UUM GMGM 5063: The Nature of Leadership (Leadership and Bureaucracy)

This essay, prepared for a Leadership and Management course at Universiti Utara Malaysia, examines the nature of bureaucratic leadership. It begins with an introduction to the concept, including its origin story and definition, with reference to Max Weber's contributions. The essay then explores the theories shaping bureaucratic leadership, detailing key elements such as authority hierarchy, formal rules and regulations, job specialization, impersonality, career orientation, and formal selection. Further, it delves into the constituents of bureaucratic leadership, including fixed official duties, hierarchy of authority, technical expertise, system of rules, and written documentation. The advantages and disadvantages of this leadership style are discussed, followed by a concluding section that summarizes the key arguments. The essay provides a comprehensive analysis of bureaucratic leadership, highlighting its strengths and weaknesses within organizational contexts.

UUM COLLEGE OF LAW, GOVERNMENT AND INTERNATIONAL STUDIES
UNIVERSITI UTARA MALAYSIA
(SCHOOL OF GOVERNMENT)
FIRST SEMESTER
2021/2022 (A211)
INDIVIDUAL ASSIGNMENT
GMGM 5063
LEADERSHIP AND MANAGEMENT
ASSIGNMENT TITLE:
THE NATURE OF LEADERSHIP
(LEADERSHIP AND BUREAUCRACY)
PREPARED FOR:
DR. SAKINAH MUSLIM
PREPARED BY:
ROPNIESHWARI A/P MAHADEVAN
(s829283)
LIST OF CONTENT
CONTENT PAGE
1

1.0 Introduction 1
1.1 The Origin Story 1
1.2 Definition of Bureaucratic Leadership 2
2.0 Theories Shaping Bureaucratic Leadership 3
2.1 Authority Hierarchy 4
2.2 Formal Rules and Regulation 5
2.3 Job Specialization 5
2.4 Impersonality 6
2.5 Career Orientation 6
2.6 Formal Selection 6-7
3.0 Constituents of Bureaucratic Leadership 7
3.1 Fixed Official Duties 8
3.2 Hierarchy of Authority 8
3.3 Technical Expertise 8
3.4 System of Rules 9
3.5 Written Documentation 9
4.0 Advantages and Disadvantages of Bureaucratic Leadership 9
4.1 Advantages 9-10
4.2 Disadvantages 11
5.0 Final Thoughts 12
References 13
1.0 Introduction
2

In 1947, Max Weber proposed bureaucratic leadership as one of several leadership
styles. According to Callahan et al (2017), bureaucratic is a command and control
management style and defined in which subordinates are compelled to follow particular
rules including authority structures that have been created by superiors. To put it another
way, these leaders follow official rules established by higher-ups within the organization.
The bureaucratic leadership style is highlighted on an organization's administrative
demands (Mulder, P. 2017). Generally, team members and divisions in both the corporate
and public sectors utilise this nature of management method. In the public sector,
however, it is primarily employed to achieve the desired results, which is dependent on
consistency and strict obedience to rules and regulations (Wren et al, 2009). However,
there are distinguishing characteristics that set the bureaucratic leadership style apart from
others used by organizations worldwide. In this leadership setup, leaders establish a level
of isolation for the labour needs that teams must complete (Wren et al, 2009).
1.1 The Origin Story
Figure 1: Max Weber
In accordance to Kumar, R. (2016), the concept of bureaucratic leadership was
developed by Max Weber, the sociologist who invented the phrase "transactional
3

leadership." He grew up during the industrial revolution and observed the movement of
civilization toward more structure, from heavy industry to expansive farms. Kumar, R.
(2016) had further specified that, Max Weber had advanced this concept in response to a
growing desire for a much more effective strategy of administering these groups, which
had traditionally relied on favouritism.
1.2 Definition of Bureaucratic Leadership
The term "bureaucracy" does not always bring a grin to one's face. Bureaucratic
leadership is one of the oldest forms of leadership in the world, despite its negative
connotations and shady reputation (Kumar, R. 2016). Rule-based systems have been
shown to be an effective way to govern and organise communities (Callahan, R. F.,
2017). The term bureaucracy encapsulates some of the leadership model's core traits.
Cambridge dictionaries define bureaucracy as "a system for managing a nation,
corporation, or organisation that is administered by a vast number of personnel employed
to follow regulations meticulously". The phrase originated in French, where bureau
means "office" or "desk," and kratia means "power" or "authority" in Greek (Kumar, R.
2016). Administrative power is therefore fundamentally "the office power". Throughout
the history of the bureaucratic system's use and the various ways in which the model has
been established, three essential features have remained constant (Bolman & Deal, 2008).
These include the following:
 Officialism - The systems lack initiative and adaptability.
 Red tape - Compliance with legislation and formalities is a high priority.
 Proliferation - The systems have a proclivity for fast expansion.
Despite its negative connotations, bureaucracy has historically played a critical role in
governing countries. Throughout history, bureaucratic structures have been reformed and
4

restructured, frequently without much influence. Perhaps theorizing bureaucracy was a
foregone conclusion (Lunenburg & Ornstein, 2012).
2.0 Theories Shaping Bureaucratic Leadership
Bureaucratic leadership style is characterized by a hierarchical structure of authority
and the adherence to a set of administrative and decision-making rules (Callahan, R. F.,
2017). This style of leadership can be advantageous in heavily regulated industries, as
well as an impactful style of management in companies that do not require a great deal of
authenticity or innovation from their employees (Wren et al, 2009). Many intellectuals
began to investigate the frameworks that influence bureaucracy as bureaucratic
institutions began to take over modern societies (Callahan, R. F., 2017). Influential
philosophers such as Karl Marx have examined the significance of bureaucratic system in
a thriving society. However, when it comes to concept, Max Weber has been the most
influential in articulating the style (Serpa, S. & Ferreira, C.M., 2019)
Weber classified bureaucratic leadership as legal-rational power, in which
subordinates obey the leader's ultimate command and adhere to stringent standards
(Kumar, R. 2016). In his view, the authority came from the bureaucratic leader's position,
not from the leader himself. A president, for example, can only have total power while in
office, and once that time ends, they no longer have that power. Weber highlighted
bureaucracy as one conventional style of organisation in his research of power and
leadership (Kumar, R. 2016). Charismatic, traditional and Legal-rational authorities were
the three categories of legitimate power discussed in Weber's thesis and it was claimed
that, bureaucratic leadership belongs to the first category of legitimate power, hence the
subordinates would conform strictly to the authority of their superiors by adhering to
5

normative standards. (Bolman & Deal, 2008). Rather than being linked to an individual,
as in charismatic authority concept, bureaucratic power was obtained from the job
description, not the leader's demeanor or ability to lead.
He also distinguished between two styles of leadership: transformational leadership,
which includes charismatic leaders, and transactional leadership, which includes
bureaucratic leaders (Lunenburg, F.C., 2017). Weber had explained that, bureaucratic
management was also a critical component of bureaucratic power, and he regarded it was
critical to Western society's success. While he did not believe it was the ideal leadership
style, he recognised its importance in the current world and he considered that the
bureaucratic leadership structure is built on the leader's and subordinates' individual
competencies (Lunenburg, F.C., 2017). This implies that perhaps the bureaucratic system
frequently has a well-defined division of labour and command structure, as permitted by
specific and severe rules.
Additionally, individuals within the system are assigned to roles that are a good fit for
their skills, and indeed, the bureaucratic framework demands both the leader's and
subordinates' continuous development (Ang, 2016). As a matter of fact of these
restrictions, systems frequently value standards, rules, and regulations as the foundation
for their power and functionality. Structure underpins bureaucratic leadership, which
necessitates a defined framework that supports its functions (Godoi et al, 2017). Unlike
some other theories of leadership, the concept is simple to follow and implement. The
following are the six essential elements or principles of Max Weber's bureaucratic
leadership framework (Kumar, R. 2016):
2.1 Authority hierarchy
6

Bureaucratic leadership is grounded on a strict and formal hierarchy that
guarantees that all employees understand the structure of the
management (Deflem, 2000). The authority structure is organised in such a way
that each position of subordinates is controlled by a higher level of leadership
and ruled by a second tier of leaders. Deflem (2000) also stated that the formal
hierarchy guarantees that authority is properly delineated and that the command
structure runs smoothly. The bureaucratic leadership system is built on a rigorous
and formal hierarchy. It ensures that the company can plan effectively and that
decision-making is centralised.
2.2 Formal Rules and Regulation
A set of rules can be used to keep the formal hierarchy in place. A bureaucratic
system necessitates well-defined rules to maintain and regulate the structure since
these two factors are the model's cornerstone and they both integrate and support
one another while the guidelines will ensure that the framework is consistent.
(Deflem, 2000). Because the rules regulate operations ranging from minor
activities to major decisions. Seeing as rules govern a wide variety of operations,
from small activities to major decisions, bureaucratic system is renowned for its
stringent rules and it is pretty much true that these standards served as the
foundation for leadership (Kumar, R. 2016). It should not be viewed as a burden,
because the approach ensures consistency in execution, as the leader is better
placed to manage subordinates fairly.
2.3 Job Specialization
7

While bureaucratic leadership is not always associated with immense level of
talent and skill, yet it does place a first-class knowledge and expertise
(Deneshfand, K. & Aboalmaali, F.S., 2016). It is not necessary to know the proper
people or to be the greatest at selling oneself to a position in order to succeed in
the system. The system is constantly attempting to match the finest skill with the
best place. According to Weber, the purpose of an extremely good bureaucratic
system is to concentrate on expertise. Individuals are assigned to duties that are a
perfect choice for their skill set, ensuring their success and that of the organisation
(Kumar, R. 2016). In addition, the bureaucratic leadership structure precisely
defines these functions and units. The job specializations and skill set needed to
execute them are formulated in such a way that it is as simple as possible to
discover the correct person.
2.4 Impersonality
While certain leadership styles, like servant or charismatic leadership, place
people at the forefront, the bureaucratic structure is intended to be impersonal
(Webber, M. 2017). Personalities and individual accomplishments may not be at
the heart of the system instead, the organisation and performance should be
prioritised. Individuals play a smaller role. The thought process is motivated by a
desire for consistency and fairness (Kumar, R. 2016). This impersonal approach,
according to Weber, ensures that processes and functions run smoothly and are
not influenced by emotions or human characteristics.
2.5 Career Orientation
In a bureaucratic organisational paradigm, hiring is solely made on the basis
proficiency, and subordinates are assigned positions that match their unique skill
sets (Webber, M. 2017). This means that the job will always go to the person who
8

possesses the necessary skills. An individual will be assured of the position if and
only if they are capable of performing the job correctly. As people's talents
develop and evolve, this leads to corporations shifting workers from one position
to another. Because it prioritises internal knowledge and comprehension of the
structure already in place, the bureaucratic system somehow does not move very
quickly at all (Kumar, R. 2016).
2.6 Formal Selection
All organisational members will be chosen based on their technical credentials
and competency, which will be shown through training, education, or formal
examination. According to Weber, a bureaucratic organization must fulfil one of
the following two missions:
 Up-focus mission: the organization's goal is to serve the shareholder, the
directors, or any other entity that gives it authority to operate. To acquire
additional support from the source, the organization aims to ensure that the
advantages of labor flow towards the 'outside' of the organization.
 An in-focus mission is one in which the organization's actions are centered
on the organization itself. The goal of this objective is to give benefits to
the firm and its employees, such as increased profit, increased market
share, and increased cash flow.
3.0 Constituents of Bureaucratic Leadership System
Bureaucratic leadership is described as leadership that is rooted on clearly defined official
responsibilities within a power hierarchy and is distinguished by the application of a set
of administrative and decision-making rules (Callahan, R. F., 2017). This style of
leadership can be beneficial in highly regulated industries, but it can also be an impactful
9

management style in organisations that will not goes beyond mere of creativity or
innovation from their employees (Ang, 2016). The bureaucratic leadership style is
concerned with the administrative requirements of the company. This management
system is used by teams and departments in a variety of corporate and public sector
organisations (Serpa, S. & Ferreira, C.M., 2019). However, it is most commonly utilised
in the government sector, which places a high value on consistency and obedience to laws
and rules in order to achieve the desired results. Nevertheless, there are several
distinguishing characteristics that distinguish the Bureaucratic form of leadership from
the other styles of leadership employed by organisations all over the world (Deneshfand,
K. & Aboalmaali, F.S., 2016). Mulder, P. (2017) had studied that administrators in this
leadership environment create a type of separation between the labour needs that teams
must perform and the rest of their responsibilities. He believes that bureaucratic
leadership can be broken down into the following aspects:
3.1 Fixed Official Duties
Administrative and management functions are decentralised through permanent
offices, which allows for clearly defined roles, responsibility, and accountability
to be established amongst departments. As an illustration, consider the case of a
software corporation. Organizational divisions include research and innovation,
production, marketing, distribution, and administration. Research and
development is a division of the corporation.
3.2 Hierachy of Authority
Jobs in the organisation are organised in a hierarchical structure, with lower-level
positions reporting to and is under the guidance of those in higher-level positions.
For instance, those staff who works in research and development department
(R&D) in a company are overseen by their team leaders, who are in turn under
10

the direction of their respective department heads. The division vice president is
responsible for the department heads. The vice president receives his order from
the CEO, who in turn receives his instructions from the company board of
directors of the corporation.
3.3 Technical Expertise
A bureaucratic leadership qualification is typically determined by the level of
technical skill essential to efficiently and successfully manage the management
responsibilities of the position. For instance, the vice president of research and
development of a software company may have experience not only in
administration, but also in software engineering.
3.4 System of Rules
A bureaucratic leader is required to adhere to a set of ethical and technological
standards. Technical rules govern the manner in which work is performed and
resolutions are made, whereas interpersonal rules define the scope of
a manager's attitude and his behaviour. For example, a software company's deputy
head of research and development or inovation is bound by behavioural guidelines
that allow him to oversee only his division. He is not allowed to supervise
employees from other divisions, such as that of the production division.
Furthermore, when asking financing for a new project, he is bound by technical
constraints that force him to follow a very organised approach. He is also bound
by the company's personal conduct regulations as an employee.
3.5 Written Documentation
The organisation keeps written records including all rules, decisions, and
administrative actions taken by its employees. Leaders will benefit from these
11

records because they will be able to draw on the experiences of the past.
Accountability is further enhanced by the use of written documents.
4.0 Advantages and Disadvantages of Bureaucratic Leadership
In today's society, bureaucratic leadership seems to have its own set of advantages that it
can give to enterprises. However, Deneshfand, K. & Aboalmaali, F.S. (2016) criticized
the theory of leadership also presents a number of obstacles that both organisations and
leaders should be aware of when choosing whether or not to employ the strategy.
4.1 Advantages
The most obvious benefit of bureaucratic leadership is the organization's need for
bureaucracy (Wren et al, 2009) . Modern company need bureaucracy, thus the
functional organisation is logical. Additionally, the paradigm of bureaucratic
leadership can easily repeated. The emphasis on developing a precise and
explicit set of standards and processes facilitates replication. This allows the
framework to be used in a number of contexts (Bolman & Deal, 2008). The
bureaucratic system and set procedures help keep things moving and, in a sense,
steady the ship. An authoritative system speeds up decision-making. We don't
waste time trying to figure out what will happen next because of the hierarchy and
predetermined procedures (Lunenburg & Ornstein, 2012) .
The established structures and processes help new subordinates fit in quickly. In a
nutshell, the leadership structure or framework is well-suited to businesses that do
a lot of the same thing The bureaucratic engine can help achieve the goals of the
fast food industry and the McDonaldization concept. The expectations and
practises are clearly defined, making it easy for new subordinates to take over.
12

The bureaucratic approach to leadership, in contrast to other models such as
charismatic leadership, does not respect the leader (Webber, M. 2017). The
leader's position is based on competence, not personality. People are hired based
on their qualities, and the ideal bureaucratic system ensures that they can lead. A
leader does not need to excite subordinates to gain legitimacy.
Fundamentally, bureaucratic leadership can offer predictable results. In addition, it
guarantees that everyone in the organisation understands the processes and goals
(Godoi et al, 2017) . In essence, it provides firms with a distinct perspective and a
clear path to success. The bureaucratic framework can aid with uniformity.
Consistency improves both the organisation and its subordinates. Employees are
forced to perform consistently under bureaucratic leadership, increasing job
security. You can keep working for the organisation as long as you follow its rules
and help it achieve its goals. Improved career security can help subordinates stay
motivated while while preserving professionalism (Kumar, R. 2016).
Also, the bureaucratic system may suddenly benefit enterprises that rely on
security (Kumar, R. 2016). Organizations that deal with sensitive information or
those that perform dangerous tasks can benefit from the implementation and
enforcement of a bureaucratic system of rules and procedures. Automating jobs
and responding to events can be made easier if you understand the methods and
procedures in advance.
4.2 Disadvantages
Despite these benefits, bureaucratic leadership has several drawbacks. Achieving
creativity and innovation under a structured leadership strategy is difficult
13

(Deneshfand, K. & Aboalmaali, F.S., 2016). The structure and regular practises of
the system make it rigid. Supervisors must deal with any deviation from the norm.
The rigid structure might lead to a work atmosphere where employees blindly
follow procedures. The bureaucratic structure may stifle creative thinking by
limiting procedural change while a fresh idea can take time to adapt to current
systems. Making changes in an unfamiliar setting is difficult. In an organisation,
breaking old patterns is difficult (Callahan, R. F., 2017).
In addition to establishing a solid professional image within a corporation,
bureaucratic leadership does not often empower subordinates as much as other
styles (Qaisi, A. 2015). Professionalism and respect to norms are encouraged, but
not necessarily expertise. It's good to learn new skills and knowledge as long as
the subordinate can perform duties and meet goals. Overall, the framework's rules
and job security may demotivate both workers and employers (Kang, 2005) . First,
typical labour can quickly become boring without challenge. Knowing an
individual can never fully develop or be creative can sap the respective work ethic
and drive. No need to push oneself to do more or better work when doing the
minimum can suffice.
The bureaucratic climate can occasionally harm subordinates who thrive under
pressure and seek to improve (Kang, 2005) . According to Kang (2005), being
unable to fully utilise a skill may engender resentment and drive passionate and
brilliant employees to leave. Complacent and unmotivated employees can also
stifle organisational success (Qaisi, A. 2015). On condition that the employees are
doing their tasks perfectly, there is minimal room for expansion or hiring. As
14

previously stated, the best subordinates get promoted while the rest don't. This
leadership style is task-oriented and less personal. Achieving goals effectively is
the goal, not empowering or inspiring subordinates (Deneshfand, K. &
Aboalmaali, F.S., 2016) . Employees may feel undervalued and robotic.
5.0 Final Thoughts
To conclude, it is safe to say that bureaucratic leadership has been tried and tested
throughout the years. As a result of Weber's philosophy, it became a popular choice for
both corporate leaders and government officials to organise their societies. In spite of this,
the approach has a bad reputation, which is sometimes fostered by poorly implemented
systems. When employees are under constant pressure to strictly adhere to the rules,
bureaucratic leadership may indeed be draining and time-consuming. There may be a lack
of innovation and subordinate empowerment within the organisation. A well-designed
bureaucratic structure, on the other hand, can provide a company with an effective
organisational framework. If a person in charge of a team of novice employees and
require stability and dependability, this is a style to consider.
15

REFERENCE
Ang, Y. Y. (2016). Beyond Weber: Conceptualizing an alternative ideal type of bureaucracy
in developing contexts. Regulation & Governance, 11(3), 282-298.
https://doi.org/10.1111/rego.12123
Bolman. L. G., & Deal, T. E. (2008). Reframing organizations: Artistry, choice, and
leadership
(4th ed.). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Deneshfand, K. & Aboalmaali, F.S. (2016). Max Weber's Philosophy of Bureaucracy and Its
Criticism. International Journal of Scientific Management and Development, Vol.4,
No.6 pp:214-220
Godoi, A., Silva, L. F., & Cardoso, O. O. (2017). Ensaio teórico sobre a burocracia em
Weber,
o conflito da agência e a governança corporativa: Uma reflexão sobre a burocracia
profissionalizante [Theoretical essay on bureaucracy in Weber, the agency conflict
and corporate governance: A reflection on professional bureaucracy]. Revista de
Administração de Roraima-UFRR, 7(2), 426-447.
Kang, Hwang-Sun. (2005). Administrative Discretion in the Transparent Bureaucracy. Public
Administration Quarterly, Vol. 29, No. 1 pp. 162-185
Kumar, R. (2016). Bureaucratic Theory by Max Weber – A Review Study. Journal of
Advances and Scholarly Researches in Allied Education Vol. XII, Issue No. 23,
October-2016,
ISSN 2230-7540
Lunenburg, F. C., & Ornstein, A. O. (2012). Educational administration: Concepts and
practices. Belmont, CA: Wadsworth/Cengage Learning.
Lunenburg, F.C., (2017). Organizational Structure and Design. Journal of Educational
Leadership and Policy Studies, v1 n1 p21-43 ISSN-2473-2826
Mulder, P. (2017). Bureaucratic Theory by Max Weber. Retrieved from ToolsHero:
https://www.toolshero.com/management/bure aucratic-theory-weber/
Qaisi, A. (2015).The Impact of Bureaucracy Characteristics on Leadership. Journal of Ethics
and Leadership in the Public Sector.
Richard, F. Callahan (2017).Bureaucracy and Leadership. 10.1007/978-3-319-31816-5_622-
1.
Webber, M. (2017) Bureaucracy. In: Shafritz JM, Hyde AC (eds) Classic of public

administration, 8th edn. Cengage
Wren, Daniel; Bedeian, Arthur (2009). "Chapter 10: The Emergence of the Management
Process and Organization Theory". The Evolution of Management Thought (PDF).