Each employee follows their allocated job. They know what is exactly required from them at work. Staff managers are there to serve the company and to help make it a success. Staff mangers are not there to carry out primary purposes.
DuBrin, Andrew, Essentials of management, pg, Weber argued that a professional relationship would not only be beneficial to the buisness, but also to the staff. Staff would know their job role clearly and any promotions made would be given to members of staff based on their hard work ethic and not on their personality or personal relationship with the the employer. Weber outlined the charcteristics of bureaucracy as follows: No hatred or favourtism.
Bureaucracy made modern civilisation possible DuBrin, Andrew, Management essentials, , pg Bureaucracy is severely required in large firms — without it there would not be structure and therefore the businesses would not run in an orderly manner, therefore would not thrive and expand. Without expanding businesses we would not have the privilidge of such advanced technologies, certain medicines and many other luxuries we all enjoy today.
Labour is divided out in a bureaucracy, therfore all staff members know there job and what is exactly expected of them.
Rules and guidelines are explained to them from the outset, so discrepancies are generally kept to a minimum. Weber highly advocated his principles, but he was also aware that it would not be without fault.
Argytis argued that people who follwed classical management theories were more likely to be unhappy and fail within the workplace. This refers to all the paperwork and procedures that is required when working in a demococracy. When a bereacratic form has been implimented within a workplace, its very hard to remove, so therefore employers who wish to change the dynamics of their business and get away from a bureacratic form may find this a very lenghtly and costly process to do so. Generally, companies want their staff to use their time at work produtively and effectively — time is wasted in a bureaucracy as the chain of command is used, therefore employees speak to their senior, who then report to theirs and so forth.
If an employee were able to go straight to the manager in charge, this would save time and money — profit in a company is crucial to keep it running.
There are two main types of organisation structure. The flat structure and the tall structure. The flat structure represents organisations with few levels in the hierarchy which have a broad control span, as opposed to the tall structure which has more levels however more focused areas of control.
There are many benefits of the flat structure. Also, as the span of control is so vast it is vital to employ competent employees to ensure a smooth operational process, resulting in a better workforce and meeting business objectives. However the main disadvantage of this structure is perhaps the authoritarian structure itself. In order for this structure to function properly there must be a definite split between superiors and suborinates otherwise the authority levels are undermined.
Communications between subordinates often become a problem, as there is no difference in authority between the grades. There are many thinkers, who have contribute with their one's life- work. Marx Weber is one the most important thinker, who define the object of sociology emphasizing the meaning of the relationships where developed between the persons and the social teams Fast Food My belief is that the process of McDonaldization, where the ideology of McDonald's has come to dominate the world, has caused many restaurants to emulate McDonald's style of running a franchised restaurant chain in terms of efficiency, calculability, predictability, and control Ritzer Max Weber Weber enrolled in the University of Heidelberg in As his father Weber's major field of study was a law, but he also attended lectures in economics and studied medieval history and theology He bases all significant historical changes on the power struggle that caused them However, depleted resources, vague statutory goals, and competing constituent influence all indicated how difficult it could be to separate politics from administration in bureaucratic policy making.
Although the complete separation of policy implementation or administration from politics has been an elusive, if not an impossible, goal to achieve, policy makers and scholars agree that there are some areas of policy making, such as macroeconomic monetary policy, in which bureaucratic independence from politicians is a concern of paramount importance. Conventional wisdom suggests that if politicians had direct control over the money supply and interest rates, they would print more money to finance their projects and would lower interest rates to engineer economic booms.
The main consequence of both activities would of course be soaring inflation, which would diminish the credibility of any political commitments toward stable monetary policy. Finally, according to Weber, expert bureaucrats applying a rational-legal framework had to be placed in a hierarchical setting to function properly. In a hierarchical setting, bureaucrats would work in a disciplined fashion toward common objectives set forth by the head administrators.
Any other setting might result in the failure of bureaucrats to work coherently toward the same goals. In the absence of a hierarchy, the business entrepreneur must negotiate contracts with others to purchase input products and labor.
If extensive bargaining must take place to negotiate each contract, time and resources are wasted in the process.
Although hierarchies serve to promote efficiency by reducing transaction costs, they also introduce into public and private organizations a new range of organizational dilemmas, known broadly as principal-agent problems. However, agents have an incentive to misrepresent their true skills, and the manager may find it difficult to select the best candidate.
This is a problem of asymmetric information, known as adverse selection. Second, the degree to which a principal can monitor the work behavior of the hired agent varies considerably across jobs. For example, a police captain cannot monitor what uniformed officers actually do on the streets at all times, if at all. Additionally, when the principal hires an agent with specialized expertise to perform a complex task, the agent can exploit that information advantage to either shirk or perform the task in any preferred manner.
This problem, known as moral hazard, is also a problem of asymmetric information. The principal-agent framework has been employed broadly throughout political science and public administration research, particularly to depict the relationships between politicians and bureaucrats. William Niskanen, applying economic principles of utility maximization to bureaucrats, argued in his work Bureaucracy and Representative Government that information asymmetries between bureaucrats and legislatures were particularly problematic because knowledgeable bureaucrats could request exorbitant budgets from legislators, who, due to their lack of expertise, do not know the true cost of performing the bureaucratic tasks.
Patrick Dunleavy followed Niskanen by maintaining in Democracy, Bureaucracy, and Public Choice that, rather than pursuing budget maximization, decision makers in bureaucracies follow a bureau-shaping strategy, most notably by separating the service delivery functions of the agency—or line agency functions—from the policy-making aspects of the agency. Analyzing the Bureau-shaping Model.
The authors argue that this effective hiving off of duties into other newly created agencies did not originate among bureaucrats, but was imposed by Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher and her cabinet. The research of Marsh, Smith, and Richards raises the question of how and why politicians attempt to control bureaucrats, a particularly salient question in a separation-of-powers system, such as the United States, where Congress, the president, and the courts vie for control over the direction of bureaucratic policy making.
In The Administrative Presidency Richard Nathan emphasized how the president can influence bureaucratic outputs through the powers of appointment and reorganization; studies done by B. Dan Wood and Richard Waterman empirically demonstrate this Additionally, in a study, David Lewis found that presidents also manipulate the number of appointees and civil servants, particularly in agencies that clash with the president.
Much research also has been devoted to illustrating the U. Congress is responsible for crafting the legislation from which agencies are born and, as a result, it has significant authority over how agencies are designed.
Matthew McCubbins, Roger Noll, and Barry Weingast aka McNollgast have stressed the importance of this function, arguing in a article that Congress embeds particular administrative procedures into agency design in order to ensure that bureaucratic behavior does not deviate too far from congressional intent.
Since their influential work was written, several scholars e. However, many scholars have focused also on the ability of American bureaucracies to be autonomous and to display greater independence of political control.
In a study, Joel D. Aberbach and Bert A. Rockman found through surveys that Nixon administration bureaucrats were suspicious of his domestic policy agenda, particularly those bureaucrats that administered social regulatory programs.
In Bureaucracy, Politics, and Public Policy , Francis Rourke argues that bureaucrats can develop knowledge and expertise that can then be used independently of political principals.
Additionally, agencies with large or important constituencies may have enough political cover to act contrary to the wishes of the president or Congress. In The Forging of Bureaucratic Autonomy , Daniel Carpenter also emphasizes the ability of entrepreneurial agency heads to cultivate coalitions as the key to bureaucratic autonomy.
In the latter half of the twentieth century, public management reforms were driven by high levels of government debt, but also by the conservative ideals of leaders such as Ronald Reagan and Margaret Thatcher.
Many countries in Europe and elsewhere implemented changes to the structure of civil servant contracts and to budgeting decisions.
- The Weberian bureaucracy that has emerged in the early 20th century, due to Max Weber’s works on bureaucracy, is now widely spread throughout public and private sectors. However, it is not a perfect structure and .
ADVERTISEMENTS: Essay on Bureaucracy: it’s Meaning and Growth! Meaning of Bureaucracy: The growth of Bureaucracy is a major social trend of modern society. It is found in both public and private organizations. Literally, the term bureaucracy means administration by bureaus. ADVERTISEMENTS: Bureau is an administrative unit.
Nov 03, · Bureaucracy essay Words | 11 Pages Introduction A bureaucracy is a large organization that is designed to achieve a common goal through a . ADVERTISEMENTS: Read this essay to learn about Bureaucracy. After reading this essay you will learn about: 1. Definition of Bureaucracy 2. Meaning of Bureaucracy 3. Characteristics 4. Types 5. Safeguards 6. Defects 7. Max Weber’s Theory. Contents: Essay on the Definition of Bureaucracy Essay on the Meaning of Bureaucracy Essay on the Characteristics of Bureaucracy .
Bureaucracy Essay Examples Revision The following is a plain text extract of the PDF sample above, taken from our Organisational Behaviour Notes. This text version has had its formatting removed so pay attention to its contents alone rather than its presentation. This example Bureaucracy Essay is published for educational and informational purposes only. If you need a custom essay or research .