Bureaucracy

Another sweeping social change that evoked comment from intellectuals was the entrenchment of bureaucracy. We all know the word, but how do we define it sociologically? Briefly, a bureaucracy is an organization or social structure with the following elements:

• standardized rules and procedures;
• written records;
• hierarchy;
• a specialized division of labor; and
• formal duties.

Most of us spend a great deal of our waking hours in contact with bureaucracies. Universities and many of the organizations in which we work are considered bureaucracies. Unless your work organization is very small, chances are you work in a bureaucracy. Our local, state, and federal governments operate as bureaucracies as well. It was not always the case that bureaucracy was a way of life. In fact, the development of bureaucracy was another one of those social changes (like waged employment) that made for comment by social theorists. The most famous of these commentators on bureaucracy was Max Weber. In the nineteenth century, when Weber described bureaucracy, he did so with praise. He extolled speed and efficiency as bureaucracy's special virtues. Nevertheless, there is a side to Weber's work that demonstrates his fear of bureaucracy. He said it would become an "iron cage" from which we could not escape, and once entrenched, bureaucracy could not be eliminated. It would effectively crush all alternate forms of organization because of its great power.

Right now you may be scratching your head wondering just which bureaucracies Weber was talking about. Keep in mind that he was writing about historical changes in work organization. Prior to any significant diffusion of bureaucracy, organizations were small and run by their owners, often in a capricious and non-rational manner. You'd be surprised, but having written records was considered quite an innovation! Rather than having individuals try to be competent at all tasks, bureaucracy divides up the labor such that individuals can become experts in their roles within the bureaucracy. Furthermore, everyone follows a set of rules so that the organization will run smoothly and predictably. If Joe or Mary or Dogbert were absent on any given day, the organization would not fall apart. Duties are clearly defined and knowledge is kept on record. If any individual should leave the organization, even the one at the top of the hierarchy, the organization would still continue to function. Although bureaucracy might not be perfect, compared to what came before, this new organizational form was indeed fast and efficient.

So why does the word "bureaucracy" seem to have a negative connotation? When Penn State makes an error on your registration or you cannot get the form you need, why is it that you exclaim, "What a bureaucracy!"? When people cannot get an accurate answer from the IRS, why do they utter "bureaucracy" under their breath? Bureaucracy, it seems, has become a four letter word (if it actually were a four letter word, it would be easier to spell!). In fact, the connotation of the word indicates a slow-moving, inefficient, and often bumbling organization. Can this be the same phenomenon described by Weber? Of course it is, and much of the sociology of work has devoted itself to studying the ills and dysfunctions of bureaucracy. The following are just a few avenues of research devoted to understanding bureaucracy today:

• looking at negative effects of bureaucracy on personality;
• examining the relationship between the informal organization and the formal one (the bureaucratic structure);
• determining which types of tasks are suited to a bureaucratic environment;
• understanding the effects of rapid environmental change on bureaucracies' ability to function; and
• revealing where lack of bureaucratization rather than too much bureaucracy has caused a breakdown in organizational operations.

There are many more strains of sociological research on bureaucracy, but this list should give you some idea of the kinds of questions that have been asked. Fortunately, sociologists recognize the disjuncture between the theoretical type outlined by Weber and the everyday bureaucracy we deal with in the world of work. Many have set out to understand precisely this disjuncture.