Bureaucracy

Why Bureaucracy Matters to Leadership

Leadership takes place within a social context. That social context influences leadership. What works in one context will not work in another, just as different flowers thrive in different climates. The effectiveness of leadership varies, depending on the context. Social context is, in other words, one of the contingencies of leadership.

Part of the social context is organizational structure. This is true even if the leader rises up in opposition to an organization. Thus, in order to understand leadership thoroughly, one has to consider organizational structure. Former Secretary of Health, Education, and Welfare John W. Gardner (1912–2002) made this explicit: “The first thing that strikes one as characteristic of contemporary leadership is the necessity for the leader to work with and through extremely complex organizations and institutions” (Gardner 1990, 81).

This is not to say that organizational structure is fixed and absolutely determines what people will do. Organizational structure certainly influences individual behavior, but individual behavior also influences organizational structure. Organizational structure is itself the result of what people have been doing. Accordingly, just as leader effectiveness depends on organizational structure, organizational structure depends on leadership.

As a practical matter, therefore, in order to exploit a given situation, an effective leader will recognize the prevailing organizational structure and appreciate its needs and constraints. A leader will also learn [Page 127]how, and at what points, the leader can alter the structure to get things done.

What is Bureaucracy?

Bureaucracy is the term given to certain organizational structures. Frequently in ordinary language it is a term of abuse, yet the unbiased student of leadership will recognize that bureaucracy, as a term of art, is analytically useful. It has a specific valueneutral range of meanings. In the abstract bureaucracy is neither good nor bad.

Bureaucracy is by no means restricted to government agencies; bureaucracy as a structure can arise in any sector. Nevertheless, people frequently associate bureaucracy with government for two reasons: Bureaucracy originated as part of governmental structure, and certain writers argue that government is the only appropriate locus of bureaucracy.

What then is bureaucracy? Bureaucracy is what is known as a sociological form with distinct structural properties and a pattern of development. In other words, bureaucracy can be understood by means of a static (or structural) model and a dynamic (or procedural) model.

The Static Model of Bureaucracy

Instead of abstract phrases, images offer a more vivid way to understand bureaucracy. Gareth Morgan prefers the metaphor of organizations as machines. Another perspective known as archetypal psychology identifies deep and basic images or metaphors we all share to make sense of the world. These images are represented using the imagery of ancient gods, in this case, the Greek and Roman god Apollo. Apollo was, in the words of the British writer Charles Handy, “the god of order and rules, [assuming] that man is rational and that everything can and should be analyzed in a logical fashion” (1995, 17). Apollo was the champion of organization, security, and efficiency. These are not the only representations. Some of the most arresting images of bureaucracy reside in literature and other works of art. The Austrian writer Franz Kafka especially (1883–1924) depicted bureaucracy as “some vast, ominous, shadowy realm … that has severed all connection with human need” (Matthews 1992, para. 18, 20). The Russian writer Alexander Solzhenitsyn (b. 1918), in his short novel For the Good of the Cause, underscored the dilemma of bureaucratic leaders caught between their followers and the uses of power by those in higher positions of authority (1964). Films with similar themes

...