BUREAUCRACY

ORIGINS. Bureaucracy originally was based on "recruitment by examination, training, promotion on merit, regular salaries and pensions, and standardized procedures" in order to  maintain order, maximize efficiency and eliminate favoritism. A rigid division of labor, a chain of command is established in which the capacity to coerce is specified  by regulations. There is a regular and continuous execution of the assigned tasks by people qualified trained to perform them. This implicates a threat to individual freedoms,  in which increasing rationalization of human life traps individuals in a soulless "iron cage" of bureaucratic, rule-based, rational control. Unfettered bureaucracy is a threat to individual freedom, in which bureaumania and office tyranny can trap individuals in an impersonal "iron cage" of rule-based control.  The Byzantine Empire developed a notoriously complicated administrative hierarchy, and in time the term "byzantine" came to refer to any complex bureaucratic structure.  Informal bureaucratic structures began to appear in the form of corporate power hierarchies. Margaret Thatcher and Ronald Reagan gained power by promising to eliminate government regulatory bureaucracies, which they saw as overbearing, and return economic production to a purely capitalistic mode, which ironically was equally bureaucratic and domineering.

RIGIDITY. Bureaucracies  include  complicated  procedures,  intolerant and  dictatorial  attitudes  on  the  part  of the administrators and  of  dictatorial  governments. They are complex organizations that  do  not  show  clearly  who  is responsible, they use rigid norms   and   routine   procedures   without   taking   different circumstances   into   account.    They  hire  gauche,  slow  and incompetent   personnel,   they  give  conflicting  orders,  they duplicate  effort,  they   pile up charges against those they are monitoring  and  they  concentrate  control  in  a few people who mutually protect each other. De-politicization of the bureaucracy is an illusion. It is a system where the politicians give orders  and  the  bureaucrats  take  them and carry them out.   As   compensation  on  these restrictions  on  their  civil  rights, bureaucrats are protected from outside criticism. In    the   same   way   a  machine can, the bureaucrat may place him/herself  in  the  service  of  different  masters. There is a decrease  of  personal relationships. The use of a hierarchy that makes  decisions  diminishes  the  possibility  of  alternatives. Behavior  becomes  rigid.  The objectives of the organization are increasingly  seen  as  shared  by  all, although this may not be actually true. Bureaucracy  cannot  be neutral, even though it may try to appear so. Political  decisions  can  be  sabotaged  or  ignored by the bureaucrats.  Political  changes  cause  changes  in the chain of command  of  the  government.  The  routine of public bureaucracy affects  the  activities  of  the government and of public social services. Conservative  bureaucracy  can  obstruct change in a dynamic society that requires wide flexibility. Bureaucrats are not neutral. They   write   official   speeches,  participate  in government   decisions,   advise  political  leaders,  manipulate information,  explain  official  policy  to the public, etc.

Bureaucracy  is disguised as "managerial" bureaucracy and is a blight on the landscape that can reach terrifying proportions. Bureaucratic societies wind up inevitably as an alienated society. Bureaucracy can become so entrenched as to be regarded as a fetish, where human beings are at the mercy of things merchandise,  including money Humans and social relations become objectified, the population is separate from the governing class, even while it forms an integral part of it. The State oppresses the people, while at the same time taking on the mantle of its guardian angel.

INFLEXIBLE PROTECTION OF ONE'S JOB.Bureaucrats as more likely to defend their own entrenched interests than to act to benefit the organization as a whole.  Bureaucrats emphasize formality over interpersonal relationships, and are been trained to ignore the special circumstances of particular cases.  Endless paperwork and grindingly-slow procedures are well-known hazards in government work. But private-sector employees also complain of having to jump through hoops to get the resources and authority they need to do their jobs. Corporate bureaucracy "would be top on the list of sucking the life force out of workers, making them feel helpless," It contributes to the loss of "any sense of self-worth or initiative employees may have and turns them into weasels. Running into a wall of corporate bureaucracy  stunts innovation, requires mountains of paperwork and make employees feel like automatons.

BUREAUCRATIC POLITICS. Relations between the bureaucracy and the State. While  treating the public the same without taking different circumstances   into   account,  political  bureaucracy  supports politicians,  gives  different  treatment  to the same  behavior, depending  on  who  is  practicing  it.  Promotions depend on the compatibility  of  the  hierarchies  and  the  political fortunes of the bosses. Those who are suspect or neutral are purged. In  capitalist  society,  the  State and the bureaucracy are under  the  thumb  of  a single class. The weaker the spontaneous groups  in  society  are,  the  stronger will the bureaucracy be. Bureaucracy  is  the  servant  of  the State and the corporations that  defend  their  common  interests  against  other  competing groups   or  against  society  in  general.  The  State  and  the corporations  are  co-relative, that is, one cannot exist without the  other.  Only  the   eradication of the corporations by civil society would signify the eradication of the bureaucracy. The essence of bureaucracy is mystery, the privileged secret, to the point that exposure is tantamount to treason. Bureaucrats know  things  that the public doesn't, and that gives them power-the examiner knows more than the examinee. The  top  confides  in the lower circles to know the detail, while  the  lower  circles  confide in the upper echelons to know the  general  picture,  thus  each  fools  the other telling what each wants to hear.  Bureaucracy   implies   subordination,  obedience,  vulgar materialism,  and  the  chasing  after positions to further one's career. Bureaucracy means formalism in the State apparatus, divorced from  real  life.  It  has an alienated existence, it only exists in  the  office.  It sees the world as an object of its activity, it  makes  its  will the first priority, but as it has no content of  its  own,  its  existence  consists  in paperwork and "saying no", that is, in putting obstacles in the path of development.

CHANGE. Bureaucracy  fears  rapid  and unexpected change.  It fears increase  in  size  when the volume of activity is not sufficient to  support  growth.  Things  become too complex, and the ability of  the  bureaucrat   to control everything is lessened. It fears technology which introduces new and diverse ideas. The bureaucrat
fears  psychologically  the  possibility  of  having to make some sort   of   change.  It  fears  social influences  which  are based on change, technology, international operations, unions. It fears collaboration and adaptation.  Only the boss is important (authority-obedience). Rigid carrying out of delegated responsibility Strict division of labor. Centralization in decision-making Conflict resolution by means of repression,arbitration or struggle.

ANARCHISM AND STATE POWER. Anarchists loathe government because of the bureaucracy, although private enterprise has just as much bureaucracy, as does the Pentagon. Anarchists believe that the eradication of the State and of the bureaucracy go hand in hand.  Primitive societies eventually divided themselves into leaders and led, organizers and organized. The division of  labor demonstrated man's primacy over nature, and this became the seed for the idea of a society divided into classes. Thus bureaucracy was born, to hold the class divisions in place. Every progress has been countered by a step backward, every play of human energy has been accompanied by the mutilation and atrophy of creativity. Under the capitalist fiction that all men are created equal lies the hierarchy of interests, administrations, that perpetuate the fiction of equality at the same time they reinforce inequality. Arrogant bureaucrats, with their  incomprehensible language, are kindred to the ancient Egyptian priests with their divine superstitions and obfuscations. Bureaucrats find they have the power to impose tribute, and place themselves above the society. Bureaucracy is a way of imposing State power on the population under the guise of objective arbitration. Whether under feudalism, or capitalism, bureaucrats manage to ride the storm and come out on the other side to do the bidding of the ruling class, as long as their posts are secure.


WHAT THE FUTURE MAY HOLD. Bureaucracy is a capitalist method which carries over to socialism if not controlled. The  suppression  of bureaucracy will only be possible when individual  interests  and  general  interests  can identify with each   other.   This   idea   carries  the  assumption  that  the transformation  of  the  State  into a civil society will be made by men and women  who are not alienated. Traditional domination  is  based  on  custom,  and legal domination is based on the law and a belief in the legal order. Their job is to achieve goals set for them by their superiors. Under socialism bureaucracy can be restrained by instituting organized systems and group relations. There is mutual confidence, interdependence and shared responsibility. Belonging to many groups and having responsibilities . Shared and decentralized control. Conflict resolution through negotiation.

 

 
    

A bureaucracy (/bju?'r?kr?si/) is "a body of non-elective government officials" and/or "an administrative policy-making group". Historically, bureaucracy was government administration managed by departments staffed with non-elected officials. Today, bureaucracy is the administrative system governing any large institution.
Since being coined, the word "bureaucracy" has developed negative connotations. Bureaucracies have been criticized as being too complex, inefficient, or too inflexible. The dehumanizing effects of excessive bureaucracy became a major theme in the work of Franz Kafka, and were central to his novels, The Castle and The Trial. The elimination of unnecessary bureaucracy is a key concept in modern managerial theory and has been an issue in some political campaigns.

Others have noted the necessity of bureaucracies in modern life. The German sociologist Max Weber argued that bureaucracy constitutes the most efficient and rational way in which one can organize human activity, and that systematic processes and organized hierarchies were necessary to maintain order, maximize efficiency and eliminate favoritism. Weber also saw unfettered bureaucracy as a threat to individual freedom, in which an increase in the bureaucratization of human life can trap individuals in an impersonal "iron cage" of rule-based, rational control.

The term "bureaucracy" is French in origin, and combines the French word bureau – desk or office – with the Greek word  kratos – rule or political power.

It was coined in the mid-18th century by the French economist Jacques Claude Marie Vincent de Gournay, and was a satirical pejorative from the outset. Gournay never wrote the term down, but was later quoted at length in a letter from a contemporary:


The late M. de Gournay... sometimes used to say: "We have an illness in France which bids fair to play havoc with us; this illness is called bureaumania." Sometimes he used to invent a fourth or fifth form of government under the heading of "bureaucracy."

—?Baron von Grimm

The first known English-language use dates to 1818. Here, too, the sense was pejorative, with Irish novelist Lady Morgan referring to "the Bureaucratie, or office tyranny, by which Ireland has so long been governed."

By the mid-19th century, the word was used in a more neutral sense. It could be to refer to a system of public administration in which offices were held by unelected career officials, and in this sense "bureaucracy" was seen as a distinct form of management, often subservient to a monarchy. In the 1920s, the definition was expanded by the German sociologist Max Weber to include any system of administration conducted by trained professionals according to fixed rules. Weber saw the bureaucracy as a relatively positive development; however by 1944, the Austrian economist Ludwig von Mises noted that the term bureaucracy was "always applied with an opprobrious connotation," and by 1957 the American sociologist Robert Merton noted that the term "bureaucrat" had become an epithet.

History

Ancient bureaucracy


 


 Students competed in imperial examinations to receive a position in the bureaucracy of ancient China.
Although the term "bureaucracy" was not coined until the mid 18th century, organized and consistent administrative systems are much older. The development of writing (ca. 3500 BCE) and the use of documents was critical to the administration of this system, and the first definitive emergence of bureaucracy is in ancient Sumer, where an emergent class of scribes used clay tablets to administer the harvest and allocate its spoils. Ancient Egypt also had a hereditary class of scribes that administered the civil service bureaucracy.

The Roman Empire was administered by a hierarchy of regional proconsuls and their deputies. The reforms of Diocletian doubled the number of administrative districts and led to a large-scale expansion in Roman bureaucracy. The early Christian author Lactantius claimed that Diocletian's reforms led to widespread economic stagnation, since "the provinces were divided into minute portions, and many presidents and a multitude of inferior officers lay heavy on each territory." After the Empire split, the Byzantine Empire developed a notoriously complicated administrative hierarchy, and in time the term "byzantine" came to refer to any complex bureaucratic structure.

In Ancient China, the Han dynasty established a complicated bureaucracy based on the teachings of Confucius, who emphasized the importance of ritual in family relationships and politics. With each subsequent Dynasty, the bureaucracy evolved. During the Song dynasty, the bureaucracy became meritocratic. Following the Song reforms, competitive exams were held to determine who could hold which positions. The imperial examination system lasted until 1905, six years before the collapse of the Qing Dynasty, marking the end of China's traditional bureaucratic system.

Modern bureaucracy


 


 The 18th century Department of Excise developed a sophisticated bureaucracy. Pictured, the Custom House, London.
A modern form of bureaucracy evolved in the expanding Department of Excise in the United Kingdom, during the 18th century. The relative efficiency and professionalism in this state-run authority allowed the government to impose a very large tax burden on the population and raise great sums of money for war expenditure. According to Niall Ferguson, the bureaucracy was based on "recruitment by examination, training, promotion on merit, regular salaries and pensions, and standardized procedures". The system was subject to a strict hierarchy and emphasis was placed on technical and efficient methods for tax collection.
Instead of the inefficient and often corrupt system of tax farming that prevailed in absolutist states such as France, the Exchequer was able to exert control over the entire system of tax revenue and government expenditure. By the late 18th century, the ratio of fiscal bureaucracy to population in Britain was approximately 1 in 1300, almost four times larger than the second most heavily bureaucratized nation, France. The implementation of Her Majesty's Civil Service as a systematic, meritocratic civil service bureaucracy, followed the Northcote-Trevelyan Report of 1854. Influenced by the ancient Chinese Imperial Examination, Northcote-Trevelyan Report recommended that recruitment should be on the basis of merit determined through competitive examination, candidates should have a solid general education to enable inter-departmental transfers and promotion should be through achievement, rather than 'preferment, patronage or purchase'.[35] This system was modeled on the imperial examinations system and bureaucracy of China based on the suggestion of Northcote-Trevelyan Report. Thomas Taylor Meadows, Britain's consul in Guangzhou, China argued in his Desultory Notes on the Government and People of China, published in 1847, that "the long duration of the Chinese empire is solely and altogether owing to the good government which consists in the advancement of men of talent and merit only," and that the British must reform their civil service by making the institution meritocratic.

France also saw a rapid and dramatic expansion of government in the 18th-century, accompanied by the rise of the French civil service; a phenomenon that became known as "bureaumania," in which complex systems of bureaucracy emerged. With the translation of Confucian texts during the Enlightenment, the concept of a meritocracy reached intellectuals in the West, who saw it as an alternative to the traditional ancient regime of Europe. Voltaire and François Quesnay wrote favourably of the idea, with Voltaire claiming that the Chinese had "perfected moral science" and Quesnay advocating an economic and political system modeled after that of the Chinese. Napoleonic France adopted this meritocracy system.

In the early 19th century, Napoleon attempted to reform the bureaucracies of France and other territories under his control by the imposition of the standardized Napoleonic Code. But paradoxically, this led to even further growth of the bureaucracy.

By the mid-19th century, bureaucratic forms of administration were firmly in place across the industrialized world. Thinkers like John Stuart Mill and Karl Marx began to theorize about the economic functions and power-structures of bureaucracy in contemporary life. Max Weber was the first to endorse bureaucracy as a necessary feature of modernity, and by the late 19th century bureaucratic forms had begun their spread from government to other large-scale institutions.

The trend toward increased bureaucratization continued in the 20th century, with the public sector employing over 5% of the workforce in many Western countries. Within capitalist systems, informal bureaucratic structures began to appear in the form of corporate power hierarchies, as detailed in mid-century works like The Organization Man and The Man in the Gray Flannel Suit. Meanwhile, in the Soviet Union and Eastern Bloc, a powerful class of bureaucratic administrators termed nomenklatura governed nearly all aspects of public life.

The 1980s brought a backlash against perceptions of "big government" and the associated bureaucracy.Politicians like Margaret Thatcher and Ronald Reagan gained power by promising to eliminate government regulatory bureaucracies, which they saw as overbearing, and return economic production to a more purely capitalistic mode, which they saw as more efficient. In the business world, managers like Jack Welch gained fortune and renown by eliminating bureaucratic structures inside the corporations themselves.

Still, in the modern world practically all organized institutions rely on bureaucratic systems to manage information, process and manage records, and administer complex systems and interrelationships in an increasingly globalized world, although the decline of paperwork and the widespread use of electronic databases is transforming the way bureaucracies function.

Theories of bureaucracy

Karl Marx

Karl Marx theorized about the role and function of bureaucracy in his Critique of Hegel's Philosophy of Right, published in 1843. In his Philosophy of Right, Hegel had supported the role of specialized officials in the role of public administration, although he never used the term "bureaucracy" himself. Marx by contrast was opposed to the bureaucracy. He saw the development of bureaucracy in government as a natural counterpart to the development of the corporation in private society. Marx posited that while the corporation and government bureaucracy existed in seeming opposition, in actuality they mutually relied on one another to exist. He wrote that "The Corporation is civil society's attempt to become state; but the bureaucracy is the state which has really made itself into civil society."




John Stuart Mill

Writing in the early 1860s, political scientist John Stuart Mill theorized that successful monarchies were essentially bureaucracies, and found evidence of their existence in Imperial China, the Russian Empire, and the regimes of Europe. Mill referred to bureaucracy as a distinct form of government, separate from representative democracy. He believed bureaucracies had certain advantages, most importantly the accumulation of experience in those who actually conduct the affairs. Nevertheless, he thought bureaucracy as a form of governance compared poorly to representative government, as it relied on appointment rather than direct election. Mill wrote that ultimately the bureaucracy stifles the mind, and that "A bureaucracy always tends to become a pedantocracy."

Max Weber

(1864-1920) The German sociologist Max Weber described many ideal-typical forms of public administration, government, and business in his 1922 essay, The Nature, Conditions, and Development of Bureaucratic Herrschaft[46] published in his magnum opus, Economy and Society. His critical study of the bureaucratisation of society became one of the most enduring parts of his work. It was Weber who began the studies of bureaucracy and whose works led to the popularization of this term.Many aspects of modern public administration go back to him, and a classic, hierarchically organized civil service of the Continental type is called "Weberian civil service".

As the most efficient and rational way of organizing, bureaucratization for Weber was the key part of the rational-legal authority, and furthermore, he saw it as the key process in the ongoing rationalization of the Western society. Although he is not necessarily an admirer of bureaucracy, Weber does agree that bureaucracy constitutes the most efficient and (formally) rational way in which human activity can be organized, and that thus is indispensable to the modern world.



Bureaucratic administration means fundamentally domination through knowledge

—?Max Weber

Weber listed several precondititions for the emergence of bureaucracy. The growth in space and population being administered, the growth in complexity of the administrative tasks being carried out, and the existence of a monetary economy requiring a more efficient administrative system. Development of communication and transportation technologies make more efficient administration possible but also in popular demand, and democratization and rationalization of culture resulted in demands that the new system treats everybody equally.

Weber's ideal-typical bureaucracy is characterized by hierarchical organization, delineated lines of authority in a fixed area of activity, action taken on the basis of and recorded in written rules, bureaucratic officials need expert training, rules are implemented by neutral officials, career advancement depends on technical qualifications judged by organization, not individuals.

Weber specifies that both the public and private bureaucracy is based on specific competencies of various offices. These competencies are specified in various rules, laws, and administrative regulations. This means there is
1.a rigid division of labor
2.a chain of command is established in which the capacity to coerce is specified and restricted by regulations
3.there is a regular and continuous execution of the assigned tasks by people qualified by education and training to perform them

While recognizing bureaucracy as the most efficient form of organization, and even indispensable for the modern state, Weber also saw it as a threat to individual freedoms, and the ongoing bureaucratization as leading to a "polar night of icy darkness", in which increasing rationalization of human life traps individuals in a soulless "iron cage" of bureaucratic, rule-based, rational control.

Woodrow Wilson

(1856-1924) Writing as an academic while a professor at Bryn Mawr College, his essay “The Study of Administration”  argued for a bureaucracy as a professional cadre, devoid of allegiance to fleeting politics of the day. Wilson advocated a bureaucracy that "is a part of political life only as the methods of the counting house are a part of the life of society; only as machinery is part of the manufactured product. But it is, at the same time, raised very far above the dull level of mere technical detail by the fact that through its greater principles it is directly connected with the lasting maxims of political wisdom, the permanent truths of political progress."

Wilson did not advocate a replacement of rule by the governed, he simply advised "Administrative questions are not political questions. Although politics sets the tasks for administration, it should not be suffered to manipulate its offices". This essay became the foundation for the study of public administration in America.

Ludwig von Mises

In his 1944 work Bureaucracy, the Austrian economist Ludwig von Mises was highly critical of all bureaucratic systems. He believed that bureaucracy should be universally opposed, and noticed that in the political sphere it had few defenders, even among progressives. Mises saw bureaucratic processes at work in both the private and public spheres; however he believed that bureaucratization in the private sphere could only occur as a consequence of government interference. He wrote that "No private enterprise will ever fall prey to bureaucratic methods of management if it is operated with the sole aim of making profit."

Robert K. Merton

American sociologist Robert K. Merton expanded on Weber's theories of bureaucracy in his work Social Theory and Social Structure, published in 1957. While Merton agreed with certain aspects of Weber's analysis, he also considered the dysfunctional aspects of bureaucracy, which he attributed to a "trained incapacity" resulting from "overconformity." He saw bureaucrats as more likely to defend their own entrenched interests than to act to benefit the organization as a whole. He also believed bureaucrats took pride in their craft, which led them to resist changes in established routines. Merton also noted that bureaucrats emphasized formality over interpersonal relationships, and had been trained to ignore the special circumstances of particular cases, causing them to come across as "arrogant" and "haughty."


How to bend the rules of corporate bureaucracy
By Denise Kersten, USATODAY.com

Endless paperwork and grindingly-slow procedures are well-known hazards in government work. But private-sector employees also complain of having to jump through hoops to get the resources and authority they need to do their jobs.

Corporate bureaucracy "would be top on the list of sucking the life force out of [workers], making them feel helpless," says Scott Adams, creator of the Dilbert cartoon strip. It contributes to the loss of "any sense of self-worth or initiative [employees] have and turns them into weasels," he says.

Running into a wall of corporate bureaucracy is frustrating - it can stunt innovation, require mountains of paperwork and make employees feel like automatons. But a certain amount of procedure is necessary in any company.

"There's a lot of work that you just can't do outside of bureaucracy," says Craig Pratt, a human-resources consultant.

When procedures work, they help organizations coordinate the efforts of all employees, set quality standards, streamline the flow of information and control risks.

But when they become unruly or outdated, procedures clog the corporate system, making it difficult for workers to accomplish goals or introduce ideas, which is especially draining for innovators and creative types.

"A lot of people feel that rather than working, they're spending time trying to get the resources to do their work," says Dr. Barbara Moses, author of The Good News About Careers.
•Round up reasons

To bypass a bureaucratic blockage, begin by researching the reasons the rule or process was originally established.

"If you want to get around it or change it, you've got to understand why it exists," says David Brown, author of Organization Smarts.

You might find out that tedious paperwork serves an important purpose. Even if you can't escape filing it, seeing the bigger picture can make checking boxes and filling in blanks less disheartening.

But if the reasons you uncover don't seem relevant, apply your research to skirt the rule using one of these strategies:
•Act first, ask later.

Evaluate the consequences of bypassing the procedure. Take into account the nature of the rule, the corporate culture and your record with the company.

"Don't always assume you can't get away with something or you need permission," Moses says. In some companies, selective rule breaking is the only path to becoming a high-performance employee.

If you risk a slap on the wrist — but could earn praise for taking initiative should you pull it off — go for it.
•Seek exemption.

When going through the proper channels, you'll speed the process by trying to get around a rule rather than revamping it.

Find out who's in the position to grant your request and set up a meeting. Prepare a clear and convincing case. "Don't drown them in irrelevant information," Moses says. "Explain the consequences of not doing this. Make it easy for them."

Emphasize that the reasons for the rule or process don't apply to your circumstance and explain how the rule is thwarting company objectives.

Don't fret over seeking special treatment. "Sometimes treating people fairly means treating people differently," Brown says.

Address the decision-maker as a potential ally, rather than an obstacle. He or she likely loathes inefficiency just as much as you do. And remember: A smile and a well-timed joke can work wonders.

"Emotions play a big, big part in corporate bureaucracy," says Tom Richardson, co-author of Business is a Contact Sport. "You have to learn to master the emotions — not only yours but theirs as well."
•Request reconsideration.

Sometimes organizations establish protocol for valid reasons, but don't review this protocol when circumstances change. It's often easier to stay on a well-worn path than to forge a new one.

But if you identify a way to streamline, bring it to management's attention. Demonstrate that you understand the rationale for the old routine, but your suggestion will help the company achieve a goal - whether it's meeting the bottom line or boosting employee morale.

Expect to encounter some inertia, especially in larger organizations. Brown recommends building on a precipitating event, like a change in upper management, a round of layoffs or a move to new offices.

People are more open to rethinking at these times, Brown says, and you can use the change as an impetus for improvement.

Adams isn't optimistic about the possibility of avoiding bureaucracy. "If you put three people in a room, one of them will try to make rules for how the other two should talk to each other," he says.

But while you probably can't escape it altogether, there may be some room to wiggle around red tape.

Adhocracy is a flexible, adaptable and informal organization that is defined by a lack of formal structure. It operates in an opposite fashion to a bureaucracy. The term was first coined by Warren Bennis in his 1968 book The Temporary Society,[1] later popularized in 1970 by Alvin Toffler in Future Shock, and has since become often used in the theory of management of organizations (particularly online organizations[citation needed]). The concept has been further developed by academics such as Henry Mintzberg.

Adhocracy is characterized by an adaptive, creative and flexible integrative behavior based on non-permanence and spontaneity. It is believed that these characteristics allow adhocracy to respond faster than traditional bureaucratic organizations while being more open to new ideas.[2]





Robert H. Waterman, Jr. defined adhocracy as "any form of organization that cuts across normal bureaucratic lines to capture opportunities, solve problems, and get results". For Henry Mintzberg, an adhocracy is a complex and dynamic organizational form.[4] It is different from bureaucracy; like Toffler, Mintzberg considers bureaucracy a thing of the past, and adhocracy one of the future. When done well, adhocracy can be very good at problem solving and innovations and thrives in a diverse environment. It requires sophisticated and often automated technical systems to develop and thrive.

Characteristics of adhocracy
highly organic structure
little formalization of behavior
job specialization not necessarily based on formal training
a tendency to group the specialists in functional units for housekeeping purposes but to deploy them in small, market-based project teams to do their work
a reliance on liaison devices to encourage mutual adjustment within and between these teams
low or no standardization of procedures
roles not clearly defined
selective decentralization
work organization rests on specialized teams
power-shifts to specialized teams
horizontal job specialization
high cost of communication (dramatically reduced in the networked age)
culture based on non-bureaucratic work

All members of an organization have the authority within their areas of specialization, and in coordination with other members, to make decisions and to take actions affecting the future of the organization. There is an absence of hierarchy.

According to Robert H. Waterman, Jr., "Teams should be big enough to represent all parts of the bureaucracy that will be affected by their work, yet small enough to get the job done efficiently."

Types of adhocracy
administrative - "feature an autonomous operating core; usually in an institutionalized bureaucracy like a government department or standing agency"
operational - solves problems on behalf of its clients

Alvin Toffler claimed in his book Future Shock that adhocracies will get more common and are likely to replace bureaucracy. He also wrote that they will most often come in form of a temporary structure, formed to resolve a given problem and dissolved afterwards. An example are cross-department task forces.

Issues

Downsides of adhocracies can include "half-baked actions", personnel problems stemming from organization's temporary nature, extremism in suggested or undertaken actions, and threats to democracy and legality rising from adhocracy's often low-key profile. To address those problems, researchers in adhocracy suggest a model merging adhocracy and bureaucracy, the bureau-adhocracy.

Etymology

The word is a portmanteau of the Latin ad hoc, meaning "for the purpose", and the suffix -cracy, from the ancient Greek kratein , meaning "to govern", and is thus a heteroclite.

Use in fiction

The term is also used to describe the form of government used in the science fiction novels Voyage from Yesteryear by James P. Hogan and Down and Out in the Magic Kingdom, by Cory Doctorow.

In the radio play Das Unternehmen Der Wega (The Mission of the Vega) by Friedrich Dürrenmatt, the human inhabitants of Venus, all banished there from various regions of Earth for civil and political offenses, form and live under a peaceful adhocracy, to the frustration of delegates from an Earth faction who hope to gain their cooperation in a war brewing on Earth.

In the Metrozone series of novels by Simon Morden, The novel The Curve of the Earth features "ad-hoc" meetings conducted virtually, by which all decisions governing the Freezone collective are taken. The ad-hocs are administered by an artificial intelligence and polled from suitably qualified individuals who are judged by the AI to have sufficient experience. Failure to arrive at a decision results in the polling of a new ad-hoc, whose members are not told of previous ad-hocs before hearing the decision which must be made.

The asura in the fictional world of Tyria within the Guild Wars universe present this form of government, although the term is only used in out-of-game lore writings.