In today’s organizational landscape, classic management is king. If you’ve ever worked in your life, you’ve probably had a boss. Maybe this boss was the leader of one particular department or area. As a department head, your boss likely coordinated directly with the President of the organization. In working with each other, the President, your boss, and you utilize communication as “a tool for issuing orders, coordinating work efforts, and gaining employee compliance” (Eisenberg, Goodall, & Tretheway, 2013, p. 76). In the modern workplace, we refer to this management style as bureaucracy.
So is this classic management style still viable today? I would argue that, under certain conditions, a bureaucratic management style is an effective way to run an organization. This begs the question: what are these certain conditions? More on that later.
At my workplace, for example, we utilize a somewhat modified form of bureaucracy. I work within the Communications department, which reports directly to our organization’s second-in-command. Here are some ways in which we represent or defy theories of classic management:
Taylor’s Scientific Management
Taylor’s scientific management operates through “the assumption that management is a true science resting on clearly defined laws, rules, and principles” (Eisenberg et al., 2013, p. 71).
As a boarding school, my organization doesn’t fit perfectly into Taylor’s idea of management. We are required to work from 8:00 AM to 5:15 PM every day, but no one actively monitors our hours. Aside from predetermined class times and daily structure, our work is also incredibly difficult to quantify. While we may study science itself, I think the job of an educator is much less scientific.
Fayol’s Classical Management
Fayol’s classical management argues that “each employee should have only one boss and should be accountable to only one plan.” This management style has five elements: planning, organizing, commanding, coordinating, and controlling (Eisenberg et al., 2013, p. 72).
On paper, I have one boss, but different situations require communication with the Headmaster or other department heads. This isn’t against the rules and, in some cases, it’s encouraged. We follow those five elements loosely through team meetings and e-mail communication, but formal evaluation of our work is lacking in some areas.
Weber’s Universalism
Weber’s universalism, in response to the unfairness of particularism, advocates for “equal treatment according to ability” (Eisenberg et al., 2013, p. 75).
Our equal employment opportunity policy states that no one should be discriminated against based on their race, color, religion, national origin, age, sex, or disability. Sexual orientation, gender identity, pregnancy, or veteran status are not explicitly mentioned at this time. However, I believe these additional protections would be supported by nearly all.
So what are the pros and cons of this specific approach?
Pros
- Employees are accountable for their own work. A lack of formally established hours requires that employees learn to manage their workload on whatever time they allot for themselves.
- Reporting to one boss makes it easier to work within the bureaucratic environment. The boss’s job is to advocate for your work.
- Reporting to multiple bosses allows an employee to assist different departments in other ways.
- Certain protections are afforded to all employees.
Cons
- Aside from student grades, it can be difficult to quantify (or even qualify) an employee’s work in some cases. An educator’s impact may not be fully realized until years later.
- A particular boss might be not the best advocate for your work.
- Reporting to multiple bosses could create animosity between the employee and some of those bosses.
- Other protections are not explicitly stated, which leaves employees wondering if their organization will always support them.
Pros and cons aside, the tenure of my organization—118 years and counting—makes me think initially that this management style is effective and appropriate. This belief assumes that our management style has always been the same, but I’m sure it hasn’t! In the end, however, it’s the people in charge over the past 118 years that have made the organization work in some shape or form.
This brings me back to those certain conditions in which bureaucracy can thrive. These “people in charge” obviously have a major influence over the entire organization. If they do not foster a positive work environment for all employees, they have failed. As Charles Perrow puts it, “the machine itself ought not be blamed, but rather the people who misuse it to further their own interests” (Eisenberg et al., 2013, p. 75). Entry-level employees can certainly abuse the system as well, but it’s up to the people in charge to hire responsible and respectful employees.
I dream of an ideal bureaucracy. Unfortunately, that’s rather improbable. The true potential of bureaucracy can’t be reached because “people vary in terms of rationality” (Eisenberg et al., 2013, p. 76). One can still hope, right?
References:
- Eisenberg, E.M., Goodall, H.L., Jr., & Trethewey, A. (2013). Organizational communication: Balancing creativity and constraint (7th Edition). Boston, MA: Bedford/St. Martin’s.
You must be logged in to post a comment.