Luke VazSociologyDr. M QuieAccording to Weber, what makes bureaucracies efficient? Do you agree?

In analysing Max Webers study of bureaucracy in the modern state, it is crucial to note that his concept came hand in hand with the rationalisation of society. Shifts in religion in Western Europe, particularly in the fifteenth and sixteenth centuries, had a dramatic effect on modern society, leading to the spread of rational capitalism, secularisation and the erosion of culture. Bureaucracy is indicative of this rationalisation process, as society became preoccupied with obtaining goals as quickly as possible, to maximise profits perhaps or even to minimise the time spent on a certain task. This is embodied in bureaucracy as Weber saw it as a concept, though an imperfect one as his criticism of his own work shows, that was inherently efficient due to several characteristics it harnessed; a hierarchical structure, clear, universal rules, a specialisation-based division of labour, purposely impersonal behaviour, unelected bureaucrats and a clear distinction between the public and private spheres of life. This being Webers ideal type exemplifies what makes bureaucracies efficient. The concept is not without flaws however, as Weber and other critics alike have pointed out where a bureaucracy may fall short of a perfect system.

In Webers study of bureaucracy, he outlined that within this ideal type the system must have a top-down structure and as such would have optimum efficiency due to the existence of a hierarchical, specialised framework and universal rules to keep it in place. A top-down structure in this way, with orders coming from above, would allow for effective communication and settle conflicts which inevitably rise in any large organisation undertaking co-ordinated activities (Downs, 1967). Conflicts may arise from differences in the goals of bureau members, and a hierarchy would solve this issue by giving some superior levels in order to achieve goal focus, as those in higher positions than other bureau members would set goals for the bureaucrats underneath them, allowing for maximum efficiency. People within this are subjected to the permanent control of their superiors (Mommsen, 1989) so focus can be achieved. In terms of communication, a clear hierarchy would reduce total wasted time by only interacting with bureau members you are directly involved with, or where tasks overlap, and only relevant messages to those who are directly concerned with them. As such, no single person knows everything about the bureau which makes the system efficient as it minimises any sort of wasted effort, people focus on their tasks and nothing else so they can complete their assigned duties as quickly as possible. Division of labour and functional specialisation therefore also make bureaucracies efficient according to Weber, as people concentrate on their given tasks only. Moreover, since members of the bureaucracy are well informed of their own role and objectives within the bureaucracy, the possibility of confusion and conflation of separate administrative tasks are removed, as specialisation allows for greater task focus, as the rational attainment of specific objectives (Mommsen, 1989) allows for less wasted time and thereby greater efficiency. Universal rules would keep this framework in place, as formal regulations applied to every level of the bureaucracy (Zustndigkeiten) and decisions made at high levels could be executed consistently by all lower levels.

According to Weber in his principal features of an ideal type bureaucracy, the bureaucrats themselves also make the system as efficient as it is, through their impersonal behaviour, a complete separation of their public and private spheres and their selection. This absolute separation of work and other areas of life allows for the most efficient form of dedication to bureaucratic organisation, as with a limited overlap of the public and private spheres bureaucrats can fulfil their goals as quick as possible. The person would be detached, one might say, from his own personality (Aron) which exposes a criticism of bureaucracies in itself, robbing the individuals within the system of freedom. In terms of their purposely impersonal behaviour, Weber believed that to make sure that there were no biased decisions within the organisation, individuals had to maintain strictly impersonal relations to promote fair and equal treatment. This is so that within the hierarchy, a supervisor would not have partial judgement due to a more personal relationship with one person within the bureaucratic organisation than another. Bureaucrats are expected to devote their full energy to the fulfilment of their obligations, but they have to, therefore, operate strictly according to rules and must never let personal motives, emotions or inclinations influence their decisions (Mommsen, 1989). Notably, Weber stressed the methods of selection of who the bureaucrats were finally which would be a final factor in how efficient it would be as an organisation. Bureaucrats had to be unelected, and wherever possible excluded from political systems, as they must be selected based on meritocratic principle. Not having to endure political election would spare bureaucrats the extensive and arduous efforts of seeking re-election and electoral accountability, as they may instead devote this time to working efficiently within the organisation. This is crucial also as Weber believed in selected those most capable for the situation, as an election may take into account other non-work based factors such as personality, funding or connections: Weber saw the only way to ensure that bureaucrats were the best qualified for the job as selection. In this way, a continuous administration on the basis of formal rulesand expert rather than particularised recruitment (Collins, 1986) would be more efficient, as by this principle the people who could fulfil the goals set quickest would be those doing the tasks set, election would not ensure this.

Whilst all these things make bureaucracies efficient, Weber seeing this form of organisation as infinitely superior (Mommsen, 1989) to other systems, there are some drawbacks to the model which make it seem less attractive. Primarily, it can be argued that bureaucrats can change the objectives of the organisation. Of course, within the hierarchical structure of the organisation they are not supposed to define their goals and objectives, as they implement instrumental rationality in place of substantive rationality, and think more of a means to ends rather due to the technical orientation of bureaucratic organisation. In practice, this means that bureaucrats deviate from their given objectives by their superiors, resulting in a huge potential for a drop in efficiency. Following this, bureaucrats must be controlled and monitored, yet it is practically difficult to do so given the specialised work, within the division of labour aspect, it may be hard to follow what the subject is doing and whether it is of sufficient quality or in the expected time. More powerful superiors in the hierarchy do not possess the expertise in which to accurately monitor the bureaucrats actions within the institution. Third, bureaucrats would argue not respond well to changing circumstances or crises due to their training. Due to the hierarchical structure and the universality of rules and formal procedures, it becomes more difficult for bureaucratic organisations to shift to a different course of action efficiently, as bureaucrats instinctively stick to the rules because of the way they have been trained. The emergence of adhocracies, the polar opposite in structure to a bureaucracy, goes some way to solidifying limitations in Webers model, indeed exposing some of its inherent inefficiencies. Since adhocracies are more egalitarian and democratic in their framework, lacking the rigid hierarchy and universal rules that Weber sees as more efficient, they can respond and react far quicker to changes in environment. In creative professions such as advertising and film-making for example, the lack of a top-down structure allows more freedom and adaptability to varying circumstances, since formal, universal rules inhibit innovation and creativity.

Such criticisms of the model, or indeed of rationalisation in general, have been outlined by some sociologists in their own studies, including Robert Michaels, Adorno and Horkheimer, and Zygmunt Bauman. Indeed Michaels in 1911 in his critique of socialist parties and trade unions points out that bureaucracys most significant flaw is its lack of democracy. He argues that their hierarchical structure and lack of election could not survive in the contemporary world, as they couldnt co-exist with democratic, egalitarian values of socialist organisations in particular. Such organisation develop into oligarchies as they are commanded by a small elite due to the top-down structure. Though this may be true considering the focus on accountability, however it is debatable whether this affects the efficiency of the organisation. Though undemocratic, Webers model would seem the most efficient though his ideal state in its entirety would not be viable in a modern state. In Adorno and Horkheimers the Dialectic of Enlightenment, they point out the role of Hollywood in producing culture like a commodity, turning it into a culture industry and a machine used for propaganda rather than a source of genuine entertainment. This holds true to an extent with bureaucracies, as the rationalisation process paints a bleak picture of modernity, as bureaucratic organisation would reduce work to a machine and tasks to meaningless, inane chores. Bauman puts forward an equally bleak criticism, saying the structure would be the silencing of morality as bureaucracies would have a demoralising affect, almost like a moral sleeping pill. According to Bauman, all division of labourcreates a distance between contributors and the final outcome itself and as such would have a negative impact on people within the system. He also draws a parallel between the homogenous nation state and the notion of in or out, empirically showing that with the shift to modernity and the nation state it creates an intolerance towards ethnic differences notably embodied in the Holocaust, since members of these ethnicities are not clearly linked to a national identity, such as Gypsies and Jewish people of the day. The same principle is true, for Bauman, of bureaucracy. In seeking to follow the rules and formal procedures in the most efficient way, the danger is that bureaucrats are trained to think in terms of instrumental rationality, and not in terms of substantive rationality, dehumanising and demoralising them. Bureaucrats, therefore, are eroded of their individual responsibility, by virtue of the clear spatial and physical separation between their actions and the outcomes of their actions, because bureaucrats do not necessarily have to be confronted with the consequences of their own actions.

To conclude, Weberian bureaucracy is designed to maximise efficiency and does so, however its flaws and inherent dangers prevent it from being associated with positive administration. In his study, Weber prioritises effective and efficient organisation over all else, and arguably at the cost of morality resulting in dehumanisation. As such, one must consider that there will never be a truly efficient system without sacrificing human or democratic values, nor a democratic one that is as efficient as it could be; Weber himself was aware the process was bound to have adverse effects on a liberal social order. This makes it almost unfeasible in a society dominated by the media, and obsessed with transparency and accountability. Further, if we are to consider bureaucracy more in the present, sociologists such as Ulrich Beck in his study on Risk Society have argued that we have now moved beyond the society in which Weber was writing, and our attempts to control nature and our own surroundings now present us with the unintended consequences of rationalisation. Indeed, McDonaldisation is one such example, as the fast food industry now has a clear standardisation of products, allowing for greater predictability on the part of the consumer and people who produce it, allowing for creative efficiency and maximum profits. Therefore, whilst Webers analysis of bureaucracy is thorough and optimally efficient, bureaucracys dangers and impracticality in a liberal, democratic and increasingly transparent and accountable world largely outweigh its tremendous efficiency.

BibliographyAron, R. (n.d.). Main Currents in Sociological Thought 2: Durkheim, Pareto, Weber. Collins, R. (1986). Weberian Sociological Theory. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Downs, A. &. (1967). Inside bureaucracy. Boston: Little, Brown.Mommsen, W. J. (1989). The Political and Social Theory of Max Weber. Cambridge.