Criticism of Bureaucratic Model(Max Weber's Bureaucratic Model)
Criticism of Bureaucratic Model(Max Weber's Bureaucratic Model )
The Weberian model of bureaucracy has been criticized mainly on three points:
1. The rationality in his model;
2. To what extent does Weberian model suit the administrative requirements of different places and changing times; and
3. Whether the model can attain maximum efficiency as visualised by Weber
●According to Merton the structure -especially its hierarchy and rules, which is rational in Weber's sense can easily generate consequences which are unexpected and detrimental to the attainment of objectives of an organization.
●Talcott Parsons questions the internal consistency of Weber's ideal type of bureaucracy. Parsons draws attention to the fact that Weber expects the administrative staff to be technically superior as well as possess the right to give orders. But this itself gives rise to conflicts within bureaucracy.
●Phillip Selznick pointing to the division of functions in an organisation shows how sub- units set up goals of their own which may conflict with the purposes of the organization as a whole.
●Alvin Gouldner distinguishes two major types of bureaucracy (1) punishment-centred bureaucracy where members of the organization conform reluctantly to rules which they consider are imposed on them by an alien group; (2) representative bureaucracy where the members regard rules as necessary on technical grounds and in their own interest.
●Weberian model does not include the orientations of members in relation to the rules in organization.
●Other theorists have emphasised on the significant influence of environmental factors on the behaviour of Organizations and pointed to this shortcoming in Weberian model as it fails to recognize them.
●Weberian model carries a misconception that administration is a rational machine and Officials were technical functionaries.
●Reinhard Bendix argues against the belief that it is possible to adhere to rules without intrusion of general social and political values.
●Peter Blau criticized that Weberian model of bureaucracy can't be applied to administrations of different places and times.
●Robert Presthus criticizes that Weber's concept of bureaucracy makes implicit assumptions about human motivations which are not necessarily valid in non- Western environments.
●William Delaney considers that patrimonial bureaucracy might be more conducive to economic growth in underdeveloped societies than rational bureaucracy of the Weberian type.
●Joseph La'Palombara believes that developing societies may find Russian or Chinese methods of administration more effective than Western Bureaucracy.
●Critics like H.C. Creel and A. B. Spitzer object to Weber's claim that rational bureaucracy is a modern phenomena
●Gouldner commented that Weber has constructed his type of bureaucratic organization out of elements which may be constant, regardless of varying social structures.
●Frederick Burin criticizes that Weber's thesis has ignored the important changes brought about in operation of the bureaucracy by the rise of the doctrines of public liability and accountability .
●Bureaucratic model does not fit in with changing circumstances and requirements of administration particularly in non-Western countries.
●Simon and Barnard proved that administrative efficiency would be lessened if we follow Weber's structural approach and efficiency in the organization could be increased through informal relations and unofficial practices.
●Gouldner who has tested Weber's ideal type empirically found that it has internal contradictions also.
●Simon and March have included Weber in the company of classical thinkers like Gulick and Urwick as he too did not pay any attention to the human behaviour in an organization.
●Phillip Selznick criticized Weber for his neglect of the power that a bureaucrate assumes whereby he is increasingly preoccupied with his own social position and in the end subverts the professed goals of the organization by concentrating only on his own power position.
●In development administration strict adherence to this Weberian priciple leads to delay and inefficiency in the administration by providing an excuse for the officers to shrink responsibility.
●Rigid adherence to the priciple of hierarchy does not contribute to the development of mutual trust either in the interorganizational relations or in the inter-personal relations in the administration.
●Documents which Weber insisted as important in his rational bureaucracy also have negative effects. The expert drowned in the files becomes a glorified clerk. It also results in too much formalism.
●Carl Friedrich has criticised that the words ideal and type cancel each other.
Conclusion
Weber constructed his ideal type keeping the conditions of Germany of his times.To say that it does not suit the modern conditions is not appropriate. If Weber has said that his ideal type is superior and permanent it is only because he compared his legal rational model with the traditional and charismatic types of organizations.
Weberian model no doubt includes both positive and negative elements. Elements such as selection through merit and technical qualifications complete absence of appropriation of official positions by the incumbents come under positive category. Elements such as impersonal order , rules, spheres of competence, hierarchy, technical, technical rules, written documents from the negative category.
It should be noted that those who criticise Weberian model are not criticising Weber but the present day bureaucracies which more or less reflect the model . Even when talking about de-bureacratization no one is able to avoid bureaucracy in our welfare and development organizations. Weber seems to be the source of inspiration for the students of bureaucracy at present. And there is no wonder his ideal type model inspires the future students as well.