Essentials of Sociology. George Ritzer
that is very efficient. However, both Weber’s own thinking and later sociological research (see the following section) make it clear that bureaucracies are not always so rational and are even as irrational as you undoubtedly sometimes find them to be. Nevertheless, the bureaucracy is a key element of Weber’s theory of the rationalization of the Western world. In fact, along with capitalism, the bureaucracy best exemplifies what Weber meant by rationalization. For decades, the concept of bureaucracy dominated sociological thinking about organizations, and it led to many important insights about the social world.
Bureaucracies
Throughout his work, Weber created and used many “ideal types” as methodological tools with which to study the real world and conduct historical-comparative analysis (see Chapter 2). An ideal type greatly exaggerates the characteristics of a social phenomenon such as a bureaucracy. It is a model of how the social phenomenon is supposed to operate in some optimal sense but rarely does. Once the model has been created, we can compare it to the characteristics of any specific example of the social phenomenon anywhere in the world. It serves to identify the ways in which the ideal type differs from the way in which the social phenomenon actually operates.
One of Weber’s most famous ideal types was the bureaucracy. The ideal type of bureaucracy is primarily a methodological tool used to study real-life bureaucracies. However, it also gives us a good sense of the advantages of bureaucracies over other types of organizations. The ideal-typical bureaucracy is a model of what most large-scale organizations throughout much of the twentieth century looked like or at least tried to resemble. Figure 5.1 is an organization chart for a typical bureaucracy. A bureaucracy has the following characteristics:
A continuous series of offices, or positions, exist within the organization. Each office has official functions and is bound by a set of rules.
Each office has a specified sphere of competence. Those who occupy the positions are responsible for specific tasks and have the authority to handle them. Those in other relevant offices are obligated to help with those tasks.
The offices exist in a vertical hierarchy.
The positions have technical requirements, and those who hold those offices must undergo the needed training.
Those who occupy the positions do not own the things needed to do the job (computers, desks, and so on). The organization provides officeholders with what they need to get the job done.
Those who occupy particular offices—chief executive officers, for example—cannot take the offices as their own; these remain part of the organization.
Everything of formal importance—administrative acts, decisions, rules—is documented in writing.
Figure 5.1 Organization Chart for a Typical Bureaucracy
Source: Organization Chart for a Typical Bureaucracy, U.S. Department of Transportation.
The development of the bureaucracy is one of the defining characteristics of Western society. In Weber’s view, it was a key source of the superiority of the West over other civilizations in the operation of society as a whole as well as of its major components, such as the military. Weber felt that in meeting the needs of large societies for mass administration, there is no better organizational form than, and no alternative to, the bureaucracy.
Ask Yourself
Have you ever been a member of a bureaucracy? How many of Weber’s characteristics did it have? How well or poorly did it meet the needs of the society it was designed to serve? Why?
Authority Structures and Bureaucracy
Weber’s work on bureaucracy is related to his thinking on three types of authority structures. Before getting to those types, we need two preliminary definitions. Domination is the probability, or likelihood, that commands will be obeyed by subordinates (Weber [1921] 1968). There are degrees of domination. Strong domination involves a high probability that commands will be obeyed; domination is weak when those probabilities are low. Authority is a particular type of domination: legitimate domination. The key question, then, is what makes authority legitimate as far as subordinates are concerned.
Many Americans, especially those who attend his rallies, seem to see Donald Trump as a charismatic leader. However, his real authority stems from the rational-legal basis that he won a majority of the electoral college vote in 2016.
Aude Guerrucci—Pool/Getty Images
The traditional authority of King Salman of Saudi Arabia is based on his inherited position as a member of the House of Saud. He succeeded his half brother as king in 2015.
Bandar Algaloud / Saudi Royal Council / Handout/Anadolu Agency/Getty Images
Mahatma Gandhi came to lead India on the basis of the view of his followers that he was charismatic.
Bettmann/Getty Images
Weber differentiates among three types of authority:
Rational-legal authority is domination legitimated based on legally enacted rules and the right of those with authority under those rules to issue commands. For example, the president of the United States has rational-legal authority to take a variety of actions, such as appointing federal officials, because the president is duly elected in accordance with the country’s election laws. It is also legitimate for the president in the role of commander in chief to issue various commands, such as to order the use of troops in the case of an attack on the United States.
Traditional authority is based on belief in long-running traditions. For example, IS’s caliphate (see Globalization box later in this chapter) was based on traditional authority. Although the pope is elected by the College of Cardinals, his authority within Catholicism is based primarily on the long traditions associated with his position.
Charismatic authority is based on the devotion of followers to what they define as the exceptional characteristics of a leader. Large numbers of people believed that Martin Luther King Jr. and Mahatma Gandhi had such exceptional characteristics and, as a result, became their devoted followers.
Trending Working for Respect: Community and Conflict at Walmart (Columbia University Press, 2018)
Adam Reich and Peter Bearman
From Working for Respect: Community and Conflict at Walmart, by Adam Reich and Peter Bearman. Copyright ©2018 Columbia University Press. Reprinted with permission of the publisher.
Adam Reich and Peter Bearman traveled to Walmart stores across the country to investigate the experiences of low-wage workers in large, “hyperrational” organizations. Walmart is a “sprawling bureaucracy” that employs over 1.4 million people in the United States. Like other bureaucracies, Walmart is founded on rational-legal authority and a clearly defined division of labor to ensure maximum efficiency.