What I referring to is my academic experience in the world of higher education and the undergraduate degree. While I had been under the impression that completing college would be beneficial, I never had believed it was particularly life threatening until I was subjected to a corrective situation with my enrollment at what was then Kaplan College.

It seems that an error in a bureaucratic organization such as an academic institution like Kaplan College is never attributed to the organization itself and this is where the system of rules that apply to admission notably differ from the set of rules that the internal organization operates.

Worse yet, despite the numerous rules, procedures, guidelines, etc. set forth for the students; the organization demands little accountability for its own actions which occur in part or in whole based on human error. This translates to a given amount of confusion in the process of correction and is why I have opted to use this particular experience as the subject of my project.

Clearly, this enrollment experience certainly fits the project design criteria as a bureaucracy being that Kaplan, “is an administrative structure with well-defined offices or functions and hierarchical relationships among the functions” (Champoux, p.14).

In addition, admissions decisions are made according to established rules, procedures, policies and guidelines.

Goals of the degree programs are attained with precision, reliability and efficiency if a student follows the prescribed degree plan and completion is in a timely manner.

The final outcome or expectation is found in the awarding of an academic degree so it seems that Kaplan University definitely fits the criteria of a bureaucratic organization.

Myself and many others define an organization as bureaucratic if there is a substantial amount of steps which must be suffered through in the event of error and I am living proof that again Kaplan fits the mold. Initially, I had enrolled in the 2+2 Criminal Justice Bachelor completion program because I have previously earned an associate degree from another institution as I have already stated.

There was a mistake somewhere in the process and somehow my transcripts were never recorded to reflect this historical, relevant and factual information and someone in admissions decided to enroll me in the four year degree program instead. Of course, the substantial steps to correct this mistake on Kaplan’s behalf first required that I be held responsible for something entirely outside of my own personal control so as not to suggest any blame on the academic institution.

Next I was forced to initiate and endure a series of phone tag with the admissions office and what is referred to as systematic “red tape” before the issue could be corrected.

My only defense that I am not to responsible for the situation that of logic. Why would I wish to needlessly repeat two years of courses which I would gain nothing additional and that I have no access to the admissions software to input such erroneous information. Who could argue with logic? Insisting that the guilty party was inconsequential to my interest and that I only wanted the error corrected was falling on deaf ears as no one wished to be thought of as the party at fault made my situation worse.

I found myself repeating this to anyone willing to hear me out. Next, I was told that I must withdraw and re-enter the college as if I were a returning student. What a frustrating experience and all based on a system of rules that were put in place to ensure compliance on the part of any and all involved. While this entire process seems a bit redundant and falls just short of being entirely ridiculous I was told it was the only way in which the situation could be resolved. Hence, the phrase “bureaucratic nightmare”. The meaning of just such a phrase had become abundantly clear.

Admittedly, the admissions office suggested that it was not a common characteristic for one who had already spent the initial two years of studies to insist on repeating the same or similar courses which is exactly why I argued that there was in fact a mistake in the first place. As illogical as it sounds the computer system could not contend with any form of correction with the exception of withdrawal and re-entry into the degree program. An example of bureaucratic efficiency? I think not, but again, I am merely a student seeking a degree. Those in the administration office have already earned theirs. This seems to prove the basic theory often heard echoing in the academic world, “Common sense is not so common these days in America.”

While bureaucracies are suggested to be rational and predictable systems, it seems there is no mention of logic in the equation. Nor on behalf of the policy enforcers. The existing rules and procedures are definite and consistent yet sometimes fail nonetheless. It further seems that the rules and procedures of a bureaucratic organization hold firm even in light of their own error and do not take into account any individual or unusual circumstances on a per case basis as the system is rigid, rather than permitting of any degree of flexibility. Perhaps this is what President George W. Bush felt of the Constitution when he sought to expand governmental powers.

Clearly, the suggestion of this experience with what was then Kaplan College as an example of a bureaucratic organization is proper and fitting and created needless headaches for me despite my intentional pursuit of knowledge.Yet, all is well that ends well. I enjoyed completing my bachelor degree online and eventually earned my degree graduating with honors.

Strategic alignment of political hopefuls, criminal elements, and law enforcement officers is a common practice around the world. As citizens of a global economy, we are haunted by a proliferation of crime made possible by technology. This and other institutional profiteering tend to lend to a rise in oppositional and electoral exploits in an effort to gain favor in order to carry forward in a similar manner is now common practice.

This lack of sincerity in publicly held positions, in addition to new alignment of countries and nations, does little to promote a sense of well being for citizens around the globe. In sharp contrast, it seems the only faction or groups honest concerning their actions are the organized crime syndicates. Of course, government and politics must pave the way for citizens and nations to interact one with another, and in recent history, we recognize NAFTA and Perestroika as two such economic agendas. We will discuss Perestroika later. NAFTA is the North American Free Trade Agreement between the United States, Canada, and Mexico. These are two such agendas, which openly and publicly announced their existence along bringing forth new policies and emerging markets. Thus, geopolitical events can create opportunity for the proliferation of transnational crime.

Political defenders of both trade agreements suggest the rise of the modern criminal elements is directly related to the upstart of new and easily accessible market outlets such as those created by new information technologies and the Internet. The surge in identity theft and credit card fraud tend to support this theory of new technology giving rise to new opportunity for criminal acts,

However, it is much more realistic to believe in a theory which holds each of the three elements responsible. Crime and politics being fueled by technological advances coupled with human ingenuity and the desire to receive a great deal for very little effort is most plausible.

Marx wrote about this and suggested the only constant that is guaranteed in life is the one that never remains the same. This constant is change. Marx also believed that each society is built upon the material foundations of its process of production and that the members of society are born into a predetermined social structure that is entirely defined by the mode of production (science and technology). The social classes, then, are the divisions of labor and the interaction, which served to create conflict as one class, strives to break from the control of the higher class. To Marx, conflict was the single means by which the social structure would change and he advocated thoughts of revolution in which the lower classes challenged the controlling element and the rules and regulations in which they lived. The materialistic foundations that bound society or the social classes were he believed, “preserved by specific presets that only make themselves known” when it becomes necessary to preserve their own position in the social structure. He believed that those who owned the process of production at any given time in history are the controlling class and those who produce the labor are the working class and subject to the will of the controlling element not only in the process but in society as a whole (Capitalist).

An example of just such a present that Marx was describing can be found in the 1990s when new information technologies began to emerge and reshape the work environment from the corporate structure of nine-to-five to the new home office. The home office made possible by the technological advances in the communication industry. It even became legal and popular to take deductions for the equipment and expenses associated with maintaining the home office; so long as it did derive an income and was not reimbursed from the employers or if the home office was a sole proprietor business classification. Despite the legality of the business and deductions being taken in respect to the new home office, there was one certain agency, which sought to halt the concept and prevent further migration from the corporate environment by workers. This happening occurring in the United States and North American continent only. Marx, had stated, social classes are governed by rules and regulations that make themselves known when challenged by a lower class. In this particular instance, the preset or qualitative forces that preserved the normal mode of production was the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) of the United States federal government. In addition to challenging the deduction, the IRS forced those returns to endure the horrors of an audit procedure. This served to discourage others in the work force from attempting similar migration and / or deductions and the momentum of the home office revolution was halted. Thereby preserving corporate structure of the office environment and the work world. This is also an example of what Weber defined as bureaucracy. According to Weber, authority arises not from persons but from positions. This authority is legitimated by organizational rules and regulations in a hierarchy of work relations.

I believe the Internal Revenue Service fits both Marx and Weber’s descriptions as that which serves to control the working class. Marx said that science and technology are part of the productive forces and these forces drive the social interaction because the productive process is a collective action. Obviously, then, in our changing world, our thinking and actions must change in relation to the newest forms of technology. In the United States, we are quickly becoming an information society but that is not all, we are also producers of tangible products (those that are physical forms) which we must take to the open market in order to sell.

In the last quarter century, we have seen the practical application of science fuel an array of curious consumer goods enter the consumer market and hit the ground running. With these new forms of information technology, such as the personal computer and wireless phones, an entrepreneur or sole proprietor can be every bit as competitive as the larger corporations in the global market thanks primarily to the internet and electronic commerce. The internet also known as the World Wide Web has opened markets previously reserved for only those larger corporations with the financial capacity to venture into foreign markets. Now, of course, this is no longer a restricted place and the smallest of sellers can reach an extraordinary number of buyers thanks to companies such as eBay.com and PayPal, which is now owned by eBay.

eBay is an electronic auction site, which brings together buyers and sellers in an auction type environment. eBay acting as the host allows members to publish articles and items for a fee. In addition, as receiving payment for the item being sold is of utmost and primary importance they have purchased a service company, which is known as PayPal. This allows buyers and sellers to refrain from giving out their credit card numbers to strangers and instead use the services of an intermediary to handle the monetary exchange in an optional and additional fee for service manner. Since the success of such companies has reached the mainstream; a number of competing companies have joined them and are offering everything imaginable in terms of services and products. This aligning of companies and spirit of cooperation has created a safer electronic environment for all parties. Thus countering the single most influential drawback to such transactions, which of course is the opportunity for fraud? Those who elect not to participate in safe transactions are destined to fall victim to unscrupulous acts of another in such an anonymous environment where human never actually meets or greets another human in the virtual world. While it does seem the opportunity for fraud abounds on the internet, there is growing concern regarding identity theft for which new federal laws seek to address and discourage. Of course, in addition to these easements of electronic transactions, new technology has also paved the way for other forms of electronic commerce such as banking and postal service scheduling. These service providers are matters of convenience and can conserve not only resources but also time investment in respect to the humans.

Many suggest that information technology will transform the world of clerical duties and the office environment in much the way Henry Ford changed the blue-collar worker with the assembly line production and as Taylor did with scientific management when he created the oversight position of the manager. Yet, according to Marx, it will take a revolt by the working class to challenge the controlling elements and topple the presets that govern society. Looking to the future, the tele-news suggests coming next is something very similar to the concept of the home office we discussed earlier. The difference, in comparison, being that telecommuting remains within the confines of employer/employee relations. There is even organizational support behind this new style. The association is known as the American Telecommuting Association. The basic idea is to replace or supplement physical travel to and from the office by using modern telecom equipment to bring the office resources to the worker. (ATA).

The advantage is primarily a savings in travel time for the party not being required to commute back and forth to and from work. Whether it will succeed this time around or once again be toppled by the presets that govern is left to the future. Remember it was the Internal Revenue Service that identified itself as the preset in society that set and enforced the rules and regulations which preserved the norms Marx spoke of in the past. The main advantage telecommuting has this time around as opposed to the home office is the support of the employers as the worker continues to be defined as employee in the corporate environment. Previously, the worker was a drop out from the work force and proceeded to compete independently for work and contracts.

Numerous changes but little has improved the conditions of working life for the lowest divisions of labor. Even in the age of the Smart Machines, in comparison to the human, the machine is incapable of creative thought. Clearly, then, this smart machine is not so smart after all if the lower human intelligence and IQ can compete on even settings. At this point, there is no chance of the machine replacing the human and the equipment will remain very much dependent on humans to power it on and off. Either way it seems the mode of production, known as smart machines, exists as mere further proof of Marx’s suggestion that those who control the mode of production are members of the controlling class. What really separates the classes is the division of wealth more so than labor, and this is certainly outside the laborer’s reach or command. For the employer, however, the smart machine is simply an added cost of doing business. Whether technology has helped or hindered remains an issue open for debate.

As each human grapple with the frustrations of new technology, each stranded on the same platform that is associated with “low tech” ability. This in itself identifies the solution. If a manager is to retain the authority then the efforts of the worker’s knowledge of the action-centered skills must be retained in order to translate them into data necessary to fuel new technology. New technology becomes the vehicle for all to enjoy. The action, however, is the “work” being performed and the knowledge of the process is what the manager is lacking. For example, managers do not perform the work themselves; instead, operators are the way in which a manager’s “work” is accomplished. In other words, the role of manager made possible through the efforts of the subordinate workers. This translates to something of a team effort and group activity. Rather than isolate the worker and leave him or her feeling disconnected from the process; it is essential to empower the worker via managerial directives in order to tap the necessary knowledge source.

In essence, the managerial process design intends an oversight capacity, rather than a labor-intensive effort, and because of a lack of actual participation, managers have no idea what a worker is really doing as far as production is concerned. Clearly, managers must understand the role of the human, if new technology is to advance the work processes. Transferring knowledge, then, is the necessary step towards developing and implementing new technologies. Yet, it is never clear what role the worker will play once new technology is introduced into the process. This doubt in turn fuels controversy and invites chaos.

Now, neither man nor machine is quite clear which is guiding the process due to the confusion created. Additionally, the manager must extract the knowledge held within the mind of the human worker in every sense in order to fuel the machine. Of course, the worker has no idea the value placed on knowledge and remains guarded fearing new technology will soon remove the need for human labor positions. Of course, technological advances are intended to compliment the work process and environment while allowing humans to achieve full potential.

In the old and new work environments, it is crucial for a manager to empower the subordinates to both acquire the necessary information and knowledge of the process and in an effort to implement this new technology. By communicating and empowering, the single element responsible for the work process –the human labor, all can participate in a positive and decisive atmosphere. Thus, shaping the work environment for the future.

Empowerment ensures that the worker is a part of the very process of producing and by granting the worker the authority to influence the process; they begin to feel a sense of ownership in the eventual outcome. This translates to a win-win situation rather than one in which all parties are equally frustrated. This allows technology to evolve in a manner to aid rather than invade the work process.