It is given to the bureaucrat. Power and bureaucracy in modern Russia

Every person, without exception, at least once in his life encounters the concept of bureaucracy, and, most often, it is characterized in a negative way, associated with the inaction of officials and a pile of paper documents. In this article, we will try to reveal the true concept of bureaucracy, consider bureaucratic theories and its main types found in the modern world.

Basic concept

Bureaucracy is a classification of managers who are in the organizational structure of an enterprise. Their work, with an unshakable and clear hierarchy, is built on the basis of vertical information flows and formalized methods for solving professional problems.

This term also applies to the organizational management system of government bodies, which aim to maximize their own functions when working with departments and institutions located in a branched structure of executive power.

When studying the concept of bureaucracy, the following objects of analysis are distinguished:

1. Arising contradictions in the implementation of management.
2. The labor process itself as management.
3. Interests (personal and public) various groups who are directly involved in the bureaucracy.

Max Weber's Theory of Bureaucracy

The author of the theory, economist, sociologist and historian M. Weber, devoted a lot of time to studying the phenomenon of bureaucratization. But the appearance of the term "bureaucracy" is the merit of the economic figure Vincent de Gournay. He introduced at one time this concept in order to designate the executive power. And thanks to Weber, the theory of bureaucracy began its journey of study.

Scientists have proposed the following principles of the concept of bureaucracy:

• hierarchy in building an enterprise or organization;
• hierarchical orientation of orders;
• subordination of a lower-level employee to a higher-level one, and the responsibility of a higher-level employee for the actions of his lower-level subordinates;
• division and specialization of labor according to functionality;
• promotion based on experience and skills that are measurable against certain standards;
• communicative system of orientations.

Weber also singled out such a concept as a rational bureaucracy, which can be characterized as follows:

1. The emergence of highly qualified workers, thanks to a clear division of labor.
2. A clear step (hierarchical) system of subordination.
3. General formal rules and standards that ensure the uniqueness of the tasks performed.
4. Fulfillment of prescribed duties by persons, regardless of the quality and individual characteristics of the employee.
5. Recruitment and dismissal of employees based on qualification requirements and reasons.

Merton's theory of bureaucracy

But the sociologist Merton believed that the modern concept of bureaucracy is to shift the main focus from the goals of an organization or enterprise to its means, which, as a result, slows down the process towards achieving certain goals.

As Merton noted, most often the difficulties in bureaucratic structures arise in connection with the exaggeration of the importance of norms, procedures and rules. The following negative social features of the bureaucratized form of management can be distinguished:

• ignoring human nature;
• alienation from other people;
• restriction on the expression of one's own views, especially those that contradict the general way of thinking;
• opportunism;
• subordination of personal goals of employees to the goals of the enterprise;
• lack of informal interpersonal relationships.

Types of bureaucracy: classical or apparatus bureaucratic system

Three main types of bureaucracy should be distinguished: classical, professional and adhocracy.

The classical bureaucracy is a type of management workers who make little or even no use of professional skills, since their duty is to perform limited managerial functions. This type is most often found in ministries and institutions of higher management. Typically, such institutions are not amenable to change from the external environment.

Professional bureaucratic system

A professional bureaucracy is a type of managers who base their work on practical knowledge and theoretical aspects in narrow areas of their activity. At the same time, such managers are limited by role requirements in the institution.

Adhocracy

Adhocracy is a form of governance that consists of employees of an organization who perform their duties in a highly professional manner. Usually, in adhocracy, a group of specialists effectively and quickly solves the tasks assigned, in accordance with a specific situation.

The main difference between adhocracy and the ideal model of bureaucracy that Weber singled out is that it lacks a strict division labor activity and the formalization of relationships and activities is minimized.

Bureaucracy - view government controlled, which is characterized by a clear management hierarchy, the concentration of all management affairs in the central state authorities, acting within the framework of regulations, rules and standards, and through indicators of evaluation and performance, competence is assessed by the actions of subordinates; bureaucracy is also understood as a class of persons, clearly distinguished and separated from the rest of society, who are representatives of the central government.

Bureaucracy is the dominance of officials, which makes it difficult to do business and complicates the lives of ordinary people with paperwork and procedural red tape. Literally translated from French-Greek, "bureaucracy" means "the power of officials", or rather, "the power of bureaucratic tables." In Russia, the bureaucracy, multiplied by corruption and crime, makes doing business just the same Sisyphean labor.

From the beginning of the 20th century, the term "bureaucracy" began to acquire a negative connotation and became synonymous with paperwork and procedural obstacles that arise not only among businessmen, but also among ordinary people when solving administrative issues. The horrors of bureaucracy are especially strongly reflected in Franz Kafka's novel The Trial.

For the first time, the concept of "bureaucracy" arose in 1745. The term was coined by the French economist Vincent de Gournay, at the time of its formation the word had a derogatory meaning - it meant that bureaucratic officials take away real power from the monarch (under a monarchy) or from the people (under a democracy) .

The first to demonstrate the virtues of bureaucracy as a system of government was the German sociologist Max Weber. He proposed to understand it as the rational work of institutions in which each element works as efficiently as possible. After that, in situations of poor work of officials (red tape, requiring the execution of many unnecessary documents and a long wait for a decision), they began to talk not about bureaucracy, but about bureaucracy, separating these two concepts. If initially the concept of "bureaucracy" was used only in connection with government agencies, now it is used to define any large organization that has a large and extensive staff of managers ("corporate bureaucracy", "trade union bureaucracy", etc.).

signs of bureaucracy. Describing the ideal bureaucratic organization, Weber identified several of its typical features.

The most important of them are:

1. Specialization and division of labor. Each employee has certain responsibilities and areas of activity that cannot duplicate the scope of authority of other members of the organization.
2. Vertical hierarchy. The structure of a bureaucratic organization can be compared to a pyramid, with the majority at the base and the minority at the top. Each person in this vertical hierarchy leads the lower people and in turn is subordinate to the higher ones, due to which the control over the activities of each element of the organization is exercised.
3. Clear rules. The activities of each member of the organization are regulated by rules, the purpose of which is to rationalize the entire management process. Ideally, these rules should make the activities of each employee and the entire organization predictable. Although the rules may change, in general they should be stable over time.
4. Impersonal relationship. In an ideal bureaucracy, personal sympathies, feelings and preferences do not play a role. This principle is the same for relationships within the organization, and in its relations with partners external to the organization. The condition of an ideal bureaucracy is also that the recruitment of new employees is carried out on the basis of compliance with certain objective criteria, regardless of personal acquaintances and attachments.

Many rules that cover all the activities of officials, on the one hand, significantly limit their initiative and creativity, but, on the other hand, protect the clientele from the personal arbitrariness of employees. An impersonal approach to recruiting allows you to select people with standard training and competence, although at the same time there is a high risk of rejecting out-of-the-box thinking and talented candidates for the position.

Bureaucracy as a social threat. There is a danger of the degeneration of bureaucratic management systems when they do not increase, but hinder the effectiveness of their activities.

Scientists identify three main problems generated by the bureaucratic organization of management:

1. Alienation from man. Bureaucracy is designed to solve people's problems. The impersonal approach to clients helps to maintain their equality, but at the same time deprives people of their uniqueness. Any problem adapts to a single template for all and is solved in the previously accepted way. As a result, there is dehumanization and the transformation of a person into a standard “case” on the table of an official.
2. Ritualism. The standard decision-making procedure often, passing through all the necessary instances and approvals, takes so much time that the decision itself becomes obsolete and unnecessary. To describe this situation, R. Merton introduced a special term - "bureaucratic ritualism", denoting such preoccupation with rules and regulations that jeopardizes the achievement of the goals of the organization.
3. Inertia. Although the bureaucracy is created to solve certain problems, this does not mean that when these problems are solved, the organization will cease to exist. Like any other organization, the bureaucracy strives for self-preservation, but unlike other structures, the bureaucratic has more experience and greater opportunities to prevent its dissolution. As a result, the bureaucratic organization can already function regardless of the goals previously set for it.

The wide development of bureaucratic power leads to the fact that the bureaucrat becomes the "master" of the people he is supposed to lead. Under these conditions, corruption flourishes.

To reduce the negative consequences of the bureaucratization of management, a system of external control over the activities of officials is needed - on the part of citizens (clients of the bureaucracy) and / or managers. As a rule, both of these methods are combined: citizens are given the right to complain about bureaucrats to law enforcement agencies, although these agencies themselves may undergo bureaucratic degeneration. The difficulty of organizing control over the bureaucracy is a weighty argument of supporters of anarchy, who seek to abandon the division of society into managed and professional managers. However, at the present stage of development of society, it is not possible to refuse the professionalization of management. Therefore, some bureaucratization of management is perceived as a necessary evil.

The formation of a bureaucracy. Bureaucracy can be formed in several ways:

1. The bureaucratic structure grows around V.I. Lenin, a prominent leader. Weber defined this method as "routinization of charisma." Its meaning was that a group of people, united around a bright personality, is gradually turning into a bureaucratic structure, which sees as its goal the introduction of the ideas and views of its leader in society. An example would be the bureaucratization of the Bolshevik party created by V.I. Lenin.
2. The bureaucratic structure arises around a group of people. In this case, it is consciously created from the very beginning to fulfill certain goals and objectives. For example, when a corporation (joint stock company) is formed, capital owners hire professional managers to manage the firm. This is how state and corporate bureaucratic systems are formed.
3. The source of the bureaucratic structure is the already existing bureaucratic organization, while the new structure is usually distinguished from the existing ones. This happens when a new field of activity arises and a new department or department is gradually formed that deals with it.
4. The source of the creation of the bureaucracy is a kind of "political entrepreneurship". This happens when a group of people who hold certain views and work together to defend them create a bureaucratic system whose members engage in political activity as a profession. This is how most political parties were formed.

The development of bureaucracy during the evolution of society. Although the term "bureaucracy" did not originate until the 18th century, bureaucratic structures themselves existed long before that.

Bureaucracy began to develop already in the most ancient states, where the professionalization of management took place. Bureaucratization of management was one of the hallmarks of ancient Egypt and the Roman Empire. A striking example of bureaucratic power in pre-bourgeois societies is imperial China, where there was an examination system for selecting candidates for the post of officials, a multi-level hierarchy of officials of different ranks, and the enormous power of bureaucratic officials over subjects.

Although in the era of bourgeois revolutions they repeatedly tried to destroy bureaucracy, it usually turned out to be impossible to build a management system without its professionalization. Therefore, until now, bureaucratic structures are not only preserved, but even strengthened due to the complication of management processes. Examples of bureaucracy are the organization of government, the military, corporations, hospitals, courts, schools, and so on.

In the modern era, it is customary to talk about the bureaucracy of the "Eastern" and "European" persuasion.

The bureaucracy of the eastern type is built into the system of public administration and is an inseparable part of it. With the help of the bureaucracy, the government acquires the ability to control all aspects of society and gradually places itself outside and above society. The state becomes much stronger than society, bureaucratic domination (power-property) is formed. Weber called this type of bureaucracy patrimonial.

Unlike its eastern counterpart, the European bureaucracy, although associated with the government, is not its essence. From the very beginning of their development in the capitalist era, governments in the countries of Western European civilization were under the control of society, and this control restrains the formation of strong bureaucratic systems.

Although the European bureaucracy does not claim to seize political power, it has many opponents.

The most famous opponents of bureaucracy among modern scientists are the English writer and historian Cyril Parkinson and the American social psychologist Warren Bennis. Parkinson is known for his journalistic writings, in which he ridiculed the shortcomings of bureaucratic organization. One of his most famous statements: "The staff of bureaucratic organizations increases in inverse proportion to the amount of work done." Bennis approaches the study of bureaucracy from a strictly scientific standpoint, predicting the failure of bureaucracy due to its inability to deal with unforeseen situations and bring together organizational and individual goals. No matter how stable bureaucratic systems are, they are constantly evolving and changing. Weber, defining the ideal type of bureaucracy, spoke only about the formal side of this system, while it also has an informal component. Even in those organizations where it is prescribed to consult only with colleagues standing at a higher level of the service hierarchy, informal relationships often turn out to be stronger than the accepted rules and regulations. This informal aspect gives the bureaucracy the opportunity to increase the flexibility of the system as a whole and reduce the impersonality of the interaction process. With the development of new means of communication, the attitude towards a strict hierarchy also changes. In particular, electronic correspondence on the Internet violates the rule of subordination, presenting the ability to contact any member of the organization, bypassing the accepted hierarchy.

The requirements of the modern world lead to the emergence of new forms of management, which, while being bureaucratic in the Weberian sense in terms of their rationality and efficiency, have, however, characteristics that are different from traditional bureaucratic structures. Thus, Bennis introduced the concept of "adhocracy", denoting by it a rapidly changing adaptive structure, a group of specialists with different professional knowledge, selected in accordance with a specific situation. An example of such a structure would be the Japanese "quality circles". Unlike traditional bureaucracy, there is no clear vertical hierarchy and division of labor here, formal relations are reduced to a minimum, and specialization is not functional, but meaningful. This kind of flexible organizational structures, almost eliminating bureaucracy, are becoming increasingly popular in modern business. However, government administration is still a "hotbed" of bureaucracy.

Theories of bureaucracy

In short, bureaucracy is the power of the office, that is, the power of form over content, if we take it broadly, it is the power of artificially created over human nature, over humanity. Bureaucracy, therefore, is a state that is unnatural to human nature.

This word comes from two words: the French bureau (this is the office) and the Greek kratos (power).

Bureaucracy in the modern sense is when the tasks of the work of a company or organization are subject to the rules of the work of this organization to the detriment of common sense.

The power of bureaucracy comes into contact with any modern society. And especially a transitional society, as we have today in Russia. Today it is difficult to find a state that does not treat officials negatively (this has already been clearly noted). At the same time, the term bureaucracy is used to denote the form of organization of the institutions of society, the features of the work of government bodies, groups of people who own the technique of administrative work, possess information and documentation, are able to prepare, draw up and interpret political decisions, etc.

If we ignore the many shades in the analysis of the problems of bureaucracy, then we can distinguish in the most general form two areas of its study:

Within the sociology of politics;
within the sociology of organizations.

Such a distinction between the main directions in the study of bureaucratic structures, of course, is rather arbitrary.

As is known, in the sociology of organizations, importance is attached, first of all, to the issue of the effectiveness of organizational activity, and the problem of the power of bureaucracy is secondary. According to a number of scientists, the sociology of organizations does not have the appropriate means to study the power of the bureaucracy, because formal organizations are considered as a self-sufficient object of study, often in isolation from the processes taking place in society. To understand the essence of this power, it is necessary to consider the bureaucracy in a broader socio-historical context.

It is this approach to the administrative apparatus that is most clearly manifested in the works of the classics of political sociology. Vincent de Gournay saw bureaucracy as a new form of government. He believed that its essence and significance lies precisely in the fact that the work of the government was in the hands of the rulers by profession.

G. Hegel, D.S. Mill, A. de Tocqueville, G. Mosca, M. Weber also considered bureaucracy as a new type of system where management activities are carried out by appointed professional officials.

The concepts of the first direction, considering the bureaucracy as the rule of "professional officials", include class theories (K. Marx, V.I. Lenin). As well as theories that define the bureaucracy as a new class - M. Bakunin, J. Burnham, M. Djilas, M. Voslensky, D. Ledonne and others. These theories are based on the same idea of ​​the domination of professional officials, but it is in conjunction with the theory of ownership of the means of production. This makes it possible to develop the propositions about the bureaucracy as a special class and about the transformation by the bureaucrat of his place in the official hierarchy into private property. The bureaucracy, being part of the ruling class, undividedly owns the two main factors that ensure the vital activity of society - management and property, which are present in an undivided form at every level of the bureaucratic hierarchy. It is possible to single out a range of basic questions that are posed and resolved by representatives of this trend in the study of bureaucracy: who governs? in whose interests? What are the social bases of the power of the bureaucracy? Who implements the functions of control over the bureaucracy?

The second direction in the study of bureaucracy is represented by theories of formal organization (R. Merton, F. Selznick, P. M. Blau, A. Etzioni, E. Mayo, etc.). The following problems are considered here: the effectiveness of administrative structures, the mechanism of the functioning of power; formal and technical components of the bureaucracy; intraorganizational laws and interests; connection with the social environment; ways and forms of limiting bureaucracy. In this group of theories, a special place belongs to the theory of M. Weber. Weber offers a bureaucratic model of organization, but unlike, for example, representatives of the concept of "organization - machine" (A. Fayol, L. Urvik), he does not deal in detail with the practical construction of bureaucratic relations in order to remove the problems that arise in the development of these relations, his study "administrative" organization offers a predominantly theoretical model.

One of the first scientific analyzes of the essential characteristics of the phenomenon of bureaucracy belongs to Hegel, although the philosopher does not use the term "bureaucracy" in his works. However, the universality of the bureaucracy (executive power, bureaucracy) appears in his theory of state and law in inseparable connection with a certain type of organization, management and power, that is, as the universality of the state.

The state for Hegel is "the reality of the moral idea", "reasonable in-itself-and-for-itself", "God's march in the world". The bureaucratic state is "the center of state consciousness and the most outstanding education." It is the backbone of the middle class. This type of state, which is a form of expression of general interest, is due to the presence of civil society.

Civil society was defined by Hegel as a complex of individuals, classes, groups and institutions, the existence of which is not directly due to the presence of the state. This society, according to Hegel, is a rationally structured society, norms, whose lives are different from norms. public life. However, the various components of civil society are in constant conflict, and a significant strengthening of some of them can lead to a weakening of others. Therefore, civil society is not able to maintain itself as "civil" if it is not controlled by the state.

The main function of the executive power in Hegel's theory was the implementation of decisions, which should be carried out by the monarch in accordance with the general interest. The implementation of this function was assigned to collegial advisory bodies and government officials in accordance with the principle of separation of powers. Hegel does not deny the principles of the rule of law, but believes that the separation of powers does not imply their confrontation, but is a manifestation of the dialectical unity of the state and society. At the same time, he is doubtful about the theory of popular sovereignty, considering the constitutional monarchy to be the true expression and concrete completion of the absolute idea of ​​law.

In conditions where civil institutions by their nature do not reveal the general interest (they are in a state of conflict with each other), civil servants, firstly, are required to receive professional training, and secondly, they must be provided with state financial support in order to their own interests did not interfere with their pursuit of the general interest.

At the same time, Hegel identifies a number of conditions that guarantee that the power of officials will not go beyond the limits of the general interest: the presence of supreme power, that is: "the establishment of sovereignty from above"; the establishment of a hierarchy within the bureaucracy, which limits its arbitrariness; constant conflict between the bureaucracy and private corporations; direct moral and mental culture of the official. Hegel attached particular importance to the formation of managerial culture, because, in his opinion, it should be an intellectual counterbalance to the mechanistic orientation of the state apparatus.

The Hegelian model of bureaucratic management proceeds from the interdependence and identity of the state and civil society, firstly, and secondly, from the need for the formation of this interdependence of the middle class. At the same time, the bureaucracy, together with the monarchy, is declared by Hegel to be a neutral force that stands above the conflicting groups of people with their special interests that make up civil society. Officials embody the universal interests of the whole society, as they are endowed with specific knowledge necessary for a modern state.

The opposite interpretation of the relationship between the bureaucratic state and civil society was proposed by K. Marx. According to Marx, the state does not express the interests of citizens, but sets them itself. The task of officials in society is to maintain the general interest only in form. Therefore, the task of the institute of bureaucracy in bourgeois society becomes a form of production aimed at creating the illusion that the state is protecting the general interest. For Marx, bureaucracy represents the "will of the state", "the consciousness of the state", "the power of the state". The content of the activity of the bureaucracy is the formal spirit of the state.

It should be noted that in the concept of "bureaucracy" Marx combined several meanings. This term included both the entire system of power and control, and the people who were part of this system. He attributed to this institution all elements of executive power, including collegial deliberative government formations. Often Marx used the word "bureaucrat" in a negative sense as a carrier of any pathological characteristics associated with managerial activity. This interpretation of bureaucratic activity, which is more characteristic of journalism than scientific discourse, complicates the problem of the administrative sector as an "executive" institution in the system of government.

Weber bureaucracy

The emergence of the term "bureaucracy" is associated with the name of the French economist Vincent de Gournay, who introduced it in 1745 to denote the executive branch. This term entered the scientific circulation thanks to the German sociologist, economist, historian Max Weber (1864-1920), the author of the most complete and comprehensive sociological study of the phenomenon of bureaucracy.

Weber proposed the following principles for the bureaucratic concept of organizational structure:

Hierarchical structure of the organization;
a hierarchy of orders built on legal authority;
subordination of a lower-level employee to a higher one and responsibility not only for their own actions, but also for the actions of subordinates;
specialization and division of labor by function;
a clear system of procedures and rules that ensures uniformity of execution production processes;
a system of promotion and tenure based on skills and experience and measured by standards;
orientation of the communication system both within the organization and outside the written rules.

The term "bureaucracy" was used by Weber to denote a rational organization, the prescriptions and rules of which create the foundation effective work and allow to fight against favoritism. Bureaucracy was considered by him as a kind of ideal image, the most effective tool for managing social structures and individual structural units.

According to Weber, the rigidly formalized nature of bureaucratic relations, the clarity of the distribution of role functions, the personal interest of bureaucrats in achieving the goals of the organization lead to the adoption of timely and qualified decisions based on carefully selected and verified information.

Bureaucracy as a rational management machine is characterized by:

Strict responsibility for each area of ​​work;
coordination in the name of achieving organizational goals;
optimal action of impersonal rules;
clear hierarchical relationship.

However, later Weber began to distinguish between bureaucracy in a positive sense (Western rational management system) and in a negative sense (Eastern irrational management system), understanding an Eastern irrational management system as one in which instructions, orders, tasks and other formal attributes of power become an end in itself.

Theories of bureaucracy according to Merton and Gouldner

According to American sociologists R. Merton and A. Gouldner, the most common dysfunction generated by bureaucracy is a shift in emphasis from the goals of activity to its means, resulting in a rigid hierarchy, strict adherence to instructions, strict discipline, etc. turn into a brake on the path of rationality. In other words, a rational device reproduces elements of the irrational within itself.

Robert Merton (1910-2003) assessed bureaucracy as follows:

As a result of strict adherence to formal rules and conformism, management employees eventually lose the ability to make independent decisions;
constant focus on rules, relations and formally developed guidelines for action leads to the fact that these standards become universal and final, and their observance is the main task and result of organizational activity;
all this leads to the refusal of representatives of the bureaucracy from creative, independent thinking and even from competence;
the result is the birth of a stereotypical bureaucrat who has no imagination and creativity, is not flexible in applying official norms and rules;
the result of the activities of such a bureaucrat is the isolation of the bureaucratic caste, its elevation above the workers.

Difficulties in bureaucratic structures are associated with an exaggeration of the importance of standardized rules, procedures and norms that precisely determine how employees should solve their tasks, implement the requests of other departments of the organization, and interact with customers and the public.

As a result, the organization loses its flexibility in relations with the external environment:

Clients and the public feel the inadequacy of the response to their requests and requirements, as their problems are solved strictly in accordance with established norms regardless of the current situation;
if clients or members of the public point out to the bureaucrat an excessive adherence to the norms, he refers to the corresponding rule or instruction;
at the same time, the bureaucrat cannot be punished, since formally he acts absolutely correctly.

The following negative socio-psychological features are characteristic of the bureaucratic form of management:

Ignoring human nature;
the dominance of the spirit of alienation;
limited ability to express views, especially those that are contrary to the generally accepted way of thinking;
subordination of personal goals of employees to the goals of the organization;
incompatibility with a developed active personality;
opportunism;
ignoring informal organization and interpersonal relationships.

The American sociologist A. Gouldner, developing Weber's ideas, singled out two types of bureaucracy in modern society:

Representative, where power is based on knowledge and skill;
authoritarian, where power is based on negative sanctions, obedience becomes an end in itself, and power is legitimized by the very fact of being in office.

In sociology, the theory of bureaucracy is one of the most developed. Nevertheless, this topic is addressed again and again. Why?

According to A. Toffler, bureaucracy has three main features - stability, hierarchy, division of labor. Sociologists believe that without bureaucracy, society has no development prospects, since this form of government is the only workable and acceptable one. In this regard, one of the main tasks of modern management is to change the role of the bureaucracy in the activities of the organization in accordance with the principles developed by Weber.

Achieving this goal is possible by changing the attitudes of representatives of the bureaucracy and proclaiming the correlation of their well-being and career with the final result of the organization's activities.

TYPES OF BUREAUCRACY

Since Weber's study of bureaucracy, it has undergone significant changes, developing along with the structures of organizations. Currently, there are three types of bureaucracy.

Classic bureaucracy

The hardware (classical) bureaucracy is fully consistent with the Weber model. With this type of bureaucracy, management employees make very little use of professional knowledge, since their main duty is to perform general managerial functions and they are limited to the scope of their role in the organization.

The main advantages of the hardware bureaucracy are:

The stability of the functioning of the organization and its management bodies;
a clear division of labor;
standardization and unification of all activities, which reduces the likelihood of errors;
reducing the time of role-playing training of management employees;
formalization that ensures stability and coherence of work;
centralization guaranteeing reliable control.

Apparatus bureaucracy has the following disadvantages:

Danger of bureaucracy;
lack of sufficient motivation;
incomplete use of mental faculties and psychological features workers;
inefficiency in changing conditions and in the event of non-standard situations, since inadequate and untimely management decisions are often made.

Apparatus bureaucracy is the basis of management in ministries and departments, in most institutions of state or municipal government, it can be the basis of management in organizations with a stable structure and little changing relations with the external environment.

Professional bureaucracy

Professional bureaucracy requires managers to have deep theoretical and practical knowledge in narrow areas of activity, limited by role requirements.

We list the main characteristics of the activities of professional bureaucrats:

High degree of specialization and competence;
taking into account not only the management process, but also the conditions for its flow;
less formalization (compared to the apparatus bureaucracy);
greater freedom in making managerial decisions within the framework of their role, since the top manager is not so knowledgeable in solving narrow, specific issues of activity;
grouping jobs according to functional and hierarchical principles and centralized management decision-making.

The advantages of a professional bureaucracy are:

The ability to solve extraordinary tasks that require the use of professional knowledge;
very high motivation of employees to achieve organizational and group goals, and not just personal ones;
weakening the control of top management over activities, which gives greater freedom to creatively solve management problems.

It is worth noting the shortcomings of a professional bureaucracy:

Its effectiveness is sharply reduced when the organization operates under constant conditions, and its main components are not constantly exposed to the external environment;
selection, placement and ensuring the functioning of employees are of particular importance, since the level of their professionalism must be very high. This implies additional costs for the training of management employees;
the forms of application of power are becoming more complicated: in addition to the power of coercion and reward, expert and informational power should be actively used here.

Adhocracy

Adhocracy as a form of bureaucratic management arose relatively recently, in the 1970s.

The term comes from lat. ad hoc - special and Greek. kratos - power.

A. Toffler used it to refer to the organizational structure, which is based on temporary working groups created to solve one problem or project.

Adhocracy is a management apparatus, consisting of workers who professionally perform managerial functions. This rapidly changing adaptive structure is organized around problems, which are solved by groups of specialists with different professional knowledge, selected according to the situation.

Adhocrats differ from Weber's ideal bureaucrats in the absence of a strict division of labor, a clear hierarchy, minimal formalization of activities, quick response to any changes in all components of the organization and the external environment. Devizadhocracy - maximum flexibility and adaptability in relation to a changing situation.

Adhocracy is devoid of many of the shortcomings inherent in bureaucracy, it is most effective in modern conditions and has a promising future.

The core of the value system of bureaucracy are:

A career with which all the thoughts and expectations of an employee are connected;
self-identification of the employee with the organization;
serving the organization as a means to achieve one's own benefit.

Of the many contradictions that exist in management, the main one can be distinguished as the contradiction between the objectively social nature of management (because almost all members of society are involved in this process and directly depend on its results) and the subjectively closed way of its implementation, since, as a result, management, called upon to reflect the will of society is carried out by a rather local social group of professional managers.

One of the essential features of the bureaucracy is the desire to monopolize power and control. Having achieved a monopoly, officials seek to organize a complex system of official secrecy that prevents officials or the public from making a real assessment of their actions.

The ideal of bureaucratic regulation is to issue normative acts themselves, to force society to comply with them, without allowing any control over them.

Thus, the main socio-political interest of the bureaucracy lies in the implementation and protection of the monopoly exercise of its power functions in society.

Rational bureaucracy, according to M. Weber, was considered as a kind of ideal model of the organizational structure, which should be strived for when creating an organizational structure in organizations of a very different profile and type of activity.

It should be noted that the principles of building an organization, formulated by M. Weber, have not actually been encountered in real management practice before. Subsequently, in many (if not most) of the established organizations, the bureaucratic structure was widely embodied.

This is just the happy occasion when the managerial idea expressed by the scientist was put into practice by practical managers.

What, according to M. Weber, should be an ideal organizational structure, which he called a rational bureaucracy?

Here are its main characteristics:

1. A clear division of labor, leading to the emergence of highly qualified specialists in all areas of the organization.
2. The presence of hierarchical levels of management with a clear system of subordination and control of the lower level to the higher.
3. A system of generally accepted formal rules and standards that are consistent with each other and ensure the homogeneity of tasks, responsibilities and coordination of employees in solving various problems.
4. Independence of official duties from the persons performing them, in other words, the impersonality of the performance of duties by officials.
5. Employment of employees who meet the qualification requirements for them. Dismissal is also primarily for reasons of job inconsistency or for other objective reasons.

According to many experts in the field of management, the bureaucratic structure of M. Weber is still the unique and most significant description of the essence of modern organizations.

The bureaucratic structure of the organization was one of the most significant contributions to the development of management science and practice and contributed to the formation of the organization in its modern sense.

It made it possible to systematize the organizational structure in accordance with the basic principles of management, to make it a reliable tool for the implementation of strategic and tactical decisions made by the management of the organization.

However, the bureaucratic structure is not ideal and is not without flaws.

The shortcomings include, first of all, the lack of flexibility of this structure, which both the employees of the organization and its clients have to face.

Insufficient flexibility is due to the strict regulation of the activities of personnel by special rules and regulations.

At the beginning of the century, the external environment in which most enterprises functioned changed little, and only subsequent shocks and the rapid development of industry and technology led to the situations of instability and fierce competition that modern organizations have to deal with.

A modern organization often requires a fundamentally new adequate response to changes in the situation, fundamentally new management decisions.

Today it is difficult to unequivocally say that the principles of a rational bureaucratic structure make it difficult to respond quickly, that there are more shortcomings in the bureaucratic structure than advantages.

The high level of organization, clarity in the distribution of responsibilities and internal discipline inherent in the bureaucratic structure is more of a positive than a negative factor in the unstable competitive situation in which a modern organization has to function.

However, the persistent search for ways to improve the efficiency of organizations has also affected organizational structures and led to the emergence of fundamentally new types of them that have confirmed their viability.

Therefore, when re-forming or changing the structure of the organization, the manager must clearly understand the opportunities and shortcomings that are inherent in each of the organizational structures used today.

State bureaucracy

As already mentioned, part of the state bureaucracy is inevitably part of the ruling political elite. This is determined by the role played by the higher and part of the middle bureaucracy in the management of the state and society.

Historically, the bureaucracy was formed as the administrative apparatus of the state of the industrial type. In the 19th century the emerging bourgeois statehood served as the basis for G. Hegel and M. Weber to call the bureaucracy the main carrier of rational forms of organization of power. According to the ideal model developed by them, this administrative apparatus is distinguished by its qualifications, discipline, responsibility, following the letter and spirit of the laws, and respect for the honor of the uniform. From the point of view of such normative ideas, the phenomena of bureaucracy (i.e., deviations from these norms of behavior, expressed in the growth of formalism, red tape, the subordination of the activities of state structures to their own group interests and other negative features of the performance by officials of their professional duties) were considered as anomalous phenomena, overcoming which should ensure the strengthening of public and administrative control over their behavior, a more optimal distribution of their official powers, an increase in the responsibility and hierarchy of the management system, etc.

At the same time, from a purely political point of view, the bureaucracy had to remain politically neutral and under no circumstances be biased by one or another power grouping. The execution of purely administrative functions by bureaucracy, its non-interference in the political struggle was considered as one of the prerequisites for maintaining the stability of social order. Moreover, M. Weber believed that the transformation of the state bureaucracy into a political one is fraught with a threat to human freedom and independence.

Marxism interpreted the political role of the bureaucracy in a different way, seeing in its activity a kind of political domination of the administrative apparatus over the state and society, a manifestation of a style of government that unequivocally alienates the population from power, preventing citizens, primarily workers, from using the state for their own selfish purposes.

The dynamics of the development of modern complex states has revealed a number of fundamental trends in the formation and development public policy which forced a different approach to assessing the role of the state bureaucracy. In particular, strengthening the role of the state in the organization social processes inevitably increased the role of the state bureaucracy. The place occupied by officials in the system of state administration gave them enormous opportunities in the real redistribution of resources.

In other words, the very position of the highest and some of the middle officials in the system of executive power objectively gave their positions a political dimension, increased their role and importance in the decision-making system. It is no coincidence that in a number of states, after elections, almost the entire contingent of senior officials is subject to replacement in accordance with the political preferences of the newly elected president or head of government. For example, in the United States there is a “spoil system”, according to one of the requirements of which each newly elected president appoints approximately 1,200 new officials from among his supporters to key positions in the government. This is a condition for ensuring the political integrity of the executive branch, which is called upon to solve very specific tasks.

The strengthening of the political functions of the state bureaucracy is also associated with an increase in the role of the professional knowledge of officials, which gives them a certain advantage over politicians elected for a certain period. Moreover, the bureaucracy has an advantage over the split, competitive world of politicians and due to the fact that it is a more cohesive social stratum with its own corporate ethics and traditions.

An undoubted factor that increases the political weight and importance of the state bureaucracy is its close ties with various lobbying groups, which today represent one of the most powerful structures of political representation of interests. Often, the ongoing merging of bureaucratic and lobbying structures becomes a powerful channel for the transmission of group interests and influence on the centers of political power.

The noted trends in the evolution of the state bureaucracy characterize its top and part of the middle representatives as fully determined in their status as a relatively independent subject (actor) of political power. This part of the unelected ruling political elite is steadily increasing its role in the modern state, exerting ever-increasing influence on the process of developing, adopting, and often even implementing political decisions.

Concept of bureaucracy

The state apparatus exists and is by no means going to self-destruct. If someone tried to do something like this, it would lead to immediate disaster. Without the action of bureaucratic (in the Weberian sense of the word) mechanisms, modern society could not live a day. Few critics of bureaucracy try to see the real origins and principles of its centuries-old existence. Meanwhile, the whole variety of interpretations of bureaucracy can be reduced to the following main types.

The whole variety of interpretations of bureaucracy, in essence, can be reduced to the following main types:

Weber-Wilson concept;
"Imperial" ("Asian");
"Realistic".

1. The concept of bureaucracy Weber - Wilson.

At the beginning of the XX century. German sociologist Max Weber developed the concept of rational bureaucracy. The bureaucratic organization replaced the system of patriarchal, medieval administration, in which it was impossible for an ordinary, ordinary person without money and connections to achieve justice: there were no deadlines for considering cases, the procedure for their production and jurisdiction were uncertain, and most importantly, arbitrariness and personal discretion dominated everything. . The outcome of the case was decided not by the rightness of a person, not by objective circumstances, but by his status, wealth, connections, dexterity, and the ability to appease the right person.

However, the patriarchal system also had its conveniences. Having found personal contact with the "right person", the petitioner could solve his case without formal delays (and often contrary to the law). Between them there were not formal business, but warm, sometimes friendly relations. However, the disadvantages of such a system clearly outweighed.

Therefore, as an alternative to it, a different, modern form of solving current affairs began to take shape, which (ideally) is characterized by their conduct by competent and dispassionate performers, in full compliance with the law and procedure, orderliness of office work, freedom from subjective influences.

In a word, the organization of the modern type presupposes the dominance of obligatory regulated procedures, the execution of which does not depend on who exactly and in relation to whom performs them. All are equal before the same order. Unification becomes a guarantee against the shortcomings of specific people and possible abuses. This is the concept of rational bureaucracy as formulated by Weber.

He pointed out that this type of government, although it originated in such bureaucratic states as Prussia, became predominant in all political systems and, moreover, in all organizations in which management was carried out on a large scale.

In his definition of bureaucracy, Weber sought to identify common features for all modern administrative systems.

He listed ten such features, but for convenience they can be reduced to four main features:

1. The competence of each bureaucratic level is clearly regulated, i.e. fixed by law;
2. The hierarchical organization of the bureaucratic structure is based on firmly established principles of official subordination;
3. all formal intra-organizational activities (dissemination of information, decision-making, preparation of orders and directives, etc.) are carried out in the form of written documents subject to subsequent storage;
4. all officials must be good specialists in the field of administration, i.e. be competent not only in the field of their professional duties (for example, as a lawyer, economist, engineer, military, etc.), but also in the field of norms, rules and procedures for the activities of a bureaucratic organization as a whole.

From his model of bureaucracy, it follows that efficiency can be achieved through a rational division of labor and a clear definition of areas of competence. If we consider the elements of the Weberian model of bureaucracy, then each of them corresponds to this criterion of efficiency. The main feature of bureaucracy is the systematic division of labor by which administrative problems are broken down into manageable tasks.

Other signs of bureaucracy serve the same purpose. Its impersonal nature guarantees the absence of favoritism in the selection of personnel who are appointed according to individual achievements, in the management activity itself, free from the unpredictability of personal connections. Obedience to rules allows the bureaucracy to handle a large number of cases in a uniform manner, while having procedures to change those rules frees it from the constraints of tradition.

In American administrative science, the same idea was developed at the end of the 19th century. future US President Woodrow Wilson. Considered a classic and a source of inspiration for many generations of American administrators, Wilson Woodrow's The study of Administration was published in 1887.

Wilson's main ideas are:

In any management system, there is a single control center as a necessary prerequisite for its effectiveness and responsibility;
the structural similarity of all modern governments;
separating management from politics;
professionalism of employees;
organizational hierarchy as a condition for financial and administrative efficiency;
the presence of good administration as a necessary condition for the modernization of human civilization and the achievement of prosperity.

As can be seen, Weber and Wilson formulated essentially similar concepts from different angles. After all, according to Weber, the bureaucratic organization is technically the most perfect of all conceivable organizational forms. Its superiority, manifested in clarity, speed, competence, continuity, unity, subordination, stability, relative cheapness, and, finally, in the impersonal nature of the activity, puts it above all other types.

In other words, bureaucracy is the domination of professionalism over incompetence, norms over arbitrariness, objectivity over subjectivity.

Three of its main "ideological" postulates can be distinguished:

The bureaucracy equally effectively serves any political "master" without interfering in the political process;
it is the best of all possible forms of organization;
its most important advantage is independence from the impact of subjective (human) influences on decision-making.

However, studies of the real work of organizations suggest that following bureaucratic norms can not only promote, but also hinder efficiency. This is because there are significant dysfunctional effects associated with the principles of bureaucratic organization, which are all the more pronounced the more consistently these principles are applied.

Following the rules can lead to a lack of flexibility. The impersonal nature of the relationship breeds bureaucratic indifference and insensitivity. Hierarchy often prevents the manifestation of individual responsibility and initiative.

The most accurate approach, it seems to us, was indicated by K. Marx in his work “On the Critique of the Hegelian Philosophy of Law”.

Here are some of his expressions:

Bureaucracy is the "state formalism" of civil society;
the bureaucracy constitutes a special closed society in the state;
the bureaucracy is an imaginary state along with the real state, it is the spiritualism of the state.

2. "Imperial" ("Asian") model.

This model was most fully embodied in the Asian empires. Its classic form is the Chinese bureaucracy. We have legends about her, representing her almost as a model of public service. In fact, the “Chinese model”, despite some formal coincidences with the Weberian model (the system of exams for the right to obtain a position plus a stepped job hierarchy), is opposite to it in its fundamental principles and goals.

As is known, in ancient and medieval China there was no right of private ownership of land in the European sense. The Emperor (Son of Heaven) was the sole owner of all the country's lands. The subjects, according to the Confucian tradition, were considered, as it were, members of one large family headed by the emperor. Accordingly, officials were administrators of imperial property.

Human nature was considered as a combination of light and darkness, i.e. good and bad - yin and yang. Hence, the task of the bureaucracy was understood not as serving the public interest, but as mitigating the negative consequences of the action of the ineradicable vices of people in principle, in order to ensure the effective power of the Son of Heaven.

Accordingly, the entire notorious system of examinations for the possibility of occupying the position of an official was specific and meant only a test of the ability of candidates to serve the emperor and, most importantly, ensure stability, stability, and the immutability of the system, regardless of changing historical conditions and circumstances.

To prevent the formation of a bureaucratic corporation, seemingly inevitable in such cases, a number of mechanisms were in place to separate officials and their interests.

Among such mechanisms of subordinating an official not to the bureaucratic structure of power as such, not to the interests of the bureaucratic elite, but only to the favor of the emperor can be attributed:

The lack of narrow specialization among officials, which made possible their painless interchangeability like homogeneous parts of a mechanism;
a constant surplus of candidates for positions, pursuing the same goal (passing exams by no means guaranteed a position, but only allowed one to become one of the applicants for it, while the wait itself could last indefinitely, but could be shortened by a bribe, which, however, did not give guarantee of success);
the extremely limited career prospects (an official often remained in the same position for the entire term of his service, often only a few years), and this made it meaningless to create a ladder of personal ties so common in other bureaucratic systems;
personal dependence of all officials on the emperor;
tough measures against informal ties among officials in order to prevent the emergence of stable coalitions among them. For example, a ban on personal friendship, a ban on officials of one clan serving in one province, a ban on marriages from among local residents, a ban on acquiring property under the jurisdiction of an official;
the financial dependence of the official not on the imperial salary (usually quite small and far from covering the costs associated with obtaining a position). His well-being depended on the ability to squeeze the maximum income out of the imperial subjects, including for his own personal benefit. This inevitably turned the official into a vulnerable violator of laws with all the attendant consequences - fear of exposure, uncertainty even in his near future, etc.;
officials have no personal or corporate guarantees against arbitrary dismissals, demotions and relocations. All laws were formulated in such a way that an official simply could not help but violate them and therefore was under constant fear of exposure and punishment, which made him completely dependent and defenseless before the highest authority (this is one of the key differences between Chinese officials and "Weber" bureaucrats);
particularly careful control over the higher and middle bureaucracy, which is potentially more dangerous for the authorities, through an extensive network of secret police (censors); the practice of direct communication between the emperor and the lower echelon of the bureaucracy, bypassing its intermediate levels; the absence of the post of head of government, the functions of which were performed by the emperor himself; and, of course, a personal system of all appointments.

The famous sinologist L.S. Perelomov, analyzing the influence of political doctrine on the organization of the Chinese administration, lists a close set of mechanisms contained in the form of a system of prescriptions in legalism - a political doctrine that practically underlay the entire Chinese state system:

Systematic updating of the device;
equal opportunities for officials;
a clear gradation within the ruling class itself;
unification of bureaucracy thinking;
censorship supervision;
strict personal responsibility of the official.

The system that made it possible to keep the bureaucrats "in check" was deeply layered, with a large margin of safety. This shows the founders' understanding of the danger from an insufficiently controlled bureaucracy.

3. Russian specificity of bureaucracy.

As for Russia, it combined various variants of the "imperial" model: until the 18th century. a combination of Byzantine and Tatar variants dominated, and the latter, in turn, used elements of the Chinese model in a coarsened form (in particular, in tax collection). With the reforms of Peter the Great, elements borrowed from European absolutism were added to it, i.e. in the "semi-imperial" version.

From the 19th century, and especially from the second half of it - from the time of the reforms of Alexander II, elements of the rational bureaucracy model began to develop. However, on the whole, the imperial model of "state service" still prevailed until 1917, and in the Soviet period it received a new powerful impetus.

Bureaucracy (bureaucracy as a derivative phenomenon) is a form of exercising power (primarily state power), in which the general will of an organization (society, citizens) is replaced by the will of a group of people.

Such a substitution is initiated by many reasons: the irrational construction of the state apparatus, in which there are many duplicating, parallel structures; lack or weak legal regulation management processes in terms of both substantive and procedural norms; low level of control over compliance with established procedures; insufficient professional training of politicians and civil servants.

The realities of history and modernity convincingly show that under bureaucracy there is a substitution not only of will, but also of interests and goals. Hence the cult of the leader, the messianic thinking of almost every "boss", isolation, loyalty to the environment, hidden recruitment mechanisms and much more.

Bureaucracy leads to the fact that, as a result of substitution, group interests, goals and will begin to pass off as common. The authorities in such cases pretend that they act on behalf of and on behalf of everyone, and whatever they say or do, everything is allegedly for the benefit of everyone, for the benefit and development, although everyone has a different, often opposite opinion on relevant issues.

Formalism, veneration of rank, polywriting, etc. - is nothing more than the attributes of bureaucracy, its design, hiding the essence of the "internal" behind the "external" - the use of power for personal gain.

4. Bureaucracy and bureaucracy.

There is a confusion of concepts, often a source of confusion and mutual misunderstanding between people. In contrast to the bureaucratic way of organizing management, bureaucracy is a worldwide disease, to one degree or another widespread in almost all countries. In terms of the scale and amount of evil brought to humanity, it is perhaps comparable to pollution. environment.

In the exact sense of the word, bureaucracy means the power of the "bureau", i.e. desk - not the people, not even a specific person, but an official position. In other words, an auxiliary function, designed to serve people, to be a tool in their hands, acquires power over them. The system of rational administration of affairs turns from a tool into a self-sufficient machine.

An official, in principle, cannot be an absolutely impassive executor, as Weber believed. He tends to use his position for his own benefit. At the level of social and group interactions, it looks like this: the apparatus sometimes seeks to impose its own interest on society as supposedly universal. Another objective basis for the rebirth of a rational bureaucracy is its organic anti-democratism. It arises from the official's imaginary monopoly on competence, leaving behind ordinary people only the role of petitioners, intercessors.

Since the first task of an official is to ensure the observance of uniform, common to all formal rules, then gradually it turns into an end in itself. The form, rational in its basis, acquires the features of a meaningless ritual, and the content is replaced by the form. The level of understanding of the problems facing the apparatus, its individual links and employees is decreasing.

To understand the logic of the bureaucratic machine, the well-known Parkinson's law is important: a bureaucratic organization seeks to expand its influence indefinitely. At the same time, there is no desire to increase one's own responsibility for the state of affairs - quite the contrary. Maximizing the scope and scope of one's control while minimizing responsibility is the bureaucratic ideal.

Bureaucracy is often identified with red tape, replies, bureaucracy, and so on. However, these external symptoms of the disease are wrongly confused with its internal content, which was still V.I. Lenin successfully defined it as the subordination of the interests of the business to the interests of the career.

Bureaucracy includes the following components:

In the political aspect - excessive growth and irresponsibility of the executive branch;
social - the alienation of this power from the people;
organizational - clerical substitution of content for form;
moral and psychological - bureaucratic deformation of consciousness.

5. New trends and approaches: a realistic concept.

Let us now turn to that interpretation of bureaucracy, which is called realistic. In fact, it is she who is now dominant in the countries of Western democracy. In fact, we are talking about the gradual addition and modernization of the Weberian model.

Another, largely alternative approach began to take shape in the 1970s. of the last century by the efforts of mainly American authors. Expressing the general spirit of the late 1960s and early 1970s, which was largely revolutionary for the West, they subjected to fundamental criticism the very desire to present the bureaucracy as the highest form of organization that makes it possible to best solve the problems of modern civilization. The concepts of "responsive" administration, polycentrism, "flat" structures, etc. have emerged.

Today, in world practice, the paramount role in management, including state, of cultural factors, the formation of a new culture of public service has already been realized. It is believed that without an ethical component, any administrative reforms have little chance of success.

Another side of the process of fundamental changes in the civil service is its turn towards people. The citizen is seen as a kind of "client" of state institutions. From the status of a ward, a petitioner, he passes into the status of a consumer of the services provided to him by the state, exercising his rights.

In general, the revision of the principles of civil service that has taken place in recent decades can be reduced to the following areas:

Analysis and institutionalization of the political role of the bureaucracy and mechanisms for the implementation of its corporate interests;
search for the optimal ratio of political and professional principles in the administration;
reducing the role of the vertical administrative hierarchy, the development of functional bodies, "flat" structures, etc.;
decentralization, reduction in cost, reduction of administration;
limiting the role of the traditional administrative "ladder of ranks";
the introduction of management and even marketing in a large part of the civil service;
the maximum possible openness, "responsiveness" of the bureaucracy to the needs and expectations of citizens;
a significant increase in attention to the cultural and moral and ethical aspects of the civil service.

Curious aspects of the fight against bureaucracy. Traditionally, those outside of power take pleasure in exposing and criticizing bureaucratic fabrications in the formation and exercise of power. Every self-respecting opposition member considered and considers it his duty to accuse the current government of bureaucracy. But as soon as the same persons, movements come to power, take control of the state apparatus, they often reproduce the bureaucracy, and no less than the overthrown one.

The state apparatus exists and is by no means going to self-destruct. If any lunatic who seized power tried to do something like that, it would bring society to an immediate disaster.

It turns out that the objects and subjects of criticism of bureaucracy change places, creating in public opinion the impression of a fight against bureaucracy, but it is recreated now in one, then in another formation, then in one, then in another type of state. Few researchers are trying to see the real origins of its centuries-old existence.

Bureaucracy of organizations

Bureaucracy is a complex and contradictory social phenomenon. In the ordinary sense, the concept of "bureaucracy" very often has a clearly negative connotation. However, in fact, bureaucracy initially represents the only form of management currently possible, very effective in its essence, but capable of generating negative social phenomena.

Bureaucracy is usually understood as social group, whose members are professionally engaged in management, their positions and positions in the organization form a hierarchy characterized by formal rights and obligations that determine their activities and responsibilities.

The history of bureaucracy goes back to ancient times. Clans of professional managers, officials existed in Ancient Egypt, Ancient China, in the Roman Empire and other countries. ancient world. Evolved bureaucracies arose during the formation of nation-states, when peace reigned and the need for social order increased.

The term “bureaucracy” itself means “the dominance of the office” and is formed from two words: the French bureau - bureau, office, and the Greek kratos - strength, power, domination. The introduction of this term is attributed to the physiocratic economist Vincent de Gournay, who in 1745 designated the executive branch as such, giving the term a pejorative meaning. However, the term came into scientific use thanks to the outstanding German sociologist M. Weber. He based the study of bureaucracy on its ideal image, considering bureaucracy as the most effective tool for managing social structures and individual structural units. According to Weber, the rigidly formalized nature of bureaucratic relations, the clarity in the distribution of role functions, the personal interest of bureaucrats in achieving the goals of the organization lead to the adoption of timely and qualified decisions based on carefully selected and verified information. With bureaucratic management, official positions, officials and managers become key figures in the management of organizations. The bureaucracy, having access to all levers of control, is omnipotent, obeying only the "interests of the cause." At the same time, it ensures the clarity and unambiguity of information flows in the organization. A bureaucrat must be a high-class professional, have a special education, and be competent in matters of managing an organization.

Weber identified the following main distinguishing features of the ideal bureaucracy:

1. Impersonal character. Employees of the management bodies of the organization are personally free and act only within the framework of impersonal duties that exist in this organization. The term "impersonal" here means that duties and obligations belong to offices and positions, and not to individuals who may hold these offices and positions at a given time.
2. The principle of hierarchy. Bureaucracy presupposes the presence of a pronounced hierarchy of posts and positions, i.e. a certain position dominates all subordinate ones and depends on the positions above it in the structure of the organization. In a hierarchical relationship, an employee in a particular position can make decisions about employees in lower positions, and is subject to the decisions of persons in higher positions.
3. A clear division of labor in the field of management. This implies a pronounced specification of the functions of each of the posts. This assumes a strict formal distribution of tasks and responsibilities of each employee, who are fully responsible for the performance of their duties. A necessary condition for the implementation of this characteristic is the full competence of employees in each position in a narrow range of problems.
4. Rules for the selection of employees. The selection and placement of employees within the social structure of the organization are carried out solely on the basis of their qualifications. This means that such important status positions as money, kinship and origin, power, connections and other parameters that are not related to the field of qualification are not taken into account.

Bureaucracy vs Bureaucracy - What's the difference?

The word "bureaucracy" causes a negative reaction in the majority of the population, which periodically encounters such phenomena as clerical red tape; waiting in queues for many hours in order to obtain the necessary form and certificate; unsuccessful attempts to achieve a solution to any issue from the authorities and management; an abundance of paper work that replaces the real necessary actions to improve the conditions of society. However, the very phenomenon of "bureaucracy" is not something negative; rather, it is natural in a society where there is a centralization of power.

By definition, "bureaucracy" (from French bureau - office and Greek kratos - power) is a management system based on a vertical hierarchy and designed to fulfill the tasks assigned to it most effective way» (www.investments.academic.ru). It arises in any countries where all management is concentrated in the hands of central government authorities.

Now the concept of "bureaucracy" is used much more widely - when describing the method of managing any large firm or corporation in which there is a large and extensive staff of managing managers. In this regard, such concepts as "corporate bureaucracy", "church bureaucracy", "trade union bureaucracy" and others arose.

A systematic view of the problem of bureaucracy and bureaucracy allows us to see that this phenomenon is completely due to the existence of a skin measure in society. Back in the early 1900s, the German sociologist Max Weber formulated the concept of rational bureaucracy, which has become one of the most useful ideas in the social sciences. Rather, he proposed a model of bureaucracy, the main elements of which were completely based (from the point of view of system-vector psychology) on the values ​​of the skin measure, which, in fact, organizes the entire management system in society, creates a clear power structure, naturally supporting with the help of this structure (charismatic a person capable of rallying a human flock around him).

First of all, according to Max Weber, the work of each member of the bureaucratic system should be based on clear rules that are designed to make the entire management process the most efficient and rational, to protect clients from the arbitrariness of officials, that is, bureaucracy. Here such values ​​of the skin vector as regulation, efficiency, rationalization of any process are manifested.

The second element of Max Weber's bureaucratic model is the impersonality of relationships, both between members of the bureaucratic structure and in its external interactions. According to this principle, the selection of officials and managers should be carried out not on the basis of personal attachments and sympathies, but only on the basis of the professionalism and competence of the candidate. The skin vector always keeps a distance in relationships, not allowing to be based on feelings, but only on the principle of the greatest benefit and benefit for business. "Business, and nothing personal" - a favorite saying of the skin manager.

Specialization and division of labor in the bureaucratic system, when duties and scope of activity are clearly defined for each employee, are also the influence of the skin vector. Individualism, division of labor, standardization - the principles of organizing any process by skin measure.

And finally, clear vertical hierarchy, characteristic of any bureaucratic company and described by Max Weber, reflects the natural hierarchy that exists in an animal pack and still determines the life of human society. It is a pyramid, at the base of which is the majority, controlled by a minority located at higher levels of the hierarchical ladder. As already mentioned, at the very top of this pyramid is the urethral leader, and lower positions in relation to him in management are occupied by skin commanders, middle-level leaders, who form the basis of the bureaucratic system. It is for them that all the principles described above are valid.

Bureaucracy - what is it? Human factor

This is the ideal model of an efficient bureaucratic system. But why is it not always so effective in reality? The complication of society, its management processes, and the development of the economy lead to an even greater increase in the influence of the bureaucratic system. The larger the structure that needs to be managed, the more staff of managers and the number of rules according to which it works are required. In addition, the main negative factor that makes the bureaucratic system complex, clumsy, riddled with corruption is, as always, human. Let's take a closer look at why.

Sociologists describe three main problems that arise as a result of the existence of a bureaucratic form of government. This is alienation from man, ritualism and inertia. Add to this, of course, the problem of corruption, which in the minds of people is already firmly associated with the position of a public official, although this is not always the case. Of course, how efficiently and accurately the management system, even the best one, depends on people, their vectors and their degree of development.

Causes of bureaucracy. Underdeveloped skin

The problem of alienating the control system from a person is a stereotyped approach to a person, without taking into account his individual needs, treating him like another “case”. Of course, this is a consequence of the influence of impersonality and the standard approach of a person with not very developed, inclined to save on any of his actions. It’s easier to take a long-tested instruction and follow it than to try to get to the bottom of the problem.

The problem of corruption, the use of one's official position for personal gain in order to receive bribes, extortion is also a "skin" problem. A developed skinner will never break the law. The undeveloped, remaining in the archetype (at the level of development of primitive man), strives to pull off everything that lies badly. A "warm" place in the system of distribution of material wealth is the ultimate dream of such an archetypal leather worker, where he can easily enrich himself.

Since in Russia the skin measure at all times could not develop alongside the urethral mentality that was opposite to it in terms of values, the problem of corruption of bureaucratic power among officials is very acute. The archetypal skin is the reason why in the minds of Russians the position of an official, a bureaucrat is firmly associated with the concept of "corrupt".

Causes of bureaucracy. anal stupor

Bureaucracy is a rather cumbersome system that has many levels, which, of course, cannot do without performers who would perform fairly routine paper and office work that requires attention, accuracy, perseverance, scrupulousness. Representatives of the anal vector are best suited for such work. It is they who are engaged in office work, document management, reporting. And it is in their properties that the causes of such problems as ritualism and the inertia of the bureaucratic system are found.

Prone to the accumulation of past experience, following traditions, resisting innovations, they get used to a certain system of doing business, established over the years, and it is very difficult to adapt to new tracks. The desire to maintain the established order in the institution at any cost, complexity, detail, the passage of numerous instances make the bureaucratic system so inertial, with difficulty responding to rapid changes in society, especially in the current rapid skin phase of human development. There is even a special term - "bureaucratic ritualism", preoccupation with rules and regulations to the detriment of achieving the goal for which the business was started.

Assertive skin commanders demand from their performers a quick reaction, instant restructuring, but clumsy anals in such a situation fall into stress, which is expressed in a stupor, loss of the ability to think. This leads to numerous mistakes, alterations and a feeling of deep dissatisfaction among those who are used to doing everything perfectly.

Red tape and bureaucracy in Russia

Despite the widespread opinion that Russia is a country of bureaucrats, the number of officials in our country is much lower than in the developed countries of Europe. According to RIA Novosti, "rumors of a high level of bureaucratization in Russia are greatly exaggerated" (www.ria.ru). According to a study by experts from the RIA-Analytics Center for Economic Research, the lowest level of bureaucratization is observed, oddly enough, in Moscow and St. Petersburg, where there are 44 and 50 civil and municipal employees per 10,000 people, respectively. This is with the average Russian figure of 67 officials. Isn't it an amazing discovery?

Comparing with Western countries, we have about 250 civil servants for the same 10 thousand population in Romania, about 300 in Germany and Norway, about 350 in the USA, about 400 people employed in the civil service in France (that is, officials in France in 6 times more than in Russia, relative to the population, of course).

In addition to the fact that in some regions of our country there really is not enough civil service workers, in our country there is also the problem of the inefficient work of the bureaucratic system, bureaucracy. What is it connected with? Again with the fact that, in its essence, bureaucracy is the product of a skin measure, the opposite of our urethral mentality. We are not limited mentally and do not like to obey the law. The strict adherence to rules, which is implied in the bureaucratic system, is alien to us. That is why the bureaucracy in Russia has always been different from the Western one.

In the 1920s–1930s, a new type of bureaucracy was formed in the USSR, different from the European bureaucracy - the nomenklatura - which, nevertheless, absorbed all the qualities of the Russian bureaucracy. During the reign, the career of an official did not depend on business qualities, but on the official's political loyalty, his commitment to the party. And in the days of his successors - from personal connections, which, of course, did not contribute to the quality of management.

Russians tend to create informal relationships, even in power. The basis for Russian nepotism is the complementarity of the urethral mentality with the anal values ​​of family and friendship. That is why, when hiring in the apparatus of power, in Russia they most often look not at professionalism, but at the presence of connections. We have already spoken about the causes of Russian corruption.

Russian bureaucracy and the consumer society

Currently, attempts are being made in Russia to make the bureaucratic system more efficient. For this purpose, information technologies are widely used, which involve facilitating the access of the population to public services, reducing paperwork.

However, in reality, with the ever-increasing computerization of the management process, for some reason, there is an increase in the number of officials, and the shaft of reporting, paperwork is only increasing. This is especially true in the fields of education and healthcare, where new management methods have already formalized the process of communication with the client so much that the quality of service suffers. For example, 15 minutes are allocated for a patient’s appointment, during which the doctor must have time to enter all his data into electronic card so there is no time left for inspection. The control of every step, the need to fill out a huge number of reporting documents make bureaucrats out of specialists. Bureaucracy penetrates into professional areas, the quality of services in which suffers greatly from this.

Of course, such side effects of bureaucracy are also observed in the West, but they cause particular rejection in us. Mentally, we are closer when a person, his needs and requirements are at the center of our aspirations. For us, the common is more important than the personal, and all these regulatory delays cause only irritation.

That is why, when we adopt the latest Western management technologies, they do not work for us. Total control over the quality of work, punishment in the ruble does not make us want to follow the law. A Russian person can be influenced only by awakening in him responsibility for others. Only this finds a response in his heart and the desire to act for the good of society.

Therefore, efforts to achieve effective management should be applied not in the field of application of the latest Western management technologies, but in the psychological sphere, revealing to our people the truth about their mentality and the huge potential inherent in their mentality.

In late Soviet times, when the archetypal bureaucratic nomenklatura was decomposing, the people continued to live the life of society, doing their work conscientiously, for the good of the whole, without any Western technologies for effective management. A properly built ideology, which turned out to be consonant with our mentality, helped us create a strong and economically developed state with a weak and inefficient bureaucratic system. These are lessons from the past that we could turn to now.

But it is much more important for us today, based on a new system-vector understanding of ourselves and our place in the historical process, to get out of the protracted stress of following someone else's Western path and finally find a foothold for the urethral breakthrough "for the flags" - into the society of the future ... Together with everything the world.

Proofreader: Natalia Konovalova

The article was written based on the materials of the training " System-Vector Psychology»

When in everyday life we ​​hear the word bureaucracy, we imagine endless sitting in queues for the sake of obtaining a trifling certificate, red tape and poor unproductive work of authorities that act on orders and instructions from above.

We also mean by this concept a group of persons invested with power, called upon to complicate our lives in every possible way by nitpicking, digging through unnecessary papers and circulars. However, it is not the bureaucracy, as such, that is the cause of such troubles, but shortcomings in the implementation of the rules of work of many organizations, a simple human factor, the size of the structure itself, and illiteracy.

Let's take it word for word: bureau - table plus - power. It turns out: the power of the table or position. This type of management, which is based on the selection of officials, is bureaucracy. This is a hierarchy and subordination of all elements to the central one. With the advent of the state, bureaucracy (ancient oriental despotism) also appears.

But back in 1990, Max Weber formulated the definition of bureaucracy, which can be considered as the most useful thing for humanity. The author considered it as an ideal, as a model with certain standards, which must be followed:

• a clear division of duties of officials;
• hierarchy of relations in power;
• systematization of instructions and rules;
• strict control of lower links by higher ones;
• the impersonal nature of relations in bureaucratic education.

However, even Marx in his works noted the formation of a hierarchical bureaucracy (1843).

Time and harsh reality have led to a change in the simple original meaning of this concept. Conflicts between the ruling politicians, executives and the lower strata, the increase in the distance between managers and functionaries, centralization, the security of the upper echelons - these are the bright features of the bureaucracy.

He is characterized by routine, indifference, slowness. Separation from the masses leads to a feeling of permissiveness, irresponsibility. It often becomes a lever of terror.

A small historical excursion

The Marxist-Leninists wanted to destroy the bureaucracy. The broad involvement of the people in government, the awakening of the activity of the masses - these are the factors that should have contributed to this, and the revolution should have broken the old power machine. But the distortion of ideals and goals led to the creation of an administrative-command system in the USSR.

The people, in fact, were removed from participation by the emerging apparatus of the bureaucracy. Signs of oppression and terror testify to the bureaucratic regime. The totalitarian system that developed in the union did not imply the protection of human rights, like any bureaucracy. There is an alienation of power.

In Western Europe, in the practice of management, the features of bureaucracy according to Weber are visible. This is classic bureaucracy. No state-organized society can exist without bureaucrats. These are professional managers who do not create any value themselves. Their purpose is the management of state affairs, the performance of socially useful functions. Such workers rarely use their professional knowledge. Their goal is management competence.

The advantages of such a hardware bureaucracy:

• stability in management - distribution of types of work;
• standardization (reduces the possibility of errors);
• timely training of employees;
• formalization, centralization.

Disadvantages:

• bureaucracy as such;
• weak motivation;
• poor use of human resources;
• inflexibility in critical situations, the possibility of inadequate decisions.

This type of bureaucracy can be applied in organizations with a stable structure of the external environment.

The bureaucracy develops and changes. Using new approaches to achieve goals, modern management systems, focusing on human and ethical attitudes, developed democracies have an acceptable system of bureaucracy. The search for a balance in the administration between the professional and political parties gives the best result.

Faced with the manifestation of bureaucracy in everyday life, we observe its “everyday” reflection. We blame the state and officials for this. Whereas the concept of "bureaucracy" is much broader and deeper. It includes not only negative aspects. Without bureaucrats (in the good sense of the word), it turns out to be difficult to live, manage and just move forward.

Bureaucracy is (literally) "clerical domination". From a socio-political point of view, this concept characterizes the process of exercising power by privileged persons chosen by the ruling class. Bureaucracy is a form that arose in an exploitative society, in the process of dividing people into classes. At the same time, such a state is being formed, in the structure of which the exploiters put forward their interests as the interests of the people.

Bureaucracy and bureaucracy - a form and method of management through the bureaucracy or officials, cut off from society and standing above it. The characteristic features of this administrative structure are caste, isolation, standardization of duties, formalization, suppression of initiative. According to Marx, bureaucracy is the transformation of state tasks into clerical tasks or vice versa. This managerial form creates its content from formal goals, everywhere conflicting with real goals. This is the theory of bureaucracy according to Marx.

With the change in socio-economic formations, the managerial form also changed. As the researchers note, bureaucracy was already characteristic of the slave system. It was a complex hierarchy of positions and bodies. A "stationery" apparatus was also distributed. A special place was assigned to the church bureaucracy.

However, this form of management reached its greatest development in capitalist society. Along with an extensive network of military, police, administrative bodies in the conditions of this society, various non-state bourgeois associations arose, for which the division of the administrative apparatus was characteristic.

For pre-capitalist formations, the manifestation of bureaucracy was characteristic only in later (after the formation of capitalist society), this form actively penetrated into social life.

A particular strengthening of the bureaucracy was noted in the imperialist period. This era was characterized by a merger of monopolies and thus, the state bureaucracy was united with the monopoly elite, which contributed to the concentration of economic and political power in its hands. A characteristic feature of this structure is the presence of the so-called "management institute", which was a corporate administration. In fact, he was a new bureaucratic layer. The extreme manifestations of this managerial form are autocratic structures of the fascist type.

Some sociologists (adherents of the bourgeoisie) who seek to justify the increase in bureaucracy under modern capitalism often refer to the complexity of the management structure in general and the need for a hierarchical system, ordering and rationalization. Thus, there is an identification of "clerical domination" with the principle of leadership and organization. At the same time, some authors note that the need for the formation of different arose at all stages of the development of society and will continue to arise. At the same time, the dominance of the bureaucracy has developed in a class society and disappears when the corresponding differences are eliminated.

As sociologists note, the establishment of true democracy is incompatible with "clerical domination." According to Marx, the elimination of bureaucracy becomes feasible under the condition of a real transition of general interest into a special one. In other words, the main thing is to satisfy the needs of the people. At the same time, the elimination of the remnants of bureaucracy does not happen automatically with the abolition of the form itself. To completely eradicate all its features, purposeful and systematic work should be carried out.