Understanding Bureaucracy In The United States
A large number of our readings all have a common theme, bureaucracy. Traditionally, bureaucracy was defined as a government administration that is managed by departments. These departments are staffed with non-elected officials. Bureaucracies also include an administrative policy-making group. This group creates policies in many stages for future implementation. A more current and transitioned definition of the term bureaucracy is an administrative system governing any large institution, both publicly and privately owned. In our current readings, Robert K. Merton describes a bureaucracy in detail. His definition of a bureaucracy is a formal, rationally organized social structure that involves clearly defined patterns of activity in which, ideally, every series of actions is functionally related to the purposes of the organization (Merton, 1940). Bureaucracy in the United States had huge growth in the early to mid-1900’s. Its largest growth occurred between the years of 1933 and 1945. It was during these years that Franklin Roosevelt’s New Deal created a huge influx of agencies in order to run his many new programs. It was also during this time that America entered World War II. The war created a need for many new agencies and employees. During those 12 Roosevelt years, the total number of federal employees increased from a little over half a million in 1933 to an all-time high of more than 3. 5 million in 1945 (American Government Online Textbook, 2018). As the United States formal system, our bureaucracy has many advantages. Bureaucracies offer predictability, consistency, stability, and order. Each of these positives ensures a bureaucracy is functional and efficient.
Describing a bureaucrat could be a boundless task. Their job duties are vast, and their personalities are complex. They must strictly adhere to the rules and regulations of the bureaucracy. At times, this strictness can cause timidity, conservatism, and technicism when regarding decision making. A bureaucrat’s career is based on organizational devices of promotion. The most common examples of these devices are pensions, incremental salaries, and tenure. These devices are designed to incentivize the bureaucrat to be disciplined in their actions and conform to the regulations. A bureaucrat must train themselves to be devoid of all personalized relationships and nonrational considerations. Among these are affectual involvements, hostility, and anxiety. Often times, a bureaucrat finds its contact with the public challenging. This is due to the constant stressing of depersonalization of these relationships. A bureaucrat tends to act as a representative of the power and prestige of the entire bureaucratic structure, irrespective of their position within the hierarchy (Merton, 1940).
The bureaucratic structure affects the behavior of people in organizations. This organizational behavior is different from the behavior of everyday life. The vast differences have intrigued people for many years causing this behavior to be studied as a separate field. One of the most common traits of the bureaucratic structure is its conservative nature and slow processing. This slow and conservative nature creates a constant complaint from the public about its lack of responsiveness to changing conditions (Shafritz, Russell, Borick, & Hyde, 2017, p. 289). While the public views the responsiveness as slow, the bureaucracy is merely acting according to current legislation and abiding by the law. The bureaucratic structure allows for control by the top of an organization. This top-down approach is costly when monitoring and regulating employee behavior. A properly designed bureaucratic organization can be impressively efficient even though none of its individual bureaucrats are in any way exceptional individuals (Shafritz et al. , 2017, p. 290).
Like other governmental systems, bureaucracies have their shortfalls. Merton introduced a concept called “trained incapacity”. That trained incapacity is defined as one’s abilities that are functioning as a blind spot. In other words, what may have worked in the past, may not work under changing conditions. Unfortunately, a bureaucrat could be adhering to regulations, but they may not focus on building off of those regulations. Responses and decisions should not end with the law, but should change as the scenario changes. A second dysfunction in the bureaucratic system is opinion’s being valued based on rank instead of merit. It should not always be assumed that a higher ranking official is more knowledgeable or suited to make a decision than a worker doing the job daily.
Though currently, we live in a bureaucratic society, some historians and scholars envision a new system for the future. Warren G. Bennis, an American scholar, predicts we will have rapidly changing temporary systems. Bennis describes a task force of groups with diverse professional backgrounds to solve problems. Dwight Waldo, an administrative historian, reveals a flexible, complex form of large–scale organizations in his theories. Theorist, Alvin Toffler, defines a new system as a fast-moving organization with extremely mobile individuals. With all of the possibilities for the future, there are many who defend the bureaucratic system. Among some of these defenders are Herbert Kaufman, Samuel Krislov, C. T. Goodsell, and Elliott Jaques. They insist that layers will always add value to a system.
Currently, bureaucracy is working for the United States and other nations. Bureaucracy offers predictability, consistency, stability, and order. Bureaucrats are incentivized with vocational security to follow all rules and regulations. However, in opposition to the positives a bureaucracy brings to the table, the behavioral consequences of the systems structure are sometimes negative. The public views the system as being slow when processing and having a conservative nature. In order for bureaucracy to continue at its current pace, the public should strive to see the reason for such slow processing. Bureaucrats are governed by rules that must be followed. This can cause slow and conservative decision making. One thing is for sure that is affecting the future of bureaucracy, and that is our constantly changing society. Our society is unpredictable and is growing more and more complex each day. Advancements in technology keep the uncertainty moving at a fast pace. The future of bureaucracy is uncertain, and many scholars will continue to research this governmental system and other options to potentially take its place.
