Week 36: Balancing Bureaucracy

If a bureaucracy is needed, make it a good one.

"One of the enduring truths of the nation's capital is that bureaucrats survive." 
          - Gerald Ford

Photo by Viktor Talashuk on Unsplash

Bureaucracy is often regarded as a necessary but cumbersome element within organizations. It provides structure, ensures compliance with policies, and helps maintain consistency in operations. However, it can also create bottlenecks, frustrate innovation, and diminish responsiveness to customer needs. For supporters within a company, those who aid leaders in achieving organizational goals, navigating bureaucracy can be challenging. This article explores how supporters can balance bureaucracy effectively, utilize it to their advantage, and create structures that not only benefit the organization but also provide value to customers.

I don’t think you can escape bureaucracies. They develop through human culture and interaction. As Weber states they are, “the most efficient instrument of large-scale administration which has ever been developed and the modern social order in many different spheres has become overwhelmingly dependent upon it” (Weber, 1947). The question is whether they are an organizational good, or is there some better construct to administer your business? 

If bureaucracies were bad, we wouldn’t have them. Why would employees or customers allow them to form? Typical research shows that people label bad rules and good rules, but the identification of those rules in either category is as complicated as humans (Adler, P. S., & Borys, B.. 1996). However, Adler and Borys theorize that cultures can develop rules in a bureaucracy that are enabling versus coercive. We, over time, and through market development determine what structures make sense, and what structures do not help the organization.

Bureaucracy, especially enabling bureaucratic order, develops from these best practices. We can either accept those requirements or fight them. Each option yields its benefits and struggles in a supporter's day-to-day interactions inside and outside the organization. I hope that after reading this article, you can navigate either good or bad bureaucracy and for our premium members, let’s establish some bureaucratic rules that are beneficial to our organizations. Enabling our customers to repeat business. 

Sources for this Article:

1. Adler, P. S., & Borys, B. (1996). Two types of bureaucracy: Enabling and coercive. Administrative Science Quarterly, 41(1), 61-89.

2. Crozier, M. (1964). The bureaucratic phenomenon. University of Chicago Press.

3. Damanpour, F. (1991). Organizational innovation: A meta-analysis of effects of determinants and moderators. Academy of Management Journal, 34(3), 555-590.

4. Mintzberg, H. (1979). The structuring of organizations: A synthesis of the research. Prentice-Hall.

5. Olsen, J. P. (2006). Maybe it is time to rediscover bureaucracy. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 16(1), 1-24.

6. Rockman, B. (2024). Bureaucracy. Encyclopedia Britannica. https://www.britannica.com/topic/bureaucracy. 

7. Weber, M. (1947). The theory of social and economic organization. Oxford University Press.

Navigating Bureaucracy.

The first step in successfully balancing bureaucracy is understanding its functions and purposes. Bureaucracy is typically characterized by formalized rules, hierarchical structures, and detailed procedures. These elements are meant to create order and consistency in large organizations (Weber, 1947). Supporters must recognize that while bureaucracy can be slow and rigid, it is designed to protect the organization from risk, ensure fairness, and provide clarity. Knowing the "why" behind bureaucratic systems can help supporters navigate them more effectively.

I have not seen an organization with as much bureaucracy as a government agency. I believe our encounters with these agencies become the benchmark of giving bureaucracies a bad name. It is easy to think that a government employee is making you jump through hoops just because they can, but many of those hoops were created by law or regulation. I have run into instances where an employee or even myself had to operate in such a bureaucratic way based on those rules that specifically said it was required. Many times, in my frustrations, I would find myself online or in a library looking up that law just to understand the process.

Other times, it was because agencies believed that their way was the best practice. It takes practice to calmly request an explanation so we can understand. Supporters should be on a mission to learn why. Simply ask the employee to walk you through the process or help me understand. I have found that most of the time, the reason was obligated, or the employee was ordered to do it. Supporters can also learn a lot of how to accomplish the task and there is no benefit to arguing with that person directly.

The best practice is to work in the system and become an expert on the process. Not only will you accomplish the task, you can teach others to accomplish similar tasks. You become the asset that everyone looks to for assistance. The more you do this, the more organizational expertise you develop in bureaucracies. If you have established yourself as a competent member of the bureaucracy, complaints about a coercive bureaucracy have a higher chance of being considered unbiased and thought of as a rational supporter of future change. People will listen because you are no longer just arguing against the system, you are a team player.

This allows you to build relationships with those in the bureaucracy. You are working within “jurisdictional competency” at its core which means these people know from years of experience (Rockman, 2024). Of course, people can get complacent, but you will never know until you take the time to develop that relationship. Good bureaucracies form from people who know what right looks like and can help you understand what is right if you ask them.

Supporters who build strong relationships with key individuals within bureaucratic structures can more easily navigate through potential roadblocks. These individuals, often gatekeepers or administrators, can guide how to streamline processes or expedite approvals. Developing rapport with these influencers also allows supporters to gain access to resources and information that might otherwise be difficult to obtain. Effective communication and diplomacy skills are essential in building such relationships and in easing the flow of work within bureaucratic frameworks.

Have you ever been on the negative side of a bureaucrat? Someone you are not getting along with and has now blocked your acceptance or processing. It is never a good day when you have to return to your boss and tell them you cannot accomplish the assigned tasks because you angered a bureaucrat. Whether it was your fault or not. The lesson I learned was that when my boss called and showed respect while building a relationship, they got what I couldn’t get done with ease.

You build a relationship with a bureaucrat, especially when contact is limited to over the phone, by treating them as a human. This takes the skill of staying calm, focused, and professional. Anger is the killer of dealing with a bureaucrat on the other end of the phone. Keeping a level head, and talking to them as if they were important, a person, and worth conversing with will provide you with the open door to learn how to navigate that specific bureaucracy.

It’s because navigating bureaucracy requires patience and persistence. Often, bureaucracy involves waiting for approvals, dealing with multiple layers of oversight, or adhering to standardized procedures that may seem unnecessary. Supporters must be prepared for these delays and remain persistent in pursuing their goals. Keeping documentation organized, following up on requests, and maintaining a positive attitude can help mitigate some of the frustrations associated with bureaucracy.

“The ability to utilize standard operating procedures makes organizations more efficient by decreasing the costs attached to any given transaction” (Rockman, 2024). Again, there are processes to change those procedures, and fighting them during your mission may place you in the gatekeeper scenario I mentioned above. Fighting a procedure will take time, money, and possibly clout. Navigating a procedure, especially when you know why it is that way and who is the person managing it, can streamline your requirements.

Standard procedures of a bureaucracy offer the advantage of clarity. Clear procedures and policies outline expectations and roles within the organization. Supporters can use this to their advantage by aligning their actions with established procedures, making it easier to gain approvals or justify decisions. By thoroughly understanding the organization's rules and policies, supporters can act within these guidelines while still advocating for innovation and change (Adler & Borys, 1996).

A great example of strict adherence to bureaucratic rules and procedures is airplane checklists. How would you like it if a pilot jumped on the speaker and said before take-off, ‘Well we aren’t sure we are fully ready, but we are going to taxi anyway. So please take your seats.” Airplane carriers and professionals have spent years developing a simple checklist to ensure that everything is ready. This is done before loading, before starting engines, before taxi, and even before take off. They also have a checklist once they land to make sure the plane is good for the next flight. Bureaucracies created this procedure and it saves lives on every flight. 

The level of detail in a bureaucratic procedure allows for professionalism and quality control. Detailed procedures allow employees to stay on task and have guidance on how to address issues. When you call technical support at Google, they can search for symptoms of your problems to find solutions that help you faster. Also, like other organizations, I am sure you have all heard the statement ‘This call is monitored for quality assurance.’ Each of these customer service bureaucracies aids in controlling the organization with best practices. It would be far worse to allow techs to just wing it. The consistency provided by bureaucracy also allows supporters to build routines that enhance productivity and ensure that tasks are completed within the established guidelines (Olsen, 2006).

Bureaucracy ensures that individuals within an organization are held accountable for their actions. Supporters can utilize this feature by ensuring that their contributions are well-documented and compliant with organizational policies. This documentation can serve as evidence of their efforts, making it easier to demonstrate their value and accomplishments during performance evaluations or when seeking promotions. What Weber called the “division of labor” meaning employees know to work within their skills and know where their work ends (Weber, 1947).

Supporters can also use their understanding of bureaucracy to advocate for streamlined processes. This might involve identifying redundant steps or inefficiencies in current procedures and proposing alternatives that maintain compliance while enhancing efficiency. By presenting well-reasoned solutions to streamline bureaucratic functions, supporters can improve overall operations while demonstrating their value to the organization. For example, suggesting the automation of routine approvals or digitizing certain processes could help reduce bureaucratic delays (Mintzberg, 1979).

We all know how a bureaucracy can inhibit actions and impede operations. But when you know what you are doing inside a bureaucracy, in many ways it can reinforce your point of view and enforce the changes you need. When a supporter is working in the system, whether that system is efficient or not, it can prove invaluable to getting things done. Learning the intricacies, knowing who to address, and becoming that expert might make accomplishing tasks faster. Especially when you can help your leaders build a bureaucracy that is efficient, enabling, and beneficial.

I was held back from promotion during my military career because of a toxic leader. The weight of government bureaucracy came crashing down on my head. I thought for many years that my career was complete, even almost forced to retire. I spent four years discussing with lawyers, experts, and friends who were in the same position on what to do next (more of this story for premium members)