Bureaucratic Procedures Hurt Workers

Bureaucratic procedures hurt workers through the manipulation of rules to reinforce managements rights and powers. This power is manifested through managements ability to drag out issues over long periods of time in order to wear out its opponents. This form of oppression uses mental and physical intimidation to achieve results and it is all perfectly legal. Both bureaucratic procedures and Scientific Management use this intimidation method to achieve their wanted results. The difference between the two is the willingness of workers to accept their inevitable oppression. Although bureaucracy is a necessary evil in modern society it is an implied power rather than a inevitable power. The issue facing workers is not the overthrow of bureaucracy but rather a reevaluation on how we look at how the power effects us and in turn how we allow ourselves to be effected.
Bureaucratic procedures on paper make perfect sense as a way to resolve issues. In practice, however, bureaucracy becomes a tangled web of rules and precedent that favor managements ideology. Management has found that utilizing bureaucratic procedures offers solace to the workers in the beginning while undermining their future options. Workers willingly advocate bureaucracy as a way to solve immediate issues while offering little thought to what future implications will result from their policies. It is not meant to be an insult on the intelligence of the worker. Few people look for negative aspects of a solution if that solution on its face easily solves their current issues.
A major negative implication where bureaucracy works for management's interest is the disciplinary arena. Bureaucratic procedures are carefully and intentionally designed to allow the management to act now and ask questions later. The manager has the ability to demand or fire an employee at will. If an objection is leveed against the manager the employee is still out of a job. Even with a union's assistance the employee has little leverage. The company has the resources, mainly economic, to hire lawyers and drag an issue out over every little detail. The worker consequently has little resources at his/her disposal and must rely on their union for help if they have one. Management under the bureaucratic system is innocent until proven guilty. This results of these bureaucratic procedures produces a mentality that enables corporations to offer a false sense of security to the worker. By offering bureaucratic procedures the workers, in actuality, are sacrificing their options and freedoms.
The beauty in the design of bureaucratic procedures is that it is as hard to understand and master as it is to spell. Management has set up the procedures themselves to favor their interests. This results in management stacking the deck against the worker from the beginning. For example, management will never intensionally set time frames to resolve an issue. By leaving time frames vague and open it enables management an infinite number of options to drag an issue out. Management has an vested interest in organized chaos. By maintaining little to no structure management can constantly change the rules to suit their needs at any specific time. With no governing authority to regulate this issue management maintains a constant and steady upper hand over its workers.
Management's ability to set up road block to slow down and trip up workers in their quest for justice is the mental and physical hurdle that management is looking to create. Its the intension to crush the will and resolve of anybody that attempts to undermine or challenge the unalienable rights and decisions of management. By so doing future workers will choose to keep quiet rather than attempt to fight something so powerful. It uses the David and Goliath mentality. By crushing each opponent few will try such an astounding feat as to force an employer to admit guilt. Mental anguish is probably the best used tool of the cooperation. Mental anguish is achieved through repetitive delays and tactics that cause frustration. Frustration with the system is what management is hoping for. Few people have the resolve and resources to see a particular issue to its conclusion. Management is hoping to wear out the nerves of its opposition, thereby, causing closure without admission of guilt or innocents.
The physical anguish is not necessarily a physical beating by thugs, rather a combination of indirect actions. By dragging issues through bureaucratic procedures fatigue effects lead to mental anguish. As monetary issues arise from bureaucratic procedures physical considerations have to be addressed from dietary decisions to living quarters to standards of living. These decisions make it harder and harder to fight the bureaucratic process. Managements foundation of the process is to make sure the longer it takes the harder it gets. The harder it gets the more physical and emotional drain is leveed on the plaintiff and therefore the plaintiff is more likely to fold from the pressure, thereby, persevering management's perfect world of oppression.
Brody uses an example of an auto plants relief policy for line workers. As ludicrous as it seems that a policy for bathroom breaks could be as complicated as described, management designed it as such to serve a purpose. By complicating the process as management did the process prevents any attempt to fight the process seem futile. A person written up and reprimanded for not following the procedure would feel foolish and embarrassed to fight any such claim. Management's design maintains more workers on the line working by complicating something so seemingly routine as taking time out to go to the bathroom. In theory it is genius on the part of management, in practice it becomes a nightmare for the worker. Managements complication of a simple complaint ensures productivity through confusion.
Taylor's argument similarly follows the belief that bureaucratic procedures can be used to ensure productiveness of workers. In contrast, however, Taylor over simplifies the process to attain this result. By utilizing Scientific Management any process is broken down to find the one best way. By creating rules and procedures this process is free from bottlenecks. We see this theory in today's real world applications. Models such as ISO and QS certifications are based on finding the best way to do, fix or respond to any issue. Businesses pay large amounts of money in order to obtain these certifications. Scientific Management thesis is to take the thinking out of work. Models such as ISO and QS reinforce Taylor's belief in dumbing down a job. By dumbing down a job there are many results that management favors. By simplifying the steps to menial tasks management can drive supervisors to predetermined decisions. From managements stance this reduces training and allows replacements to easily learn the job. This in turn keeps wages down since little skill is required. The drawbacks to Taylor's arguments are mostly geared toward the worker. Deskilling is the biggest obstacle facing the worker. The act of deskilling a job drives down of wages of the workers. By driving down the wages it creates a consistent fear of losing ones job because the job becomes easy to fill. This fear takes its toll on workers and drives down the willingness to complain. Scientific Management takes all managing out of the supervisors control, thereby making the supervisor nothing but a drone. This enables a corperation to be run by a few at the top and creates a low paid work force that can be easily replaced. This allows for higher profits and security for those at the top. Managements only drawback from Scientific Management is its inability to change quickly. Due to inflexibility the firm adds costs when it needs to reassess and make changes to procedures.
Taylor argued further that by utilizing Scientific Management it spreads the workload more evenly among workers and management thereby fostering harmony. I find this connection a little bit of a stretch. Workers and management have different job functions and by sharing the work defeats the purpose of having workers and management. Furthermore harmony and happy coexistence between worker and management is deeper than a workload.
Both arguments by Taylor and Brody show that the worker is incapable of getting any significant voice. The bureaucratic procedures as a tool for the worker are destined to fail in real world scenarios. In theory the worker gains more authority but in reality there is little realization of this. As a further insult to the worker they find themselves gaining a little while forfeiting their freedoms. The more thorough and specific the bureaucracy becomes the fewer options the worker has. Bureaucratic procedures becomes the double edged sword facing workers. Logically one would be able to see the inevitable problem with this system yet organized labor favors it. Ironic that a group that fights for workers rights would in practice be limiting those very rights.
Weber argues that bureaucracy is a necessary evil that goes hand in hand will the development of society. As society gets larger and larger there becomes a need to organize and maintain equality. Bureaucracy maintains a balance by creating the rules by which government and private entities function. The functionality of the system thereby helps create a balance between the haves and have nots. Bureaucracy becomes the check and balance of which society runs on.
Weber comments that bureaucracy is “inevitable” in “modern mass democracy.” Using bureaucracy as an execution of authority is the most efficient way to run government and private enterprises. Bureaucracy, however, is not exempt from corruption. The implied power of ones position can be manipulated to ones favor. Brody's example of bureaucracy abuse in my earlier example of bathroom policy is a perfect example. Management abuses their authority by purposefully complicating and over regulating a simple issue. The worker allow this abuse to continue because of their contention that the issue is minor or the implied power of management is beyond their control. If the latter is the case it is an example of a weak union.
Weber and Taylor share several views on the practicality of bureaucracy. They both believe that in theory bureaucracy increases the efficiency of an organization. This efficiency is necessary in order to keep up with modern demands. Through superior and subordinate cooperation tasks become easier and predicable utilizing bureaucracy. Although there may be issues with Taylor's Scientific Managements over simplification of skills it becomes a necessity in order to maintain a safe, fair and stable organization.
In conclusion all three of the authors make excellent points on the good, the bad and the ugly aspects of bureaucracy. My personal feelings lean toward that of Weber and Taylor. In today's world economy efficiency is the name of the game. Although bureaucracy encourages the deskilling of workers and may impede on their personal freedoms it has become acceptable. Mr. Brody tended to use worst case scenarios and concentrate on the greed and selfishness of some management types. I like to believe that there is still some compassion, even in the modern workforce. Scientific Management although rigid in its design offers workers the safest and most predictable future. The environment spawned from Taylor's theory allows an organization to stay competitive through efficiency and measurable actions. Weber's assumption of equality through implied authority is a stretch in some instances but is a fact that is overlooked by most people. People that abuse the system and bureaucracy for their own gain are counting on that very notion. This point is most relevant to elected officials but even with private organizations it maintains its relevance. I look at my own job now in a different light and the implied power that people assume or have been legitimately given from superiors. In both cases I see how it is only assumed and is not necessarily an inevitable right.