Weber S Social Action Theory

BUREAUCRACY

According to Moyo (1992) in The politics of administration, bureaucracy is a formal arrangement of functions, duties and technical competence. It is a rational and most effective social instrument of formally coordinating purposive human action. The impersonality of this coordination necessarily precludes and excludes considerations of compassion, affection and traditional personality (ibid: xx). For Weber, bureaucracy is simply an organization characterized by a hierarchy of full time paid officials.

Weber’s social action theory

Weber came up with 3 types of action. These are affective, traditional and rational. Affective action arises from the emotional state of the actor and does not result from any prior planning or thinking, for example, action from loss of temper. Traditional action is based on the way things have always been done. Prior thinking and planning precedes rational action. It results from a cost benefit analysis and an awareness of set goals. Bureaucracy is therefore an expression of institutionalised or formalized rationality.

Bureaucracy and control

Bureaucracy is a system of control and not just an arrangement of functions. This control allows for strict supervision of subordinates by superiors through a hierarchical arrangement of positions where power decreases as one moves down the hierarchy and vice versa. Weber argues that for people to accept the exercise of power over them they must perceive that power is legitimate. Legitimate power is called authority. There are 3 types of authority- traditional, legal-rational and charismatic authority. An individual who commands respect because of their extra ordinary powers and qualities possesses charismatic authority. Such individuals create organizations with ill-defined rules and regulations since they are the embodiment of the organization. Traditional authority is accepted on the basis of the belief in the rightness or correctness of the traditional order. This type of authority can sometimes result in hierarchical arrangements for example chiefs in rural areas. Rules are arbitrary. People are connected to the past. Rational- legal authority is where there is acceptance of a set of rational rules (well thought out). They are impersonal and they regulate the relationship between the leader and followers. Anybody can be a leader. This legal rational authority produces a bureaucratic structure of organisation.

The ideal bureaucratic structure

The ideal type is a mental construct. In reality there can never be such a structure with all the characteristics listed by Weber. They include the following;

1)Clearly defined areas of responsibility- every member of the organisation has a specific area or task of operation.

2)Hierarchical arrangement of offices forming a chain of command where authority and communication flow from top to bottom.

3)Use of abstract rules- these govern relations between members of the organisation. Obedience to one’s superiors is an acceptance of these rules. People respect the position not the individual him/herself.

4)Impersonality- officials carry out their duties in a spirit of formalistic impersonality (no hatred or passion).

5)Appointment of officials is on the basis of knowledge and expertise. Promotion is also based on these.

6)Separation of private and official duties- no room for private gains.

7)Immortality of the organisation- people come and go but the organisation remains. It does die with the leader, as might be the case in charismatic leadership.

Critique of bureaucracy

a)In reality there is so much overlap of responsibility- there are no clearly defined responsibilities.

b)Communication is not always hierarchical from top to bottom but can also be influenced by kinship relations and informal relations.

c)In some cases rules are just an appearance, they can be bent, broken or ignored.

d)Impersonality is impossible in our African context.

e)Bureaucracy is a threat to human freedom and over reliance on rules creates an iron cage.

f)It stifles creativity and initiative because it encourages uniform behaviour.

g)It creates specialists without spirit (without morality feeling for self and others); see bureaucrats in government offices in Zimbabwe.

h)Marxists argue that bureaucracy is a characteristic of capitalist societies. Therefore in communist societies bureaucracy is not necessary. It can only be understood in terms of the ownership of means of production; therefore bureaucracy is an instrument of control and coercion by those who own the means of production. A means of controlling labour by the ruling class.

The ideas of Robert Michels as a critique to bureaucracy

He wrote a famous book called political parties (1962). He is best known for his saying that who says organisation says oligarchy. He was concerned with the relationship between bureaucracy and democracy. He wrote about political parties and trade unions with an emphasis on the German Socialist Party. Democracy can be defined as self-rule. Today self-rule is through representatives in parliament. Michels argues that democracy is inconceivable without organisations. People have to come together to form an organisation in order to advance their interests for example, through trade unions, student unions. However, there is a paradoxical situation created. The paradox is that as soon as people try to organise themselves bureaucracy steps in. As soon as bureaucracy sets in democracy disappears. According to Michels bureaucracy brings with it oligarchy (rule by a few) which kills democracy. As the organisation grows bigger and complicated it becomes difficult for everyone’s views to be heard. The more representation there is the less democracy there is. The few representatives chosen as servants of the people end up being masters of the people ands they become difficult to remove. The following are the reasons why democracy is an impossibility in organisations as given by Michels in Zeitlin (1996).

1)The nature of the human beings – it is man’s inherent nature to crave power and once having attained it seek to perpetuate it.

2)The nature of the political struggle- it is such that people must choose representatives with expertise, specialisation and objective knowledge to advance their cause. This creates the perennial incompetence of masses who are ignorant of most issues. It however, creates a gulf between the leaders and the followers.

3)These leaders end up developing interests peculiar to themselves and they create of a cult where they are viewed as heroes. Leaders create an impression that they are indispensable and whenever their views are challenged they threaten to resign.

4)The enormous populations in modern organisations render it technically impossible for all members to govern or administer directly their common affairs.

Therefore while organisations are positive they have a natural tendency to kill democracy as they become more and more bureaucratised.

Gouldner’s critique of bureaucracy

His 1954 (patterns of industrial bureaucracy study) show how bureaucracy varies especially in a mining plant where due to the unpredictable nature of especially underground mining, bureaucracy is limited. Workers do not follow strict rules but rely on the informal group.

Robert Merton’s (1940) study

Merton was concerned with examining the dysfunctions of bureaucracy, discovering the manifest and latent functions of organisations and suggesting the functional alternatives of organisational arrangements. Merton argued that bureaucratic structures have certain characteristics that transform the personality of members of organisations. This is due to the emphasis on the reliability and predictability of behaviour in bureaucratic organisations. This results in the reduction of personal relationships where individuals are treated as cogs of a machine and as role actors. Such treatment creates friction between the bureaucrats and the public. The public view these officials as cold and unfeeling. There is also excessive internalisation of rules for their sake such that there is goal displacement where the goal becomes doing something according to the rulebook and not according to organisational needs. Such action could lead to organisational inefficiency and ineffectiveness. There is also lack of innovativeness in such organisations because no one is prepared to try out new ways of doing things.

Selznick’s 1948 study of the Tennessee valley Authority (TVA)

The article is entitled “foundations of the theory of organisations ”in the American Sociological Review 13 pages 25-35. His major argument was that organisations are not self-contained entities isolated from the environment. Organisations contain both rational and irrational elements. The rational aspects cannot cope with the irrational nature of human beings leading to the problem of recalcitrance (inconsistencies). This is mainly because organisations are made up of individuals whose goals may not necessarily be consistent with the goals of the organisation. The organisations deals with this problem through cooption. This means incorporating or bringing in new elements into the decision making process so as to prevent this from becoming a threat to the survival of the organisation. Selznick illustrated this in his study of the TVA, a development agency created by the US government in 1933. It was a democratic organisation tasked with the development of the area through working with the grassroots level individuals who happened to be poor blacks. However, because the authority’s survival was threatened by the exclusion of rich whites that had the capacity to destroy it, the organisation co-opted them. By co-opting them the authority lost focus and ended up benefiting the powerful whites at the expense of the poor blacks for whom it had been created. The organisation did so because of the need to survive.

Peter Blau’s critique (1963- the dynamics of bureaucracy, 1974 – on the nature of organisations)

He was concerned with the informal aspects of organisations. He criticised Weber’s ideal type for ignoring informal groups. Blau argued that far from creating inefficiency, informal groups actually enhanced efficiency in organisations. He demonstrated this through a study that involved the observation of workers employed to inspect business practices and determine laws dealing with employment standards and the degree of their compliance. Those employed in the study were not supposed to discuss among themselves their observations (because they would influence each other). They were supposed to report all their problems to their superiors. However, workers were afraid to consult their leaders on their problems for fear of being judged incompetent. They decided to consult each other. Because of that it was discovered that workers became more efficient. This was because of 2 main reasons; they saved time by not going to the superior and discussing among themselves. They also were able to increase their information base because they pulled their knowledge and experience together to facilitate problem solving. Therefore instead of creating inefficiency, the unofficial practices led to organisational efficiency.

THE END

1