Bureaucracy
"Bureaucracy, a gigantic power set in motion by dwarfs" - Honoré de Balzac (1889)
Have you ever wondered why bureaucracies, despite being designed to efficiently achieve a goal, can deviate from their purpose and become sluggish giants? Sociologists have famously studied this phenomenon and provided insightful perspectives on the issue.
Robert K. Merton, in his work "Bureaucratic Structure and Personality" (1940), describes the unintended consequences of bureaucratic rules becoming a goal in themselves for actors in administrative organizations. He introduced the concept of Sociological Ambivalence to express the idea that the social world is full of contradictions, not harmonious as previously believed. Merton's work highlights that the supposed advantages of bureaucracies, such as having expert personnel, also bring disadvantages, like professional deformation leading to rigidity and a lack of flexibility.
Philip Selznick's 1943 paper "An Approach to a Theory of Bureaucracy" critiques the understanding of bureaucratic organizations as essentially rule-based. He believes that organizations deviate from their goals due to informal structures centered around factors like prestige and recognition, which are based on personal relationships that are power relationships centered on control.
Alvin W. Gouldner's "Patterns of Industrial Bureaucracy" (1954) is a study of the impact of leadership change on the social structure of organizations. Gouldner argues that bureaucracies are inhabited by groups of individuals with different goals and that there are multiple types of bureaucracies, not just one harmonious-purposeful bureaucracy.
Peter M. Blau's "The Dynamics of Bureaucracy" (1955) uses empirical research to examine how formal rules are adapted, altered, or bypassed in practice in two government agencies. Blau argues that rule deviations can be functional for an organization and highlights the importance of colleagues' collaboration.
Michel Crozier, in his study "The Bureaucratic Phenomenon" (1963) argues against theories that overemphasize the rationality and objectification of bureaucracy. He analyzes informal practices as a result of power and exchange relationships in organizations and observes that bureaucratic rules protect employees from arbitrary decisions but also centralize decision-making and create isolated and non-cooperative groups. This mutual reinforcement creates bureaucratic vicious circles.
These works have provided an understanding of the functioning of bureaucracies and the reasons behind their deviations from expected goals. Understanding these perspectives can help organizations to improve their functioning and achieve their goals more effectively.
๐จ๐๐๐๐๐๐ ๐๐๐
๐ถ๐๐๐๐๐’๐ ๐๐๐๐๐๐๐๐๐ ๐๐๐๐ ๐๐๐๐๐๐๐๐๐๐๐
In the Twelve Tasks of Asterix (1976) there is a scene that's a sharp and relatable satire of red tape and administrative chaos. Tasked with obtaining a seemingly simple permit, Asterix and Obelix find themselves trapped in "The Place That Sends You Mad," a labyrinth-like government office filled with contradictory instructions and indifferent clerks. Ultimately, the duo overcomes the bewildering system not by following its rules but by unleashing chaos.
๐๐ก๐ ๐๐จ๐ฆ๐ฉ๐ฅ๐๐ฑ ๐๐๐๐ฅ๐ข๐ญ๐ข๐๐ฌ ๐จ๐ ๐๐ฎ๐ซ๐๐๐ฎ๐๐ซ๐๐๐ฒ
In real life, people working within bureaucracies may notice several recurring patterns:
- Strict adherence to rules can put the focus on following procedures instead of achieving meaningful outcomes. This can be particularly evident in safety management, where compliance activities may overshadow efforts to directly improve safety.
- Rules and procedures are experienced differently depending on the organizational and cultural context. In some cases, rules feel supportive and protective, while in others, they appear restrictive or even punitive, depending on whose interests they reflect and how they are implemented.
- Informal networks and practices often operate alongside formal structures: Unspoken agreements and social norms can either enhance collaboration by making processes more efficient or create friction when they bypass or conflict with established procedures.
- Bureaucratic systems are frequently tailored to local conditions to meet both formal requirements and practical needs. This customization can sometimes align more with the maintenance of organizational stability than with promoting innovation or addressing specific risks.
- Centralized control and rigid processes can, of course, lead to inefficiencies. For example, in safety management, an overemphasis on documentation and compliance may disconnect professionals from the actual operational challenges they aim to address.
๐๐๐ฅ๐๐ง๐๐ข๐ง๐ ๐๐ฎ๐ซ๐๐๐ฎ๐๐ซ๐๐๐ฒ ๐๐ง๐ ๐๐ซ๐๐๐ญ๐ข๐๐๐ฅ ๐๐๐๐๐ญ๐ฒ ๐๐๐ง๐๐ ๐๐ฆ๐๐ง๐ญ
In safety management, there is often a tension between achieving real improvements and satisfying bureaucratic demands. For example, goal-based regulation, while intended to allow flexibility, might inadvertently lead to increased internal bureaucracy. Organizations may develop complex systems to ensure accountability and transparency, but these efforts do not always result in practical safety improvements.
In safety management, this means we have to align safety objectives with organizational goals, and integrate safety into daily operations. Like Asterix, we must deal with the labyrinth of bureaucracy with creativity and resolve in order to ensure that compliance activities focus on improving the actual safety of work rather than just fulfilling administrative requirements.