Bureaucracy

Bureaucracy. It’s a pretty unloved word these days (not least because it’s quite tricky to spell). It suggests red tape, barriers to action, paperwork, process, and lethargic responses to change, with petty jobsworths hindering progress. It’s anti-innovation, it’s a means of state control, it’s a Kafka-esque, rule-based system ignorant of common sense. We talk of companies that have become too slow and have a deeply entrenched bureaucratic or role culture, and need slimming down to become more responsive to the market. We’re told it’s a bad thing.Or is it?

Earlier this week, there was a Radio 4 documentary presented by Lord Gus O’Donnell, the former Cabinet Secretary (head of the civil service), In Defence of Bureaucracy. Now, this interesting programme was mostly about government bureaucracy, the civil service. But Rick on Flip Chart Fairy Tales, a well-known HR/Management blog, points out that there is a lot to take on board here in the business world.

Bureaucracy is meant to be impartial and fair; a reasonable way of resolving disputes, of apportioning work and co-ordinating organisations. In a business context, it allows for specialisation and the division of labour. It can prevent duplication of effort. It can aid communication and foster a unified purpose through a firm. It can prevent cost overruns. It can protect workers from bad bosses, health and safety dangers, or poor employment practices. And maybe a little application of restrictive rules can provide oversight of powerful managers who may otherwise run their own little internal fiefdoms within a business. Perhaps a more bureaucratic approach in the banking sector would have restrained risk-taking behaviour in the run-up to the credit crunch. The Lib Dems have been in the news recently essentially for not having a sufficiently well-working bureaucracy to deal with allegations of sexual harassment. Some organisational shortcomings may be seen as failures of inadequate bureaucracy, perhaps, rather than of culture.

The FCFT blog also points out that there has been a fair amount of scepticism in recent years about the adulation we tend to have for small, allegedly nimble, start-ups, free from restrictive bureaucracy. See, for example, this Schumpeter article fromThe Economist, pointing out that a lot of current innovation comes from big firms, with all their procedures, hierarchies and bureaucracy.

Is there any such thing, though, as a bureaucratic culture? If not, what is the relationship between bureaucracy and organisational structures and culture? Can there be a culture of innovation or a market-orientated task culture within a rigid, well-defined, bureaucracy? I suspect yes, though it needs to be carefully managed. A functioning bureaucracy can mitigate some of the shortcomings of a power culture, or alternatively help a company function well whilst a leader is away, or moves on. For example, to what extent has Apple continued in Steve Jobs’ mould (recent share price falls notwithstanding) because of the people he appointed or is it down to the roles and organisation he left behind?

On the other hand, an excessively rigid organisation might stifle independent thought and creativity, and lead to dissatisfied workers performing roles without any empowering authority. But a well-managed bureaucracy, with informed workers who understand the reasons and necessity for the rules it operates, needn’t constrain business if it is handled carefully. The ability to adapt to circumstance is surely important here. The danger is when the bureaucracy is seen as important in itself and managers become slaves to its upkeep (and to the upkeep of their positions with the bureaucracy), rather than it being seen as a means to an end. The woes of many companies can be laid at the feet of their rigid structures and bureaucracy, but we shouldn’t be too hasty to condemn bureaucracy out of hand.