Perspectives on Public Administration

Max Weber’s theory. His formulation deserves careful analysis as his writings covered a
wide range of subjects including economics, sociology and administration. He also outlined
the impact of religion on the growth of capitalism and his thoughts are the larger
considerations of socio-economic and historical forces that led to the growth of complex
organizations. His thoughts represent the macro view of all these aspects. Weber believed
that bureaucracy helps in administering and establishing the organization in the most
efficient manner.

Biography – his life and writings

Max Weber (1864-1920) was born in a business family involved in textile manufacturing in
western Germany. He studied law from the University of Heidelberg after completing his
preliminary schooling in 1882. He completed his doctorate and worked as an instructor in
University of Berlin and wrote number of papers on law highlighting the social, political and
economic factors. In his writings, Weber main focus was on analytical and systematic study,
he always preferred to gain knowledge through practical experience as he was of progressive
outlook. His major writings include ‘The Theory of Economic and Social Organizations’,
‘General Economic History’ and ‘Protestant Ethic and Spirit of Capitalism’.
Bureaucracy simply means ‘Desk Government’.

Bureaucracy
Vincent De Gourney, a French national was
the first one who coined the term ‘bureaucracy’ in 1745. After him, several French writers
were involved in popularizing the word bureaucracy but as a term it was used in 19th
century.
The famous economist J.S. Mill and the sociologists like Mosca and Michels extensively
wrote on bureaucracy. For Weber, bureaucracy is an “administrative body of officials”, who
all are needed to bring out the efficiency in the organizations. In his opinion there is a lot of
economic competition in the modern era, due to which capitalist organizations required a
highly efficient kind of organization system. The bureaucratic principles gave a scope to the
organization to go ahead with economic planning and maintain the stability in the market.
Weber observes, “The capitalist system has undeniably played a major role in the
development of bureaucracy. Indeed, without it capitalist production could not continue…
Its
development, largely under capitalistic auspices, has created an urgent need for stable,
strict,
intensive and calculable administration.” (Weber, 1953, p. 48) He further said that
“capitalism is the most rational economic basis for bureaucratic administration and enables
it
to develop in the most rational form, especially because, from a fiscal point of view, it
supplies the necessary money resources”. (Weber, 1953, p 48)

AUTHORITY
Weber tried to explain bureaucracy as a sociological phenomenon; where theory of
domination can be understood in general context. Domination basically refers to a power
relationship that is authoritarian power of command between the rulers and the ruled.
But power is accepted, only when if it is justified and legitimate. Authority legitimizes the
exercise of power, where a person willingly complies with commands or orders; and on the
basis of this belief Weber identified three types of legitimations, each correspond to a
particular type of authority.
i) Charismatic authority
ii) Traditional authority
iii) Legal-Rational authority

i) charismatic authority: The term charisma can be defined as ‘gift of grace’. The
charismatic leader holds some personal qualities which makes him different from the
common man. He may be a hero, masiha or a prophet and by virtue of his magical powers
he has a wide acceptance which forms the basis of legitimate system. People follow his
commands or order without questioning him, they believe in his extraordinary capabilities.
The disciples of the charismatic leader have full devotion in him; however, they don’t have
any special qualification or status. The administrative apparatus in this type of authority is
unstable and is very loose as the disciples work in accordance to the likes and dislikes of the
leader.

ii) Traditional Authority: Traditional Authority derives its legitimacy from the goodness of
the past where actions are based on customs and traditions. Individuals who exercise this
authority are referred as masters and those who obey the masters are called followers. The
masters have authority by virtue of his status which he inherited from the previous rulers;
and his commands are obeyed by the followers who have personal loyalty towards him and
faith in traditional status including household officials, relatives and personal choices of
masters.

iii) Legal Rational Authority: Under legal rational authority, rules are applied judicially and
are applicable on all the members of the organization. In modern society, this authority plays
a dominant role. It is legal as it is based on systematic rules and procedures and it is rational
because it is well defined and more in accordance to proper channel to achieve an end. The

members who exercise this authority are referred as superiors, who follow an impersonal
order; and others include the administrative staff who obeys the laws. Strict adherence to
rules and procedures delimit the authority of the superiors.

For Weber, in the administrative staff the appointed officials is referred as bureaucracy.
Bureaucracy explicitly includes the appointed officials and elected representative has no
role to play in it. Weber considers that legal rational authority which is based on rules,
norms and procedures holds a predominant position in bureaucracy. For Weber:
"Bureaucratic administration means domination by the force of knowing: that is its
fundamental character, specifically rational" (Cruz, 1995, 689).
“The development of the modern form of organization concurs in all sectors with the
development and continuous expansion of bureaucratic administration […] Because the
bureaucratic administration is always observed under equal conditions and from a formal
and technical perspective, the most rational type [...] The main source of the superiority of
bureaucratic administration lies in the role of technical knowledge, which, through the
development of modern technology and economic methods in goods’ production, has
become absolutely indispensable [...] Bureaucratic administration fundamentally means the
exercise of domination based on knowledge. This is the trait that makes it specifically
rational. It consists, on the one hand, of technical knowledge, which is, per se, sufficient to
ensure a position of extraordinary power for bureaucracy. On the other hand, it should be
considered that bureaucratic organizations, or those in power who use it, tend to become
even more powerful by the knowledge that comes from the practice that they attain in the
function.”

The bureaucracy presented by Weber is an ideal or a mental map of a fully developed

bureaucracy, which means that it is an abstract and cannot be found in reality. This ideal
type model of Weber is based on the studies of ancient bureaucracies of Egypt, Rome, China
and Byzantine Empire. It was also influenced by the modern emerging trends of bureaucracy
in Europe during the 19th and early 20th century. He believed that in modern state system
the ideal type of bureaucracy should be followed which is based on the rationalization of
collective activities and assures the predictability of the behavior of employees.
According to Weber, “Bureaucracy is by far the most efficient instrument of large-scale
administration which has ever been developed and the modern social order has become
overwhelming dependent on it… this type of organization is in principle applicable with
equal facility to a wide variety of different fields. It may be applied in profit making business
or in charitable organizations, or in any number of other types of private enterprises serving
ideal or material ends. It is equally applicable to political and to religious organizations with
varying degrees of approximation to a pure type; its historical existence can be
demonstrated
in all these fields.” (Weber, 1946, pp. 329-340)
According to Weber the bureaucratic rationality in organization consists of following main
characteristics as depicted in figure 1 also.

1) Division of work with high specialization: The task of the organization should be
divided on the basis of number of specialized function. Every employee is specialized
and efficient in one type of job. This ensures increased productivity and efficiency of
the organization as a whole.

2) Functions defined by law (formalized written rules and regulations): Bureaucracy

operates in accordance to complete strict adherence to formal rules. These written
formal rules and regulations have been stressed by Weber so that personal favors,
arbitrariness, or gratitude may not infringe the working of the organization; and the
conduct of the organization is based on the defined technical rules or norms.

3) Hierarchy of authority (Observance of legitimate order): Hierarchy holds an important

position in rational type of bureaucracy. The concept of hierarchy holds lot of
importance as administrative system is heavily structured in subordinate services and
management positions. Each lower office is under the control and supervision of higher
one. This system offers the governed to appeal to the higher authority against the
decision of the lower authority in a regulated manner.

4) Assessment and selection of employees for their technical competence: The employee is
appointed on the basis of free and fair selection and this selection is based on tenders,
exams and diplomas which also requires special training programs for the candidates.
The assessment is based purely on the capabilities and performance of the candidates.

5) Formal social relationship according to the position held: The concept of impersonality
should be followed in bureaucratic form of organization. The relationship is based on
formal social aspect and not on irrational sentiments; there is no space for personal likes
and dislikes. The commands of the superior to the subordinate are based on impersonal

6) Employees’ regular wage: The employee wage is in the form of the fixed salaries which
are given in accordance to the nature of the job and responsibility. The salaries are
given according to the internal hierarchy of the organization; moreover, there are
chances of career advancement through promotion on the basis of seniority and merit.
7) Separation of ownership and the employee function: There must be a complete
separation between the ownership and employee function. The personal demands and
interests should be kept separate and not to interfere with the organizational activities,
since no employee can be the owner of his or her position.

8) Regular career of employees’ overtime: The promotion of the employees is based on the
objective criteria and not on the discretion of authority which helps in the enhancement
of the regular career advancement of employees over the time.
Source: Adapted from Ferreira et al., 2004, pp. 24 and 25.
The above mentioned characteristic clearly highlights, Weber’s theory of bureaucracy as
ideal, pure, neutral, efficient, hierarchical and rational and inevitable in contemporary
society.
He referred the ‘ideal type’ of bureaucracy as an ultimate efficiency machine. Weber said
“Experience tends universally to show that the purely bureaucratic type of administrative
organization... is, from a purely technical point of view, capable of attaining the highest
degree of efficiency and it is in this sense formally the most rational known means of
carrying out imperative control over beings. It is superior to any other form in precision, in
stability, in the stringency of its discipline and in its reliability. It thus makes possible a
particularly high degree of calculability of results for the heads of organization and for those
acting in relation to it. It is finally superior both in intensive efficiency and in the scope of its
operations and is formally capable of application to all kinds of administrative task.”
(Maheshwari, 1992) When Weber characterizes bureaucracy as value neutral, he
conceptualizes bureaucracy as a form of social organization which can be examined from
three different points of view. First is the structural view which gained maximum
importance. The features like division of work and hierarchy are included under the
structural aspect. Secondly, bureaucracy can be viewed in terms of behavioral
characteristics; and includes the characteristics like objectivity, precision and consistency. To
quote Weber, “when fully developed, bureaucracy also stands in a specific sense under the
principle of sine ira acstudio. Its specific nature, which is welcomed by capitalism, develops
the more perfectly the
more the bureaucracy is ‘dehumanized’, the more completely it succeeds in eliminating from
official business love, hatred, and all purely personal irrational, and emotional elements
which escape calculation. This is the specific nature of bureaucracy and its special virtue.”
(Gerth and Mills, 1946, p. 215) Lastly bureaucracy is defined from the instrumental point of
view which includes the achievement of purpose. In the opinion of Peter Blau, “the
organization that maximizes efficiency in administration or an institutionalized method of
organized social conduct in the interests of administrative efficiency.” (Blau, 1956, p. 60)

MAX WEBER: LIMITS ON BUREAUCRACY

While emphasizing the importance and need of bureaucracy, Weber was aware of the fact
that bureaucracy has an inherent tendency of accumulation of power. Albrow also pointed
out that due to this issue Weber considered number of mechanisms to limit the scope of
system of authorities in general and bureaucracy in particular. These mechanism falls into
five majors
categories.
i) Collegiality
ii) The Separation of Powers
iii) Amateur Administration
iv) Direct Democracy
v) Representation

Collegiality: The principal of collegiality is opposite to monocratism. In monocratic

bureaucracy Weber pointed out that at each stage of the official hierarchy there is only one
person but the moment more than one person get involved in decision making the collegial
principal come into being. Collegiality helps in limiting the role of bureaucracy but it also
results in to the disadvantage in terms of speed of decision and fixing of responsibility.
The Separation of Power: Separation of power meant dividing the same responsibility or a
function between two or more bodies. All the involved bodies have to make compromises,
so that they can reach to a decision. This will help to make bureaucracy free from monopoly
of decision by a single body; however, such a system is inherently unstable.
Amateur Administration: Under amateur administration, administration is run by those
people who have public esteem to command, general confidence and their activity is
basically unremunerated. But this system lacked in the expertise of professionals and experts
which modern society requires.
Direct Democracy: Direct democracy also limitize the power of bureaucracy, as under this
system officials are guided by and answerable to an assembly. It may take many forms like
short term of office, selection by lot and possibility of recall. But this system is successful
only in case of small organizations and in local governments.
Representation: Elected representatives of people shares the authority of bureaucracy
which helps in limiting or controlling the power of bureaucracy. But there is a possibility that
these representatives being bureaucratized. However, Weber believed that through the
representation, there is a greatest possibility of a check on bureaucracy.
Thus, Weber was conscious about the excessive authoritarian role of bureaucracy and that is
why he wants to limit the role of bureaucracy. There is a need to control the administrative
apparatus.

CRITICISM
Weber’s bureaucracy is marked with several criticisms which mainly revolve around the
bureaucratic design, authoritative norms, administrative efficiency; and concept of
rationality,
individuality and reliability.
Weber theory failed to take in to consideration the individuals and their behavioral
aspects within the organization. It is constructed as an ideal which cannot be found in
reality.
Carl J Friederich observes the term ‘ideal type’ is unfortunate in that the entities to which it
is applied are certainly not ‘ideal’ even in a platonic ‘ideal’ sense; there is, more particularly
nothing ‘ideal’ about bureaucracy. Furthermore, if they were ‘ideal’ they would not be
‘types’ since ‘types’ derive their significance from the empirical reality which they typify…
But Weber, instead of thus proceeding by empirical observation and analysis of the
ascertainable givens of such experience, set forth his ‘ideal types’ as mental constructs
which
are neither derived by a process of deductive ratiocination from higher concepts, nor build
up
from empirical data…” (Friederick, 1963, pp. 469-70)
Critics are of the opinion that Weber’s theory is not fit for the task which involves
innovation and creativity as it is fit for routine and repetitive work of the organization
following strict rules and regulations. Robert K. Merton viewed that no doubt strict rules and
regulations; and impersonality helps in maintaining reliability and predictability of employee
behavior but it results in to rigid and formal structure in an organization and loss of
organizational effectiveness. Weber emphasized on specialization and differentiation and the
focus is on decentralization and delegation of responsibilities. The outcome is that there is a
goal displacement as mentioned by Philip Selznick. There are differentiated goals of different
sub units and the goals of the organization as a whole takes a second place as the focus of
the
employees is on the goal of their sub units.
To quote Merton, “An effective bureaucracy demands reliability of response and strict
devotion to regulation. Such devotion to the rules leads to their transformation into
absolutes;
they are no longer conceived as relative to a given set of purposes. This interferes with ready
adaptation under special conditions not clearly envisaged by those who draw up the general
rules. Thus the very elements which conduce towards efficiency in general produce
inefficiency in specific instances. Those very devices which increase the probability of
conformances is also lead to an over concern with strict adherence to regulations which
induces timidity consumerism and technicism”. (Merton, 1957, p. 156)
Another criticism was posed by Alvin Gouldner, he viewed that rules and regulations of
the organizations tend to highlight the minimum levels of acceptable behavior or
performance. If the focus of the superiors and subordinates is more on the rules and
regulations and less on the organizational goals then this would result in to goal
displacement
of the organization marked with apathy and constant rifts amongst the superiors and
subordinates. Victor Thompson also put forward his argument that superiors are dependent
on the lower level specialists for the fulfillment of the organizational goals. They try to
formulate more and more rules and regulations to escape from the insecurities and their
answerability towards the performance of the organization. There is complete formal
structure followed by Weber in his theory, he failed to recognize the informal relationship
which plays an important role in the growth of an organization. Lloyd Rudolph and Susanne.
Rudolph pointed out that, “Formal rationality (and technology) can contribute to
organizational efficiency, but can also contribute to organizational ineffectiveness by
building up the sources of alienation and resistance, and fuelling the struggle for power
against authority. The Persistence or retention of patrimonial elements in bureaucratic
administration can mitigate if not eliminate the struggle, just as the presence of bureaucratic
features in patrimonial administration can (and did) enhance its efficiency and
effectiveness”.
(Rudolph and Rudolph, 1979)
Weber equates the authority of the administrative staff with the technical superiority,
Talcott and Parsons criticized this aspect as it leads to internal inconsistency. According to
them, it is not always possible that those who possess authority to give orders are equally
good in their technical skills. Another important drawback of Bureaucracy is that employees
do not get opportunity to express themselves, their opinions or decision making abilities do
not hold any value. As a result employees feel disheartened and demotivated. With the
course
of time they are not bothered about rules and regulations and started boycotting them or
simply criticizing them.