Index:

About Max Weber

His Life & Writings

“Bureaucracy” before Weber

The Context of Weber’s bureaucracy

“Ideal Type”

Max Weber on Authority

Components of Authority

Categories of People in Organisation

Types of Authority

Weberian “Ideal Type” Model

Characteristics (or Features) of Legal-Rational Bureaucracy

Characteristics (or Features) of Officials
Elements of “Ideal Type” Bureaucracy
Limits on (or Control over) Bureaucracy
Criticisms

Critics
Other Criticisms
In Defence of Weber

Relevance

Emergence of Bureaucracy

Post-Weberian Views

Post-Weberian Structures

Practice Questions
ABOUT MAX WEBER

In the classical approach to administration, Weberian model of bureaucracy finds a

central place.
Max Weber is the first thinker who has systematically studied the bureaucracy.
His analysis influenced many modern writers on bureaucracy.
Weber, apart from bureaucracy, wrote on various aspects of the society ranging
from history, religion to legitimacy and domination.
Weber was founder of modern sociology and a greatest scholar among the pioneers
of administrative thought.

HIS LIFE & WRITINGS

Max Weber (1864-1920) was born in western Germany, and he studied law &
economics.
He wrote a number of papers on law, and social, political and economic factors of
his times.
His major writings:
The Theory of Economic and Social Organisations
General Economic History
Protestant Ethic and Spirit of Capitalism (1904)
Karl Marx vs. Weber:
• Weber → sociologist → analysed relationship b/w Protestantism and Capitalism.
• He argues that the rise of capitalism was a product of the ideas and ethic of
Protestantism.
• Karl Marx → associated b’cracy with class struggle

Weber always preferred knowledge obtained through practical experience than

library research. His writings reflect the social conditions of Germany of his time.
Unification of Germany under Bismarck and elimination of liberal middle class
movement convinced Weber that the great goal could be achieved through power
policies.
Weber wrote in German, and his works were not known to the English-speaking
world.
Under Nazi persecution, many German scholars fled Hitler’s Germany & settled
down in USA.
These immigrant scholars introduced the world to Weber’s writings but that
happened after the end of the Second World War.
In 1946, the Oxford University Press published Gerth and Mills’ translation: “From
Max Weber: Essays in Sociology”

“BUREAUCRACY” BEFORE WEBER

Bureaucracy was discussed prior to Weber’s writings.
Invention of word bureaucracy → Vincent de Gourney, a French economist in 1745.
For him, b’cracy signified the “rule of officials”.
He stated: “We have an illness in France, … , this illness is called Bureaumania”.
It rapidly became a standard & accepted term in the conventions of political
discourse.
By end of 19th , the term was assumed to be of German origin, where it was used
as “Burokratic”.
J. S. Mill, an eminent political scientist, included bureaucracy in his series of
analysis.
Karl Marx also discussed about bureaucracy at certain places.
As stated by Mohit Bhattacharya: “According to Marx, bureaucracy like a state itself
is an instrument by which the dominant class exercise its domination over the other
social classes”.
Hegel conceived the governing b’cracy of Pub Ad as a bridge b/w the state & the
civil society.
Robert Michels propounded the concept of “Iron Law of Oligarchy”. According to this
concept, large organisations have a tendency to develop a b’cratic structure
(oligarchic system).
Bureaucracy as an institution existed in China even in the period of 186 B.C.: public
offices were in existence and persons for those offices were recruited through
competitive examinations even then.
The above discussion shows that there existed a bureaucracy much earlier to
Weberian writings and also there were attempts to understand the bureaucracy by
different writings.
However, the “systematic study” of b’cracy began with Max Weber → 1st scientific
treatment of b’cracy from his writings → Hence, his name became synonymous with
b’cracy.
S. R. Maheshwari: It was Weber who founded the modern sociological study of
b’cracy, freed the term from pejorative connotation, and emphasised its
indispensability for the rational attainment of the goals of an organisation.

THE CONTEXT OF WEBER’S BUREAUCRACY

Scientific management and theory of bureaucracy mark the first major

developments in the theory of organisation. These theories were responding to the
needs of industrial organisations.
Theory of bureaucracy was needed to bring the efficiency in its functioning.
As stated by Weber ‘no special proof is necessary to show that military discipline is
ideal model for the modern capitalist factory.’
Weber’s theory derives a great deal from the Prussian military forces.
Weber felt that emergence of modern bureaucratic organisation is ‘demanded’.
More specifically, ‘today it is primarily the capitalist market economy which
demands the official business of the administration be discharged precisely,
unambiguously, continuously, and with as much speed as possible’.
Above lines show that the Weber’s theory of bureaucracy was a response to the
demands of industrial capitalist economy, which required an efficient
administration.
While Taylor attempted to rationalise functions of modern factory, Weber made an
attempt at the rationalisation of bureaucratic structures. Both of them emphasised
on control and discipline in the working of organisations.

“IDEAL TYPE”

Max Weber called his formulation of b’cracy as “ideal type”. The ideal type is a
mental map (or mental construct).
In its conceptual purity, this mental construct cannot be found empirically anywhere
in reality.
Thus, it is an “utopia”.
Mohit Bhattacharya: “In Weberian formulation, b’cracy is not to be confused with
the civil service. It refers to the sociological concept of rationalization of collective
activities.”

MAX WEBER ON AUTHORITY

Max Weber’s concept of bureaucracy is closely related to his ideas on “legitimacy of

authority”. He worked on theories of domination, leadership and legitimacy of
authority.
Weber differentiated authority, power and control.
POWER: To him, a person could be said to possess power, if in a social relationship,
his will could be enforced despite resistance.
AUTHORITY: Authority manifests when a command of definite content elicits
obedience on the part of specific individuals. For Weber, ‘authority’ was identical
with ‘authoritarian power of command’.
Authority is state of reality where a person willingly complies with legitimate
commands or orders, because he considers that a person by virtue of his position
could issue orders to him.
In ‘power’, there is no willing obedience.

COMPONENTS OF AUTHORITY

Weber identified 5 essential components of authority. They are:

an individual or a body of individuals who rule,
an individual or a body of individuals who are ruled,
the will of the rulers to influence conduct of the ruled,
evidence of the influence of the rulers in terms of the objective degree of command,
and
direct or indirect evidence of that influence in terms of subjective acceptance with
which the ruled obey the command.

CATEGORIES OF PEOPLE IN ORGANISATION

According to Weber, the authority exists as long as it is accepted as legitimate by

the ruled. Thus, an administrator or organisation can rule only when it has
legitimacy.
Weber says: “Bureaucratic administration means fundamentally domination through
knowledge”.
Weber categorised persons in the organisations in to 4 types:
those who are accustomed to obey commands,
those who are personally interested in seeing the existing domination continue,
those who participate in that domination, and
those who hold themselves in readiness for the exercise of functions.

TYPES OF AUTHORITY

Since Weber believed that authority could be exercised as long as it is legitimate,

he divided the authority into 3 types – based on sources of legitimacy for each
authority.
(I) Traditional Authority:

It rests on “an established belief in the sanctity of immemorial traditions and the
legitimacy of the status of those exercising authority under them”.
The persons exercising authority generally are called ‘Masters’ who enjoy personal
authority by virtue of their inherited status. Their commands carry legitimacy
because of the age-old customs and traditions, but they can also give orders based
on their personal decision.
Thus, conformity with customs & personal arbitrariness are 2 features of traditional
authority.
The persons who obey the orders here are called ‘Followers’. They carry out the
commands of the master out of sheer personal loyalty and a pious regard for his
time-honoured status.
This is a pure type of feudal, patrimonial regime under which the organisation
consists of household officials, relatives, and loyalists.
Under this type, obedience is given not to the rules, but to the rulers; not to the
superiors, but to the chiefs.
New rules are not enacted, they are “found”.
The only documents in the administration of law are the “documents of tradition,
namely precedents”.
All the actions are legitimised in the name of traditions & customs.

(II) Charismatic Authority:

It “rests on devotion to the specific and exceptional sanctity, heroism, or exemplary

character of an individual person and of the normative patterns or order revealed or
ordained by him”.
The term charisma (gift of grace) here implies supernatural, super human or
extraordinary qualities of a leader.
Examples: sorcerer, prophet or the warrior of chieftain or the personal head of a
party and demagogue.
In this type of authority, obedience was justified because the person giving order
had some sacred or out standing character. The leader exercises authority based on
his personal qualities rather than formal stipulations or prescribed norms.
Those subject to the authority are “followers”, not “subject”.
Under this authority, the leader selects his disciples or followers as his officials
based on their personal devotion to him rather than their special qualifications or
status.
These “disciple officials” constitute an organisation and their sphere of activity and
power of command depends upon likes and dislikes of the leader.
A significant feature of the charismatic authority system is that it is unstable:
The only basis of legitimacy is personal charisma. The leader can exercise his
authority, so long as it is proved, i.e., so long as it receives recognition and is able
to satisfy the followers.
The system breaks down when the leader dies or when the charismatic quality of
the leader declines.
However, Weber suggested the routinisation of the charismatic authority either in
authoritarian or democratic direction.

(III) Legal-Rational Authority:

It rests on “a belief in the legality of patterns of normative rules and the right of
those elevated to authority under such rules to issue commands.”
Obedience is owed to the legally established impersonal order.
It extends to the persons exercising the authority of office only by virtue of the
formal legality of their commands, and only within the scope of the authority of the
office.
Legal authority systems are found in organisations where rules are applied judicially
and in accordance with ascertainable principles valid for all members in the
organisation.
The members who exercise power under this authority are the superiors, and are
appointed or elected by legal procedures (e.g., election, succession, etc.) to
maintain the legal orders.
The organisation is a continuous process and all its members are subject to certain
rules.
Weber considers the legal authority as the most rational form of authority.
Obedience to legal-rational authority depends upon certain related beliefs:
a legal code can be established which can claim obedience from members of the
organisation;
administration looks after the interests of the organisation within the limits of the
law;
the man exercising authority also obeys this impersonal order;
only ‘in the capacity of’ a member, does the member obey the law;
obedience is done not to the person who holds the authority, but to the impersonal
order which has granted him this position.
Thus, Weber laid greater stress on relationship b/w legitimacy & impersonal order.

WEBERIAN “IDEAL TYPE” MODEL

Weber never defined bureaucracy.

He only described it as “an administrative body of appointed officials”. He also
described its characteristics.
Bureaucracy includes explicitly appointed officials, only leaving out the elected
ones.
Weber wrote a great deal about the place of the official in a modern society. For
him, it has an increasingly important type of social role.
As in the case of authority, Weber categorised bureaucracy into:
Patrimonial bureaucracy found in traditional and charismatic authorities, and
Legal-rational bureaucracy found only in the legal type of authority.
The legal-rational b’cracy is popularly known as the “Weberian Model”.

CHARACTERISTICS (OR FEATURES) OF LEGAL-RATIONAL BUREAUCRACY

Official business is conducted on a continuous, regulated basis.

An administrative agency functions in accordance with stipulated rules, and is
characterised by 3 interrelated attributes:
the powers and functions of each official is defined in terms of impersonal criteria,
the official is given matching authority to carry out his responsibility,
the means of compulsion at his disposal are strictly limited and the conditions under
which their employment is legitimate are clearly defined.
Every official and every office is part of the hierarchy of authority. Higher officials or
offices perform supervision and the lower officers and officials have the right to
appeal.
Officials do not own the resources necessary for rendering the duties, but they are
accountable for use of official resources. Official business and private affairs, official
revenue and private income are strictly separated.
Offices can not be appropriated by the incumbents as private property.
Administration is conducted on the basis of written documents.

CHARACTERISTICS (OR FEATURES) OF OFFICIALS

Staff members are personally free, observing only the impersonal duties of their
offices.
They are appointed to an official position on the basis of the contract.
An official exercises authority delegated to him in accordance with impersonal rules,
and his loyalty is expressed through faithful execution of his official duties.
His appointment and job placements depend upon his professional qualifications.
His administrative work is full time occupation.
His work is rewarded by regular salary and by prospects of career advancement.
There is a clear cut hierarchy of officials.
He is subjected to a unified control and disciplinary system.

• According to Weber, the purely b’cratic type of administrative organisation is

capable of attaining the highest degree of efficiency.
• Thus, it is the most rational known means of carrying imperative control over
human beings.
• It is superior to any other form of organisation in precision, stability, discipline,
and reliability.
• It is completely indispensable for the needs of mass administration in modern
times.
• People once ruled by bureaucracy can never think of any other alternative.
• To sum up, it is most efficient, most rational, permanent and indispensable.

ELEMENTS OF “IDEAL TYPE” BUREAUCRACY

Impersonal Order
Rules
Sphere of Competence
Hierarchy
Separation of Personal and Public Ends
Written Documents
Monocratic Type

(I) Impersonal Order:

Weber emphasised that the official should perform their duties in an impersonal
manner.
The idea of ‘impersonal order’ should orient the actions of the bureaucrats both in
the issuance of the commands to subordinates and their obedience to them.
According to Merton, “authority, the power of control which derives from an
acknowledged status, inheres in the office, not in the particular person who
performs the official role”.
Weber emphasizes on de-personalisation of relationship in b’cracy.

(II) Rules:

The fundamental characteristics of Weberian rational legal authority is the attribute

of continuous organisation of official functions bound by rules.
These rules may be technical rules or norms. Their rational application, however,
requires specialised training.
In this regard, Merton felt:
adherence to the rules, originally conceived as a means, becomes an end in itself;
there occurs the familiar process of displacement of goals whereby “an instrumental
value becomes a terminal value”.
Rules become more important than the ‘game’.
This apart, rules cause procedural delays as they create complications in
administration.

(III) Sphere of Competence:

According to Weber a specified sphere of competence involves:

a sphere of obligation to perform functions which have been marked off as part of a
systematic division of labour;
the provision of the incumbent with the necessary authority to carry out these
functions; and
the clearly defined means of compulsion subject to definite conditions in their uses.

(IV) Hierarchy:

According to Weber every office and every official is a part of a hierarchy.

Under this system the lower office functions under the control of higher office.
He attaches greater importance to the principle of hierarchy in the organisation of
offices, and also in regard to administrative staff who man them.
(V) Separation of Personal and Public Ends:

Weber pleads for separation of administrative staff (officials) from their ownership
of the means of administration.
Incumbent cannot use his office position for personal ends.
The office property is separated from personal property; at the same time the
official is accountable for the use of office property.

(VI) Written Documents:

Written documents are the heart of Weberian bureaucracy.

All administrative acts, decisions and rules are recorded in writing, even in cases
where oral discussion is the rule or is even mandatory.
These documents make the administration accountable to the people and provide a
ready reference for future action.

(VII) Monocratic Type:

It means certain functions performed by bureaucracy cannot be performed by any

other organisation.
They monopolise certain functions and only the authorised official can perform that
function, makes them monocratic in nature.

Mohit Bhattacharya deduced 2 sets of characteristics:

• Structural Characteristics:
1. Division of Work
2. Hierarchy
3. System of rules
4. Role specificity
• Behavioural Characteristics:
1. Rationality
2. Impersonality
3. Rule-orientation
4. Neutrality

LIMITS ON (OR CONTROL OVER) BUREAUCRACY

While emphasising on the necessity of bureaucracy, Weber was aware of the fact
that, the bureaucracy has inherent tendency of accumulation of power.
The sources of this power could be seen in the special knowledge, which the official
possess.
He was convinced that bureaucratisation was inevitable and that bureaucrats
gained power.
Weber resisted any identification of bureaucracy with rule by officials.
In order to prevent the bureaucracy from acquiring powers, Weber suggested
certain mechanism for limiting the scope of systems of authority in general and
bureaucracy in particular. These mechanisms fall in to 5 major categories:
collegiality,
separation of powers,
amateur of administration,
direct democracy, and
representation.

Collegiality:
In a monocratic b’cracy, at each stage of the official hierarchy, one person and one
person only, had the responsibility for taking a decision. This makes the
bureaucracy more powerful.
To prevent this, Weber suggested the principle of collegiality: involving others in the
decision making process.
Disadvantages: speed of decision and attribution of responsibility.

Separation of Powers:
This means dividing responsibility and functions between two or more bodies. For
any decision to emerge, a compromise between them had to be reached.
This will avoid monopoly of decision by a single body or person.
Disadvantages: Inherently unstable system → one of the authorities was bound to
have edge over the other.

Amateur Administration:
Possibility of professional administration becoming powerful → Weber suggested to
involve amateur administration in certain activities. Such men have sufficient public
esteem to command and general confidence.
Disadvantages: This system could not measure up to the demands for expertise
which modern society made, and where the professionals assisted amateur it is
always the professional who dominated the scene.

Direct Democracy:
To limit the power of bureaucracy Weber suggested direct democracy, where the
officials were guided by and answerable to an assembly.
Short term of office, permanent possibility of recall was designed to serve the
purpose of direct democracy.
Disadvantages: This system is possible only in small organisations and in local
govts.

Representation:
Another method of limiting bureaucracy is sharing of authority of bureaucracy with
the elected representatives of the people.
Disadvantages: There is a possibility of representatives being bureaucratised.
However, Weber thought that through this medium there was a greater possibility
of check on bureaucracy.

CRITICISMS

The Weberian model of bureaucracy has attracted criticism mainly on 3 points:

Rationality in his model;
Suitability of Weberian model to administrative requirements of different places and
changing times;
Whether the model can attain maximum efficiency as visualised by Weber.

CRITICS

Robert Merton:
Questioned the rationality of the legal-rational model of Weber for it also produces
certain dysfunctional consequences.
The structure – esp. its hierarchy and rules – which is rational in Weber’s sense, can
easily generate consequences (e.g., development of vested interest by the b’cracy)
which are unexpected and detrimental to the attainment of objectives of orgn.
Adherence to the rules, originally conceived as a means, becomes an end in itself;
there occurs the familiar process of displacement of goals whereby “an instrumental
value becomes a terminal value”. Rules become more imp than ‘game’.
He also opined that rigid rule orientation leads to “trained incapacity”.
[In sociology, trained incapacity"refers to that state of affairs in which one's abilities
function as inadequacies or blind spots." It means that people's past experiences
can lead to wrong decisions when circumstances change. Trained incapacity is the
idea that certain types of education, training, experience and habit may lead an
individual to be unable to think beyond of a set of constraints and assumptions that
they have formed.]

Philip Selznick:
Division of work in an orgn → sub-units setup goals of their own sometimes
conflicting with the organisation as a whole.
He suggests the remedy for this is better coordination & not setting up of new
departments.
Weberian model is insufficient in describing how bureaucrats will in fact behave,
because the officials have their own characteristics as social beings beyond those
which the administrative code specifies.
Criticised Weberian model for its neglect of the power which a b’crat assumes,
whereby he becomes increasingly preoccupied with his own social position.
Talcott Parsons:
Questioned the internal consistency of Weberian model.
Weber expects the administrative staff to be technically superior as well as possess
the right to give orders.
But this itself gives rise to conflicts within bureaucracy, since it is not always
possible to ensure that high position in the hierarchy of authority will be matched by
equivalent professional skill.
In such case the individuals working in an organisation will face the problem of
whom to obey, the person with the right to command or the man with the greater
expertise.

Herbert Simon:
In his “Administrative Behavior” (1945), he maintained that variety of
circumstances need varied bureaucratic structures, and the so called timeless
principles of Weberian model of administration cannot suit to the ever changing
circumstances of today’s modern world.

Alvin Goulder:
He opined that the promulgation of additional rules as a central mechanism
produces tension between the managers & the subordinates, leading to
displacement of organisational goals.
He distinguishes 2 major types of b’cracies and analysed why people comply with
the b’cracy:
Punishment-centred bureaucracy, where members of the organisation conform
reluctantly to rules which they consider are imposed on them by an alien group;
Representative bureaucracy, where the members regard rules as necessary on
technical grounds and in their own interest.

Peter Blau:
Weberian model cannot be applied to administrations of different places and times.
Blau felt that a fresh look has to be taken at the concept of rational administration.
In a changing environment, “the attainment of organisational objectives depends on
perpetual change in the bureaucratic structure.” That is why efficiency cannot be
guaranteed by tethering the official to a set of rigid rules.
Efficient administration is possible only when an individual is allowed to:
identify with the purposes of the organisation, and
to adopt his behaviour to his perception of changing circumstances.

C. Creel and A.B. Spitzer:

Took objection to Weber's claim that rational bureaucracy is a modem phenomenon.
Creel, for instance, asserted that almost all the characteristics of Weberian model
existed in China by 200 B.C.
Spitzer considers that the functions of 19th century “French Prefect” are far more
comprehensive than those attributed to Weber’s bureaucrat.

Simon and March:

Questioned efficiency.
Weber neglected the human behaviour in an organisation. Maximum efficiency in
the organisation cannot be achieved by emphasising on mere structure of
bureaucracy without regard to its behaviour.

Claus Offe:
In recent times, a very incisive comment on the Weberian model has been made by
Claus Offe.
2 types of rationalities according to Offe:
The rule-bound bureaucracy means that the premises of action are not at the
disposal of the actors themselves. All that is needed is to blindly and mechanically
apply the legal norms to specific situations. This kind of bureaucratic rationality Offe
calls “organisational rationality”.
There is a 2nd type of rationality which he calls “systemic rationality”. It refers to
the bureaucratic fulfilment of the functional requirements of their societal
environment.
As Offe observes, “Under conditions of developed welfare-state capitalism, the
rationality of bureaucratic action does not guarantee, but rather perhaps conflicts
with, the functional rationality of the political system”.
However, he points out, under exceptional circumstances when societal conditions
permit the highest degree of unrestricted application of rules, the two criteria of
rationality may be congruent. But this kind of determinate administrative action
tends to freeze administrative autonomy.
Offe’s comment has considerable relevance for the ‘third world’ countries:
The rule-bound bureaucratic system in a developing country is thus incompatible
with the many-faceted and complex tasks of socio-economic development.
Organisational rationality and systemic rationality will be at loggerheads in a
situation of speedy social reconstruction. Most post-colonial societies are faced with
this dilemma, and any attempt to innovate new modes of administration is often
frustrated by bureaucratic dominance.
The kind of ‘systemic’ rationality Offe has in mind will have its source in the societal
expectations of programmes, and results will be the main motor of government
policy and action.

OTHER CRITICISMS

Parkinson’s Law:
Parkinson’s Law, named after historian C. Northcote Parkinson, states that work
creates more work, usually to the point of filling the time available for its
completion, i.e., the organisation swells each year by creating artificial work.
Parkinson believed that b’cracies always grow – typically 5 – 6% annually.
Empire-building tendency.
Managers wish to appear busy, so they increase their workload by creating paper
and rules, filling out evaluation and forms, and filing. Then they hire more
assistants, who in turn require more of managerial time for supervision.
According to Parkinson, b’cracies grow stupider by each year.

Incompatible with Development Administration:

Sphere of Competence: Strict adherence to rules result in delay and inefficiency in
the administration. Development administration throws multifarious new
challenges, and the administrator can only justify his service by meeting them;
rather than wait to get the clarification from superiors whether a particular new
situation falls under his competence or not.
Adherence to rigid hierarchy leads to: authoritarianism in the organisation; loss of
mutual trust and inter-personal relations; loss of autonomy.
Weber’s insistence on records leads to: too much formalism in the administration.
The expert drowned in the files becomes a ‘glorified clerk’ → negative effect on
welfare commitment.

Bentham’s Dog Law:

Weber’s bureaucracy is referred to as “Bentham’s Dog law”.
Jeremy Bentham, a liberal reformer of 19th, called the criminal laws of the UK as
dog law, because it condemned the offenders after the event has taken place; in
much the same way that owners punish their dogs after they have erred. Bentham
believed that such laws do not have any detrimental values.
“State is expected to be proactive, not reactive.”
Rather than making the people aware of the laws, i.e., proactive measures,
bureaucracy relies on punishment to maintain the law.

Criticism of “ideal-type”:
Carl Friedrich says: The words “ideal” & “type”, under Weber’s ideal-type of b’cracy,
cancel each other.

IN DEFENCE OF WEBER

Weberian model provides reliability, stability and precision.

His emphasis on documentation helps build up institutional memory.
Dysfunctional consequences mentioned by Merton are largely attitudinal in nature.
Weber was able to realise that b’cracy was a threat to democracy.
Weber constructed his model w.r.t. the conditions of Germany of his times. Its
wrong to say that it does not suit the modern conditions → at the start of 20th
century, nobody including Weber, could ever visualise the changes that have come
about in the last 5-6 decades.
As observed by Martin Albrow, Weber in his German writings would have used the
words rationality and efficiency in different contexts. Moreover, Weber might not
have visualised all the meanings attached to the English word ‘efficiency’.
Weberian model includes both positive and negative elements.
Positive elements: merit-based selection, no appropriation of official positions by
incumbents.
Negative elements: impersonal order, rules, spheres of competence, hierarchy,
technical rules, written documents.
As the negative elements is given greater weightage in the model, the positive
elements get gulfed and enfeebled by the huge stream of negativism.

RELEVANCE

In spite of criticism from the several scholars, the ideas of Weber on bureaucracy
continue to be relevant to understand the present administrative system. So far we
have not been able to evolve an alternative model to Weber’s bureaucracy.
Weber was criticized for his formalism. But as Martin Albrow said: “the formal
rationality has increased manifold in the present day administration. Thanks to the
advancement of management techniques.” Thus, his formal model is ideal even for
today.
Weber is right in saying that when we are accustomed to the b’cracy, we cannot
think of any other alternative. Today, we see in practice this to be correct. The Afro-
Asian countries (including India) could get rid of the alien rule, but not the
bureaucratic practices established by the colonial rulers.
His ideas on selection of officials based on qualifications, utility of written
documents in administration, hierarchy etc., can be seen in any administration of
the present day.
Those who criticise Weberian model are not criticising Weber, but the present day
bureaucracies which more or less reflect the model.
Talks these days of de-bureaucratisation or less b’cracy → idealistic → cannot avoid
b’cracy.
Even those who argue for de-bureaucratisation cannot proceed further without
understanding the Weberian analysis.
Whether it is capitalist society or a socialist society, irrespective of the nature of
economy, we find the bureaucracy playing a very important role.
Even in the present context of liberalisation and privatisation, which emphasises on
a minimalist state, one cannot escape the necessity of bureaucracy to perform
some of the functions of the state.
We cannot think of the implementation of all the welfare and developmental
programmes without the help of bureaucracy.
The voluntary organisations and other forms of people’s organisations can only
supplement the bureaucracy, but they can not substitute the bureaucracy.
In the context of developing countries, people look to the bureaucracy for their day-
to-day requirements.
Hence, the bureaucracy of Weberian type continues to find its relevance even
today.

EMERGENCE OF BUREAUCRACY

According to Weber, the rise of bureaucracy has been because of:

Capitalism:
It is a type of economic system which is based on the idea of private investment
and profit. It prefers stability in the environment.
Bureaucracy (which is based on an impersonal law) provides stable & predictive
environment.

Protestant Work Ethic:

It meant working to the fullest possible capacity of an individual, whether
entrepreneur or worker, and not just acquisitive greed, or single-minded pursuit of
pecuniary gain.
This new ethos helped modernisation of the economy, growth of production and
increase in productivity.
Protestantism and its work ethic engendered a social psychology supportive of
rational planning, personal discipline, technology and bureaucratic organisation.

Industrialization:
Organisations became big in size and large in operation. They could be no longer
managed in an unprofessional and unscientific manner. They required a scientific
approach. This provided a basis for the rise of bureaucracy.

Democracy:
Democracy promotes impartiality, equality and welfare commitment.
Democracy is only possible when the law is impersonal in nature (no
discrimination). B’cracy works within the framework of impersonal law. Hence,
bureaucracy grew with democracy.
Democracy promotes welfare of people but this cannot be provided without the
requisite expertise or professionalism. This expertise & scientific approach can be
provided by b’cracy.

Money Economy:
Money economy provided a basis for the mode of exchange. The prices of goods
and services were fixed.
Bureaucracy is a hierarchic organization with a sphere of competence, i.e., every
position has a defined responsibility and authority. Bureaucracy being hierarchic in
nature, responsibility and authority within the organisation is unequally distributed.
Thereby, different remuneration is given to persons performing different types of
responsibilities.
This required standardization of remuneration in the mode of payment and this
standardization is only possible in case of a Money Economy. Thus, Money Economy
provided a basis for the rise of bureaucracy.

Growth of Rationalism

Growth of Population

Development of modern means of communication

POST-WEBERIAN VIEWS

Humanistic View:
Humanistic theorists rejected the mechanistic and rigid view of the administration
or management
They argued in favour of a more social-psychological view of the organisation.

Public Choice Approach:

They said that Weberian view is monocratic, monopolistic and mono-centric.
They emphasized on methodological individualism and institutional pluralism.

Critical Theory:
Originated from Frankfurt School of Thought.
Thinkers of this school of thought: Jurgen Habermas, Claus Offe,
This particular theory has been highly critical of the Weber’s bureaucracy. It
rejected Weber’s bureaucracy as being rigid, top-down, means oriented and
thereby, based on organisational rationality.
For administration to be efficient, it is required that it should be based on
democratisation, humanisation, free flow of information, systemic rationality,
thematisation, etc.

The paradigm of Governance / New Public Service Approach:

Weberian approach emphasizes on a single actor paradigm and the importance of
govt. officials, but the need of the hour is a multiple-actor approach.

Normative Concerns or Discretionist View:

This is also referred to as a value-laden approach.
The Weberian developments are primarily instrumental in nature because it
emphasizes on the use of tools and techniques with an emphasis on efficiency and
economy.
But, if we take into account developments like NPA or New Public Service Approach
or digital era governance, all these concepts emphasize on a value-laden or welfare
oriented approach.

Marxist interpretation of Bureaucracy:

It rejected the Weber’s positivist and universalistic view on Bureaucracy.
It emphasized that the b’cracy is an instrument in the hands of the “haves” to
protect and promote their interests.

Phenomenological Analysis:
This can be considered as a part of the humanistic approach.
As an approach, it rejects the Weberian view; considering that under the Weberian
administration, every act is considered as a part of the complete act.
While every act within the organisation is an act in progress. Every act is
constructed or reconstructed through the perception of the individual or individual
undertaking the action.

Situational or Contingency Theory:

Contingency theory claims that there is no best way to organize a corporation, to
lead a company, or to make decisions.
Instead, the optimal course of action is contingent (dependent) upon the internal
and external factors such as size, technology, environment, goals, values, etc.

Post-Modern Administration:
Antithesis of: positivism and the logic of objective social science.
Modernism is the pursuit of knowledge through reason, and knowledge thus derived
is simply assumed to be factual and therefore true.
Postmodernists describe modern life as hyper-reality, a blurring of the real and the
unreal.
To postmodernists, modern public administration based on enlightenment logic is
simply misguided.
Postmodern public administration theorists are particularly critical of the field's
apparent preoccupation with rationalism (especially market-based rational choice
theory) and technocratic expertise.
In contrast they have a central commitment to the idea of “discourse”, the notion
that public problems are more likely resolved through discourse than through
“objective” measurements or rational analysis.

POST-WEBERIAN STRUCTURES

Theory Z / Japanese Management style:

This has been developed by an American theorist with Japanese origin, William
Ouchi.
Post-World War II, Japanese organisations came up & were able to successfully
compete with American organisations. This resulted into a concern and anxiety to
understand the nature of these organisations. A number of studies took place. One
of them → by Ouchi.
Reminiscent in name to McGregor’s Theory X and Theory Y. While Theory Z in some
ways is an extension of Theory X and Theory Y, there is one principal distinguishing
difference:
Theory X and Theory Y focus on the personal leadership styles of individual
supervisors; Theory Z focuses on the culture of the entire organisation.
Unlike Theory X and Theory Y which both concern themselves with the behaviors of
individuals, Theory Z is concerned with the difference the organizational culture
makes in the way the whole organization is managed.
Ouchi found out that the American organisations recruit individuals to the
managerial positions at the middle level of the organisation. Because of this, most
of the performing functionaries reach to the top during their middle age. After that,
the promotional aspects become bleak for such functionaries. In these
organisations, the employment was based on the Hire and Fire Policy. This resulted
into a lack of psychological sense of attachment or ownership with the organization.
When he studied Japanese organisations, he found out that recruitment to the
managerial positions was for the lower levels of the organisation.
Also, the pay, privileges, promotions etc. were based on performance. But, Japanese
organisations followed the concept of Prolonged Evaluation and Slow Promotion.
This gave opportunity to every performing functionary to grow throughout his
career in the organisation.
Also, Japanese organisations believed in permanency in employment.
The informal aspects were considered to promote the formal goals of the
organisation.
Also, extra organizational activities were used to reinforce the organizational
activities.
A work environment that produces high employee commitment, motivation, and
productivity. For example, Ouchi learned that many Japanese employees are
guaranteed a position with their employer for life, thereby increasing the
employee’s loyalty to that company.
“Ringi System” (Participative Approach).
[Ringi System: A management technique in Japanese companies in which low-level
managers discuss a new idea among themselves and come to a consensus before
presenting it to higher managers. The higher ranking managers then discuss the
new idea themselves and arrive at their own consensus. This process continues
until the idea comes to the highest management level and the idea is (or is not)
implemented. Proponents claim that this system allows whole sections of a
company to take credit for a new idea, while critics contend that it is time-
consuming and hampers innovation.]

From Bureaucracy to Post-bureaucracy:

Alleged shift from ‘industrial’ to ‘post-industrial’ society since 1970s.
Shift from mass production of standard products to niche products.
Employee demand for flexibility and autonomy.
Alleged development of a new organizational form: The ‘post-bureaucracy’
Bureaucratic model → based on rules, hierarchy, impersonality and a division of
labour.
However, it suffers from problems: poor employee motivation, producer-focus and
inertia.
In view of this, post-bureaucracy has been proposed as a new organisational model
more suited to today’s business environment.
Post-Bureaucratic Organisations (PBO) are based on trust, empowerment, personal
treatment and shared responsibility.
PBO give more focus on decentralisation.
But this brings its own problems in terms of loss of control, risk and unfairness.
PBO may be unstable since more worker autonomy may lead to confusion, as
Willmott observes “Autonomy is slavery, Bureaucracy is freedom”. Jealousy and
rivalry may arise amongst employees, and groups will be concerned about their own
productivity rather than moving towards the corporate goal. Issue of inequality may
arise if views of a certain person or group are given more importance than others,
leading to conflicts, and deviation from the corporate mission.

Functional / Task structure:

Employees perform a specialized set of tasks
For ex., the engineering department would be staffed only with software engineers.
This leads to operational efficiencies within that group.
Also leads to a lack of communication between the functional groups within an
organization, making the organization slow and inflexible.
Best suited as a producer of standardized goods and services at large volume and
low cost.
Coordination and specialization of tasks are centralized in a functional structure,
which makes producing a limited amount of products or services efficient and
predictable.
Integrate their activities vertically so that products are sold and distributed quickly
and at low cost. For instance, a small business could make components used in
production of its products instead of buying them.

Divisional / Product structure:

Consists of self-contained divisions → a collection of functions which produce a
product.
Examples of divisions include: regional (a U.S Division and an EU division),
consumer type (a division for companies and one for households), and product type
(a division for trucks, another for SUVS, and another for cars).
The divisions may also have their own departments such as marketing, sales, and
engineering.

Matrix structure:
In matrix structure, employees operate by both function and product.
People with similar skills are pooled for work assignments, resulting in more than
one manager.
For example, all engineers may be in one engineering department and report to an
engineering manager, but these same engineers may be assigned to different
projects and report to a different engineering manager or a project manager while
working on that project. Therefore, each engineer may have to work under several
managers to get his or her job done.
Matrix management is more dynamic than functional management in that it is a
combination of all the other structures and allows team members to share
information more readily across task boundaries.
Disadvantages:
Increase in the complexity of the chain of command. This occurs because of the
differentiation between functional managers and project managers, which can be
confusing for employees to understand who is next in the chain of command.
Higher manager to worker ratio, that results in conflicting loyalties of employees.

However, in these post-bureaucratic structures, hierarchies still exist, authority is

still Weber’s rational, legal type, and the organisation is still rule-bound.

Charles Heckscher’s Consensus-based Organisation:

Charles Heckscher has developed a post-b’cratic ideal type organisation, in which

decisions are based on dialogue and consensus rather than authority and
command.
Organization is a network rather than a hierarchy, open at the boundaries.
This sort of horizontal decision-making by consensus model is often used in
cooperatives, and when running a non-profit or community organization.
Encourages participation and empowers people who normally experience
oppression in groups.

Post-Bureaucratic Culture:

Culture is not only a thing that is inside people, but also a secret power that directs
many behaviors both inside and outside the organization.
In every social situation, individuals work consciously or unconsciously like a leader;
and they not only behave like a part of existing culture but also generally start
forming new cultural elements.
B’cratic culture: managers protect their employees that do not make a mistake, and
there is only one true way to do the work.
Post-b’cratic culture: gives importance to subordinates’ decisions, choices and free
thoughts by sustaining the soul of reformism and entrepreneurship.
Management style moving from bottom to top; increases trust by minimizing chain
of command.
Every member takes a responsibility for the success of the whole organisation.

PRACTICE QUESTIONS

The bureaucracy possesses the State as its private property (Karl Marx). Analyse.
(15 marks)
“The ‘new organizational forms’ are many but all united by one thing- they are all
conceived in opposition to the classic model of the bureaucracy.” Discuss the
statement in light of the post-Weberian organisations and their limitations.
(20 marks)
[UPSC 2015] - “Weberian model of bureaucracy lacks emotional validity when
applied to modern democratic administration.” Comment.
(15 marks)
[UPSC 2012] - “In the canonization of this abstract idea of ‘Staatsraison’ are
inseparably woven the sure instincts of the bureaucracy for the conditions which
preserve its own power in the State” [Weber]. Explain.
(12 marks)
Administrative management is closer in concept to Weberian bureaucratic theory
than to Taylorian scientific management.
(15 marks)
Max Weber’s cautionary observation about the bureaucracy’s inherent tendency to
become a status stratum has turned out to be prophetic. Comment.
(20 marks)
Those who criticise Weberian model are not criticising Weber, but the present day
bureaucracies which more or less reflect the model.
(10 marks)
In his book “Protestant Ethic and Spirit of Capitalism”, Max Weber gave the reasons
for emergence of capitalism, which stand in contrast to how Karl Marx interpreted
capitalism. Discuss.
(15 marks)