"I am terribly sorry that you have already been transferred twice and I realize that they just transferred you to me, but I am going to have to transfer you back because they are the division that is going to have to help you."
Conversations like this can be more than a little frustrating and it is easy to imagine why many would be led to angrily chalk it up to "bureaucratic red tape." However, in light of the advantages and alternatives described by Max Weber, perhaps we are too hasty in slinging this insult at bureaucratic establishments.
Indeed, the characteristics of bureaucracy described by Weber seem to present a model organization that would be the epitome of efficiency and order. Still, as Weber himself realized, there are limitations to his model, and I have seen them firsthand in my organization.
The government agency that I work for is a licensing and regulatory agency with six divisions, which include: human relations, qualifications, continuing education, licensing, data processing, and enforcement. These divisions typify in many ways the aspects specialization and hierarchy described by Weber and also evidence the efficiency possible in a bureaucracy.
However, the organizational model of bureaucracy under which my agency is structured does not account for the fact that many of the efforts of each division are interconnected and interdependent on each other. Organizationally, each division operates as an independent unit and there are no established methods for sharing information between them.
Therefore, when issues arise that overlap the boundaries of two divisions or fall altogether outside the divisions' boundaries there are no processes in place to manage them. This is when conversations like the one above occur in my agency. And, while the issues always end up being resolved, it is done in an inefficient manner and with disruption to the agency's operations.
With this in mind, I do still believe that Weber's bureaucracy is an effective model of organization for my agency; at the same time, there is an opportunity for organizational improvements to be made. The question then becomes, given the rigid nature of bureaucracy, what is the best way to go about instituting those changes?
Hi Marissa - We blame many problems of organizations on bureaucracy, but many of these issues are not solely caused by this organizational form. As you mentioned, the bureaucratic model, as envisioned by Weber, is both rational and efficient. What would Weber change about your organization to make it more efficient? What would you change? Would you try to move beyond a bureaucracy and toward another organizational form? Do you think Fayol's principles of management could help?
ReplyDeleteHi Courtney - Those are great questions! I wonder if Weber would suggest that my organization take a second look at its division of labor. Since things seem to be falling in the "no man's land" between divisions, perhaps he would suggest that the divisions be more clearly defined in terms of their responsibilities. Even with the challenges, I do that think that bureaucracy is the most logical choice for my agency; given the number of licensees my organization is responsible for regulating, the division of labor, managerial hierarchy and formal controls do keep things in order.
DeleteHi Marissa - Interesting to hear about your bureaucratic government experience. Many Americans assume that government work is very bureaucratic; I know I have in the past. In order to have a well rounded strategy I think it would be useful for your organization to integrate some of the theorems of Fayol and Taylor. Taylor would had applied his scientific management to your organization in order to build synergy between the business units. Fayol might have suggested functional growth by recommending that employees be added as intermediaries between the different business units.
ReplyDeleteHi Casey - I think you might be right about my organization iterating some Fayol's ideas into its structure. In particular, I think that my organization might benefit from his ideas about control. As Fayol suggested, reviewing each divisions practices would help improve processes and catch help divisions coordinate better.
DeleteHi Marissa. So the rumor about the government and bureaucracy is true, huh? What is an instance of when something like this has happened? And how do you decide which silo solves the problem? Is there any collaboration among groups, or it is always every man for himself? Sounds like a very frustrating management dilemma that would be tough to solve unless people are willing to open up and adopt new methods.
ReplyDeleteHi Lauren - I'm afraid that what you've hear probably is true! These are great questions and timely - I have an example from this morning. I hope this isn't too much info, but here goes.
DeleteThis morning a gentleman called who wanted to reinstate his license after it had been administratively revoked. Because his license had been revoked, and it was found out that he was practicing in TX without a license, he was sent to the enforcement division. During conversations with enforcement staff, he was informed of his violations and advised that in order to get his license back he would first have to pay the penalties that accrued in the interim period - thousands of dollars. It turned out though that this gentleman fell under an exception that's provided by a policy enforced in the licensing division and he wouldn't be responsible for the penalties after all. In order to figure all this out, there were a lot of back and forth phone calls and trips down between divisions. It was all worked out in the end, but I can't help but wonder what would've happened if the man had unnecessarily paid all that money?
Hi Marissa. As another government employee, I empathize with your position. I have to wonder if one thing we were to learn from this assignment was that none of the theories we have studied are perfect on their own. As a matter of fact, Taylor insists that management theory must be continually evaluated and practices improved through additional scientific investigation.
ReplyDeleteI have seen the opposing extreme of the situation you are in - where there is too much communication. When I say "too much" I mean that everyone is obsessed with meetings and gaining consensus, but no one says let's move forward and this is how we do it. I believe that this may be because no one is put as the ultimate authority for a specific project and the idea of a leader is not suggested because that may go against the team philosophy.
No organization is perfect, but balance is the solution to many of life's problems. They key to managing an organization is to find the right balance of management theories and regularly evaluate to ensure the effectiveness of those practices.
Hi Brenda - Thanks for the feedback! I think you're right that no single theory will offer the perfect solution. And I appreciate the perspective you've offered about the communication overload situation you're in. I think I was stuck in a "their organizational grass is greener" mode.
Delete