home » Thing » When did bureaucracy appear? Bureaucracy is in simple words

When did bureaucracy appear? Bureaucracy is in simple words

Bureaucracy is a type of public administration characterized by a clear management hierarchy, the concentration of all management matters in central bodies state power, operating within the framework of regulations, rules and standards, and through performance evaluation and performance indicators, competence, the actions of subordinates are assessed; Bureaucracy also means a class of persons, clearly defined and separated from the rest of society, who are representatives of the central government.

Bureaucracy is the dominance of officials, making it difficult to do business and complicate life. ordinary people paperwork and procedural red tape. Literally translated from French-Greek, “bureaucracy” means “the power of officials,” or more precisely, “the power of bureaucratic desks.” In Russia, bureaucracy, coupled with corruption and crime, makes doing business a Sisyphean task.

Since the beginning of the 20th century, the term “bureaucracy” begins to acquire a negative connotation and becomes synonymous with paperwork and procedural obstacles that arise not only among businessmen, but also among ordinary people when solving administrative issues. The horrors of bureaucracy are reflected especially strongly in Franz Kafka's novel The Trial.

The concept of “bureaucracy” first appeared in 1745. The term was coined by the French economist Vincent de Gournay; at the time of its formation, the word had a pejorative meaning - it meant that bureaucratic officials take away real power from the monarch (in a monarchy) or from the people (in a democracy) .

The first to demonstrate the merits of bureaucracy as a system of government was the German sociologist Max Weber. He proposed to understand it as the rational work of institutions, in which each element works as efficiently as possible. After this, in situations of poor performance by officials (red tape, requiring the preparation of many unnecessary documents and a long wait for a decision), they began to talk not about bureaucracy, but about bureaucracy, separating these two concepts. If initially the concept of “bureaucracy” was used only in connection with government agencies, now it is used to define any large organization that has a large and extensive staff of managers (“corporate bureaucracy”, “trade union bureaucracy”, etc.).

Signs of bureaucracy. Describing an ideal bureaucratic organization, Weber identified several of its typical features.

The most important of them are:

1. Specialization and division of labor. Each employee has certain responsibilities and areas of activity that cannot duplicate the areas of authority of other members of the organization.
2. Vertical hierarchy. The structure of a bureaucratic organization can be compared to a pyramid: the majority is at the base and the minority is at the top. Each person included in this vertical hierarchy manages the people below him and, in turn, reports to those above him, thereby monitoring the activities of each element of the organization.
3. Clear rules. The activities of each member of the organization are regulated by rules, the purpose of which is to rationalize the entire management process. Ideally, these rules should make the activities of each employee and the entire organization predictable. Although the rules may change, in general they should be stable over time.
4. Impersonality of relationships. In an ideal bureaucracy, personal sympathies, feelings and preferences do not play a role. This principle is the same for relationships within the organization, and in its relations with partners external to the organization. A condition of an ideal bureaucracy is also that the recruitment of new employees is carried out on the basis of compliance with certain objective criteria, regardless of personal acquaintances and attachments.

The many rules that cover all the activities of officials, on the one hand, significantly limit their initiative and creativity, but, on the other hand, protect the clientele from the personal arbitrariness of employees. An impersonal approach to personnel selection allows you to select people with standard training and competence, although there is a high risk of rejecting unconventionally thinking and talented candidates for the position.

Bureaucracy as a social threat. There is a danger of degeneration of bureaucratic management systems when they do not increase, but hinder the efficiency of their activities.

Scientists identify three main problems generated by the bureaucratic organization of management:

1. Alienation from a person. Bureaucracy is designed to solve people's problems. An impersonal approach to clients helps to respect their equality, but at the same time deprives people of their uniqueness. Any problem is adjusted to a template that is common to everyone and is solved in a previously accepted manner. The result is dehumanization and the transformation of a person into a standard “case” on the official’s desk.
2. Ritualism. The standard decision-making procedure often takes so much time, going through all the necessary authorities and approvals, that the decision itself becomes outdated and unnecessary. To describe this situation, R. Merton introduced a special term - “bureaucratic ritualism”, which denotes such preoccupation with rules and regulations that jeopardizes the achievement of the organization’s goals.
3. Inertia. Although bureaucracy is created to solve certain problems, this does not mean that when these problems are solved, the organization will cease to exist. Like any other organization, the bureaucracy strives for self-preservation, but unlike other structures, the bureaucratic one has more experience and great opportunities in order to prevent its dissolution. As a result, a bureaucratic organization can function regardless of the goals previously set for it.

The widespread development of bureaucratic power leads to the fact that the bureaucrat becomes the “master” over those people whom he must lead. In these conditions, corruption flourishes.

To reduce the negative consequences of the bureaucratization of management, a system of external control over the activities of officials is necessary - on the part of citizens (clients of the bureaucracy) and/or managers. As a rule, both of these methods are combined: citizens are given the right to complain about bureaucrats to law enforcement agencies, although these bodies themselves may undergo bureaucratic degeneration. The difficulty of organizing control over the bureaucracy is a weighty argument for supporters of anarchy, who seek to abandon the division of society into managed and professional managers. However, at the present stage of development of society, it is not possible to abandon the professionalization of management. Therefore, some bureaucratization of management is perceived as a necessary evil.

Formation of bureaucracy. Bureaucracy can be formed in several ways:

1. The bureaucratic structure grows around V.I. Lenin, a prominent leader. Weber defined this method as the “routinization of charisma.” Its meaning was that a group of people, united around a bright personality, gradually turns into a bureaucratic structure, which aims to introduce the ideas and views of its leader into society. An example would be the bureaucratization of the Bolshevik Party created by V.I. Lenin.
2. Bureaucratic structure arises around a group of people. In this case, it is consciously created from the very beginning to fulfill certain goals and objectives. For example, when forming a corporation (joint stock company), capital owners hire professional managers to manage the company. This is how state and corporate bureaucratic systems are formed.
3. The source of bureaucratic structure is an already existing bureaucratic organization, while a new structure is usually allocated from existing ones. This happens when a new field of activity arises and a new department or department is gradually formed that deals with it.
4. The source of the creation of bureaucracy is a kind of “political entrepreneurship”. This occurs when a group of people who hold certain views and work together to defend them create a bureaucratic system whose members engage in political activity as a profession. This is how most political parties were formed.

Development of bureaucracy during the evolution of society. Although the term "bureaucracy" did not originate until the 18th century, bureaucratic structures themselves existed long before that.

Bureaucracy began to develop already in the most ancient states, where management was professionalized. Bureaucratization of management was one of the distinctive features Ancient Egypt and the Roman Empire. A striking example of bureaucratic power in pre-bourgeois societies is considered to be imperial China, where there was an examination system for selecting candidates for the post of officials, a multi-tier hierarchy of officials of different ranks and the enormous power of bureaucratic officials over their subjects.

Although in the era of bourgeois revolutions they tried to destroy bureaucracy several times, it usually turned out to be impossible to build a management system without professionalizing it. Therefore, to this day, bureaucratic structures are not only preserved, but even strengthened due to the increasing complexity of management processes. Examples of bureaucracy are the organization of management in the government, the military, corporations, hospitals, courts, schools, etc.

In the modern era, it is customary to talk about bureaucracy of the “Eastern” and “European” variety.

Bureaucracy oriental type is built into the public administration system and is its inseparable part. With the help of bureaucracy, the government acquires the ability to control all aspects of society and gradually positions itself outside of society and above it. The state becomes much stronger than society, bureaucratic domination (power-property) is formed. Weber called this type of bureaucracy patrimonial.

Unlike its eastern counterpart, the European bureaucracy, although associated with government, is not its essence. From the very beginning of their development in the capitalist era, governments in the countries of Western European civilization were under the control of society, and this control restrained the formation of strong bureaucratic systems.

Although the European bureaucracy does not pretend to seize political power, it has many opponents.

The most famous opponents of bureaucracy among modern scientists are the English writer and historian Cyril Parkinson and the American social psychologist Warren Bennis. Parkinson is known for his journalistic works in which he ridiculed the shortcomings of bureaucratic organization. One of his most famous statements: “the staff of bureaucratic organizations increases in inverse proportion to the amount of work done.” Bennis approaches the study of bureaucracy from a strictly scientific perspective, predicting the failure of bureaucracy due to its inability to cope with unexpected situations and bring together organizational and individual goals. No matter how stable bureaucratic systems are, they are constantly developing and changing. Weber, defining the ideal type of bureaucracy, spoke only about the formal side of this system, while it also has an informal component. Even in those organizations where it is prescribed to consult only with colleagues at a higher level of the official hierarchy, informal relationships often turn out to be stronger than accepted rules and regulations. This informal aspect gives the bureaucracy the opportunity to increase the flexibility of the system as a whole and reduce the impersonality of the interaction process. With the development of new means of communication, the attitude towards strict hierarchy also changes. In particular, electronic correspondence over the Internet violates the rule of subordination, providing the opportunity to contact any member of the organization, bypassing the accepted hierarchy.

Requirements modern world lead to the emergence of new forms of management, which, while bureaucratic in the Weberian sense in terms of their rationality and efficiency, however, have characteristics that differ from traditional bureaucratic structures. Thus, Bennis introduced the concept of “adhocracy,” denoting a rapidly changing adaptive structure, a group of specialists with different professional knowledge, selected in accordance with a specific situation. An example of such a structure is the Japanese “quality circles”. Unlike traditional bureaucracy, there is no clear vertical hierarchy and division of labor, formal relations are kept to a minimum, and specialization is not functional, but substantive. Flexible organizational structures of this kind, almost eliminating bureaucracy, are becoming increasingly popular in modern business. However, government administration remains a breeding ground for bureaucracy.

Theories of bureaucracy

In short, bureaucracy is the power of the office, that is, the power of form over content; if we take it broadly, it is the power of the artificially created over human nature, over humanity. Bureaucracy, therefore, is a state unnatural to human nature.

This word comes from two words: the French bureau (this is an office) and the Greek kratos (power).

Bureaucracy in the modern sense is when the tasks of a company or organization are subject to the rules of operation of this organization to the detriment of common sense.

Every modern society comes into contact with the power of bureaucracy. And especially a society in transition, as is happening today in Russia. Today it is difficult to find a state in which officials are not viewed negatively (this has already been clearly noted). At the same time, the term "bureaucracy" is used to designate the form of organization of the institutions of society, the characteristics of the work of government bodies, groups of people who master the techniques of administrative work, have information and documentation, are able to prepare, compile and interpret political decisions and so on.

If we ignore the many shades when analyzing the problems of bureaucracy, we can distinguish in the most general form two directions for its study:

Within the sociology of politics;
- within the framework of the sociology of organizations.

Such a distinction between the main directions in the study of bureaucratic structures is, of course, quite arbitrary.

As is known, in the sociology of organizations, importance is attached, first of all, to the issue of the effectiveness of organizational activities, and the problem of the power of bureaucrats is secondary. According to a number of scientists, the sociology of organizations does not have the appropriate means of studying the power of bureaucracy, because formal organizations are considered as a self-sufficient object of study, often in isolation from the processes taking place in society. To understand the essence of this power, it is necessary to consider bureaucracy in a broader socio-historical context.

It is this approach to the administrative apparatus that is most clearly manifested in the works of the classics of political sociology. Vincent de Gournay considered bureaucracy as a new form of government. He believed that its essence and significance lies precisely in the fact that the work of government was in the hands of rulers by profession.

G. Hegel, D.S. Mill, A. de Tocqueville, G. Mosca, M. Weber also considered bureaucracy as a new type of system where management activities are carried out by appointed professional officials.

The concepts of the first direction, which consider bureaucracy as the rule of “professional officials”, include class theories(K. Marx, V.I. Lenin). And also theories that define bureaucracy as a new class - M. Bakunin, J. Burnham, M. Djilas, M. Voslensky, D. Ledonne, etc. These theories are based on the same idea of the dominance of professional officials, but presented it is combined with the theory of ownership of the means of production. This allows us to develop provisions about the bureaucracy as a special class and about the bureaucrat turning his place in the official hierarchy into private property. The bureaucracy, being part of the ruling class, undividedly owns the two main factors that ensure the functioning of society - management and property, which are present in an undivided form at every level of the bureaucratic hierarchy. We can identify a range of basic questions that are posed and resolved by representatives of this direction in the study of bureaucracy: who rules? in whose interests? what are social foundations the power of the bureaucracy? who implements the functions of control over the bureaucracy?

The second direction in the study of bureaucracy is represented by theories formal organization(R. Merton, F. Selznick, P.M. Blau, A. Etzioni, E. Mayo, etc.). The following problems are considered here: the effectiveness of administrative structures, the mechanism of functioning of power; formal and technical components of bureaucracy; intra-organizational laws and interests; connection with the social environment; ways and forms of limiting bureaucracy. In this group of theories, a special place belongs to the theory of M. Weber. Weber proposes a bureaucratic model of organization, but unlike, for example, representatives of the “organization-machine” concept (A. Fayolle, L. Urwick), he does not deal in detail with the practical construction of bureaucratic relations in order to remove problems that arise in the process of development of these relations, his research "administrative" organization offers a primarily theoretical model.

One of the first scientific analyzes of the essential characteristics of the phenomenon of bureaucracy belongs to Hegel, although the philosopher does not use the term “bureaucracy” in his works. However, the universality of bureaucracy (executive power, bureaucracy) appears in his theory of state and law in inextricable connection with a certain type of organization, management and power, that is, as the universality of the state.

The state for Hegel is “the reality of the moral idea,” “reasonable in itself and for itself,” “the procession of God in the world.” The bureaucratic state is “the focus of state consciousness and the most outstanding education.” It represents the basis of the middle class. This type of state, which is a form of expression of general interest, is due to the presence of civil society.

Civil society was defined by Hegel as a complex of individuals, classes, groups and institutions whose existence is not directly determined by the presence of the state. This society, according to Hegel, is a rationally structured society, whose norms of life are different from the norms of state life. However, the various components of civil society are in constant conflict, and a significant strengthening of some of them can lead to the weakening of others. Therefore, civil society is unable to maintain itself as “civil” unless it is governed by the state.

The main function of the executive power in Hegel's theory was the implementation of decisions, which should be carried out by the monarch in accordance with the general interest. The implementation of this function was entrusted to collegial advisory bodies and government officials in accordance with the principle of separation of powers. Hegel does not deny the principles of the rule of law, but believes that the separation of powers does not imply their opposition, but is a manifestation of the dialectical unity of state and society. At the same time, he doubts the theory of popular sovereignty, considering the constitutional monarchy to be the true expression and concrete completion of the absolute idea of law.

In conditions when civil institutions by their nature do not reveal the general interest (they are in a state of conflict with each other), civil servants, firstly, are obliged to receive professional training, and secondly, they must be provided with state funds so that their own interests do not become an obstacle their implementation of general interests.

At the same time, Hegel identifies a number of conditions that guarantee that the power of officials will not go beyond the limits of general interest: the presence of supreme power, that is: “the establishment of sovereignty from above”; establishing a hierarchy within the bureaucracy that limits its arbitrariness; constant conflict between the bureaucracy and private corporations; the immediate moral and mental culture of an official. Hegel attributed to the formation of management culture special meaning, because it should be, in his opinion, an intellectual counterbalance to the mechanistic orientation of the state apparatus.

The Hegelian model of bureaucratic management proceeds from the interdependence and identity of the state and civil society, firstly, and secondly, from the need for the formation of this interdependence of the middle class. At the same time, the bureaucracy, together with the monarchy, is declared by Hegel to be a neutral force that stands above the conflicting groups of people with their special interests that make up civil society. Officials embody the universal interests of the entire society, since they are endowed with specific knowledge necessary for a modern state.

An opposite interpretation of the relationship between the bureaucratic state and civil society was proposed by K. Marx. According to Marx, the state does not express the interests of citizens, but sets them itself. The task of officials in society is to maintain general interest only in form. Therefore, the task of the institution of bureaucracy in bourgeois society becomes a form of production aimed at creating the illusion that the state protects the general interest. For Marx, bureaucracy represents the “will of the state,” “the consciousness of the state,” and the “power of the state.” The content of the activities of the bureaucracy is the formal spirit of the state.

It should be noted that in the concept of “bureaucracy” Marx combined several meanings. This term included both the entire system of power and control and the people who were part of this system. He included all elements of executive power, including collegial advisory government formations, as this institution. Marx often used the word “bureaucrat” in a negative sense as a carrier of any pathological characteristics associated with managerial activities. This interpretation of bureaucratic activity, inherent more in journalism than in scientific discourse, complicates the problem of the administrative sector as an “executive” institution in the system of authorities.

Weber's bureaucracy

The appearance of the term “bureaucracy” is associated with the name of the French economist Vincent de Gournay, who introduced it in 1745 to designate the executive branch. This term came into scientific circulation thanks to the German sociologist, economist, and historian Max Weber (1864-1920), the author of the most complete and comprehensive sociological study of the phenomenon of bureaucracy.

Weber proposed the following principles for the bureaucratic concept of organizational structure:

Hierarchical structure of the organization;
hierarchy of orders built on legal authority;
subordination of a subordinate employee to a superior one and responsibility not only for one’s own actions, but also for the actions of subordinates;
specialization and division of labor by function;
a clear system of procedures and rules that ensures the uniformity of production processes;
a system of promotion and tenure based on skills and experience and measured by standards;
orientation of the communication system both within the organization and outside written rules.

Weber used the term "bureaucracy" to denote a rational organization, the regulations and rules of which create the foundation efficient work and help combat favoritism. He considered bureaucracy as a kind of ideal image, the most effective tool for managing social structures and individual structural units.

According to Weber, the strictly formalized nature of bureaucratic relations, the clarity of the distribution of role functions, and the personal interest of bureaucrats in achieving the goals of the organization lead to the adoption of timely and qualified decisions based on carefully selected and verified information.

Bureaucracy as a rational management machine is characterized by:

Strict responsibility for each area of work;
coordination to achieve organizational goals;
optimal action impersonal rules;
clear hierarchical dependence.

However, later Weber began to distinguish between bureaucracy in a positive sense (Western rational management system) and in a negative sense (Eastern irrational management system), understanding the Eastern irrational management system as one in which instructions, orders, tasks and other formal attributes of power become an end in themselves.

Theories of bureaucracy according to Merton and Gouldner

According to American sociologists R. Merton and A. Gouldner, the most common dysfunction generated by bureaucracy is a shift in emphasis from the goals of activity to its means, resulting in a rigid hierarchy, strict execution of instructions, strict discipline, etc. turn into a brake on the path of rationality. In other words, a rational device reproduces within itself elements of the irrational.

Robert Merton (1910-2003) assessed bureaucracy as follows:

As a result of strict adherence to formal rules and conformism, management employees ultimately lose the ability to make independent decisions;
constant focus on rules, relations and formally developed guidelines for action leads to the fact that these standards become universal and final, and their compliance is the main task and result of organizational activity;
all this causes representatives of the bureaucracy to refuse creative, independent thinking and even competence;
the consequence is the birth of a stereotypical bureaucrat, lacking imagination and creativity, and inflexible in the application of official norms and rules;
the result of the activity of such a bureaucrat is the isolation of the bureaucratic caste, its elevation above the workers.

Difficulties in bureaucratic structures are associated with the exaggeration of the importance of standardized rules, procedures and norms that precisely determine how employees should solve the tasks assigned to them, implement the requests of other departments of the organization, and interact with clients and the public.

As a result, the organization loses flexibility in its relations with the external environment:

Clients and the public feel inadequate responses to their requests and demands, since their problems are solved strictly in accordance with established norms without taking into account the current situation;
if clients or members of the public point out to the bureaucrat that he is being overly compliant with norms, he refers to the relevant rule or instruction;
Moreover, the bureaucrat cannot be punished, since formally he acts absolutely correctly.

The bureaucratic form of management is characterized by the following negative socio-psychological features:

Ignoring human nature;
the dominance of the spirit of alienation;
limited ability to express views, especially those that contradict the generally accepted way of thinking;
subordination of personal goals of employees to the goals of the organization;
incompatibility with a developed active personality;
opportunism;
ignoring informal organization and interpersonal relationships.

The American sociologist A. Gouldner, developing Weber’s ideas, identified two types of bureaucracy in modern society:

Representative, where power is based on knowledge and skill;
authoritarian, where power is based on negative sanctions, obedience turns into an end in itself, and power is legitimized by the very fact of being in office.

In sociology, the theory of bureaucracy is one of the most developed. Nevertheless, this topic is addressed again and again. Why?

According to A. Toffler, bureaucracy has three main features - stability, hierarchy, division of labor. Sociologists believe that without bureaucracy, society has no prospects for development, since this form of management is the only workable and acceptable one. In this regard, one of the main tasks modern management consists of changing the role of bureaucracy in the activities of the organization in accordance with the principles developed by Weber.

Achieving this goal is possible by changing the attitudes of representatives of the bureaucracy and proclaiming the correlation of their well-being and career with end result activities of the organization.

TYPES OF BUREAUCRACY

Since Weber's study of bureaucracy, it has undergone significant changes, evolving along with the structures of organizations. Currently, there are three types of bureaucracy.

Classic bureaucracy

The apparatus (classical) bureaucracy fully corresponds to Weber's model. In this type of bureaucracy, management employees make very little use of professional knowledge, since their main responsibility is to perform general management functions and they are limited by the scope of their role in the organization.

The main advantages of apparatus bureaucracy are:

Stability of the functioning of the organization and its management bodies;
clear division of labor;
standardization and unification of all activities, which reduces the likelihood of errors;
reduction of time for role-based training of management employees;
formalization, ensuring stability and coherence of work;
centralization guaranteeing reliability of management.

The apparatus bureaucracy has the following disadvantages:

The danger of bureaucracy;
lack of sufficient motivation;
incomplete use of mental abilities and psychological characteristics workers;
ineffectiveness in changing conditions and when non-standard situations arise, since inadequate and untimely decisions are often made management decisions.

Apparatus bureaucracy forms the basis of management in ministries and departments, in most institutions of state or municipal government, and can be the basis of management in organizations with a stable structure and little changing relations with the external environment.

Professional bureaucracy

Professional bureaucracy requires managers to have deep theoretical and practical knowledge in narrow areas of activity limited by role requirements.

Let us list the main characteristics of the activities of professional bureaucrats:

High degree of specialization and competence;
taking into account not only the management process, but also the conditions for its occurrence;
less formalization (compared to hardware bureaucracy);
greater freedom in making management decisions within the framework of his role, since the top manager is not so knowledgeable in solving narrow, specific issues of activity;
grouping of jobs according to functional and hierarchical principles and centralized management decision-making.

The following advantages are characteristic of a professional bureaucracy:

Ability to solve extraordinary problems that require the use of professional knowledge;
very high motivation of employees to achieve organizational and group goals, and not just personal ones;
weakening of top management's control over activities, which gives greater freedom for creative solutions to management problems.

It is worth noting the disadvantages of professional bureaucracy:

Its effectiveness decreases sharply when the organization operates in unchanged conditions, and its main components are not constantly exposed to the external environment;
selection, placement and ensuring the functioning of workers acquire special importance, since their level of professionalism must be very high. This implies additional costs for training management employees;
The forms of application of power are becoming more complex: in addition to the power of coercion and reward, expert and information power must be actively used.

Adhocracy

Adhocracy as a form of bureaucratic management emerged relatively recently, in the 1970s.

The term comes from Lat. ad hoc - special and Greek. kratos - power.

A. Toffler used it to denote an organizational structure, the basis of which is temporary working groups created to solve one problem or project.

Adhocracy is a management apparatus consisting of workers professionally performing managerial functions. This rapidly changing adaptive structure is organized around problems that are solved by teams of specialists with different professional backgrounds, selected according to the situation.

Adhocrats differ from Weber's ideal bureaucrats in the absence of a strict division of labor, a clear hierarchy, minimal formalization of activities, and a quick response to any changes in all components of the organization and the external environment. Devizadhocracy - maximum flexibility and adaptability in relation to the changing situation.

Adhocracy is free from many of the disadvantages inherent in bureaucracy, is most effective in modern conditions and has a promising future.

The core of the value system of bureaucracy are:

The career with which all the thoughts and expectations of the employee are connected;
self-identification of the employee with the organization;
serving the organization as a means of achieving one's own benefit.

Of the many contradictions that exist in management, the main one can be identified as the contradiction between the objectively social nature of management (since almost all members of society are involved in this process and directly depend on its results) and the subjectively closed way of its implementation, since in the end management, designed reflect the will of society, is carried out by a fairly local social group of professional managers.

One of the essential features of bureaucracy is the desire to monopolize power and control. Having achieved a monopoly, officials strive to organize a complex system of official secrets, which prevents employees or the public from making a real assessment of their actions.

The ideal of bureaucratic regulation is to issue regulations themselves, to force society to comply with them, without allowing any control over oneself.

Thus, the main social political interest bureaucracy consists in implementing and protecting its monopoly of power functions in society.

Rational bureaucracy, according to M. Weber, was considered as a kind of ideal model of organizational structure, which should be strived for when creating an organizational structure in organizations of a wide variety of profiles and types of activities.

It should be noted that the principles of organizing an organization formulated by M. Weber have actually never been encountered in real management practice before. Subsequently, in many (if not most) organizations created, the bureaucratic structure was widely implemented.

This is exactly the lucky case when the management idea expressed by the scientist was brought to life by practicing managers.

What, according to M. Weber, should be an ideal organizational structure, which he called rational bureaucracy?

Here are its main characteristics:

1. A clear division of labor, leading to the emergence of highly qualified specialists in all areas of the organization’s activities.
2. The presence of hierarchical levels of management with a clear system of subordination and control of the lower level to the higher one.
3. A system of generally accepted formal rules and standards, consistent with each other and ensuring uniformity of tasks, responsibilities and coordination of the actions of employees in solving various problems.
4. Independence of official duties from the persons performing them, in other words, the impersonality of the performance of duties by officials.
5. Hiring employees who meet the qualification requirements for them. Dismissal is also primarily due to reasons of job inadequacy or other objective reasons.

According to many experts in the field of management, M. Weber's bureaucratic structure still remains a unique and most significant description of the essence of modern organizations.

The bureaucratic structure of the organization was one of the most significant contributions to the development of management science and practice and contributed to the formation of the organization in its modern sense.

It made it possible to systematize the organizational structure in accordance with the basic principles of management, making it a reliable tool for implementing strategic and tactical decisions made by the organization's management.

However, the bureaucratic structure is not ideal and is not without its shortcomings.

The disadvantages include, first of all, the lack of flexibility of this structure, which both employees of the organization and its clients have to face.

Insufficient flexibility is due to strict regulation of personnel activities by special norms and rules.

At the beginning of the century, the external environment in which most enterprises operated changed little, and only subsequent shocks and rapid development of industry and technology led to those situations of instability and fierce competition that modern organizations have to deal with.

A modern organization is often required to have a fundamentally new, adequate response to changes in the situation, and fundamentally new management decisions.

Today it is difficult to say unequivocally that the principles of a rational bureaucratic structure make it difficult to respond quickly, that the bureaucratic structure has more disadvantages than advantages.

The high level of organization, clarity in the distribution of responsibilities and internal discipline inherent in the bureaucratic structure is a positive rather than a negative factor in the unstable competitive situation in which a modern organization has to operate.

However, the urgent search for ways to improve the efficiency of organizations has also affected organizational structures and led to the emergence of fundamentally new types of them, which have confirmed their viability.

Therefore, when forming anew or changing the structure of an organization, the manager must clearly understand the opportunities and disadvantages that are inherent in each of the organizational structures used today.

State bureaucracy

As already mentioned, part of the state bureaucracy is inevitably part of the ruling political elite. This is determined by the role played by the higher and part of the middle bureaucracy in the management of the state and society.

Historically, the bureaucracy was formed as the administrative apparatus of an industrial-type state. In the 19th century The emerging bourgeois statehood served as the basis for G. Hegel and M. Weber to call bureaucracy the main carrier of rational forms of organization of power. According to the ideal model they developed, this management apparatus is distinguished by qualifications, discipline, responsibility, adherence to the letter and spirit of the laws, and respect for the honor of the uniform. Negative from the point of view of such normative ideas, the phenomena of bureaucracy (i.e., deviations from these norms of behavior, expressed in the growth of formalism, red tape, subordination of the activities of government agencies to their own group interests and other negative features of the performance of their professional duties by officials) were considered as anomalous phenomena, overcoming which should ensure strengthening of public and administrative control over their behavior, a more optimal distribution of their official powers, increased responsibility and hierarchy of the management system, etc.

At the same time, from a purely political point of view, the bureaucracy had to remain politically neutral and under no circumstances show any bias towards one or another power group. The performance of purely administrative functions by bureaucrats and their non-interference in the political struggle were seen as one of the prerequisites for maintaining the stability of social order. Moreover, M. Weber believed that the degeneration of state bureaucracy into political bureaucracy is fraught with a threat to human freedom and independence.

Marxism interpreted the political role of the bureaucracy differently, seeing in its activities a type of political dominance of the administrative apparatus over the state and society, the manifestation of a style of government that clearly alienates the population from power, preventing citizens, primarily workers, from using the state for their own selfish purposes.

The dynamics of the development of modern, complexly organized states have revealed a number of fundamental trends in the formation and development of state policy, which have forced us to take a different approach to assessing the role of the state bureaucracy. In particular, the strengthening of the role of the state in organizing social processes inevitably increased the role of the state bureaucracy. The place occupied by officials in the public administration system gave them enormous opportunities for real redistribution of resources.

In other words, the very position of senior and some middle officials in the executive power system objectively gave their positions a political dimension and increased their role and importance in the decision-making system. It is no coincidence that in a number of states, after elections, almost the entire contingent of senior officials is subject to replacement in accordance with the political preferences of the newly elected president or head of government. For example, in the United States there is a “spoil system”, in accordance with one of the requirements of which each newly elected president appoints approximately 1,200 new officials from among his supporters to key positions in the government. This is a condition for ensuring the political integrity of the executive branch, designed to solve very specific tasks.

The strengthening of the political functions of the state bureaucracy is also associated with the increasing role of the professional knowledge of officials, which gives them a certain advantage over politicians elected for a certain term. Moreover, the bureaucracy has an advantage over the divided, competitive world of politicians and due to the fact that it is a more cohesive social stratum, with its own corporate ethics and traditions.

An undoubted factor that increases the political weight and importance of the state bureaucracy is its close ties with various lobbying groups, which today represent one of the most powerful structures of political representation of interests. Often the merging of bureaucratic and lobbying structures that occurs becomes a powerful channel for the transmission of group interests and influence on the centers of political power.

The noted trends in the evolution of the state bureaucracy characterize its top and some middle representatives as having fully defined their status as a relatively independent subject (actor) of political power. This part of the unelected ruling political elite invariably increases its role in the modern state, exerting an ever-increasing influence on the process of developing, adopting, and often implementing political decisions.

Bureaucracy concept

The state apparatus exists and is by no means going to self-destruct. If anyone tried to do something like that, it would lead to immediate disaster. Without the action of bureaucratic (in the Weberian sense of the word) mechanisms, modern society could not live even a day. Few critics of bureaucracy try to see the real origins and principles of its centuries-old existence. Meanwhile, all the variety of interpretations of bureaucracy can be reduced to the following main types.

All the variety of interpretations of bureaucracy can essentially be reduced to the following main types:

Weber-Wilson concept;
“Imperial” (“Asian”);
"Realistic".

1. Weber-Wilson concept of bureaucracy.

At the beginning of the 20th century. German sociologist Max Weber developed the concept of rational bureaucracy. The bureaucratic organization replaced the system of patriarchal, medieval administration, under which it was impossible for an ordinary, ordinary person without money and connections to achieve justice: there were no deadlines for the consideration of cases, the procedure for their proceedings and jurisdiction were uncertain, and most importantly, arbitrariness and personal discretion reigned in everything . The outcome of the case was decided not by the rightness of the person, not by objective circumstances, but by his status, wealth, connections, dexterity, and ability to appease the desired person.

However, the patriarchal system also had its own conveniences. Having found personal contact with " the right person“, the petitioner could resolve his case without formal delays (and often contrary to the law). Not a formal business relationship, but a warm, sometimes friendly relationship arose between them. However, the disadvantages of such a system clearly outweighed it.

Therefore, as an alternative to it, another began to take shape, modern form decisions of current affairs, which (ideally) are characterized by their management by competent and dispassionate executors, in full accordance with the law and procedure, orderliness of office work, freedom from subjective influences.

In short, organization modern type presupposes the dominance of generally binding regulated procedures, the implementation of which does not depend on who exactly and in relation to whom they are performed. Everyone is equal before a single order. Unification becomes a guarantee against the shortcomings of specific people and possible abuses. This is the concept of rational bureaucracy, as formulated by Weber.

He pointed out that this type of government, although it originated in bureaucratic states such as Prussia, became predominant in all political systems and, indeed, in all organizations in which government was carried out on a large scale.

In his definition of bureaucracy, Weber sought to highlight common features for all modern administrative systems.

He indicated ten such traits, but for convenience they can be reduced to four main characteristics:

1. the competence of each bureaucratic level is clearly regulated, i.e. fixed normatively;
2. the hierarchical organization of the bureaucratic structure is based on firmly established principles of official subordination;
3. all formal intra-organizational activities (dissemination of information, decision-making, preparation of orders and directives, etc.) are carried out in the form of written documents that are subject to subsequent storage;
4. all officials must be good specialists in the field of administration, i.e. be competent not only in the area of their professional job responsibilities (for example, as a lawyer, economist, engineer, military officer, etc.), but also in the area of norms, rules and procedures for the activities of the bureaucratic organization as a whole.

His model of bureaucracy implies that efficiency can be achieved through a rational division of labor and clear definition of areas of competence. If we consider the elements of Weber's model of bureaucracy, then each of them meets this criterion of effectiveness. The main feature of bureaucracy is the systematic division of labor by which administrative problems are broken down into manageable tasks.

Other features of bureaucracy serve the same purpose. Its impersonal nature ensures that there is no favoritism in the selection of personnel, who are appointed according to individual achievements, in the management activity itself, free from the unpredictability of personal connections. Subordination to rules allows the bureaucracy to conduct a large number of affairs in a uniform manner, while having procedures for changing those rules frees it from the constraints of tradition.

In American administrative science, the same idea was developed by late XIX V. future US President Woodrow Wilson. His main work on this issue, considered a classic and a source of inspiration for many generations of American administrators, Wilson Woodrow The Study of Administration, was published in 1887.

Wilson's main ideas are:

In any management system there is a single control center as a necessary prerequisite for its effectiveness and responsibility;
the structural similarity of all modern governments;
separation of management from politics;
professionalism of employees;
organizational hierarchy as a condition for financial and administrative efficiency;
the presence of good administration as a necessary condition for the modernization of human civilization and the achievement of prosperity.

As can be seen, Weber and Wilson formulated essentially similar concepts from different angles. After all, according to Weber, a bureaucratic organization is technically the most perfect of all conceivable organizational forms. Its superiority, manifested in clarity, speed, competence, continuity, unity, subordination, stability, relative cheapness and, finally, in the impersonal nature of the activity, places it above all other types.

In other words, bureaucracy is the dominance of professionalism over incompetence, norms over arbitrariness, objectivity over subjectivity.

We can distinguish three of its main “ideological” postulates:

The bureaucracy equally effectively serves any political “master” without interfering in the political process;
it is the best of all possible forms of organization;
its most important advantage is its independence from the influence of subjective (human) influences on decision making.

However, research into the actual work of organizations suggests that adherence to bureaucratic norms can not only promote but also hinder efficiency. This is because the principles of bureaucratic organization are accompanied by significant dysfunctional effects, which are more pronounced the more consistently these principles are applied.

Following rules can lead to a lack of flexibility. The impersonal nature of relationships gives rise to bureaucratic indifference and insensitivity. Hierarchy often prevents individual responsibility and initiative.

The most accurate approach, as it seems to us, was outlined by K. Marx in his work “On the Critique of Hegel’s Philosophy of Law.”

Here are some of his expressions:

Bureaucracy is the “state formalism” of civil society;
the bureaucracy constitutes a special closed society in the state;
bureaucracy is an imaginary state along with the real state; it is the spiritualism of the state.

2. “Imperial” (“Asian”) model.

This model was most fully embodied in the Asian empires. Its classic form is Chinese bureaucracy. There are legends about her, representing her as almost a model of public service. In fact, the “Chinese model,” despite some formal similarities with the Weberian model (the system of examinations for the right to obtain a position plus a stepwise job hierarchy), is the opposite of it in its fundamental principles and goals.

As is known, in ancient and medieval China there was no right of private ownership of land in the European sense. The Emperor (Son of Heaven) was the sole owner of all the lands of the country. Subjects, according to the Confucian tradition, were considered as members of one big family headed by the emperor. Accordingly, officials were managers of imperial property.

Human nature was considered as a combination of light and darkness, i.e. good and bad - yin and yang. Hence, the task of the bureaucracy was understood not as serving public interests, but as mitigating the negative consequences of the action of the basically ineradicable vices of people in order to ensure the effective power of the Son of Heaven.

Accordingly, the entire notorious system of examinations for the possibility of occupying the position of an official was specific and meant only to test the candidates’ ability to serve the emperor and, most importantly, to ensure stability, stability, and immutability of the system, regardless of changing historical conditions and circumstances.

To prevent the formation of a bureaucratic corporation, which would seem inevitable in such cases, a number of mechanisms were in place to separate officials and their interests.

Among such mechanisms of subordination of an official not to the bureaucratic structure of power as such, not to the interests of the bureaucratic elite, but only to the favor of the emperor, can be attributed:

The lack of narrow specialization among officials, which made it possible for them to be painlessly interchangeable like homogeneous parts of a mechanism;
a constant surplus of candidates for positions, pursuing the same goal (passing exams did not at all guarantee obtaining a position, but only allowed one to enter the number of applicants for it; the wait itself could last indefinitely, but could be shortened by a bribe, which, however, also did not give guarantees of success);
the extremely limited prospects for a career (an official often remained in the same position for the entire duration of his service, which often amounted to only a few years), and this made it meaningless to create a ladder of personal connections so common in other bureaucratic systems;
personal dependence of all officials on the emperor;
strict measures against informal connections among officials in order to prevent the emergence of stable coalitions among them. For example, a ban on personal friendship, a ban on officials of the same clan serving in the same province, a ban on marriages from among local residents, a ban on acquiring property under the jurisdiction of an official;
the official’s financial dependence is not on the imperial salary (usually quite small and far from covering the costs associated with obtaining the position). His well-being depended on his ability to squeeze maximum income out of his imperial subjects, including for his own personal benefit. This inevitably turned the official into a vulnerable lawbreaker with all the attendant consequences - fear of exposure, uncertainty even in his immediate future, etc.;
lack of any personal or corporate guarantees for officials against arbitrary dismissals, demotions and transfers. All laws were formulated in such a way that the official simply could not help but violate them and therefore was under constant fear of exposure and punishment, which made him completely dependent and defenseless before the higher authorities (this is one of the key differences between Chinese officials and “Weberian” bureaucrats);
particularly careful control over the higher and middle bureaucracy, which is potentially more dangerous for the authorities, through an extensive network of secret police (censors); the practice of direct communication between the emperor and the lower echelon of the bureaucracy, bypassing its intermediate levels; the absence of the post of head of government, whose functions were performed by the emperor himself; and, of course, a personal system for all appointments.

Famous sinologist L.S. Perelomov, analyzing the influence of political doctrine on the organization of the Chinese administration, lists a similar set of mechanisms contained in the form of a system of prescriptions in legalism, a political doctrine that practically underlay the entire Chinese state system:

Systematic updating of the device;
equal opportunities for officials;
clear gradation within ruling class;
unification of the thinking of officials;
censorship supervision;
strict personal liability of the official.

The system that made it possible to keep bureaucrats “in check” was deeply echeloned, with a large margin of safety. This shows the founders' awareness of the dangers of an insufficiently controlled bureaucracy.

3. Russian specifics of bureaucracy.

As for Russia, it combined various versions of the “imperial” model: until the 18th century. the combination of the Byzantine and Tatar variants dominated, and the latter, in turn, used elements of the Chinese model in a rough form (in particular, in the collection of taxes). With Peter's reforms, elements borrowed from European absolutism were added to it, i.e. in the “semi-imperial” version.

Since the 19th century, and especially since its second half - since the reforms of Alexander II, elements of the model of rational bureaucracy began to develop. However, in general, the imperial model of “sovereign service” still prevailed until 1917, and in Soviet period it received a new powerful impulse.

Bureaucracy (bureaucracy as a derivative phenomenon) is a form of exercise of power (primarily state power), in which the general will of an organization (society, citizens) is replaced by the will of a group of individuals.

This substitution is initiated by many reasons: the irrational construction of the state apparatus, in which there are many duplicating, parallel structures; the absence or weak legal regulation of management processes in terms of both substantive and procedural norms; low level of control over compliance with established procedures; insufficient professional training of politicians and civil servants.

The realities of history and modernity convincingly show that under bureaucracy there is a substitution of not only will, but also interests and goals. Hence the cult of the leader, the messianic thinking of almost every “boss,” isolation, loyalty of those around him, hidden mechanisms for selecting personnel, and much more.

Bureaucracy leads to the fact that as a result of substitution, group interests, goals and will begin to be presented as common. In such cases, the authorities pretend that they act on behalf and on behalf of everyone, and that whatever they say or do, it is all supposedly for the benefit of everyone, for benefit and development, although everyone has a different, often opposite, opinion on relevant issues.

Formalism, veneration of rank, long writing, etc. - is nothing more than the attributes of bureaucracy, its design, hiding behind the “external” the essence of the “internal” - the use of power for the sake of personal gain.

4. Bureaucracy and red tape.

There is a confusion of concepts, which is often a source of confusion and mutual misunderstanding among people. In contrast to the bureaucratic method of organizing management, bureaucracy is a global disease, widespread to one degree or another in almost all countries. In terms of the scale and quantity of evil brought to humanity, it is perhaps comparable to environmental pollution.

In the precise sense of the word, bureaucracy means the power of the “bureau,” i.e. desk - not of a people, not even of a specific person, but of an official position. In other words, the auxiliary function, designed to serve people, to be an instrument in their hands, acquires power over them. The system of rational administration of affairs turns from a tool into a self-sufficient machine.

An official, in principle, cannot be an absolutely dispassionate performer, as Weber believed. He tends to use his position for his own benefit. At the level of social-group interactions, it looks like this: the apparatus sometimes seeks to impose its own interests on society as supposedly universal. Another objective basis for the degeneration of rational bureaucracy is its organic anti-democracy. It arises from the official’s imaginary monopoly on competence, which leaves ordinary people only the role of supplicants and intercessors.

Since the first task of an official is to ensure compliance with uniform formal rules common to all, it gradually turns into an end in itself. The form, which is rational at its core, acquires the features of a meaningless ritual, and the content is replaced by form. The level of understanding of the problems facing the apparatus, its individual units and employees is decreasing.

To understand the logic of the bureaucratic machine, the well-known Parkinson's law is important: a bureaucratic organization strives for an unlimited expansion of its influence. At the same time, there is no desire to increase one’s own responsibility for the state of affairs - rather the opposite. Maximizing the scope and scope of one's control while minimizing responsibility is the bureaucratic ideal.

Bureaucracy is often identified with red tape, unsubscribes, paperwork, etc. However, these external symptoms of the disease are wrongfully confused with its internal content, which V.I. Lenin successfully defined it as the subordination of business interests to career interests.

Bureaucracy includes the following components:

IN political aspect- excessive expansion and irresponsibility of the executive branch;
social - the alienation of this power from the people;
organizational - clerical substitution of form for content;
moral and psychological - bureaucratic deformation of consciousness.

5. New trends and approaches: realistic concept.

Let us now turn to the interpretation of bureaucracy that is called realistic. In fact, it is precisely this system that is now dominant in Western democracies. In fact, we're talking about on the gradual addition and modernization of the Weberian model.

Another, largely alternative approach began to take shape in the 70s. last century through the efforts of mainly American authors. Expressing the general spirit of the largely revolutionary time for the West in the late 60s and early 70s, they fundamentally criticized the very desire to present bureaucracy as the highest form of organization, allowing the best solution to the problems of modern civilization. The concepts of “responsive” administration, polycentrism, “flat” structures, etc. appeared.

Today, world practice has already recognized the primary role in management, including public administration, of cultural factors and the formation of a new culture of public service. It is believed that without an ethical component, any administrative reforms have little chance of success.

Another aspect of the process of fundamental changes in the public service is its turn towards people. The citizen is seen as a kind of “client” government agencies. From the status of a ward, a petitioner, he passes into the status of a consumer exercising his rights of services provided to him by the state.

In general, the revision of civil service principles that has taken place in recent decades can be reduced to the following areas:

Analysis and institutionalization of the political role of the bureaucracy and the mechanisms for realizing its corporate interests;
search for the optimal balance of political and professional principles in the administration;
reducing the role of the vertical administrative hierarchy, developing functional bodies, “flat” structures, etc.;
decentralization, cost reduction, reduction of administration;
limiting the role of the traditional administrative “ladder of ranks”;
the introduction of management and even marketing in a significant part of the civil service;
the maximum possible openness, “responsiveness” of the bureaucracy to the needs and expectations of citizens;
a significant increase in attention to the cultural and moral and ethical aspects of the civil service.

The aspects of the fight against bureaucracy are interesting. Traditionally, those outside of power are happy to expose and criticize bureaucratic fabrications in the formation and implementation of power. Every self-respecting oppositionist considered and considers it his duty to accuse the current government of bureaucracy. But as soon as the same individuals and movements come to power and take control of the state apparatus, they often reproduce a bureaucracy, no less than the overthrown one.

The state apparatus exists and is by no means going to self-destruct. If some madman who had seized power tried to do something like that, it would lead to immediate disaster for society.

It turns out that the objects and subjects of criticism of bureaucracy change places, creating public opinion the impression of a struggle against bureaucracy, and it is recreated now in one, now in another formation, now in one, now in another type of state. Few researchers are trying to see the real origins of its centuries-old existence.

Bureaucracy of organizations

Bureaucracy is a complex and contradictory social phenomenon. In everyday understanding, the concept of “bureaucracy” very often has a clearly negative connotation. However, in fact, bureaucracy initially represents the only currently possible form of management, very effective in its essence, but capable of giving rise to negative social phenomena.

Bureaucracy is usually understood as a social group whose members are professionally engaged in management, their positions and positions in the organization forming a hierarchy characterized by formal rights and duties that determine their activities and responsibilities.

The history of bureaucracy goes back to ancient times. Clans of professional managers and officials existed in Ancient Egypt, Ancient China, the Roman Empire and other countries of the Ancient World. Advanced bureaucracies arose during the formation of nation states, when peace reigned and the need to achieve social order increased.

The term “bureaucracy” itself means “dominance of the office” and is formed from two words: the French bureau - bureau, office, and the Greek kratos - strength, authority, domination. The introduction of this term is attributed to the physiocratic economist Vincent de Gournay, who in 1745 so designated the executive branch, giving the term a pejorative meaning. However, the term came into scientific use thanks to the outstanding German sociologist M. Weber. He based the study of bureaucracy on its ideal image, considering bureaucracy as the most effective tool for managing social structures and individual structural units. According to Weber, the strictly formalized nature of bureaucratic relations, clarity in the distribution of role functions, and the personal interest of bureaucrats in achieving the goals of the organization lead to the adoption of timely and qualified decisions based on carefully selected and verified information. In bureaucratic management, official positions, officials and managers become key figures in the management of organizations. The bureaucracy, having access to all levers of control, is omnipotent, obeying only the “interests of the case.” At the same time, it ensures clarity and unambiguity of information flows in the organization. A bureaucrat must be a high-class professional, have a special education, and be competent in matters of managing an organization.

Weber identified the following main distinctive properties of an ideal bureaucracy:

1. Impersonal character. Employees of the organization's management bodies are personally free and act only within the framework of the impersonal responsibilities that exist in this organization. The term “impersonal” here means that the duties and obligations belong to the positions and positions, and not to the individuals who may occupy these positions and positions at a certain point in time.
2. The principle of hierarchy. Bureaucracy presupposes the presence of a clearly defined hierarchy of positions and positions, i.e. a certain position dominates all subordinates and depends on positions above it in the structure of the organization. In a hierarchical relationship, an employee occupying a particular position can make decisions regarding employees in lower positions and is subject to the decisions of those in higher positions.
3. Clear division of labor in management. This implies a clearly defined specification of the functions of each position. This assumes a strict formal distribution of tasks and responsibilities for each employee, who bears full responsibility for the performance of their duties. A necessary condition for the implementation of this characteristic is the full competence of workers in each position in a narrow range of problems.
4. Rules for selecting employees. The selection and placement of employees within the social structure of the organization is carried out solely on the basis of their qualifications. This means that important status positions such as money, kinship and origin, power, connections and other parameters not related to qualifications are not taken into account.

(bureaucracy ) (from French. bureau office and Greek. Kratos power) a management system based on a vertical hierarchy and designed to carry out the tasks assigned to it in the most effective way. “Bureaucracy” is often called not only the management system carried out by special government apparatuses, but also this apparatus itself. The terms "bureaucracy" and "bureaucracy" can also be used in a negative sense to refer to an ineffective, overly formalized system of government.

The first to demonstrate the virtues of bureaucracy as a system of government was the German sociologist Max Weber. He proposed to understand it as the rational work of institutions, in which each element works as efficiently as possible. After this, in situations of poor performance by officials (red tape, requiring the preparation of many unnecessary documents and a long wait for a decision), they began to talk not about bureaucracy, but about bureaucracy, separating these two concepts. If initially the concept of “bureaucracy” was used only in connection with government agencies, now it is used to define any large organization that has a large and extensive staff of managers (“corporate bureaucracy”, “trade union bureaucracy”, etc.).

Signs of bureaucracy . Describing an ideal bureaucratic organization, Weber identified several of its typical features. The most important of them are:

1. Specialization and division of labor. Each employee has certain responsibilities and areas of activity that cannot duplicate the areas of authority of other members of the organization.

2. Vertical hierarchy. The structure of a bureaucratic organization can be compared to a pyramid: the majority is at the base and the minority is at the top. Each person included in this vertical hierarchy manages the people below him and, in turn, reports to those above him, thereby monitoring the activities of each element of the organization.

3. Clear rules. The activities of each member of the organization are regulated by rules, the purpose of which is to rationalize the entire management process. Ideally, these rules should make the activities of each employee and the entire organization predictable. Although the rules may change, in general they should be stable over time.

4. Impersonality of relationships. In an ideal bureaucracy, personal sympathies, feelings and preferences do not play a role. This principle is the same for relationships within the organization, and in its relations with partners external to the organization. A condition of an ideal bureaucracy is also that the recruitment of new employees is carried out on the basis of compliance with certain objective criteria, regardless of personal acquaintances and attachments.

Bureaucracy as a social threat . There is a danger of degeneration of bureaucratic management systems when they do not increase, but hinder the efficiency of their activities.

Scientists identify three main problems generated by the bureaucratic organization of management.

1. Alienation from a person. Bureaucracy is designed to solve people's problems. An impersonal approach to clients helps to respect their equality, but at the same time deprives people of their uniqueness. Any problem is adjusted to a template that is common to everyone and is solved in a previously accepted manner. The result is dehumanization and the transformation of a person into a standard “case” on the official’s desk.

2. Ritualism. The standard decision-making procedure often takes so much time, going through all the necessary authorities and approvals, that the decision itself becomes outdated and unnecessary. To describe this situation, R. Merton introduced a special term “bureaucratic ritualism,” denoting such absorption in rules and regulations that jeopardizes the achievement of the organization’s goals.

3. Inertia. Although bureaucracy is created to solve certain problems, this does not mean that when these problems are solved, the organization will cease to exist. Like any other organization, the bureaucracy strives for self-preservation, but unlike other structures, the bureaucratic one has more experience and greater opportunities to prevent its dissolution. As a result, a bureaucratic organization can function regardless of the goals previously set for it.

The widespread development of bureaucratic power leads to the fact that the bureaucrat becomes the “master” over those people whom he must lead. In these conditions, corruption flourishes.

To reduce the negative consequences of the bureaucratization of management, a system of external control over the activities of officials is necessary on the part of citizens (clients of the bureaucracy) and/or managers. As a rule, both of these methods are combined: citizens are given the right to complain about bureaucrats to law enforcement agencies, although these bodies themselves may undergo bureaucratic degeneration. The difficulty of organizing control over the bureaucracy is a weighty argument for supporters of anarchy, who seek to abandon the division of society into managed and professional managers. However, at the present stage of development of society, it is not possible to abandon the professionalization of management. Therefore, some bureaucratization of management is perceived as a necessary evil.

Formation of bureaucracy. Bureaucracy can be formed in several ways:

2. Bureaucratic structure arises around a group of people. In this case, it is consciously created from the very beginning to fulfill certain goals and objectives. For example, when forming a corporation (joint stock company), capital owners hire professional managers to manage the company. This is how state and corporate bureaucratic systems are formed.

3. The source of the bureaucratic structure is an already existing bureaucratic organization, while the new structure is usually allocated from the existing ones. This happens when a new field of activity arises and a new department or department is gradually formed that deals with it.

4. The source of the creation of bureaucracy is a kind of “political entrepreneurship”. This occurs when a group of people who hold certain views and work together to defend them create a bureaucratic system whose members practice politics as a profession. This is how most political parties were formed.

Development of bureaucracy during the evolution of society. Although the term "bureaucracy" did not originate until the 18th century, bureaucratic structures themselves existed long before that.

Bureaucracy began to develop already in the most ancient states, where management was professionalized. Bureaucratization of management was one of the hallmarks of Ancient Egypt and the Roman Empire. A striking example of bureaucratic power in pre-bourgeois societies is considered to be imperial China, where there was an examination system for selecting candidates for the post of officials, a multi-tier hierarchy of officials of different ranks and the enormous power of bureaucratic officials over their subjects.

In the modern era, it is customary to talk about bureaucracy of the “Eastern” and “European” variety.

Eastern-type bureaucracy is built into the public administration system and is its inseparable part. With the help of bureaucracy, the government acquires the ability to control all aspects of society and gradually positions itself outside of society and above it. The state becomes much stronger than society, bureaucratic domination (power-property) is formed. Weber called this type of bureaucracy patrimonial.

Although the European bureaucracy does not pretend to seize political power, it has many opponents.

The demands of the modern world lead to the emergence of new forms of management, which, while bureaucratic in the Weberian sense in terms of their rationality and efficiency, however, have characteristics that differ from traditional bureaucratic structures. Thus, Bennis introduced the concept of “adhocracy,” denoting a rapidly changing adaptive structure, a group of specialists with different professional knowledge, selected in accordance with a specific situation. An example of such a structure is the Japanese “quality circles”. Unlike traditional bureaucracy, there is no clear vertical hierarchy and division of labor, formal relations are kept to a minimum, and specialization is not functional, but substantive. Flexible organizational structures of this kind, almost eliminating bureaucracy, are becoming increasingly popular in modern business. However, government administration remains a breeding ground for bureaucracy.

Development of bureaucracy in Russia. A management system in which a career depends on personal professional qualities arose in pre-Petrine Russia. When in the 16th century. In the Moscow state, functionally specialized government bodies, “orders”, began to emerge, then the lowly clerks working in them gradually began to play no less important role than the noble boyars. “Ordered” officials were very different from the ideal Western official outlined by Weber (Table 1). Many of these features were steadily preserved in subsequent centuries.

Table 1. FEATURES OF THE BUREAUCRACY IN RUSSIA
Characteristics of the Ideal Western Official	Characteristics of the Russian “prikazny” of the 17th century.	Changing characteristics of Russian officials
An official is considered a servant of the public	The official stands above society and imposes the will of the ruling elite on his subjects	Officials are constantly viewed as above society
Freedom to choose your service	Mandatory service	Since 1762, service has become a personal choice
Service hierarchy	Lack of a unified hierarchy of civil servants	In 1722 a unified service hierarchy was created
Service specialization and professional competence	An official can perform duties in different professional fields	The professional specialization of officials became established in the 19th century.
Rewarded with a stable salary	The main income is levies from applicants, the salary is not fixed and is not issued regularly	By 1763, the transfer of officials to permanent salaries was completed
Career promotion according to fixed criteria (primarily depending on qualifications)	Promotes according to length of service, origin and discretion of superiors.	The dependence of careers on qualities not related to professional competence remains constant
Subject to uniform service discipline	Lack of uniform disciplinary requirements	Disciplinary requirements are different for officials of different ranks
Maintains impersonal, formal-rational relationships with colleagues and with managed	Maintains deeply personal work relationships	The personal nature of work relationships is constantly reproduced
Compiled from: Mironov B.N. Social history of Russia. St. Petersburg, “Dmitry Bulanin”, 2003, vol. 2

A new impetus for the development of bureaucracy in Russia was given by Peter's reforms I , who sought, based on the experience of Western European countries, to replace hereditary boyars with professional officials. The highest bureaucratic bodies were the Senate, which replaced the boyar Duma, and the collegiums, which replaced the previous orders. In an effort to legislatively fix the changes taking place in the administrative apparatus, Peter I signed the General Regulations of Collegiums (1720). This document contained the rules for the functioning of the state apparatus as a bureaucratic organization: it built a hierarchy, establishing the subordination of lower institutions to higher ones, secured the impersonality of relationships through connections between authorities only in writing, established the specialization and responsibilities of all employees. Additional elaboration of the hierarchy principle was carried out through Table of ranks(1722), which established the hierarchy of employees and rules for promotion through the ranks. Finally, in 1763 regular salaries for officials were introduced everywhere.

Although Russia has always been considered a country of bureaucrats, their share in the total population was small (Table 2) lower than in the developed countries of Western Europe. According to its characteristics, the bureaucracy of Imperial Russia gravitated toward the eastern version: it was controlled by higher officials, but not by society, and was characterized by corruption and low efficiency. In addition, in the Russian bureaucracy, informal relationships often came to the fore, which is why there was a lack of both clear professional specialization and the dependence of an official’s promotion on official competence.

Table 2. RELATIVE NUMBER OF OFFICIALS IN RUSSIA/USSR
Period	Number of officials per 1 thousand population
Late 17th century	0,4
Late 18th century	0,6
1857	2,0
1897	1,2
1913	1,6
1922	5,2
1928	6,9
1940	9,5
1950	10,2
1985	8,7

The terms “bureaucracy” and “bureaucratic apparatus” are quite often present in modern life. As a rule, they have a negative connotation. Bureaucracy as a system arose in ancient times, but it does not lose its relevance to this day. It is called the hydra, in which one head is cut off and three appear in its place. But is bureaucracy harmful in all cases?

In contact with

Classmates

What is bureaucracy - definition

Wikipedia considers bureaucracy in three meanings:

Actually bureaucracy as a form of government.
Bureaucracy as a system that artificially complicates and delays office procedures.
As a layer of senior bureaucratic officials in the public service, occupying a privileged position and showing indifference to the needs of ordinary people.

The word bureaucracy comes from the combination of two words - the French bureau, meaning office, and the Greek kratos, meaning authority.

Bureaucracy in simple words

In simple words, bureaucracy is a type of government in which the bureaucratic apparatus has concentrated all power in its hands and conducts business in such a formal manner that it interferes with its development and the normal life of people.

The bureaucratic structure is distinguished by a strict hierarchy, that is, the subordination of some officials to others, and all together they claim their exceptional importance for society, oppose themselves to it and at the same time realize their personal and corporate interests.

Bureaucracy in Ancient China

One of the oldest and most developed bureaucracies is Chinese. It had a very complex organization and was distinguished by extreme rationalism. Its very extensive, numerous and carefully regulated administrative apparatus was formed at the end of the 3rd century BC.

The characteristic features of the Chinese bureaucracy were the following:

The orientation of the ancient Chinese economy was agrarian, so the centralized bureaucratic apparatus was called upon to solve complex technical problems. First of all, these are issues related to water resources.

Confucianism as the basis of hierarchy and passing exams

The basis for constructing the structure of subordination was the teaching of Confucius, according to which society is a hierarchical system with a specific place for each individual. After Confucianism was proclaimed as the state religion, government officials took the place of priests. Laws were relegated to a secondary role; they were viewed as impersonal, and therefore poorly suited for regulating relations in society.

The state recognized the theoretical opportunity for each person to join the ranks of the bureaucracy. But in practice, this was “hampered” by the mandatory requirement that only the most worthy people be appointed to the position - those who have an education and who read a lot. There were many schools and colleges in China to train this category.

There were three ways to take up a post:

Having passed the exam.
By paying for the appointment.
Having received a recommendation.

Exams were passed throughout the existence of the Celestial Empire. They were not canceled even when China was conquered by the Mongols.

Celebration of China's administrative system

Special training and passing exams were aimed at ideological “indoctrination” of officials according to devotion:

to the emperor;
the existing system;
the teachings of Confucius with his veneration of ancestors and the idea of harmony in society.

As a result, all the prerequisites were created in China to ensure the conservative stability of the social system on the basis of a well-calculated and streamlined administration system. This order led to the fact that for more than 2 thousand years, until the beginning of the twentieth century, China was unchanged social system and his orders. Neither crises, nor peasant uprisings, nor foreign invasions prevented this.

The people's attitude towards the bureaucracy has never been positive, just as it is not so today. Thus, the 8th century poet Bo Juyi allegorically described the impossibility of overcoming the bureaucratic system. The gardener planted a flower, near which a weed plant grew. It wrapped itself around the flower and fused with its roots. What should a gardener do? If you water a flower, then you feed the weed, and if you pull out the weed, the beauty will be killed with it.

From the history of the term “bureaucracy”

Initially, the term “bureaucracy” did not have a negative connotation. It was introduced in the 18th century by the French economist Gournay, who used it to refer to the executive branch. He entered science in the 19th century thanks to the German historian, sociologist and economist Weber.

By this term Weber meant:

Rigid organization of power structures.
Rules and regulations that allow you to work rationally.
An effective tool for managing society.

Bureaucracy as an ideal and as a negative phenomenon

Bureaucracy was considered by Weber as a kind of ideal, approaching which will make it possible:

But some time later, the scientist identified two meanings of this concept - positive and negative. In a positive sense, this is a rational management system, and in a negative sense, these are formal attributes of power (orders, instructions, directives), which turn into an end in itself.

Modern theories of bureaucracy

Today, sociologists express the opinion that the main disadvantage of bureaucracy is the fact that means are transformed into the goal of activity. As a result, a rigid hierarchy, strict discipline and execution of instructions without understanding the specific situation become a brake on the path of rational activity. The importance of norms and standards is greatly exaggerated. They determine exactly how to solve problems and how to interact with clients and members of the public.

Consequences of bureaucracy

This leads to managers ultimately losing the ability to make independent decisions and flexibility. They stop thinking creatively and even give up competence. Their main task is to follow instructions.

As a result, the following picture is observed:

Officials isolate themselves within their caste, rising above society.
Resolution of problematic issues occurs without an adequate assessment of the specific situation.
It is useless for bureaucrats to point out their hypertrophied adherence to norms; in response, they again refer to instructions.
At the same time, there is no opportunity to punish the bureaucrat, since formally he turns out to be right.

Negative and positive features of bureaucracy

The bureaucratic form of government has the following negative characteristics::

In modern society, sociologists distinguish two models of bureaucracy:

Representative, where power structures rely on competence and ability to manage.
Authoritarian, where the support of power is negative sanctions, obedience turned into an end in itself.

Representative bureaucracy

Representative bureaucracy has the following features:

Stability.
Hierarchy.
Division of labor.

Sociologists are of the opinion that without this type of bureaucracy, society will not be able to develop, since only this model is workable. It follows that one of the main tasks of modern managers is the task of organizing work in accordance with these principles. It can be solved only if representatives of the bureaucratic machine change their attitudes, exchanging the desire for personal well-being for readiness to solve pressing problems of society.

The origins of bureaucracy in Russia

The founder of bureaucratic government in Russia became Peter the Great. And the successor and final organizer is Count M.M. Speransky. Bureaucracy arose as a by-product of the need for centralized government. In the Russian Empire it took on hypertrophied forms. As V.I. wrote Lenin, in Tsarist Russia, the people were slaves of officials, just as peasants were previously slaves of landowners under serfdom. To a certain extent, bureaucracy manifested itself in the Soviet period, however, then the interests of the people were still put at the forefront.

In the end, this is not work at all, but its imitation. The ideal of high-ranking representatives of the bureaucratic apparatus is the publication of normative acts and enforcement of their implementation without allowing any control. That is, the political interest of the bureaucracy is in the implementation and protection of its monopoly rule.

Control measures

The following are considered ways to combat bureaucracy:

Election to bureaucratic positions.
Increasing the political activity of citizens.
Adjustment of the system of relations between the government and the people.
Increased control.
Tightening of liability measures.

Bureaucracy and bureaucracy - what is the difference?

The word “bureaucracy” evokes a negative reaction among the majority of the population, which periodically encounters such phenomena as red tape; waiting in long queues to obtain the necessary forms and certificates; unsuccessful attempts to get a solution to any issue from government and management bodies; an abundance of paperwork that replaces real necessary actions to improve the living conditions of society. However, the phenomenon of “bureaucracy” itself is not something negative; rather, it is natural in a society where there is centralization of power.

By definition, “bureaucracy” (from the French bureau - office and the Greek kratos - power) is a management system based on a vertical hierarchy and designed to carry out the tasks assigned to it in the most effective way” (www.investments.academic.ru). It arises in any country where all management is concentrated in the hands of central government authorities.

Now the concept of “bureaucracy” is used much more widely - when describing the method of management of any large company or corporation in which there is a large and extensive staff of managing managers. In this regard, such concepts as “corporate bureaucracy”, “church bureaucracy”, “trade union bureaucracy” and others arose.

A systemic view of the problem of bureaucracy and bureaucracy allows us to see that this phenomenon is completely determined by the existence of skin measures in society. Back in the early 1900s, German sociologist Max Weber formulated the concept of rational bureaucracy, which has become one of the most useful ideas in the field of social science. He offered more like a model bureaucracy, the main elements of which were completely based (from the point of view of system-vector psychology) on the values of the skin measure, which, in fact, organizes the entire management system in society, creates a clear structure of power, naturally supporting with the help of this structure (a charismatic personality capable of uniting a human flock around you).

First of all, according to Max Weber, the work of each member of the bureaucratic system should be based on clear rules that are designed to make the entire management process more efficient and rational, to protect clients from the arbitrariness of officials, that is, bureaucracy. Here the values of the skin vector such as regulation, efficiency, and rationalization of any process are manifested.

The second element of Max Weber's bureaucratic model is the impersonality of relationships, both between members of the bureaucratic structure and in its external interactions. According to this principle, the selection of officials and managers should not be carried out on the basis of personal attachments and sympathies, but only on the basis of the professionalism and competence of the candidate. The skin vector always maintains distance in relationships, not allowing it to be based on feelings, but only on principle greatest benefit and benefits for the business. “Business, and nothing personal” is a favorite saying of every manager.

Specialization and division of labor in a bureaucratic system, when the responsibilities and scope of activity are clearly defined for each employee, are also influenced by the skin vector. Individualism, division of labor, standardization are the principles of organizing any process in every way.

And finally, clear vertical hierarchy, characteristic of any bureaucratic company and described by Max Weber, reflects the natural hierarchy that exists in the animal pack and still determines the life of human society. It is a pyramid, at the base of which there is a majority, controlled by a minority located at higher levels of the hierarchical ladder. As already mentioned, at the very top of this pyramid is the urethral leader, and lower positions in management are occupied by skin commanders, middle-level leaders, who form the basis of the bureaucratic system. It is for them that all the principles described above are valid.

Bureaucracy - what is it? Human factor

This is the ideal model of an effective bureaucratic system. But why is it not always so effective in reality? The increasing complexity of society, its management processes, and the development of the economy lead to an even greater increase in the influence of the bureaucratic system. The larger the structure that needs to be managed, the greater the number of managers required and the number of rules according to which it operates. In addition, the main negative factor that makes the bureaucratic system complex, clumsy, and riddled with corruption is, as always, human. Let's take a closer look at why.

Social scientists describe three main problems that arise as a result of the existence of a bureaucratic form of government. This is alienation from man, ritualism and inertia. Let's add to this, of course, the problem of corruption, which in people's minds is already firmly associated with the position of a government official, although this is not always the case. Of course, how efficiently and accurately a management system works, even the best one, depends on people, their vectors and the degree of their development.

Causes of bureaucracy. Undeveloped skin

The problem of alienating the management system from a person is a stereotyped approach to a person, without taking into account his individual needs, treating him as just another “case”. Of course, this is a consequence of the influence of impersonality and the standard approach of a person with a not very developed personality, who is inclined to save on any of his actions. It’s easier to take a long-proven instruction and follow it than to try to understand the essence of the problem.

The problem of corruption, the use of official position for personal gain in order to receive bribes, extortion is also a “skin” problem. A developed leather worker will never break the law. The undeveloped, remaining in the archetype (at the level of development of primitive man), strives to pull together everything that lies poorly. A “warm” place in the system of distribution of material goods is the ultimate dream of such an archetypal leather worker, where he can easily get rich.

Since in Russia the skin measure at all times could not develop alongside the urethral mentality that was opposite to it in values, the problem of corruption of bureaucratic power among officials is very acute. The archetypal skin is the reason that in the minds of Russians the position of an official, a bureaucrat, is firmly associated with the concept of “corrupt official.”

Causes of bureaucracy. Anal stupor

Bureaucracy is a rather cumbersome system with many levels, which, of course, cannot do without performers who would carry out rather routine paperwork and clerical work that requires attentiveness, accuracy, perseverance, and scrupulousness. Representatives of the anal vector are best suited for such work. They are the ones who deal with office work, document flow, and reporting. And it is in their properties that the causes of such problems as ritualism and the inertia of the bureaucratic system are found.

Inclined to accumulate past experience, follow traditions, and resist innovation, they get used to a certain system of doing business that has been established over the years, and it is very difficult to adapt to new ways. The desire to maintain the established order in an institution at any cost, complexity, detail, and the passage of numerous authorities is what makes the bureaucratic system so inert, difficult to respond to rapid changes in society, especially in the current rapid phase of human development. There is even a special term - “bureaucratic ritualism”, preoccupation with rules and regulations to the detriment of achieving the goal for which the business was started.

Assertive skin commanders demand from their performers a quick reaction, an instant restructuring, but clumsy analists in such a situation fall into stress, which is expressed by stupor and loss of the ability to think. This leads to numerous mistakes, rework and a feeling of deep dissatisfaction for those who are used to doing everything perfectly.

Bureaucracy and bureaucracy in Russia

Despite the widespread belief that Russia is a country of bureaucrats, the number of officials in our country is much lower than in developed European countries. According to RIA Novosti, “rumors about the high level of bureaucratization in Russia are greatly exaggerated” (www.ria.ru). According to a study by Center experts economic research“RIA-Analytics”, the lowest level of bureaucratization is observed, oddly enough, in Moscow and St. Petersburg, where there are 44 and 50 civil and municipal employees per 10 thousand people, respectively. This is against the Russian average of 67 officials. Isn't it an amazing discovery?

Comparing with Western countries, we have for the same 10 thousand population in Romania about 250 civil servants, in Germany and Norway - about 300, in the USA - about 350, in France - about 400 people employed in the civil service (that is, officials in France in 6 times more than in Russia, relative to the population, of course).

In addition to the fact that in some areas of our country there really is a shortage of civil service workers, in our country there is also the problem of inefficient operation of the bureaucratic system, bureaucracy. What is this connected with? Again, with the fact that, at its core, bureaucracy is the product of a skin measure that is the opposite of our urethral mentality. We are not limited mentally and do not like to obey the law. Strict adherence to the rules, which is implied in the bureaucratic system, is alien to us. This is why the bureaucracy in Russia has always been different from the West.

In the 1920–1930s, a new type of bureaucracy was formed in the USSR, different from the European bureaucracy - the nomenklatura - which nevertheless absorbed all the qualities of the Russian bureaucracy. During the reign, an official's career depended not on business qualities, but on the official's political loyalty and commitment to the party. And during the time of his successors - from personal connections, which, of course, did not contribute to the quality of management.

Russians tend to create informal relationships, even in power. The basis for Russian nepotism is the complementarity of the urethral mentality with the anal values of family and friendship. That is why, when hiring for positions in the government apparatus, in Russia they most often look not at professionalism, but at the presence of connections. We have already talked about the causes of Russian corruption.

Russian bureaucracy and consumer society

Currently, attempts are being made in Russia to make the bureaucratic system more efficient. For this purpose they are widely used information Technology, which involve facilitating the population’s access to government services and reducing paperwork.

However, in reality, with the ever-increasing computerization of the management process, for some reason the number of officials is growing, and the volume of reporting and paperwork is only increasing. This is especially true in the areas of education and healthcare, where new management methods have already formalized the process of communication with the client to such an extent that the quality of service suffers. For example, 15 minutes are allocated to see a patient, during which the doctor must have time to enter all his data into the electronic card, so there is no time left for examination. Control of every step and the need to fill out a huge number of reporting documents turn specialists into bureaucrats. Bureaucracy penetrates into professional areas, the quality of services in which suffers greatly from this.

Of course, similar side effects Bureaucracies are also observed in the West, but they cause special aversion in us. It is mentally closer to us when a person, his needs and requirements are at the center of our aspirations. For us, the general is more important than the personal, and all these regulatory delays only cause irritation.

That is why, when we adopt the latest Western management technologies, they do not work for us. Total control over the quality of work and punishment in rubles do not make us want to follow the law. You can influence a Russian person only by awakening in him responsibility for others. Only this resonates in his heart and the desire to act for the good of society.

Therefore, efforts to achieve effective management must be made not in the application of the latest Western management technologies, but in the psychological sphere, revealing to our people the truth about their mentality and the enormous potential inherent in their mentality.

In late Soviet times, when the archetypal bureaucratic nomenklatura was disintegrating, the people continued to live the life of society, doing their work conscientiously, for the benefit of the whole, without any Western technologies of effective management. A correctly constructed ideology, which turned out to be consonant with our mentality, helped us create a strong and economically developed state with a weak and ineffective bureaucratic system. These are lessons from the past that we could look to now.

But it is much more important for us today, based on a new system-vector understanding of ourselves and our place in the historical process, to get out of the protracted stress of following someone else’s Western path and finally find a foothold for the urethral jerk “for the flags” - into the society of the future... Together with everything peace.

Proofreader: Natalya Konovalova

The article was written based on training materials “ System-vector psychology»

from French Вurean) - green cloth that was used to cover the tables of officials of state offices, hence the term “bureaucrat”, i.e. mid-level government employee, official.

Excellent definition

Incomplete definition ↓

BUREAUCRACY

fr. - bureaucratie, lit. - dominance of the office, from fr. bureau - bureau, office and Greek. kratos - power) - 1) the highest layer of officials in the apparatus of state power, possessing certain privileges; 2) a hierarchically organized system of public administration, carried out by a closed group of officials whose activities are based on a strict distribution of functions and powers, strict adherence to established rules and performance standards. M. Weber defined bureaucracy as the most rational and most effective form of achieving organizational goals. Weber's ideal type of bureaucracy includes the following elements: a high degree of specialization and a pronounced division of labor, a hierarchical structure, approval of a set of formal rules for managing the activities of the organization, written documentation as the basis of administration, impersonality of relations between members of the organization and between the organization and its clients, personnel selection according to abilities and knowledge, long-term employment, fixed pay, promotion according to career ladder in accordance with length of service and merit. According to Weber, the main advantage of bureaucracy is its predictability. Later studies of bureaucracy (in particular, the works of R. Merton, M. Crozier, etc.) showed the ineffectiveness of many bureaucratic organizations that lose their flexibility due to various reasons determined by the very structure of the organization. Thus, members of the organization or the organization itself may adhere to certain bureaucratic rules as a ritual, which leads to a decrease in work efficiency due to their inconsistency with changing conditions, and narrow specialization often interferes with the effective solution of pressing problems - employees defend private, group interests and, striving for maximum expansion their powers, conceal and distort information about the real state of affairs, which leads to formalism, routine, the transformation of administrative activity into an end in itself and, ultimately, the alienation of the state apparatus from society.

But the nature of bureaucracy is dual. In addition to the noted side, it also has a negative side, which manifests itself in a unique way depending on the method of power, that is, the political regime. Thus, the development of bureaucracy under a totalitarian regime leads to the emergence of an alienated management system, divorced from the interests of the people. In such conditions, bureaucracy is characterized by the following main features: 1) it presents its own, professional interests as universal, expressing, in its opinion, the needs and interests of all members of society; 2) by absolutizing her own narrow professional interests, she creates the illusion (objective delusion) of her independence both from society as a whole and from the politically dominant force ruling in society and the state; 3) due to the fact that the activities of the bureaucracy are connected with the mechanism for the implementation of executive power in society and the state, it can practically have a significant influence on the development of the political process in the country, which is noted in Russia.

BUREAUCRACY

The bureaucracy is represented by salaried officials working for the executive branch of government, whose role is to implement the government's policies. Many of those who perform this work are classified as government employees, which means that key aspects of their employment, such as hiring, compensation, promotion, performance appraisal, termination and working conditions, are regulated by general laws applicable to government employees. Legislation of this kind is developed by centralized bodies, such as, in particular, the American Department of Personnel Management and the British Civil Service Commission.

Bureaucracies employ large numbers of people who are employed by government agencies and departments. Effective administration presupposes the presence of a rationally structured organization. Max Weber (1864–1920) believed that an ideal bureaucracy should be built in accordance with a number of principles. He believed that appointments should be made based on the results of testing, and not on patronage, that the decision-making process should consist of following established rules and procedures without being subject to individual value judgments (the term “bureaucracy” is widely used to describe precisely this procedure), that the organization must have a hierarchical structure, within which each bureaucrat occupies a strictly specific place in the chain of command, and that bureaucracies must have the necessary level of competence.

Excellent definition

Incomplete definition ↓

Views