BUREAUCRACYwho is regarded by the devoted followers to exhib-
it exceptional, sacred, and/or heroic characteris-
tics. Charismatic authority is therefore limited to a
specific setting and time. Rational–legal authority
derives from the belief in the legitimacy of law,
specifically in the legality of rules and the authority
of officials and employees to perform certain legal-
ly sanctioned and mandated duties to which they
have been formally assigned. Official rational–
legal authority often permits individuals to per-
form tasks that otherwise would not be permitted.
For example, police officers may engage in certain
behaviors in the course of their official duties,
such as the use of lethal force, that if performed by
an ordinary citizen would expose the citizen to
legal liability. Thus, it is not the act or set of
behaviors per se that is critical to an understand-
ing of rational–legal authority, but rather who
performs the act or behavior and whether the
individual performing the act is legally authorized
to engage in such behavior.
Three Systems of Administration. Each type
of authority is associated with a distinctive system
of administration. Over the course of premodern
social history, traditional authority was the princi-
pal means by which social organization was achieved.
This type of authority structure resulted in the
development of a wide variety of highly stable but
nonetheless particularistic systems of administra-
tion, in which personal relations of dependence or
loyalty provided the bases for authority. In gener-
al, these systems of administration are most clearly
exemplified by patrimonial and feudal systems of
administration. Unlike traditional authority, char-
ismatic authority results in highly unstable systems
of administration, because the foundations of these
systems, the profoundly personal relationships be-
tween charismatic leaders and followers, are deci-
sively limited in both time and circumstance. Giv-
en the tenuous foundation of charismatic authority
structures, it is not surprising that the systems of
administration that arise in such situations en-
counter difficulties in generating stable adminis-
trative practices. In this regard, problems pertain-
ing to the routinization of authority and leadership
succession are particularly salient and acute (We-
ber 1947, pp. 358–373). Thus, administrative sys-
tems predicated upon charismatic authority tend
to be inherently transitory and most likely arise
during periods of crisis or unprecedented change.
In contrast to the personal bases of authority
inherent in both traditional and charismatic sys-
tems of administration, rational–legal systems of
administration rely on impersonal rules and regu-
lations, culminating in the emergence of highly
precise and universalistic systems of administra-
tion that are most clearly exemplified by the mod-
ern rational bureaucracy. Weber clearly regards
such administrative practices to be relatively re-
cent in their development: ‘‘Bureaucracy... is
fully developed in political and ecclesiastical com-
munities only in the modern state, and in the
private economy only in the most advanced insti-
tutions of capitalism’’ (Weber 1978, p. 956).THE FORMAL CHARACTERISTICS OF
BUREAUCRACIESThe most distinguishing feature of modern ration-
al bureaucracies is the formal control, prescrip-
tion, and regulation of individual activity through
the enforcement of rules. The explicit intent of
enforcing these rules is to efficiently achieve spe-
cific organizational goals. In orchestrating indi-
vidual action, a succinct and unambiguous specifi-
cation of the official duties and responsibilities is
provided to minimize, if not to eliminate, the
influence of personal interests and ambitions up-
on the performance of official duties. The official
or employee is then able to concentrate exclusively
upon the technical aspects of the work, in particu-
lar the efficient and rational completion of as-
signed tasks. In addition to this attempt to sepa-
rate individuals’ private concerns from their official
duties and responsibilities, other distinguishing
characteristics of bureaucracies include:- The hierarchical ordering of authority
relations, limiting the areas of command
and responsibility for subordinate as well
as superordinate personnel - The recruitment and promotion of indi-
viduals on the basis of technical expertise
and competence - A clearly defined division of labor with
specialization and training required for
assigned tasks - A structuring of the work environment to
ensure continuous and full-time employ-
ment, and the fulfillment of individual ca-
reer expectations within the organization