beauracrativ stucture and personality
This document examines the structure of bureaucracy and attempts to explain why it dysfunctions. Based on secondary sources, Robert K. Merton tries to show that bureaucracy can not be very effective in practice as it creates over-conformity and trained incapacity. The personalities of people clash with the bureaucratic structure and so the ideal bureaucracy can not exist. Merton brings to light the sources of over conformity, so in view of this, another aim of the article would be for us to come up with its possible solution.
Bureaucracy comprises of a formal, rationally organised social structure with a hierarchy and clear-cut divisions governed by rules, to efficiently achieve the goals of an organisation. The formality within the organisation reduces private conflicts and stabilises interactions between different departments.
The bureaucrats are appointed and they command the authority and privileges associated with their office, to carry out specific duties.
Bureaucracies control the bureaucrats by providing the tools by which people need to work and live, which bureaucrats no longer own. Therefore, long tenures of bureaucratic offices is expected regardless of external factors.
For bureaucracy to succeed, discipline of following routines is necessary. However, overstressing the importance of discipline displaces the actual goal, whereby the discipline becomes the end itself rather than the means to the end. This leads to rigidity, or the inability to adapt to changes in reality. Veblen calls this “trained incapacity”.
Incentives given by the organisation, for adherence to rules and motivating employees, can be a structural source of over conformity. Employees develop the sense of common destiny by working together, which decreases in-group conflicts. Pride of craft is another source, which resists change.
Relationship with the public is depersonalised in bureaucracy, and individual cases are categorised. This results in conflicts between the client and bureaucrat. The client sees the bureaucrat as representative of the whole organisation regardless of his position in the hierarchy. Within the bureaucratic structure, conflicts occur when differentiation in the performance of employees occur. The failure to conform to the norms, is viewed in disapproving light.
In order to prove that bureaucracy dysfunctions, Merton uses secondary data. He does not conduct any interviews or questionnaires himself, but builds upon other peoples’ theories. He uses Veblen’s concept of “trained incapacity” and Dewey’s notion of “occupational psychosis” to back up his idea that goals are displaced by means.
He uses other people’s empirical findings to illustrate this further. For example, Bernt Balchen didn’t meet the criteria for American citizenship, due to the fact that he was not deemed to be on American soil even when he was out of the country on an American expedition. This demonstrates that so much importance was placed on the rules that, the end itself was lost.
Merton brings forward the thought that depersonalisation of relationships with the public contributes to trained incapacity. Here again he has built upon a credible theory to put forward his own ideas, so that they can be appreciated!
He defines different sources of over conformity. Sources, which include, incentives given by organisations for adherence to rules, [next page]