Post-Bureaucratic Organizations

Conceptual Overview

Within the organization sciences, bureaucracy generally means Weberian bureaucracy, which has rational, systematic, professional, and hierarchical features. These features reinforce each other and form a well-recognizable whole. When many of these classic Weberian features have disappeared, a recognizably different organization emerges and it is reasonable to describe this as post-bureaucratic.

Post-bureaucratic organizations might then be less hierarchical and less coercive than bureaucratic ones. In this context, it is useful to recall the distinction made by Paul Adler and Bryan Borys between enabling and coercive bureaucracies.

It is worth noting the everyday usage of the term bureaucracy, which might refer, often pejoratively, to the systems in large organizations and to the officials who maintain and use these systems. The popular usage suggests that systems can be used as a cover for self-interested behavior rather than for their real merit.

Dispersed leadership in an organization and procedures that are generally consultative, and possibly democratic in form, will greatly help in developing systems that serve people and structures that are enabling rather than coercive.

Fairtlough claims that hierarchy is frequently a distorting influence. Hierarchy is so often taken for granted and is generally believed to be necessary for organized action. The hegemony of hierarchy leads many people to doubt there are any effective alternatives. Fairtlough describes two alternatives—heterarchy and responsible autonomy—and makes the case that these can be effective in organizations of many kinds. Clegg and Hardy suggest that post-bureaucratic organizations are more fluid than bureaucratic ones. Post-Fordist and post-Taylorist organizations have less rigid shapes. They are held together more by mutual interest than by mechanical, prescriptive rules or procedures.

This fluidity extends beyond the formal boundaries of organizations. Geographical clusters of firms or other organizations are one reason for this. So are strategic alliances and other collaborative activities between organizations. The networks described by Castells and others are one manifestation of this move toward fluidity.

The paradox of control was noted by Crozier. This refers to vain attempts to ensure compliance with a particular plan that creates resistance and leads to loss of control. Alvesson and Deetz suggest the Weberian bureaucracy is a supreme example of enlightenment, or modernist, thinking transferred to the organizational sphere. Therefore post-bureaucratic organizations are postmodern in their basic thinking.

Critical Commentary and Future Directions

Post-bureaucratic developments may be expected to be in one or other, or both, of the following directions:

• Reduction of hierarchy and of coercive elements in bureaucracy. In both the writings of organization scholars, from Max Weber onwards, and in popular understandings of bureaucracy, its association with hierarchy is obvious. Therefore, if alternatives to hierarchy (as an organizing principle) become more widely accepted, then bureaucracy will change in significant ways.
• A move toward less rigid and perhaps apparently less rationalistic ways of organizing. This is part of the postmodern trends mentioned above. Organizations will then become more like networks, and selforganization may become accepted as a valid way of getting things done.

Regarding the second point, the alternatives to hierarchy discussed by Fairtlough are heterarchy and responsible autonomy. Heterarchy is multiple rule, with dispersed leadership, dispersed power, and a balance of power, with mutual accountability. A good example of heterarchy is the structure of professional service firms, such as law firms. Although these tend to become more hierarchical as they grow in size, the advantages of partnership continue to be recognized. The procedures in many successful law firms are quasi-democratic, with voting by all partners deciding key issues. A great deal of conversation between partners takes place before a vote. However, the nature of these conversations is strongly influenced by the prospect of the subsequent vote.

...