In every moment of every day, organizations and bureaucracies affect life in countless subtle and obvious ways.

In our post-industrial Western society, formal organizations order our lives and fulfill our needs. Despite their immense influence, most understandings of organizations are vague, shallow, and unspecific
Bureaucracy is a form of organization characterized by division of labour, a clearly defined hierarchy of authority, detailed rules and regulations and impersonal relationships. The bureaucratic management theory is a subfield of the classical approach that views management on an impersonal, rational basis through division of labour as well as defined authority and responsibility, formal rules and regulations and the separation of management from ownerships. In Bureaucratic management, the focus is on how to ensure efficiency in management through consistency. To ensure this, work is broken down into simple, standard routine and well defined tasks with formal rules and regulations laid down for their performance. In this way, there would be a uniform application of rules and controls by management, making authority reside in positions rather than in the individual personalities or managers. By implication, power can only be exercised within the limit set, so that personalized relationships and non- rational, emotional considerations do not get into the system. A major contributor to Bureaucratic management is Max Weber (18641920). Other contributors include Lyndal L. Urwick(1947) and Gouldner (1955). Max Weber, a German Sociologist was born in 1864 to a well to do family who sponsored himself to read law, History, Economics and Philosophy at Heidelberg University. Unlike the other classical writers such Taylor, Fayol and the Gilbreths, Max Weber was not a practicing manager but an intellectual. Through research, he observed that most European organizations were managed on a personal, family-like basis where resources were used to realize individual goals rather than organizational goals. Between 1900 and 1920, Weber saw the growth of the large scale organization, but felt that this growth will require a more formal set of procedures for its management. Weber

believed that such organizations would be more efficient and rational when structured around specific guidelines. In order to study the movement toward efficiency and rationality of organizations, he coined the term Bureaucracy to represent the type of organization in which impersonality and rationality are developed to the highest degree. Weber described his bureaucracy as having the following features:
Hierarchical structure: There must be a well defined hierarchy of authority. Division of work: There must be a closed job definition as to duties, privileges

and boundaries.
Formal rules and regulations: There must be explicit rules and regulations

governing decision making and interpersonal behaviors. Separation of ownership from management
Technical competence: Technical knowledge and discipline to be used as

benchmark for assigning personnel into positions Positional Power: Power and authority to be vested into incumbent positions rather than the incumbent himself or herself. This would ensure impersonal administration of staff
Record keeping: Administrative act and decision must be recorded in writing.

These rules were advanced in his book entitled The Theory of Social and Economic Organizations published in German in 1947. According to Weber, the two most important factors leading to the growth of bureaucratic forms of organization are undoubtedly size and complexity. As a result, Weber felt that bureaucracy was indispensable for the need of large scale organizations. As the organization begins to grow in size and complexity, formal rules and procedures will be needed to ensure its efficient operations .Max Weber refered to bureaucratic organizations as an ideal type of organization. To him, ideal bureaucracy does not exist in practice, it was only intended to serve

as yardstick for measuring what managers can do; no manager can perfectly meet the logical dimensions of the bureaucratic model.

Lets now look at what a formal organization is. A formal organization is a group deliberately constructed to achieve specific objectives through explicitly defined roles and specified rules. Modern societies are characterized by the growth of such organizations and the reduction of primary groups. Prior to industrialization, only a few formal organizations existed. The guilds of Western Europe during the twelfth century are examples. People who performed the same type of work were organized to control their craft in a local area. They set prices and standards of workmanship (Bridgewater 1953; Volti 1995). Much like modern unions, guilds also prevented outsiders (nonmembers of the guild) from working at the particular craft. Another example of an early formal organization is the army, with its structure of senior officers, junior officers, and ranks. Formal armies, of course, go back to early history. With industrialization, secondary groups became common. Today we take their existence for granted and, beginning with Grade school, all of us spend a good deal of time in them. Formal organizations tend to develop into bureaucracies, and ingeneral, the larger the formal organization, the more likely it is to be bureaucratic. The following features can be seen in almost all formal organizations: Goals and objectives are deliberately planned Concerned with the co-ordination of activities Hierarchically structured with stated objectives Based on certain principles such as specification of task Organizational structure is based on division of labour and specialization to achieve efficiency in its operations

 Developed through delegations of authority The organization does not take into consideration the sentiments of organizational members. Its common to find modern organizations adopting to bureaucratic system in recent times. Having discussed the origin and the fundamental underpinnings of bureaucracy and formal organizations, this discussion will now turn its focus to the contribution of bureaucracy to the progress of organizations. In the first part we shall consider the positive contributions and the second part will focus on the negative contributions.

Hierarchical authority promises control and responsibility

According to organizational design theory, a major benefit promised by the bureaucratic form is that the top executive would have control over the entire organization, and the outside world would know who to hold responsible .Formal organizations use the bureaucratic system because there is clearly one person in control, thus, everybody within and outside the organization knows who to address their problems with. For example, at the Sociology Department of the University of Cape Coast, anytime there was a complaint by a student in respect of examination results it behooves him or her to report to the lecturer for the that particular course for the problem to be addressed. Where a solution or clarification is not reached, the lecturer forwards the problem to the examination officer of the department. Again, to the Head of Department when a

solution is not found. But when the situation is out of hand, the matter is reported to the faculty officer and finally to the Dean of Faculty, Social Sciences. In this case, the chain of command is followed to address problems in a formal organization such as the University of Cape coast. The captain of the ship is responsible for whatever happens on the ship. People like the idea of having someone at the top that sets the rules and guidelines. This leads to efficient management and administration in the formal organization. Remember, in the 1920s and 1930s when bureaucracy was beginning to flower, the world of business and government was very different from today. Todays industrialized nations were switching from agrarian societies to industrial ones. Prior to industrialization, organizations tended to be smaller, education and experience had not been so available or important, and management skills were seldom required, except at the very top. Therefore, in a formal organization in which the higher-ranking people, thus, top management were educated, and the workers were less so, it seemed vital to concentrate on control. A bureaucrat is the most despicable of men, though he is needed as vultures are needed, but one hardly admires vultures that bureaucrats so strongly resemble.-Marcus Tullius Cicero. This control mechanism which is made possible only through bureaucratic administration ensures efficient control in a formal organization.

Management by rules promises control and consistency. If the entire organization is managed by rules, then top management in formal organizations could be sure that the organization would be controlled by their decisions. Top management could be sure that no arbitrary judgment was introduced into the operations to make things inconsistent. The top executive of these formal organizations could decide how things would be done in a particular way. For instance, in the Ghana Education Service (G.E.S), there had been discrepancies in the criteria for promotions in the 1960s, as such many teachers did not see the need to upgrade themselves after training. Currently, the situation has changed due to Bureaucracy. In view of this, rules are instituted to control the relevance of educational courses top be pursued at the universities. Priority is given to those who want to pursue education related courses.

Once an individual is granted a study leave, he or she is assured of promotion after completion of school. This system of control in bureaucracy could go a long way to facilitate a more effective way of attainment of goals and objectives. Consistency seems desirable because the world, prior to the industrial revolution was marked by inconsistency. People were discriminated against because of class, education, race, religion or creed. People were given advantages because of wealth, class, or education. In the world where people were treated very differently from one another, consistency must have seemed very desirable. Bureaucracy came to enforce this kind of consistency in formal organizations. Prior to bureaucracy inconsistency was the mark of the day regarding appointment of people into organizations. Thus, people were not given a plain field to compete for positions in organizations, but rather criteria such as class, wealth, religion among others were used. Currently, with the introduction of bureaucracy into formal organizations qualification and experience as well as expertise are used to appoint people irrespective of the persons background in areas of religion, class, wealth just to mention a few. In sum, bureaucracy gives an equal ground to compete for positions in formal organizations. Those with the best qualifications end up getting these positions which ensure progress in the organizations.

Specialization of sub-units promised accountability, control and expertise.If specialists were in charge of each function of an organization, then, top management could be certain that an educated or trained person was responsible for that function. In addition, top management could be reasonably certain that the people handling that function were experts in that function. These benefits promise more certain control and effectiveness. Prior to the 20th century, people were given responsibility for managing formal organization most often because of their wealth, class or family but not necessarily because they were trained or skilled. Therefore, having specialists to handle functions seem like a big improvement over having people manage things because they were the bosss son or because the family had contacts. Bureaucracy sought to bring about objectivity to employee selection by means of qualifications to reduce nepotism. The use of performance-criteria for promotion is an attempt at objectivity. Members of

the formal organization receive salary based on their position in the hierarchy and their seniority. This is an attempt at fairness using set of criteria. In bureaucracy, promotion and rewards are based on performance, thus it ensures that promotion is achieved not ascribed in formal organizations. This ensures a more serious attitude towards work by workers since criterion for reward is mainly based on performance. Bureaucracy in formal organizations brings on board skills, creativity and expertise from people of all fields of life, whose diverse knowledge will contribute explicitly to the promotion of the formal organization. For example, during student registration in the University of Cape Coast at the beginning of the academic year the following procedures are adopted: In the first place, a student is to pay his or her fees at the bank as prescribed by the university authorities and a receipt is obtained accordingly. The student now moves to the registration center where a number of account tents are mandated to inspect the receipt. A code number is then written on the receipt after a duplicate is retained by the accountant. The student then moves to the actual registration center where registration officers register the student based on the code number given in order to ensure that students who do not pay their fees are not registered through the back door. The success of this exercise does not come about without the role of the security officers who control the long queue. This way, there is interdependence among these workers from the various units to ensure checks and balances in their various fields of operations.

Bureaucracy ensures that formal organizations like government agencies would serve the legislative or executive bodies that formed them. Here there is the assurance of loyalty and trust within government circles, this promotes a more coordinative atmosphere for achievement of developmental goals and enforcement of policies. The idea seemed sound, because it promised that an agency of government would not end up serving the people who were in the agency, nor would it end up serving people outside of the agency. Instead, theoretically it will serve the

government, hence, all the people. In corporations, an up-focused mission promise that the organization will serve the stockholders, represented by the board of directors, rather than the people within the organization. With the complex nature of formal organizations like government agencies, there is a need for a more structured and systematic method of control, also for efficient supervision. With bureaucracy, there is effective communication between the various branches of government thus, the judiciary, executive and legislature. There is also easy accountability within the various administrative systems of government. Though it might appear that the appointee is serving the parochial interest of the appointing authority, one must note that every appointment in a formal organization is characterized by rules of engagement due to the bureaucracy that it practices. Thus, rules of bureaucracy are meant for the improvement of the entire organization. As such, the appointee who must work within the rules of engagement will not only serve the parochial interest of the appointing body but the general interest of the organization. For instance, when the President of Ghana appoints the minister of foreign affairs, the minister may seem to be pleasing the President. However, the minister is mandated to work according to the rules of engagement stipulated in the constitution of Ghana, and this will benefit the country.

Rules and regulations, well-defined written policies and group coordination produce standardized response to situations in formal bureaucratic organization. Employees in a bureaucratic organization behave uniformly in a manner that promotes coordination and attainment of organizational goals. In a formal bureaucratic organization there is a synergy effect. Synergy effect according to Encarta English dictionary is the working together of two or more people, organizations or things especially when the result is greater than the sum of their individual effect or capabilities. In a formal bureaucratic organization, people having different skills and

expertise work together to produce the synergetic effect with the help of latest technology. The result of the work done in group will be higher as compared to the additional value of individual work. Formal bureaucratic organizations make possible NEGATIVE CONTRIBUTION OF BUREAUCRACY TO THE PROGRESS OF FORMAL ORGANISATIONS: Red Tape: This means a Rule Is a Rule. In other words it is an official procedure regarded as unnecessary, over-complicated, or obstructive. At times some of rules governing formal organization as result of bureaucracy tend to bring retrogressing rather than progress to the formal organization. Thus ,people in formal organizations are bound to certain rules stipulated by the organizations which do not in anyway contribute positively to the progress of the organization. These rules most often than not, hurt the people who are supposed to work in order to bring progress into the organization. As such they hide behind the rules and not working to improve the formal organization. In addition as a result of this bureaucratic procedure which define the responsibilities and duties of individuals within the formal organization, one cannot operate outside these procedures ,even though he or she may have some ideas which may improve the organization thereby limiting the potential of occupants of the positions in the formal organization. For instance, In the Bronx, Mother Teresa spotted a structurally sound abandoned building and wanted to turn it into a homeless shelter. But she ran head-on into a rule: The building must have an elevator for the handicapped homeless. Not having the funds for the elevator, Mother Teresa struggled to get permission to bypass this rule. Two frustrating years later, she gave up. The abandoned building is still an abandoned building (Tobias 1995).

Obviously this well-intentioned rule about elevators was not meant to stop Mother Teresa from ministering to the down and out. But, hey, rules is rules!

Lack of Communication In Formal bureaucratic organization each unit performs specialized tasks, which are designed to contribute to the organizations overall goals. At times, these units fail to communicate with one another and end up working across purposes. Due to lack of communication between units,formal organizations tend to slow down work with respect to the production of goods and services.For instance looking at the situation between the National health insurance and The national identification Authority information ought to flow from the top management to the bottom people, nevertheless, there always seem to be a barrier to effective communication due to the nature of the organizational chart hence affecting the progress and sustainability of the formal organization . For instance in Ghana the Accra Metropolitan Assembly (AMA) is concerned about the run down appearance of buildings along its main roads or unauthorized places in its metropolis. Consequently one unit which is the town and country planning department within the AMA gave the permit for the building of these structures. The result were impressive and the town and country planning unit was proud of what it has accomplished but to their surprise another unit of the AMA had slated these same buildings for demolition. With nether unit of the bureaucracy knowing what the other was doing , the huge expense and effort one ending in a rubble heap.

Resisting Alienation. Alienation, of course, is not a pleasant experience. Because workers want to feel valued and want to have a sense of control over their work, they resist alienation. Forming primary groups at work is a major form of that resistance. They band together in informal settingsat lunch, around desks, for a drink after work. There they give one another approval for jobs well done and express sympathy for the shared need to put up with cantankerous bosses, meaningless routines, and endless rules. Here they relate to one another not just as workers, but as people who value one another. They laugh and tell jokes, talk about their families, their problems, their goals, and, often, their love life. Adding this multidimensionality to their work relationships restores their sense of being persons rather than mere cogs in an endlessly moving machine. Consider a common sight. You are visiting an office, and you see work areas decorated with family and vacation photos. The sociological implication is that of workers striving to overcome alienation. By staking a claim to individuality, the workers are rejecting an identity as mere machines performing functions.

Bureaucratic Alienation. Many workers find it disturbing to deal with others in terms of roles, rules, and functions rather than as individuals. Similarly, they may dislike writing memos instead of talking to people face to face. It is not surprising, then, that workers in formal organizations sometimes feel more like objects than people, or, as Weber (1978) put it, only a small cog in a ceaselessly moving mechanism which prescribes to [them] an endlessly fixed routine. . . . Because workers must deal with one another in such formal ways, and because they constantly perform routine tasks, some come to feel that no one cares about them and that they are misfits in their surroundings. Marx termed these reactions alienation and attributed them to the fact that workers are cut off from the finished product of their labor. Although assigning workers to repetitive tasks makes for efficient production, Marx argued that it also reduces their satisfaction by

limiting their creativity and sense of contribution to the finished product. Underlying alienation is the workers loss of control over their work because they no longer own their own tools. Before industrialization, individual workers used their own tools to produce an entire product, such as a chair or table. Now the capitalists own the machinery and tools and assign each worker only a single step or two in the entire production process. Relegated to repetitive tasks that seem remote from the final product, workers lose a sense of identity with what they produce. Ultimately they come to feel estranged not only from their products but from their whole work environment.

The Alienated Bureaucrat. Not all workers succeed in resisting alienation, however, and some become extremely alienated. They remain in the organization because they see no viable alternative or because they have only so many years until retirement. They hate every minute of it, however, and it showsin their attitudes toward clients, toward fellow workers, and especially toward authority in the organization. The alienated bureaucrat does not take initiative, will not do anything for the organization beyond what he or she is absolutely required to do, and uses rules to justify doing as little as possible. Example if you are to visit the ministries you will observe that many of the senior staff report to work very late and close far before the end of working hours. Even during working hours you will find many of them going about their work without any commitment or dedication, they read news papers and engage in petty gossip instead of doing the work assigned to them. These senior staff can be said to be the alienated bureaucrats of these formal bureaucratic organization. In spite of poor attitude and performance, these alienated workers often retain their jobs, either because they may have seniority, or because they know the written rules backward and forward. They threaten expensive, time-consuming, and embarrassing legal action if anyone tries to fire them. Some alienated workers are shunted off into small bureaucratic corners,

where they do trivial tasks and have little chance of coming in contact with the public. This treatment, of course, only alienates them further. The attitude of these alienated bureaucrats goes a long way to impede the progress of the organization. Bureaucratic Incompetence. In a tongue-in-cheek analysis of bureaucracies, Laurence Peter proposed what has become known as the Peter principle: Each employee of a bureaucracy is promoted to his or her level of incompetence (Peter and Hull 1969). People who perform well in a bureaucracy come to the attention of those higher up the chain of command and are promoted. If they again perform well, they are again promoted. This process continues until finally they are promoted to a level at which they can no longer handle the responsibilities well; this is their level of incompetence. There they hide behind the work of others, taking credit for what those under their direction accomplish. Although the Peter principle contains a grain of truth, if it were generally true, bureaucracies would be staffed entirely by incompetents, and none of these organizations could succeed. In reality, bureaucracies are remarkably successful. these complex activities. A very small team of players and very small number of civil servants can manage the activities of the government and the nation. In terms of coordination, formal bureaucratic organization brings about Team Spirit. According to Encarta English dictionary team spirit is an enthusiastic attitude towards working productivity with a team or work group. Bureaucracy ensures that formal organizations always enhance the team spirit within its team members. No organization can attain its goal with a single effort of limited members. So, by naturally the system of formal organization strengthen the feeling of team spirit within its components. Thus this standardized and coordinative response to situation in bureaucratic systems ensures progress in formal organizations.

Employment based on technical qualifications promotes equal opportunity, and protection from arbitrary dismissal which promises job security to those who can pass an aptitude test and follow the rules. Equal opportunity meant that a middle class educated person such as diploma holders have the same opportunity of entering into government as an upper class or wealthy person. That was highly valued in an era when government is controlled by those with money, power, or position. In the early 20th Century, job security was less known but higly valued and higly prized. Bureaucracy ensures protection against arbituary dismissal in a formal organization. Hither to, people with wealth, power, or position had so muchj influence and control over businesses and governments that is, formal organization