Bureaucracy and Power in Human Services Organisations

Introduction

The rapidly evolving nature of the welfare state and the changing concept of social service have been recognised both internationally and within Australia. The economic rationalist agenda and the resultant reconstruction of state responsibilities have been accompanied by the introduction of private-sector managerial practices into non-profit organisations. At present, the Australian government is contractually promoting the transfer of social responsibilities to the non-profit and private sectors. The non-profit human services sector provides the largest share of community services in Australia, while the for-profit sector is also experiencing appreciable growth. The non-profit sector grew by 10% since 1996, while the for-profit sector grew by 32%, with the number of government organisations remaining constant during the same period (Australian Bureau of Statistics, 2002).

The outsourcing of government services and the onset of competitive tendering has placed non-profit organisations and their clients within an economic paradigm that has transformed non-profit organisations into service providers, clients into valued customers, and user demand and competition into market forces. All these factors have had a profound impact on the accessibility and quality of services provided. Micro-economic reforms have influenced the responsibilities of paid and unpaid managers and are being extensively analysed to identify more appropriate organisational and managerial models (Rees, 1995; Jackson and Donovan, 1999). Further analysis is underway to equip service providers to handle large governmental contracts efficiently. Their processes need to be examined and redesigned to enhance customer satisfaction capabilities.

To renovate the existing organisational structure of human services organisations in Australia, it is necessary to understand the mechanics of organisational structure and the role of power. According to Taylor, Fayol, Weber, and other classical theorists, there is only one ideal way to structure an organisation. In reality, however, organisations vary considerably in structure. Unlike the classical scholars, most contemporary theorists believe there is no single correct way to organise. What matters more is whether a structure suits the requirements of the organisation — its size, technology, and environment. Some organisational theorists today argue that the classical hierarchical, bureaucratic model was misinterpreted and wrongly implemented, as it was never intended to be a rigid or inflexible structure. Rather, hierarchical bureaucracy was an example of the structural form conceived through the political strategy of rational-legal domination (Richard, 1983).

Background

Some of the original classical theories of hierarchical structure, nonetheless, carry implications for modern organisational theory. In this regard, the work of Chester Barnard (1938) is considered a breakthrough in classical thinking. He defined a formal organisation as "a system of consciously coordinated activities of two or more persons," placing people and systems at the centre of analysis. People, not boxes on an organisational chart, are thus regarded as the vital components of a formal organisation.

Today, few researchers in Australia believe that non-profit organisations need to change in response to the emerging socio-political and economic climate of welfare provision (Steane, 1999; McDonald, 1997). There is a conflict of opinion between researchers and practitioners as to how, and what kind of, change is required. Sectoral peak organisations generally favour the introduction of contracts in place of grants, implemented through competitive tendering in which organisations bid for funding. The introduction of new systems has been promoted without sufficient consideration of the benefits or costs to existing non-profit management practice. To increase the functionality and proficiency of non-profit human services organisations under this new scenario, a number of propositions are being considered. Many organisations are turning to bureaucratic structures as an effective and practical approach, particularly for engaging with government organisations that operate along similar lines.

There is considerable controversy about the framework of bureaucracy — it is something that is more symptomatic than rigorously defined. Ironically, a concept that imposes inflexible rules and procedures is itself difficult to pin down. Among its most commonly recognised properties are waste of time, effort, and money. It is regarded as an erosion of resources and an impediment for most enterprises. To understand bureaucracy, one needs to understand history, psychology, management, and — most importantly — people.

Max Weber (1864–1920) is one of the strongest proponents of the bureaucratic model. He termed this organisational form a "rational-legal system" — a framework for operation based on authority derived from a set of rules and procedures, and the "offices" that people occupy. The defining quality of the whole system is consistency, and the system is thoroughly risk-averse. According to Weber, it is the most technically sound system available, with major characteristics including: "precision, speed, unambiguity, knowledge of files, discretion, continuity, unity, strict subordination, reduction of friction and of material and personal costs" (Weber: 214).

The Bureaucracy: Pros and Cons

Consistency is therefore the basic principle of the bureaucratic form. It is ensured by the firm and uniform application of rules to all problems alike, gradually and automatically eliminating uncertainty. Bureaucracy is also thought to control large organisations, direct the work of frontline workers, serve as a medium of communication, and facilitate specialisation and division of labour. A large hierarchy with a strong vertical differentiation is best suited to a bureaucratic orientation. Hierarchies are essential; the less vertical differentiation there is, the more responsive the organisation will be. "Flat" organisations — those with less vertical elevation and more horizontal breadth — are more responsive, but if the people within a flat organisation are not sufficiently empowered, reducing the chain of command becomes counterproductive. Flat structures also struggle to manage large organisations with a diverse scope of activities.

One of the major administrative foundations of bureaucracy is the exception principle: only important and complex problems reach senior levels, while trivial routine issues are resolved by lower-level staff. Programmed decisions are implemented automatically in accordance with predefined operating procedures, and unusual problems requiring major decisions are escalated to the top. This should make the hierarchy more effective. However, there are problems related to delegation and motivation; delegating authority and power is not a straightforward task. It requires immense confidence in subordinates and a well-functioning system.

Rules are just as strict as the procedures. People in the system therefore tend to avoid risk as much as possible. Instead of exercising the powers vested in them, workers in the lower echelons of the hierarchy often forward problems to their superiors simply to avoid being held responsible. The rigidity of rules inhibits initiative and risk-taking. A person with a flawless career may be penalised for a minor issue due to the exception principle, leaving little room for error or second chances.

It is also important to acknowledge that bureaucracy was designed to exclude the impact of individual leadership on the system, which is why rules and procedures are rigid. Leadership through personal charisma became largely redundant, since it would amount to solving problems in ways that deviate from standard operating procedures — potentially introducing uncertainty and contradicting the core principle of consistency.

In bureaucracy, the delegation of authority must be absolutely clear, and the principle of parity of authority and responsibility must be observed. Regrettably, this principle has sometimes been followed so rigidly that contemporary bureaucrats find themselves ill-equipped for modern scenarios. This is where empowerment becomes relevant. Empowerment is defined as "recognising and releasing into the organisation the power that people have in their wealth of useful knowledge and internal motivation" (Randolph, 1994). It is the authority to make decisions within one's area of responsibility, independently. Although empowerment resembles traditional delegated authority, it has two unique characteristics. First, employees are encouraged to use their own initiative. Second, empowered employees are given not only authority but also the appropriate resources to make and implement decisions. A major disadvantage of this approach is that empowerment is a more fluid concept than formally delegated authority — an empowered employee may bend rules and procedures to help a customer, which may or may not serve the organisation's interests.

Conclusion

Jackson, A. C., & Donovan, F. (1999). Managing to survive: Managerial practice in not-for-profit organisations. Allen and Unwin.

McDonald, C. (1997). Deinstitutionalised or reinstitutionalised developments in the non-profit human services sector. Australian Journal of Social Issues, 3(4), 341–361.

Randolph, W. A. (1995). Navigating the journey to empowerment. Organizational Dynamics, 19–32.

Rees, S. (1995). The human cost of managerialism. Pluto Press.

Richard, M. W. (1983). Weber on bureaucracy: Management consultant or political theorist? Academy of Management Review, 242–248.

Steane, P. (1999). Strategy for non-profits: The conflict between internal needs and government demands. Australian Company Secretary, 10–13.

Tapscott, D., & Caston, A. (1993). Paradigm shift. McGraw-Hill.

Weber, M. (1976). Basic concepts in sociology. Kensington Publishing Corp.