Wait a second!
More handpicked essays just for you.
More handpicked essays just for you.
Max weber on bureaucratic allienation
Max weber on bureaucratic allienation
Max weber on bureaucratic allienation
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
Recommended: Max weber on bureaucratic allienation
This assignment discusses the applicability of the ideas of scientific management theory by Frederick Taylor and general administrative theory by Max Weber in today’s organisations and managements. These theories have been constantly debated on whether their theories are still applicable to modern management in various countries, typically in the USA. Our research stance is partially agree which means agree but not completely agree to the extent that Taylor’s theory is more relevant in today’s organisations as his theory includes the mental aspects for workers. Gupta (2000) believes ‘every worker has a potential for development’. Nevertheless, Weber’s theory apportions a management system which is based on standardized procedures and a clear …show more content…
According to Wasim (2011), he claims Weber’s theory is limited in its application as it is idealistic and irrational and lacking the informal organisation. The inefficiencies of Weber’s theory with its idealistic nature is a threat to the democratic norms that governs the American community. The excessive reliance on rules and regulations inhibit the growth of employees as they are treated as working machines and not like individuals, there is a neglect of human factor. In dealing with people, the impersonal approach cannot be adapted because people have feelings, emotions and sentiments which affects decision. Therefore, people cannot work totally according to Weber’s theory of excessive rules and regulations. The hierarchy of organisation in Weber’s theory is system of various positions from top to bottom of the organisation. In this movement, the informal elements such as human relationships and emotions are not given the attention required in the functions of the organisations (Wasim, 2011). The orders pass from one worker to another worker without regard who is more capable or rather better, without the element of human emotions within Weber’s theory. Robbins, Bergman, Stagg, and Coulter (2015) has stated that many current managers feel that bureaucracy’s theory on strict division of labour, adherence to formal rules and regulations, the impersonal application of rules and controls removes the individual worker’s creativity, thus, limiting the organisation’s stability to respond speedily to an increasing progressive environment. The formal structure of organisation in Weber’s theory is an impersonal approach as it does not regard the human
According to text, a company who follows Weber’s theory will have a, “strict reliance on rules, division of labor, and a clearly established hierarchy in which power is centralized, (Miller, 25). This is clearly seen in the Carson’s location, prior to Fuller’s arrival. There is a separation of power with Carson’s old management and the employees. Employees were expected to complete tasks correctly, if not management would “step on their throats,” (ARTICLE). Management had all the power, and did not consult their employees when making decisions. These are all examples of Weber’s theory, as well as examples of why the Carson’s location needed a change in
Weber and Marx have both written accounts on the rise of capitalism and the bourgeoisie class in an attempt to understand the resulting inequalities that still exist today. Weber has criticised the work of Marx, citing how limited it is use a purely economic framework, labelled as historical materialism, instead of looking at all factors within society (Weber 2001: 20). Weber provides evidence and conclusions that mirror Marx, suggesting that his criticism is faulty. First, both writers recognise an inequality between the poor and rich resulting from the rise of capitalism and the bourgeoisie (Marx and Engels 2008: 34-36; Weber 2001: 28-30). Second, they both suggest broader systems of delusion meant to normalise the exploitation of the worker, and validate the gains of the bourgeoisie (Marx and Engels 2008: 38-40; Weber 2001: 24-27). Third, both authors refer to the development of systems that divides workers and suppresses their ability to deviate from or break capitalism (Marx and Engels 2008: 44; Weber 2001: 19; 115). Therefore, Weber’s criticism of Marx is only partially correct. Marx actually discusses social, political, and even moral elements despite both authors believing that The Communist Manifesto is solely about economics; the overlap between their conclusions shows demonstrates such variety. Weber’s work is superior though because he integrates examples of religion and morals to further support these points: the oppressive systems of capitalism and the persistent class antagonisms. Disproving even Marx’s own identity as an economist, Weber’s argument is marginally superior because it uses morality to elaborate on Marx’s seemingly-economic conclusions regarding the rise of bourgeois capitalism.
Tsoukas, H. (1994), “What is management? An outline of a metatheory”, British Journal of Management, vol.5, pg.289-301
In a society there are different authorities that we follow. According to Weber, there are three types of authorities which are are rational -legal authority, traditional authority, and charismatic authority. According to the article “Marx Weber: Traditional, Legal-Rational, and Charismatic Authority” by Dana Williams: rational-legal authority is powered by the belief that the law gives the legitimacy for example government officials; traditional authority is the belief that it is the traditional way and it is passed down for example the British Monarchy; lastly, charismatic authority is fueled by the liking of a person, it is also neutral meaning that it can go both ways (negative or positive) for example Adolf Hitler and Martin Luther King
Taylorism is a system that was designed in the late 19th century, not only to maximise managerial control, but to also expand the levels of efficiency throughout workplaces. With this being said, productivity levels increased and fair wage distribution was the main result. However, with other, more recent theories and systems, such as Maslow and Herzburg’s theories, these helped to focus on the satisfaction and motivation of the workers rather than the concern of managerial control and empowerment. Fredrick W. Taylor ended up developing 4 main principles to help increase the work efficiency and productivity in workplaces; these will be discussed later on. Other theories relating to this include, Fayol, Follett, Management Science Theory as well as Organisational-Environmental Theory. All theories listed have an influence on the way businesses work effectively and put their skills to action. This essay will highlight how Taylorism was designed to maximise managerial control and increase productivity, furthermore, showing how more recent theories were developed to focus on empowering employees and to extend the use of organisational resources.
By the constantly changing dynamics of the 21st century business world, it is clear that it would be highly unproductive for managers to employ what is in actual fact a restrictive, controlling theory of management. As a results of globalisation of the economy, intensification of international competition, pervasive influence of the social market economy, increasing participation of women in the labour force and ecological consciousness, scientific management is no longer suitable in modern workplaces, as this theory tends not to allow for the constant innovation that is necessary to maintain a competitive advantage in the marketplace.
This research will elaborate in detail the theories of Max Weber and explain his view of the perpetuation of social order, social inequality and social change. Lastly I will explain how Weber theories have impacted my view of society.
When Weber analyzed bureaucracies, he developed an ideal type model, which consisted of six essential features. These features described how bureaucracies function and develop. The features Weber identified are as such: specialization; hierarchy; written rules and regulations; impartiality; impersonality; recordkeeping. These features are essential to upholding the purpose of efficiency bureaucracies were created for.
The evolution of management though the decades can be divided into two major sections. One of the sections is the classical approach. Under the classical approach efficiency and productivity became a critical concern of the managers at the turn of the 20th century. One of the approaches from the classical time period were systematic management which placed more emphasis on internal operations because managers were concerned with meeting the growth in demand brought on by the Industrial revolution. As a result managers became more concerned with physical things than towards the people therefore systematic management failed to lead to production efficiency. This became apparent to an engineer named Frederick Taylor who was the father of Scientific Management. Scientific Management was identified by four principles for which management should develop the best way to do a job, determine the optimum work pace, train people to do the job properly, and reward successful performance by using an incentive pay system. Scientifi...
Frederick Taylor was born in 1856 and was the founder of scientific management, it was suggested that he was the first person to look at management in business in regards to employees and come up with a theory on it, which was his scientific management theory (Stewart, 2016). Looking at the fundamentals of scientific management Taylor said ‘The principle object of management
There are several theories that examine an organization and it’s approach to managing work in an effort to develop efficiency and increase production. Two classical approaches to management are Taylor’s scientific management theory and Weber's bureaucratic management theory. Both men are considered pioneers of in the study of management.
‘Weber emphasized on top-down control in the form of monocratic hierarchy that is a system of control in which policy is set at the top and carried out through a series of offices, whereby every manager and employee are to report to one person in top management and held accountable by that manager’ (Pfiffner, 2004, p. 1).
the study of time and action; b) the management on assignment; c) the theory of organization. (8)Taylor’s theory created a revolution in the subject of management because it was the first scientific method in field of management science. (1)After that, management became a truly scientific knowledge and it expanded and modified by later generations. Therefore, Taylor is “known as the father of scientific management”. (2) Taylor put forward a perspective which was “study the character, the nature and the performance of each workman” and moreover, to “train and help and teach this workman”. (3) In the following paragraphs, will exploring the relevant and irrelevant hypotaxis between Scientific Management and organizations.
Frederick Taylor and Henri Fayol are both considered classical contributors to management theory. Both were developing and expression their viewpoints at similar time period with the aim of “raising standard of management in industry” (Brodie,1967, p7) in a period were very few publications and theories on management. While both theories were developed with the same influencing factors such as war, social struggles and industrial revolution (Urwick. 1951, p7) each developed quite different management theories. Frederick Taylor is considered the Father of Scientific management and he developed scientific principles of management, focusing on the individual,...
A German sociologist Max Weber was the first person who describe about the term bureaucracy. Bureaucracy is a means to create efficient institution staffed with trained experts who work permanently, whose jurisdiction is prearranged by laws and regulations, and whose responsibility comprises of applying plain broad rules to specific circumstances (Weber, 1946).