Merton's Dysfunctions of Bureaucracies

Along with a handful of scholars, Robert K. Merton's work shaped the discipline of sociology in the United States. A professor first at Harvard University (where he received his PhD) in the 1930s, then at Columbia University from the 1940s onward, he developed his approach to sociology based on Emile Durkheim's notion of "functional analysis". Unlike other functionalists, such as Talcott Parsons, Merton developed "theories of the middle range" rather than grand theory, blending theory with the findings of problem-focused empirical research. His work contributed to many other areas of social inquiry, including organizations and bureaucracy. Merton's work on anomie, deviance, and organizations led him to argue that the structure of bureaucracies contained a tendency toward dysfunction.

Keywords Rationality; Bureaucracy; Formal Organization; Formalization; Institutions; Learning Organizations; Organizations; Social Organizations

Social Interaction in Groups & Organizations > Merton's Dysfunctions of Bureaucracies

Overview

Along with a handful of scholars, Robert K. Merton's work shaped the discipline of sociology in the United States. A professor first at Harvard University (where he received his PhD) in the 1930s, then at Columbia University from the 1940s onward, he was taught by people like Pitirim Sorokin and Talcott Parsons and, like Parsons, developed his sociology based on Emile Durkheim's notion of "functional analysis" (Calhoun, 2003). Unlike Parsons, however, Merton developed "theories of the middle range" rather than grand theory, blending theory with the findings of problem-focused empirical research. Although his passion was sociological analysis of science, his work contributed to many other areas of social inquiry, including organizations and bureaucracy. In particular, he influenced many of his students (e.g., Peter Blau and Alvin Gouldner) who in turn conducted detailed and intensive case studies of organizations (Crothers, 1991). Merton's work on anomie, deviance, and organizations led him to argue that the structure of bureaucracies contained a tendency toward dysfunction.

Merton's Approach

Merton built on the functionalist analysis of society advanced by Emile Durkheim, which analyzes society in terms of its workings as a system, which may not be obvious to its members. However, Merton placed less emphasis on the power of the social system itself than did other functionalist theorists, such as Talcott Parsons. In fact, Merton was generally of the view that sociology was a young discipline, not yet sufficiently developed to be able to create a unified theory of society, and argued instead for what he referred to as "theories of the middle range" (Merton, 1968), which focus on what lies between the minutiae of empirical research and overarching theoretical statements that claim to explain all social action (Waters, 1994). Thus, although his work contributed to fields such as the sociology of deviance, organizations and science, much of his work focused on particular substantive problems and issues such as housing, propaganda, mass communication, and medical education, and, with Paul Lazarsfield, he trained researchers in social science methodologies (Calhoun, 2003).

Anomie

For instance, Merton's work was influenced by Durkheim's argument that crime was a normal aspect of social life or functioning. He developed a functionalist analysis of society by focusing on the role of anomie. For Durkheim, anomie stems from a lack of regulating norms and the promotion of unrestricted desires in society. It emerges in the absence of relationships between the individual and society and points to a general moral decay and social breakdown. Moreover, in circumstances where there is rapid or extensive social change (such as the collapse of the global economy in 2008), the regulative power of society is threatened, contributing to a more widespread (or pathological) state of anomie, in which people become or feel detached from meaningful attachments (Marske, 1987). In the 2008 economic meltdown, this process is perhaps best illustrated by the stories of people who lost their jobs and homes and very quickly felt not only economically impoverished but also emotionally and socially bereft as a consequence of the widening gap between what is socially desirable and what is possible for people to achieve.

While Durkheim emphasized the significance of rapid social change in contributing to anomie, Merton argued that the potential for anomie is ever present in contemporary American society. He argued that all societies make moral demands on their members—culturally approved goals and culturally appropriate means of achieving those goals—and in a functioning society there would be no strain between those demands, or between goals and means (Lee & Newby, 1989). In American society, the end tends to be glorified over the means. People are socialized to pursue financial success, and evaluate others in terms of the extent to which they have accrued wealth and its visible trappings, but American culture endorses only a limited number of ways to attain financial success, such as education, hard work and moral engagement as a citizen (Du Bois & Berg, 2002). However, for many people, no matter hard they work, attaining financial success is not possible because they lack resources or access to social advantages that help to secure financial success. Therefore, such groups experience what Merton referred to as "strain" (1938), to which, as Lee and Newby (1989) outline, there are five "modes" of adaptation:

• Conformist — The individual accepts both the legitimate cultural goals of success and the institutionalized or conventional means for reaching these goals. This practice is the most common form of adaptation.
• Innovationist — The individual accepts the goals but employs illegitimate means for attainment. You want the culturally valued things (such as money) but you don't accept the societal norms for achieving these things. Examples would include burglars and loan sharks.
• Ritualists — The individual abandons the goals of society, but nonetheless continues to abide by institutional norms. Examples would include an underpaid secretary who never misses a day of work.
• Retreatists — The individual rejects both the goals and the means of society. An individual often enters this mode after repeated failure in the conformist mode. Examples would include permanently unemployed individuals and the homeless.
• Rebellion mode — The individual withdraws allegiance from society, which he/she sees as unjust, and seeks to establish a new, modified society. Examples would include members of cults and extremist groups (Lee & Newby, 1989).

Although Merton's theory has been helpful in understanding how a person can deviate from the cultural norms and responses that have been established by society, critics argue that there are two flaws with his concept. First, the theory does not describe deviant behavior on a broad scale. Rather, the focus tends to be on deviant behavior utilized when considering crimes that deal with money (i.e., white collar criminals). Second, there is an implicit bias against lower-class individuals given the assumption that people with inadequate resources will resort to deviant behavior in order to achieve goals.

Nonetheless, Merton's analysis suggests that problems can occur within a social structure when there is no provision for all members to achieve the established organizational goals. As a result, deviant behavior occurs when there is no continuity between what a culture demands and what a structure provides. Thus, while Merton worked within a functionalist paradigm, his views deviated from other functionalists such as Parsons in that he believed that there was a certain level of dysfunction in society.

Manifest & Latent Functions

While other functionalists explained how organizations, roles and a specialized division of labor functioned to the benefit of the overall social system, Merton argued that a certain amount of dysfunction is normal in society. Building on his work on anomie, (and as he acknowledged, drawing also on a range of theories and theorists that preceded his work, such as those of Freud, Veblen, and Malinowski) outlined above, he argued that there is a distinction between the "manifest" and "latent" functions of society. For instance, there is a distinction between how an organization or role is supposed to function (or as Merton puts it, the "conscious motivations of behavior", 1957, p. 60) and what happens in practice, which can include outcomes that were unanticipated, indirect, and that sometimes have long-term consequences (Du Bois & Berg, 2002). Merton further developed these observations about manifest and latent functions and the persistent potential for anomie in his work on organizations and bureaucracies.

Further Insights

Social Organizations

Social institutions and social organizations are similar in that each is governed by established roles and structures that enable a group of people to function. Institutions can be defined as a "group of individuals who pursue a set of collective purposes and have established a division of labor (roles), methods of coordination, decision-making and conflict resolution (procedures), common values and beliefs (culture), and a delimitation of geographical scope (space)" (Jonsson, 2007, p. 2). In addition, institutions control how an organization is structured and the types of activities and behaviors that are deemed acceptable (North, 1990).

While there are different types of social organizations (e.g., government, religion, education, family and work), formal organizations are established to complete a specific set of goals and objectives, and can be viewed as "a formal, rationally organized structure involving clearly defined patterns of activity in which ideally, every series of actions is functionally related to the purposes of the organization" (Merton, 1957, p.195). In order to meet the goals and objectives, many organizations have implemented a particular kinds of administrative structure, such as a bureaucracy.

In contemporary culture, the very term bureaucracy is pejorative and has been criticized by commentators across the political spectrum (Lee and Newby, 1989). Although the term emerged in the eighteenth century (Dandecker, 1990) it is a form of social organization that is strongly associated with modern, industrial societies. Max Weber, the German sociologist, developed an ideal-type of bureaucracy, which typifies modern rationality—a mode of action or decision-making that is characterized by an emphasis on the technical criteria for action (formal rationality), and the importance of values and ethics in action and decision-making (substantive rationality). He viewed bureaucracy as a type of formal organization equipped to accomplish large-scale administrative tasks in a rational way (i.e., cost-effective and scientific) (Du Bois and Berg, 2002).

Weber's ideal-type is widely known and most people would probably recognize his type from their own experience of bureaucratic organizations (e.g. banks, hospitals, schools). Bureaucracies are typically large, impersonal organizations with a complex hierarchy (Bilton et al., 1996). Power within such organizations lies with the institutional structure rather than with particular individuals, which makes it frustratingly difficult to bring problems to light and have complaints resolved. Nonetheless, there are clear lines of authority and a highly specialized division of labor, such that tasks are allocated to particular positions, or officials, and regulated through specific rules. People who work in bureaucratic organizations are expected to subsume their thoughts and feelings to their duties and responsibilities; the job or position occupied by a person is separate and distinct from the person herself, to the extent that bureaucracies are generally criticized as being impersonal places to work (Weber, 1946).

Bureaucracy as an Ideal-Type

Nonetheless, Weber viewed the ideal organization as one that was rational in its operation, with a structure that would govern and regulate the human nature of employees. He saw bureaucracy as a positive way for an organization to operate and a bureaucrat as "a highly trained, specialized practitioner in a formal organization set up in a hierarchical fashion for the purposes of precise, reliable, fair, efficient, specialized service" (Cohen, 1970, p. 391). He identified seven key principles of bureaucratic organization:

1. Specification of jobs with detailed rights, obligations, responsibilities, and scope of authority;
2. A system of supervision and subordination;
3. Unity of command;
4. Extensive use of written documents;
5. Training in job requirements and skills;
6. Application of consistent and complete rules (company manual); and
7. Competence and experience are the basis for assigning work and hiring personnel (Borgatti, 1996, par. 1).

Weber focused on the relationship between the social structure of a formal organization and its operation (especially its efficiency) and in doing so, highlighted the rational predictability of day-to-day operations; the structure of the positions that carry out these operations; and the career structures associated with the long-term continuity of formal organizations (Crothers, 1990). However, as many people experience, bureaucracies tend to be associated with inefficiency and impersonal relationships: they don't always work in practice according to Weber's ideal-type and their manifest functions are eclipsed by latent functions.

In contrast, Merton showed how the social organization of bureaucracies might give rise to dysfunction, such that meeting bureaucratic requirements becomes an end in itself at the expense of the organizations manifest goals (Du Bois and Berg, 2002).

Applications

Bureaucratic Structure & Personality

Merton argued that several aspects of bureaucratic organization were potentially harmful to the smooth running of a bureaucracy, such as the concentration of power and inefficiencies (which are collectively known in popular discourse as "red tape"). He observed that "when one leaves the sphere of the ideal and studies a real organization, one can see that a certain bureaucratic characteristic (such as strict control by rules) can both promote and hinder organizational efficiency; it can have both functional effects (predictability, precision) and dysfunctional effects (rigidity)" (North, 1990, n.d., par. 16). Merton acknowledged that bureaucracies were set up to be "good". However, he asserted that issues with structure and people could create a "bad" perspective on a bureaucrat and his organization (1940).

First, bureaucrats are encouraged to follow rules and standardized procedures. This supports predictability within an organization and the achievement of organizational goals. However, when officials pay excessive attention to the rules without acknowledging their purpose, the rules can become a means to themselves, rather than a means to an end. Such discipline and efficiency, which displaces the purpose of rules with exaggerated attention to the rules themselves, means that officials end up "doing things by the book" and may actually be unable to deal with their customers or clients efficiently (Marsh et al., 1996). Therefore, a preoccupation with efficiency can be dysfunctional.

Second, officials within bureaucracies are not encouraged to show initiative, often because they have no technical authority to carry out initiative. Consequently they may "pass the buck" to the next person in the chain of authority, which the customer or client experiences as inaction. Third, the treatment of subordinates within bureaucracies may contribute to a loss of morale, which in turn encourages an impersonal attitude that can be interpreted by clients as arrogance (Johnson, 1998, p.306).

Merton argues that bureaucracies create a particular kind of personality that is characterized by conformity and inflexibility, which works against the manifest goals of the bureaucratic organization (Marsh et al., 1996), as Cohen (1970) puts it:

Alternatives to Bureaucracy

Weber saw bureaucracy as an ideal form of governing structure in modern society. However, Merton's attention to dysfunctions within bureaucracies and subsequent research that has been built on these insights identified many problems that compromise the manifest functions of bureaucratic organizations. Nonetheless, in Western societies, bureaucratization has been a persistent organizational form. Yet, other organizational forms are beginning to develop, which acknowledge and avoid the problems that Merton foreshadowed in his work. For instance, the organizational model most closely associated with Japanese productivity is characterized by bottom-up decision-making, less role specialization, and team-oriented production (Giddens, 1997).

Similarly, in the West, what Peter Senge (1990) refers to as "learning organizations" are characterized by flexibility, adaptability, and the willingness to learn at all levels throughout the organization. "Learning organizations" as opposed to bureaucratic organizations need to think organically (as opposed to the fragmented approach to thinking associated with modernity); investment in individual learning (i.e., generative learning that links individual goals with measurable outcomes); inclusive leadership that invites members of the organization to collectively contribute to organizational vision; and a team-building approach.

Conclusion

Although Weber's bureaucratic ideal-type is the quintessential modern, rational organizational form, in that it is, in theory, equipped for efficiency and productivity, Robert Merton produced one of the first studies of bureaucracy in practice. His work, which fused insights about the persistence of anomie with a distinction between the manifest and latent functions of an organization, was able to show how the features that defined a bureaucratic organization, in fact contained within them the potential to undermine its goals. These insights contributed to the growth of organizational research as a sub-field within sociology, and foreshadowed some of the changes in organizational structure and purpose that are evident in the twenty-first century.

Terms & Concepts

Bureaucracy: A large, impersonal organization with a complex hierarchy. Power within such organizations lies with the institutional structure rather than with particular individuals, although there are clear lines of authority and a highly specialized division of labor.

Formal Organization: A group with a structural arrangement that is organized to achieve specific, clearly stated goals.

Formalization: A process which establishes the norms, roles and procedures of a group and makes them precise, binding, and valid.

Learning Organizations: Organizations which systematically learn from experiences of what systems work and what do not. For organization members, the goals of learning are to increase innovation, effectiveness, and performance.

Organizations: Social arrangements that are structured to pursue common goals, control performance, and have boundaries which serve to establish a specific realm within an overall environment.

Rationality: A mode of action or decision-making that is technical in character. Formal rationality emphasizes the technical criteria for action, and substantive rationality emphasizes the importance of values and ethics in action and decision-making.

Social Organization: A system organized by a characteristic pattern of relationships among all group members.

Bibliography

Borgatti, S. (1996). Bureaucracy. Retrieved May 1, 2008, from http://www.analytictech.com/mb021/bureau.htm

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 25, 2013 from EBSCO Online Database SocINDEX with Full Text. http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=sih&AN=77494124

Calhoun, C. (2003). Robert K. Merton Remembered. American Sociological Association. Available at: http://www.asanet.org/footnotes/mar03/indextwo/html. Accessed March 16, 2009.

Cohen, H. (1970). Bureaucratic flexibility: Some comments on Robert Merton's bureaucratic structure and personality. The British Journal of Sociology, 21, 390-399. Retrieved March 16, 2009 from EBSCO online database, SocIndex with Full Text http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=sih&AN=10953776&site=ehost-live

Crothers, C. (1991). The dysfunctions of bureaucracies: Merton's work in organizational sociology. In J. Clark, C. Modgil and S. Modgil (eds). Robert K. Merton: Consensus and Controversy. London: Falmer Press.

Dandeker, C. (1990). Surveillance, power and modernity: Bureaucracy and discipline from 1700 to the present day. New York: St. Martin's Press.

Du Bois, W. & Berg, B.L. (2002). Crime in society: Sociological understandings and societal implications. In R. A. Strauss (ed). Understanding sociology: An introduction from the applied and clinical perspectives. Lanham: Rowmand and Littlefield Publishers, Inc.

Hirtenlehner, H., Farrall, S., & Bacher, J. (2013). Culture, institutions, and morally dubious behaviors: Testing some core propositions of the institutional-anomie theory. Deviant Behavior, 34, 291-320. Retrieved October 25, 2013 from EBSCO Online Database SocINDEX with Full Text. http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=sih&AN=84918433

Hodson, R., Roscigno, V., Martin, A., & Lopez, S. (2013). The ascension of Kafkaesque bureaucracy in private sector organizations. Human Relations, 66, 1249-1273. Retrieved October 25, 2013 from EBSCO Online Database SocINDEX with Full Text. http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=sih&AN=89975652

Johnson, H. (1998). Sociology: A systematic introduction. New York: Routledge.

Jonsson, C. (2007). Organization, institution and process: Three approaches to the study of international organization. Prepared for ACUNS 20th Annual Meeting, New York, 6-8 June, 2007. Retrieved May 1, 2008, from http://www.igloo.org/acunsnet/download-nocache/Programs%20and%20Events/A ACUNS%20Annual%20Meetings/annualme/am2007pa/christer

Lee, D. & Newby, H. (1989). The problem of sociology. London: Unwin Hyman.

Marsh, I. et al. (1996). Making sense of society: An introduction to sociology. London: Longman.

Merton, R. (1957). Social theory and social structure. Glencoe, IL: Free Press.

Merton, R. K. (1938). Sociological structure and anomie. American Sociological Review.

38: 672-682. Retrieved March 17, 2009 from EBSCO online database,

SocINDEX with Full Text. http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=sih&AN=12781867&site=ehost-live.

Merton, R. K. (1940). Bureaucratic structure and personality. Social Forces, 18 , 560-568. Retrieved March 17, 2009 from EBSCO online database,

SocINDEX with Full Text. http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=sih&AN=13577155&site=ehost-live

North, D. (1990). Institutions, institutional change and economic performance. New York: Cambridge University Press.

Senge, P. (1990). The fifth discipline: The art and practice of the learning organization. London: Random House.

Waters, M. (1994). Modern sociological theory. London: Sage.

Winczorek, J., Peisert, A., & Mica, A. (2012). Sociology and the Unintended : Robert Merton Revisited. Frankfurt am Main: Peter Lang.

Suggested Reading

Cooper, M. (2003, July 9). So long, school bureaucrats: 110 Livingston is being sold. (Cover story). New York Times, 152(52539), A1.

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 25, 2013 from EBSCO Online Database SocINDEX with Full Text. http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=sih&AN=86919752

Linstead, S. (1997). Abjection and organization: Men, violence, and management. Human Relations, 50, 1115-1145.

Lissauer, G., Szigeti, A., & Elkana, Y. (2011). Concepts and the Social Order: Robert K. Merton and the Future of Sociology. Budapest, Hungary: Central European University Press.

Reitz, T., & Draheim, S. (2006). The rationality of higher education reform. Perspectives on a post-autonomous knowledge regime. Soziale Welt, 57, 373-396.