Bureaucratic Management

Bureaucratic management refers to a management style in which strict adherence to law and rules is emphasized, hierarchy is followed and flexibility is not tolerated but rather the following of laid down procedures. Such a style is lacking in terms of ‘enterprising’ freedom and rarely do employees produce or perform to their maximum. In this paper, the bureaucratic management style will be discussed with an aim of highlighting the main characteristics of the bureaucratic style.Secondly an effort will be made in order to establish where the bureaucratic management owes its origin from as well as what factors contributed to the development of the management style. After careful assessment of the system, the author hopes to make a balanced assessment on the appropriateness of the system as well as to briefly compare it to other management systems.As well as discussing the post-bureaucratic management, this paper will highlight the main characteristics of post-bureaucratic t radition as well as making a judgment on its suitability to today’s business and to asses whether it has replaced bureaucratic management. However in this paper neither of the management styles is supported but on the contrary the author raises pertinent issues on the characteristics identified as well as merits. According to, Clegg, Kornberger, and Pitsis, (2005.62-100. ) how values, power, rules and discretion are interconnected determines the performance of the organization and are core to bureaucratic management. Organizational structure forms in bureaucratic management a very critical role. In bureaucratic management, organizational structure is usually rigid and relations amongst workers are determined by their respective positions in the organization something which makes the style very impersonal.Bureaucracy can be said to promote and advocate for the protection of the individual from organizational discrimination something which is favorable especially due to the fac t that, too much vulnerability of a manager to the superiors in the organization may not augur well for managers. In such an environment, management is not affected by secondary factors such as ethnicity, class, gender, economic status and race as rising to such positions does not call for one to be loyal to any senior authority but rather to follow the proper and laid down organizational rules.The above is very crucial for smooth functioning of organizations and makes bureaucratic management very ideal management style. While bureaucratic management instills order and control in an organization, abuse of bureaucracy by managers is always a possibility in bureaucratic management. Although it is counterproductive, bureaucratic management can thrive where staff is keen on following the laid down procedures. Clegg, Kornberger, and Pitsis, (2005.99-108) argues that bureaucracy is too restrictive and rule bound although such claims have been echoed by other critics of bureaucratic manage ment who argue that the above arises due to the fact that, it is based on equality before law, ones qualifications for management positions as well as the fact that it is based on liberal norms, such as equal representation and equal opportunities for all those who qualify. In addition, modern bureaucratic management has tended to encourage gender mainstreaming in the offices.While civilization was a major catalyst for the evolution of bureaucratic management, some have questioned the claim arguing that bureaucratic management at its best fails to be responsive to the fast unfolding scenario of civilization. A major characteristic of bureaucratic management is the fact that they are rule-driven. In fact, organizations which use bureaucratic management style are known to follow properly laid down procedures for executing any function and deviation from such is detrimental and could cost the â€Å"offender his/her job†.Therefore, bureaucratic management depends on strict rule i nterpretation in order to determine what should be done and not done as well as to determine the way forward for the organization. Although there is a clear need nowadays for organizations to be market responsive, bureaucratic management rarely achieves that goal something which can explain why such organizations are fast being avoided by an increasing number of business enterprises and a quite a substantial number of public offices and departments. Clegg, Kornberger, and Pitsis, (2005. 56-79.) warns that the crave to migrate from bureaucratic management to other market responsive management styles may at the long run not achieve the change desired but rather serve to cause a further craving for further management reforms. He further notes that a good understanding as well as knowledge of bureaucracy is necessary if success is to be achieved in management. It’s easiness to implement stems from the fact that since it is naturally founded and deep rooted in the rule of law, it becomes easy for subjects to relate with it and therefore it naturally attracted traditional managers as the ideal type of management in most situations.On top of that, subordinates are more likely to adhere to rules and procedures under bureaucratic management because of the authority the system accords to supervisors over subordinates as compared to other systems which do not accord much power to superiors (Ackroyd, 2002. 80-123). Bureaucratic management mainly conforms to hierarchical structures which have clear defined roles and responsibilities for every single employee in an organization and hence well defined and curved out duties for every single employee.The system also encourages the adherence to rules and therefore career growth, promotions are easy to sort out as every one is often aware of all that is required by the organization in order to be promoted. Like wise, recruitment follows the traditional jobs filling methods in which superiors appoint or interview subordina tes for staffing. Bureaucratic management can cause limitation of individual’s freedom in some cases but that is necessary especially in military organizations which deal with security matters very sensitive and needing much control.Whilst bureaucratic management is grounded on principles aimed at regulating its application it at the same time causes the management to curtail freedom of worker to conduct individual affairs under the desired privacy. In bureaucratic management rules are designed to meet the wishes of the top management and subordinates are expected to comply with orders of superior authorities without questioning something which has led to many people branding the type of management as dictatorial.The fact that it emphasizes the division of businesses into hierarchical thus putting the organization under strict lines in which authority and control is the goal makes the style to loose supporters in the modern business environment. In addition bureaucratic manag ement favors a system whereby, duties, rules and procedures are generally fixed something which is fast loosing support in post bureaucratic management tradition evident in most organizations today.In bureaucratic management, a lot of emphasis is put on experience and qualifications for one to be employed and it is characterized by the supervision of lower and subordinate officers by the higher office. Bureaucratic management is monocractical while office workers or state servants are expected to follow the laid down rules (Clegg, Kornberger, and Pitsis, 2005. 56-79). Another major characteristic of bureaucratic management is that it is characterized by impersonal relationships amongst the workers in the organizations. It is also characterized by the formal division of labor.In the USA evidence of bureaucratic management is seen in the functioning of the government, the Department of Defense as well as in schools and large corporations. Bureaucratic management is different from othe r forms of management such as scientific management in that the latter is more concerned with the association between employees and machines. Other management theorists such as Henri Fayol advocated for administrative management in which emphasis is laid on management functions as well as the roles of managers in the functioning of organizations through the principles of management.Bureaucratic management therefore entails a system whereby the bureaucratic manager at the helm passes judgment and his/her will is followed without compromise. In bureaucratic system, the will of the boss is the authority and their words final and not subject to any challenge. Bureaucratic management does exist even in democratic environment but it calls for a careful balancing in order to achieve positive growth of organizations in terms of functionality of the different departments as well as to ensure orderliness.While bureaucratic management advocates for mandatory adherence to laid down laws and rul es as well as procedures, whenever failure to do so happens, it is met with punishments according to the laid down punishment laws. Bureaucratic management has been accused as a system which discourages one’s freedom space and also for not doing anything to tap the potential in people. Although such accusations are not necessarily true, bureaucratic management cannot be termed as good or bad but rather should be viewed as sometimes the most ideal when some situations prevail.History of bureaucratic management Bureaucratic management can be traced back to military and religious leadership which preceded the emergency of big businesses and organizations ( ). In the pre industrial era when trade was not well organized and little or no industries existed, the need for management existed. Public order was a necessity and therefore there was a need for governments to guarantee that. One method of management came to be very popular especially due to its ability to ensure the smooth running of activities.That called for establishment of law as most of the management then depended on adherence to strict and well laid out rules. Naturally only a bureaucratic management could augur well for managers who did not enjoy today’s access to management tools nor the advantage of technology un like today’s mangers and therefore bureaucratic management which puts little demands on the managers was viewed as the ideal system of management.In the 18th century, the subject of bureaucracy was studied in depth even by fathers of sociology such as Max Weber who supported its adaptation in management due to its suitability to management of large organizations. He contended that for effective management of large organizations, managers needed to be empowered and protected from environmental threats and the only way to do so was to have a management style which was simple but effective.In the 18th century, bureaucratic management gained much acceptance especially from the religious organizations, governments and military due to attributes such as the fact that it is easy to execute functions under bureaucratic management, and the belief that the system is logical as well as the fact that it advocates for procedures. The above factors were favored in order to achieve the smooth running of organizations. In terms of religion, there were in the ancient times religious clergy who due to the role they played in religious festivals were functioning in strict bureaucratic management.The development and division of society into social classes and the widening gap between state and society therefore creating the need for control, enforcement of law and order, introduction of tax collection, all this called for another group known as ‘officials’ to fill the gap of overseeing activities in both public and private business all contributed to the introduction of bureaucratic management. Post-Bureaucratic Management The twin issues of power and k nowledge management are crucial for a post-bureaucratic management system ( ).The fact that in any given organization there is quite a number of contradicting elements, such as human beings with different needs from the organization, the organizational goals which the same human beings must achieve calls for effective organizational management so as to address needs at all levels. While human beings constitute a very important part of the organization, that they must be managed in order to play their roles effectively is a fact that cannot be wished away.Human beings as a key resource in any organization must be managed in every way possible to achieve organizational goals as well as a positive organizational culture, a positive working environment and the achievement of the objectives of the organization. Characteristics of post bureaucratic management. Post bureaucratic management encourages employee participation. Post bureaucratic tradition advocates for a business environment w hereby employees are empowered to contribute in terms of ideas and skills towards the growth and development of the organization.The bureaucratic management style is considerate of the fact that, people are talented differently and rather than suppressing the potential in individuals, management is supposed to discover and nurture any special skills as well as capabilities in the workers or staff through programs such as training and refresher courses. The above is only possible in an environment whereby management encourages its employees to participate fully in the decision making process.In a modern world in which technology especially information technology and internet has changed drastically how business is carried out as well as how people interact, bureaucratic tendencies are fast becoming outdated. The above is a clear sign of a fast changing business world and this is pointing to the fact that time for post bureaucratic management tradition has come. That fact is further s trengthened in view of the concept of globalization which favors the communication structure in many organizations to shift from vertical to horizontal as time plays a crucial role in determining how profitable a company is likely to be.Team work is also another characteristic of post bureaucratic management. While most bureaucratic management systems are a one man show in that, the manager and the superiors are the brains behind every innovation the organization aims to achieve, post bureaucratic management advocates strongly for team spirit. There are numerous benefits associated with team work the most important of all is the synergetic effect that results when staff in an organization function as a whole rather than individuals.Another pointer to the fact that today’s managers have shifted from bureaucratic management to a post bureaucratic management system is the fact that most organizations have dropped the rigidness earlier associated with the decision making process as evident in bureaucratic management in favor of a more flexible decision making system. Today most organizations take less time to make decisions and resolves issues which under the bureaucratic management system would take weeks to settle.The above can be attributed to the involvement of many people in the decision making process as opposed to leaving the function of decision making and deliberations to a small clique of managers. The above coupled with the popularity of being flexible is gaining ground and many organizations are dropping that culture whereby decision making process was inflexible. Open discussion as well as deliberations of issues. In bureaucratic management, management reserves the right to discuss any issues which arise.However in post bureaucratic management, management encourages the participation of all employees in the system before any changes are incorporated. This has become very popular especially with employees as more and more feel important to the o rganization something which boosts employee motivation to work. Today that trend is evident as the use of market research as well as surveys has become very popular as management of most organizations tend to seek for the input of all employees before any major changes are instituted in the organization.It tries to nurture employees into an intellectual capital. There is a growing trend of organizations to nurture and even shop for talented employees in post bureaucratic management. This is in sharp contrast to bureaucratic management in which to fill some vacancies, one has to undergo some rigorous process in the organization so as to achieve promotions. Evidently, an organization’s culture, its systems, as well as the process of effecting change are very crucial for organizations nowadays.Therefore today’s managers play a very important role in management of organizations. While in bureaucratic management, the use of mediation apparatus, theories of management, busin ess tools, the use of decision support systems and also other tools such as white boards is not very common, in the recent times that have become a key part of management process. That is yet another pointer to the fact that, organizations are drastically shifting to post bureaucratic management tradition and practices.With analytical business tools such as SWOT analysis, balanced scorecard, porters 7 principles and PEST analysis constantly being applied by business that points to yet a drifting away pattern from bureaucratic management to post bureaucratic management. Post bureaucratic management is based in the belief that the production of knowledge is a process which can be learnt and perfected while bureaucratic management proponent believe that it production of knowledge is a social practice in which individual people performance rather than teams is more important.There is clear evidence today that, organizations are laying more importance to team work and communal spirit rat her than individual effort. Post bureaucratic management is the undisputed and ideal management system that can save organizations from the effects of today’s business challenges as well as solve and counter challenges of this global knowledge based economy in which the rate of discoveries, innovativeness and the crave to be ahead of others is forming the centre piece of organizations.The amount of administration related duties in the contemporary society is evidence enough for the continuing relevance of bureaucratic management in the post-modernism era. There is an increased relevance businesses are attaching to division of labour coupled with the growth of multinational companies with extremely enormous sales turnover. Future without Bureaucratic Management Many have experimented with the idea of a future without bureaucratic management in that there will be a minimal need for supervision due to a highly responsible and self disciplined society.Although the above argument leaves more on socialism ideals it is however a feasible possibility. Modern bureaucratic management has been applauded for being impersonal. Comparison between bureaucratic management and post bureaucratic management The advent of mass production catalyzed the introduction of post bureaucratic management due to the high demand put on the organizations in terms of production as well as the need for routines and procedures in production.The advancement of technology has led many to imagine that bureaucracy would be abandoned. However the truth of the matter is that no matter how high technology has contributed to the mechanization of production the need for workers is still very evident. This is due to the fact that still people are needed to operate the technological equipment in the design of the computer systems so central to today’s organizations as well as to oversee the process of production. Therefore, bureaucracy remains very relevant in the post-bureaucratic era.Burea ucratic management is characterized by high costs making it a less ideal management Accusations against bureaucratic management it is rigid in decision making hence slowing down the decision making process. The fact that officials feel threatened by lack of adherence to rules may affect unity of the organization as suspicion is likely to arise. Bureaucratic management has been accused of being insensitive to morals. Bureaucratic leadership does not encourage empowerment of followers.Bureaucracy leads to a lot of dependency on a few people to chart the way forward for an organisation even when it is clear that contribution of subordinates may matter. Bureaucratic management suppresses talent and while it may augur well for governments its effectiveness for private business is questionable. Bureaucratic management is accused of being inflexible and that it is argued that it would affect economic growth were it to be implemented in wholesome therefore compared to entrepreneurship and i n a capitalistic setting bureaucratic management may not be ideal in some cases.While bureaucratic management advocates for high levels of accountability, post-modernism management dwells on employee capability unlike bureaucratic management which emphasizes on employee competence. While bureaucratic management lays emphasis on age in terms of who is allocated the more complex work and is likely to be promoted, post-modernism lays more emphasis on the capability of people to analytically resolve matters inspite of experience or their age.Bureaucratic management lays emphasis on the organizational design, that is structure in terms of roles and responsibilities, on top of that, the mode adopted by an organization in as far as decision making process is concerned as well as the style of human resource management is concerned it is very rigid for bureaucratic management. The governance of human resource in post-modern management is accommodative. Post-modernism management puts a lot of emphasis in cultural relevance to organisation management but bureaucratic management comes short of this.Bureaucratic management lays emphasis on value such as responsibility, loyalty and accountability as well as adherence to fixed rules ad regulations. Bureaucratic management puts more emphasis on the existence of formal authority to superiors. Bureaucratic demands for obedience of higher authority. In bureaucratic management, emphasis is laid on the monopolization of information by the top hierarchy. Promotion process is clear, thus moving up the corporate ladder is something which follows certain pre-set patterns.The decision making process is often pegged on fixed steps. There is emphasis on equality at work, because of emphasis on vertical communication there are clear set boundaries which are very hard to break in bureaucratic management. Post-bureaucratic Management emphasizes on role of dialogue amongst people as opposed to the authority imposing their word and therefore consensus is achieved through involvement of dialogue. Unlike in bureaucratic management whereby internal trust is not critical, post-modern management thrives on high level of loyalty from subordinates.The migration from bureaucratic management has been occasioned by the introduction of market reforms. In addition, it is not easy to permeate boundaries as vertical communication is highly valued unlike in post bureaucratic management where there is a high degree of information sharing. The decision making process in post-bureaucratic management is highly flexible. Unlike in bureaucratic management in which things remain the same for long periods, in post modern management change is often welcome.Bureaucratic management has been accused of lacking in terms of motivation to employees. Conclusion From the above discussion it is evident that bureaucratic management is totally irrelevant relevant to today’s management. It has for long been used in both public and private managemen t. The major characteristics of bureaucratic management identified above are, that is highly pegged on rules and roles, adherence to strict procedures, and it is hierarchical, that it does not call for loyalty as well as the fact that it is not flexible.On the other hand post bureaucratic management is more flexible, it advocates for loyalty and internal trust, it is permeable and not rigid, it is not hierarchical and finally it encourages open discussions in as far as decision making process is concerned. References Ackroyd, S. (2002. 80-123). The Organization of Business, Oxford. OUP. Clegg, S. R. , M. Kornberger, and T. S. Pitsis (2005. 56-79). Management and Organizations: An Introduction to Theory and Practice, London: Sage Word Count: 3,697 words. Bureaucratic Management Under industrialisation, bureaucracy was the dominant form of organisation and management. The factory was designed to produce standardised products; the bureaucracy was designed to produce standardised decisions. Many major corporations of today developed in an industrial society, based on a bureaucratic model of machine-like division of function, routine activity, regularity, seeming permanence, and a long vertical hierarchy. For a long time bureaucracy thrived in a world of mass markets, uniform goods and services, and long production lines.During the 1990’s, however, the top-down bureaucratic and authoritarian style of management began yielding to a networking style of management. Horizontal communication in a networked environment is freer and more fluid, with few bureaucratic barriers. In the new style of management, people learn from one another, peer to peer; everyone is a resource for everyone else, and each person gets support and assistance from many different direc tions.Interestingly, the corporations of today are only getting ever bigger, and yet in most of these organisations that demand more than simple mechanical work from the employees, alternatives to bureaucratic form of management are being actively explored and experimented with. Bureaucratic management is one of the three branches of the traditional approach to management. The other two are scientific management and administrative management.All the three emerged around the turn of the 20th century as theorised models. The traditional styles of management aimed at getting the organisation run like a lubricated, smooth-running machine. It may also be noted that while the first systematic theory of bureaucratic management originated from Germany, scientific management or Taylorism emerged from the United States, and the theoretical system of administrative management had its roots in France.These so-called traditional approaches to management as well as the other approaches such as be havioural approach, systems approach, contingency approach, and quality approach — all of them developed based on varying assumptions about the behaviour of people in organisations vis-a-vis the key goals of an organisation, the types of problems faced vis-a-vis the methods to reach to their solutions. All these various approaches to management have contributed in their own ways to development of modern management thought, and continue to influence managers' thinking in the modern corporate context.However, of all these traditional and non-traditional management approaches, the bureaucratic form can be considered the earliest and still the most commonly prevalent. In many ways, it is also the most outdated. Bureaucratic form of management is based on the use a set of rather rigid rules. There is a clear hierarchical order involved, an unambiguous division of labor, and a detailed system of procedures of transaction. Bureaucracy existed for centuries in different forms and in different contexts, but a word for it did not exist until the mid-18th century (Walker 2001).Coined by a French Physiocrat, ‘bureaucracy’ literally meant â€Å"government by desk. † Today, the name of Max Weber (1864 – 1920) is most closely associated with bureaucratic management. Weber did the foundational work on the development of the mechanistic industrial organisation form, the bureaucracy. He was a German social historian whose works began to be widely recognised only from the mid-twentieth century, when they were translated into English. Weber based his studies significantly on his observations of the governmental bureaucracy that existed in Germany during his time.He is today considered as one of the pioneering sociologists, and his study of bureaucracy forms part of a much wider framework of social theory that concerns general social and economic issues facing society. Weber’s concept of bureaucratic management provides a functional model o n how a large-scale organisation should operate efficiently. Weber observed parallels between the mechanisation of industry and the proliferation of machine-like bureaucratic form of organisation. He noted that the bureaucratic form routinises the process of administration exactly as the machine routinises production.This was a logical outgrowth of the thinking of the time; an industrial revolution, with mechanised productive apparatus (one form), would naturally inspire a mechanised organisation (another form) to complement it. In Weber's work we find the first comprehensive description of the bureaucratic form as one that emphasises speed, efficiency, clarity, regularity, reliability and precision. As the Industrial Revolution got underway in the United States this form was ideally suited to the situational constraints of the era (Banner 1995).For a long time now, the very word bureaucracy has had many negative connotations, but as originally envisaged by Weber, it was a strong po sitive force for bringing order and coherency into the running of an organisation, based on the cornerstones of efficiency, stability, consistency and predictability. Weber's model stipulates seven essential characteristics for a well-functioning bureaucracy. These characteristics join together to a form of management style that emphasises regulation and control, even at the cost of being rigid and non-conducive to individual initiative and innovation.These characteristics are: a formal system of rules, impersonality, division of labour, hierarchical structure, an elaborate authority structure, lifelong career commitment, and rationality (Hellriegel et al, 2005). Rules: These are formal guidelines imposing order on the activity of the employees, providing a discipline that can help an organisation to run smoothly and reach its goals. Bureaucracy is rule-based governance. It can be viewed as an institutional method for applying general rules to specific cases, in order to make the ac tions of people working in an organisation fair, equitable and predictable (Wilson 1989) .The rule of rules brings uniformity of procedures and operations, facilitating organisational stability and integrity, making the work of an organisation relatively immune to erraticness of individual behaviour of the employees or the management. Mises (1969) observes the following on the importance of rules and regulations in bureaucratic organisation: Bureaucratic management is management bound to comply with detailed rules and regulations fixed by the authority of a superior body. The task of the bureaucrat is to perform what these rules and regulations order him to do.His discretion to act according to his own best conviction is seriously restricted by them. Impersonality: This means objectivity. Employee performance is evaluated and issues are resolved in as objective manner as possible. Although this term may sound intimidating, Weber viewed the objectiveness ensuing from adherence to rul es and impersonality as essential to guarantee fairness for all employees — eliminating personal bias and favouritism from the system. Division of Labour: The overwhelming importance of this concept of course originated in economics, with Adam Smith and others, in the early nineteenth century.Division of labour promotes efficiency. A high degree of compartmentalisation of work in a precise manner enables a medium to large-scale organisation to use its workforce efficiently. Everyone is circumscribed to perform duties on the basis of his or her own field of expertise. Further, by splitting a large task into much smaller and more easily manageable parts, and assigning each part to an individual, the ease of learning and carrying out that each divided segment of the task is enhanced. At the expense of possible monotony and tedium, the principle of division emphasises efficiency and output.Narrow division of labor also makes it easier to replace the employees, especially in facto ries that involve routine, mechanical tasks. Hierarchy: The traditional pyramid-shaped hierarchical structure positions each employee at a level commensurate with the amount of authority he or she exerts in the job. This authority can be equated to the scope of decision-making power of the employees, and increases at each higher level of the pyramid. People in the higher levels direct the work of people at lower level positions.A well-defined hierarchy can bring clarity in an employee's relationship and responsibility towards his or her work as well as well as towards other employees in the organisation. Hierarchy establishes a chain of command through superior and subordinate levels, helping ensure a smooth flow of work. Hierarchy is also based on a sharp distinction between the management and the workers. Bureaucracy's fundamental tenet has been that the job of the management is to design and coordinate workers' jobs (Pinchot, Pinchot, 1993).Hierarchy, like rule-orientation, divis ion and a number of other characteristics of bureaucracy, is a common feature of any social organisation and has been so throughout human history, but all these characteristics are particularly stressed upon in a bureaucratic setting within an organisation. The intensity with which these features are emphasised differentiates an organisation with a high bureaucratic structure from another with a low bureaucratic structure, which together form the two ends of a continuum.Authority Structure: This is merely another way of looking at the hierarchical nature of bureaucracy. Authority structure refers to a clear association of people and their scope of decision-making power at various levels within the organisation. The authority-structure can be based on different criteria. Weber identified three types of authority structures (Hellriegel et al, 2005): a) Traditional authority structure: This is based on custom, gender, seniority, birth order, ancestry, and so on.The succession of kings, and the authority of the king, in various cultures throughout the history of humanity, for example, was primarily based on such criteria. A king inherited and wielded power simply because it was his birthright. b) Charismatic structure: Within any group or organisation, some people can exert a predominant influence by virtue of their charisma or special talents, although technically speaking they are not superior to their co-workers. Charisma can come into play inside a bureaucratic organisation also, although mostly not as a primary determinant of leadership but a complementary one.c) Rational-legal authority: Bureaucratic organisations for the most part tend to rely on this form of authority where leadership is defined in a framework of rules and regulations. A superior's orders are complied with because of his or her position in the formal hierarchical structure of an organisation, and not because of some special abilities or privileges he or she may possess. Though authority ma y be based on a rational basis, bureaucratic management is fairly authoritarian, and many people would resent this.By its very nature, bureaucracy is a structure defined by chains of dominance and submission (Pinchot, Pinchot, 1993). Lifelong Career Commitment: Traditionally, typical large-scale bureaucratic organisations emphasised stability, order and steady progress. They did not attract potential employees by offering a promise of adventure, excitement and rapid rise as many modern-day software companies are prone to do, for instance. Instead, their allure was job security together with slow and steady salary increases for deserving candidates.The opportunity for promotion is used as the main incentive to ensure that the employees perform satisfactorily. Though the notion of lifelong commitment looks completely outmoded and out of place in most modern business organisations surviving in turbulent ever-changing market conditions, it still prevails in many Japanese or South Korean organisations such as Toyota or Samsung, and can be seen in many governmental bureaucracies in the West, such as the postal service or the civil service. When an employee joins these services, virtually a permanent employee contract is being made.Rationality: It is the orderly and efficient allocation of financial and human resources to achieve the desired ends. In principle, managers operating in a bureaucratic environment are supposed to take decisions logically and scientifically. All the other characteristics of bureaucracy, such as division of labour and hierarchy, are meant to promote the element of rationality within the mechanisms and dynamics of the organisation. Rationality also implies assigning specific goals to each division of the organisation in such a manner that, working together, all these various divisions accomplish the larger goal of the organisation.Rationality, based on goal-directed activity, gives more chance for an organisation to be successful. The bureau cratic form of management is best suitable when routine or repetitive tasks need to be done in an efficient and consistent manner. Adhering to rules and regulation by the employees in performing tasks ensures quality and quantity of output. In fact, phenomenal amounts of work can be accomplished when the bureaucratic structure is effectively deployed and the management is run in a streamlined manner.But these very same aspects of bureaucratic management that can foster efficiency in one setting can lead to ponderousness and inefficiency in another. Though vertical and rigid bureaucratic structure is dismissed as a viable basis for an increasing number of vast thriving multinationals of today which put a special premium on innovation and change or adapting to change, it had indeed been adopted widely in the commercial and industrial sector until the recent decades. Max Weber viewed bureaucracy as a ‘rational' instrument for collective achievement.And even Joseph Schumpeter (188 3-1950) who was a pioneering researcher in the field of entrepreneurship, and who extensively studied the role of the entrepreneur as an innovator, defended Weber's position on bureaucracy (Wood 1991). Though Schumpeter believed that bureaucracy can lead to efficient allocation of resources, other major thinkers in this field such as Hayek and Mises rejected such a possibility. Mises (1969) held the position that bureaucratic management is â€Å"management of affairs which cannot be checked by economic calculation.† Therefore, he argued that it is only suitable for public administration and not private enterprises driven by the overriding profit motive. However, even in the conduct of public affairs, down the decades, bureaucratic style of management has become associated with maladministration, corruption, irresponsibility, wastefulness, inefficiency, slackness, tardiness, and red tape across the majority of the countries of the world. Schumpeter lauded many features of bure aucracy, but also recognized its limitations. He also commended Hayek for his presentation of dangers in bureaucratic planning and management (Wood, 1991).. Though bureaucratic management has been much maligned, and for good reasons, the fact is that many successful organisations have been successful over generations very much under tight bureaucratic patterns of organisation and control (Pinchot, Pinchot, 1993). The bureaucratic management structure emerged in the most distant past of human history, from the time a higher social order emerged among clusters of people, and is still the most widely prevalent form of management, though there is a pronounced tendency to loosen its seemingly rigid grip.Karl Marx traced the origin of bureaucracy to four sources: religion, the formation of the state, commerce and technology (Wikipedia 2006). Bureaucratic structures existed in religious institutions, as those in Egypt and Greece, thousands of years ago. But bureaucracy primarily evolved as the state apparatus evolved with the growing complexity of the civil society. Over a thousand years ago, the Chinese had in place an elaborate centralised bureaucratic structure to manage the affairs of the state.In the medieval times, new administrative structures were needed to meet the growing demands made upon central government in Europe (Argyle 1994). In fact, bureaucracy was the default style of administration and management until the modern times. It was so easy and common for bureaucratic structures to prevail and proliferate because, ultimately, the top-down hierarchical pattern of management was rooted in the human psychology. But human psychology is changing. For example, for centuries, people desired to have a father-figure in the form of a king to rule and protect them.They did not consider it dehumanizing to be subjected to an arbitrary ruler. However, to the enlightened sensibilities of people during the modern epoch which can be said to have gradually emerged from the times of Renaissance and Reformation and fully flowered in the twentieth century, the notion of being ruled by a king who possessed some divine right would seem abhorrent. Similarly, being dominated by the superiors from all quarters may have been quite acceptable to the majority of employees until very recently.But workers of the â€Å"knowledge era† prefer to be individualistic, independent or working in a team of peers as far as possible. Bureaucracy flourished in an age of mechanisation, but today ideas and creativity are in high demand, and corporations find it making more economical sense than ever to nurture a work culture that is anti-bureaucratic. Bureaucracy is past-oriented in many ways, and innovation is thoroughly future-oriented. At its very root, the entrepreneurial process of innovation and change is at odds with the administrative process of ensuring repetitions of the past.Structures and practices that may work well for the perpetuation of the known are not generally conducive to the process of innovation. In their book, The End of Bureaucracy & the Rise of the Intelligent Organization, Pinchot and Pinchot (1993) note that bureaucracy is no more appropriate to the sophisticated work culture of today than serfdom was to the factory work of the early Industrial Revolution. New forms of organisation are emerging, but to sustain them in the long run is a different proposition.The mega corporations of today are intrinsically geared towards efficiency, but increasingly they will now need to also master creativity in order to survive. There is a dilemma here. Firms will not survive in the long run unless they are proficient at exploring new technologies, and they will not survive in the short run unless they are proficient at exploiting existing technologies. Herein lies a great dichotomy at the heart of modern business organisation. A dynamic balance has to be struck between a host of conflicting factors.In their constant quest for manag ing the balance between centralisation and decentralisation, between interdependence and diversity, between integration and flexibility, and between control and creativity, large organisations still manifest a strong tendency to favor efficiency and productivity gains over and above creativity and innovation (Johansen 2003). The rational-bureaucratic model of organisation still remains dominant, although there is a clear paradigm-shift in management practices.In many large organisations, which happen to be inherently bureaucratic, one would find a plethora of ideas and potential ideas that go unnoticed because there are some structural impediments to their realisation, or little or no incentive for employees to bring such ideas forth. For instance, incentive structures in large firms are designed to minimise surprises, yet innovation is inherently full of the unexpected. From a managerial point of view too, the reward system for general managers is typically based upon annual profit s or ROI of corporate resources managed.They are therefore rewarded for achieving short- rather than long-term profit. Moreover, apart from the greater inherent risks involved, the rewards associated with the profits from any longer-term, more radical innovations are unlikely to accrue to the manager originally involved in initiating a novel project, since he or she is likely to have moved on to other responsibilities before they are achieved. As such, innovative efforts often fall through the cracks inherent in most large organisations.In fact, in these organisations there could usually be strong â€Å"disincentives† for innovative activities (Martin 1997). If hierarchy was central to traditional organisation, the lack of hierarchy is central to innovative organisation. As for division of labour, Jaffee (2001) observes that, In the postbureaucratic organization, social and functional integration takes precedence over differentiation and specialization. The postbureaucratic o rganisation is much flatter , with fewer levels of managers.Most work will be horizontal knowledge work performed by multidisciplinary teams. Rather than satisfying their immediate supervisor (vertical relationship), team members concentrate on satisfying he needs of the next person in the process (horizontal relationship). Teams will be given considerable autonomy and will be expected to carry out the intent of the company's mission and vision. Project managers and network managers will replace most of the middle managers and functional staff in the traditional bureaucratic-style organisation.Companies can only succeed by tapping the talent and dedication of their people and by combining that talent and dedication in a team effort. The building of trust is emphasised in innovative enterprises. Politics, infighting, and departmental jealousies that are common features of bureaucracies are to be minimised. Leaders work hard to earn their team mates' trust and vice versa, thus creatin g conditions in which trust can flourish. In such dynamic companies, there is widespread enthusiasm, a spirit of doing whatever it takes to achieve organisational success (Martin 1997).