Bureaucracy. Bureaucracy (Bureaucracy) is Bureaucracy in Eastern Europe

What is Bureaucracy

Bureaucracy is a term used to define an organizational or administrative system in which control is entrusted to a hierarchically arranged number of individuals.

What is BUREAUCRACY - meaning, definition in simple words.

In simple words, Bureaucracy is a government or company management system in which there are many different departments responsible for their area of ​​work. At the same time, they all report to their superior immediate managers. To make the concept of bureaucracy easier to understand, we can imagine a step pyramid. At the top is the most important leader. On the steps below are his deputies. Below are their subordinates and so on, right down to the simple ones.

It is not difficult to guess that almost all modern control systems are designed according to this principle. This is especially true for government. Thus, we can say that bureaucracy is the dominant form of administration and management in the world. However, in the modern era, the term "bureaucracy" is increasingly used in a negative context to describe the various complexities and delays that arise when using this confusing and cumbersome system. Quite often in the media and beyond you can hear phrases like:

• “Because of this bureaucracy, I haven’t been able to resolve my issue for a year now;
• — Until this bureaucratic machine moves, an eternity will pass;
• “These bureaucrats just want to pass papers;

In fact, such indignant statements towards the bureaucracy are very fair, especially when the system is oversaturated with a mass of useless formalities. It should also be noted that an overabundance of bureaucratic functions in the state is a good climate for arising when solving certain issues.

Who are BUREUCRATS

Bureaucrats are a general term commonly used to refer to administrative workers working in the field of management. In simple words, bureaucrats are all kinds of officials who can solve certain problems in accordance with their competence. In a negative context, a bureaucrat is usually called a person who is fixated on complying with all paperwork ( and not only) formalities.

Etymology and origin of the term “BUREAUCRACY”

The term "BUREAUCRACY" comes from the merger of the French word " bureau» ( office, office, stationery, department, desk) and Greek " kratos» ( power). Presumably, this term was coined by the French economist Jacques-Claude Marie Vincent at the beginning of the 18th century, but it began to be used globally only in the 20th century after the publications of the German sociologist Max Weber.

Bureaucracy in history.

Although the term "bureaucracy" was coined in the 18th century, this system of government has existed for many thousands of years. The emergence of bureaucracy was marked by the development of writing approximately 4 thousand years ago. The first to use bureaucratic principles were the ancient Sumerians. It was they who began to record information about harvests, trade, etc. on clay tablets.

Ancient Egypt also used government bureaucracy as a form of government. For this purpose, specially trained educated people were used who held government positions and were responsible for certain aspects related to governing the country.

In the Roman Empire, bureaucracy was the main tool for governing various regions. These regions were headed by hierarchical regional proconsuls and deputies.

Pros and cons of bureaucracy.

Advantages of bureaucracy.

The benefits of bureaucracy include the ability to manage a large, complex organization. Rules and regulations can be helpful to ensure stable and systematic operation across all management facilities. The presence of supervisory or higher management bodies allows clients or citizens to file appeals and complaints if they are not satisfied with the work of the lower level.

Disadvantages of bureaucracy.

The bureaucracy is often criticized for being ineffective and very wasteful. Quite often it happens that communication between individual branches of the bureaucratic machine is absent or does not work properly. Because of this, in order to resolve the issue, you need to perform repeated tedious actions, and this all delays the process. Another negative aspect of bureaucracy is that low levels of management are severely limited in their decision-making independence, and everything has to be formally approved by management. So, for example, in order to comply with formalities, you have to wait a long time until the manager simply signs the necessary document ( often without looking at the content).

FINAL ASSESSMENT QUESTIONS 1. General problems of studying the phenomenon of bureaucracy.

BUREAUCRACY is a management system based on a vertical hierarchy and designed to carry out the tasks assigned to it in the most efficient way. “Bureaucracy” is often called not only the management system carried out by special government apparatuses, but also this apparatus itself. The terms "bureaucracy" and "bureaucracy" can also be used in a negative sense to refer to an ineffective, overly formalized system of government.

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.

2. Basic definitions of bureaucracy.

Bureaucracy is a system of management carried out with the help of an apparatus standing above society. The definition of bureaucracy as a system of management carried out with the help of an apparatus separated from the people and standing above them, endowed with specific functions and privileges, and as a layer of people associated with this system, can be used in the performance of pedagogical and propaganda functions.

Bureaucracy is a layer of people associated with a given system. (the social layer that governs)

Bureaucracy is the rationality of the public administration system.

Another definition of the term was proposed by Max Weber. Bureaucracy is one of the types of ideal rational organization, characterized by the efficiency of administrative actions, which is achieved

through the specialization of a qualified management apparatus and the formal division of responsibilities, a hierarchical system of control and subordination of officials, impersonal relationships based on fixed laws and rules that determine decision-making by separating administrative functions from management tools.

In modern sociology, according to M. Crozier, there are three main interpretations of bureaucracy. The first is traditionally identified with the state bureaucracy; the second refers to Weber's concept of rationalization of social activity; the third contributes to its popular understanding as the spread of routine procedures that inhibit development. It is the latter, dysfunctional meaning that Crozier emphasizes.

In the 19th century, the term “bureaucracy” was commonly used to refer to a specific type of political system. It designated a system in which ministerial posts were held by professional officials, usually responsible to a hereditary monarch. Bureaucracy was contrasted with a system of representative government, that is, the rule of elected politicians accountable to the legislative assembly or parliament.

The second use of this concept relates to the sociology of organizations and has its origins in the work of Max Weber. For Weber, bureaucracy did not mean a form of government, but a system of administration carried out on a permanent basis by specially trained professionals in accordance with prescribed rules. Weber pointed out that this type of management, although it originated in bureaucratic states such as Prussia, became increasingly predominant in all political systems and, moreover, in all organizations in which management was carried out on a large scale: in industrial enterprises, in trade unions , in political parties, etc. This very broad concept of bureaucracy as professional management contains a double contrast: first, between management and policy-making, which is the prerogative of the association that uses the bureaucracy and to which the latter is legally subordinate; secondly, between modern management methods and traditional ones, which were not specialized. This concept refers to the sociology of organizations, the task of which is to study the most general characteristics and types of organizations in modern society.

The third use of the term “bureaucracy” is characteristic of the theory of public administration. In this discipline, bureaucracy refers to the management of the public sector as opposed to management in private organizations. The purpose of this contrast is to highlight the differences between these two spheres and to emphasize the qualitatively different nature of the public administration system, including the binding nature of its decisions, its special relationship to the law, concern for public rather than private interests, the accountability of its activities to public control, etc. .d. From the point of view of this discipline, what distinguishes different types of professional management is more significant than what is common between them.

The concept of “bureaucracy” can be viewed from three perspectives:

a) as the concentration of real levers of power in the hands of workers of a specialized apparatus for selfish purposes;

b) as a bureaucratic system of apparatus power and control;

c) as a management style.

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

At the beginning of the 20th century. German sociologist Max Weber developed the concept of rational bureaucracy (Weber M. Theory of social and economic organization. New York, 1964). 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 M. 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 clearly defined 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. Her impersonal character guarantees the absence of favoritism in the selection of personnel, who are appointed in accordance with individual achievements, in the management activity itself, free from the unpredictability of personal connections. Obedience to the rules allows the bureaucracy to conduct a large number of affairs in a uniform manner, while having procedures for changing those rules frees one 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

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 a people, not even a specific person, but 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.

Valery Vitalevich Yanovsky- Candidate of Physical and Mathematical Sciences, Associate Professor, Deputy Dean of the Faculty of State and Municipal Administration of the North-Western Academy of Public Administration, expert at the Elitarium Center for Distance Education

The content of the article

BUREAUCRACY(bureaucracy) (from French. bureau- office and Greek. Kratos– power) is a management system based on a vertical hierarchy and designed to carry out the tasks assigned to it in the most effective way. “Bureaucracy” is often called not only the management system carried out by special government apparatuses, but also this apparatus itself. The terms "bureaucracy" and "bureaucracy" can also be used in a negative sense to refer to an ineffective, overly formalized system of government.

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 virtues 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 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.

Development of bureaucracy in Russia.

A management system in which a career depends on personal professional qualities arose in pre-Petrine Russia. When in the 16th century. In the Moscow state, functionally specialized government bodies, “prikazy”, began to emerge, then the non-noble clerks working in them gradually began to play no less important role than the noble boyars. “Ordered” officials were very different from the ideal Western official outlined by Weber (Table 1). Many of these features were steadily preserved in subsequent centuries.

A new impetus for the development of bureaucracy in Russia was given by the reforms of Peter I, who, based on the experience of Western European countries, sought to replace hereditary boyars with professional officials. The highest bureaucratic bodies were the Senate, which replaced the boyar Duma, and the collegiums, which replaced the previous orders. In an effort to legislatively fix the changes taking place in the administrative apparatus, Peter I signed the General Regulations of Collegiums (1720). This document contained the rules for the functioning of the state apparatus as a bureaucratic organization: it built a hierarchy, establishing the subordination of lower institutions to higher ones, secured the impersonality of relationships through connections between authorities only in writing, established the specialization and responsibilities of all employees. Additional elaboration of the hierarchy principle was carried out through Table of ranks(1722), which established the hierarchy of employees and rules for promotion through the ranks. Finally, in 1763 regular salaries for officials were introduced everywhere.

Although Russia has always been considered a country of bureaucrats, their share in the total population was small (Table 2) - lower than in the developed countries of Western Europe. According to its characteristics, the bureaucracy of Imperial Russia gravitated toward the eastern version: it was controlled by higher officials, but not by society, and was characterized by corruption and low efficiency. In addition, in the Russian bureaucracy, informal relationships often came to the fore, which is why there was a lack of both clear professional specialization and the dependence of an official’s promotion on official competence.

When in everyday life we ​​hear the word bureaucracy, we imagine endless sitting in queues for the sake of obtaining a trifling certificate, red tape and poor unproductive work of authorities that act on orders and orders from above.

We also mean by this concept a group of people in power, designed to complicate our lives in every possible way by nagging, digging through unnecessary papers and circulars. However, it is not bureaucracy as such that is the cause of such troubles, but shortcomings in the implementation of the rules of work of many organizations, a simple human factor, the size of the structure itself, and illiteracy.

Let's take it literally: bureau - desk plus - power. It turns out: the power of the table or position. This type of management, which is based on the selection of officials, is bureaucracy. This is a hierarchy and the subordination of all elements to the central one. With the advent of the state, bureaucracy also appears (ancient eastern despotism).

But back in 1990, Max Weber formulated a definition of bureaucracy, which can be considered as the most useful thing for humanity. The author viewed it as an ideal, as a model with certain standards that must be adhered to:

• clear division of responsibilities of officials;
• hierarchy of power relations;
• systematization of instructions and rules;
• strict control of lower levels by those above;
• the impersonal nature of relationships in bureaucratic education.

However, even Marx in his works noted the formation of a hierarchical bureaucracy (1843).

Time and harsh reality have led to a change in the simple original meaning of this concept. Conflicts between ruling politicians, executives and the lower strata, an increase in the distance between managers and functionaries, centralization, security for the upper echelons - these are the striking features of the bureaucracy.

He is characterized by routine, indifference, and slowness. Separation from the masses leads to a feeling of permissiveness and irresponsibility. It is often used as a lever of terror.

A short historical excursion

The Marxist-Leninists wanted to destroy the bureaucracy. The widespread involvement of the people in governance, the awakening of the activity of the masses - these are the factors that should have contributed to this, and the revolution should have broken the old power machine. But the distortion of ideals and goals led to the creation of an administrative-command system in the USSR.

The people were practically removed from participation by the emerging bureaucracy. Signs of oppression and terror indicate a bureaucratic regime. The totalitarian system that developed in the union did not imply the protection of human rights, like any bureaucracy. There is an alienation of power.

In Western Europe, management practices show the features of Weber's bureaucracy. This is classic bureaucracy. Not a single state-organized society can exist without bureaucrats. These are professional managers who do not create any value themselves. Their purpose is to manage government affairs and perform socially useful functions. Such workers rarely use their professional knowledge. Their goal is management competence.

The advantages of such a hardware bureaucracy:

• stability in management - distribution of types of work;
• standardization (reduces the possibility of errors);
• timely training of employees;
• formalization, centralization.

Flaws:

• bureaucracy as such;
• weak motivation;
• poor use of human resources;
• inflexibility in critical situations, the possibility of inadequate decisions.

This type of bureaucracy can be applied in organizations with a stable structure and external environment.

Bureaucracy develops and changes. Using new approaches to achieve goals, modern management systems, focusing on human and ethical principles, developed democratic states have an acceptable system of bureaucracy. Finding a balance in the administration between the professional and political sides produces optimal results.

When faced with the manifestation of bureaucracy in everyday life, we observe its “everyday” reflection. We blame the state and officials for this. Whereas the concept of “bureaucracy” is much broader and deeper. It includes not only negative aspects. Without bureaucrats (in the good sense of the word) it turns out to be difficult to live, lead and simply move forward.