Encyclopedia of Sociology

BUREAUCRACY

are viewed as ‘‘natural systems’’ (Scott 1992) in
which the interaction between an organization
and its environment involves a series of potential
two-way relationships. While many of the process-
es within a bureaucracy are designed to insulate
the organization from external influences, invari-
ably environmental influences can appreciably im-
pact an organization and its internal operations.
Similarly, the bureaucratic organization, with its
expanding role in modern society, has unques-
tionably had a major impact on society.

EMPIRICAL ASSESSMENT

Stanley Udy (1959) was among the first to propose
that, rather than regarding the specification of
bureaucracies to be strictly a matter of definition,
we need to ascertain empirically the extent to
which bureaucratic characteristics are associated
with one another in actual organizations. In the
subsequent efforts at empirical assessment of the
extent to which organizations exhibit bureaucratic
properties, the works of Richard Hall (1963) and
the Aston University research group (Pugh et al.
1968) are especially noteworthy. Hall’s (1963) find-
ings suggest that among samples of U.S. organiza-
tions, bureaucratic features of organizations may
vary independently of one another. As is illustrat-
ed by the negative relationship between an empha-
sis on technical qualifications and other bureau-
cratic features—in particular hierarchy of authority
and rule enforcement—Hall’s study suggests that
bureaucratic systems of organization may be in-
dicative of multidimensional rather than unitary
processes.

The Aston University research group (Pugh et
al. 1968) reported similar findings for organiza-
tions in Britain. On the basis of their measure-
ments of the bureaucratic characteristics of or-
ganizations specified by Weber, these researchers
found four mutually independent dimensions of
organizational structure rather than a single
overarching bureaucratic dimension. With this
finding, the authors concluded that bureaucracy is
a multidimensional phenomenon and that it ‘‘...
is not unitary, but that organizations may be bu-
reaucratic in any number of ways’’ (Pugh et al.
1968, p. 101). However, these findings have not
been unchallenged. The contentious nature of
inquiry into the precise structure of bureaucratic
organization is succinctly reflected in the work of

Blau (1970) and of Child (1972), the adoption of a

modified position by one of the investigators in

the original Aston group (Hickson and McMillan

1981), and the subsequent reply by Pugh (1981).

THE RISE OF BUREAUCRATIC CONTROL

Although bureaucracy existed in imperial Rome

and ancient China, as well as in various national

monarchies, the complexity of legislative issues

arising within the modern state has caused an

enormous growth of administrative function with-

in both government and the private sector. Conse-

quently, the power and authority of bureaucratic

administrative officials to control policy within an

organization as well as the modern state has, over

time, increased significantly. The rise to power of

bureaucratic officials means that, without express-

ly intending to achieve power, nonelected officials

can and do have a significant impact on a broad

spectrum of activities and future developments

within society. As Weber noted,

The bureaucratic structure is everywhere a late

product of historical development. The further

back we trace our steps, the more typical is the

absence of bureaucracy and of officialdom in

general. Since bureaucracy has a rational

character, with rules, means–ends calculus,

and matter-of-factness predominating, its rise

and expansion has everywhere had revolution-

ary results. (1978, p. 1002)

Moreover, Weber contended that traditional

authority structures have been, and will continue

to be, replaced by the rational–legal authority

structures of modern bureaucracies, given their

‘‘purely technical superiority over any other form

of organization’’ (Weber 1946, p. 214). Regardless

of the apparent technical benefit, the increased

prominence of bureaucracies in both the public

and the private sectors is not without its problems.

As Weber acknowledged, certain negative conse-

quences may follow the development of bureau-

cratic systems of administration to include:

1. The monopolization of information and
   the creation of ‘‘official secrets’’


2. The inability to change bureaucratic struc-
   ture because of vested incentive and
   reward systems, and the dependency of
   society on the specialization and expertise
   provided by the bureaucracy