Formal Organizations

BUREAUPATHOLOGY (by VICTOR THOMPSON)

3 TYPES OF BEHAVIOR PATTERNS

 BUREAUCRATIC BEHAVIOR

 Mostly found in large, complex organizations based upon advanced specialization

 BUREAUPATHIC BEHAVIOR

 Behavioral patterns that do not help in the advancement of organizational goals as they reflect the personal needs of the individuals

 Consists essentially of exaggerations of bureaucratic behavior by insecure persons in hierarchical and non hierarchical position

 Arises from personal insecurity

 It can only be exercised downwards

 BUREAUTIC BEHAVIOR

 Reaction to modern organizations by people (including both employees and clients) who are unable to adjust to the complexity, impersonality, and impartiality of these organizations

 Associated with personal immaturity

 Cannot abstract thus, personalized the world and tends to be suspicious of everything

 Has underdeveloped power of investing energy in future projects

 A bureautic employee is not likely to get into the hierarchy and may come to be regarded as a failure

 TYPES OF BUREAUPATHIC BEHAVIOR

 Insecurity

 Starts with a need on the part of the person in an authority position to control those subordinates to himself.

 Hierarchical structure with its monopoly of success is a potent source of anxiety which can be associated with insecurity

 Anxiety is also associated with insecurity of function

- occupying a position no fully accepted by significant others tends to make one isolated or a minority in a hostile world

 Growing gap between the rights to authority (to review, to veto, to affirm) and the specialized ability or skill required to solve organizational problems

- persons in hierarchical positions are becoming increasingly dependent upon subordinate and non-subordinate specialists for the achievement of unit goals

 Need to Control

 This arises from insecurity and often results in behavior which appears irrational from the standpoint of organizational goals

 It advances only personal goals and satisfies only personal needs which create conditions which do not eliminate the need for control but rather enhance it.

 The Drift to Quantitative Compliance

 Exaggerated dependence upon regulations and quantitative standards is likely to stem from a supervisor's personal insecurity in the parent like role of the boss

 It has been observed that women supervisors are more likely to insist upon strict compliance with organizational rules than men. The bureaupathic tendency of women has been attributed to their greater insecurity in the superordinate role because the general role of women in the society is somewhat subordinate.

 Only the observable and measurable aspects of behavior can be controlled, which are somewhat the most trivial and unimportant from the standpoint of the long range success of the organization.

 As such, a subordinate concentrates on satisfying the control standards, his emphasis shifts from the qualitative aspects of the job to the less important, quantitative aspects.

 Exaggerated Aloofness

 A cold aloofness protects an insecure superior from commitments to his subordinates which he fears will be inconsistent with demands upon him from above.

 Can come close to a complete breakdown of communication between the superior and his subordinates

 Between officials and clients, cold disinterest may also apply when officials are caught between demands or rights of clients and tight administrative controls from above. Disassociation from the clients and disinterest in their problems may seem to be the only way out of the dilemma.

 Since authority is sometimes delegated for political rather than technical reasons, the person with delegated authority lives in insecurity and patterns of cold aloofness are also observed.

 Resistance to Change

 Innovation is viewed as dangerous because it is not a controlled behavior. As such

 In an insecure competitive group situation, innovation threatens the security of all members of the group and for this reason tends to be suppressed by informal group action, as well as by the insecure superior.

 Insistence on the Right of Office

 The bureaupathic official usually exaggerates the official, non technical aspects of relationships and suppresses the technical and the informal.

 The official may be expected to insist on petty rights and prerogatives, on protocol, on procedure or those things least likely to affect directly the organization goals.

 The insecure official can be expected to insist that every communication go through formal channels. This way, he can hide his weakness and suppress information which might reveal his insecurity

 Close supervision can be regarded as bureaupathic under conditions there the right to act and the ability to do so have become separated because of the advance of specialization

 WHAT CAUSES BUREAUPATHIC BEHAVIOR?

 Organization structures

 Rigidity grows out of prolonged role enactment so bureaucrats, over a period of time become insensitive to the needs of the clients.

 Legitimacy of organizational authority is in danger as situation becomes unstable because of changes in hierarchical rights, specialization, technology, etc.

 Routinization

 Bureaupathic patterns became more pronounced when technical problems were mastered and reduced to procedures and programs

 Hierarchical dominance was pressed through a great variety of rituals (control boards, staff meetings, progress reports, etc.)

AN APPROACH TO A THEORY OF BUREAUCRACY (By PHILIP