Governmental Regulation And “Red Tape” Is Often The Target

There is a plethora of criticisms about the effectiveness of the Bureaucracy. Even during the 19th century, as Wilson writes, the Post Office “was an organization marred by inefficiency and corruption”. With an appointment standard such as the “spoils system”, where individuals or groups are granted high level positions based on political favors alone, corruption is almost a certainty. The political aspect of the Bureaucracy was prevalent in the military for over 100 years, as Wilson states “the size and deployment of the military establishment in this country was governed entirely by decisions made by political leaders on political grounds”. Political favors and factors plague our government, including the Bureaucracy. A by-product of these political favors and corruptions are stagnancy and mediocrity. An example of this, as

In his book, Bureaucracy: What Government Agencies do and why they do it, James Q. Wilson’s main objective is to better define the behavior of governmental bureaucracy, believing traditional organizational and economic theory does not adequately explain their actions. Wilson believes that government agencies are doomed to be perceived as inefficient entities by the public. He gives examples of commonly held perceptions of bureaucracies and reveals how these are mostly misconceptions. He points to the environment of bureaucracy, where rules and procedures, dictate goals, along with context, constraints, values, and norms.

Theory X takes the position that the average human being is “lazy and self-centered, lacks ambition, dislikes changes and longs to be told what to do” (Stewart, 2010). It portrays the perspective that a worker avoids responsibility and has to be controlled every step of the work process. There is little to no delegation of

Regulating a variety of aspects of business and society is an old and often controversial aspect of government, particularly at the national level. Much of what the national government does, or fails to do, has an impact on individual citizens, private corporations and other business enterprises, agricultural producers and marketers, foreign governments, labor unions, and state and local governments.

The federal bureaucracy is the group of government organizations that implement policy. The federal bureaucrats belong, for the most part, to the group of government agencies led by the president’s cabinet (the collection of appointed officials tasked with leading various federal government departments such as the State Department, Department of Homeland Security etc.) (Geer et al.). These department heads, known as cabinet secretaries, are appointed by each new president. The federal bureaucracy is responsible for writing regulations that implement the laws. In this, the federal bureaucracy’s importance cannot be understated. Congress passes laws, the president signs them, but it is the responsibility of the bureaucracy to actually implement them in the most effective, unburdening way.

The above model draws form ORGANIZATIONAL BEHAVIOR, Understanding and Managing Life at Work, EIGHTH EDITION by Gary Johns and Alan Saks and has been trifurcated stage wise in relation to the game, Forbidden Island.

Bureaucrat is a dirty word to some people in modern society, so how can a bureaucracy be a good thing? Many Public Administration theorist, argue that bureaucracy is essential to the growth and expansion of the United States. Most of the criticism of the bureaucracy within the government is based on myth versus reality. Federal agencies play a critical and a valuable role within society and are indispensable to the operations of the federal government. Bureaucracy can be simply defined as the system in which decision are made by Public Administrators rather than elected officials (legislator) within the government. However, when the average citizen of just says the single word bureaucracy thoughts and images of evoked over how negative

The word “bureaucracy” has a negative connotation to many people. The fact is that our current system of government would not be able to survive without bureaucracies. The bureaucracy has become the “fourth branch” of the government, it has quasi-legislative and judicial powers and in it’s own field its authority is rarely challenged. The presence of these large, inefficient structures is necessary if the American people want to continue receiving the benefits that they expect.

Americans depend on government bureaucracies to accomplish most of what we expect from government, and we are oftentimes critical of a bureaucracy’s handling of its responsibilities. Bureaucracy is essential for carrying out the tasks of government. As government bureaucracies grew in the twentieth century, new management techniques sought to promote greater efficiency. The reorganization of the government to create the Department of Homeland Security and the Bush administration’s simultaneous push to contract out jobs to private employers raises the question as to whether the government or the private sector can best manage our national security. Ironically, the criticism of the bureaucracy may be a product

Bureaucracy was one of the most popular theories developed and is used in some modern organisations such as the NHS and the Police. Through the years bureaucracy has developed a bad reputation for de-humanizing jobs (Grey, 30) “In the ideal-type, people are no more than parts in a well-oiled machine –devoid of passion, prejudice and personality”, although some people prefer this structure (Handy, 22) “No one, it seems, approves of bureaucracy except, interestingly, lots of people in organisations who like to know where they stand.”

The whole purpose of the bureaucracy is to be organized and handle the government and businesses in an appropriate manner. People just have had bad experiences with the bureaucracy, of course mostly everyone will have a negative view. The comprehensive satisfaction with the programs of this government think that the hostility to the bureaucracy is because of the antigovernment attitude.

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

approach (Armstrong, 2003, pp. 217-230). According to both of these theories ‘people only work for

McGregor (1960a) assumed workers refer to Theory X are lazy, hate to work, responsibility aversion and more concern about lower levels of human needs rather than pursuing self-achievement. McGregor (1960a) suggests that managers should supervise and control the workers in order to adjust their behaviour and neutralise heir negative attitudes toward work, even punish and push them to achieve a minimal level of performance. Punishment is necessary because of the nature of inherently lazy. Managers would find encouraging them to perform better by reward maybe only valid in a short-term as lazy workers eventually submit adequate effort as they do not pursuit self-actualisation (McGregor 1960a). in a word, managers centralise the decision making power, set rules, SOPs and procedures to guide workers what they should process and monitor the process in order to safeguard the minimal requirement of performance is achieved

The terms have gained some currency although, from a theoretical point of view, the underlying conflicts and tensions contained within the models have not been sufficiently explored and, from a practical perspective, available empirical evidence would suggest that neither model accurately represents what is happening within organizations (Storey 1992; Wood 1995). This leads us to