freeman and Louca 2002, 85) With the existence of this division of labour, one could anticipate the similar existence of the consequent intense supervision. (Barley 1996, 404) All of these are clear and present manifestation of Nokia’s implementation of the bureaucratic model in their operations. In the end, Nokia is still at the running for the world’s top mobile company.
Seen above, the desire of the company to implement the bureaucratic model is based on the desire to stabilise the internal environment of the organisation without compromising the quality of the performance. With the adherence to the strict rules of the company, professional mobility and professional development is ensured to the employees. (Frankel 1997, 62) In the same manner, the company is ensured that it will impeccably carry the organisation towards its ultimate goals.
Like any other organisational model, the bureaucratic theory also has some weak points. The discussions earlier indicated that the human element, both internally and externally, is treated impersonally. In return, the company is treated the same way by the employees. This means that there is no deep-rooted desire on each and every personnel to do their part in achieving the goals of the company. Other claims that the use of a rigid system would trigger red tape. This ultimately defeats the purpose of imposing a system in the first place.
All in all, if a company which doesn’t have the environment that will complement the bureaucratic theory essentially signed a death wish if it uses it nonetheless. A good example would be the case of Procter and Gamble. Studies on the said company maintained that it has a slow process of innovation. (Madapati 2003) The creation of new brands and other market expansion initiatives has been considerably sluggish such that it has been significantly been left behind by its closest competitors in the retail industry. (Murshed 2002, 6) This slow development on the part of the company tends to limit what Blumentritt and Danis (2006, 274) coined as bureaucratic inertia. The concept basically indicates the incapability of the company to trigger developments based on certain undertakings. The company dealt with this problem not by eliminating the implementation of the bureaucratic model in their operations. In its place, they opted to highly differentiate their products in the market to ensure increased performance. (Agres and Dubitsky 1996, 21) In this case, abandoning the tried and tested principles of the bureaucratic model was out of the question. In its place, the management did their jobs that formulated on their discretion a way for their products to complement the existing system. Though their standing in the market is still unstable, this is not because of their business policies to implement bureaucracy. It is because of the intensity of the competition in the international retail market.
The case of bureaucracy as a management theory has given organisations, old and new, a great formula in their operations. As seen in the discussions above, the theory is far from perfect. Some even states that it is already and obsolete theory. However, this paper contends that the bureaucratic model is still applicable but not to all organisations. The existence of other forms of management theories tends to adopt certain principles of the bureaucratic model that works for a particular set of circumstances. Though much criticism is being thrown towards the model, a lot of big firms have ignored it and continued to operate using the bureaucratic model. Admittedly, these companies do not adhere strictly to the ideal type of bureaucracy as stated in the model of Weber. Like any diligent entity of business, companies have learned to be flexible and adjusted certain elements of the theory’s shortcomings to a minimum and maximised the advantages it offered. The discussions above show that the management model provided by Weber could be limited to a particular part of the operations. For instance, the discussions above maintained that in the manufacturing areas of the companies like Nokia, a strict adherence to the bureaucratic method is apparent. All in all, the criticisms towards the theory of bureaucracy should be seen not so as to disparage those who espouse it and implement it in their organisation. It is meant to provide an impetus towards the development of these tried and tested principles put forward by the classical theory of bureaucracy.
References
Agres, S., and Dubitsky, T., (1996) “Changing Needs for Brands.” Journal of Advertising Research. 36(1), 21.
Barley, S. (1996) “Technicians in the Workplace: Ethnographic Evidence for Bringing Work into Organization Studies.” Administrative Science Quarterly. 41(3), 404.
Blumentritt, T., and Danis, W., (2006) “Business Strategy Types and Innovative Practices.” Journal of Managerial Issues. 18(2), 274.
Frankel, B. (1997) “Confronting Neoliberal Regimes: The Post-Marxist Embrace of Populism and Realpolitik.” New Left Review. A(226), 62.
Freeman, C. and Louca, F. (2002) As Time Goes by: From the Industrial Revolutions to the Information Revolution. Oxford: Oxford University Press..
Gaynor, A. (1998) Analyzing Problems in Schools and School Systems: A Theoretical Approach. New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Guillen, M. (1997) “Scientific Management’s Lost Aesthetic: Architecture, Organization, and the Taylorized Beauty of the Mechanical.” Administrative Science Quarterly. 42(4), 682.
Madapati, R. (2003) Procter & Gamble : Organization 2005 and Beyond. Available in: http://www.icmr.icfai.org/casestudies/procter1.html [Accessed 2 October, 2008]
Miner, J. (2002) Organizational Behavior: Foundations, Theories, and Analyses. New York: Oxford University Press.
Murshed, S. (2002) Globalization, Marginalization and Development. London: Routledge.
Procter & Gamble (2008) “Corporate Structure.” Available in: http://www.pg.com/jobs/corporate_structure/how_the_structure.shtml [02 November 2008]
Credit:ivythesis.typepad.com
0 comments:
Post a Comment