Normative Models of Bureaucratic Behavior Part 1 One

Normative Models of Bureaucratic Behavior: Part 1 One never seeks to avoid an inconvenience without running into another. (Machiavelli, Niccolo. The Prince, Ch. 21)

Max Weber Prussian Sociologist of the 19 th & early 20 th Century Emphasizes “rational legal administration” as foundation for legitimate authority Principles of Rational Legal Administration with Bureaucratic Agency 1) office holders personally free and subject to authority only within the scope of their impersonal official obligations 2) hierarchy of offices 3) sphere of competence 4) free selection into office; filled by free contractual relationship; always free to resign 5) candidates appointed, not elected, on basis of technical qualifications 6) remuneration is by fixed salaries 7) office is sole or primary occupation of incumbent 8) constitutes a career; system of promotion 9) official can't own means or appropriate position 10) official subject to strict and systematic discipline and control in conduct of office.

Consequences of Bureaucratic Control • 1) the “level field”: broadest possible recruitment in terms of technical competence 2) plutocracy: due to interest in greatest possible length of technical training 3) formal impersonality. All subject to formal equality of treatment with neither anger nor passion, neither affection nor enthusiasm.

The Weberian Rational Bureaucracy Basic Feature Apolitical, Rational Division of Labor According to task Chain of Command Clearly defined, hierarchic Terms of Placement Qualifications/expertise Method of Advancement Merit system through performance reviews Agency Culture Efficient, impersonal, task-oriented Modus Operandi Scientific Public Policy: Reliance on statistics, cost/benefit analysis, risk assessment, impact studies, performance reviews, standard operating procedures Goals Effective, efficient administration of policy

Weberian Bureaucracy Critique Advantages Disadvantages Neutrality: neither favor nor malice toward any specific individual or group Systematic Approach: Decisions, policies & procedures follow a predefined pattern Coherence: The system follows a clear, precise & logical pattern Predictability: Standard Operating Procedures allow for expected measured responses to policy issues Self-Correction: systematic evaluation of policies, procedures and personnel to determine the ‘best fit’ in the organization Efficiency: Maximum benefit derived from minimum cost Impersonality: agents part of an administrative machine, regarded as ‘agency resources’ to boost efficiency Plutocracy: qualifications for upper echelon require additional training & additional expense—high ‘price of entry’

The Machiavellian Acquisitive Bureaucracy Basic Feature Inherently political Division of Labor According to task in order to maintain appearance of rational bureaucracy Chain of Command Clearly defined, rigidly hierarchic; “Rank Has Its Privileges”, preoccupied with issues of rank Terms of Placement Favor and patronage, connections, “who you know” Method of Advancement Spoils system, persuasion, perceived factional advantage Agency Culture May be efficient, but not always. Agencies may develop strong unit cohesion. Highly personal, paranoid attention to loyalties. Characterized by maintaining appearances, ‘”Turf wars”, defensive posturing & retaliation. Modus Operandi “appearances v. effectual truth”: uses methods of Weber’s Rational Bureaucracy to justify acquisition, budget maximization, patronage, tasks accomplished through contacts & “networking”. Goals Expand (or at least protect) budget, staff, authority & influence

Machiavellian Acquisitive Bureaucracy Critique Advantages Disadvantages Unit Cohesion: agents trust & defend each other from outside threats, work together to accomplish mission objectives Hierarchic Clarity : Chain of command unambiguous & strictly followed Competition: reinforces unit cohesion & camaraderie Loyalty: Vested agents dedicated to the organization Profit: Agents gain authority, influence & compensation from expansion of agency Deceit: agents willing to dissemble or obfuscate agency realities to protect the agency or allies within the agencies Patronage: qualifications for upper echelon require networking with upper ranks, serving their narrow interests through quid pro quo Mission Creep: agency authority & influence grow beyond the original statement of purpose Turf Wars: agencies seek to exercise authority & influence beyond their stated mission, competing with other agencies’ mission resulting in organizational conflict Retaliation: measures consciously taken to neutralize perceived threats to narrow interests, both inside & outside the agency