Abstract
This chapter addresses the psychological enablers of bureaucracy and ways to protect bureaucrats and society from its adverse effects. All organizations benefit from formalization, but a bureaucracy is defined by the dominance of coercive formalization. Since bureaucrats are not bureaucratic among friends, one might ask what changes someone at work into a bureaucrat and why do bureaucrats and bureaucratic organizations exhibit their characteristic behaviors?
The pattern of behavior arises from fundamental psychology and in particular (1) our capacity for habitual behavior, (2) the difference between intelligence as manifestation of the coping mode of cognition and understanding as manifestation of the pervasive optimization mode, and (3) the phenomenon of authoritarianism as the need for external authority through a lack of understanding of one’s living environment. The combination of these phenomena leads to a formal definition, the “Bureaucratic Dynamic,” in which the prevalence of coercive formalization scales with “institutional ignorance” (as measure of how well workers understand the consequence of their own (in)actions, both within the organization as well on the wider society) and “worker cost of failure.”
Modern organizational theory has become progressively more aware of the inefficiencies and dangers of bureaucracy. The framework developed in this paper can be applied to protect society, organizations, and workers from the adverse effects of bureaucracy. Yet while non-bureaucratic organizations can produce excellence, they also rely on it and are therefore somewhat fragile. Improved protective measures can be developed using the framework developed in this chapter.
Bureaucracy is the art of making the possible impossible—Javier Pascual Salcedo
A democracy which makes or even effectively prepares for modern, scientific war must necessarily cease to be democratic. No country can be really well prepared for modern war unless it is governed by a tyrant, at the head of a highly trained and perfectly obedient bureaucracy.—Aldous Huxley
Whether the mask is labeled fascism, democracy, or dictatorship of the proletariat, our great adversary remains the apparatus—the bureaucracy, the police, the military. Not the one facing us across the frontier of the battle lines, which is not so much our enemy as our brothers’ enemy, but the one that calls itself our protector and makes us its slaves. No matter what the circumstances, the worst betrayal will always be to subordinate ourselves to this apparatus and to trample underfoot, in its service, all human values in ourselves and in others.—Simone Weil
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution.
Buying options
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Learn about institutional subscriptionsNotes
- 1.
- 2.
The term pervasive-optimization mode has been introduced in this paper. In Andringa et al. (2013) we did not use a single term and we described this mode as cognition for exploration, disorder, or possibility. In a recent paper “Cognition From Life” (Andringa et al. 2015) we introduced the term cocreation mode of cognition. We decided to use the term pervasive-optimization mode in this paper since the term co-creation mode requires additional explanation.
- 3.
Authoritarians might value intelligence more than libertarians. For example more than half of the 21 Nazi Nuremburg defendants had a superior intelligence (belonging to the most intelligent 3 to 0.2 %) and only one had average intelligence (Zillmer et al. 2013). This suggests that authoritarians select on intelligence.
References
Adler PS, Borys B (1996) Two types of bureaucracy: Enabling and coercive. Adm Sci Q 41(1):61–89
Andringa TC, Lanser JJ (2013) How pleasant sounds promote and annoying sounds impede health: a cognitive approach. Int J Environ Res Public Health 10(4):1439–1461. doi:10.3390/ijerph10041439
Andringa TC, van den bosch KA, Vlaskamp C (2013) Learning autonomy in two or three steps: linking open-ended development, authority, and agency to motivation. Front Psychol 18. doi:10.3389/fpsyg.2013.00766
Andringa TC, van den Bosch KA, Wijermans F (2015) Cognition from life: The two modes of cognition that underlie moral behavior. Frontiers in Theoretical and Philosophical Psychology (Accepted)
Bargh JA (2010). Bypassing the will: towards demystifying the nonconscious control of social behavior. In: Hassin R, Uleman J, Bargh J (Eds) The new unconscious. Oxford University Press, New York, pp 37–58
Billington JH (1980) Fire in the minds of men. Basic Books, New York
Deci E, Ryan RM (1987) The support of autonomy and the control of behavior. J Pers Soc Psychol 53(6):1024–1037
Fredrickson BL, Branigan C (2005) Positive emotions broaden the scope of attention and thought⣳action repertoires. Cognit Emot 19(3):313–332. doi:10.1080/02699930441000238
Frijda N (1986) The emotions. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge
Gilligan J (1997) Violence: reflections on a national epidemic. Vintage Books, New York
Inbar Y, Pizarro DA, Bloom P (2009) Conservatives are more easily disgusted than liberals. Cognit Emot 23(4):714–725. doi:10.1080/02699930802110007
James W, McDermott JJ (1978) The writings of William James: A comprehensive edition, including an annotated bibliography updated through 1977. University of Chicago Press, Chicago
Kaplan RS, Norton DP (1996) Using the balanced scorecard as a strategic management system. Retrieved from https://noppa.tkk.fi/noppa/kurssi/tu-22.1500/luennot/TU-22_1500_pre-reading_1_kaplan_norton_1996_.pdf
Kelly G, Mulgan G, Muers S (2002) Creating public value. London. Retrieved from http://webarchive.nationalarchives.gov.uk/20100416132449/http:/www.cabinetoffice.gov.uk/media/cabinetoffice/strategy/assets/public_value2.pdf. Accessed 14 March 2015
Labaree D (2011) How Dewey lost: The victory of David Snedden and social efficiency in the reform of American education. In: Tröhler D, Schlag T, Ostervalder F (Eds) Pragmatism and modernities. Sense Publishers, Rotterdam
Max-Neef MA (2005) Foundations of transdisciplinarity. Ecol Econ 53(1):5–16. doi:10.1016/j.ecolecon.2005.01.014
McGilchrist I (2010) The master and his emissary: the divided brain and the making of the Western world. Yale University Press, New Haven
Moore MH (2000) Managing for value: organizational strategy in for-profit, nonprofit, and governmental organizations 29(suppl 1):183–208. doi:10.1177/089976400773746391
Moore MH (2003) The public value scorecard: a rejoinder and an alternative to “strategic performance measurement and management in non-profit organizations” by Robert Kaplan, 23. doi:10.2139/ssrn.402880
Nguyen L (2007) The question of survival: The death of desire and the weight of life. Am J Psychoanal 67:53–67
Ouellette JA, Wood W (2003) Habit and intention in everyday life: the multiple processes by which past behavior predicts future behavior. Psychol Bull 124(1): 54–74
Ryan RM, Connell JP (1989) Perceived locus of causality and internalization: Examining reasons for acting in two domains. J Pers Psychol 57(5):749–761. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.57.5.749
Stenner K (2005) The authoritarian dynamic (1 edn). Cambridge University Press, New York
Stenner K (2009a) Three kinds of “conservatism”. Psychol Inq 20(2):142–159. doi:10.1080/10478400903028615
Stenner K (2009b) “Conservatism,” context-dependence, and cognitive incapacity. Psychol Inq 20(2):189–195
Stoker G (2006) Public value management a new narrative for networked governance? Am Rev Public Adm 36(1):41–57. doi:10.1177/0275074005282583
Vygotskiĭ LLS (1978) Mind in society: The development of higher psychological processes. In: Cole M, John-Steiner V, Scribner S, Souberman E (Eds) Harvard University Press, London
Weber M (1978) Economy and society. University of California Press, Berkeley
Wilkinson R (2006) Why is violence more common where inequality is greater? Ann N Y Acad Sci 1036(1):1–12. doi:10.1196/annals.1330.001
Wilkinson R, Pickett K (2009) The spirit level: why more equal societies almost always do better. Health.Gov.Au
Wood W, Neal D (2009) The habitual consumer. J Consum Psychol 19(4):579–592. doi:10.1016/j.jcps.2009.08.003
Zillmer EA, Harrower M, Ritzler BA, Archer RP (2013) The quest for the Nazi personality. Routledge, Hillsdale, New Jersey
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Appendix
Appendix
Some core properties of the bureaucratic syndrome (authoritarian dominated) and the non-bureaucratic syndrome (libertarian dominated organizations).
Topic | Bureaucratic syndrome | Non-bureaucratic syndrome |
---|---|---|
Key properties | ||
Organizational goals | Societal goals of the organization are only adhered in name, but neither understood nor clearly implemented | Development of a broadly shared vision about the societal reason d’être of the organization and the way to realize it |
Overall strategy | Stimulating sameness and oneness through standardization and obedience | Continual skilled improvisation on the basis of a shared vision and well-chosen procedures |
Competence | Ignoring, discouraging, and demoralizing competent “subordinates.” Deskilling | Relying on and fostering all proven and budding competencies in the organization |
Autonomy | Subordinate autonomy is not an option. Obedience is more important than competence | Autonomy and competence development of subordinates expected. |
Content | Complete disregard of content while favoring form | Content is leading, form a means |
Organizational development | Structures and procedures adapt to the lowest competence level | Everyone is expected to learn and grow towards autonomous roles in organization |
Main conflicts | ||
Stability versus development | Stability and other forms of high predictability leading. This defines the organization | The workers in the organization are constantly developing their skills in order to improve all aspects of the societal role of the organization (i.e., quality and efficiency) |
Form versus optimization | Obsessed with form and formalisms. Centralized optimization of standardized and narrowly defined responsibilities | Actively eliciting creative and decentralized optimization of organizational goals. Disregard of form when counter-productive |
Standardization versus diversity | Obsession with standardization and curtailing diversity, at the cost of quality if quality entails diversity | Concerned with the overall optimization of all work processes in context, of which both standardization and increasing diversity are options |
Error versus learning | Obsessed with preventing errors and mistakes. The organization redefines itself to produce what it can, not what it should; “race to the bottom” | Error and correction after error part of continual creative optimization of work processes |
Short versus long term | Exclusively short-term (form) oriented, neither care for nor understanding of mid of long term goals. However, what is short- or mid-terms depends on the role in the organization | Optimization, by all workers. on all time-scales and all dimensions of success |
Structural properties | ||
Role of hierarchy | Hierarchy formalized and inflexible, based on assumed (but never fully checked) competence of superiors | Hierarchy task dependent, and therefore flexible and competence-based |
Perception of authorities | Authorities never fundamentally questioned | Incompetent authorities not accepted, but coached or dismissed |
Locus of control | Formation of stable authoritarian cliques, who take control over the institutional change processes to prevent further complexity | Loosely and varyingly linked libertarians at control positions. |
Measures of success | Performance measures redefined to what is delivered | Performance measure based on what should be delivered (given reason d’être) |
Accountability | Suppression of all forms of accountability at the higher levels and prevention of errors and retribution in case of error at the lower levels | Accountability part of normal institutional learning and competence building |
Emotions | ||
Overall role | Rationality and “objectivity” leading. Emotions treated as irrelevant source of variation, to be suppressed | Central role of positive emotions (compassion, enthusiasm, interest) as key motivators; prominent negative emotions indicative of organizational failure |
Emotion of workers | Motivating emotion negative: activities guided by the fear of losing control or being shamed publically | Motivating emotion positive: activities aimed at realizing shared benefits including personal development |
Emotions of coworkers | Utter disregard of the feelings and emotional wellbeing of coworkers | Strong focus on the creation of optimal working condition in which coworkers feel optimally motivated to give their best |
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2015 Springer International Publishing Switzerland
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Andringa, T. (2015). The Psychological Drivers of Bureaucracy: Protecting the Societal Goals of an Organization. In: Janssen, M., Wimmer, M., Deljoo, A. (eds) Policy Practice and Digital Science. Public Administration and Information Technology, vol 10. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-12784-2_11
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-12784-2_11
Published:
Publisher Name: Springer, Cham
Print ISBN: 978-3-319-12783-5
Online ISBN: 978-3-319-12784-2
eBook Packages: Business and EconomicsEconomics and Finance (R0)