Bureaucratic Inertia

A summary of some of the ways in which sociologists and organizational theorists have criticized bureaucracy as an organizational form, particularly with respect to efficiency and productivity is provided. Factors that threaten the functioning of a bureaucracy often lead to what is generally referred to as "bureaucratic inertia." Other criticisms address the manner in which bureaucracy impacts people - in terms of motivation, creativity, morality, and human potential. Before addressing these criticisms, however, bureaucracy is defined, paying particular attention to the characteristics identified by German sociologist Max Weber. Finally, alternative viewpoints are introduced. Although bureaucracy is heavily attacked, by academic scholars and laypersons alike, many theorists suggest it is superior to other forms of organization. Their arguments are explored here as well.

Keywords Bureaucracy; Efficiency; Flexibility; Goal Displacement; Hierarchy; Information Pathologies; Open Organizations; Professionalism; Rationality; Trained Incapacity

Bureaucratic Inertia

Overview

In the minds of the average twenty-first century world citizen, bureaucracy has come to be associated with a long list of negative attributes: impersonal, rigid, cold, inefficient, and burdensome. As Adler writes, "Colloquially speaking, bureaucracy means red tape, over-controlling bosses, and apathetic employees" (1999, p. 36). Or as Greenwald colorfully describes, "most galling to the man or woman in the street is a sense that bureaucracy imposes unnecessary barriers to getting things done" (2008, p. 340). The lay person's perception of bureaucracy as a large and slow-moving machine has basis in reality; what is referred to more generally as bureaucratic inertia is a multi-faceted phenomenon that often times characterizes large organizations. On the other hand, organizational theorists - while recognizing the inherent drawbacks to bureaucracy - generally hold them in higher esteem. "At least for the large-scale operations upon which modern society depends, bureaucracy may well be superior to any type of organization feasible now or in the future" (Greenwald, 2008, p. 341). The tension between these two perspectives will be explored in the summary that follows.

Before exploring the arguments raised by both proponents and critics of bureaucracy, however, it might be worthwhile to better understand bureaucracy from a historical point of view, theoretically and in practice. Although often believed to be a product of modern society, evidence suggests bureaucracy - in one form or another - has been around since the beginning of civilization. As Hanline explains, "the literature on bureaucracies can be traced back to ancient China" (1993, p. 514). Nevertheless, those who study its modern origins rarely look past the writings of Max Weber, an early twentieth century German philosopher. Understanding the context in which Weber lived and worked is critical to understanding his perspective of bureaucracy (Hatch, 1997). As Hatch explains, "For Weber, bureaucracy was not the ponderous, frustrating bastion of mediocre public serve that some people associate with the concept, but was a rationalized, moral alternative to the common practice of nepotism and the abuses of power that were rampant in the feudal, pre-industrial world from which the modern organization emerged" (1997, p. 171).

More specifically, Weber believed bureaucracy served as a "rational" form of organization, rather than a 'patrimonial' one (Hanline, 1993). In other words, employees would be hired on the basis of abilities, rather than on the basis of familial ties to those running the company. Similarly, promotion would be based on achievement, rather than favoritism. The reasonable and fair application of rules to all working in the organization, as well as to those being served by it, he reasoned, should lead to greater efficiency and impartiality (Hatch, 1997). Weber's model of bureaucracy was theoretical; in other words, it served as an 'ideal type', or rather, an idea of a perfect organization. Although he recognized it would never exist in reality as it did in abstract form, he nevertheless put forth an elaborate model, with clearly defined characteristics. The following list draws from summaries of Weber's work provided by Hatch and Jackson, Morgan and Paolillo (1997; 1986).

• The conduct of those working in bureaucracies should be impersonal and formal. Emotionally-based relationships, which form the foundation of practices such as nepotism and favoritism, undermine rationality, and should be eliminated.

• Employment and promotion is based on competence, achievement, and seniority; such qualities legitimate authority within the organization, so that those who lead do so because of their ability, rather than their connections.

• The work of the organization is divided into specialized and fixed areas of competence. Each individual is assigned a specific task, and has authority over his or her own functioning in that role.

• The organization has a clearly defined hierarchy.

• The organization has a clearly defined system of rules and procedures that regulates conduct in a strict and disciplined fashion. The rules standardize operations, provide a documented history of operating procedures, and ensure equal treatment of all.

• Those who work within the organization are compensated with a fixed salary; participation in a bureaucracy should constitute one's primary occupation, and ultimately, a lifelong career.

Even Weber, who believed bureaucracy to be an inevitable development in the modern world, recognized its shortcomings. Greenwald explains, "According to his thinking, bureaucracy represented social technology superior to other forms of organization. Superior technology rapidly replaces more primitive methods of getting things done. [Yet] Weber did not seem happy about this" (2008, p. 363). In fact, Weber's forecast for future generations was rather grim, predicting on overreliance on standardization and rationality. If organizations focused exclusively on how to get things done, without also contemplating desired outcomes or ends, bureaucracy would become "an 'iron cage' capable of imprisoning humanity and making man a 'cog in an ever-moving mechanism'" (Hatch, 1997, p. 33). His notion of the 'iron cage' has been one of the more enduring metaphors used by critics.

Further Insights

Critique of Bureaucracy

Weber may have been one of the first to call attention to the negative side effects of bureaucratization, but he certainly was not the last. As the size and wealth of corporations grew in the second half of the twentieth century, so too did the volume of the voice of its critics. Jackson, et al., for example, document criticisms put forth by sociologists and organizational psychologists writing during the period that spans from the 1940s through the 1960s (1986). Robert Merton (1940, as cited in Jackson, et. al, 1986) was the first to suggest that organizational efficiency has an inverse relationship with rigidity of rules; rigid rules tend to become ends in themselves, he argued, displacing organizational goals, and leading to inertia. Gouldner believed bureaucratic rules inadvertently promoted minimal acceptable behavior, stifling any motivation an employee might have to put forth greater effort (1954, as cited in Jackson, et. al, 1986). And Bennis, who became an outspoken critic and at one point predicted the death of bureaucracy as an organizational form, took multiple aim; bureaucracy, in his view, promotes conformity, discourages innovation, and is inflexible in the face of a changing environment (1967, as cited in Jackson, et. al, 1986).

Even though these theorists were writing in the mid-twentieth century, their arguments serve as the foundation for many of the criticisms that are still put forth. Indeed, themes present in their writing - the notion that highly bureaucratic organizations exact a human cost, and the notion that bureaucracy may be less efficient than many initially believed - form the backbone of modern-day criticisms. In addition, as the world has become more technological, interdependent, and rapidly changing, others have criticized bureaucracies for being too insular, and for not responding adequately to new demands. All of these criticisms address, in one way or another, the overarching question of whether or not bureaucracy is the best way to organize ourselves in order to achieve our objectives. Or whether, instead, bureaucracy impedes progress.

Information Pathologies

Because bureaucracies are hierarchical in nature, communication must often flow through multiple layers of an organization. Perhaps not surprisingly, then, bureaucracies are prone to errors in communication, or what Greenwald refers to as "information pathologies" (2008). More specifically, Hall identifies three types of communication errors: omission, distortion, and overload (2002). Omission and distortion may be unintentional - when the recipient of a message is unable to fully understand its content, for example - or intentional, if one party sees an advantage to restricting the flow of information. In either case, information pathologies lead to bad-decision making, and ultimately inefficiency (Greenwald, 2008).

Goal Displacement

In theory, the rules and regulations of an organization are intended to facilitate productivity. When expectations and roles are clearly communicated, employees can spend more time executing their assigned tasks, and less time trying to figure out what they are supposed to be doing. When rules and regulations are enforced too rigidly, however, organizations put themselves at risk for goal displacement (Jackson et al., 1986). "In bureaucracies, goal displacement takes place as the member focuses more and more minutely on his or her immediate task and less and less on the organization's overall objectives" (Greenwald, 2008, p. 367).

Trained Incapacity

Bureaucracy is founded, in part, on the principles of scientific management and Taylorism (Greenwald, 2008). That is, each function of the organization is designed to maximize efficiency, such that the tools, processes, and techniques required to fulfill a specific task are defined in significant detail. Greenwald writes "Taylorism went so far as to dictate the postures operatives were to assume in performing their functions and the amount of time each operation (such as lifting a shovel of coal or stamping out a metal part) should take" (2008, p. 104). An unintended consequence of assigning people to highly specific jobs, however, was a constriction of workers' abilities, or what organizational theorists have termed "trained incapacity." In other words, "people become experts by repeating the same tasks over and over again. At the same time, they lose the capacity to do other things" (Greenwald, 2008).

Compromised Employee Morale

One of the defining features of bureaucracy, as identified by Weber, is that employees are compensated for their efforts with a fixed salary. In other words, employees typically do not benefit from increased productivity in the form of commission or bonuses. The result, some argue, is that bureaucrats put forth just enough effort to perform their job adequately, and nothing more. The lack of motivation on the part of employees, therefore, leads to inertia and inefficiency. In addition, bureaucracies are characterized by rationality, and discourage emotional relationships among workers, and among customers and clients. Meant to foster impartiality and fairness, such excessive rationality often leads to alienation, and the sense that one's work is unfulfilling, and lacking in meaning (Greenwald, 2008). Alienation, in turn, leads to absenteeism, which compromises the overall health of the organization.

Stifled Creativity & Innovation

Critics of bureaucracy concede that highly formal and structured organizations facilitate the completion of certain types of tasks - those that are administrative in nature, for example, or those that are repetitive, mechanical, and easily defined. On the other hand, bureaucracy might not be the best organizational structure for tasks that require innovation, creativity, and thinking outside the box. In fact, the structure may impede such thinking. As Greenwald suggests, "hierarchical supervision is not conducive to development of new perspectives that challenge prevailing thought" (2008, p. 367). Similarly, Hatch explains that even though bureaucracies are decentralized - that is, decisions are made at lower levels of the hierarchy - "there are strict rules and procedures that prevent much discretion in the way…decisions are made" (1997, p. 170). In other words, bureaucracies do not solicit new ideas or new ways of thinking, many of which could lead to greater efficiency and productivity.

Inflexibility

Of all the criticisms that have been leveled against bureaucracy in the past several decades, it is the characterization of it as a slow-moving and inflexible machine that has been most codified in organizational theory (Adler, 1999). More specifically, however, inflexibility has been viewed as a necessary evil, an unintended outcome of an organization designed for maximum efficiency. Adler, Goldoftas, and Levine explain the reasoning this way: "Much organization theory argues that efficiency requires bureaucracy, that bureaucracy impedes flexibility, and that organizations therefore confront a tradeoff between efficiency and flexibility" (1999, p. 43). Thompson referred to this tradeoff as the "paradox of administration" (1967; as cited in Adler, et. al, 1999, p. 43).

Inflexibility, in and of itself, however, is not a problem. As Shariff notes, "Bureaucracy, it is argued, was an effective social invention designed to cope with a slower pace of change, simple technology, and a relatively stable environment. In organizational terms, [these characteristics] translated themselves into predictability, routinization, and permanence" (1979, p. 4). Because the environment has changed, it has become more unstable, more advanced technologically, and faster-paced; therefore, lack of flexibility has become a liability.

Insularity

The critique of bureaucracy as an inflexible organization in the face of changing demands is one part of a larger argument - that bureaucracies are insular, focusing on roles and responsibilities within the organization, at the expense of any recognition of the impact and influence of the outside environment. As a result, many organizational theorists in the late twentieth century proposed open systems - in theory and practice - as a viable alternative to bureaucracies. As Scott explains, "in important respects, much of the history of the development of organizational studies during the last quarter of the twentieth century to the present reflects a growing recognition of the many and diverse ways in which environment constitutes, influences, and penetrates organizations" (2004, p. 5).

Diffusion of Responsibility

Although less a criticism of the efficiency of bureaucracy, diffusion of responsibility, particularly in moralistic terms, is often cited as a negative outcome of highly formal and structured organizations. Because members of bureaucracies focus on specialized tasks and are encouraged to maintain emotional detachment in their interactions with one another and other clients, it becomes difficult for members to assess the bigger picture. Greenwald writes, "detached as most are from final outcomes, bureaucrats often feel little or no responsibility for what their organizations actually do" (2008, p. 365). The atrocities carried out by bureaucrats in Nazi Germany during WWII serve as one example of individuals blindly serving the larger organization; U.S. scientists who labored to create deadlier weapons such as the atomic bomb - who labored in the name of science while ignoring the ends toward which the government intended to use such weapons - provides a second example (Greenwald, 2008).

Incompatibility with Increasing Professionalism

In addition to the changing nature of the environment - from stable to unstable, for example - critics point to changes in the nature of the workforce as evidence that bureaucracy is no longer a viable organizational form in the twenty-first century. Specifically, critics argue that the rising level of professionalism - greater numbers of college-educated individuals with high levels of expertise - is incompatible with a hierarchical organizational structure (Hatch, 1997; Shariff, 1979). Professionals need more room to make decisions independently, rather than being told to do by those higher up in the chain of command. Hatch writes, "An organization will not get full value from its professional employees if it insists that they do only what they are told. Professionals hired for their knowledge and expertise must have the discretion to use their skills and training, or much of their value will be wasted" (1997, p. 172).

Viewpoints

Why Has Bureaucracy Persisted?

The preceding discussion outlined a long list of the shortcomings of bureaucracy, with particular emphasis on those features that might compromise inefficiency and lead to inertia. Given the number and variety of criticisms, it might seem surprising that bureaucracy has persisted as an organizational form at all. On the other hand, the fact that bureaucracy has not only persisted - but has arguably flourished in the last several decades - is perhaps the strongest evidence working in its favor. Advocates of bureaucracy argue, at the very least, that is has been blamed for far too many ills of modern society. Miller colorfully explains that while bureaucracy should be critiqued, it should not "serve as the whipping boy for all manner of modern evils…" (as cited in Hanline, 1993, p. 515). Others are much less ambivalent in their advocacy of bureaucracy, arguing that bureaucracy is the "organization of the future" (Greenwald, 2008, p. 341). The following is a brief introduction to viewpoints of some of the more favorable assessments of the modern day bureaucracy.

Adler, after analyzing the business practices of several large-scale twenty-first century corporations, argues that the "bureaucracy busting" mentality of theorists and practitioners may be misguided (1999). Eliminating middle-managers in order to reduce hierarchy, for example, often leads to loss of essential expertise. Destroying procedural manuals, in an attempt to eliminate red-tape, wipes out organizational memory and best practices. Instead, Adler (1999) advocates for a middle ground, one that recognizes the need for some hierarchy and formalization of procedures, but that also empower professionals, and respects the complexity of the modern business world. Adler re-conceptualizes bureaucracy as an enabling organization, with several key characteristics: greater participation by all members at all levels in the design of organizational systems, frequent re-evaluation of the functionality of organizational systems, and less use of coercion and compliance by those in positions of authority (1999).

Secondly, advocates of bureaucracy challenge the conventional wisdom that organizational structures designed for greater efficiency necessarily lead to less flexibility. As Adler, Goldoftas, and Levine acknowledge, "Some researchers have challenged this line of reasoning, arguing that organizations can shift the efficiency/flexibility tradeoff to attain both superior efficiency and superior flexibility" (1999, p. 434). The authors performed a case study of a U.S. Toyota plant, a highly bureaucratic organization, and concluded that it had successfully managed a balance between the two - efficiency and flexibility - by utilizing four mechanisms - meta-routines designed to make less routine tasks more routine, role switching between innovation and production tasks, partitioning of the workforce into a changeover team and a core operating team, and job enrichment. Adler et. al., also identified leadership as a critical element in an organization's ambidexterity between flexibility and efficiency (1999).

Finally, Preston addresses some of the concerns about bureaucracy as a dehumanizing organizational structure. Specifically, he argues that "the conflict between bureaucracy and freedom is an idea which hides and distorts more than it reveals" (2001, p. 774). The perception that bureaucracy hinders free choice is, according to Preston inaccurate; rather, he believes our choices are free precisely because they are made within a bureaucratic context (2001). Instead of defining freedom as the absence of interference, such that we can always decide to do whatever we have in mind to do, freedom should be viewed as a specific choice, made within a specific context, supported by particular resources. Thus, if one chooses to become a teacher because she has the skills and abilities to do so, she needs the classrooms and pupils provided by bureaucratic organizations like universities and public school systems. In other words, Preston argues, only because those resources are provided, is she free to make a choice (2001).

As surely as the academic debate regarding bureaucracy will continue, so too will bureaucracies themselves likely endure. A Shariff wrote over thirty years ago, in a an article titled "The Persistence of Bureaucracy," predictions about the death of bureaucracy and the emergence of post-bureaucratic paradigms have all proven false (1979). Whether or not Shariff was correct in describing criticisms aimed at bureaucracy as "superficial and inconsequential" matters less, perhaps, than his advice to the next generation of scholars: "The objective of reaffirming bureaucracy's durability is not to wallow in Weberian+ wisdom. It is simply to proclaim that bureaucracy should continue to engage the attention of scholars and reformers, that the jobs of the postbureaucratic stage are not yet here, and that 'beyond bureaucracy' is a remote destination" (1979, p. 15).

Terms & Concepts

Bureaucracy: A highly formal, structured organizational form characterized by hierarchy, a clearly defined system of procedures and rules, hiring and promotion practices based on ability and seniority, impersonal and impartial relationships among people, and highly specific job roles. Although considered a modern phenomenon, bureaucracies have existed in one form or another since the beginning of civilization.

Efficiency: Organizational theorists have traditionally understood flexibility and efficiency as competing demands. That is, as organizations become more structured and formal, efficiency increases and flexibility decreases. As a result, bureaucracies have been perceived as rigid and unyielding, unable to keep pace with a more technological, changing modern world. Some scholars now believe, however, that bureaucracy can be both efficient and flexible.

Flexibility: Organizational theorists have traditionally understood flexibility and efficiency as competing demands. That is, as organizations become more structured and formal, efficiency increases and flexibility decreases. As a result, bureaucracies have been perceived as rigid and unyielding, unable to keep pace with a more technological, changing modern world. Some scholars now believe, however, that bureaucracy can be both efficient and flexible.

Goal Displacement: In theory, the rules and regulations of an organization are intended to facilitate productivity. When rules and regulations are enforced too rigidly, however, organizations put themselves at risk for goal displacement. "In bureaucracies, goal displacement takes place as the member focuses more and more minutely on his or her immediate task and less and less on the organization's overall objectives" (Greenwald, 2008, p. 367).

Hierarchy: Bureaucracies have a vertical, hierarchical structure. Individuals within the organization report to superiors higher up in the chain of command. Although bureaucracies are hierarchical, decision-making is nevertheless decentralized. That is, decision-making occurs at all levels, although with greater and lesser degrees of discretion.

Information Pathologies: Because bureaucracies are hierarchical in nature, communication must often flow through multiple layers of an organization. Perhaps not surprisingly, then, bureaucracies are prone to errors in communication, or what Greenwald refers to as "information pathologies" (2008). More specifically, Hall identifies three types of communication errors: omission, distortion, and overload (2002).

Open Organizations: Open organizations are an outgrowth of criticisms of highly structured and formal organizations such as bureaucracy. Unlike bureaucracies, which are insular - focusing on roles and responsibilities within - open organizations emphasize interaction with the environment above all else. In theory, open organizations are more flexible, able to respond to changing demands more easily than bureaucracies.

Professionalism: Critics have argued that as the workforce becomes more professional - that is, more highly educated, with greater expertise and knowledge - bureaucracy will no longer be an adequate organizational form. Specifically, the hierarchical and decision-making structure of bureaucracy won't satisfy employees who have the ability and talent to exercise greater autonomy.

Rationality: Bureaucratic organizations are rational as opposed to familial or patrimonial. The distinction was first made by nineteenth century German philosopher Max Weber, who believed bureaucracies would eliminate the abuses of power pervasive in feudal, pre-industrial societies. In rational organizations, for example, employees are hired on the basis of abilities, rather than on the basis of familial ties to those running the company. Similarly, promotion is based on achievement, rather than favoritism. The reasonable and fair application of rules to all working in the organization, as well as to those being served by it, also leads to greater efficiency and impartiality.

Trained Incapacity: An unintended consequence of assigning people to highly specific jobs, as is done in most bureaucracies, is a constriction of workers' abilities, or what organizational theorists have termed "trained incapacity." In other words, "people become experts by repeating the same tasks over and over again. At the same time, they lose the capacity to do other things" (Greenwald, 2008).

Bibliography

Adler, P.S. (1999). Building better bureaucracies. Academy of Management Executive, 13, 36-47. Retrieved August 14, 2008 from EBSCO online database SocINDEX with FullText: http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=sih&AN=2570553&site=ehost-live

Adler, P.S., Goldoftas, B., & Levine, D.I. (1999). Flexibility versus efficiency? A case study of model changeovers in the Toyota production system. Organization Science, 10, 43-68. Retrieved August 14, 2008 from EBSCO online database Education Research Complete: http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=ehh&AN=2251835&site=ehost-live

Button, G., Martin, D., O'Neill, J., & Colombino, T. (2012). Lifting the mantle of protection from Weber's presuppositions in his theory of bureaucracy. Human Studies, 35, 235–262. Retrieved October 24, 2013 from EBSCO online database, SocINDEX with Full Text. http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=sih&AN=77494124&site=ehost-live

Greenwald, H.P. (2008). Organizations: Management without control. Los Angeles, CA: Sage Publications.

Hall, R.H. (2002). Organizations: Structures, processes, and outcomes. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.

Hanline, M. (1993). Human belief, rationality, and social organization: A critique of organization theory. Gulf Breeze, FL: The Matrix Publishing Company.

Hatch, M.J. (1997). Organization theory: Modern symbolic and postmodern perspectives. New York, NY: Oxford University Press Inc.

Jackson, J.H., Morgan, C.P., & Paolillo, J.G.P. (1986). Organization theory: A macro perspective for management. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.

Joyce, E., Pike, J. C., & Butler, B.S. (2013). Rules and roles vs. consensus: Self-governed deliberative mass collaboration bureaucracies. American Behavioral Scientist, 57, 576–594. Retrieved October 24, 2013 from EBSCO online database, SocINDEX with Full Text. http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=sih&AN=86919752&site=ehost-live

Preston, L.M. (2001). Freedom and bureaucracy. American Journal of Political Science, 31, 773-795. Retrieved August 14, 2008 from EBSCO online database Academic Search Premier: http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=aph&AN=5240306&site=ehost-live

Rai, G. S. (2013). Job satisfaction among long-term care staff: Bureaucracy isn't always bad. Administration in Social Work, 37, 90–99. Retrieved October 24, 2013 from EBSCO online database, SocINDEX with Full Text. http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=sih&AN=84462669&site=ehost-live

Shariff, Z. (1979). The persistence of bureaucracy. Social Science Quarterly, 60, 3-19. Retrieved August 14, 2008 from EBSCO online database Education Research Complete: http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=ehh&AN=17069988&site=ehost-live

Suggested Reading

Casey, C. (2002). Critical analysis of organizations: Theory, practice, revitalization. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.

Child, J. (2012). The evolution of organizations. Cheltenham, England: Edward Elgar.

Daft, R.L. (1995). Organization theory and design. New York, NY: West Publishing Company.

Fineman, S., & Gabriel, Y. (1996). Experiencing organizations. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.

Jaffee, D. (2001). Organization theory: Tension and change. Boston, MA: McGraw Hill Publishers.

Westwood, R., & Clegg, S. (Eds.). (2003). Debating organization: Point-counterpoint in organization studies. Malden, MA: Blackwell Publishing.