In Defence of Bureaucracies
For many people, the term ‘bureaucracy’ has unfashionable negative connotations. It can conjure up images of excessive paperwork and pointless processes. At its worst, it embodies the truly Kafkaesque qualities of being surreally illogical, a nightmarish world of nonsensical rules enforced through blind authority. However, in the discipline of organisation design, the term describes an organisation that seeks to control and coordinate work through standardisation. This includes the standardisation of processes, quality, outputs, and skills.
The word bureaucracy had an innocent-enough beginning – it derived from the French word bureau, meaning ‘desk’ or ‘office.’ At the turn of the 20th century, the German sociologist Max Weber used the term to describe a particular type of organisational structure. Weber intended the term as a purely technical one, and it retains that sense today in the literature of organisational theory and sociology. But elsewhere, the word has taken on a decidedly pejorative meaning.
No organisation structure has evoked more heated debate than the bureaucracy. On the one hand, many consider the bureaucratic organisation to be the embodiment of rationality in the modern world and, as such, to be superior to other forms of organisation. On the other hand, many people consider it a sort of monolith preparing enslavement of the human race.
A bureaucratic organisation is not necessarily a bad thing; it simply means it seeks consistency.
An organisation’s structure can be defined as bureaucratic to the extent that its behaviour is predetermined and predictable; in effect, standardised. The post office, an electronics manufacturing company (even the ones that make Apple products), a customer service centre, an airline, an automotive company. All these organisations have one primary aspect in common. Above all, their operating work is routine. The greatest part of it is simple and repetitive and, as a result, their work processes are highly standardised. These characteristics give rise to bureaucracies – structures that are fine-tuned to run as integrated, regulated, and highly efficient predictable machines. Without bureaucracies, buying a car would be reserved for the rich, and travellers would fly at their own peril.
Modern management thinking and paradigms have tended to push the idea that ‘bureaucracies’ are a thing of the past, consigned to the business world’s scrap heap. Many corporations have followed this mantra, some to their regret. We often come across companies that have adopted some newer organisational design fashions. Yet, much to their dismay, the structural design has decimated their performance.
However, some of the largest, most innovative companies with the best employee relations are structured as bureaucratic entities. Toyota, Johnson & Johnson, McDonald's and Whirlpool are all billion-dollar companies and have been around for many decades. All these companies are innovative and regularly launch new products. However, at their heart, they take in standard inputs, process them in a standardised way and produce standard outputs.
Today, the largest company in the world is Amazon. And what is their secret to success? Bureaucracy. They lead by standardising efficient and predictable processes. What’s more, this is achieved by using technology and automation, not reams of paperwork and process flow diagrams. Efficiency, speed, low cost and predictability are the primary aims of a bureaucratic organisation.
Is there is such a thing as the fashionable organisation structure?
Fashion can influence the culture, and an organisation's culture can play an important role in its structural design. Many an executive might like to believe that organisations are influenced by the logic of age, size, technical system, and the environment, not by what the more fashionable firms are adopting and promoting. However, this is often not the case.
The average person does not wear the latest clothing that parades down the runways during London Fashion Week. The day-to-day practicalities make it incompatible with real life. So, why is it that corporations seem so willing to wear the latest ‘haute structure’ even if it is not suitable for them? Often this is down to leaders seeking to make their mark, which ultimately creates demand for the latest vogue organisation design. But there are some classical forms of attire that never go out of fashion. Blue jeans, formal suits, the little black dress and even the humble baseball shoe have been around for decades. They will continue to be popular for many more. The same is true for the corporate bureaucracy.
Now, let’s be clear, a bureaucratic organisation design is not suited to all organisations, but it is beneficial in some settings or in some organisational sub-units. To determine if it is suitable for your organisation, three important questions should be answered:
Are the inputs to my company supplied in a standard format?
Do my operational processes need to be stable and repeatable?
Are the outputs of my company expected to be delivered in a consistent manner?
If your answer to these questions is ‘yes’, then there is a good chance a bureaucratic organisation design is the most efficient and effective structure. If, on the other hand, your systems of work require any degree of personal judgement or the exercise of initiative, then standardisation through bureaucratisation should be avoided as it will diminish your organisation’s reactiveness. Other questions to ask are:
Is the environment in which the company operates relatively stable?
Has the company been around for a long time?
Does the company have more than 100 employees?
Does the company process a high volume of items, people, or information?
If your answer to these questions is also ‘yes’, adopting a bureaucratic organisation structure is almost certainly the right thing to do. Even in today’s hyper-linked information age, organisations structured as bureaucracies are alive and well.
If precision, speed, unambiguity, knowledge, continuity, unity, reduction of friction and material and personnel costs are important to your company, these are all optimised in a bureaucratic organisation, and adopting this structure should be considered the most viable, and perhaps the favoured option.