I.

Bureaucratic Model

The Max Weber theory of management, sometimes called bureaucratic

management theory, is built on principles outlined by Frederick Taylor in his scientific
management theory. Like Taylor, Weber advocated a system based on standardized
procedures and a clear chain of command. Weber stressed efficiency, as did Taylor,
but also warned of the danger of emphasizing technology at the expense of emotion.

One primary difference between Max Weber and management, and other theories
of management, is that while Weber outlined the principles of an ideal bureaucracy, he
also pointed out the dangers a true bureaucracy could face.

Key elements of the Max Weber management theory include:

 Clearly defined job roles

 A hierarchy of Authority
 Clearly defined job roles
 Hierarchy of Authority
 Standardized Procedures
 Meticulous record-keeping
 Hiring employees only if they meet the specific
qualifications for a job

II. BACKGROUND ABOUT THE PROPONENT

Weber was born in Erfurt, the eldest son of an aspiring liberal politician whose
family had become wealthy in the German linen industry. The father soon joined the
more compliant, pro-Bismarckian "National-Liberals" and moved to Berlin, where he
became a member of the Prussian House of Deputies (1868-97) and the Reichstag
(1872-84). As such he became part of the Berlin social milieu and entertained in his
house men prominent in scholarship and politics.

Helene Weber, the sociologist's mother, was raised in Calvinist orthodoxy. Though
she gradually accepted a more tolerant theology, the Puritan morality of her mother
remained intact within her. As a result of the social activities of her husband she came
to feel increasingly estranged from him, and, after the deaths of two of her children and
the serious illness of young Max, she was aghast at his inability to share her prolonged

1
grief. He, in turn, tended to adopt a traditionally authoritarian manner at home and to
demand absolute obedience from wife and children.

Weber left home to enroll at the University of Heidelberg in 1882, interrupting his
studies after two years to fulfill his year of military service at Strassburg (Strasbourg).
During this time he became very close to the family of his mother's sister, Ida
Baumgarten, and her husband, the historian Hermann Baumgarten, whose influence on
Weber's intellectual development was profound.

After his release from the military, Weber was asked by his father to finish his
studies at the University of Berlin, where he could live at home. This was perhaps
because his father considered the influence of the Baumgartens subversive of his son's
character. From 1884 until his marriage in 1893, Weber left his father's house only for a
semester of study at Göttingen in 1885, and for some brief periods of military
manoeuvres with his reserve unit.

During most of his formative years as a scholar in legal and economic history,
Weber was thus continually subject to his parents' conflicting and unanswerable claims
on his loyalty. Since he spent his mid- and late-20s working simultaneously in two
totally unremunerative apprenticeships--as a lawyer's assistant and as a university
assistant--he was financially unable to leave home until the autumn of 1893. At that
time he received a temporary position in jurisprudence at the University of Berlin and
married Marianne Schnitger, a second cousin.

After his marriage, Weber paid unwitting homage to his Calvinist forebears by
continuing a compulsive work regimen that he had begun after his return to Berlin in
1884. Only through such bondage to his labour, believed Weber, could he stave off a
natural tendency to self-indulgence and laziness, which, if tolerated, would lead to an
emotional and spiritual crisis.

Weber's great capacity for disciplined intellectual effort, together with his
unquestionable brilliance, brought the reward of meteoric professional advance. Only a
year after his appointment at Berlin, he became a full professor in political economy at
Freiburg, and then, in the following year (1896), at Heidelberg. Following his doctoral
and postdoctoral theses on the agrarian history of ancient Rome and the evolution of
medieval trading societies, Weber wrote a comprehensive analysis of the agrarian
problems of the German east for one of Germany's most important academic societies,
the Union for Social Policy (1890), and important essays on the German stock
exchange and the social basis of the decline of Latin antiquity. He was also politically

2
active in these years, working with the left-liberal Protestant Social Union (Evangelisch-
Soziale Verein).

The high point of his early scholarly career was his inaugural address at Freiburg
in 1895, in which he pulled together some five years of study on the agrarian problems
of Germany east of the Elbe into a devastating indictment of the ruling Junker
aristocracy as historically obsolete. In Weber's view, the existing liberal parties were in
no position to challenge and replace the Junkers. Nor was the working class ready to
accept the responsibilities of power. Only the nation as a whole, educated to political
maturity by a conscious policy of overseas imperial expansion, could bring Germany to
the level of political maturity attained by the French in the revolutionary and Napoleonic
eras and by the English in the course of their imperial expansion in the 19th century.
Weber's Freiburg address thus advanced an ideology of "liberal imperialism," attracting
to its support such important liberal publicists as Friedrich Naumann and Hans
Delbrück.

In the months following his father's death in August 1897, an increasing

nervousness plagued the young scholar. His return to teaching in the autumn brought a
brief respite, which ended in the first months of 1898 with the first signs of the nervous
collapse that was to prostrate him between mid-1898 and 1903. For five years he was
intermittently institutionalized, suffering sudden relapses after slow recoveries and vain
efforts to break such cycles by travelling.

In 1903 Weber was able to resume scholarly work, though he did not teach again
until after World War I. Although he had resigned his professorship at Heidelberg at the
height of his illness, he came into an inheritance in 1907 that made him financially
independent. The nature of his most important work after his partial recovery suggests
that his prolonged agony had led him to develop brilliant insights into the relationship of
Calvinist morality and compulsive labour, into the relationship between various religious
ethics and social and economic processes, and into many other questions of lasting
importance. Indeed, all of Weber's most important work appeared in the 17 years
between the worst part of his illness and his death.

A brief glance at The Protestant Ethic and the Spirit of Capitalism, Weber's best
known and most controversial work, illustrates the general trend of his thinking. Weber
noted the statistical correlation in Germany between interest and success in capitalist
ventures on the one hand, and Protestant background on the other. He then went on to
attribute the relationship to certain accidental psychological consequences of the

3
notions of predestination and the calling in Puritan theology, notions that were deduced
with the greatest logical severity by Calvin and his followers.

In Calvin's formulation, the doctrine of predestination invested God with such

omnipotence and omniscience that sinful humanity could know neither why nor to
whom God had extended the grace of salvation. The psychological insecurity that this
doctrine imposed on Calvin's followers, stern believers in hellfire, was too great, and
they began to look for loopholes that would indicate the direction of divine will. The
consequence was an ethic of unceasing commitment to one's worldly calling (any lapse
would indicate that one's state of grace was in doubt) and ascetic abstinence from any
enjoyment of the profit reaped from such labours. The practical result of such beliefs
and practices was, in Weber's estimation, the most rapid possible accumulation of
capital.

Weber never denied the claim of his critics that highly developed capitalist
enterprises existed centuries before Calvin, and he was well aware that there were
other preconditions, material and psychological, for the development of capitalism. In
response to these criticisms Weber argued that, before Calvinism, capitalist enterprise
was always fettered by the passive or active hostility of the prevalent religious order. If
some capitalists were, by virtue of their skepticism, able to escape the guilt feelings that
conventional morality dictated, it was nevertheless a fact that never before had religious
convictions enabled people to conceive of their success in the accumulation of capital
as a sign of God's everlasting grace. The Puritans, Weber argued, had accepted the
cloak of worldly asceticism voluntarily, as a means of alleviating otherwise unbearable
spiritual burdens. In so doing, however, they helped to create the enormous structure of
modern economic life, which came irresistibly to determine the life and values of
everyone born into it. Thus "fate decreed that the cloak should become an iron cage."

Weber published Die protestantische Ethik und der Geist des Kapitalismus (1904-
05; The Protestant Ethic and the Spirit of Capitalism, 1930) in the journal he had just
begun to edit, Archiv für Sozialwissenschaft und Sozialpolitik. In 1905-10, he published
a number of exchanges in his Archiv between himself and critics of his thesis. During
these years, however, which he spent in Heidelberg when he was not on one of his
numerous journeys through Europe, the middle-class German culture in which he had
been nurtured experienced its first spasms of disintegration. The Protestant morality
that he had come to accept as inescapable destiny came under attack from the youth
movement, from avant-garde literary circles such as the one centred on the poet Stefan
George, from Neoromantics influenced by Nietzsche and Freud, and from Slavic
cultural ideals, exemplified in Tolstoy and Dostoyevsky.

4
 Weber's political sociology is concerned with the distinction between charismatic,
traditional, and legal forms of authority. Charisma refers to the gift of spiritual inspiration
underlying the power of religious prophecy and political leadership. In many of these
later concerns, Weber touched, sometimes explicitly, on themes that had first been
broached by Nietzsche.

His acute interest in social phenomena such as mysticism, which are antithetical
to the modern world and its underlying process of rationalization, paralleled a late
awakening of Weber's aesthetic and erotic faculties. In 1910, amid the crumbling social
order of European middle-class society, Weber began a series of important discussions
with Stefan George and his close disciple, the poet Friedrich Gundolf. At roughly the
same time, he embarked on an extramarital affair, probably his first experience of
sexual intimacy; one of his most brilliant later essays contains a penetrating analysis of
the conflicting relationships between eroticism, ascetic and mystical modes of
religiosity, and the general process of rationalization ("Theorie der Stufen und
Richtungen religioser Weltablehnung," 1916; "Religious Rejections of the World and
Their Directions").

During this same period Weber was engaged in efforts to gain respect for
sociology as a discipline by defining a value-free methodology for it, and in his analysis
of the religious cultures of India and China for purposes of comparison with the
Western religious tradition. Also of critical importance in his last decade was his stoical
examination of the conditions and consequences of the rationalization of political and
economic life in Wirtschaft und Gesellschaft (1922; Economy and Society, 1968) and
journal articles.

Indeed, Weber's most powerful impact on his contemporaries came in the last
years of his life, when, from 1916 to 1918, he argued powerfully against Germany's
annexationist war goals and in favour of a strengthened parliament. He stood bravely
for sobriety in politics and scholarship against the apocalyptic mood of right-wing
students in the months following Germany's defeat. After assisting in the drafting of the
new constitution and in the founding of the German Democratic Party, Weber died of a
lung infection in June 1920.

Weber's significance during his lifetime was considerable among German social
scientists, many of whom were his personal friends in Heidelberg or Berlin; but because
of the fact that little of his work was published in book form during his lifetime and
because most of the journals in which he published had restricted audiences of
scholarly specialists, his major impact was felt after his death. The only exceptions

5
were his formulation of "liberal imperialism" in 1895, his widely discussed thesis on
Protestantism and capitalism, and his extensive attack on German foreign and
domestic policies during World War I in the pages of the Frankfurter Zeitung, which
stimulated liberal sentiment against the government's war aims and led Gen. Erich
Ludendorff to view him as a traitor.

In general, it may be said that Weber's greatest merit as a thinker was that he
brought the social sciences in Germany, hitherto preoccupied largely with national
problems, into direct critical confrontation with the international giants of 19th-century
European thought – Marx and Nietzsche – and that through this confrontation he
helped create a methodology and a body of literature dealing with the sociology of
religion, the sociology of political parties, small group behaviour, and the philosophy of
history. His work continues to stimulate scholarship.

III. SYNTHESIS OF THE THEORY

Bureaucratic management may be described as "a formal system of organisation

based on clearly defined hierarchical levels and roles in order to maintain efficiency and
effectiveness."

Max Weber embellished the scientific management theory with his bureaucratic
management theory which is mainly focused on dividing organizations into hierarchies,
establishing strong lines of authority and control. Weber suggested organizations
develop comprehensive and detailed standard operating procedures for all routinized
tasks.

Max Weber was a historian that wrote about the emergence of bureaucracy (or
bureaucratic management) from more traditional organizational forms (like feudalism)
and it's rising pre-eminance in modern society. Scott defines bureaucracy it as "the
existence of a specialized administrative staff". According to Weber, beaucracy is a
particular type of administrative structure developed through rational-legal authority.
Bureaucratic structures evolved from traditional structures with the following changes:

1. Jurisdictional areas are clearly specified, activities are distributed as official

duties (unlike traditional form where duties delegated by leader and changed at any
time).

6
 2. Organization follows hierarchial principle — subordinates follow orders or
superiors, but have right of appeal (in contrast to more diffuse structure in traditional
authority).

3. Intential, abstract rules govern decisions and actions. Rules are stable,
exhaustive, and can be learned. Decisions are recorded in permanent files (in
traditional forms few explicit rules or written records).

4. Means of production or administration belong to office. Personal property

separated from office property.

5. Officials are selected on basis of technical qualifications, appointed not elected,

and compensated by salary.

6. Employment by the organization is a career. The official is a full-time employee

and looks forward to a life-long career. After a trial period they get tenure of position
and are protected from arbitrary dismissal.

Max Weber said that bureaucracy resolves some of the shortcomings of the
traditional system. Described above was his ideal-type construct, a simplified model
(not a preferred model) that focuses on the most important features. Weber's view of
bureaucracy (or bureaucratic management) was a system of power where leaders
exercise control over others — a system based on discipline.

Weber stressed that the rational-legal form was the most stable of systems for
both superiors and subordinates — it's more reliable and clear, yet allows the
subordinate more independence and discretion. Subordinates ideally can challenge the
decisions of their leaders by referring to the stated rules — charisma becomes less
important. As a result, bureaucratic systems can handle more complex operations than
traditional systems. (all above Scott p. 41-42).

Observing the changes that were taking place during the industrial revolution, Max
Weber saw Capitalism as 'rational' way to organize activities: rational in the sense that

7
all decisions could based on the calculation of their likely return to the enterprise.
Weber's Ideal bureaucracy was therefore devoted to the principle of efficiency:
maximizing output whilst minimizing inputs.

By studying the organizational innovations in Germany at the turn of the 20th

century, Max Weber identified the core elements of this new form of organization. For
Weber, the ideal bureaucracy was characterized by impersonality, efficiency and
rationality. The key feature of the organization was that the authority of officials was
subject to published rules and codes of practice; all rules, decisions and actions were
recorded in writing.

The structure of the organization is a continuous hierarchy where each level is

subject to control by the level above it. Each position in the hierarchy exists in its own
right and job holders have no rights to a particular position. Responsibilities within each
level are clearly delineated and each level has its own sphere of competence. An
appointment to an office, and the levels of authority that go with it, are based solely on
the grounds of technical competence.

Max Weber believed that, due to their efficiency and stability, bureaucracies would
become the most prevalent form of organization in society. However, he was also
concerned that bureaucracies shared so many common structures it could mean that
all organizations would become very much alike, which in turn could lead to the
development of a new class of worker, the professional bureaucrat.

According to Max Weber official functions in the following specific manner:

1. There is the principle of fixed and official jurisdictional areas, which are generally
ordered by rules, that is, by laws or administrative regulations.

2. The regular activities required for the purposes of the bureaucratically governed
structure are distributed in a fixed way as official duties.

3. The authority to give the commands required for the discharge of these duties is
distributed in a stable way and is strictly delimited by rules concerning the coercive
means, physical, sacerdotal, or otherwise, which may be placed at the disposal of
officials.

8
4. Methodical provision is made for the regular and continuous fulfilment of these duties
and for the execution of the corresponding rights; only persons who have the generally
regulated qualifications to serve are employed.

In public and lawful government these three elements constitute 'bureaucratic

authority.' In private economic domination, they constitute bureaucratic 'management.'
Bureaucracy, thus understood, is fully developed in political and ecclesiastical
communities only in the modern state, and, in the private economy, only in the most
advanced institutions of capitalism. Permanent and public office authority, with fixed
jurisdiction, is not the historical rule but rather the exception. This is so even in large
political structures such as those of the ancient Orient, the Germanic and Mongolian
empires of conquest, or of many feudal structures of state. In all these cases, the ruler
executes the most important measures through personal trustees, table-companions, or
court-servants. Their commissions and authority are not precisely delimited and are
temporarily called into being for each case.

The principles of office hierarchy and of levels of graded authority mean a firmly
ordered system of super- and subordination in which there is a supervision of the lower
offices by the higher ones. Such a system offers the governed the possibility of
appealing the decision of a lower office to its higher authority, in a definitely regulated
manner. With the full development of the bureaucratic type, the office hierarchy is
monocratically organized. The principle of hierarchical office authority is found in all
bureaucratic structures: in state and ecclesiastical structures as well as in large party
organizations and private enterprises. It does not matter for the character of
bureaucracy whether its authority is called 'private' or 'public.'

When the principle of jurisdictional 'competency' is fully carried through,

hierarchical subordination–at least in public office–does not mean that the 'higher'
authority is simply authorized to take over the business of the 'lower.' Indeed, the
opposite is the rule. Once established and having fulfilled its task, an office tends to
continue in existence and be held by another incumbent.

The management of the modern office is based upon written documents ('the
files'), which are preserved in their original or draught form. There is, therefore, a staff

9
of subaltern officials and scribes of all sorts. The body of officials actively engaged in a
'public' office, along with the respective apparatus of material implements and the files,
make up a 'bureau.' In private enterprise, 'the bureau' is often called 'the office.'

In principle, the modern organization of the civil service separates the bureau
from the private domicile of the official, and, in general, bureaucracy segregates official
activity as something distinct from the sphere of private life. Public monies and
equipment are divorced from the private property of the official. This condition is
everywhere the product of a long development. Nowadays, it is found in public as well
as in private enterprises; in the latter, the principle extends even to the leading
entrepreneur. In principle, the executive office is separated from the household,
business from private correspondence, and business assets from private fortunes. The
more consistently the modern type of business management has been carried through
the more are these separations the case. The beginnings of this process are to be
found as early as the Middle Ages.

It is the peculiarity of the modern entrepreneur that he conducts himself as the

'first official' of his enterprise, in the very same way in which the ruler of a specifically
modern bureaucratic state spoke of himself as 'the first servant' of the state. The idea
that the bureau activities of the state are intrinsically different in character from the
management of private economic offices is a continental European notion and, by way
of contrast, is totally foreign to the American way.

Office management, at least all specialized office management– and such

management is distinctly modern–usually presupposes thorough and expert training.
This increasingly holds for the modern executive and employee of private enterprises,
in the same manner as it holds for the state official.

When the office is fully developed, official activity demands the full working
capacity of the official, irrespective of the fact that his obligatory time in the bureau may
be firmly delimited. In the normal case, this is only the product of a long development,
in the public as well as in the private office. Formerly, in all cases, the normal state of
affairs was reversed: official business was discharged as a secondary activity.

10
 The management of the office follows general rules, which are more or less
stable, more or less exhaustive, and which can be learned. Knowledge of these rules
represents a special technical learning which the officials possess. It involves
jurisprudence, or administrative or business management.

The reduction of modern office management to rules is deeply embedded in its

very nature. The theory of modern public administration, for instance, assumes that the
authority to order certain matters by decree–which has been legally granted to public
authorities–does not entitle the bureau to regulate the matter by commands given for
each case, but only to regulate the matter abstractly. This stands in extreme contrast to
the regulation of all relationships through individual privileges and bestowals of favor,
which is absolutely dominant in patrimonialism, at least in so far as such relationships
are not fixed by sacred tradition.

IV.IMPLICATIONS

The beginning of the industrial revolution also brought with it the start of
organisation within the business. One type of organisation that has became an integral
part of major businesses today is the idea of bureaucratic management and its
principles. "A bureaucracy is a form of organisation based on logic, order, and the
legitimate use of formal authority. Bureaucracies are meant to be orderly, fair, and
highly efficient."(Cliffnotes) Max Weber, a German theorist, was the first person to
introduce many of the concepts of bureaucracy (Samson & Daft, 2009). During the 18th
and 19th century period many employees worked only for themselves and in a
workplace environment that was primarily focused on getting the job done in whichever
way possible unconcerned with efficiency. Weber's idea was to use regulation by rules,
policies, supervision, reward systems and other mechanisms to make sure that the
behavior and standards of the employees are always met and making the
contemporary workplace more organized. The six key principles of bureaucracy that
Weber identified were; division of work, hierarchy, promotions, record-keeping,
business as a separate legal entity and rules and regulations. This essay will aim to
examine the effect of four of these ideas on the workplaces of today and it will also
bring out some of the negative outcomes that have been felt by the employees.

Many businesses today have benefited from Weber's work. Division of work in a
workplace has been a fundamental characteristic of an organisation's structure.

11
Dividing labour into "clear definitions of authority and responsibilities that are legitimized
as official duties." (Samson & Daft, 2009). Departmentalization works on a basis that
groups individuals into departments and these departments into the total organisation
(Samson & Daft). This principle gives rise to specialists who are in charge of a very
specific function of a particular department. These specialists are extremely educated
and well trained, which increases the strength of the business allowing the senior
management more control and certainly more effectiveness. This type of division has a
number of benefits. Employees that perform common tasks mean that an organisation
is taking advantage of economies of scale and using its resources efficiently. It also
increases the skills of the individuals within the department because they work with
other experts in their field which provides the opportunity to further develop themselves.
Division of work creates a better working ambience as people within these divisions
have similar expertise and reduces the chance of conflict. Working in teams also helps
build team spirit and this has its own motivational advantages (Mouzelis, 1967). Nike,
which is the world's leading shoe brand, manufacture their shoes in Indonesia, China
and Vietnam where labour is in abundance. The factory workers are mainly women
who are responsible for stitching, bonding etc. These women have been divided into
area of their strength that has been determined by their performances' during the
training process. The men that work there are given the job of operating the heavy
machinery in the Nike factory (Nike, 2010). This way efficiency is greatly improved and
each individual is performing a task that works to their strength. This bureaucratic
principle also has a few drawbacks. A major problem that has occurred as a result of
dividing up the labour into departments is that there is a lack of communication and
coordination. This has led to slow response to changes in the environment, which in a
business world could mean the difference between large profit opportunities and
bankruptcy. Another negative outcome that has resulted from this principle is because it
involves the creation of department/teams, it can lead to conflicts between departments
with each department trying to compete against the other to be better.

The second element of bureaucracy is hierarchy or chain of command "is an

unbroken line of authority that links all persons in an organisation and shows who
reports to whom."(Samson & Daft, 2009) All employees should be completely clear
about who are their supervisors and the different management levels all the way to the
top. The impact on employees who work in organisations where the hierarchy is well
defined are often motivated to work hard and perhaps be in contention for a promotion
(Charles Heckscher, 1991). The impact that this has on the workplace is that it opens
up an opportunity for employees to participate in training session to become managers

12
and this has positive motivational value. A good example of an organisation with
hierarchical structure is Nike. At the very top of this hierarchy sits the Mr. Philip H.
Knight Chairman of the Boards of Directors, and then comes the CEO followed by the
president. This is will be followed by many other senior positions and eventually broken
out into regional managers of different countries right down to the worker in the
manufacturing line and everyone in the business knows where they stand. In New
Zealand, a very famous bureaucratic organisation that has turned into a world- class
corporation is New Zealand Post.

Another important factor in Weber's work was career advancement or promotion.

Promotions, before the introduction of any systematic procedures used to be based on
the people that you knew. However, 'selection and promotion is based on members'
qualification and performance.' (Bartol, Tein, Graham, & Martin, 2005) and these can
be assessed by examinations or according to training and experience. (Samson & Daft,
2009)

Bureaucracy is notable for its strict regulations and staff was required to follow
these disciplines and control with regards to the conduct of their official duties. These
regulations were enforced to all working in the organisation regardless of their position.
It isn't the manager's personality that must depend on for giving orders; it is his or her
"legal power invested in the managerial position." (Samson & Daft, 2009). It is these
rules and written records that that the organisation relies on for continuity.

As bureaucratic principles started to become more integrated into the common

workplace, it also brought out some of the common negative effects that were felt by
the employees working in these companies across the board. By departmentalizing,
each division focused on its own agenda and did not seem to work in tandem to get the
job done. To be a good manager you must take responsibility for planning, leading,
organizing and controlling and those who are leading & giving orders must have the
experience and expertise to do so. However, often the problem that arises when
managers are heading a department is that they lose sight of the organisational vision
and mission. Departmental decisions are made on the basis of what the manager
wishes rather than the overall target. The tendency is to make their department; people
within the division look good before thinking about the business and a vital amount of
time is often spent doing this. In any business, it will always be the survival, financial

13
health and goals that must be at the forefront of each employee's mind. (Ken Johnston,
2010)

Another notable issue that employees feel is a concern is that amount of

unhealthy stress created by the impression that they are not trusted, don't have good
judgment and they are not motivated to work unless forced and any mistakes made is
attempted to be covered up and/or denied. Responsibilities for these mistakes must be
taken by managers, who in a bureaucratic organisation try to place the blame onto
others in an effort to defend their department. The impact of such problems is
miscommunication which leads to show what the business should be rather than what it
actually is. Bureaucracies are known to work best when there is little competition and
as soon as the market changes these businesses find it difficult to adapt to the
environment as communication problems within the hierarchy arise (Ken Johnston,
2010). The Pepsi co. had faced a communication problem which led to a $1.26b loss
for the company. (Noobpreneur, 2009).

In conclusion, this essay has examined four out of the six bureaucratic principles
and has provided an insight into how these have been integrated into the different
organisations and its impact on the contemporary workplace. In addition to that, it has
also taken up another angle to show the negative effects of having implemented the
bureaucratic theory such as stress, unhealthy competition, and breakdown in
communication. Although Max Weber's believed that rational authority would be more
efficient, his policies have evolved with businesses and created unforeseen issues.
However, his work has also been the base of many organisations that are successful
today.

14