Max Weber’s ideologies

German philosopher, sociologist, and lawyer Max Weber offered an examination of leadership styles and types of power. Bureaucracy was included in the study as a topic. There are many ways to define bureaucracy. One, however, correctly fits the management environment. An organizational structure known as bureaucracy has distinctive and defining characteristics (Cole, 2004). Max Weber elaborated on his study, the three typologies of organizational authority, as a result. Traditional authority, charismatic authority, and rational-legal authority are some of these varieties.

A leader’s power is defined as traditional authority when it is granted based on beliefs and practices. Conventional sources of power are a practical example. A charismatic authority, on the other hand, relates to powers bestowed on leaders based on the peoples’ allegiance to that particular leader. It may also arise due to a peoples’ credence on that particular manager. Finally, rational-legal authority is a form of adherence to a leader based on the position they hold or the rank in a graduation set up (Cole, 2004). In the context of Max Weber’s ideologies, facts of the studies revolve around the rational-legal form of authority.

Max Weber’s theory, its ways of stimulating changes in an organization as well as its enhancement of performance development.

The most important aspects of Max Weber’s bureaucratic theory directly affect all sorts of groups, regardless of whether big or small, multiplex or simple. Organizations actively apply the well-known characteristics of bureaucracy in their day-to-day operations. Well-developed and sensible hierarchies have developed for team setups (Clegg Et al., 2011). Authorities help the team in ensuring the free flow of orders and streamlining the unity of command. Organizations that have implemented proper hierarchical systems prosper due to efficient dissemination of information. They experience improved quality of services as well as deadline adherences. Managers achieve the best attainable leadership outcomes while employee satisfaction guaranteed.

Another feature of Max Weber’s bureaucracy theory- well prescribed and put down codes of conduct- takes a course in the majority of organizations (Clegg Et al., 2011). Groups come up with full systems that affect all personnel in the organization. These help organizations remain in the boundaries of legal and ethical frameworks. Codes of conduct foster good relations between the managers and the subordinates. The systems eradicate unnecessary wrangles between people in the organization. Harmony prevails, and proper flow of work gets set for takeoff.

Max Weber’s bureaucratic theory significantly advocates for promotions based on an individual’s efforts towards the achievement of organization goals (Clegg Et al., 2011). According to Max Weber, it forms a fair and efficient form of motivation. Many organizations implement this feature with the aim of increasing productivity of employees. Consequently, performance rise at a steep and favorable trajectory. Employees that do not utilize their potential end up upping their game, ultimately giving satisfactory results.

Division of labor has taken root for every successful organization in the universe. Adam Smith, a Scottish philosopher, prescribed the application of division of labor in factories (Shafritz Et al., 2011). In effect, efficiency and effectiveness of production drastically achieved. Division of labor favors not only manufacturing organizations but also all other types of organizations. Effectiveness and efficacy are vital to any organization’s success. It ensures proper utilization of resources with minimal wastages whatsoever. Division of labor, also highly advocated for by Max Weber’s bureaucracy theory has seen organization scale the depths of success. It has become a standard feature for any typical group, as its benefits are overwhelming.

Merger of scientific management, Bureaucratic theory, and administrative theory

Scientific management principles, bureaucratic ideas, and organizational theories all have some few aspects in common. The hierarchy form of organization (top down leadership), as well as specialization and division of labor advocated by all (Abrahamsson, 1993). All these theories concur that for the attainment of organization goals, all the standard features need implementation. Goals attached to the stated features comprise of, proper utilization of resources, streamlining of operations and a well set out unity of command.

How Max Weber’s theory has influenced leadership in its day

Leaders implement leadership strategies in organizations that incorporate advocacies by Max Weber in his methods (Winkler, 2013). Organizations have different leaders according to their various areas of specialization for better performances. The different leaders have unity of command as they hold parallel discussions before the issue of instructions for execution. Officials in organizations are distinctively selected, separate from the actual owners of the organization in any typical setup. Leaders of organizations undergo series of tests before selection. The procedure ensures that leaders selected have the highest attainable competence in their fields of operation.

Chief complaints and criticisms of Max Weber’s theory

Max Weber’s theory of bureaucracy has encountered some criticisms from scholars as well as leaders. Various scholars outline the criticisms popularly referred to as dysfunctions. The dysfunctions widely knew include, fostering of improper decision-making procedures, an adaptation of employees made difficult due to standardization and set procedures, the clash of opinions by ‘experts’ picked regarding technical expertise and lastly damaging of relationships due to rigidity in behavioral statutes set (Cole, 2004). Max Weber’s theory tends to belittle the organization’s objectives and promotes the inhumane approach of leadership as argued by some scholars (Naidu, 2005).

The relevance of Max Weber’s theory today and theories that have grown out of it

The better part of Max Weber’s theory has remained relevant over the years until present day. Almost well-developed organizations have opted to promote the division of labor. The separation of work has helped to streamline their operations (Shafritz Et al., 2011). Leaders universally selected based on technical competence as well as experience in their field of work. On the other hand, organizations presently award promotions to their employees based on their efforts and goals realized. Technically sensible hierarchies have developed in all organizations for proper execution of the unity of command.

Application of Max Weber’s theory of bureaucracy in today’s work environment

Max Weber’s theory is of vital importance for any organization today. Proper division of labor as advocated for by the theory makes organizations achieve the best out of their staff. Hierarchies in the work place align workers to adhere to punctuality and focus on ethical needs of the organization. Finally, well-trained and equipped leaders make an enabling environment for all those under them.

In conclusion, even with stated setbacks and critics leveled against the theory, it has contributed immensely to organizations that put it into practice. The theory has served as a helping hand to all agencies that encounter day-to-day setbacks, and overwhelming benefits have realized courtesy to its implementation.

References

Abrahamsson, B. (1993). The logic of organizations. Newbury Park: Sage.

Clegg, S., & Bailey, J. R. (2011). International encyclopedia of organization studies. Thousand Oaks [Calif.: Sage Publications.

Cole, G. A. (2004). Organisational behavior: Theory and practice. London: Continuum.

Naidu, S. P. (2005). Public Administration: Concepts And Theories

Ott, J. S., Shafritz, J. M., & Jang, Y. S. (2011). Classis readings in organization theory. United Kingdom: Wadsworth/Cengage.

Winkler, I. (2013). Contemporary Leadership Theories: Enhancing the Understanding of the Complexity, Subjectivity and Dynamic of Leadership. Heidelberg, Neckar: Physica-Verlag.