Bureaucratic dysfunctions: A theoretical overview

As defined by Max Weber, bureaucracy is generally characterised by the following features: (a) specialisation; (b) rationality; (c) professionalism; (d) impersonal authority; (e) autonomy; (f) stability. However, the same organisational and management techniques that make a bureaucratic organisation potentially superior than leader-centric or traditional ones may be applied in ways contrary to organisational efficiency and goal attainment. This may result in bureaucratic dysfunctions as is observed all over the world.
Dysfunction may be broadly defined as neutral and negative organisational behaviour obstructing accomplishment of organisational goals. These bureaucratic dysfunctions include: (a) avoiding responsibility; (b) spreading responsibility; (c) Hoarding authority; (d) delaying decisions; (e) formalism and ritualism; (f) bureaucratic sabotage; (g) stalemate; (h) bureaucratic incompetence. These are elaborated below, as they have significant implications for emerging and developing economies.
AVOIDING RESPONSIBILITY: Responsibility can often be avoided in bureaucratic organisations by applying bureaucratic techniques originally designed to produce and promote efficiency. The letters of rules, regulations and procedures rather than their spirit or intent may be used as the basis for decision-making. This may lead to the phenomena of bureaucratic 'red tape' and 'run around'. The right of appeal may be denied by the minor officials by citing rules and regulations. Claims like 'but the rules say this, and can't do anything about it' may become common. The slogan 'don't stick out your neck' may become the operating philosophy across the management hierarchy. Responsibility at various levels can be avoided by 'passing the buck' to the lower or higher authorities, or by applying the 'Ostrich syndrome' -  where the bureaucrat refuses to face a problem by keeping a lid on it, as well as through 'climbing' - where a bureaucrat knows that he can buy time by ignoring problems.
SPREADING RESPONSIBILITY: The need for expert opinion from many sources leads to 'the bureaucratic process of 'conference, consultation and compromise'. It often leads to formation of committees and sub-committees. But responsibility assigned to a committee is impersonal, as each member feels that he can hide behind this impersonal entity because decisions are usually reached through compromise. The use of committees in bureaucracy acts as a means of spreading responsibility, often touching a point where no effective responsibility exists, and poor performance becomes a natural outcome.
HOARDING AUTHORITY: Hoarding authority by a bureaucrat entails holding on to as much authority as possible by using his position in the hierarchy. This kind of bureaucrat typically views himself as an infallible decision-maker and is often contemptuous about the decision-making ability of others including the subordinates. It mainly occurs through 'filling the gap' and 'empire building'. Filling the gap takes place when there is a void in the decision-making hierarchy; the gap-filler recognises the void and is convinced that he is capable of filling it. But realising his vulnerability, he may refuse to delegate authority and responsibility. Because of his emphasis on doing everything himself, he may become an organisational bottleneck and the organization may suffer in the long run. On the other hand, the 'empire-builder' highly values the status, power and pay emanating from a substantive position. Ways of increasing his status, power and position may include enlarging his office, getting promoted and adding more people, space and physical facilities to office.
DELAYING DECISIONS: Modern public and private sector organisations are highly interdependent. Especially, the business organisations put a high premium on timely decisions. It is also axiomatic that a bad decision made on time may be better than a good decision made too late. This is because bad decision can often be reversed at low cost, while the time lost in waiting for a good decision can never be regained. But complexities in the decision-making process of bureaucracy make it very difficult to get quick decisions, as a consequence of which the clientele-public and private sector customers suffer.
FORMALISM AND RITUALISM: Reliability and conformity of behaviour are highly valued in bureaucracy. As pointed out by Merton, when a bureaucracy sticks to formalised rules, regulations and procedures for a long time, the eventual result is that the rules become more important than achievement of organisational goals. Adherence to rules becomes a value and the bureaucrat no longer sees rules merely as means to achieve ends. It leads to formalism, ritualism, technicalism and red tape. As a consequence, the bureaucratic virtuoso, who never forgets a single rule, takes shape alongside petty insistence on privileges of power and position.
BUREAUCRATIC SABOTAGE: Bureaucratic sabotage occurs within the framework of established rules and regulations. Its most common form is observed in the sabotage of a superior by his subordinates. The subordinate may either withhold necessary information or may flood the supervisor with so much information that they become useless for practical purposes. Another means of bureaucratic sabotage may be formation of an alliance between the subordinate and the supervisor's boss, which makes it very difficult for the supervisor to direct or control his subordinate. There is need for simultaneous existence of authority and responsibility, and responsibility cannot be discharged without concomitant authority.
STALEMATE: A stalemate may emerge among bureaucratic departments when it is easier or convenient for them to do nothing instead of taking steps for advancing organisational tasks. Such undesirable stalemates often tend to make the bureaucratic organisations obsolete or irrelevant - incapable of adapting fast enough to the changing demands and circumstance. Stalemates have a severely detrimental effect on the productivity of public sector organisations.  
BUREAUCRATIC INCOMPETENCE: The bureaucracy may also develop into a kind of closed society where the loyal and faithful officials are promoted irrespective of their performance. These officials, in turn, promote other loyal and faithful subjects. But bureaucracy is so structured, and policies, plans, rules or procedures are so complete, particularly in the middle and lower levels, that incompetence can be hidden easily. Incompetence can also proliferate due to favouritism or nepotism in promotions and postings, especially at the upper echelons.
In conclusion, it can be observed that although bureaucracies may have the capacity to bring order and rationality into an organisation, individuals working in them do not always behave in ways that would maximise the achievement of organisational objectives or goals. Persons acting for their own personal benefits may often perform in a dysfunctional manner in relation to organisational goals, outputs and outcomes. As a result, the very tools - inputs and processes that were originally designed to promote organisational efficiency, effectiveness, outputs and outcomes can be twisted to reduce or hinder organisational performance.

Dr. Helal Uddin Ahmed is a senior civil servant and former editor of Bangladesh Quarterly.  [email protected]