A Student’s Take on Bureaucracies with Realistic Solutions

Every task in our daily lives relies on an impersonal system of formalities and procedures designed and enforced by massive groups of people with or without their approval of the system. It both allows us access to every service and possession we require, while forcing massive amounts of people to conform to a rigid set of rules that may harm many individuals within that group. Governments, legal systems, and cooperations all are structured by a strict system. We call these systems bureaucracies, and while we seem to need them, there is a seemingly inescapable dehumanizing quality about them, which gives them a power greater than the sum of their parts.

German political sociologist Maximilian Weber identified bureaucracies as possessing six characteristics. They are “a type of secondary group designed to perform tasks efficiently, characterized by specialization, technical competence, hierarchy, written rules, impersonality, and formal written communication”(Ferris, Kerry and Stein 2008:157) In other words, members with various jobs are assigned to specific tasks within a hierarchical system. Members with a higher rank monitor subordinate activities. Individual needs and problems are de-emphasized and the predictable, systematic running of the organization according to pre-established rules are given president. Sometimes these rules are upheld so systematically that even in times when the bureaucracy does not perform its intended function while following them, the rules are still strictly adhered to.

One good example of bureaucracies failing to achieve their normal function because of rigid conformity can be found in Clifford D. Shearing and Phillip C Stenning’s article “From the Panopticon to Disney World”. He notes how the organization of Disney world effectively keeps large amounts of people following strict instructions in order to maximize efficiency by repeatedly reminding them that it was for customers’ own benefit to follow them. While the structure is generally effective, when this stated goal comes in conflict with the bureaucratic rules and regulations, the rules take precedent.

“…an incident that occurred during a visit to Disney World by Shearing and his daughter, during the course of which she developed a blister on her heel. To avoid further irritation she removed her shoes and preceded to walk barefooted. They had not progressed ten yards before they were approached by a very personable security guard … who informed them that walking barefoot was, ‘for the safety of the visitors’ was not permitted. When informed that, given the blister, the safety of this visitor was likely to be better secured by remaining barefooted, at least on the walkways, they were informed that their safety and how best to protect it was a matter for Disney Productions to determine while they were on Disney property and that unless they complied he would be compelled to escort them out of Disney World.” (Massey, Garth 2006:298-9)
It seems no one has benefited from this situation. Disney has made itself a bad name with one customer by being unnecessarily coercive, the customer has conformed at a personal cost, and the employee has enforced a rule which presumably goes against his usual morality. The bureaucracy perpetuates its pattern independently of success in individual situations.