Please read the following quotes from Max Weber (with thanks to http://www.faculty.rsu.edu/~felwell/Theorists/Weber/words.htm), the German sociologist who created the concept of the bureaucracy. Choose one of the quotes and write a brief essay (no more than three double-spaced pages) in which you defend or refute Weber's point, using your personal experience and the information you've collected so far in our class. Please submit your essay either as a comment to this post or via email to dpreston.learning@gmail.com no later than 5:00 P.M. P.S.T. on Friday, February 1. Thanks!
Weber On bureaucracy:
"From a purely technical point of view, a bureaucracy is capable of attaining the highest degree of efficiency, and is in this sense formally the most rational known means of exercising authority over human beings. It is superior to any other form in precision, in stability, in the stringency of its discipline, and in its reliability. It thus makes possible a particularly high degree of calculability of results for the heads of the organization and for those acting in relation to it. It is finally superior both in intensive efficiency and in the scope of its operations and is formally capable of application to all kinds of administrative tasks (1921/1968, p. 223).
"The principles of office hierarchy and of levels of graded authority mean a firmly ordered system of supe- and subordination in which there is a supervision of the lower offices by the higher ones" (1946/1958, p. 197)
"No machinery in the world functions so precisely as this apparatus of men and, moreover, so cheaply. . .. Rational calculation . . . reduces every worker to a cog in this bureaucratic machine and, seeing himself in this light, he will merely ask how to transform himself into a somewhat bigger cog. . . . The passion for bureaucratization drives us to despair" (1921/1968: liii).
"The needs of mass administration make it today completely indispensable. The choice is only between bureaucracy and dilettantism in the field of administration" (1921/1968, p. 224).
"When those subject to bureaucratic control seek to escape the influence of existing bureaucratic apparatus, this is normally possible only by creating an organization of their own which is equally subject to the process of bureaucratization" (1921/1968, p. 224).
[Socialism] "would mean a tremendous increase in the importance of professional bureaucrats" (1921/1968, p. 224).
"Not summer's bloom lies ahead of us, but rather a polar night of icy darkness and hardness, no matter which group may triumph externally now" (1946/1958, p. 128).
"To this extent increasing bureaucratization is a function of the increasing possession of goods used for consumption, and of an increasingly sophisticated technique for fashioning external life--a technique which corresponds to the opportunities provided by such wealth" (1946/1958, p. 212).
"It is horrible to think that the world could one day be filled with nothing but those little cogs, little men clinging to little jobs and striving toward bigger ones--a state of affairs which is to be seen once more, as in the Egyptian records, playing an ever increasing part in the spirit of our present administrative systems, and especially of its offspring, the students. This passion for bureaucracy ...is enough to drive one to despair. It is as if in politics. . . we were to deliberately to become men who need "order" and nothing but order, become nervous and cowardly if for one moment this order wavers, and helpless if they are torn away from their total incorporation in it. That the world should know no men but these: it is in such an evolution that we are already caught up, and the great question is, therefore, not how we can promote and hasten it, but what can we oppose to this machinery in order to keep a portion of mankind free from this parceling-out of the soul, from this supreme mastery of the bureaucratic way of life."
"The state is a human community that (successfully) claims the monopoly of the legitimate use of force within a given territory"(1946/1958, p. 78).
"When fully developed, bureaucracy stands . . . under the principle of sine ira ac studio (without scorn and bias). Its specific nature which is welcomed by capitalism develops the more perfectly the more bureaucracy is 'dehumanized,' the more completely it succeeds in eliminating from official business love, hatred, and all purely personal, irrational and emotional elements which escape calculation. This is the specific nature of bureaucracy and it is appraised as its special virtue" (1946/1958, pp. 215-16).
"The decisive reason for the advance of bureaucratic organization has always been its purely technical superiority over any other kind of organization. The fully developed bureaucratic mechanism compares with other organizations exactly as does the machine with the non-mechanical modes of organization" (1946/1958, p. 214).
"Precision, speed, unambiguity, knowledge of the files, continuity, discretion, unity, strict subordination, reduction of friction and of material and personal costs--these are raised to the optimum point in the strictly bureaucratic organization" (1946/1958, p. 214).
"The apparatus (bureaucracy), with its peculiar impersonal character. . . is easily made to work for anybody who knows how to gain control over it. A rationally ordered system of officials continues to function smoothly after the enemy has occupied the area: he merely needs to change the top officials" (1946/1958, p. 229)
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
3 comments:
Week 2 OA2: Thoughts from Max Weber
Dianne Reasner
“The apparatus (bureaucracy), with its peculiar impersonal character…is easily made to work for anybody who knows how to gain control over it. A rationally ordered system of officials continues to function smoothly after the enemy has occupied the area: he merely needs to change the top officials”. (1946/1958, pg.229)
I sadly agree with Max Weber that bureaucracy has an “impersonal character” and the insincerity of a manager can produce a desired outcome. This phenomenon reflects the need of a person to satisfy their most basic needs of survival as portrayed by Maslow’s hierarchal theory.
Although Weber’s description of the bureaucratic organization form is very stringent,
bureaucracy in and of itself is not necessarily a dreadful system. It is basically a structure where the power lies with the officials of the organization. Weber states his model is based on “legal and absolute authority, logic, and order, controlled by rules, policies, and procedures.” In a democratic society officials are elected by the people to represent their needs and provide security. Rules must be developed to maintain cohesion in any society.
We all know leaders, managers, and administrators with personal agendas. These people have the character, or lack of character, in which they are able to manipulate others for their own personal gain. The goals of this type of leader are more important to them than the respect and self esteem of the person they are manipulating. Rules or laws are therefore developed to control the individual instead of providing security and stability. Under this form of leadership bureaucracy will become impersonal and people will still produce because they have been made to believe it is in their best interest.
Maslow’s theory is supported by the leader and the worker. The leader is doing what is necessary to maintain their needs, and the worker believes their needs are also being met. Under this system the workers do not object to new leaders as long as their needs are met and life does not change drastically. Therefore, as Weber states, top officials can be replaced and the people at the bottom maintain the status quo. It is not until there is dissatisfaction that the workers will require change.
Would the environment Weber’s quote highlights be possible if the open-system was practiced? If people were in the habit of dialoguing intellectually and questioning conditions of existence, would impersonal leaders be successful. I don’t think so. I believe Weber’s description of bureaucracy is possible because people become too complacent and accepting.
“When those subject to bureaucratic control seek to escape the influence of existing bureaucratic apparatus this is normally possible only by creating an organization of their own which is equally subject to the process of bureaucratization.”
Animal Farm by George Orwell comes to mind when reading this quote. The animals were tired of the farmer’s oppression and decided they would overthrow his rule and create a world of their own – their own organization. They were tired of being subject to the farmer’s dictates. They were tired of not enjoying the fruits of their labor. They set out to create a new order, one in which equality and brotherhood were central. However when all was said and done nothing much had changed, only the “person” in charge.
Often times when we view organizations or leaders we say to ourselves “if I were in charge things would be different”, but I wonder how often true change actually takes place when there is a change of administration. Change is illusive and often nothing more than an empty promise which is a means to an end.
I realize that it is easy to sit back and criticize others. Perhaps we do so unjustly. We can criticize and place more blame on others that we would ourselves if put in the same situation (attribution theory). We can make assumptions and more often than not don’t know the “whole story”. Leaders are not solely to blame for a lack of change in an organization. Some organizations have a very formalized system of rules and policies and these guidance templates have become such an intricate part of the organization that the people in the organization are either unable or unwilling to accept change.
Change is a buzz word these days and it is almost comical how often a politician will use it in an impassioned campaign speech. Unless a leader is truly committed to change and has a plan to effect that change, they often fall into the predecessor’s pattern of behavior. How many times have we heard those campaign promises and slogans tell in us that this candidate is the “true change candidate”? Those leaders who will implement true change are few and far between. They are always subject to criticism and intense scrutiny and more often than not it is easier to maintain the status quo than to fulfill those dreams and promises of a new and altered organization.
I would venture to say that people who want true change are rare. Those who are able to achieve it are even rarer. Maybe the only change we really want is superficial. Perhaps it is only our desire to be the “one eating at the table” and “wearing the farmer’s clothes” that makes us shout, stomp our feet, make signs or even protest. Maybe that is the only change we truly desire.
"From a purely technical point of view, a bureaucracy is capable of attaining the highest degree of efficiency, and is in this sense formally the most rational known means of exercising authority over human beings. It is superior to any other form in precision, in stability, in the stringency of its discipline, and in its reliability. It thus makes possible a particularly high degree of calculability of results for the heads of the organization and for those acting in relation to it. It is finally superior both in intensive efficiency and in the scope of its operations and is formally capable of application to all kinds of administrative tasks (1921/1968, p. 223).
From a technical point of view Max Weber may have been correct, but from a practical standpoint, this system seems flawed. I agree that a bureaucracy is capable of attaining a high degree of efficiency. For example, in the current educational setting, we have a top down system. The district office employees reign over the principals who reign over the teachers, who reign over the students. When this system is operating correctly, the people only have contact with those that reign directly over them. So, when a student decides to go above the teacher to the principal, the efficiency breaks down. If a student were to go to the district office level, a sense of authority would be lost at the school level. When we stick to the simple chain of command, the system is much more efficient, and members can do their specialized jobs.
Weber’s ideas of creating organized order and routine at each specialized level seem a little void of humanity. We learned in our last class that language brings a sense of reality to our world. This bureaucratic system seems to be lacking the necessary parts of communication like the passion and emotional component. Weber seems to be creating a system of robots. There needs to be a balance between the unemotional bureaucratic system and the emotional needs of humans. My past administrator was a bit overboard on her pathos communication. We have sense fallen to the lowest academic standing in the district. Our new administrator is coming into this flawed workplace, and trying to repair it with the basic organization of a bureaucracy. She’s making teachers be responsible for the students so she can spend her time on the teachers and the instruction that is occurring. She’s striving to restore order. While restoring this order, our staff is still being motivated by her pathos side. Her strong speaking ability, and her balance of heart and order, will hopefully bring our school forward.
If education was built under this system of bureaucracy that Max Weber describes, then why is education failing? Human beings don’t want power exerted over them. As humans we fight for control and power. This bureaucratic system limits our creativity, and ignores our needs for upward movement. Perhaps it is time to try a new way of doing things.
Post a Comment