Max Weber's Theory Of Bureaucracy

Bureaucracy exists to organize states and keep them working as efficiently as possible. Max Weber claims that bureaucracies are the most efficient form of organization due to control, hierarchy, and predictability. Bureaucracies are created to give authority and power over others, specialize in certain tasks, and restrict individuals through regulations and laws. However, as Kettl makes it clear that this organization is not easy to maintain. According to Kettl, it is important to for citizens and the government to have a relationship with each other (2017, 3). In bureaucracies, there is not much room for a healthy relationship between citizens and the government because the two can be constantly in disagreement about issues – there may

Weber identified the significance of bureaucracy within organizations. Within the bureaucratic organization there is a stratification of hierarchy where the legal legitimate authority is invested in individuals who exercise command on the basis of rules and not on the basis of personal authority (Morrison, 2006). Legitimate authority within a bureaucratic organization aims to remove the subjectivity and unpredictability of human action thus decisions are made and behaviours implemented in a

The purpose of this essay is to analyse Weber’s theory of authority and power in order to establish its role in the modern contemporary world today. Weber, in his most acclaimed writings, discusses his three ideal types of authority being outlined as traditional, charismatic and rational-legal authority. He believes that in order for any political leader or political establishment to hold legitimate authority over its peoples, they must have either one of these types of authority. All of these types of power and authority can be referred to in some way in today’s contemporary world using examples of differing political leaders and systems. However, Weber’s writings were conducted in 1922 and may be considered as out-dated, and not as relevant as they were at his time of writing. Also, many dispute that Weber’s types of authority were perhaps not entirely relatable and Martin Spencer, like many other critics of Weber’s work in fact argue that there should have been four types of authority. Hence why these issues must be discussed in order to conclude whether Weber’s ideal types of authority are representative of political leaders and governments, and whether or not they can be associated with the contemporary world we live in today.

The most prominent model of bureaucracy was formulated by German Sociologist Max Weber during the nineteenth century. Webster’s model was formulated from the rampant patronage systems that existed during his time. Webster’s model proposed a solution for more professionally and efficiently managed merit-based organizations.Webster’s model however, represented a broad framework rather than an all encompassing model, complete in every detail.The central goal of Webster’s model was to make possible an optimum degree of control.Weber's bureaucratic theory emphasized the need for a hierarchical structure of power. It recognized the importance of division of labor and specialization. A formal set of rules was bound into the hierarchy structure to insure stability and uniformity. Weber also put forth the notion that organizational behavior is a network of human interactions, where all behavior could be understood by looking at cause and effect. He prescribed these five key elements(1) division of labor and functional specialization, (2) hierarchy, (3) maintenance of files and other records, and

“Once fully established, bureaucracy is among those social structures which are hardest to destroy. Bureaucracy is the means of transforming social action into rationally organized action. Therefore, as an instrument of rationally organizing authority relations, bureaucracy was and is a powerful instrument of the first order for one who controls the bureaucratic apparatus. Under otherwise equal conditions, rationally and directed action (Gesellschaftshandeln) is superior to every kind of collective behavior (Massenhandeln) and also social action (Gemeinschaftshandeln) opposing it. Where administration has been completely bureaucratized, the resulting system of domination is practically indestructible,” (Weber, 1922, p.336-337).

Surprisingly when reading Bureaucracy and Democracy by William T. Gormley Jr. and Steven J. Balla the authors give a better understanding of how bureaucracy and democracy play apart in everyday life. This is not your average dry college text book. At first glance, it can be daunting to read as it focuses on the four-main parts of social scientific theories. As you continue to read you will discover stories though out the book on different situations, how to handle them, and your role as a public administer.

According to Weber, “it is possible to identify four different bases or reasons for economic and social actions: traditions (i.e., what is customary), values (i.e., what is moral), affect (i.e., how one feels), and rational calculation (i.e., the most efficient means to a given end)” (Godard, 38). With regards to rational calculation, Weber insists it becomes increasingly predominant, as does bureaucracy – which is an example of calculative rationality. To explain his point, Weber states, “the purely bureaucratic type of administrative organization is, from a purely technical view, capable of attaining the highest degree of efficiency and is in this sense formally the most rational known means of exercising authority over human beings” (Godard, 38). Weber’s view explains bureaucracy as a well developed system of rules and procedures, with a clearly established hierarchy of authority. For Weber, there is a “paradox of consequences” related to the economic and social outcomes of bureaucracy and authority. These consequences can be related to corruption, in essence, because the weakening of democracy and a finer concentration of power, allows for a greater chance for corruption to occur. Linking to my previous point regarding one clique dominating power in a union, “members of the bureaucratic elite control information and channels of communication in

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.

References Al-Wagdani, A. M. (2010). A Reconstruction of Max Weber's Theory of Bureaucracy. Journal Of King Abdulaziz University: Arts & Humanities, 18(1), 1-46. doi:10.4197 / Art.

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

1. The goal of bureaucracy system is to implement three things, which are implementation, administration, and regulation. When the congress passes a law it carries policies and settles guidelines. The bureaucracy has flexibility. The reason for bureaucracy is to collect fees, give test, and handling permits. It makes regulations by a process which is rule making. The regulations are taken to court and are not in effect until everyone agrees that the problem has been taken care of.

In this essay, I will discuss the variables that shape people’s minds about the role of bureaucracy. In the first section of this paper I will define bureaucracy with special emphasis on the United States (U.S.) government. Then, in the second section of this paper, I will list and analyze the factors that people perceive as negative in the development of bureaucracy. Lastly, in the last section of this paper, I will mention a few elements that the correct exercise of bureaucracy does right.

Through analyzing the written works of Max Weber’s Types of Legitimate Domination and Bureaucracy to C. Wright Mills’ The Sociological Imagination, the writings of the comparative authors reveal the domination of power in a socially constructed society and the way that individuals are influenced by the constructed hierarchy of power. Through sociological analysis, these concepts can be applied to the ways individuals are continuously influenced through socially constructed institutions in a society where individuals constantly interact with one another. As Mills and Weber apply sociological analysis to the context of their observations, they are able to observe the growing positive and negative influences that ultimately shape the

Nowadays bureaucracy is so assimilated in every aspect of our lives that isn’t not spoken about. Nonetheless, Graeber argues that

This essay is an attempt to understand how the merits of Weberian bureaucracy are compromised in the caste bound bureaucracy of India. It’s an attempt to sensitise the reader towards promoting merits instead of kinship and nepotism; and thus not depriving any individual based on their caste.