Arguably the most controversial approach in public administration, Max Weber’s bureaucracy model is one that has been criticized by contemporary scholars in management. Bureaucracy, which is no doubt the most rigid approach to administration, has been blamed for a multiplicity of faults in many aspects of leadership, management, administration and governance (Stillman, 2009). Bureaucracy has many basic elements as explained by Weber. The most prominent element of bureaucratic administration is that it is characterized by stringent rules and procedures, which make administration some form of predictable, fixed routine that does not provide room for independent and innovative thinking. In bureaucracy, the administrators do things instead of doing the right things (Stillman, 2009). The rules and procedures followed in bureaucratic management rarely change because any alterations must follow a lengthy procedure.
The second most notable element of Weber’s bureaucracy is division of labor (Stillman, 2009). According to Weber, an organization should be broken down into departments that handle different parts of a particular task. For instance, the criminal justice system is divided in such a manner that the police, the courts and the correctional facilities handle different aspects of justice. Stillman (2009) argues that one among the most conspicuous elements of bureaucracy is the hierarchy of authority. This means that for a person to do something, they ought to obtain authorization from some hierarchical system. For instance, to arrest a person, the law enforcement officers ought to get an arrest warrant from the courts. Obtaining such a warrant is quite procedural and protocol-oriented. Another element that is worth mentioning is the presence of impersonality in the system. The system does not change in response to extraordinary happenings.
How Kristin Died, is one of the most heartbreaking stories ever used as case studies in public administration. The story, which revolves around two young adults, Kristin and Michael Cartier, reveals some of the most prominent inefficiencies of bureaucracy. The story, which Stillman (2009) narrates chronologically reveals a number of overlapping actions by the administration, such as the Boston municipal court issuing a warrant of arrest against Michael Cartier when the man is in fact behind bars. Below is a brief of the chronology of events, defining the case:
- May 30, 1992 Cartier shoots Kristin dead on the street, and goes to his apartment and commits suicide.
Stillman (2009) uses the delays caused by the bureaucratic procedures in Kristin’s case to demonstrate how bureaucracy has inherent problems that can lead to the death of an individual. In Kristin’s case, the system is full of hierarchical procedures that give Cartier ample time to prepare for and execute the death of Kristin and him. The court system issues warrants of arrest against the culprit instead of actually arresting him with immediate effect. This reveals how bureaucracy is filled with impersonality and insensitivity to human problems.
Weber’s description is accurate, in part, at least to the extent of explaining the rigidity of the system. However, the inaccuracy of his description can be seen in the sense that he does not reveal the shortcomings of the bureaucratic approach. For instance, it is clear that Weber fails to point out the fact that bureaucracy cannot be used in handling urgent cases because the hierarchical procedures cause delays that are uncalled for (Stillman, 2009). Weber does not accurately describe bureaucracy because he does not point out the fact that this approach is exceptionally predictable because the hierarchical procedures establish some kind of routine which can enable a person foretell the outcome of a certain situation. Similarly, Weber ignores the fact that Bureaucracy is not consistent because the various sections of the systems overlap and come up with decisions that may contradict. This is clearly illustrated in the case of How Kristin Died – especially the incidences where the court could summon Cartier when in actual sense the man was already behind bars. This essentially means that an individual can be required to be arrested twice, for the same crime because of the prominent lack of communication.
Personal Observation
References
Stillman, R. (2009). Public Administration: Concepts and cases. Denver: Wadsworth Cengage Learning.
