Encyclopedia of Sociology

BUREAUCRACY

The logic underlying the structure of bureau-
cratic organization is to control and regulate work
routines on the basis of formal rules and regula-
tions. In intending to use formal rules to adminis-
ter workers’ duties and responsibilities, it is as-
sumed that key components of a job can be
identified to the extent that rules can effectively
monitor and be used to evaluate individual per-
formance. The precise specification of work rou-
tines for the purpose of enhancing worker produc-
tivity and organizational efficiency has been an
ongoing interest throughout the twentieth centu-
ry, as indicated by the time-motion studies and
efficiency ‘‘experts’’ of the early part of the century
and process evaluation and quality assessments of
the later part of the century. In the course of
precisely specifying work responsibilities and rou-
tines, the de-skilling of the labor force (Taylor
1911) is, if not an intended outcome, a likely
development. If a job can be defined in terms of
specific component tasks and if the component
tasks are rudimentary enough to be regulated by
formal rules, then the skill requirements of job are
reduced. As this process continues, the skill levels
of workers in the labor force may exhibit similar
reduction. Organizations can hire an individual
with the nominal skill sets needed to adhere to the
formally specified rules instead of hiring someone
who is capable of displaying individual judgment
working effectively in an environment character-
ized by job variability and uncertainty.

Bureaucracies have become both indispensa-
ble and despised fixtures of modern society. In the
drive for overall organizational efficiency and ac-
countability, individuals within and outside the
bureaucracy often experience the unsettling feel-
ing that they have no influence over a process that
may directly impact them. The aggravation of
wanting to have a problem solved or question
answered but being unable to find anyone who is
in the position to respond to the expressed con-
cern fuels criticism of bureaucracies.

While criticism of bureaucratic procedures
(or lack of ‘‘appropriate’’ procedures) is frequent,
it is also apparent many of the everyday functions
in society are possible only because of the opera-
tion of bureaucracies. The major institutions of
society, with the multitude of diverse projects
performed every day, depend on the administra-
tive and regulatory features of bureaucracies. The

faceless bureaucratic official who may be criticized

for indifference is nonetheless an essential ele-

ment in such consequential areas as national de-

fense, public education and welfare, and commu-

nications. The assessment of bureaucratic structure

and procedures therefore needs to attend to both

the overall scope of bureaucratic functions and the

manner in which particular tasks are performed.

‘‘Red tape’’ and inefficiency are two of the

most heavily criticized elements of public bureau-

cracies, and instigate appropriate calls for reform.

However, bureaucracies contain complex struc-

tures and multifaceted procedures intended to

serve a number of purposes. Criticism often re-

flects common misperceptions rather than the

true workings of bureaucracies. Regarding red

tape, the bureaucracy does not necessarily create

these protracted procedures in an effort to either

insulate the organization from competition or to

ensure that little if anything gets done without the

organization’s official approval. Rather, it is more

likely the result of disclosure and accountability

requirements imposed on the bureaucracy (Kaufman

1977, p. 29). Similarly, inefficiency needs to be

placed in the more global perspective of what in

addition to the specific task is being accomplished

by the bureaucracy. If the focus is limited to a

specific task (e.g., construction of a highway), then

the process can reasonably be viewed as inefficient

if the task could have been completed sooner or

cost less if done by someone else. However, there

may be a number of additional goals that the

bureaucracy is attempting to achieve while com-

pleting the specific task in question. In the public

sector, a bureaucracy is often required to be re-

sponsive to a number of outside interest groups to

ensure that its operation is socially fair, account-

able, and impartial, in addition to being technical-

ly able to complete a particular task (Wilson 1989,

pp.315–325). The determination of efficiency is

compounded by this collateral concern regarding

the attainment of social goals and specific techni-

cal goals. Bureaucracies are thus faced with the

dual challenge of being socially responsible and

technically proficient and therefore have to be

assessed on the basis of the extent to which they

concurrently achieve these two sets of goals and

not just one set at the exclusion of the other.

SEE ALSO: Complex Organizations; Organizational Effective-

ness; Organizational Structure