Bureaucracy and the Church of God

Max Weber was a German sociologist who first described the concept of bureaucracy, an ideal form of organizational structure. He defines bureaucratic administration as the exercise of control on the

The employee devotion to their charismatic leader served as the motivation to perform. “Unlike Weber’s other two types of authority, charismatic authority relies on personal devotion to the figure that possesses the qualities exalted by the followers” (Pellegrino, 2010, p. 65). A flat hierarchy became a part of the work culture, but the owner’s recent retirement created a void within the bakery and exposed a leadership deficit. “Charismatic authority is individually based, and when the charismatic leader leaves the organization, the authority or ability to influence leaves with him or her. Weber believed charismatic authority contributed to unstable organizations and disorderly transition of power from person to another” (Shockley-Zalabak, 2015, p. 76). The leadership void and lack of hierarchy began to erode employee commitment and

However, despite Max Weber’s theory that bureaucracies are like iron “iron cages” that are a efficient form of administration. Prior to modern government reform patronage, spoils, and bribery were just part of the political environment for Public Administrators. In today’s, modern government Public Administrators are hired based on the merit and technical qualifications that secure the individual can carry out the duties of the office. However, Public Administrators are forced to work in a hierarchical organization

Some have seriously misinterpreted Weber and have claimed that he liked bureaucracy, that he believed that bureaucracy was an "ideal" organization. Others have pronounced Weber "wrong" because bureaucracies do not live up to his list of "ideals". Others have even claimed that Weber "invented" bureaucratic organization. But Weber described bureaucracy as an “ideal type” in order to more accurately describes their growth in power and scope in the modern world. His studies of bureaucracy still form the core of organizational sociology.

The environment and the state of affairs in which Max Weber developed the theory of bureaucracy were different from the present welfare states. Modern states are complex and difficult to maintain thus the validity of bureaucracy is questioned in the face of these challenges.

Weber states that organizations regulations are formed by few people and this people are the boss, administration employee who tends to have representation powers (Roth and Wittich, 1968). Weber states that the state tends to use bureaucracy on its people in order to establish authority. Bureaucracy is present in various areas in the environment and once bureaucracy is produced then it becomes difficult to

Weber’s bureaucratic approach focuses on the importance of hierarchy by putting great emphasis on the use of rules, procedures and making impartial personnel decisions when managing. He put great emphasis on the jurisdiction, explaining that work should be “divided according to type and purpose” staying within the correct working unit just as the organization’s rules and laws would state (Milakovich, et. al., 2013, p. 146). A hierarchy would be established with a chain of command clearly identifying a system of super- and

While he highlights a lot of positives, he also saw a lot of issues within bureaucracy. Webers’ bureaucracy is a bottom line model that values calculable decision making over all else. Within this model are the people, or parts, that can be replaced if they cause a decrease in productivity. The issue becomes that the rationalized view of bureaucratic systems is unable to see individuals and respond to individual needs. There is a format and if someone does not fit in, or if they begin to fall behind, there is no understanding or support. His argument is that the bureaucratization of our world has made it depersonalized.

Abstract: The theory of bureaucracy was proposed and published by Marx Weber (1947). Although there are some studies on this perspective were discussed before him, those theories did not form as systematic theory. After Weber, the issue of bureaucracy becomes a hot topic in the field of social organization. Almost all well-known scholars such as Martin and Henri have published their views on it. Bureaucracy adapted as the traditional organizational model during industrial society, essentially, bureaucracy could exist rational. This essay firstly will review the principle of bureaucracy in organization based on organizational design perspective. Secondly, it will analyze the strengths and weakness of

Weber’s second type of influence is charismatic authority. Charismatic authority is characterized by a leader with rare personal features that attract others to them. Charismatic leaders have qualities that are powerful and challenging

Finally, charismatic authority arises in periods of social unrest and change and thus depends not only on the existence of this `exceptional' individual but a social context which produces large numbers of individuals who are `disenchanted' with the present social institutions. Charisma, is in Weber's view ` a great revolutionary force' for social change. Charismatic movements always seek to dismantle or overthrow existing/traditional forms of authority and power. Finally, Weber suggests charismatic authority as inherently unstable since it is usually based upon a `personality cult' of the leader. When the leader dies then the movement will `die' with him/her or ossify and institutionalise itself into what Weber refers to as `the charisma of office': bureaucracy! Look at Fig. 1, (at the bottom of page 2 of this document) which I have taken and adapted from Bryan Turner's book. To understand the historical process we will need to begin with the `magician' and move `clockwise' towards `secular man'.

This authority rests on the appeal of the leader. At the same time this form of authority has its own drawbacks. It is unstable and it deteriorates if the leader is unable to bring about the changes he promised to bring. This is what we concluded from the case study by Rakesh Khurana as well. John McCoy, the CEO of Bank One was a very charismatic leader. He brought about a huge change in the Bank's financial and economic position. His attitude helped the bank to expand and take over First Chicago. But as and when McCoy's attitude changed, people saw a change in the services of Bank One which had started faltering. His laid-back attitude finally led to his removal from the post of CEO by his own board of members.

     Weber identifies several different types of authority. One is traditional legitimacy, which states that authority is bestowed upon someone based on traditional roles of authority, such as the pope or even the parents of children. Charismatic authority tells us that some are granted legitimacy to have authority over our lives by sheer charisma, such as Martin Luther King jr., Adolf Hitler and Gandhi. The third type of authority is rational-legal authority. This states that we grant legitimacy based upon the office they serve. An example of this is the inherent authority of Jesse Ventura over the people of Minnesota, simply because he holds the title of governor.

Since Weber’s first suggestions of a charismatic theory of leadership, many others have built upon his work. Some felt that a charismatic theory of leadership should remain within the confines of a religious context. As more social, political, and organizational scholars adopted and built upon Weber’s work, the religious-only context fell by the wayside. Before proceeding further, the tenets of charismatic leadership theory must be explained.

In the early 1900’s, some of the first ideas were thrown together to allow an organization to flourish in the upcoming modern era. The first theories were known as scientific and classical management, which focused on three separate theories from Frederick Taylor, Henri Fayol, and Max Weber. The three theories have similar ideology in the fact that organization is driven by management authority, employees only source of motivation is money, and organizations are machinelike with employees making up the parts of the machine (Papa, Daniels, & Spiker, 2008). In the Prophecy Fulfilled case study, Mary Ann (senior auditor) takes on a management role with subordinates similar to that of Weber’s Bureaucratic Theory (Daniels 1987, pp. 77-78).