Social Consequences of Bureaucracy

S Social Consequences of Bureaucracy Benson Matipa Mwense District Administration, Mwense, Zambia Synonyms Effects; Community and management Definitions Bureaucracy Consequences Social It is the structure and set of rules that control the activities of people that work for large organizations and government. It also entails excessively complicated administrative procedure. It is characterized by standardized procedure (rulefollowing), formal division of responsibility, hierarchy, and impersonal relationships. A result or effect, typically one that is unwelcome or unpleasant. It means an informal social gathering, especially one organized by the members of a particular club or group. Introduction Bureaucracy is an organizational form that became dominant in business, government, and other arenas during the nineteenth and twentieth centuries. Since then, extensive debates among sociologists and others have centered on its social impact, rationality, and nature. The aim of bureaucracy is to standardize all activities within the organization and ensure that control passes from the top to the bottom. As such, owners and senior managers are allowed to control the organization in a more efficient and indirect way thus mitigating the risk of self-conflict and loss of control of the affairs of an organization. Nevertheless, excessive bureaucracy makes public organizations more arthritic and self-serving, hence rendering them less able to achieve their core missions and less responsive to service users due to nepotism. Bureaucratic institutions are characterized by red tapism, excessive paper work, fear of innovation, poor customer service, duplication of working procedures, strict adherence to procedures, weak management practices, low morale, etc. This has resulted into many people nowadays having a negative perception of bureaucracy because it is rigid and responds slowly to environmental changes and that it relies heavily on rules and procedures. © Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2020 A. Farazmand (ed.), Global Encyclopedia of Public Administration, Public Policy, and Governance, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-31816-5_647-1 2 The Concept of Bureaucracy Bureaucracy is derived from the word bureau, which refers not only to a writing desk but to an office or a workplace, where officials worked from (New World Encyclopedia 2017). The concept of bureaucracy and administration is much older. Perhaps, bureaucracy is one of the most enduring institutions of governance and administration that have survived several millennia (Farazmand 2010). Bureaucracy as an ancient institution of government and administration can be traced as way back as in the administration of great Empires such as Persian, Egyptian, Chinese, Prussian, and Indian civilization (Beyer 1959; Farazmand 2009a). The Persian bureaucracy was the pioneering among the ancient bureaucracy. The earliest origin of Persian bureaucracy can be traced way back as to the ancient Susa and Sumer (which were ancient civilization and historical regions in southern Mesopotamia and Babylonian) (Farazmand 2009b). The bureaucracy of the Persian Empire was a strong institution of administration and governance with high expertise and prestige under the political control of the King or Emperor Cyrus who started ruling in 559 B.C (Farazmand 2009c). Three major powers preceded Persians in Iran: Susa, Elam, and Media. Medians captured Nineveh, the capital of Assyria, by totally absorbing the Elamite Empire by 600 B.C. The bureaucracy under Medes was characterized with role specialization, organizational hierarchy, and a unity of command system. After conquering the entire known world of antiquity, the Persians changed the world’s political and administrative history forever and established themselves as masters of empires, bureaucracy, government, and public administration. The Achaemenid Empire was organized hierarchically with the Sovereign King at its head, his court, a highly effective and efficient administrative system with a professionalized bureaucracy, a liberal governance policy, a formidable army commanded by the great aristocratic nobility, and a multitude of complex institutions of checks and balances (Farazmand 1991). Social Consequences of Bureaucracy Bureaucracy has been around for over 5000 years on a small scale under the Elamite (early Iranian) and on a larger scale in the one world-state Persian Empire (559–320 BC). Thereafter, it was followed by the Parthian and Sassanid Persian Empires (200 BC–651 AD) and onward under the Islamic Persian Empire up to the twenty-first century. The ancient Persians as masters of bureaucracy managed the world empire with the most efficient bureaucracy the world has ever known or seen (Farazmand 1994). The concept of bureaucracy can therefore be defined as a hierarchical organization made up of many departments and divisions that are administered by government workers or a group that makes official decisions based on an established strict process, full of rules and regulations. Bureaucracy is a type of formal administration with the characteristics of division of labor, rules and regulations, hierarchy of authority, impersonality of social relationships and technical competence, etc. The essence of bureaucracy is to enable large organizations to be managed effectively so as to achieve efficiency and be more accountable to the people. Some of the examples of everyday bureaucracies include governments, armed forces, corporations, hospitals, courts, and schools. Bureaucracy According to Max Weber According to the bureaucratic theory of Max Weber, bureaucracy is the basis for the systematic formation of any organization and is designed to ensure efficiency and economic effectiveness in its operations. It is an ideal model for management and its administration to bring an organization’s power structure into focus and reality. Therefore in Weber’s view, the attributes of modern bureaucracy include its impersonality, concentration of the means of administration, a leveling effect on social and economic differences, and implementation of a system of authority that is practically indestructible (Weber 1978). Weber distinguished three types of authority, namely, traditional, charismatic, and legalrational. Traditional authority is based on the belief that rulers have a natural right to rule. Social Consequences of Bureaucracy Charismatic authority is premised on the belief that rulers possess unique personal qualities by which they are able to control their subordinates in institutions such as religion and heroism (as possessed by Hitler during World War II). The third one is legal-rational authority which is based on the fact that formally written rules keep certain individuals in power. Using a combination of these ideas, Weber developed his own concept of bureaucracy with five basic distinct characteristics, namely, division of labor, hierarchy of authority, written rules and regulations, impersonality, and employment based on technical qualifications (Weber 1947). Weber’s main concern was that bureaucracies could lose sight of their purpose and begin to act as a special interest group. In other words, they might function for their own sake, rather than to meet some societal needs. Weber was also concerned that the idolization of bureaucracy might stamp out individualism. On the other hand, modern criticisms of bureaucracy have tended to focus on the idea that bureaucracies are bloated, inefficient, and overly expensive, making them ineffective in meeting people’s aspirations. Negative Social Consequences of Bureaucracy Bureaucracy can have negative consequences that impact individuals (both those who contact the bureaucracy and those who work within it) and organizations. People who contact bureaucracies can be frustrated by the excessive red tape that goes with them. Bureaucratic rules which often seem pointless to people coming into contact with them cause delays and other inconveniences. Bureaucrats themselves can also become frustrated with the nature of their jobs as they typically are bound by rules and regulations that deprive them of any room of autonomy to act as they wished (Wilson 1887). Besides, when left with no latitude to deviate from the rules, frustrated employees can become defensive and indifferent to the needs of the people who deal with them. In addition, bureaucracies are inefficient and wasteful. Sometimes, incompetent people have 3 positions because of nepotism within the organization. From the organizational point of view, bureaucracies can sometimes create excessive resistance to change in an organization. People can become obsessed with following the processes of rules and regulations, instead of doing the job most effectively. In this way, the emphasis on strict adherence to rules and regulations that come along with a bureaucracy is very problematic to society. In developing countries, for instance, it is very disappointing when seeking some services such as the supply of electricity and water for either domestic or industrial usage. Clients have to go through many bureaucratic channels and wait for longer period of time before getting final approval. Sometimes, corrupt officials demand facilitation fees to hasten processes. Further, passport acquisition, registration of lands and tittle deeds acquisition, law enforcement and judicial processes, health services, investment promotion, business registration, salary, and pension processes are all accessed after undergoing through cumbersome procedures that leave clients frustrated in their quest for quality services. In some cases, clients abandon pursuit of these services in midstream due to delays and other forms of bureaucratic insensitivities. Bottlenecks that are associated with quality service delivery have made bureaucracy very unpopular to many people, especially that excessive bureaucracy inhibits productivity and contributes to loss of large revenues to the government. In addition, bureaucracy reduces effectiveness at delivering product or service that the system was designed to. From a consumer or citizen side, it causes a loss of faith that the system is either helpful or that it exists for their benefit. The constant frustration followed by this loss of faith causes people to disengage from the system itself, again, defeating the mission. Classic bureaucratic rigidity and protectionism are prevalent in many governments. For example, firing poor performers is difficult in government ministries and organizations because of an arduous termination process. As a result, operational efficiency is reduced, and in the end, the community receives poor service delivery from these poor performers who are sustained by the bureaucratic system. 4 From the entrepreneurial perspective, bureaucratic structures tend to be backwardlooking, identifying procedures that worked well in the past. This backward perspective creates a conflict with entrepreneurs and innovators who prefer forward-looking concepts and attempt to identify ways in which processes could be improved. This is because a rigid bureaucracy reduces operational efficiency over time, particularly compared to rival organizations without large bureaucracies. Losses in efficiency are most pronounced in circumstances where bureaucracy is also used to insulate established power structures from the competition. Governmental bureaucracies are especially known for proneness to creating paper trails and piles of rules. Mountains of paper and rules only slow an organization’s capacity to achieve stated goals as well as cost taxpayers both time and money. Administrators wish to appear busy by increasing their workload through creating paper and rules, filling out evaluations and forms, and filing. In the end they hire more assistants, who in turn require more managerial time for supervision. Therefore, there is always growth in the number of employees in bureaucratic systems of governance especially in government. This results into bloated expenditures on wage bills leaving little financial resources for community development and quality service delivery. The hierarchical structure of bureaucracies can lead to internal empire-building. Department supervisors may add unnecessary subordinates, whether through poor decision-making or in order to build their own power and status. Redundant and non-essential employees quickly reduce the organization’s productivity and efficiency. Besides, absent of adequate oversight, bureaucrats with decision-making power could solicit and accept bribes in return for their assistance. In particular, high-level bureaucrats can misuse the power of their positions to further their personal interests. Social Consequences of Bureaucracy Positive Social Consequences of Bureaucracy Bureaucracies emerged as society moved into its most developed form, the state. As such, it provides the possibility for government to function effectively and efficiently in leading the larger societies of its citizenry with increasingly complex and diverse ways of life. Beyond government, numerous other social organizations, both in the public and private sectors, have developed bureaucratic forms of leadership which have succeeded in advancing the goals of their organizations. Therefore, bureaucracy is an organizational effective means of meeting societal needs (New World Encyclopedia 2017). Bureaucratic regulations and rules help ensure that government organizations take appropriate precautions to safeguard the interest and lives of the citizens. Besides, the red tape system of doing business in an organization enables documentation of the process effectively so that, if problems arise in future, data exists to fall on, for analysis and correction. Further, bureaucracies provide job security for employees, such as a steady salary and other perks, like insurance, medical and disability coverage, and a retirement pension. The impersonal nature of bureaucracy is often criticized, but this coldness is by design. Applying rules and policies strictly and consistently reduce the chances that some people will receive more favorable treatment than others. By remaining impersonal, the bureaucracy can help to ensure that all people are treated fairly, without friendships or political affiliations influencing the bureaucrats who are making the decisions. For instance, a successful university applicant must submit a great deal of paperwork to obtain a government student loan. Therefore, this long, tiresome, and frustrating process promotes equal treatment of all applicants, by ensuring that everyone has a fair chance to gain access to funding. Bureaucracy also discourages favoritism, meaning that in a well-managed organization, friendships and political inclination should have no effect on access to funding. Social Consequences of Bureaucracy Despite many actual and potential drawbacks, bureaucracy is the most ubiquitous form of dividing labor among members of an organization, town, state, or nation. It is indeed the hallmark of modern society throughout the world. While bureaucracies may not always function in the ideal form that Weber described, when the people working within the structure live for the sake of others rather than for self-centered pursuits, the bureaucratic system offers the most efficient method of maintaining a social institution (New World Encyclopedia 2017). Bureaucracies are efficient because the division of labor requires workers to specialize in particular tasks. Over time, specializing makes workers learn how to perform their assigned tasks at a very high level of competence, which results in high productivity and quality service delivery to the people. This is because bureaucratic attributes such as precision, speed, unambiguity, knowledge of the files, continuity, discretion, unity, strict subordination, reduction of friction and of material, and personal costs are normally raised to the optimum point in the strictly bureaucratic administration. Conclusion Weber’s bureaucratic model has until recently dominated organizational thinking as the most universally acceptable and globally established form of mass organization. However, bureaucracy now connotes different meanings to different people in the organization. To some individuals, it is nothing but rows of seats staffed almost by faceless people, for example, the members of the public see it such. To others, it is a frustrating encounter with red tapism, as clients do not get needed services as quickly as they would have loved. Thus, the general opinion of bureaucracies 5 tends to focus on their drawbacks and potentially negative impact on efficiency and individual rights. If left uncontrolled, the bureaucracy will become increasingly self-serving and corrupt, rather than serving needs and demands of the society. On the other hand, when those working in bureaucratic organizations live for the sake of others more than for their own individual needs, the division of labor and clear regulation of responsibilities of bureaucracy support the efficient operation of any social institution. It further increases the likelihood of employees to be treated fairly and the organization purged of favoritism, discrimination, and prejudice. Cross-References ▶ Ancient Bureaucracy ▶ Bureaucratic Institutions ▶ Bureaucratic Rules ▶ Formal Administration ▶ Governmental Bureaucracies ▶ Max Weber and Bureaucracy References Beyer WC (1959) The civil service of the ancient world. Public Adm Rev 19(4):243–249 Farazmand A (1991) State tradition and public administration in Iran in ancient and modern times. In: Farazmand A (ed) Handbook of comparative and development public administration. Marcel Dekker, New York Farazmand A (1994) Bureaucracy, bureaucratization and debureaucratization in ancient and modern Iran. In: Farazmand A (ed) Handbook of bureaucracy. Marcel Dekker, New York Farazmand A (ed) (2009a) Bureaucracy and administration. Taylor and Francis Group, LLC, Boca Raton Farazmand A (2009b) Bureaucracy, administration and politics: an introduction. In: Farazmand A (ed) Bureaucracy and administration. CRC Press, Boca Raton 6 Farazmand A (2009c) Bureaucracy and the administrative system of ancient world-state Persian empire: implications for modern administration. In: Farazmand A (ed) Bureaucracy and administration. CRC Press, Boca Raton Farazmand A (2010) Bureaucracy and democracy: a theoretical analysis. Public Organ Rev 10(3):245–258 New World Encyclopedia (2017) Bureaucracy. [On line]. http://www.newworldencyclopedia.org/p/index.php? Social Consequences of Bureaucracy title¼Bureaucracy&oldid¼1004609. Accessed on 9 Feb 2020 Weber M (1947, 2012) The theory of social and economic organization. Martino Fine Books, New York, NY. ISBN 978-1614272571 Weber M (1978) Bureaucracy. In: Economy and society: an outline of interpretive sociology (trans and ed: Roth G, Wittich C). University of California Press, Berkeley Wilson W (1887) The Study of Administration. Polit Sci Q2(2):197–222