Max Weber (1864 - 1924), Germany

Bureaucracy in this context is the organisational form of certain dominant characteristics such as a hierarchy of authority and a system of rules.

Bureaucracy in a sense of red tape or officialdom should not be used as these meanings are value-ridden and only emphasize very negative aspects of the original Max Weber model.

Through analyses of organisations Weber identified three basic types of legitimate authority: Traditional, Charismatic, Rational-Legal.
Authority has to be distinguished from power in this discussion. Power is a unilateral thing - it enables a person to force another to behave in a certain way, whether by means of strength or by rewards. Authority, on the other hand, implies acceptance of the rules by those over whom it is to be exercised within limits agreeable to the subordinates that Weber refers to in discussing legitimate authority.

Weber presented three types of legitimate authority:
Traditional authority: where acceptance of those in authority arose from tradition and custom.
Charismatic authority: where acceptance arises from loyalty to, and confidence in, the personal qualities of the ruler.
Rational-legal authority: where acceptance arises out of the office, or position, of the person in authority as bounded by the rules and procedures of the organization.

It is the rational-legal authority form that exists in most organisations today and this is the form to which Weber ascribed the term 'bureaucracy'.

The main features of bureaucracy according to Weber were:

• a continuous organisation or functions bounded by rules
• that individuals functioned within the limits of the specialisation of the work, the degree of authority allocated and the rules governing the exercise of authority
• a hierarchical structure of offices
• appointment to offices made on the grounds of technical competence only
• the separation of officials from the ownership of the organisation
• the authority was vested in the official positions and not in the personalities that held these posts. Rules, decisions and actions were formulated and recorded in writing.

It is not coincidence that Weber's writings were at a time of the major industrial revolutions and the growth of large complex organisations out of the cottage industries and/or entrepreneurial businesses.

The efficiency of this rational and logistical organisation shares a considerable amount of common ground with the thinking of Fayol. In particular, features such as scalar chain, specialisation, authority and the definition of jobs which were so essential to successful management as described by Fayol, are typical of bureaucracy. There is also little doubt that Weber's ideas concerning specific spheres of competence and employment based on technical competence would have considerable appeal for Taylor's scientific managers.

Advantages

• Appointment, promotion and authority were dependent on technical competence and reinforced by written rules and procedures of promoting those most able to manage rather than those favoured to manage. We take a lot of this for granted in the UK today. Anything else is regarded as nepotism and corruption.
• The adoption of bureaucratic type of management systems allow organisations to grow into large complex organised systems that are focused towards formalised explicit goals.
• It cannot be stated strongly enough that the Weber theory has the advantage of being used as a 'gold standard' on which to compare and develop other modern theories.

Disadvantages
Subsequent analysis by other researchers have identified many disadvantages:

• Tendency for organisations to become procedure dominated rather than goal dominated.
• Tendency for heavily formalised organisational roles to suppress initiative and flexibility of the job holders.
• Rigid behaviour by senior managers can lead to standardised services that do not meet the needs of the client.
• Rigid procedures and rules are demotivating for the subordinates that work in the organizations.
• Exercise of control based on knowledge as advocated by Weber has led to the growth of 'experts' whose opinions and attitudes may frequently clash with those of the more generalised managers and supervisors.