November 1969 — VOL. 50, No. 11 — Bureaucracy
Download PDF version
Bureaucracy has been made into
a new variety of sin in many people's minds, but bureaucrats
doing their jobs conscientiously are on the side of all good
men and true. Bureaucracy is a way of doing business, a way
without which we could not carry on today's complex affairs.
The word has been degraded in everyday talk until it raises,
subconsciously, a spirit of anti-official jocularity. You
put a cent into the automatic machine of public opinion under
the label "bureaucracy", press the button, and a sneer comes
out accompanied by a picture of the fussy, briefcase-carrying
incompetent whom we read about in nineteenth-century novels.
A judicious view is made difficult by the fact that while
one sector of voters is as frightened by the word as are some
zealous people who see sin in everything they don't like,
others are fascinated by the plan to transform the whole world
into a bureau, wiping out the individual and looking after
mass welfare through computers.
As in most features of life, there is much to be said for
and against the system of bureaucracy. The good that is in
bureaucracy should not suffer by the faults of some of those
who administer it, and irresponsible attacks upon public servants,
workers in industry, and people who serve in social and cultural
and community activities, are a luxury that no democracy can
afford.
Those who speak and write against bureaucracy are in reality
criticizing the system of government and business, and the
bureaucrat is merely the handy scapegoat.
People of all ages are bewildered by the rapidly-changing
world. Fifty years ago things seemed to be stable, with a
dominant humanity cared for by the natural laws of evolution.
Science and technology have diminished man's status so that
he sees himself as only an atom on a small fragment of star-dust.
He resents anything which seems to make him even less significant.
What is bureaucracy ?
When we strip the word down to its meaning we find that
bureaucracy in government is a system centralized in a graded
series of officials who administer the laws and regulations
passed along to them by the elected representatives of the
people. Bureaucracy in business means organization by departments
for the more efficient performance of operations.
Neither government nor business can be carried on without
bureaucrats. They are the people who realize in practice the
government's policies and the plans of business.
The civil servant knows intimately a labyrinth of rules,
processes, and procedures with which there is no reason for
the man-in-the-street to be acquainted. The civil servant
is there to act as guide through the maze. Ideally, he protects
the citizen against despotic arbitrariness.
This system is not, as some people think, an outgrowth of
too much democracy. Nowhere do bureaucrats flourish so luxuriantly
as under an autocratic régime where they are treated
with contemptuous patronage by their superiors and find compensation
only in plaguing the life out of the public. When the siege
of Troy was making history and laying the foundation of sagas
three thousand years ago there were civil servants scratching
on their clay tablets the assessments of taxation and issuing
orders to pay.
Today, the ministers of the crown have collective political
responsibility for major lines of policy and for the administrative
acts of thousands of civil servants of whose very existence
they may be but dimly aware. The leaders are exposed to public
criticism and to the attacks of the opposition, but the bureaucracy
is withdrawn from these commotions. It is the civil servants
who have the expertise, the mastery of the techniques, by
which the purposes of the government are carried out.
How completely the cabinet ministers depend upon the dutiful
discharge of functions by civil servants may be seen by comparing
their position with that of top executives in business. No
board of directors of an industry has to meet a committee
of shareholders every afternoon and submit to questioning
on their conduct of the business. No chairman of the board
has his reputation so largely in the hands of his staff as
has the cabinet minister, who knows that if the staff lets
him down there is a shadow cabinet in the wings ready to seize
power.
This importance of the work he does may give the bureaucrat
an exaggerated view of his function, and stimulate him to
promote his particular department to the disadvantage of the
system as a whole. He may canalize administration into a set
of hard-and-fast methods without consideration of the work
of other departments or of the big picture to which they all
contribute. In doing so he fits himself into the disapproved
class of office-holder.
Bureaucracy in business
Bureaucracy tries to replace with order and system the sometimes
startling untidiness that marks much business.
Every large-scale business organization has its bureaucracy,
in the legitimate sense of the word. It is an essential ingredient
of everyday operations. It is simply the application of the
principles_of specialization and division of labour to clerical
and administrative work.
Where there is an office there is a bureau, and where there
is a bureau there is a bureaucracy. The work of individuals
with varied knowledge and skills is put together so as to
build an efficient team. Effective organization provides a
means for assigning authority, for distributing responsibility,
for communicating between the experts in various activities,
and for assuring a chain of accountability.
In a simpler world business was simpler. There was a boss
to whom everyone reported, a boss who was everywhere, looking
into everything. In large scale business the extent, complexities
and speed of operation have made impossible that old system
of management. No one man can direct effectively in detail
a dozen or a hundred sectors of a firm's activities.
As business expands, executives find it necessary to delegate
more and more decision-making authority to subordinates, and
they in turn delegate responsibility down the line. The senior
officials, like the cabinet ministers, cannot possibly supervise,
or even know, all of the activities being carried out by departments
and branches. Both executives and ministers are, however,
alert to detect bureaucratic inertia, to check the inclination
of some men to magnify the sanctity of their particular jobs,
and to put a stop to attitudes of arrogance toward staff and
the public.
One danger is that of over-organization, a state that leads
to strangulation of enterprise. Business leaders do not trust
organization for its own sake, but for what it accomplishes.
If fragmentation of the business results when responsibility
is delegated to departments it may be because communication
and co-operation are not functioning.
The chain of command is important. The man at the top wants
something done: he refers it to the appropriate executive
or manager: it passes to the person most qualified by education,
training and experience to deal with it in detail. Every person
involved must depend upon the man above to give clear directions
and the man below to carry out the task efficiently. Within
this chain, every man, whatever his position, should be in
close consultation with the man above and below.
Nothing can be more important than co-operation between
heads of autonomous departments. In government and in business,
efficiency and courtesy require that no decisions affecting
another department be taken without the concurrence of the
head of that department. Harmony is not a dead thing, like
a stopped engine. It involves things and people moving together
to accomplish something. An integrated bureaucracy is tied
together by communication. Units working in isolation are
wasteful and ineffective.
Criticism of bureaucracy
Thoughtless criticism is one of the most serious occupational
hazards faced by those who serve the public. A whole body
should not be indicted because of the malfunctioning of one
part of it.
What are the charges against bureaucracy? That it is too
mechanical, that it goes too much by the rule book, that it
is neglectful of people as human beings, that it is inflexible
and bullying. These are not charges which go to the heart
of the system, but are criticisms of how the system is carried
out by certain people.
There are people in office who claim supreme authority in
all matters merely because government is supreme or their
business complex is so powerful. It may be that such people
try to cover their personal deficiencies by arrogance. The
self-sure among them are as dogmatic as time-tables, brooking
no criticism. These are personal defects, not part of the
system.
Bureaucracy hurts itself most when it becomes ingrown, when
it becomes its own adviser, actor, approver, and justifier.
Some sectors seal themselves off from the outside world to
brood in their own cloisters amid loyalties and group agreements,
shielded from the disturbances of the spacious world.
Bureaucracy hurts itself, too, when it claims that its people
are a special sort of first among equals; when it defines
its humility by saying: "I do not think myself half so important
as I really am."
It is tempting to even the smallest functionary in business
or government service to clothe himself with the importance
attaching to the system he helps to administer, seeking to
impress on those who need its services the sense of their
dependence upon the agent who renders them. Such people remind
us of the sergeant-at-arms in T. H. White's story of The
Once and Future King, which became the basis for the movie
"Camelot". He took great pains to keep his stomach in, and
often tripped over his feet because he could not see them
over his chest.
Bureaucrats are subject to the infirmities of all mankind.
As King Arthur is reported to have said: "A knight with a
silver suit of armour would immediately call himself a have-not
if he met a knight with a golden one."
Status-seeking is legitimate in the public service or in
business so long as its pursuit does not take the place of
effective work. The status-seeker is operating within the
symbol system of his culture, and is using recognized symbols
to demonstrate that he has qualities that are valued by his
fellow men.
A few develop a superiority feeling arising from their heightened
status, demanding prestige, precedence and prerogatives, and
become unbearably self-conceited and bumptious. These bring
about distaste for all bureaucrats. They are insensitive to
their public responsibilities, and engrossed with their own
pursuits. They follow the line taken by one of Shakespeare's
characters: "Were I anything else but what I am I would wish
me only me as I am."
No man in business or government will offend so long as
he cares more about the substance of his job than about its
trappings. He is more concerned with using his mind in the
discharge of his duties in an efficient and honourable manner
than with embellishing the façade of his position.
Absolutism and red tape
A vital criticism of bureaucracy is its inclination to absolutism,
its disinclination to discuss or listen to different opinions,
its illusion of final authority. Power that is inherent in
authority requires discretion in its use. Prince Philip said
to a conference on the human problems of industrial communities:
"Just once in a while put yourself into the position of being
pushed around and see how you like it."
Authority used for the sake of lording it over fellow-creatures
or adding to personal pomp is rightly judged base, and such
tyranny degrades those who use it.
A less valid criticism says that bureaucracy is a system
in which a worker's personal abilities are seldom put to serious
test because every action and reaction are anticipated and
laid down in the books. Rules are necessary to assure order
in everything from issuing a passport to awarding a million
dollar contract, from protecting individuals from exploitation
to administering the country's armed forces. But rules do
not provide a formula to apply to every situation.
The letter of the regulations must not be allowed to replace
the spirit of the law. A static, well-regulated system may
look neat and tidy and provide pretty graphs, but it does
not solve problems associated with human nature. A classic
example was the case of the First World War holder of the
Victoria Cross who was discharged from the Second World War
Home Guard in Manchester because his Russian parents had never
been naturalized, and therefore he was ineligible under the
regulations.
Or consider the case of the Montreal bus conductor who charged
a fare for a mouse. Ten-year-old Judith said he demanded a
fare of eight cents for her pet mouse George, who measures
3 1/2 inches from nose to tail. A bus company official commented:
"He must have misinterpreted the regulations."
Red tape is the particular aversion of some critics of bureaucracy.
It was Dickens who made this synonymous with the inefficiency
and stupidity of fussy and short-sighted officials. The use
of red tape is not confined to government officials, but may
flourish in any organization that has authority over human
activities.
The compiling of facts and figures is necessary if the business
of the country is to assess and project itself successfully.
The "red tape" that is objected to is symbolized by an incident
on the day of the allied landings in Normandy. A landing-craft
was destroyed and its fighting men were thrown into the sea.
Fifty of them were picked up by another landing-craft which
had put its tanks ashore. The skipper had orders to return
directly to England, and he refused to run in to the beach
to disembark these fifty fighting men.
About routine
A certain amount of office routine is necessary for the
functioning of any administrative system. How far it gets
ossified and develops the ills possible in bureaucracy depends
upon the vigilance of the leadership.
It is necessary to re-examine all routinely performed tasks
from time to time, no matter how well they seem to be functioning,
to see whether some should not be discontinued or modified
to fit current requirements. This does not call necessarily
for intervention at floor level, but for the creation of a
climate.
A meticulous regard for system and routine may provide safety
for those who fear that new ways might be too much for them,
but it does not contribute to the exploration and development
needed in a business venture. The danger is that the chief
activities of everyone will become the compiling of reports
and reading intra-office memoranda. Commenting on the rising
tide of paperwork, Sir Halford Reddish quipped: "We used to
quote rabbits as the typical example of fertility. I am not
so sure that forms do not breed even faster than rabbits."
As a consequence of absorption in shuffling paper, men and
women with the capacity to originate and develop find themselves
buried deeper and deeper under forms, reports and charts.
This has a stultifying influence, one that makes men unable
to cope with the unexpected and unpredictable. An organization
may be functioning at only fifty per cent efficiency because
of the dead weight of routine that holds workers back from
becoming innovators.
It takes courage and energy to take people out of grooves.
One way to cure or avoid stagnation would be to start deliberately
to install mavericks and needlers and askers of questions
in the ranks of departments.
Updating bureaucracy
If one is a bureaucrat the thing to do is to avoid developing
the unpleasant and inefficient traits. It is part of the bureaucrat's
business to have an orderly mind, but this orderliness must
not be allowed to become the chief aim of life.
When a bureaucrat exercises spontaneity in his dealings
with people, and develops the instinct for realizing what
people are thinking, he becomes not only a more effective
worker but a happier worker: he gets more enjoyment out of
life.
Whatever mystical practices go into the birth and development
of an idea or plan, it must be brought within the understanding
of those who will be affected by it.
The cult of secrecy has been growing. Some bureaucratic
officers regard themselves as belonging to an exclusively
intellectual body, lock themselves in their ivory towers,
never let their precious documents be seen on the pretext
that they are too secret, and carefully file them away in
a safe. The public wants to know the "why" as well as the
"what" of a situation, in understandable terms.
Some formulas drawn up by systems people in conference rooms
may have important advantages within the bureaucratic walls
but are not adapted to the practical needs of daily life on
the outside. Take, for example, the metric system of measurement.
It took imagination and flair to decide upon the metre as
being a ten-millionth part of the distance from the pole to
the equator, but it was found more convenient to scratch two
marks on a platinum rod for practical application.
Properly to exercise authority requires that a man know
his job, know its purpose, and give respect to those with
whom he deals. He needs broad views, so as to perceive the
best ends to be sought and the best means to those ends; to
distinguish between what is effective and what is ineffective
and between what is important and what is unimportant. Even
if he be a top-ranking specialist he cannot function effectively
if all he brings to the desk is his specialty.
Dealing with the public
The ideal bureaucrat who has dealings with people will be
as alert to serve the interests of his most humble client
as he is to uphold the government's or his firm's interest.
He cannot excuse himself from this by saying that the procedure
which irritates the client will simplify book-keeping or make
things tidier.
A deep-rooted respect for the individual is an essential
part of the democratic system, setting democracy apart from
totalitarianism. Each citizen is a very special case. No two
have jobs, families, memberships, hobbies, interests, and
problems that are exactly identical. "The greatest insult
you can offer to the human race," said Francis Neilson in
The Cultural Tradition, "is to regard it as a herd
of cattle to be driven to your selected pasture."
It is, then, vitally important to see that as government
and business increasingly affect the lives of people there
should be a corresponding increase in the care that is taken
to make the intrusion as acceptable as possible. People have
the right to expect that their affairs will be dealt with
efficiently and expeditiously and that their personal feelings
will be sympathetically and fairly considered.
This responsiveness of those in places of authority to the
individuality of those with whom they deal is increasingly
necessary in days of technological dominance. The man behind
the counter or the desk needs to lend a willing ear, using
tact and good humour, to the needs, complaints and importunities
of impatient people. The iron hand needs a velvet glove.
The replacement of book-orientated dictatorial service by
a more person-directed service will not affect material efficiency
adversely, and it will make life more satisfying for both
its giver and receiver. The man behind the counter can raise
his own status in his own mind, and in the mind of the person
he serves, if he gives not only what is expected but something
better than the client thought he wanted.
Utter objectivity is a correct and fruitful aim in science,
but it is an inhuman attitude not to be adopted in dealing
with people. In a democracy such as Canada the rules must
be flexed within reason to fit individual cases. Obstinacy
in holding to a ruling in the face of contrary facts turns
a man into a nuisance.
The other side
It is possible that much of the reaction of the bureaucrat
is sparked by the negative or hostile approach made to him.
Perhaps much that is objected to as being "bureaucratic" is
in the mind of the beholder.
One simple and generous thought will help the man in the
street in his dealing with bureaucrats. Remember that this
is the first time you have tripped over this problem, and
it irritates you, but for the man to whom you turn for help
it is the hundredth time the same question has been asked.
He will answer you efficiently, according to his knowledge
and experience, but do not ask that in addition he console
you. If he is slow to do what you want, do not write him off
as being stupid or obstructive. He may be waiting until he
digests all the evidence before giving his opinion.
For their very existence both government and business demand
this sort of deliberative approach to problems. Certain restraints
and restrictions are not only necessary; they are inevitable;
and, despite the endless jibes thrown their way, they are
desirable when the broad view is taken.
The thing to do is to view the contacts between bureaucrats
and the public from both sides, and for both parties to make
the effort necessary to make the contacts as pleasurable as
possible.
Published by RBC Financial Group. All editions from the RBC
Letter collection are available on our web site at www.rbc.com/responsibility/letter.
Our e-mail address is: rbcletter@rbc.com.
Publié aussi en francais.
[ Return to RBC Letter
home page ]
|
