Weber and Bureaucracy

 

Luke Vaz

Sociology

Dr. M Quie

According to Weber, what makes bureaucracies ecient! Do you agree! "n analysing Ma# Weber$s study o% bureaucracy in the modern state, it is crucial to note that his conce&t came hand in hand with the rationalisation o% society. Shi%ts in religion in Western 'uro&e, &articularly in the (%teenth and si#teenth centuries, had a dramatic e)ect on modern society, leading to the s&read o% rational ca&italism, secularisation and the erosion o% culture. *ureaucracy is indicati+e o% this rationalisation &rocess, as society became &reoccu&ied with obtaining goals as uickly as &ossible, to ma#imise &ro(ts &erha&s or e+en to minimise the time s&ent on a certain task. -his is embodied in bureaucracy as Weber Weber saw it as a conce&t, though an im&er%ect one as his criticism o% his own work shows, that was inherently ecient due to se+eral characteristics it harnessed a hierarchical structure, structure, clear, uni+ersal rules, a s&ecialisation/based di+ision o% labour, &ur&osely im&ersonal beha+iour, unelected bureaucrats bureaucrats and a clear distinction between the &ublic and &ri+ate s&heres o% li%e. -his being Weber$s 0ideal ty&e$ e#em&li(es what makes bureaucracies ecient.  -he conce&t is not without without 1aws howe+er, a as sW Weber eber and other critics alik alike e ha+e &ointed out where a bureaucracy may %all short o% a &er%ect system. "n Weber$s Weber$s study o% bureaucracy, he outlined that within this 0ideal ty&e$ the system must ha+e a to&/down structure and as such would ha+e o&timum eciency due to the e#istence o% a hierarchical, s&ecialised %ramework and uni+ersal rules to kee& it in &lace. A to&/down structure in this way, with orders coming %rom abo+e, would allow %or e)ecti+e communication and settle con1icts 0which ine+itably rise in any large organisation undertaking co/ordinated acti+ities 2Downs, 34567.$ 8on1icts may arise %rom di)erences in the goals o% bureau members, and a hierarchy would sol+e this issue by gi+ing some 0su&erior$ le+els in order to achie+e goal %ocus, as those in higher &ositions than other bureau members would set goals %or the bureaucrats under underneath neath them, allowing %or ma#imum eciency. 9eo&le within this are 0sub:ected to the &ermanent control control o% their su&eriors 2Mommsen, 34;47$ so %ocus can be achie+ed. "n terms o% communication, a clear hierarchy would 0reduce total wasted time$ by only interacting with bureau members you are directly in+ol+ed with, or where tasks o+erla&, and only rele+ant messages to those who are directly concerned with them. As such, no single &erson 0knows e+erything about the bureau$ which makes the system ecient as it minimises any sort o% wasted e)ort, &eo&le %ocus on their tasks and nothing else so they can com&lete their assigned duties as uickly as &ossible. Di+ision o% labour and %unctional s&ecialisation there%ore also

 

Luke Vaz

Sociology

Dr. M Quie

make bureaucracies bureaucracies ecient according to Weber, as &eo&le concentrate on their gi+en tasks only. Moreo+er, since members o% the bureaucracy are well in%ormed o% their own role and ob:ecti+es within the bureaucracy, the &ossibility o% con%usion and con1ation o% se&arate administrati+e tasks are remo+ed, as s&ecialisation allows %or greater task %ocus, as the 0rational attainment o% s&eci(c ob:ecti+es 2Mommsen, 34;47$ allows %or less wasted time and thereby greater eciency.