Bureaucratic system perfectly fits in an unpretentious, legalistic, and rigid social order. It is irreconcilable with intricate, self-motivated, and idiosyncratic societies (Pershing & Austin, 2014). Bureaucratic system is predicted to be substituted by the age of innovativeness, and non-lawful, lenient means of power. Bureaucracy and democracy point toward standards for positioning authority and control that empower and compel actors in a different way, and it is ordinary to interpret bureaucracy as a practical inevitability for and hazard to democracy (Pershing & Austin, 2014).
The challenges and tensions linked to bureaucracy sequentially lead to the appearance of struggles in the interior of the organizations because of deficiency of regulation. The disproportionate control and inflexible conformity to recognized guidelines are inappropriate for resolving problems in unanticipated conditions (Pershing & Austin, 2014). The strictness in the functioning process of organizational systems similarly generates unused resources using replication of responsibilities in diverse departments and misused prospects (Pershing & Austin, 2014).
It makes trivial errands and events intricate, and it ultimately lacks the anticipated objectives. One of the key challenges of bureaucracy is that the organization has a discrete hierarchy outlining the roles of each person within the organization (Pershing & Austin, 2014). Moreover, there is a rigorous partition of labor which follows the pre-established strict instructions. These roles are set, restricted, and superintended by a senior individual. Habitually bureaucracy utilizes the regulations of the state, copes with the dull administration of management processes, and designs the guidelines that outline the daily enactment of laws (Pershing & Austin, 2014).
Mary Parker Follett’s work changed the way we reflect on the organization theory today for the reason that she claimed numerous ideas concerning an effective democratic process (Pershing & Austin, 2014). She also dwelled on the pillars of social interaction and developed an idea that the persons who make up the society are not secluded and completely independent but are shaped by societal collaboration and social procedures. Being more specific, the innovation that Follet brings perceives democracy as a communally developing singularity instead of a form of a modernized range of representation (Pershing & Austin, 2014). Follett’s work implies that organizations could be seen as public arrangements of persons and small groups of persons. Taking this into consideration, the social procedures she elaborated and supported could subsidize to the administration’s capability to let the entities and the consequent clusters grow exponentially (Pershing & Austin, 2014).
I believe that Follett’s ideas were not well acknowledged at the time. Follett’s intelligence was ahead of her time. Nonetheless, it was instituted on the principle of communal, evolutionary advancement which, from the current retrospective viewpoint, is blemished by the progression of succeeding history. Follett survived through historic times when societal and industrial change looked as if made a new organization unavoidable. Even so, one should not underestimate the fact that the devastation instigated by the First World War similarly appeared to command the robust need for a strongminded exertion to form a social structure that would not collapse so catastrophically.
In the 1900s women’s authorized standing was essentially ruled by their matrimonial standing. The theoretical labor done by Follett not only highlighted engagement, public, and contribution, but it also established the early impacts of women on the concept and practical implementations of public administration (Pershing & Austin, 2014). Throughout the early 1900s, the role of women in terms of organization theory was not as commonly recognized by the majority of society. Follett and other women in the field should be credited for inducing communal and structural reorganization in ways that were progressive and foreseeing.
Reference
Pershing, S., & Austin, E. (2014). Organization Theory and Governance for the 21st Century. New York, NY: SAGE Publications.