The Evolution of the Bureaucratic Model

0 Comment

In order words, Salaman strongly believed that Durkheim’s theory was meant to create stability within a framework, be it at an organization or in society (2001, pp. 84). When the separate units of a society or an organization depend on one another in order to produce an effective result, Salaman agreed that such a situation would produce an “organic stability”—a circumstance whereby each operating unit of an organization is not or cannot see itself as a separate entity, but as a part of the overall group (2001, pp. 85). While this theory has proved to be effective, it, however, has its demerits: It has been reported that division of labor normally causes the abnormal problem of “anomie” (Salaman, 2001 pp. 85). A condition of “anomie” occurs when a person becomes hopeless and purposeless as a result of carrying out the same routine for a long period of time. In modern terms, this could mean getting bored with one’s job, a situation that could produce inefficiency and operational errors. The other problems associated with the practice of division of labor include the limitation of the freedom of operations and equality and laxity in the management structure of an organization (Salami, 2001 pp. 85).
Weber’s bureaucratic theory has been viewed by many as a principle of rationalization. While Weber didn’t disprove the efficiency of division of labor, but he emphasized that for such a model to work, there must be a good relationship between the superiors and their subordinates (Salaman, 2001, pp.86) Weber discounted the bossy nature of the superiors forcing their subordinates to do work at cost, and without following the laid-down regulations or traditional ways. For any organization or society to achieve optimum productivity, Weber strongly believed that the relationship between the workers must be rational, traditional and charismatic.&nbsp.