BUREAUCRACY- The tendency for bureaucracies to act in
an autocratic manner, indifferent to varia-
tions or changes not previously articulated
or anticipated within the bureaucracy.
(Weber 1947, pp. 224–233)
A frequently expressed concern is that bu-
reaucracies are often unresponsive to the individu-
als and groups they were designed to serve. To
exacerbate the situation still further, few, if any,
techniques of control are available outside the
bureaucracies to make officials more responsive.
Additionally, a number of practical problems may
arise to potentially undermine bureaucratic effi-
ciency. These difficulties can include the unwar-
ranted application of rules and regulations, the
duplication of effort, and an indifferent and even
cavalier attitude among officials. Nonetheless, bu-
reaucracies are relatively efficient and technically
superior forms of administration proven to be
indispensable to large, complex organizations and
modern society. As Perrow has noted (1972), criti-
cism of bureaucracies frequently relates to the fact
that the actions of officials are not bureaucratic
enough and personal interests may not be fully
insulated from official duties.
In viewing the operation and function of bu-
reaucracies, it is imperative that the operational
efficiency of bureaucratic procedures be recog-
nized but not at the cost of neglecting a more
‘‘humanistic’’ orientation (Kamenka 1989, ch. 5).
The situational constraints faced by individuals
and groups both within and outside bureaucracies
warrant attention. As Martin Albrow has noted,
bureaucracy is ‘‘a term of strong emotive over-
tones and elusive connotations’’ (1970, p. 13), and
as such it represents more than a straightforward
technical process and deserves an eclectic perspec-
tive in order to fully appreciate its complexities.
BUREAUCRATIC DYSFUNCTIONSThe classic works of Merton (1940) and of Gouldner
(1954) illustrate how unanticipated developments
can adversely impact the intended effectiveness of
bureaucratic procedures. Merton notes that, com-
mencing with the need for bureaucratic control,
individual compliance with rules is enforced, there-
by allowing for the development of routinely pre-
scribed, reliable patterns of activity. However, when
this agenda of rule compliance is implemented in
a dynamic and fluctuating environment requiring
more spontaneous responses, these prescribed
patterns of bureaucratic activity can lead to ad-
verse unintended consequences. Even though the
circumstances require a different type of response,
prescribed and fixed patterns of response may still
be adopted because such responses are legitimated
and defensible within the bureaucracy, given the
extent to which they enhance individual reliability.
Consequently, officials and employees do not ac-
commodate the unique features of the situation,
efficiency is undermined, and difficulties with cli-
ents and customers may ensue. Eventually, trou-
blesome experiences with customers and clients
may contribute to an even greater emphasis on
bureaucratically reliable behavior rather than at-
tenuating this encapsulated and counterproduc-
tive type of behavior. As Merton (1940) notes,
‘‘Adherence to the rules, originally conceived of as
a means, becomes transformed into an end in
itself; there occurs the familiar process of displace-
ment of goals whereby an instrumental value be-
comes a terminal value.. .’’ While more highly
adaptive and flexible behavior is required and
permitted within a bureaucracy, powerful struc-
tural constraints may operate to promote situationally
inappropriate rule-bound behavior (Blau and Meyer
1987; Allinson 1984).Like Merton, Gouldner (1954) is concerned
with possible unintended effects of formal rule
enforcement. In Gouldner’s model, the implica-
tions of using general and impersonal rules as a
means of enforcing organizational control are in-
vestigated. The intention of using such rules is to
mask or partially conceal differential power rela-
tions between subordinates and their superiors. In
societies with egalitarian norms, such as the Unit-
ed States, this serves to enhance the legitimacy of
supervisory positions, thereby reducing the pros-
pect of tension between groups with differing
power. However, the use of general and imperson-
al rules also has the unintended consequence of
providing only minimal guidelines regarding ac-
ceptable organizational behavior. In turn, if only
minimum standards of performance are specified
and if individuals conform only to these standards,
then a disparity arises between the stated goals of
the organization, which require a level of perform-
ance beyond minimally acceptable and specified
standards, and actual individual performance. Since