In the last 2 centuries there has been a new phenomenon, the rapid increase of large-scale organizations in society. Fact that has caused a strong impact on the social structure, emerging the phenomenon of bureaucratization analyzed by sociologists and from the perspective of its impact on modern society from the most limited analysis of its main characteristics as a fundamental type of organization. The study of bureaucracy offers a basic model for interpreting and investigating organizations.
Contributions from sociology
The bureaucracy theory Weber’s is the first major theoretical model with a structural vision of the organization and approaches its study from a global level.
The bureaucracy theory It is the first systematic theory about organizations. Its origins date back to the end of the 19th century, its formulation and specific application to the organizational world took place in the first decades of the 20th century and its impact was felt after World War I. The bureaucratic organization is considered to be a privileged instrument that has shaped modern politics, economics and technology. “Bureaucratic administration” means the exercise of control based on knowledge (technical competence), a trait that is what makes it specifically rational. The features are:
- rationality
- predominance of a structural approach
- formalization.
Contributions of group psychology
Lewin studies leadership by placing the person in a force field, his theories are investigated by others who conclude that democratic leadership is generally superior in productivity and also produced less tension and frustration. Leaders, through communications, could manipulate participation to produce a superior group climate, increasing satisfaction with group life and improving performance.
Practical applications show that the antagonism of employees is overcome if they are involved in decisions. The importance of the type of supervision is seen, above the attitudes of the workers.
There is criticism of the ambiguity of the relationship between type of supervision and productivity, as more general variables of social or political power relations in the organization, and the formal structure, are forgotten.
Criticisms of the human relations school Economists ridicule the rejection of the value of money as a central motivator. Liberal politicians criticize the denial of individualism. Radicals deny the irrationalism of workers and their moral dependence on management. Businessmen consider the proposed techniques unfeasible. Social researchers reject methodological, theoretical and ideological approaches:
- Hawthorme’s experiments lack control groups; if there are any, they have no control over environmental and temporal conditions, there is no random sampling, nor control of the observer effect.
- Interpretatively, there are ideological biases, such as the irrational vision of the worker, the selective conception of the conflict and its sources, considering it only from the intra-organizational perspective, forgetting the affiliations and influences of the workers coming from outside, behavioral orientation and delay between the realization of the study and publication.
- Other more general criticisms of the school are: Not considering the organization as a whole but only the individual. Forget the struggle for power or confrontation of specific interests known to the other party.
This article is merely informative, at Psychology-Online we do not have the power to make a diagnosis or recommend a treatment. We invite you to go to a psychologist to treat your particular case.