[Email Address for Correspondence]
[Class Time]
[Word Count]
Post-Bureaucratic Practices in Leadership
Introduction
Leadership is always found at the pole position in the success of any organizational or business model and the research that took place during the 20th century was explicitly focused on investigating the role and vitality of leading and managing individuals in organizational structures emerged during bureaucratic and post-bureaucratic eras (Dischner, 2015, p. 501). The turning millennium also brought with it a significant shift and change in nature, environment and settings of the workplace that is now taken as perpetually changing, self-motivating, and dynamic avenues; where management and leadership approaches encourage working individuals to express their creative and intuitive thinking. Along these lines, leadership practices and post-bureaucratic management approaches are considered to be more synchronized with a contemporary working environment where organizational success is generally attributed to those methods in which management and leadership practices positively influence individual psyche, organizational behavior, and organizational culture (Josserand et.al, 2012).
This paper aims at critically evaluating and analyzing the leadership practices that have changed with the development of post-bureaucratic management approaches. It comprehensively analyzes the concept of post-bureaucratic organizational leadership practices and management approaches by undertaking a literature review. In addition, it compares and contrasts the leadership practices in bureaucratic & post-bureaucratic lines. It further discourses the imperative implications related to the subjects while mentioning the areas that needs to be further explored and studies by mentioning the emerging questions.
Discussion
Literature Review
The concept of post-bureaucratic organizations has been used in organizational theory to represent a number of actions and movements beyond the typical control mechanism of bureaucratic organizations. Post-bureaucratic organizational structures are also commonly termed as entrepreneurial structures, and they are widely known for offering high levels of flexibility and reducing task standardization. Post-bureaucratic organizational structures are principally based on the charismatic and traditional domination based on the tripartite classification of authority proposed by Max Weber. The post-bureaucratic structure is increasingly used in the small and medium organization, and they are also considered to be ideal for solving simple or less complex tasks. Post-bureaucratic model is usually centralized and the strategic leader makes most of the communication and decision making on the basis of one on one dialogue. The post-bureaucratic structure has fewer management levels involved and therefore, the decision-making authority has to pass only a few layers and eventually, it results in a flatter structure (Dischner, 2015, p. 509).
In the organizational literature, the expression of post bureaucratic is applied principally to two meanings of which one is generic; whereas, the other is specific. Generally, the term is used to portray a scope of thoughts developed subsequent to 1980s that particularly differentiate themselves with Weber’s optimal categorization of bureaucracy, which mainly include matrix management, culture management, total quality management etc. However, none of these has been abandoned or left behind the core principles of bureaucratic systems (McSweeney, 2006, p. 24). Organizations still has hierarchies where authority is still taken as defined by Weber, and the organizational activities are still centered on rules and leadership. Along this line, Heckscher described them as organized and filtered bureaucracies, instead of calling an ultimate transference or shift from typical bureaucracy. In the classic study of culture management by Gideon Kunda, he argued that the crux or bottom line concept of bureaucratic control including rule enforcement codification and formalization has not changed principally; however, they have just shifted from the organizationally oriented structures to culture-oriented approach (Josserand et.al, 2012, p. n.d).
Another group of scholars has built up a theory defining Post-Bureaucratic organization providing a comprehensive explanation, which endeavors to define an enterprise that is predominantly non-bureaucratic. Charles Heckscher has developed an ideal type, the post-bureaucratic organization, in which decisions are based on dialogue and consensus rather than authority and command. Similarly, the organization is a network rather than a hierarchy, open at the boundaries (in direct contrast to culture management). Apparently, there is an emphasis on meta-decision-making rules rather than decision-making rules. This kind of flat decision-making, leadership through consensus, and dialogue model is regularly utilized in fostering participation and cooperation and engaging individuals who regularly encounter discrimination in working teams.
Still, different scholars are building up a revival of interest for organizations and complexity theory, and have concentrated on how simple and non-bureaucratic structures can be utilized to incite hierarchical adjustments. For example, cited by Courpasson & Clegg (2012), Miner et al. (2000) concentrated on how simple organizational structures could be utilized to create improvisational results in product improvement. Their study makes relation to simple organizational structures and spontaneous learning. Other researchers, like Nelson Repenning and Rivkin & Sigglekow restore a more established importance for how simple work structure and system related to dynamic situations. They further argued that post-bureaucratic leadership practices have developed into a hybridization of bureaucratic structure and autonomous principles, and are continuously growing further from typical bureaucratic approaches of leadership (p. 59).
Comparison & Contracts between Leadership Practices in Bureaucratic & Post-Bureaucratic Management Approaches
The bureaucratic management follows one of three styles of leadership described by Max Weber i.e. bureaucratic leadership. Under bureaucratic leadership, practices were primarily based on a set of prescriptive rules in a line with a clear chain of command (authority). In bureaucratic leadership, leaders usually assumed that the employees are motivated by extrinsic rewards (power delegated authority by promoting the advancement of seniority career), and hence the followers were promoted based on their ability to comply with the rules of the organization (Uhl-Bien, Marion & McKelvey, 2007, p. 306-307). Bureaucratic leadership also assumed imposing strict and systematic discipline on administered who must obey according to the written principles or oral rules and regulations. They obey the authority awarded via an authorized bureaucratic leading to a power of authority through the hierarchical position he held, not of himself, according to the principle of specialization and division of labor. Bureaucratic leaders were positioned between two hierarchical levels within the organization chart who was responsible for imposing strict and systematic discipline on followers with the impersonality of human relationships (Josserand et.al, 2012, p. n.d).
Conversely, while keeping a serious approach post-bureaucratic leadership approaches enjoy playing with new ideas. As they believe that a flexible and creative leader has an ability not to become paralyzed or intimidated because of the risks or anticipated difficulties. It has an ability to generate knowledge on the unknown aspects of an issue through exploration, experimentation, the ultimate bending the boundaries of a rule, the disengagement or casually. It adopts a mode of learning about the complexities and subtleties of a question or problem by exploring its limits. For example, a factory manager should be provided with a relatively safe space to test the reality without causing disaster. In this way, it will learn to see the new trends in the apparent chaos and finds a way through turbulent circumstances (Courpasson & Clegg, 2012, p. 55).
For leaders or managers, bureaucratic leadership pronounces the policy of not trusting anyone, neither in himself nor in his subordinates; instead, their confidence is mainly based on predefined rules and regulations. When it comes to decision making, bureaucratic leadership practices relies on standards established by the ‘code’ (the reference book) for guidance. It bound managers and leader to follow the rules strictly and ensures that the staff also follow procedures accurately. Everything is done in a specific way to ensure the safety and / or accuracy. This role of bureaucratic leadership is ideal in a situation where the work environment is dangerous, where specific procedures are needed to ensure the safety of staff, processes, and structures. In the corporate world, bureaucratic leadership skills are still useful for jobs such as construction, chemicals, which involve working with hazardous materials or heavy responsibilities regarding the amount of the investments (Ozmen, 2013, p . n.d). According to the principles of the bureaucratic leadership, no intuition or sympathy interference, emotion or warmth should interfere in the official decision-making. Some research suggests that individuals facing a bureaucratic leadership tend to be somewhat psychologically insecure, suspicious, authoritarian and dogmatic. They tend to place a higher value on conformity and order, and a lower value on the treatment of others (Josserand et.al, 2012, p. n.d).
In contrast, post-bureaucratic management adopts a collaborative leadership approach on performing every job task. They advocates offering a high capacity for dialogue within and across community boundaries (in the organization, in society, in a profession). This implies action and reflection cycles that promote learning. Post-bureaucratic leadership invites skepticism and difficult questions from followers, and the proposal of a plurality of perspectives (Kernaghan, 2000, p. 95). On the other hand, with the shift of millennium, bureaucratic leadership also experiences significant shift that is evident in the modern corporate world. Post-bureaucratic management approaches bring renewal, vitality, and new opportunities within organizations and in the entire economy. According to Knights & Roberts, (1982) leadership practices in post-bureaucratic management approaches corresponds to specific personality traits (freedom of the creative individual) and a way to connect the art to the leadership instead of maintaining focus on hierarchical position and authority level. The creative leader has an epistemic curiosity. As asserted by Gideon Kunda, the crux of bureaucratic control has just shifted to culture-oriented approach; the post-bureaucratic leadership practices are increasingly inclined towards the ability to observe the physical and psychological environment and foster knowledge, learning and challenging needs of individual as well as organizations. This ability does not only considers a mental framework centered on oneself but also look after the epistemic curiosity that needs a framework or rather an exploratory field for practice (pp. 49-52).
Implications
The foremost implication in leadership practices that emerge with the advance of post-bureaucratic management approaches is increased flexibility and flat organizational structure, which fosters creativity and autonomy. In addition, post-bureaucratic leadership practices set up an easy process to manage and evaluate job functions and daily business operations from downstream to upstream instead flowing from the upper echelon. Bureaucratic leadership practices that were inflexible in its management. Post-bureaucratic leadership practices today are based on employees and effective management of organizational culture that cultivates autonomy, flexibility, and creativity (Ozmen, 2013, p. n.d).
According to a research, 78% of the inventive ideas of today come internally. In bureaucratic management approaches, most organizations fail the thought that their employees can contribute to the creativity of their work. For the most part, all want to be part of the solution and not the problem. The old school of bureaucratic management discouraged employee contributions for the good of the organization. Whereas, today’s leading organizations are those that follow post-bureaucratic leadership practice and encourage participation, flexible, autonomy and leading opportunities by creativity; and assert that flexibility and proactive response to every internal and external change are the only solution for an organization to stay functional and competitive (Raelin, 2016, p . n.d).
Grey Areas & Emerging Questions
There are a few grey areas related to post-bureaucratic leadership model. For instance, one major concern is that adopting and responding to every change whether external or internal may lead to several organizational problems and issue specifically at the workforce front. Because if the hierarchies will be eliminated or flattened and job roles and work boundaries/rules/regulations will become more permeable and flexible, then it will become even more difficult for organizations to offer conformity with the standardized obligation of the organizations; career paths and compensation etc. (Josserand, Teo & Clegg, 2006, p. 56). Likewise, the ideal limits of the flexibility that needs to be offered are also not identified as every business cannot be offered an equal level of flexibility and autonomy. Furthermore, although flexible work setting will encourage creativity; excess of it could also result in a waste of organizational resources and conflict among employees; due to preferring one's idea over other. Therefore, this needs to be investigated that what type of organizations are best-suited for adopting post-bureaucratic leadership practices and to what level they should preserve hierarchies and chain of command (Dischner, 2015, p. 514).
Conclusion
The above discussion concludes that leadership plays a crucial role in the success in every organizational model; and leadership practices experienced significant change with the shifting millennium and brought about significant shifts in nature, environment and settings of the workplace; when the focus point shift from bureaucratic to post-bureaucratic management approaches. It concludes that post-bureaucratic model propagates taking organizations as perpetually changing, self-motivating and dynamic avenues and proliferates undertaking approaches and practices that encourage working individuals to express their creativity and spontaneous rational. The post-bureaucratic organizational model asserts that only an inspired culture can encourage employees to generate a constant stream of new ideas to success.
The crux of leadership practices advances with the post-bureaucratic management approach and in contrast to bureaucratic model that emphasizes the use of authority and power for leading a workforce; it rather focuses on developing organizational culture and work climate in which people can make creative connections between their personal passions and their work, these same connections exist for leaders also. Indeed, the patterning of such connections encourages routines of behavior and facilitates the same conduct in other individuals who have not yet received their possible connections (Raelin, 2016).
Summary
Introduction
Leadership is constantly found at the central position in the success of any organizational model and the research has increasingly elucidates the role and vitality of leadership practices. Changing time has brought significant shift and change in nature, environment and settings of the workplace that is now taken as perpetually changing opportunities; where management and leadership approaches encourage working individuals to express their creative and intuitive thinking (Raelin, 2016, p. n.d.). If we recall the image of the famous New York cartoon illustration of a Rover sitting in front of a PC; the image captioned, “On the internet, nobody knows you are a dog”. Well on the internet, nobody knows that you are a regional marketing head or senior vice president either. This is the reason that every leader in a modern corporate world must figure out how to do things rightly, especially when power & authority has now become a reciprocal of followership. With the advent of time, traditional bureaucratic hierarchies get overthrew by modern functional organizational structures where leadership become less a characteristic of designation or position, than you potential and capabilities. As a result, modern business organizations are progressively recognizing the role of leadership as a function of performance than amplified levels of power (Josserand et.al, 2012, p. n.d.).
Summary of Discussion
According to research, traditional bureaucratic leadership malfunctions as it tends to impose rational procedures and routines that often paralyze the effectiveness of the organization. Actors take ownership implied bureaucratic rules to their advantage, hindering the formal rules. Specific relationships between individuals are created informally, persist and do not overlap with the organizational rationalization. The expected consequences of bureaucratic rules function produce unintended consequences making the bureaucratic leadership dysfunctional (Uhl-Bien, Marion & McKelvey, 2007, p. 307). Later, as traditional bureaucratic hierarchies get ousted by contemporary social, functional or networked organizational structures; leadership has also become less an attribute of where you actually sit, than what you can actually do (Josserand et.al, 2012, p. n.d).
Therefore, modern business organizations have increasingly recognized the role of leadership to be a function of high potential and performance than increased authority levels. Hence, any organization today; that endeavors to develop a verge over leadership understands the fact that rather than a celebrity leader and corporate academia that serves us succulent scholastic treats to high potential; they will require an organizational model that allows everybody to lead in the event to which they are competent to; and an ability improvement and talent development model that helps everybody to end up skilled and capable of leading in his respective proficiency (McSweeney, 2006, p. n.d.). This change in the leadership practices has emerged from the advance of post-bureaucratic management approaches. Post-bureaucratic management approaches are considered to be more synchronized with modern work settings where organizational success is by and large accredited to those means in which leadership practices constructively influence individual psyche, organizational behavior, and organizational culture (Kernaghan, 2000, p. n.d).
The post-bureaucratic leadership offers high levels of flexibility and reducing task standardization (Dischner, 2015, p. 503). Like every leadership model, post-bureaucratic leadership also has some grey areas such as implementing and reacting to every change whether external or internal may produce several problems and issue especially at the employees end; for the reason that if all hierarchies will be removed or trodden and job roles and work boundaries/rules/regulations will become more absorbent and flexible; then it will become even more challenging for organizations to offer conformity with standardized commitments of the organizations. Likewise, although flexible work setting will embolden creativeness; surplus could also upshot fruitless organizational resources and conflict among employees; as one would be preferred over other. Therefore, areas like the ideal type of organizations for embracing post-bureaucratic leadership practices and ideal level of hierarchies to be preserved should be explored (Courpasson & Clegg, 2012, p. n.d).
Conclusion
The discussion concludes that leadership upholds a fundamental position in the success of every organization, and post-bureaucratic leadership practices brought about a significant shift and change in nature, environment, and settings of the workplace; as the central idea shift from bureaucratic management approaches. It settles that leadership practices hat advance with post-bureaucratic management approaches undertakes organizations as eternally changing, self-motivating and dynamic avenues while flourishes practices that encourage individuals to demonstrate their creativity and participate with their imaginative rational.
References
Courpasson, D. & Clegg, S.R. 2012. 'The polyarchic bureaucracy: Cooperative resistance in the workplace and the construction of a new political structure of organizations', Research in the Sociology of Organizations, vol. 34, no. 1, pp. 55-79. Retrieved on August 28, 2016
Dischner, S. 2015. Organizational structure, organizational form, and counterproductive work behavior: A competitive test of the bureaucratic and post-bureaucratic views. Scandinavian Journal of Management, 31(4), 501-514. Retrieved from http://vahabonline.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/12/Organizational-structure-organizational-form___de5wa96d00.pdf on August 28, 2016
Josserand, E., Teo, S. and Clegg, S., 2006. From bureaucratic to post-bureaucratic: the difficulties of transition. Journal of Organizational Change Management, 19(1), pp.54-64.Retrieved on August 28, 2016
Josserand, E., Villesèche, F. & Bardon, T. 2012. 'Being an active member of a corporate alumni network: A critical appraisal', paper presented to the British Academy of Management, Cardiff, UK. Retrieved on August 28, 2016
Kernaghan, K., 2000. The post-bureaucratic organization and public service values. International Review of Administrative Sciences, 66(1), pp. 91-104. Retrieved from http://www.reut-institute.org/data/uploads/Articles%20and%20Reports%20from%20other%20organizations/public%20administration%20values.pdf on August 28, 2016
Knights, D. & Roberts, J. 1982. 'The power of organization or the organization of power?', Organization Studies, vol. 3, no. 1, pp. 47-63. Retrieved on August 28, 2016
McSweeney, B., 2006. Are we living in a post-bureaucratic epoch?. Journal of Organizational Change Management, 19(1), pp. 22-37. Retrieved from http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.474.9457&rep=rep1&type=pdf on August 28, 2016
Ozmen, D. 2013. Post-Bureaucracy and Post-Bureaucratic Culture in Public Administration. International Journal of Management Sciences and Business Research, 2(3). Retrieved from http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2710493 on August 28, 2016
Raelin, J. A. 2016. Leadership-as-Practice: Introduction. Leadership-as-Practice: Theory and Application (Routledge, 2016). Retrieved from http://vahabonline.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/12/Organizational-structure-organizational-form___de5wa96d00.pdf on August 28, 2016
Uhl-Bien, M., Marion, R. and McKelvey, B., 2007. Complexity leadership theory: Shifting leadership from the industrial age to the knowledge era. The leadership quarterly, 18(4), pp. 298-318. Retrieved from http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.474.9457&rep=rep1&type=pdf on August 28, 2016
