Bureaucratic Structure & Personality

This article discusses the concept of Bureaucratic Structure and Personality and how it is exercised in large and complex organizations. It explains the interrelation between social relations, governance, and output in the production sector.

1
Running head: BUREAUCRATIC STRUCTURE & PERSONALITY
BUREAUCRATIC STRUCTURE & PERSONALITY
Name
Institution

2
BUREAUCRATIC STRUCTURE & PERSONALITY
INTRODUCTION
According to Max Weber, the theory of Bureaucratic structure adopts current
management systems which were to be exercised by leaders despite the olden orders
which believed that Authority was based on traditions, beliefs and personal Charisma.
Personality refers to the differences in individuals which are evidenced by his or her
characteristics patterns regarding thinking, behaving, and feelings (Cohen, 2012). The
main focus of personality is based on two broad areas which include a clear
understanding of individual characteristics and differences in a particular personality and
intelligence how distinct parts a person can be compiled together as a whole.
Max Weber states two fundamental characteristics of the Bureaucratic structure which
make the vast and complex organizations regardless of whether governmental or privately owned
choose to implement the features of this theory (Baker, Etzioni, Hansen & Sontag, 2010). A clear
understanding of this form of structure enables one to be in a position to integrate most of the
operation of the governmental organizations. The main feature of this structure is that it is
hierarchical. This means that this is a maximum distribution of power from the top level
management to the bottom level. The energy decreases as we move down the hierarchy of power
from the high-level manager up to the subordinates (Miller & Toulouse, 2010). Those who are at
the lower levels of the hierarchy respond to guidelines and directions from those who are above
in the regime. The second characteristic of this theory is that the organizations which exhibit this
type of structure are governed by rules, scientific laws and procedures which act by authority and
direction.

3
BUREAUCRATIC STRUCTURE & PERSONALITY
The clarity and organization of social structure entail a defined series and patterns of
activities which are functionally related to the operations of the organization. In line with this
statement an organization which exhibits this type of structure has an integrated number of
offices which represent a hierarchal status and perform some duties which are defined by a series
of set rules by the organization (Levinson, 2009). Each of these offices has a given responsibility
under a particular competence and power, authority and control are derived from these offices
and are not owned by the specific individual who is chosen to implement them.
About Max Weber, he states that a formal organization is the one that follows the
bureaucracy structure since it entails a cut division of defined activities which are specified to be
performed by the holder of that specific office. Well, differentiated systems held by each office
are clearly shown by the rules and regulations of the organization. Meyer & Rowan, (2013). The
basis of the task performed by each office is distributed in relation with a technical qualification
which is evaluated or ascertained through formal design, whereby an exam is given to identify
who fits where and why. In the hierarchal structure, the authority is provided by the expert
knowledge with the field which also translates the amount of salary to be awarded in every
specific office. The pure bureaucratic system is whereby the official is appointed by superior or
is not entirely elected.
Majority of the bureaucratic offices include the expectations of long-term tenure which
exclude the aggravating factors which are believed to decrease the extent to which the
organization operates. It is also aimed at maximization of security tenure regarding pensions,
salaries and even promotion of employees in the organization which in turn contribute to a
positive change in the performance of the company or organization which are achieved about the
performance of every individual in the organization. Kluckhohn, Murray & Schneider (2011).

4
BUREAUCRATIC STRUCTURE & PERSONALITY
The most significant advantage of this form of structure is that its technical efficiency in which a
premium is determined by accuracy, speed, control and the returns per unit of input.
With significant advancements of this structure of management it’s shown that immense
importance is not attached to the person who undertakes the roles but how individuals are
controlled by social relations to enhance increment in the production output.
Conclusion
The concept of Bureaucratic Structure in line with personally has been exercised in some
large and complex organizations and gives a clear understanding of the interrelation between the
social relations of individuals, the way of governance in an organization and output in the
production sector. Personality tries to explain the social ties of the top level managers and the
subordinates and how they influence the performance of a company. It also states that
individuals themselves have no power but their power originates from the offices they work in
thus the consideration of both bureaucratic structure and personality may lead to an expansion in
the performance of an organization.

5
BUREAUCRATIC STRUCTURE & PERSONALITY
References
Baker, S. H., Etzioni, A., Hansen, R. A., & Sontag, M. (2010). Tolerance for bureaucratic
structure: Theory and measurement. Human Relations, 26(6), 775-786.
Cohen, H. (2012). Bureaucratic flexibility: some comments on Robert Merton's' Bureaucratic
Structure and Personality'. The British journal of sociology, 21(4), 390-399.
Kluckhohn, C. E., Murray, H. A., & Schneider, D. M. (2011). Personality in nature, society, and
culture.
Levinson, D. J. (2009). Role, personality, and social structure in the organizational setting. The
Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 58(2), 170.
Meyer, J. W., & Rowan, B. (2013). Institutionalized organizations: Formal structure as myth and
ceremony. American journal of sociology, 83(2), 340-363.
Miller, D., & Toulouse, J. M. (2010). Chief executive personality and corporate strategy and
structure in small firms. Management science, 32(11), 1389-1409.