From bureaucracy to intelligent administration
Eva Bolfíková
UPJŠ in Košice, Faculty of Public
Administration
Department of Social Sciences
E-mail: eva.bolfikova@upjs.sk
Abstract
The paper is presenting some of the
Weber's rational model of the bureaucracy functioning consequencies as a object
of the critical analyses. It showes the possible way to the construction of the
administration alternative model, with
respect to the chaos and complexity paradigm main attributes. The complex
adaptive systems are explained as a very effective platform of the
administration character change. The possibilities of the complexity' knowledge
in the systems are discussed.
Introduction
Discussions regarding the future of
public administration lead by the effort to reach improving of its
effectiveness can be followed in several study lines and analyses, altogether
the tools (methodological as well as merits) enable to recognize two readable
ways.
One way uses classic scientific
paradigm sources and is oriented towards the study
of partial administrative attributes which despite slight movements (towards
reduction of dysfunctional mechanisms) remains bureaucracy . Sources
of criticism and basis for improvement of bureaucracy functioning are sought in
essence of ideal model of M. Weber.
Second way leads through change of the
key paradigm, change of the essence of the thinking in relation to
administrative systems when the basis is the understanding of administrative
systems as complex adaptive systems
which basic attributes emerges in relation to the essence of bureaucracy as an alternative.
Findings to which lead the second way
including solution of the question if it is actually possible to apply
instruments of complex adaptive systems to administrative systems are in many
contexts supported by knowledge within the first presented way (unintended
conclusions of intended behaviour (Selznick), ritualism of bureaucracy
(Merton), bureaucracy phenomenon, blocked society, zone of uncertainty
(Crozier), contingent models (Lawrence, Lorche) ...).
1. Certainties and uncertainties of bureaucracy
'When those subject to bureaucratic control seek to escape the influence
of the existing bureaucratic apparatus, this is normally possible only by
creating an organization of their own which is equally subject to the process
of bureaucratization.
M.
Weber (1968, s.224)
Work of M. Weber on the bureaucracy model as an ideal
type of behaviour was focused on intensive rationalization
trend by which was characterized social life in the private as well as public
sphere. According to M. Weber the bureaucratic coordination of human activities
is an immanent sign (mark) of modern social structures (and organizations).
In line of the organized world study in
historical “repeat” as well as recently Weber has developed ideal type –
bureaucracy – as a part of study and analyses of solution for continually
historically lead phenomenon of
differentiation of positions and statuses of individuals and groups in the
society. Such picture of the inequity of people statuses intends the need for
solution of modification and regulation of mutual relationships with the
respect to the current positions in the line of power and authority.
Bureaucracy occurs as one of the solutions apprehended and explained as the
most effective – through complex rationalization depersonalization
(institutionalization), therefore perfect regulation of human nature in the
interest of coordination amount of appropriately oriented activities and
relationships.
In Weber ideas is bureaucracy most
effective way of administration. It is predetermined For this position is
predetermined by generally known attributes of democracy which shall this
system and its operation “to insure” in the sense of complete rationality of
overall happening in organizations, absolute predictability of the development
and results of decisions, maximal simplification of way of coordination
(hierarchy, abstract rules and generalized algorithms), communication
(only formal and preferably written), specialization etc.
Even the first reactions and critics as
well as other analyses showed that ideal model of bureaucracy is actually an
abstraction which in real conditions can not work and doesn´t work with
the assumed effectiveness. They highlight that these tools which are
introduced as a guarantee (and certainty) of effectiveness actually produce
enormous complexity, decrease organization effectiveness of organisation and
means serious uncertainties of bureaucratic administration.
2. Sources of intelligent
administration
Behaviour (not only) of social systems is the subject
of study of various scientific disciplines which by using of conventional tools
submits their models, conceptions, theories. New models built on the platform
of complexity offer behaviour of social systems as unpredictable with the
attributes of self-reference and they are supported by the platform of so
called new science, chaos theory, theory of complexity, research of complex
adaptive systems, non-linear dynamics, theory of dynamic systems and synergy.
Application of complexity theory in the
study of human (social) systems is showed in two clearly separated categories.
First is metaphoric and descriptive. It derives its language (reference
system) from the new science and applies it to explanation of happening in
complex human environment. These applications are focused on searching and
explanation of examples of self-organization, emergency, butterfly effect and
attractors in social systems (M. Wheatley, M. Kellner-Rogers, L. Fitzgerald).
Models and metaphors of new science are used to description of social system
outputs, not the processes as such. They don´t focus their attention to
why and how it gets to emergency of complex models (models). It means that they
work with complex system as it was a “black box”.
Second category presents approach
characterized as mechanical (not mechanistic). Its terms and
conceptions derives also form the new science and mathematics of complex systems
but its aim is to investigate what happens in social environment, how the
complex system generate its surprising behaviour (R. Stacey, J. Goldstein, S.
Guastello, K. Dooley.) – “open box”.
2.1. Essence and sources of complexity
In social and natural sciences was the term “complex”
traditionally used as a synonym for “difficult” and “complicated”, in
organization science was connected in various ways with the problem of group
size and extent of group relationships (Greicunas 1937), unknown causalities
(Blau a McKinley 1979), technology (Coffey 1992), etc. After 20 years of
much heterogeneous research was the problem of complexity emphasized when some
of the researches directly refers to “complexity science” (Gleick 1987). Most
of authors have focused on the question of non-linearity, self-organization,
´deterministic chaos. Key role in this development played „The Santa Fe
Institute and its team of Nobel prize laureates, above all Waldrop (1992)
and Kauffman (1993). In the field of management and organization science
are for the transfer and spreading of new science application most important
works of Merry(ho) (1995) and Stacey(ho) (1991, 1995, 1996), study of
organizations as a communication nets and activity nets (Czarniawska-Joerges
1992, Weick 1995), especially – autonomous (Foerster 1984) and self-referring
(Luhman 1984), for administrative systems field mainly D. Kiel (1994).
Biggiero (2002) submitted differentiation
of epistemological and traditional meaning of complexity with the use of means
which enable to divide various resources of so called observed irreducible
complexity (observed irreducible complexity – OIC) into two groups.
First group is formed by sources which are
connected with formal (mathematical) and physical theory of complexity, he
calls them “bit perspective” because they understand the information only in
computer meaning within the formal decisions. In this “simple” perspective can
be observed understanding of organization as an automat (net of automats) where
can be watched only inputs and outputs of decision and decision is analysed on
the basis of quantitative (formal) perspective.
Second group is formed by those OIC
resources which are connected with philosophic, cognitive, linguistic and
psychological aspects of information. Organization are here viewed as a
“sense-maker” respecting emphasis of semiotic perspective of OIC.
Biggiero (2002) differs further
complexity sources – qualitative (logic, computed and chaotic) and quantitative
(gnoseologic, semiotic and relational) which in application on organization
conditions can be perceived in position of understanding sources, study and
administration management as wholeness system with real behaviour in concrete
internal and external conditions.
2.2. Administrative system as a complex
adaptive system
Complex adaptive systems are
characterized by basic attributes which are identical for the natural systems
as for the social systems. Their basics for understanding of administrative as
a complex adaptive system and highlights the specifics of “new approach” to
study and management of organization in application of above mentioned
disciplines.
1.
Complex
adaptive systems are not linear, there is no proportionality between cause and effects. It means that
also the small causes can evoke extensive effects. Non-linearity is the rule,
linearity is the exception. From this view, complex systems are intuitive and
their behaviour surprising. For administrative systems is this rule important
from the viewpoint of functionality assessment of all attributes which
characterize them as linear system where each cause (rule, action) can resulted
only in before generalized effect. Non-linear systems are not effective in
maximal possibility of generalization but on the other hand in permissibility of
existence of situations and actions as singularities which brings inevitably
despite in basic parameters defined essence spectrum of indefinite and unique
shapes in the real operation. Complex adaptive systems tell about non-linear
character of cause and effect relation, it doesn´t mean that system is in
the state of permanent, continual chaos, it just means that the system respects
great variability and dynamic of elements and processes in the system and
relations between them.
In linear systems (bureaucracy) are relations between variables stable. Maximal regulated bureaucracy system “do everything” to maintain stability in any circumstances, instability – even potential – is excluded. Despite this the reality of bureaucracy functioning based on the maximal reduction of complexity brings many deviations and unpredictable causalities.
2.
Complex
adaptive systems are fractal. All forms which show irregularities are on perception level
(perception and observation) highly dependent on character of used measure. In
fractal systems doesn´t exist measure which would provide generally
truthful answer to the question regarding mode and character of its existence
and operation. Every system submits own, very specific fractal structures which
helps to make an idea about the character of the system as an unit. If the
fractal is a fraction, a part of system which is explicit carrier of system
marks as an unit then knowledge of system operation specifics on the one
fragment level enables to think about the system operation specifics as an
unit. Fractal structures in administrative systems present multidimensional
spaces when study of operation (and management) of such spaces supposed in any
circumstances possibility of differentiation to “even smaller” parts. In
fractal administrative (social) systems are this way asserted indicator sets
abstracted on various levels, in various fields of system operation as synoptic
marks when each individual mark (indicators) suppose the possibility to act in
position of synoptic mark including another individual marks. Fractal
structures enable to study and manage the system as unique case different form
the others even identical systems on the outside (every bureaucratic system has
same attributes), presents study way oriented into the system and enable
knowledge and management of system as an unit through knowledge and management
of its parts. It means also that knowledge of systems with identical parameters
(administrative organizational systems) when these parameters helps to distinguish
these systems from other systems is insufficient tool for understanding of
mechanisms of operation of each one real system in concrete circumstances –
knowledge of uniqueness enables respect of fractal structure of system and its
character.
3.
Complex
adaptive systems show repeated symmetries – they tend to repeat basic structure on
several levels. Repeating of basic structure ( for organizational systems – of
basic mechanisms) in complex systems is provided just by fractal structure of
these systems. It means that if we know basic mechanism of operation of some
system part on the fractal level we can expect that this mechanism will be
vital also on the other system levels (example from the top to the bottom:.
“the rule” that “the fish
always stinks from the head downwards” that means if the
head stinks, all other parts of the fish stinks too, example from the bottom to
the top: if the motivation system on the individuals level in organization is
strongly influenced by personally oriented preferences it means that also motivation
systems on higher coordination levels will not miss this characteristic and
probably mechanism of effective coordination of organizational and individual
goals has failed what means that if mechanism of strong individual interests
orientation is one of working mechanism of organization systems and if fractal
is the carrier of the mark and vice versa organisation is becoming tool for
reaching other than organizational goals and de facto lose justification of its
own existence, in first stages diagnosed as low organization effectiveness.
4.
Complex
systems are sensitive to input conditions. These quality of complex systems finds
effects in huge dynamic of the system and broad variability of possibilities in
the way of its functioning – showed in the form of trajectory as a symbol of
through alternatives subsidized freedom in the system development. For study
and management is this quality important mainly in the phase of information
processing bounded to input conditions when at the moment of information
processing process are input conditions (processed information) changed.
Decision phase is therefore necessary dependent on involving of intuitive
processes and possibility to predict system development escapes usually used
rational procedures. Effect of system high sensitivity to input conditions is
inability of perfect prediction of future system development. Part of
respecting this attribute is using of so called small steps method when soon
diagnostic of possible deviations enable flexibly modify accepted decisions
according to current development of conditions (or information) with regard to
reached goal.
5.
Complex
systems are saturated feedback loops. System behaviour is output of multi –
interactions. When the level of organization raises, complex systems tend to
start new way of behaviour which is not possible to describe similarly as
previous behaviour. This mark of complex systems is related to previous, when
organization growth (organizing – and complexity) introduced serious change on
the level of input conditions of study and system management. It shows also
that with the growth of system complexity proportionally with the organizing
level raises also level of uncertainty which is necessary to “arrange“
(coordinate, limit by rules and stereotypes in decision). The more complicated
are the schemes of mutual interactions between system parts the bigger is space
for uncertainty and vagueness and less effective are functioning mechanisms
appointed for its regulation, mainly if they are concentrated in the form of
rational procedures and reached the form of institutionalized widely approved
mental models.
2.3. Knowledge of organizational
complexity
Sources of
complexity may be in strongly simplified sense searched everywhere where it
comes to any form of reduction of human being character (natural
sources) in any measure. According to this the environment of formal
organization and bureaucratically managed organization is presented as a space
characterized by the high level of uncertainty despite the enormous effort to
arrange and control it within the frame of regulation. Strong
emphasis put on rationality (absolutization of rationalization) implies sources
on its providing, subsidized by supposed maximal regulation:
-
high
level of generalization – abstract rules, stereotypes, algorithms
-
maximal
formalization of communication and relationships – ignored expressive relations
-
highly
stable structure (hierarchical) with determined communication direction –
without respect to multi-interactive character of organizational environment
-
high
level of specialization – without ability of flexibility with regard to
contexts
-
etc.
First sign of complexity in organizations is so called imperfect
generalization. Rules are generalized in relation to type of participant
behaviour, situation. To confirm existence of the rule it is necessary to
generalize (and categorize). Rules are applied “locally” in the context in
which appeared the need for their existence, in style which wasn´t specified
within the prediction. Impact of the rule can be limited but can not be
eliminated. Circumstance have however shape of uniqueness which is not and can
not be specified by the rule. Generalization implanted into the rule is
necessary selective.
While for bureaucratic (linear) systems are characterized by high level
of generalization – existence of abstract rules as generally binding ways of
action (in case of violation follows the sanction) without the regard to
specifics of the task or situation, complex adaptive systems respect uniqueness
of each situation – and possibility of deviation form the rule even they
don´t exclude their existence – generalization on some level (but
generalization is not perfect). Imperfection of generalization lays in potential
or real existence of minimally one situation for which generalized rules
doesn´t present functional way of solution (with regard to specifics of
situation). If such situation appears in organization it can be considered for
complex adaptive system.
Second sign of organization
complexity is so called “silent apology”. The underlining of the sense
of rules implementation in organization is reaching of the goal, “fulfilment of
apology” for existence and operation of organization (as a space “unnatural”
for the human, regulated by formal rules). Example can be the rule: “except the
working hours we don´t serve the customers”– the rule is developed
because we suppose behaviour of clients – customers, request of people on their
comfort and organization goals and we try to regulate applicable situations.
This knowledge is causally related to apology of the rule.
Why is the silent apology requested? Because the environment of formal
organizations is for human unnatural, artificially regulated. Only legitimate
measure for apology of existence and operation of organization is its goal.
Goal excuses everything that happens in organization (including existence of
rules of its organization). Important moment arises when is for the apology (of
organization operation) necessary to break the rule – in such case the rule as
an instrument diverges with the apology. In extreme cases it is possible to
break the rule without its normative generalization stops to be valid (clerk
serves the client after the business hours – he doesn´t cancel the
business hours – he breaks the rule because he wants to help increase the level
of trust and satisfaction of clients – and organization effectiveness). Besides
“official apology” – for application of rule exists also so called “silent
apology” – for breaking the rule or possible deviations. If such case appears
in the organization it can be considered for complex adaptive system.
Causality,
logic, paradoxes is the third sign of organizational complexity when in organized context
of management according to rules leads to paradoxes. Reason often lays in absence
of time dimension in system of rules and propositions. Causality of implication
“if…then“ includes time but logic version “if...then“ doesn´t include
time. For example: statement “if water temperature falls below zero it will
freeze” differs from the statement “Euclid sentence is valid if the sum of
angles in triangle is 180 degrees”. Paradox arise if the causal statement
becomes practical rule, its description in terms of logic becomes contradictive
– generates the paradox.
For example: the agency which
wants to provide financial aid for single mothers requests to state the name of
the father in application – they want to register irresponsible fathers. If mother
states the name of the father she will obtain the financial sum. This amount
however will be reduced in the case if the mother won´t state name of the
father. Primary goal is to help single mothers but at the same time they reduce
its aid if the mother won´t satisfy its request. That is paradox.
Moreover, consequences of this rule and its breaking cannot bear the person to
which is mainly related – a child. Logic connection: “if mother satisfy the
request for the aid – she is single mother (and doesn´t state the name of
father), she will not receive the aid (or only reduced)”. In final version
shall the logic be like this „if YES than YES“. But if the mother states the
name of father it means that she is not absolutely alone (she doesn´t
fulfil the main condition) – so she doesn´t have the right even for the
reduced aid – but she will obtain it. So in final conclusion statement is: “if
No then YES”.
Aim of the report was to show the possibilities of intelligent
administrative building arising from sources, respecting character of complex
adaptive systems which offers effective base for alternative study and
management of administrative in non-bureaucratic sense. In effort to release
from the ghost of bureaucracy - as it is introduced by M. Weber and his critics
– as a relevant appears those tools which aims to study and management of
administrative in the sense of learning organizations in which application
means for the spehere of public administration not only the big challenge but
mainly big, by many authors respected chance. Similarly as the bureaucracy
cannot be understood as “phenomenon for itself” also the intelligent
administrative can arise and function only in the space – social and individual
– which is “ready” and “wishful” for release of maximal regulation and
rationalization towards bigger tolerance, flexibility, freedom – but also
natural (not only formal) responsibility. In such way becomes the problem of
intelligent administrative interesting not only for those who are part of it
but also for the broad civil public.
References: