Chapter 8. Bureaucracy and power
In the 20th century in the political life of most developed countries, there has clearly been a narrowing of the scope of self-government, the state’s desire to govern in one way or another, to determine the direction and dynamics of the development of social relationships, thereby interfering in the rather complex and often contradictory processes of self-regulation and self-organization of social structures, political and legal institutions. Various organizations have truly filled the entire society and penetrated every sphere of it. “Even what today we call self-government, for example, municipal self-government, self-government of public associations, labor collectives, etc., is in reality management through the appropriate organization. Spontaneity and improvisation are leaving the sphere of power relations…” writes G.V. Maltsev 369. Moreover, the same author believes that the modern crisis of power and authority is most likely a consequence of the unsuccessful “overorganization” and “overregulation” of social relations. In the modern world, the measure of their rationalization has been violated. However, something else is clear - the power structures of organized management were generated by the desire to have well-thought-out, scientifically proven means to achieve socially beneficial goals. The rationalism characteristic of the Age of Enlightenment, first of all, was imbued with the unshakable conviction that knowledge and science applied to management and the economic sphere will inevitably give humanity everything it needs for progressive development. Similar views were professed by the leaders of the European revolutions of the 17th-19th centuries, and these same views largely served as the basis for the development of ideas about the goals and objectives of state power and administration in the 20th century.
It is in the structure of organizational power and the peculiarities of power practices in different countries of the world that the objective reasons for the emergence of bureaucracy as a socio-political phenomenon lie. Most modern domestic legal scholars believe that bureaucratization is, first of all, a “contribution” to the modern crisis of power and management. Bureaucratization, accordingly, is nothing more than the internal process of decomposition of state power, a vice of political and legal consciousness, and the actions of officials. This opinion also corresponds to the views of K. Marx, who believes that the bureaucratic degeneration of the state apparatus is expressed in the fact that “state tasks turn into clerical tasks, or clerical tasks into state ones” 370. However, in modern political and legal sciences other, not so critical, concepts of bureaucracy have been formulated.
M. Weber's concept- V. Wilson. At the beginning of our century, the outstanding German scientist Max Weber developed the concept of rational bureaucracy as the basis of a modern type of organization, which replaced the patriarchal organization (according to Weber, patrimonial). The emergence of a bureaucratic organization in the Weberian sense of the word is considered by many to be as important a stage in the development of human civilization as the transition from feudal to capitalist relations. In his opinion, the emergence of bureaucracy is associated with a universal tendency rationalization of social development. Bureaucracy is a pure and highly developed type of domination, namely legal domination based on law And law. “Bureaucratic management means domination through knowledge, and this is its specific rational character” 371. Possessing such qualities as legality and scientific character, bureaucracy is a respectable and solid model of management, necessary and practically indestructible in a society moving along the path of rationalization.
Bureaucratic organization replaced the system stalemateriarchal, medieval administration, in which it was often practically impossible for an ordinary person without money and connections to achieve justice: there were no deadlines for considering cases, the procedure for their proceedings and jurisdiction were extremely uncertain, and most importantly, everything was dominated (the arbitrariness of the persons deciding the issue, and the indispensable companions of this - bribes , extortion, protection.The outcome of the case was decided not by objective circumstances, not by the rightness of a person, but by his status, wealth, connections, dexterity, and ability to appease the desired person.
The patriarchal system also had its own conveniences, since, having found proper personal contact with the “right person,” the petitioner could resolve his case without formal delays (and often contrary to the law), and not cold business relations, but warm, sometimes even friendly relations arose between them. But, of course, the disadvantages of such a system clearly outweighed it.
And so, as an alternative, a different, modern form of solving current affairs began to take shape, which (ideally) is characterized by their management by competent and dispassionate performers in full compliance with the law and the established procedure, orderliness of office work, and freedom from subjective influences. In short, a modern type of organization presupposes the dominance of generally binding regulatedprocedures, the execution of which does not depend on who exactly performs them and in relation to whom. Everyone is equal before a single order. Unification becomes a guarantee against the shortcomings of specific people and possible abuse.
According to Weber, main characteristics of bureaucracy boils down to the following four:
bureaucratic jurisdiction is clearly regulated, i.e. fixed in a normative manner;
the hierarchical organization of the bureaucratic structure is based on firmly established principles of official subordination;
all formal intra-organizational activities (dissemination of information, decision-making, orders and directives, etc.) are carried out in the form of written documents that are subject to subsequent storage;
all officials must be good specialists in the field of administration, i.e., be competent not only in the field of their professional duties (lawyer, economist, engineer, military man, etc.), but also in the field of norms, rules and procedures of activity bureaucratic organization as a whole 372.
Elsewhere, Weber defined a bureaucracy as an organization with a pyramidal power structure, using the power of universal and impersonal rules to support that structure, and focusing primarily on the non-discretionary aspects of management.
Of course, Weber did not try to list all the features of bureaucracy as a social phenomenon in his definitions. Being, among other things, a major methodologist of science, he perfectly understood the illusory nature of any definitions claiming to be universal and discussed the problem at the level of so-called ideal types (by the way, this is also a Weberian concept), highlighting invariant, i.e., unchangeable, stable and main features of bureaucracy . However, he recorded its leading dominant very clearly: bureaucratic organization -the most rational institutional arrangement for solving complex management problems in modern society, and the basis of its rationality lies in the impersonality of its functioning, which provides guarantees against the arbitrariness of specific performers.
In American administrative science, the same paradigm was developed at the end of the last century by the future US President Woodrow Wilson. His main work on this problem (considered to be a classic and a source of inspiration for many generations of American administrators) - Study of Administration - was published in 1887. The main postulates of Wilson's theory are the presence of a single control center in any system of government as a necessary prerequisite for its effectiveness and responsibility, the structural similarity of all modern governments, the separation of management from politics, the professionalism of employees, organizational hierarchy as a condition for financial and administrative efficiency, the presence of good administration as a necessary condition for the modernization of human civilization and the achievement of prosperity.
As you can see, Weber and Wilson, coming from different directions, formulated essentially similar concepts. After all, according to Weber, a bureaucratic organization is technically the most perfect of all conceivable organizational forms. Its superiority, manifested in precision, speed, competence, continuity, unity, subordination, stability, relative cheapness and, finally, in the impersonal nature of the activity, places it as much above all other types of organization as mechanical production is above manual production. For him, bureaucracy is the dominance of professionalism over incompetence, norms over arbitrariness, objectivity over subjectivity.
The concept of bureaucratization of political parties by R. Michels. If
M. Weber analyzed mainly the state bureaucracy, while his contemporary R. Michels examined in great detail the processes of bureaucratization of political parties that were experiencing at the beginning of the twentieth century. period of organizational dawn. The majority of people, R. Michels believed, “are doomed to the tragic necessity of submitting to the rule of a narrow minority and must be satisfied with representing a pedestal for the oligarchy” 373.
The concept of bureaucratization of political parties by R. Michels is presented within the framework of organizational theory, the essence of which boils down to the fact that organizations are created through the efforts of an active minority and ultimately for minorities. Although, at the time of their emergence, political parties as a rule demonstrate broad democracy, the ability for collective action on the basis of an openly proclaimed ideology and goals shared by both leaders and ordinary party members, but from the very beginning, according to Michels, there is a technical need for leaders and in experienced party functionaries. The latter have significant organizational power and begin to identify their own aspirations and interests with the activities and goals of the party, and associate their own self-affirmation with increasing the political prestige of the party as a political organization.
The party apparatus is becoming bureaucratized due to its inevitable rationalization. Experienced party leaders quite easily move to the chair of government officials and join the ranks of the state bureaucracy. Under the constant pretext of improving party work, new positions and structural divisions are created, the party apparatus is constantly growing, which produces countless decisions and instructions. Organizational work quickly passes into the hands of professionals who ignore the opinions of ordinary party members. On this basis, the unjustified elevation of leaders and their self-isolation often occur.
R. Michels believes that democracy as such is no longer possible in the modern world, since the people interested in it are spiritually inert, in principle incapable of self-organization and self-government. This is what elite minorities use to assert their leadership and suppress the interests of the majority. . Oligarchy Michels calls the power of the chosen minority over the majority.
Needless to say, Marx’s criticism, despite the fact that it was based on an analysis of very limited material (mainly the activities of the Prussian bureaucracy in the first half of the 19th century), cannot be denied depth and great generalizing power. He clearly identified the negative features of bureaucracy. His judgments (albeit to varying degrees) apply to most modern bureaucracies.
However, it seems that Marx's view of the problem has a fundamental defect. This is his ideological one-sidedness and limitations. As a consistent anti-statist, Marx, naturally, does not see anything good in his contemporary form of government.
Imperial (“Asian”) model. Now about the third, imperial model of bureaucracy. Since this model received its most complete embodiment in the Asian empires, it can also be called “Asian” or “Eastern” and considered using the example of its classical form - the Chinese bureaucracy. In general, the “Chinese” model, despite some formal similarities with the Weberian model (primarily the system of examinations for the possibility of obtaining a position and a stepwise job hierarchy), is the opposite of it in its fundamental principles and goals. As is known, in ancient and medieval China there was no private property right to land in the European sense. The Emperor, the Son of Heaven, was the sole owner of all the lands of the country. Subjects, according to the Confucian tradition, were considered as members of one big family headed by the emperor. Accordingly, officials were managers of imperial property. Another analogy, which was intended to give higher legitimacy to the existing system of government by equating it with the cosmic world order, used the image of the emperor as the polar (central) star, and his ministers as the stars and constellations surrounding it. Hence, the task of the bureaucracy was considered not to serve public interests, but to mitigate the negative consequences of the action of the basically ineradicable vices of people, in order to ensure effective authority of the Son of heaven.
Accordingly, the entire notorious system of examinations for the possibility of obtaining the position of an official was very specific and meant only to test the candidates’ ability to effectively serve the emperor and, most importantly, provide stableness, sustainability, the immutability of the system regardless of changing historical conditions and circumstances.
Indeed, the stability of the system of power and governance in China was unprecedented. It existed almost unchanged for more than two thousand years - until the 20th century.
One of the main secrets of this unique stability was that the bureaucracy, for all the gigantic role it played in the functioning of the system, did not have the opportunity to recognize itself as an independent political force and remained in the position of imperial lackeys. This was served by carefully observed principle of atomization of bureaucracy: to prevent the process of formation of a bureaucratic corporation, which would seem inevitable in such cases, a number of mechanisms were in place to separate officials and their interests.
Such mechanisms of subordination of an official not to the bureaucratic structure of power as such, not to the interests of the bureaucratic elite, but only to the favors of the emperor included:
The lack of narrow specialization among officials, which made it possible for them to be painlessly interchangeable like homogeneous parts of a mechanism.
There is a constant surplus of candidates for positions. The “trick” was that passing the exams did not at all guarantee obtaining a position, but only allowed one to be among the applicants for it; the wait itself could last as long as desired, but could be shortened by a bribe, which, however, also did not guarantee success.
The extremely limited prospects for a career (an official often remained in the same position throughout his entire service life, which was also often only a few years), which made it meaningless to create a ladder of personal connections so common in other bureaucratic systems for upward mobility.
Personal dependence of all officials on the emperor.
Tough measures against informal connections among officials in order to prevent the emergence of stable coalitions among them; These measures included: a strict ban on personal friendship, strictly enforced in the moral code of the Chinese bureaucracy, a ban on officials belonging to a single family clan serving in the same province, a ban on marriages with women from among local residents, and on the acquisition of property under the jurisdiction of an official ( It should be noted that these measures led to significant losses and reduced the efficiency of the administrative machine as a whole, however, preventing any potential possibility of the emergence of an organized coalition among the bureaucrats was considered an absolute priority).
The official’s financial dependence is not on the imperial salary (usually quite small and far from covering the costs associated with obtaining the position), but on his ability to squeeze maximum income out of the imperial subjects, including for his own personal benefit, which inevitably turned the official into a very vulnerable offender laws with all the ensuing consequences - the ability to keep an official “on the hook”, fear of exposure, uncertainty even in the near future, etc.; it is not difficult to imagine how people lived under the rule of such a temporary worker, who, in fact, the very features of his status forced him to hastily, forcefully and cruelly rob the tax-paying population.
Particularly careful control over the highest and middle bureaucracy, potentially more dangerous for the authorities, with the help of an extensive network of secret police (censors), the practice of direct communication between the emperor and the lower echelon of the bureaucracy, bypassing its intermediate levels, the absence of the post of head of government, whose functions were performed by the emperor himself, personally appointed all officials.
Other eastern despotisms were much inferior to China in terms of the level of sophistication and organization of the system of bureaucratic “drive belts.” Perhaps that is why they turned out to be much less stable, and the Celestial Empire is a unique example of the stability of a political body.
There was no public service as such within the “eastern” model. The entire army of officials worked to meet the needs not of people, but central government and their own. Therefore, although some purely external attributes make it similar to the European bureaucracy of modern times, I think it would be more correct to characterize it as a pseudo-bureaucracy. In line with the European political tradition, the activities of government officials since the times of ancient Rome were considered not only as serving the sovereign, but also as performing functions necessary for all segments of society. public power functions.
Russian model. As for Russia, it combined various versions of the “imperial” model: until the 18th century. a mixture of Byzantine and Tatar variants dominated, with the latter using elements of the Chinese model in a crude form, in particular in the collection of taxes. In such a bizarre way, refracted through the Golden Horde prism, the Chinese model of governance came to Russia. On the other hand, with Peter's reforms, elements borrowed from European absolutism were added to this model. Only from the 19th century, especially from the second half - from the time of the reforms of Alexander II, did elements models of rational bureaucracy. However, in general, the “imperial” model of government service All it prevailed until 1917, and during the Soviet period it received a new powerful impetus 374 .
Let us now turn to the so-called "realistic" interpretation of bureaucracy, which is essentially a gradual addition and modernization of the Weberian model.
Some researchers believe that the need to supplement the Weber-Wilsonian concept of rational bureaucracy and its certain limitations were realized during the Second World War and shortly after it. In any case, the works of G. Simon, P. Blau, M. Crozier, which became serious steps in this direction, appeared precisely in the 50-60s. However, from the perspective of today, it is clear that at that stage there was only a reformulation of the same fundamental theoretical structure. Thus, if Weber proceeded from a value-neutral approach, then Simon’s position can be called actually valuable, but only in the sense that he supplemented the theory of formal organization with elements of the theory of informal organization. In other words, the employee was still considered only as a “cog” of the administrative system, although he had special individual properties. However, these properties interest Simon only from the point of view of the fundamental possibility of increasing the efficiency of the organization. The very priority of efficiency and rationality as the highest organizational values, as before, was not questioned.
Another, in many ways truly alternative, approach began to take shape only in the 70s through the efforts of D. Waldo, V. Ostrom and other authors, mostly American. Expressing the general spirit of that largely revolutionary time for the West, they fundamentally criticized the claims of the doctrine that portrayed bureaucracy as the highest form of solving the problems of modern civilization. However, the previous Weberian concepts could not be discarded either in serious theory, much less in practice. Something happened rather synthesis old and new approaches.
There is no doubt that M. Weber’s approach defined an entire era in administrative science and practice and became the fundamental basis of management theory in industrial society. Its significance is still far from exhausted. But at the same time, and this is inevitable, it needs to be supplemented and enriched with other approaches.
In our domestic science of public administration, generally similar processes took place, only with some delay. After many years of explicit emphasis on the formal, normative, information aspects of administration, and then turning to the “human factor” only in its purely pragmatic, functional aspect, in the 80s, management began to be considered from the perspective of a broader, humanistic approach. In general, at some point, psychology in management ceased to be content with the auxiliary role of an “adviser” on the effective use of “human material” and made a bid to rethink problems human relationshipscentury and organization from the standpoint of the general theory of personality.
A prominent modern political scientist, V. Ostrom, believes that the practical implementation of Weber’s ideal type of “fully developed bureaucracy” is capable of creating a bureaucratic machine in which professional bureaucrats will unite in chains, and citizens will turn into dependent masses, into helpless “amateurs” under their political "owners". The only significant political reality will remain bureaucracy.
Of course, Weber himself would not have welcomed such a scenario, much less considered it a goal. However, such a danger is potentially present in his ideal type of rational bureaucratic organization. And the Nazi machine, apparently, was one of its incarnations. Moreover, both democratic Western states and the new Russian statehood are also exposed to the danger of bureaucratic omnipotence.
Thus, the “realistic” interpretation of the phenomenon of bureaucracy is a developing approach that combines the foundations of the Weberian model with criticism of its absolutization as a universal model. The basis of criticism is twofold - scientific and ideological. Scientific criticism is based primarily on data from modern sociology and psychology, which clearly indicate the enormous, sometimes decisive role of informal connections between people, as well as their feelings, orientation, and attitudes - a circumstance underestimated by followers of the “pure” Weberian model. Worldview criticism, on the one hand, is based on humanistic and general democratic ideals, and on the other, it largely reproduces Marx’s concept of human alienation in the system of bureaucratic relations.
In “historical and geographical” terms, the following can be distinguished: historical forms of bureaucracy: the eastern tradition with its multi-stage, arbitrary and ineffective administration and two variants of the western tradition - continental and Anglo-American. Of course, this is only a primary division, which only sets general coordinates for a specific regional analysis. The fundamental difference between the two named Western subtypes is that on the European continent the democratization of the political system occurred much later than the emergence of bureaucracy, and in general the tradition of a fairly ramified state apparatus of the executive branch with considerable powers was preserved and was rather painlessly incorporated into the political systems of democracy . In America, the process was reversed: the state ideal of the American Revolution was self-government of free people on free soil and a strong distrust of any executive power associated with the colonial administration of the British Crown (we leave in parentheses the paradox that the British administration was the least centralist in comparison with the administration of other European countries).
Therefore, the bureaucracy, which arose in America later than democracy and on its basis, “by definition” aroused suspicion among citizens. Of course, the 20th century changed a lot in the status of the American bureaucracy, bringing it closer to European standards. And yet the self-governing, federalist tradition of wariness and hostility towards “Washington officials” who seek to limit the right of the people to decide their own affairs has persisted.
What is the place of the Russian bureaucracy in this classification? We can say that it occupies an intermediate position between the “eastern” and “continental” traditions. Comparing it with the American bureaucracy, we can say that they started from opposite starting points. In the United States, this is a federalist tradition of a weak government, significantly limited in its capabilities and powers, which only gradually became somewhat stronger: first, at the beginning of the 19th century. - based on the views and activities of A. Hamilton, then, two decades later, thanks to the energetic administrative practice of President E. Jackson, and already in our century - due to the theory and activities of W. Wilson and then F. Roosevelt. In Russia, as is known, autocratic tradition started from the understanding of the state as a royal fiefdom, was strengthened by the despotic absolutism of Peter the Great and Nicholas, and only from the middle of the 19th century. began to slowly, with backward movements, soften under the influence of liberal-democratic trends. However, after 1917, authoritarianism was revived in a new guise and only recent years have brought us hope for Russia’s transition to a democratic path of development, in particular for the resuscitation of weak, persecuted, almost crushed, but still surviving sprouts democracy and itselfmanagement.
Unlike the bureaucratic way of organizing management bureaucracy is a disease, and a global disease, to one degree or another, widespread in almost all countries. In terms of its scale and amount of evil brought to humanity, it is perhaps comparable to environmental pollution.
However, if we continue this analogy, we can remember that environmental pollution is a side effect of the industrial revolution, that is, one of the most progressive events in world history. So, the emergence of a modern bureaucratic management system at its starting point was aimed at solving a very important historical task - overcoming the patriarchal management system that historically preceded it with its obvious and significant defects, which from a certain point became a serious brake on the path of further development of social productive forces .
Moreover, without the action of bureaucratic (in the Weberian sense of the word) mechanisms, modern society could not, as they say, live even a day. Another thing is that, as Aristotle wrote, any correct forms of government tend to degenerate and become distorted, like a reflection in a distorting mirror. Bureaucracy is such a distorting mirror, a distortion of a rational bureaucratic organization.
In the precise sense of the word, bureaucracy means power "the Bureau", i.e., a desk, - not a people, not even a specific person, but an official position (place in the bureaucratic hierarchy). In other words, the auxiliary function, designed to serve people, to be an instrument in their hands, acquires power over them. The system of rational administration of affairs turns from a tool into a self-sufficient machine.
IN socio-political terms The essence of bureaucracy is the separation of the administrative apparatus from society, as a result of which it turns into an independent force with its own selfish interests, which it supports and ensures in every possible way, using its position as manager of public affairs. After all, the apparatus, due to its place in the management structure of society, has, perhaps, more practical opportunities for realizing its group interests than any other social group. At the same time, the problem does not boil down to malicious, self-interested bureaucracy. It is connected with the very logic of social structure and social division of labor: in any society there inevitably exist not only general, but also special interests, in particular group ones. And those who have great opportunities to ensure the priority of these interests naturally use them.
Hence, the official, in principle, cannot be an absolutely dispassionate performer, as Weber believed; he tends to use his position to his own advantage. At the level of social-group interactions, it looks like this: the apparatus sometimes seeks to impose its own interests on society as the interests of supposedly general. Another objective basis for the degeneration of rational bureaucracy is its organic anti-democracy. It arises from the official’s imaginary monopoly on competence, which leaves “ordinary” people only the role of supplicants and intercessors.
And with organizational and technical points of view The bureaucratic management model also contains prerequisites for the development of bureaucracy. Firstly, since the first task of an official is to ensure compliance with uniform formal rules common to all, this task gradually turns into an end in itself. The form, which is rational at its core, acquires the features of a meaningless ritual, and the content is replaced by form. The level of understanding of the problems facing the apparatus, its individual units and employees is decreasing. He strives to squeeze all the complexity and diversity of real social affairs into the framework of a set of certain standard situations, tries to fit reality to his limited understanding and adapt it for the convenience of his handling of it. Very important for understanding the logic of the bureaucratic machine and well-known "Parkinson's law"according to which a bureaucratic organization strives toto expand its influence, to self-expansion. At the same time, there is no desire to increase one’s own responsibility for the state of affairs, rather the opposite. Maximizing the scale and scope of one’s control while minimizing responsibility is the bureaucratic ideal. Bureaucracy is often identified with red tape, unsubscribes, paperwork, etc.
What has been said is apparently sufficient for a general understanding of the essence of the phenomenon. Now let's try to define it. So, bureaucracy includes the following components: in politicsin technical terms- excessive expansion and irresponsibilityadditional power; in social.- alienation of this powerfrom the people; in organizational- clerkholding shape; in moral and psychological- more bureaucraticsky deformation of consciousness.
Bureaucracy is a type of public administration characterized by a clear management hierarchy, the concentration of all management matters in central government bodies, operating within the framework of regulations, rules and standards, and through performance indicators and performance indicators, the competence of the actions of subordinates is assessed; Bureaucracy also means a class of persons, clearly defined and separated from the rest of society, who are representatives of the central government.Bureaucracy is the dominance of officials, making it difficult to do business and complicating the lives of ordinary people with paperwork and procedural red tape. Literally translated from French-Greek, “bureaucracy” means “the power of officials,” or more precisely, “the power of bureaucratic desks.” In Russia, bureaucracy, coupled with corruption and crime, makes doing business a Sisyphean task.
Since the beginning of the 20th century, the term “bureaucracy” begins to acquire a negative connotation and becomes synonymous with paperwork and procedural obstacles that arise not only among businessmen, but also among ordinary people when solving administrative issues. The horrors of bureaucracy are reflected especially strongly in Franz Kafka's novel The Trial.
The concept of “bureaucracy” first appeared in 1745. The term was coined by the French economist Vincent de Gournay; at the time of its formation, the word had a pejorative meaning - it meant that bureaucratic officials take away real power from the monarch (in a monarchy) or from the people (in a democracy) .
The first to demonstrate the merits of bureaucracy as a system of government was the German sociologist Max Weber. He proposed to understand it as the rational work of institutions, in which each element works as efficiently as possible. After this, in situations of poor performance by officials (red tape, requiring the preparation of many unnecessary documents and a long wait for a decision), they began to talk not about bureaucracy, but about bureaucracy, separating these two concepts. If initially the concept of “bureaucracy” was used only in connection with government agencies, now it is used to define any large organization that has a large and extensive staff of managers (“corporate bureaucracy”, “trade union bureaucracy”, etc.).
Signs of bureaucracy. Describing an ideal bureaucratic organization, Weber identified several of its typical features.
The most important of them are:
1. Specialization and division of labor. Each employee has certain responsibilities and areas of activity that cannot duplicate the areas of authority of other members of the organization.
2. Vertical hierarchy. The structure of a bureaucratic organization can be compared to a pyramid: the majority is at the base and the minority is at the top. Each person included in this vertical hierarchy manages the people below him and, in turn, reports to those above him, thereby monitoring the activities of each element of the organization.
3. Clear rules. The activities of each member of the organization are regulated by rules, the purpose of which is to rationalize the entire management process. Ideally, these rules should make the activities of each employee and the entire organization predictable. Although the rules may change, in general they should be stable over time.
4. Impersonality of relationships. In an ideal bureaucracy, personal sympathies, feelings and preferences do not play a role. This principle is the same for relationships within the organization, and in its relations with partners external to the organization. A condition of an ideal bureaucracy is also that the recruitment of new employees is carried out on the basis of compliance with certain objective criteria, regardless of personal acquaintances and attachments.
The many rules that cover all the activities of officials, on the one hand, significantly limit their initiative and creativity, but, on the other hand, protect the clientele from the personal arbitrariness of employees. An impersonal approach to personnel selection allows you to select people with standard training and competence, although there is a high risk of rejecting unconventionally thinking and talented candidates for the position.
Bureaucracy as a social threat. There is a danger of degeneration of bureaucratic management systems when they do not increase, but hinder the efficiency of their activities.
Scientists identify three main problems generated by the bureaucratic organization of management:
1. Alienation from a person. Bureaucracy is designed to solve people's problems. An impersonal approach to clients helps to respect their equality, but at the same time deprives people of their uniqueness. Any problem is adjusted to a template that is common to everyone and is solved in a previously accepted manner. The result is dehumanization and the transformation of a person into a standard “case” on the official’s desk.
2. Ritualism. The standard decision-making procedure often takes so much time, going through all the necessary authorities and approvals, that the decision itself becomes outdated and unnecessary. To describe this situation, R. Merton introduced a special term - “bureaucratic ritualism”, which denotes such preoccupation with rules and regulations that jeopardizes the achievement of the organization’s goals.
3. Inertia. Although bureaucracy is created to solve certain problems, this does not mean that when these problems are solved, the organization will cease to exist. Like any other organization, the bureaucracy strives for self-preservation, but unlike other structures, the bureaucratic one has more experience and greater opportunities to prevent its dissolution. As a result, a bureaucratic organization can function regardless of the goals previously set for it.
The widespread development of bureaucratic power leads to the fact that the bureaucrat becomes the “master” over those people whom he must lead. In these conditions, corruption flourishes.
To reduce the negative consequences of the bureaucratization of management, a system of external control over the activities of officials is necessary - on the part of citizens (clients of the bureaucracy) and/or managers. As a rule, both of these methods are combined: citizens are given the right to complain about bureaucrats to law enforcement agencies, although these bodies themselves may undergo bureaucratic degeneration. The difficulty of organizing control over the bureaucracy is a weighty argument for supporters of anarchy, who seek to abandon the division of society into managed and professional managers. However, at the present stage of development of society, it is not possible to abandon the professionalization of management. Therefore, some bureaucratization of management is perceived as a necessary evil.
Formation of bureaucracy. Bureaucracy can be formed in several ways:
1. The bureaucratic structure grows around V.I. Lenin, a prominent leader. Weber defined this method as the “routinization of charisma.” Its meaning was that a group of people, united around a bright personality, gradually turns into a bureaucratic structure, which aims to introduce the ideas and views of its leader into society. An example would be the bureaucratization of the Bolshevik Party created by V.I. Lenin.
2. Bureaucratic structure arises around a group of people. In this case, it is consciously created from the very beginning to fulfill certain goals and objectives. For example, when forming a corporation (joint stock company), capital owners hire professional managers to manage the company. This is how state and corporate bureaucratic systems are formed.
3. The source of bureaucratic structure is an already existing bureaucratic organization, while a new structure is usually allocated from existing ones. This happens when a new field of activity arises and a new department or department is gradually formed that deals with it.
4. The source of the creation of bureaucracy is a kind of “political entrepreneurship”. This occurs when a group of people who hold certain views and work together to defend them create a bureaucratic system whose members practice politics as a profession. This is how most political parties were formed.
Development of bureaucracy during the evolution of society. Although the term "bureaucracy" did not originate until the 18th century, bureaucratic structures themselves existed long before that.
Bureaucracy began to develop already in the most ancient states, where management was professionalized. Bureaucratization of management was one of the hallmarks of Ancient Egypt and the Roman Empire. A striking example of bureaucratic power in pre-bourgeois societies is considered to be imperial China, where there was an examination system for selecting candidates for the post of officials, a multi-tier hierarchy of officials of different ranks and the enormous power of bureaucratic officials over their subjects.
Although in the era of bourgeois revolutions they tried to destroy bureaucracy several times, it usually turned out to be impossible to build a management system without professionalizing it. Therefore, to this day, bureaucratic structures are not only preserved, but even strengthened due to the increasing complexity of management processes. Examples of bureaucracy are the organization of management in the government, the military, corporations, hospitals, courts, schools, etc.
In the modern era, it is customary to talk about bureaucracy of the “Eastern” and “European” variety.
Eastern-type bureaucracy is built into the public administration system and is its inseparable part. With the help of bureaucracy, the government acquires the ability to control all aspects of society and gradually positions itself outside of society and above it. The state becomes much stronger than society, bureaucratic domination (power-property) is formed. Weber called this type of bureaucracy patrimonial.
Unlike its eastern counterpart, the European bureaucracy, although associated with government, is not its essence. From the very beginning of their development in the capitalist era, governments in the countries of Western European civilization were under the control of society, and this control restrained the formation of strong bureaucratic systems.
Although the European bureaucracy does not pretend to seize political power, it has many opponents.
The most famous opponents of bureaucracy among modern scientists are the English writer and historian Cyril Parkinson and the American social psychologist Warren Bennis. Parkinson is known for his journalistic works in which he ridiculed the shortcomings of bureaucratic organization. One of his most famous statements: “the staff of bureaucratic organizations increases in inverse proportion to the amount of work done.” Bennis approaches the study of bureaucracy from a strictly scientific perspective, predicting the failure of bureaucracy due to its inability to cope with unexpected situations and bring together organizational and individual goals. No matter how stable bureaucratic systems are, they are constantly developing and changing. Weber, defining the ideal type of bureaucracy, spoke only about the formal side of this system, while it also has an informal component. Even in those organizations where it is prescribed to consult only with colleagues at a higher level of the official hierarchy, informal relationships often turn out to be stronger than accepted rules and regulations. This informal aspect gives the bureaucracy the opportunity to increase the flexibility of the system as a whole and reduce the impersonality of the interaction process. With the development of new means of communication, the attitude towards strict hierarchy also changes. In particular, electronic correspondence over the Internet violates the rule of subordination, providing the opportunity to contact any member of the organization, bypassing the accepted hierarchy.
The demands of the modern world lead to the emergence of new forms of management, which, while bureaucratic in the Weberian sense in terms of their rationality and efficiency, however, have characteristics that differ from traditional bureaucratic structures. Thus, Bennis introduced the concept of “adhocracy,” denoting a rapidly changing adaptive structure, a group of specialists with different professional knowledge, selected in accordance with a specific situation. An example of such a structure is the Japanese “quality circles”. Unlike traditional bureaucracy, there is no clear vertical hierarchy and division of labor, formal relations are kept to a minimum, and specialization is not functional, but substantive. Flexible organizational structures of this kind, almost eliminating bureaucracy, are becoming increasingly popular in modern business. However, government administration remains a breeding ground for bureaucracy.
Theories of bureaucracy
In short, bureaucracy is the power of the office, that is, the power of form over content; if we take it broadly, it is the power of the artificially created over human nature, over humanity. Bureaucracy, therefore, is a state unnatural to human nature.This word comes from two words: the French bureau (this is an office) and the Greek kratos (power).
Bureaucracy in the modern sense is when the tasks of a company or organization are subject to the rules of operation of this organization to the detriment of common sense.
Every modern society comes into contact with the power of bureaucracy. And especially a society in transition, as is happening today in Russia. Today it is difficult to find a state in which officials are not viewed negatively (this has already been clearly noted). At the same time, the term “bureaucracy” is used to designate the form of organization of the institutions of society, the characteristics of the work of government bodies, groups of people who master the techniques of administrative work, have information and documentation, are able to prepare, draw up and interpret political decisions, etc.
If we ignore the many shades when analyzing the problems of bureaucracy, we can distinguish in the most general form two directions for its study:
Within the sociology of politics;
- within the framework of the sociology of organizations.
Such a distinction between the main directions in the study of bureaucratic structures is, of course, quite arbitrary.
As is known, in the sociology of organizations, importance is attached, first of all, to the issue of the effectiveness of organizational activities, and the problem of the power of bureaucrats is secondary. According to a number of scientists, the sociology of organizations does not have the appropriate means of studying the power of bureaucracy, because formal organizations are considered as a self-sufficient object of study, often in isolation from the processes taking place in society. To understand the essence of this power, it is necessary to consider bureaucracy in a broader socio-historical context.
It is this approach to the administrative apparatus that is most clearly manifested in the works of the classics of political sociology. Vincent de Gournay considered bureaucracy as a new form of government. He believed that its essence and significance lies precisely in the fact that the work of government was in the hands of rulers by profession.
G. Hegel, D.S. Mill, A. de Tocqueville, G. Mosca, M. Weber also considered bureaucracy as a new type of system where management activities are carried out by appointed professional officials.
The concepts of the first direction, which consider bureaucracy as the rule of “professional officials,” should include class theories (K. Marx, V.I. Lenin). And also theories that define bureaucracy as a new class - M. Bakunin, J. Burnham, M. Djilas, M. Voslensky, D. Ledonne, etc. These theories are based on the same idea of the dominance of professional officials, but presented it is combined with the theory of ownership of the means of production. This allows us to develop provisions about the bureaucracy as a special class and about the bureaucrat turning his place in the official hierarchy into private property. The bureaucracy, being part of the ruling class, undividedly owns the two main factors that ensure the functioning of society - management and property, which are present in an undivided form at every level of the bureaucratic hierarchy. We can identify a range of basic questions that are posed and resolved by representatives of this direction in the study of bureaucracy: who rules? in whose interests? What are the social bases of bureaucratic power? who implements the functions of control over the bureaucracy?
The second direction in the study of bureaucracy is represented by theories of formal organization (R. Merton, F. Selznick, P. M. Blau, A. Etzioni, E. Mayo, etc.). The following problems are considered here: the effectiveness of administrative structures, the mechanism of functioning of power; formal and technical components of bureaucracy; intra-organizational laws and interests; connection with the social environment; ways and forms of limiting bureaucracy. In this group of theories, a special place belongs to the theory of M. Weber. Weber proposes a bureaucratic model of organization, but unlike, for example, representatives of the “organization-machine” concept (A. Fayolle, L. Urwick), he does not deal in detail with the practical construction of bureaucratic relations in order to remove problems that arise in the process of development of these relations, his research "administrative" organization offers a primarily theoretical model.
One of the first scientific analyzes of the essential characteristics of the phenomenon of bureaucracy belongs to Hegel, although the philosopher does not use the term “bureaucracy” in his works. However, the universality of bureaucracy (executive power, bureaucracy) appears in his theory of state and law in inextricable connection with a certain type of organization, management and power, that is, as the universality of the state.
The state for Hegel is “the reality of the moral idea,” “reasonable in itself and for itself,” “the procession of God in the world.” The bureaucratic state is “the focus of state consciousness and the most outstanding education.” It represents the basis of the middle class. This type of state, which is a form of expression of general interest, is due to the presence of civil society.
Civil society was defined by Hegel as a complex of individuals, classes, groups and institutions whose existence is not directly determined by the presence of the state. This society, according to Hegel, is a rationally structured society, whose norms of life are different from the norms of state life. However, the various components of civil society are in constant conflict, and a significant strengthening of some of them can lead to the weakening of others. Therefore, civil society is unable to maintain itself as “civil” unless it is governed by the state.
The main function of the executive power in Hegel's theory was the implementation of decisions, which should be carried out by the monarch in accordance with the general interest. The implementation of this function was entrusted to collegial advisory bodies and government officials in accordance with the principle of separation of powers. Hegel does not deny the principles of the rule of law, but believes that the separation of powers does not imply their opposition, but is a manifestation of the dialectical unity of state and society. At the same time, he doubts the theory of popular sovereignty, considering the constitutional monarchy to be the true expression and concrete completion of the absolute idea of law.
In conditions when civil institutions, by their nature, do not reveal general interests (they are in a state of conflict among themselves), civil servants, firstly, are obliged to receive professional training, and secondly, must be provided with state financial support in order to their own interests did not interfere with their pursuit of the general interest.
At the same time, Hegel identifies a number of conditions that guarantee that the power of officials will not go beyond the limits of general interest: the presence of supreme power, that is: “the establishment of sovereignty from above”; establishing a hierarchy within the bureaucracy that limits its arbitrariness; constant conflict between the bureaucracy and private corporations; the immediate moral and mental culture of an official. Hegel attached special importance to the formation of a managerial culture, because, in his opinion, it should be an intellectual counterbalance to the mechanistic orientation of the state apparatus.
The Hegelian model of bureaucratic management proceeds from the interdependence and identity of the state and civil society, firstly, and secondly, from the need for the formation of this interdependence of the middle class. At the same time, the bureaucracy, together with the monarchy, is declared by Hegel to be a neutral force that stands above the conflicting groups of people with their special interests that make up civil society. Officials embody the universal interests of the entire society, since they are endowed with specific knowledge necessary for a modern state.
An opposite interpretation of the relationship between the bureaucratic state and civil society was proposed by K. Marx. According to Marx, the state does not express the interests of citizens, but sets them itself. The task of officials in society is to maintain general interest only in form. Therefore, the task of the institution of bureaucracy in bourgeois society becomes a form of production aimed at creating the illusion that the state protects the general interest. For Marx, bureaucracy represents the “will of the state,” “the consciousness of the state,” and the “power of the state.” The content of the activities of the bureaucracy is the formal spirit of the state.
It should be noted that in the concept of “bureaucracy” Marx combined several meanings. This term included both the entire system of power and control and the people who were part of this system. He included all elements of executive power, including collegial advisory government formations, as this institution. Marx often used the word “bureaucrat” in a negative sense as a carrier of any pathological characteristics associated with managerial activities. This interpretation of bureaucratic activity, inherent more in journalism than in scientific discourse, complicates the problem of the administrative sector as an “executive” institution in the system of authorities.
Weber's bureaucracy
The appearance of the term “bureaucracy” is associated with the name of the French economist Vincent de Gournay, who introduced it in 1745 to designate the executive branch. This term came into scientific circulation thanks to the German sociologist, economist, and historian Max Weber (1864-1920), the author of the most complete and comprehensive sociological study of the phenomenon of bureaucracy.Weber proposed the following principles for the bureaucratic concept of organizational structure:
Hierarchical structure of the organization;
hierarchy of orders built on legal authority;
subordination of a subordinate employee to a superior one and responsibility not only for one’s own actions, but also for the actions of subordinates;
specialization and division of labor by function;
a clear system of procedures and rules that ensures the uniformity of production processes;
a system of promotion and tenure based on skills and experience and measured by standards;
orientation of the communication system both within the organization and outside written rules.
Weber used the term “bureaucracy” to designate a rational organization, the regulations and rules of which create the foundation for effective work and make it possible to combat favoritism. He considered bureaucracy as a kind of ideal image, the most effective tool for managing social structures and individual structural units.
According to Weber, the strictly formalized nature of bureaucratic relations, the clarity of the distribution of role functions, and the personal interest of bureaucrats in achieving the goals of the organization lead to the adoption of timely and qualified decisions based on carefully selected and verified information.
Bureaucracy as a rational management machine is characterized by:
Strict responsibility for each area of work;
coordination to achieve organizational goals;
optimal operation of impersonal rules;
clear hierarchical dependence.
However, later Weber began to distinguish between bureaucracy in a positive sense (Western rational management system) and in a negative sense (Eastern irrational management system), understanding the Eastern irrational management system as one in which instructions, orders, tasks and other formal attributes of power become an end in themselves.
Theories of bureaucracy according to Merton and Gouldner
According to American sociologists R. Merton and A. Gouldner, the most common dysfunction generated by bureaucracy is a shift in emphasis from the goals of activity to its means, resulting in a rigid hierarchy, strict execution of instructions, strict discipline, etc. turn into a brake on the path of rationality. In other words, a rational device reproduces within itself elements of the irrational.
Robert Merton (1910-2003) assessed bureaucracy as follows:
As a result of strict adherence to formal rules and conformism, management employees ultimately lose the ability to make independent decisions;
constant focus on rules, relations and formally developed guidelines for action leads to the fact that these standards become universal and final, and their compliance is the main task and result of organizational activity;
all this causes representatives of the bureaucracy to refuse creative, independent thinking and even competence;
the consequence is the birth of a stereotypical bureaucrat, lacking imagination and creativity, and inflexible in the application of official norms and rules;
the result of the activity of such a bureaucrat is the isolation of the bureaucratic caste, its elevation above the workers.
Difficulties in bureaucratic structures are associated with the exaggeration of the importance of standardized rules, procedures and norms that precisely determine how employees should solve the tasks assigned to them, implement the requests of other departments of the organization, and interact with clients and the public.
As a result, the organization loses flexibility in its relations with the external environment:
Clients and the public feel inadequate responses to their requests and demands, since their problems are solved strictly in accordance with established norms without taking into account the current situation;
if clients or members of the public point out to the bureaucrat that he is being overly compliant with norms, he refers to the relevant rule or instruction;
Moreover, the bureaucrat cannot be punished, since formally he acts absolutely correctly.
The bureaucratic form of management is characterized by the following negative socio-psychological features:
Ignoring human nature;
the dominance of the spirit of alienation;
limited ability to express views, especially those that contradict the generally accepted way of thinking;
subordination of personal goals of employees to the goals of the organization;
incompatibility with a developed active personality;
opportunism;
ignoring informal organization and interpersonal relationships.
The American sociologist A. Gouldner, developing Weber’s ideas, identified two types of bureaucracy in modern society:
Representative, where power is based on knowledge and skill;
authoritarian, where power is based on negative sanctions, obedience turns into an end in itself, and power is legitimized by the very fact of being in office.
In sociology, the theory of bureaucracy is one of the most developed. Nevertheless, this topic is addressed again and again. Why?
According to A. Toffler, bureaucracy has three main features - stability, hierarchy, division of labor. Sociologists believe that without bureaucracy, society has no prospects for development, since this form of management is the only workable and acceptable one. In this regard, one of the main tasks of modern management is to change the role of bureaucracy in the activities of the organization in accordance with the principles developed by Weber.
Achieving this goal is possible by changing the attitudes of representatives of the bureaucracy and proclaiming the correlation of their well-being and career with the final result of the organization's activities.
TYPES OF BUREAUCRACY
Since Weber's study of bureaucracy, it has undergone significant changes, evolving along with the structures of organizations. Currently, there are three types of bureaucracy.
Classic bureaucracy
The apparatus (classical) bureaucracy fully corresponds to Weber's model. In this type of bureaucracy, management employees make very little use of professional knowledge, since their main responsibility is to perform general management functions and they are limited by the scope of their role in the organization.
The main advantages of apparatus bureaucracy are:
Stability of the functioning of the organization and its management bodies;
clear division of labor;
standardization and unification of all activities, which reduces the likelihood of errors;
reduction of time for role-based training of management employees;
formalization, ensuring stability and coherence of work;
centralization guaranteeing reliability of management.
The apparatus bureaucracy has the following disadvantages:
The danger of bureaucracy;
lack of sufficient motivation;
incomplete use of mental abilities and psychological characteristics of workers;
inefficiency in changing conditions and when non-standard situations arise, since inadequate and untimely management decisions are often made.
Apparatus bureaucracy forms the basis of management in ministries and departments, in most institutions of state or municipal government, and can be the basis of management in organizations with a stable structure and little changing relations with the external environment.
Professional bureaucracy
Professional bureaucracy requires managers to have deep theoretical and practical knowledge in narrow areas of activity limited by role requirements.
Let us list the main characteristics of the activities of professional bureaucrats:
High degree of specialization and competence;
taking into account not only the management process, but also the conditions for its occurrence;
less formalization (compared to hardware bureaucracy);
greater freedom in making management decisions within the framework of his role, since the top manager is not so knowledgeable in solving narrow, specific issues of activity;
grouping of jobs according to functional and hierarchical principles and centralized management decision-making.
The following advantages are characteristic of a professional bureaucracy:
Ability to solve extraordinary problems that require the use of professional knowledge;
very high motivation of employees to achieve organizational and group goals, and not just personal ones;
weakening of top management's control over activities, which gives greater freedom for creative solutions to management problems.
It is worth noting the disadvantages of professional bureaucracy:
Its effectiveness decreases sharply when the organization operates in unchanged conditions, and its main components are not constantly exposed to the external environment;
selection, placement and ensuring the functioning of workers acquire special importance, since their level of professionalism must be very high. This implies additional costs for training management employees;
The forms of application of power are becoming more complex: in addition to the power of coercion and reward, expert and information power must be actively used.
Adhocracy
Adhocracy as a form of bureaucratic management emerged relatively recently, in the 1970s.
The term comes from Lat. ad hoc - special and Greek. kratos - power.
A. Toffler used it to denote an organizational structure, the basis of which is temporary working groups created to solve one problem or project.
Adhocracy is a management apparatus consisting of workers professionally performing managerial functions. This rapidly changing adaptive structure is organized around problems that are solved by teams of specialists with different professional backgrounds, selected according to the situation.
Adhocrats differ from Weber's ideal bureaucrats in the absence of a strict division of labor, a clear hierarchy, minimal formalization of activities, and a quick response to any changes in all components of the organization and the external environment. Devizadhocracy - maximum flexibility and adaptability in relation to the changing situation.
Adhocracy is free from many of the disadvantages inherent in bureaucracy, is most effective in modern conditions and has a promising future.
The core of the value system of bureaucracy are:
The career with which all the thoughts and expectations of the employee are connected;
self-identification of the employee with the organization;
serving the organization as a means of achieving one's own benefit.
Of the many contradictions that exist in management, the main one can be identified as the contradiction between the objectively social nature of management (since almost all members of society are involved in this process and directly depend on its results) and the subjectively closed way of its implementation, since in the end management, designed reflect the will of society, is carried out by a fairly local social group of professional managers.
One of the essential features of bureaucracy is the desire to monopolize power and control. Having achieved a monopoly, officials strive to organize a complex system of official secrets, which prevents employees or the public from making a real assessment of their actions.
The ideal of bureaucratic regulation is to issue regulations themselves, to force society to comply with them, without allowing any control over oneself.
Thus, the main socio-political interest of the bureaucracy is to implement and protect its monopoly of power functions in society.
Rational bureaucracy, according to M. Weber, was considered as a kind of ideal model of organizational structure, which should be strived for when creating an organizational structure in organizations of a wide variety of profiles and types of activities.
It should be noted that the principles of organizing an organization formulated by M. Weber have actually never been encountered in real management practice before. Subsequently, in many (if not most) organizations created, the bureaucratic structure was widely implemented.
This is exactly the lucky case when the management idea expressed by the scientist was brought to life by practicing managers.
What, according to M. Weber, should be an ideal organizational structure, which he called rational bureaucracy?
Here are its main characteristics:
1. A clear division of labor, leading to the emergence of highly qualified specialists in all areas of the organization’s activities.
2. The presence of hierarchical levels of management with a clear system of subordination and control of the lower level to the higher one.
3. A system of generally accepted formal rules and standards, consistent with each other and ensuring uniformity of tasks, responsibilities and coordination of the actions of employees in solving various problems.
4. Independence of official duties from the persons performing them, in other words, the impersonality of the performance of duties by officials.
5. Hiring employees who meet the qualification requirements for them. Dismissal is also primarily due to reasons of job inadequacy or other objective reasons.
According to many experts in the field of management, M. Weber's bureaucratic structure still remains a unique and most significant description of the essence of modern organizations.
The bureaucratic structure of the organization was one of the most significant contributions to the development of management science and practice and contributed to the formation of the organization in its modern sense.
It made it possible to systematize the organizational structure in accordance with the basic principles of management, making it a reliable tool for implementing strategic and tactical decisions made by the organization's management.
However, the bureaucratic structure is not ideal and is not without its shortcomings.
The disadvantages include, first of all, the lack of flexibility of this structure, which both employees of the organization and its clients have to face.
Insufficient flexibility is due to strict regulation of personnel activities by special norms and rules.
At the beginning of the century, the external environment in which most enterprises operated changed little, and only subsequent shocks and rapid development of industry and technology led to those situations of instability and fierce competition that modern organizations have to deal with.
A modern organization is often required to have a fundamentally new, adequate response to changes in the situation, and fundamentally new management decisions.
Today it is difficult to say unequivocally that the principles of a rational bureaucratic structure make it difficult to respond quickly, that the bureaucratic structure has more disadvantages than advantages.
The high level of organization, clarity in the distribution of responsibilities and internal discipline inherent in the bureaucratic structure is a positive rather than a negative factor in the unstable competitive situation in which a modern organization has to operate.
However, the urgent search for ways to improve the efficiency of organizations has also affected organizational structures and led to the emergence of fundamentally new types of them, which have confirmed their viability.
Therefore, when forming anew or changing the structure of an organization, the manager must clearly understand the opportunities and disadvantages that are inherent in each of the organizational structures used today.
State bureaucracy
As already mentioned, part of the state bureaucracy is inevitably part of the ruling political elite. This is determined by the role played by the higher and part of the middle bureaucracy in the management of the state and society.Historically, the bureaucracy was formed as the administrative apparatus of an industrial-type state. In the 19th century The emerging bourgeois statehood served as the basis for G. Hegel and M. Weber to call bureaucracy the main carrier of rational forms of organization of power. According to the ideal model they developed, this management apparatus is distinguished by qualifications, discipline, responsibility, adherence to the letter and spirit of the laws, and respect for the honor of the uniform. Negative from the point of view of such normative ideas, the phenomena of bureaucracy (i.e., deviations from these norms of behavior, expressed in the growth of formalism, red tape, subordination of the activities of government agencies to their own group interests and other negative features of the performance by officials of their professional duties) were considered as anomalous phenomena, overcoming which should be ensured by strengthening public and administrative control over their behavior, a more optimal distribution of their official powers, increased responsibility and hierarchy of the management system, etc.
At the same time, from a purely political point of view, the bureaucracy had to remain politically neutral and under no circumstances show any bias towards one or another power group. The performance of purely administrative functions by bureaucrats and their non-interference in the political struggle were seen as one of the prerequisites for maintaining the stability of social order. Moreover, M. Weber believed that the degeneration of state bureaucracy into political bureaucracy is fraught with a threat to human freedom and independence.
Marxism interpreted the political role of the bureaucracy differently, seeing in its activities a type of political dominance of the administrative apparatus over the state and society, the manifestation of a style of government that clearly alienates the population from power, preventing citizens, primarily workers, from using the state for their own selfish purposes.
The dynamics of the development of modern, complexly organized states have revealed a number of fundamental trends in the formation and development of state policy, which have forced us to take a different approach to assessing the role of the state bureaucracy. In particular, the strengthening of the role of the state in organizing social processes inevitably increased the role of the state bureaucracy. The place occupied by officials in the public administration system gave them enormous opportunities for real redistribution of resources.
In other words, the very position of senior and some middle officials in the executive power system objectively gave their positions a political dimension and increased their role and importance in the decision-making system. It is no coincidence that in a number of states, after elections, almost the entire contingent of senior officials is subject to replacement in accordance with the political preferences of the newly elected president or head of government. For example, in the United States there is a “spoil system”, in accordance with one of the requirements of which each newly elected president appoints approximately 1,200 new officials from among his supporters to key positions in the government. This is a condition for ensuring the political integrity of the executive branch, designed to solve very specific tasks.
The strengthening of the political functions of the state bureaucracy is also associated with the increasing role of the professional knowledge of officials, which gives them a certain advantage over politicians elected for a certain term. Moreover, the bureaucracy has an advantage over the divided, competitive world of politicians and due to the fact that it is a more cohesive social stratum, with its own corporate ethics and traditions.
An undoubted factor that increases the political weight and importance of the state bureaucracy is its close ties with various lobbying groups, which today represent one of the most powerful structures of political representation of interests. Often the merging of bureaucratic and lobbying structures that occurs becomes a powerful channel for the transmission of group interests and influence on the centers of political power.
The noted trends in the evolution of the state bureaucracy characterize its top and some middle representatives as having fully defined their status as a relatively independent subject (actor) of political power. This part of the unelected ruling political elite invariably increases its role in the modern state, exerting an ever-increasing influence on the process of developing, adopting, and often implementing political decisions.
Bureaucracy concept
The state apparatus exists and is by no means going to self-destruct. If anyone tried to do something like that, it would lead to immediate disaster. Without the action of bureaucratic (in the Weberian sense of the word) mechanisms, modern society could not live even a day. Few critics of bureaucracy try to see the real origins and principles of its centuries-old existence. Meanwhile, all the variety of interpretations of bureaucracy can be reduced to the following main types.All the variety of interpretations of bureaucracy can essentially be reduced to the following main types:
Weber-Wilson concept;
“Imperial” (“Asian”);
"Realistic".
1. Weber-Wilson concept of bureaucracy.
At the beginning of the 20th century. German sociologist Max Weber developed the concept of rational bureaucracy. The bureaucratic organization replaced the system of patriarchal, medieval administration, under which it was impossible for an ordinary, ordinary person without money and connections to achieve justice: there were no deadlines for the consideration of cases, the procedure for their proceedings and jurisdiction were uncertain, and most importantly, arbitrariness and personal discretion reigned in everything . The outcome of the case was decided not by the rightness of the person, not by objective circumstances, but by his status, wealth, connections, dexterity, and ability to appease the desired person.
However, the patriarchal system also had its own conveniences. Having found personal contact with the “right person,” the petitioner could resolve his case without formal delays (and often contrary to the law). Not a formal business relationship, but a warm, sometimes friendly relationship arose between them. However, the disadvantages of such a system clearly outweighed it.
Therefore, as an alternative to it, a different, modern form of solving current affairs began to take shape, which (ideally) is characterized by their management by competent and dispassionate executors, in full compliance with legislation and procedure, orderliness of office work, and freedom from subjective influences.
In a word, an organization of a modern type presupposes the dominance of generally binding regulated procedures, the implementation of which does not depend on who exactly and in relation to whom performs them. Everyone is equal before a single order. Unification becomes a guarantee against the shortcomings of specific people and possible abuses. This is the concept of rational bureaucracy, as formulated by Weber.
He pointed out that this type of government, although it originated in bureaucratic states such as Prussia, became predominant in all political systems and, indeed, in all organizations in which government was carried out on a large scale.
In his definition of bureaucracy, Weber sought to highlight common features for all modern administrative systems.
He indicated ten such traits, but for convenience they can be reduced to four main characteristics:
1. the competence of each bureaucratic level is clearly regulated, i.e. fixed normatively;
2. the hierarchical organization of the bureaucratic structure is based on firmly established principles of official subordination;
3. all formal intra-organizational activities (dissemination of information, decision-making, preparation of orders and directives, etc.) are carried out in the form of written documents that are subject to subsequent storage;
4. all officials must be good specialists in the field of administration, i.e. be competent not only in the area of their professional job responsibilities (for example, as a lawyer, economist, engineer, military officer, etc.), but also in the area of norms, rules and procedures for the activities of the bureaucratic organization as a whole.
His model of bureaucracy implies that efficiency can be achieved through a rational division of labor and clear definition of areas of competence. If we consider the elements of Weber's model of bureaucracy, then each of them meets this criterion of effectiveness. The main feature of bureaucracy is the systematic division of labor by which administrative problems are broken down into manageable tasks.
Other features of bureaucracy serve the same purpose. Its impersonal nature ensures that there is no favoritism in the selection of personnel, who are appointed according to individual achievements, in the management activity itself, free from the unpredictability of personal connections. Subordination to rules allows the bureaucracy to conduct a large number of affairs in a uniform manner, while having procedures for changing those rules frees it from the constraints of tradition.
In American administrative science, the same idea was developed at the end of the 19th century. future US President Woodrow Wilson. His main work on this issue, considered a classic and a source of inspiration for many generations of American administrators, Wilson Woodrow The Study of Administration, was published in 1887.
Wilson's main ideas are:
In any management system there is a single control center as a necessary prerequisite for its effectiveness and responsibility;
the structural similarity of all modern governments;
separation of management from politics;
professionalism of employees;
organizational hierarchy as a condition for financial and administrative efficiency;
the presence of good administration as a necessary condition for the modernization of human civilization and the achievement of prosperity.
As can be seen, Weber and Wilson formulated essentially similar concepts from different angles. After all, according to Weber, a bureaucratic organization is technically the most perfect of all conceivable organizational forms. Its superiority, manifested in clarity, speed, competence, continuity, unity, subordination, stability, relative cheapness and, finally, in the impersonal nature of the activity, places it above all other types.
In other words, bureaucracy is the dominance of professionalism over incompetence, norms over arbitrariness, objectivity over subjectivity.
We can distinguish three of its main “ideological” postulates:
The bureaucracy equally effectively serves any political “master” without interfering in the political process;
it is the best of all possible forms of organization;
its most important advantage is its independence from the influence of subjective (human) influences on decision making.
However, research into the actual work of organizations suggests that adherence to bureaucratic norms can not only promote but also hinder efficiency. This is because the principles of bureaucratic organization are accompanied by significant dysfunctional effects, which are more pronounced the more consistently these principles are applied.
Following rules can lead to a lack of flexibility. The impersonal nature of relationships gives rise to bureaucratic indifference and insensitivity. Hierarchy often prevents individual responsibility and initiative.
The most accurate approach, as it seems to us, was outlined by K. Marx in his work “On the Critique of Hegel’s Philosophy of Law.”
Here are some of his expressions:
Bureaucracy is the “state formalism” of civil society;
the bureaucracy constitutes a special closed society in the state;
bureaucracy is an imaginary state along with the real state; it is the spiritualism of the state.
2. “Imperial” (“Asian”) model.
This model was most fully embodied in the Asian empires. Its classic form is Chinese bureaucracy. There are legends about her, representing her as almost a model of public service. In fact, the “Chinese model,” despite some formal similarities with the Weberian model (the system of examinations for the right to obtain a position plus a stepwise job hierarchy), is the opposite of it in its fundamental principles and goals.
As is known, in ancient and medieval China there was no right of private ownership of land in the European sense. The Emperor (Son of Heaven) was the sole owner of all the lands of the country. Subjects, according to the Confucian tradition, were considered as members of one big family headed by the emperor. Accordingly, officials were managers of imperial property.
Human nature was considered as a combination of light and darkness, i.e. good and bad - yin and yang. Hence, the task of the bureaucracy was understood not as serving public interests, but as mitigating the negative consequences of the action of the basically ineradicable vices of people in order to ensure the effective power of the Son of Heaven.
Accordingly, the entire notorious system of examinations for the possibility of occupying the position of an official was specific and meant only to test the candidates’ ability to serve the emperor and, most importantly, to ensure stability, stability, and immutability of the system, regardless of changing historical conditions and circumstances.
To prevent the formation of a bureaucratic corporation, which would seem inevitable in such cases, a number of mechanisms were in place to separate officials and their interests.
Among such mechanisms of subordination of an official not to the bureaucratic structure of power as such, not to the interests of the bureaucratic elite, but only to the favor of the emperor, can be attributed:
The lack of narrow specialization among officials, which made it possible for them to be painlessly interchangeable like homogeneous parts of a mechanism;
a constant surplus of candidates for positions, pursuing the same goal (passing exams did not at all guarantee obtaining a position, but only allowed one to enter the number of applicants for it; the wait itself could last indefinitely, but could be shortened by a bribe, which, however, also did not give guarantees of success);
the extremely limited prospects for a career (an official often remained in the same position for the entire period of his service, which often amounted to only a few years), and this made it meaningless to create a ladder of personal connections so common in other bureaucratic systems;
personal dependence of all officials on the emperor;
strict measures against informal connections among officials in order to prevent the emergence of stable coalitions among them. For example, a ban on personal friendship, a ban on officials of the same clan serving in the same province, a ban on marriages from among local residents, a ban on acquiring property under the jurisdiction of an official;
the official’s financial dependence is not on the imperial salary (usually quite small and far from covering the costs associated with obtaining the position). His well-being depended on his ability to squeeze maximum income out of his imperial subjects, including for his own personal benefit. This inevitably turned the official into a vulnerable lawbreaker with all the attendant consequences - fear of exposure, uncertainty even in his immediate future, etc.;
lack of any personal or corporate guarantees for officials against arbitrary dismissals, demotions and transfers. All laws were formulated in such a way that the official simply could not help but violate them and therefore was under constant fear of exposure and punishment, which made him completely dependent and defenseless before the higher authorities (this is one of the key differences between Chinese officials and “Weberian” bureaucrats);
particularly careful control over the higher and middle bureaucracy, which is potentially more dangerous for the authorities, through an extensive network of secret police (censors); the practice of direct communication between the emperor and the lower echelon of the bureaucracy, bypassing its intermediate levels; the absence of the post of head of government, whose functions were performed by the emperor himself; and, of course, a personal system for all appointments.
Famous sinologist L.S. Perelomov, analyzing the influence of political doctrine on the organization of the Chinese administration, lists a similar set of mechanisms contained in the form of a system of prescriptions in legalism, a political doctrine that practically underlay the entire Chinese state system:
Systematic updating of the device;
equal opportunities for officials;
a clear gradation within the ruling class itself;
unification of the thinking of officials;
censorship supervision;
strict personal liability of the official.
The system that made it possible to keep bureaucrats “in check” was deeply echeloned, with a large margin of safety. This shows the founders' awareness of the dangers of an insufficiently controlled bureaucracy.
3. Russian specifics of bureaucracy.
As for Russia, it combined various versions of the “imperial” model: until the 18th century. the combination of the Byzantine and Tatar variants dominated, and the latter, in turn, used elements of the Chinese model in a rough form (in particular, in the collection of taxes). With Peter's reforms, elements borrowed from European absolutism were added to it, i.e. in the “semi-imperial” version.
Since the 19th century, and especially since its second half - since the reforms of Alexander II, elements of the model of rational bureaucracy began to develop. However, in general, the imperial model of “sovereign service” still prevailed until 1917, and in the Soviet period it received a new powerful impetus.
Bureaucracy (bureaucracy as a derivative phenomenon) is a form of exercise of power (primarily state power), in which the general will of an organization (society, citizens) is replaced by the will of a group of individuals.
This substitution is initiated by many reasons: the irrational construction of the state apparatus, in which there are many duplicating, parallel structures; the absence or weak legal regulation of management processes in terms of both substantive and procedural norms; low level of control over compliance with established procedures; insufficient professional training of politicians and civil servants.
The realities of history and modernity convincingly show that under bureaucracy there is a substitution of not only will, but also interests and goals. Hence the cult of the leader, the messianic thinking of almost every “boss,” isolation, loyalty of those around him, hidden mechanisms for selecting personnel, and much more.
Bureaucracy leads to the fact that as a result of substitution, group interests, goals and will begin to be presented as common. In such cases, the authorities pretend that they act on behalf and on behalf of everyone, and that whatever they say or do, it is all supposedly for the benefit of everyone, for benefit and development, although everyone has a different, often opposite, opinion on relevant issues.
Formalism, veneration of rank, long writing, etc. - is nothing more than the attributes of bureaucracy, its design, hiding behind the “external” the essence of the “internal” - the use of power for the sake of personal gain.
4. Bureaucracy and red tape.
There is a confusion of concepts, which is often a source of confusion and mutual misunderstanding among people. In contrast to the bureaucratic method of organizing management, bureaucracy is a global disease, widespread to one degree or another in almost all countries. In terms of the scale and quantity of evil brought to humanity, it is perhaps comparable to environmental pollution.
In the precise sense of the word, bureaucracy means the power of the “bureau,” i.e. desk - not of a people, not even of a specific person, but of an official position. In other words, the auxiliary function, designed to serve people, to be an instrument in their hands, acquires power over them. The system of rational administration of affairs turns from a tool into a self-sufficient machine.
An official, in principle, cannot be an absolutely dispassionate performer, as Weber believed. He tends to use his position for his own benefit. At the level of social-group interactions, it looks like this: the apparatus sometimes seeks to impose its own interests on society as supposedly universal. Another objective basis for the degeneration of rational bureaucracy is its organic anti-democracy. It arises from the official’s imaginary monopoly on competence, which leaves ordinary people only the role of supplicants and intercessors.
Since the first task of an official is to ensure compliance with uniform formal rules common to all, it gradually turns into an end in itself. The form, which is rational at its core, acquires the features of a meaningless ritual, and the content is replaced by form. The level of understanding of the problems facing the apparatus, its individual units and employees is decreasing.
To understand the logic of the bureaucratic machine, the well-known Parkinson's law is important: a bureaucratic organization strives for an unlimited expansion of its influence. At the same time, there is no desire to increase one’s own responsibility for the state of affairs - rather the opposite. Maximizing the scope and scope of one's control while minimizing responsibility is the bureaucratic ideal.
Bureaucracy is often identified with red tape, unsubscribes, paperwork, etc. However, these external symptoms of the disease are wrongfully confused with its internal content, which V.I. Lenin successfully defined it as the subordination of business interests to career interests.
Bureaucracy includes the following components:
In the political aspect - excessive expansion and irresponsibility of the executive branch;
social - the alienation of this power from the people;
organizational - clerical substitution of form for content;
moral and psychological - bureaucratic deformation of consciousness.
5. New trends and approaches: realistic concept.
Let us now turn to the interpretation of bureaucracy that is called realistic. In fact, it is precisely this system that is now dominant in Western democracies. In essence, we are talking about the gradual addition and modernization of the Weberian model.
Another, largely alternative approach began to take shape in the 70s. last century through the efforts of mainly American authors. Expressing the general spirit of the largely revolutionary time for the West in the late 60s and early 70s, they fundamentally criticized the very desire to present bureaucracy as the highest form of organization, allowing the best solution to the problems of modern civilization. The concepts of “responsive” administration, polycentrism, “flat” structures, etc. appeared.
Today, world practice has already recognized the primary role in management, including public administration, of cultural factors and the formation of a new culture of public service. It is believed that without an ethical component, any administrative reforms have little chance of success.
Another aspect of the process of fundamental changes in the public service is its turn towards people. The citizen is seen as a kind of “client” of government agencies. From the status of a ward, a petitioner, he passes into the status of a consumer exercising his rights of services provided to him by the state.
In general, the revision of civil service principles that has taken place in recent decades can be reduced to the following areas:
Analysis and institutionalization of the political role of the bureaucracy and the mechanisms for realizing its corporate interests;
search for the optimal balance of political and professional principles in the administration;
reducing the role of the vertical administrative hierarchy, developing functional bodies, “flat” structures, etc.;
decentralization, cost reduction, reduction of administration;
limiting the role of the traditional administrative “ladder of ranks”;
the introduction of management and even marketing in a significant part of the civil service;
the maximum possible openness, “responsiveness” of the bureaucracy to the needs and expectations of citizens;
a significant increase in attention to the cultural and moral and ethical aspects of the civil service.
The aspects of the fight against bureaucracy are interesting. Traditionally, those outside of power are happy to expose and criticize bureaucratic fabrications in the formation and implementation of power. Every self-respecting oppositionist considered and considers it his duty to accuse the current government of bureaucracy. But as soon as the same individuals and movements come to power and take control of the state apparatus, they often reproduce a bureaucracy, no less than the overthrown one.
The state apparatus exists and is by no means going to self-destruct. If some madman who had seized power tried to do something like that, it would lead to immediate disaster for society.
It turns out that the objects and subjects of criticism of bureaucracy change places, creating in public opinion the impression of a struggle against bureaucracy, and it is recreated in one or another formation, then in one or another type of state. Few researchers are trying to see the real origins of its centuries-old existence.
Bureaucracy of organizations
Bureaucracy is a complex and contradictory social phenomenon. In everyday understanding, the concept of “bureaucracy” very often has a clearly negative connotation. However, in fact, bureaucracy initially represents the only currently possible form of management, very effective in its essence, but capable of giving rise to negative social phenomena.Bureaucracy is usually understood as a social group whose members are professionally engaged in management, their positions and positions in the organization forming a hierarchy characterized by formal rights and duties that determine their activities and responsibilities.
The history of bureaucracy goes back to ancient times. Clans of professional managers and officials existed in Ancient Egypt, Ancient China, the Roman Empire and other countries of the Ancient World. Advanced bureaucracies arose during the formation of nation states, when peace reigned and the need to achieve social order increased.
The term “bureaucracy” itself means “dominance of the office” and is formed from two words: the French bureau - bureau, office, and the Greek kratos - strength, authority, domination. The introduction of this term is attributed to the physiocratic economist Vincent de Gournay, who in 1745 so designated the executive branch, giving the term a pejorative meaning. However, the term came into scientific use thanks to the outstanding German sociologist M. Weber. He based the study of bureaucracy on its ideal image, considering bureaucracy as the most effective tool for managing social structures and individual structural units. According to Weber, the strictly formalized nature of bureaucratic relations, clarity in the distribution of role functions, and the personal interest of bureaucrats in achieving the goals of the organization lead to the adoption of timely and qualified decisions based on carefully selected and verified information. In bureaucratic management, official positions, officials and managers become key figures in the management of organizations. The bureaucracy, having access to all levers of control, is omnipotent, obeying only the “interests of the case.” At the same time, it ensures clarity and unambiguity of information flows in the organization. A bureaucrat must be a high-class professional, have a special education, and be competent in matters of managing an organization.
Weber identified the following main distinctive properties of an ideal bureaucracy:
1. Impersonal character. Employees of the organization's management bodies are personally free and act only within the framework of the impersonal responsibilities that exist in this organization. The term “impersonal” here means that the duties and obligations belong to the positions and positions, and not to the individuals who may occupy these positions and positions at a certain point in time.
2. The principle of hierarchy. Bureaucracy presupposes the presence of a clearly defined hierarchy of positions and positions, i.e. a certain position dominates all subordinates and depends on positions above it in the structure of the organization. In a hierarchical relationship, an employee occupying a particular position can make decisions regarding employees in lower positions and is subject to the decisions of those in higher positions.
3. Clear division of labor in management. This implies a clearly defined specification of the functions of each position. This assumes a strict formal distribution of tasks and responsibilities for each employee, who bears full responsibility for the performance of their duties. A necessary condition for the implementation of this characteristic is the full competence of workers in each position in a narrow range of problems.
4. Rules for selecting employees. The selection and placement of employees within the social structure of the organization is carried out solely on the basis of their qualifications. This means that important status positions such as money, kinship and origin, power, connections and other parameters not related to qualifications are not taken into account.
Bureaucracy is a complex social phenomenon. Its role in a democratic system is ambiguous. Bureaucracy is a threat to the democratic political structure and to the politicians who lead it. At the same time, a powerful and independent bureaucracy is necessary to prevent political corruption and to preserve democratic procedures themselves.
Bureaucracy(from French - office and Greek - power), one of the forms of exercising power functions in an increasingly complex society, an important element of the mechanism and social regulation in the conditions of expansion of public power and growth in the number of administrative apparatus.
Because regulations are created by precedent, documents reflecting past human experience become the only universal standard for bureaucrats to fit current affairs into. Therefore, even reality, clear as day, seems illusory to the official in comparison with the reality attested in acts.
The derivatives of the contradictions indicated above are such features that characterize bureaucracy as incompetence and paper fetishism.
One of the essential features of bureaucracy is the desire for power and control.
It is no secret that the decisions of various levels of management are reflected primarily in the position of the members of society who implement them. The negative social consequences of ineffective management decisions are also compensated by the masses, which meets with their natural opposition. Hence the primordial desire of the bureaucrats to prevent real social assessments of management and interference in this area of the broad masses, since this could lead to the destruction of the system itself.
The above-mentioned inconsistency and internal instability of the management process in general are, as this or that contradiction develops and grows, a source of increased conflict in social management and its bureaucratization.
Analysis of the work of an official manager
The result of the work of a specific management subject is a management decision, which is a produced product (and one of the most valuable). Since bureaucracy negatively affects the relations between society and institutions of social management, a natural tendency in social life is that society does not require bureaucratic management, which can only be imposed on it.
Bureaucratic management represents labor that does not produce goods if:
- there is no market and commodity relations in society;
- specific labor does not create use value in the form of an effective management decision.
The usefulness of the subject of management for society is determined by the results of his concrete labor, and he is rewarded by society in accordance with the various characteristics of abstract labor. This is the result of the deepening process of division of labor, the complication of social structures of society, and management. The results of social management appear after some time, become depersonalized, and are not amenable to direct public assessment. The bureaucracy seeks to organize conditions for indirect evaluation of its work, which in turn is one of the sources of managerial formalism.
The ideal of bureaucratic regulation is to issue regulations themselves, force society to comply with them, without allowing any control over oneself. Thus, the main political interest of the bureaucracy lies in the implementation and protection of its monopolistic exercise of power functions in society.
Any management system, to one degree or another, contains elements of bureaucratic relations. The common interests of bureaucrats push them towards each other, forcing them to cooperate. The result is a bureaucratic management system. In conditions where bureaucratic relations are threatened, the conscious corporate interest of the bureaucracy takes the form of protecting the bureaucratic system of management.
As long as state power exists, bureaucracy will exist.. There is nothing catastrophic in this, since ultimately the factor determining the viability of the management system is the degree of its bureaucratization, and this is not a constant value. Historical experience in the development of state-political systems shows that society gravitates toward dynamic, flexible forms of governance that not only oppose, but also coexist with bureaucratic conservatism.
The long experience of fighting bureaucracy accumulated in our country shows that there have been numerous attempts to improve bureaucratic management instead of de-bureaucratizing it. This is the simplest, but unproductive way, because by declaring several million officials bureaucrats and influencing them with various means, society is unlikely to put an end to bureaucracy. It is much more difficult to develop policies aimed at creating new relationships between the sphere of management and the broad masses of workers.
In its most general form, the system of de-bureaucratization measures includes the restoration and development of the basic functions of self-regulation of society. This:
- optimally balanced denationalization of property, its true socialization, and consequently the return of a significant part of power functions to the working people;
- the introduction of market management regulators, which will allow us to begin the search for a combination of spontaneous and conscious in the management mechanism, imparting sustainable self-regulation potential to this area;
- democratization of all aspects of society; free expression of the will of social strata and groups, the possibility of their participation in the formation of the management concept.
Thus, bureaucracy includes the following components:
- politically, overgrowth and irresponsibility;
- in the social - the alienation of this power from the people;
- in the organizational - clerical substitution of form for content;
- in moral and psychological terms - bureaucratic deformation of consciousness.
Bureaucracy is immanent in our existing administrative-command system, which is based on the presumption of the omnipotence of state power, supposedly capable of solving any political, economic, ideological problem if the decision is made in a timely manner and properly executed. Hence the exaggeration of the role of management structures, which excludes the possibility of control over them by civil society and inevitably turns bureaucracy into an essentially total phenomenon.
Bureaucracy as a social group
Perhaps the most difficult problem in the practical fight against bureaucracy is the selection of the bureaucrat himself from the mass of official managers.
It seems that the most reliable sign of a bureaucrat is low level of social efficiency of its activities. As public interest is replaced by corporate interest, the efficiency of an official’s work decreases, and he produces less and less consumer value in the form of management decisions necessary for society. At the same time, the bureaucracy seeks to completely subordinate the management of the means of production, since this is the main condition for the implementation of the power function in society. However, by alienating this function from the working people, the bureaucracy, due to the irrationality of the world in which it lives, cannot become the true master of the means of production. Mismanagement arises and the efficiency of social production declines. This is a sure sign of bureaucratic perversions in management.
By separating the functions of managing property from the realities of its existence, from economic life, the bureaucracy makes the economic process practically uncontrollable. This provokes the emergence and development of parallel, compensating mechanisms of economic management, most often beyond the control of the bureaucracy, gradually occupying its political niche in society. Usually this can be done by the shadow economy, whose greatest activity in the struggle for the means of production usually accompanies a crisis in the bureaucratic system
Management structures are bound by the responsibility of their various units in relation to each other, this is a bureaucratic responsibility - the responsibility of bureaucrats to each other. Governance in the public interest implies the official's responsibility to society. Bureaucratic management, as experience shows, is characterized by irresponsibility towards society.
As a rule, developed bureaucratic management institutions form sophisticated mechanisms of irresponsibility:
- dispersion of powers,
- countless approvals and approvals as a direct result of turning any employee, even the highest rank, into an obedient subordinate.
Under these conditions, the interests of the official depend less and less on public assessment and responsibility, and irresponsibility, formalism, administration, and the “infallibility” of the bureaucrat become widespread in society. The potential of such management is focused primarily on the internal laws of the functioning of the apparatus, which are far from real life. The bureaucracy considers itself the ultimate goal.
As a result of the internal isolation of management processes, the isolation of the bureaucrat and management structures, departmentalism, localism, personal protectionism, and bribery are established in public life.
Concretizing the above, apparently, we can distinguish:
- “Forced” (sometimes called paternalistic) bureaucracy- is formed against the will of a particular employee-manager, when there are conceptual flaws in the management system itself. Being part of such a system, the manager, sincerely wanting to bring benefits, cannot do this, even if he is a highly qualified specialist.
- “Conscious” bureaucracy- arises on the basis of the specific interests of the bureaucracy. Its bearers know what they are doing and today constitute a formidable, well-organized force. This is the bureaucracy itself, whose activities have at all times had a destructive impact on society.
The following generalized socio-political portrait of a bureaucrat emerges, who:
- specializes in management, concentrating in its hands the levers of control and coercion, strives for the dominance of the state form of government with which it identifies itself;
- replaces socially necessary management with bureaucratic formalism;
- occupies a privileged position in society, is isolated from the masses, stands above them;
- implements corporate interests that do not coincide with public ones and at the expense of public ones;
- strives to monopolize the functions of managing public property and power functions; organizes the conditions of its own lack of control on the part of society;
- “generates” such antisocial phenomena as careerism, voluntarism, localism, paper fetishism, personal protectionism, red tape, etc., which sharply reduces the efficiency of management as a whole.
Thus, bureaucracy- this is a special closed layer of persons who oppose themselves to society, occupy a privileged position in it, specialize in management and monopolize power functions in society in order to realize their corporate interests.
The negative aspects of bureaucracy are eliminated through legislation. In any public service there can be abuses and degradation of its positive essence. Therefore, legislation must provide for abuse. These include:
- clear distribution of cases between various departments;
- procedure for the appointment or election of civil servants;
- removal of social restrictions upon entering the public service;
- top-down control of every management position and function;
- verification of qualifications upon admission to the service and advanced training during its passage;
- certain moral requirements and proper political education of civil servants;
- material support for employees with official salaries and other benefits;
- optimal balance of openness and secrecy in the public service and protection of state secrets;
- provision for service in the state apparatus, regardless of origin, social and property status, race and nationality, gender, attitude to religion and place of residence;
- depoliticization of employees.
The civil service in civilized countries is built and functions taking into account these guarantees against abuse.
Introduction………………………………………………………3
The essence of bureaucracy as a form of power…………………… 4-12
Bureaucracy and the tasks of combating it…………………………..13-15
Conclusion……………………………………………………16-17
List of sources and literature used…………………...18
Introduction
Relevance The study of bureaucracy as a social phenomenon is determined by a number of factors. Firstly, the objective need to strengthen organization in all spheres of public life. Secondly, the contradiction between this objective need and the associated hierarchization of society and the development of democracy, the inclusion of broad sections of the population in public life and political activity. Related to this is the need to find the optimal balance between professionals and non-professionals in the management process, between managers and managed, managers and subordinates. Thirdly, if we talk about our country, the relevance of studying this problem is determined by violations, deformations of the norms of life of civil society and the related need for the formation of a democratic society, the rule of law, the deepening and expansion of self-government principles, and the implementation of reforms in all spheres of life.
The exceptional importance of the problem of bureaucracy and bureaucracy for Russia, where the executive power and the state from time immemorial have played (and continue to play) a decisive role in most spheres of society.
Target of this work - to study the features of bureaucracy, its essence and forms of manifestation.
Tasks works:
1) understand what bureaucracy is, define and study its essence;
2) study the features of the problem of bureaucracy in Russia;
3) consider ways to combat bureaucracy.
Object is bureaucracy and bureaucracy as a social phenomenon.
Subject research is the essence of bureaucracy, as well as methods of combating bureaucracy.
The essence of bureaucracy as a form of power.
The term “bureaucracy” is formed by a combination of two words: French bureau – bureau, office and Greek kratos – domination, power – 1) a system of practical power based on a set of formal and informal connections between the bureaucracy and the political, economic, socio-cultural areas of activity of the state and society; 2) a property that is organically inherent in the state apparatus, the management structures of enterprises and firms, and any organization; 3) a layer of professional managers associated with this system, organized in a hierarchical structure - a “pyramid of power” and independent of the people they manage. 1
Literally, this term means the dominance of the office and is used in several meanings:
a layer of senior officials in the state;
bureaucracy, red tape, disregard for substance for the sake of observing formalities.
In the second meaning, the term “bureaucracy” coincides with the term “bureaucracy”: from the French bureaucratisme – 1) a specific style of managing society by government structures, designed to ensure the virtual omnipotence of the bureaucracy; maximum satisfaction of interests; 2) a selfish approach to the performance of official duties, when the apparatus of power and its powers are used to satisfy the personal interests of employees to the detriment of the interests of society; 3) a set of traditional “clerical” work methods, allowing the bureaucracy to use the official post to the greatest extent to achieve its personal goals. 2
In addition, there is a more general definition of bureaucracy and bureaucracy - this is a system of management and organization of power.
Bureaucracy is a historical phenomenon. Its forms have changed over the centuries due to changes in the types and types of socio-economic structure. The beginnings of bureaucracy arose already in the states of the Ancient East, which was due to the isolation of the sphere of public administration. Historians note a developed bureaucracy in Ancient China.
1 Political science: dictionary-reference book. – Compiled by A.P. Ugrovatov. – Novosibirsk: YuKEA Publishing House. 2006.- 488 p. P. 43;
2 Ibid.: P. 42;
Complex bureaucratic systems existed in the Roman Empire and Byzantium. In the Middle Ages in the countries of Western Europe, the royal power and the church had a powerful bureaucratic apparatus. The era of absolutism, marked by the growing role and importance of bureaucracy, played a certain role in strengthening democracy.
In pre-capitalist formations, bureaucracy existed primarily as a form of political organization. However, with the emergence and development of capitalism, it becomes an integral property of any social organization, starting with the state and ending with the management structures of enterprises, firms, public organizations, etc. The bureaucratization of society especially intensified in the 20th century. This was due to the objective course of socio-economic development, when the need arose to develop general principles for the work of social organizations, including the management structure, hierarchy of positions and posts, strict division of their functions, rules for informing management, and appropriate discipline. The objective basis of bureaucracy, its universal nature, are determined by the need for targeted influence on social structures and processes, as well as on the activities of social organizations. In other words, bureaucracy, being one of the forms of exercising power functions, is an element of the integration mechanism that is both necessary and inevitable. “The main shortcoming of the approach to bureaucracy is the failure to adequately reveal the essence and origins of bureaucratic power.” 1
The complexity and inconsistency of this phenomenon, which covered all spheres of social life, necessitated an understanding of the concept and history of bureaucracy. Its roots and origins were considered by the French thinker Saint-Simon (1760-1825), who drew attention to the special role of organization in the development of society. He rightly believed that in the future power would not be inherited, but would be concentrated in the hands of those who had special knowledge.
The scientific description of bureaucracy was given by the German philosopher Hegel (1770-1831). He proceeded from the principle of separation of power between the state and civil society, basing his analysis on the activities of corporations (closed organizations). The French philosopher O. Comte (1798-1857) made a certain contribution to the development of problems of bureaucracy.
1 Beetem, D. Bureaucracy / D. Beetem // Sociological Journal. - 1997. - No. 4. - P. 68;
In particular, he emphasized that sociology theoretically substantiates the organic connection between “order” and “progress,” thereby summing up the dispute between “anarchists” who do not recognize order and “retrogrades” who reject progress. I would also note Comte’s important idea that in the creation of social organizations a significant role is given to “spontaneous”, “natural” tendencies.
However, only the German sociologist M. Weber (1864-1920) first presented the problems of bureaucracy systematically. “The sphere of bureaucracy from Weber’s point of view is expanding along with the disappearance of small and isolated producers, the growth of education, the rise in the level of general culture, and the growing interdependence of various areas of the economy. The position and role of the bureaucracy are strengthened with the emergence of global foreign policy interests among the state and society. According to Weber, domination as legalized violence is of 3 types: rational, traditional and charismatic. The rational is based on the belief in the obligatory nature of legal establishment and the legality of the bearers of power who exercise dominance. Traditional domination is based on the belief in the sacred character of old traditions and the legitimacy of those who, by virtue of tradition, are called to exercise power. Charismatic (from the Greek “mercy”, “grace”) dominance presupposes personal devotion beyond the ordinary, caused by the presence of special qualities in the leader, and trust in the order he has established.” 1 He proceeded from the fact that bureaucracy is the most rational form of exercising power, especially in a state operating on legal principles. His merit lies in highlighting the main features of bureaucracy as a mechanism of management activity, in describing the type of bureaucratic functionary within the framework of the system of “legal domination”.
The main features of bureaucracy identified by M. Weber seem relevant today:
the management of official affairs is carried out by unchanged methods;
the decision is based on a set of norms and characteristics that determine the responsibilities of each functionary and his managerial and executive activities;
the power functions and responsibilities of each functionary, representing part of the hierarchical power system, are determined not by his individual qualities, but by the place he occupies in this system;
1 Makarin, A.V. Bureaucracy in the system of political power. - St. Petersburg, 2000. - P. 54.
the means that ensure the power functions of the functionary are the prerogative of the power system, not the functionary. The latter is responsible only for the use of these funds in the performance of the functions entrusted to him;
the entire process of functioning of the bureaucratic system (and its subsystems) is a subproduction of documents expressing the power will of a higher power system (and in the production of its own power documents - within the limits of its functions).
M. Weber considered impersonality, rationality, strict regulation, and organized responsibility to be the “ideal” of any organization. From his point of view, bureaucratic management is the most perfect and effective form of domination, and therefore for the needs of mass everyday management it is simply inevitable. The choice is only possible between “bureaucratization” and “amateurism” of management. Weber saw the positive aspects of bureaucracy in its subject knowledge of management technology, in the translation of tasks and goals of a political nature into rational-technological forms and norms of management. At the same time, he pointed out the danger of the total bureaucratization of society, which, as he believed, could only be resisted by a parliamentary system and a multi-party system as factors, as factors neutralizing the bureaucratic aggressiveness of the apparatus, the usurper tendencies of the bureaucracy.
Of course, there is much that is positive in Weber’s concept of “rationality.” It is based on the need for management in society and the meaningful structuring of the management process, the implementation of which inevitably requires compliance with certain rules, the presence of not only specially trained personnel, but also the management subject and object as a whole.
Weber's concept was further developed by his followers such as A. Gouldner, M. Crozier, S.M. Lipset, M.K. Merton, F. Selznick et al.
In general, supporting the ideas of M. Weber, they made certain clarifications to his concept, but at the same time gradually began to move away from it. In their works, a transition to a more realistic model is noticeable, representing bureaucracy as a “natural system”, which includes, along with rational aspects, irrational ones, along with emotionally neutral and personal aspects, etc. Thus, R. Michelson, F. Selznick, T. Parsons applied the concept of “dysfunction” to the analysis of the concept of “bureaucracy”. M.K. Merton noted the most common dysfunction of a bureaucratic organization, such as the shift by its functionaries of emphasis from the goals of the organization to its means, as a result of which the means themselves (hierarchization of power, strict discipline, strict adherence to the rules, etc.) turn into an end in themselves.
In Western theories of bureaucracy, one of the most important is the question of legitimizing bureaucratic power. Thus, considering the problem of types of power, A. Gouldner distinguishes two types of bureaucracy - representative (based, in particular, on knowledge and skill) and authoritarian (applying various sanctions to strengthen its power). I would also like to note the work of the American sociologist C.R. Mills about the “power elite” as a union of industrial, political and military-bureaucratic elites. The American scientist D. Bell, exploring the problems of bureaucratization, wrote in a number of his works, in particular, about the bureaucratic world and enlightened intellectual specialists of post-industrial society.
“The problems of bureaucracy have occupied a certain place in domestic science, however, bureaucracy was viewed primarily from a negative perspective as bureaucratization” 1 . It is significant that for many years in Soviet society the dominant point of view was that bureaucracy can only exist under capitalism: in the conditions of the existence of a private form of ownership, exploitation of man by man, and class antagonisms. The thesis about the absence of bureaucracy under socialism was practically not questioned. We were talking only about residual manifestations of bureaucracy as a style, methods of management, inherent only to individual managers or certain executive authorities. This was determined by the fact that no serious research on this issue was carried out in the domestic literature; developments related to the problems of bureaucracy were not included in the research work plan of any of the leading social science institutes.
The lack of scientific research was partly compensated for by the media. Only under the influence of social needs, changes in the life of the country since the second half of the 1980s. works by economists, lawyers, historians, philosophers, sociologists and psychologists began to appear (V.K. Borisov, A.V. Buzgalin, A.I. Kolganov, B.P. Kurashvili, Yu.A. Levada, R.I. Khasbulatov , A.G. Khudokormov, etc.), dedicated to bureaucracy in the conditions of Soviet society.
1 Pavlenok P.D., Rudneva M.Ya. Social work with individuals and groups of deviant behavior: Textbook. allowance / Answer. ed. P. D. Pavlenok. – M.: INFRA-M, 2007. – 185 p. - (Higher education). pp. 33-34:
Bureaucracy is a complex social phenomenon, necessary and inevitable, a product of the development of society, the process of division of labor into managers and managed. As a layer of managing people, the bureaucracy is called upon to implement not only “common affairs” arising from the nature of any society. It also performs specific functions generated by the opposition between the government (power) and the masses. At the same time, the bureaucracy not only serves as a weapon in the struggle of some social groups against others, but also seeks to subordinate the actual needs of society, tasks, norms and procedures for its normal functioning to its own goals, the goals of self-preservation and strengthening of its own positions. And, as history shows, the bureaucracy demonstrates amazing adaptability to changing conditions. Its main features are:
Alienation of power from the people;
Concentration of power in the hands of officials seeking to weaken control over their activities or avoid it altogether.
Consequently, bureaucracy is a type of organization of public power, a system of social management, alienated from the object of management and standing above it.
The functioning of public power structures inevitably leads to their bureaucratic rationality, due to the specialization and cooperation of managerial labor. Bureaucratic rationalization is characterized by certain properties: differentiation of functions, standardization of work methods, regulation of actions, impersonal rules; exclusion of personal considerations from the performance of official duties, strict labor discipline; finally, a multi-level hierarchy of positions and a successful career, subject to certain conditions.
The increase in the number of managers, caused, in particular, by the fragmentation of management functions, leads not only to the alienation of officials from the masses, but also to the opposition of professionals to ordinary employee-managers, to an increasing influence from the top down and a decrease in the influence from the bottom up.
Bureaucratization at all times has had and has its own national-state specifics, which are determined primarily by the socio-economic system, the degree of development of democratic traditions in the country, the level of culture of the population, and the moral maturity of society. The bureaucratization of society is directly dependent on the nature of state power, a particular state, its characteristics, and the political regime in society. The latter is especially important, since the essence of the political regime is determined by the degree of democracy, which presupposes: democracy based on general elections; developed self-government of the people, which finds expression, in particular, in a network of extensive self-government institutions; real powers of representative authorities; implementation of freedom of speech, publicity; the right of the public and the ability of it to control all aspects of the activities of government bodies and the state apparatus.
From the point of view of the above, the characteristics of the Russian bureaucracy are important (and possible), the connection of which with the Soviet bureaucracy, especially in the first post-revolutionary years, is undeniable.
In Russia, the bureaucracy developed simultaneously with the centralization of the state and the growth of the apparatus of autocracy, becoming in the 18th–19th centuries. into the military-political state machine. It was a “feudal bureaucracy.” The military-feudal, autocratic-absolutist nature of the state turned the Russian bureaucracy into a reactionary force, giving it such qualities as complete unprincipledness and skillful hypocrisy, gigantic levels of embezzlement, an anti-people spirit, the strictest hierarchy and veneration of rank.
The characteristic features of the Russian bureaucracy were (unfortunately, and remain now) unsatisfactory organization of business, adherence to old methods and management schemes, a work style based on various approvals, approvals, replies, giving rise to bureaucracy and red tape. Domestic bureaucrats are characterized by excessive caution; they avoid even the slightest responsibility. A particular threat is posed by economic bureaucracy, varieties of which are departmentalism and localism, i.e. upholding the priority of a particular industry or territory, even to the detriment of public interests.
Bureaucracy can be considered as a specific layer (group) of people who are united by special group interests and value orientations, as well as similar ideas about their place and role in society. This layer of people is characterized by a special self-awareness, which is characterized by indifference to the social meaning and social consequences of their own activities, an arrogant attitude towards the people, disdain for democratic values, a sense of social superiority based on ideas about the special significance of their work, etc.
The bureaucratic management system itself objectively forms a special type of personality. A bureaucratized individual is characterized by a specific psychology of loyalty (thoughtless or most often ostentatious) to existing orders, an orientation towards compliance with the opinions and requirements of the immediate environment.
For a bureaucratic official, the state goal, which he is called upon to formally realize, turns into a personal goal, into a pursuit of rank, into making a career. It is career that is the core of the bureaucratic value system.
As noted earlier, until the mid-1980s. the thesis about the absence of bureaucracy under socialism in Russian literature was shared by the majority of social scientists. More precisely, this was the official point of view. This was largely explained by the views of K. Marx and V. I. Lenin on this issue. Thus, in his work “The Eighteenth Brumaire of Louis Bonaparte,” K. Marx, revealing the class foundations of the bureaucracy, formulated the task of breaking the bourgeois state machine as the first condition for the victory of the socialist revolution, the elimination of the foundations for the growth of bureaucracy as a result of the creation of a new state machine that expresses the interests of the majority of the population. V.I. Lenin, in his works “State and Revolution”, “Marxism on the State” and others, developed these ideas and substantiated the principles of eliminating the bureaucracy during the socialist revolution. The post-October reforms were aimed at removing the old bureaucracy from power. However, as life has shown, it was not possible to prevent the bureaucratization of the state apparatus, its growth, and the emergence of a new bureaucracy of the Soviet government.
Of course, the general state of Russian society, the level of its economic and social development, culture, and especially political, professional competence, and experience in social management affected this. However, the most fundamental, key reason for the preservation and strengthening of bureaucracy is the nature and character that emerged in the country in the late 1920s. social relations, called in the literature the administrative-bureaucratic system. The lack of initiative, irresponsibility, and passivity it generated contributed to the reproduction and strengthening of the bureaucracy and practically excluded self-government both in society as a whole and in its main unit - the labor collective.
In the conditions of the formed administrative-bureaucratic system, the state found itself opposed to civil society. Instead of the state's responsibility to society, instead of its subordination and control by society, society itself turned out to be subordinate and controlled by the state and its numerous bureaucratic structures.
Bureaucratization and attempts at total control by the center over all economic processes began already in the late 1920s. into centralization, which not only did not weaken in subsequent years, but also intensified. The desire to weaken the position of the center and transfer some of the powers to the localities under N. S. Khrushchev, which found its expression, in particular, in the creation of economic councils, was curtailed over time.
The development of the administrative-bureaucratic system in the country led to the actual removal of the Soviets from solving the most important vital issues. Party bodies replaced state and administrative-economic ones.
Existed until the second half of the 80s. XX century the mechanism for the formation of state, public and economic bodies determined the subordinate position of elected bodies in relation to executive bodies.
The nature and existence of the essentially political administrative-bureaucratic regime in the country was strongly influenced by the position of the state leaders, the creation, with the help of the media, of an aura of their infallibility, genius, especially political flair, etc. in the absence of opposition, multi-party system, democratic traditions, with a large concentration of power in the hands of such a leader, the political regime is increasingly being restructured in accordance with his ideas and desires. In this regard, the influence of bureaucracy can increase or decrease.
As many researchers note, in post-Soviet Russia the bureaucracy turned to the population mainly in a negative guise. The bureaucratic apparatus was many times greater than that in the USSR. The privileges and protection of officials at all levels have not decreased, but have increased disproportionately. But most importantly, bureaucratic power structures are out of control from society. As a result of the lack of legal norms, bureaucrats have become uncontrollable; they are not afraid of responsibility and have a lot of tricks to avoid real solutions to problems. Attempts to democratize Russia are hampered by official corruption and the flourishing of bribery and protectionism among them. This seriously undermines people's faith in the possibility of an orderly life in Russian society. The public consciousness is increasingly convinced that the danger posed by modern Russian bureaucracy is not inferior to the scale of a possible social catastrophe and provokes tension and conflicts at all levels of social organization.
So, we can conclude that despite all the differences in the definition of the concept of “bureaucracy,” sociologists are unanimous in one thing: the main attribute of bureaucracy is power, understood as the ability to manage, command people, material and spiritual goods, strictly regulate relations between social institutions and groups, and monopolize information systems, thereby inculcating certain stereotypes of people’s consciousness and behavior.
2. Bureaucracy and the tasks of combating it.
Overcoming bureaucracy is a constant problem and a necessary component of the functioning and development of the social management system and social relations in general. One of the possible ways to overcome bureaucracy is debureaucratization as a real system of measures to overcome it. It involves the use of methods both universal (necessary in any society), and specific (peculiar to specific types of society), as well as situational (relevant for a specific social situation).
Universal methods and priority measures include improving general and especially management culture, introducing competent office work, and using automation tools in management processes. The most important methods of combating bureaucracy are simplifying management procedures, making them visible and accessible to the general population.
Specific ways to overcome bureaucracy include openness and transparency of general decision-making processes, reduction of the state apparatus, freedom of access to information of social significance, increasing the role of public organizations in the management process, implementation of the principle of a multi-party system, etc.
Measures of a situational nature include both those already mentioned and the removal of a number of restrictions on labor and social activities, the development of self-government principles, the implementation of the principle of competition between the programs of leaders, delegates, deputies, the declassification and publication of statistics and other measures to implement fundamental socio-economic and political changes.
The institution of bureaucracy is necessary for the normal functioning of the state. In everyday life, we call administrative staff bureaucrats, and often the use of this word has a negative meaning, as it means red tape and routine. But in political science it is neutral and focuses on the administrative aspect of organizations, that is, that side of relations that is aimed at supporting the formal mechanisms of the activities of organizations. These are people who perform only management functions, ensuring the viability of the organization. Translated from French, “bureaucracy” is the power of the office.
The classical theory of bureaucracy was created by the German political scientist of the early twentieth century, Max Weber. Its essence lies in several points:
The organization must have a clear division of labor and high specialization, which increases the professionalism of workers.
Positions in the organization are arranged according to a hierarchical principle (everyone is responsible to their superiors and has power over their subordinates).
The organization has a special administrative staff of employees at various levels who must ensure its normal functioning.
The actions of individuals are strictly subordinated to instructions and rules, which ensure uniformity of the process and make the work unchanged depending on changes in standards.
Officials must act impartially.
An administrative worker has the right to promotion, a career, and can count on a high salary, benefits and a good pension.
In Marxist literature, the concept of bureaucracy is given a negative meaning; it is divorced from the people, alien to them and the system governing them, which takes care of its own preservation and reproduction. This is a state within a state. For a bureaucrat, a senior official is the highest authority. At the same time, bureaucracy is closely related to democracy; bureaucracy is a companion to the formation of democratic institutions. This was the case in the West, and this is what is happening today in Russia.
If, according to M. Weber, bureaucracy is rational, effective, necessary, he even idealizes it, then the Soviet bureaucracy of a totalitarian society that arose after the death of M. Weber (he died in 1920) is fundamentally different from the “ideal” bureaucracy. Of course, the Soviet bureaucracy did not arise out of nowhere - starting with Ivan the Terrible, the interests of the Russian people were subordinated to the state. To manage a huge empire, a large administrative apparatus was needed, to which the entire country was loyally subordinate. This bureaucratic tradition was not broken by the revolutions of the early twentieth century; on the contrary, an ochlocratic bureaucracy arose, when power becomes an end in itself and the repressive apparatus is strengthened. The new bureaucracy grew out of professional revolutionaries and finally took shape in the era of Stalinism, becoming an administrative-command system. The Soviet bureaucracy was called differently - “new class”, “nomenklatura”. Its main characteristics:
the presence of a core bureaucracy - the party (CPSU);
the party leadership merged with the state (the Soviets were represented by communists);
the power of the bureaucracy was monopoly and was reinforced by the actual ownership of public property and the appropriation of surplus value;
it was a “kakistrocracy” - the rule of the worst, incompetent, only the military-industrial complex absorbed the best personnel and the super-militarized, super-centralized economy was heading towards a crisis in the 80s and 90s.
In Germany and Italy, the totalitarian bureaucracy also dominated, but the economic basis (private property) and slogans (the racial ideology of National Socialism) were different. The “new bureaucrats” were now protected by nomenklatura lists and positions; they were conformist and conciliatory, since if the interests of the clan were violated, they were mercilessly thrown out. The traditional type of domination under totalitarianism merged with the charismatic. This bureaucracy was fundamentally different from Weber’s, since there was no division of labor, professionalism, responsibility, activity within the framework of the law, etc. Bureaucratic traditions are a serious obstacle to transforming Russia's current political system.
