Where is bureaucratic leadership used

The term is derived from the French word bureau , which stands for office or desk, and the Greek suffix kratia , which denotes the power of. Interestingly, the term has been used pejoratively from the start. The slightly unfavorable view of bureaucracy is shown in the definition of the word bureaucratic. Nonetheless, while the term was first used in France in the mid th century, the history of using a bureaucratic system goes further back.

The organised use of the administrative system, which is essentially what bureaucracy is, has its roots back in Ancient Egypt.

The Ancient Chinese society also established a bureaucratic system, largely laid out by the teaching of Confucius, who believed in the importance of rituals. Throughout the historic use of bureaucratic system and the different ways the model has been defined, three core elements have stayed at the centre of bureaucracy. These are:. Despite the pejorative view of bureaucracy, it has been an important part of running societies. Throughout its history, the bureaucratic systems have undergone reformation and restructure, often with little influence.

Perhaps, the theorization of bureaucracy was almost inevitable. As the bureaucratic systems began taking over modern societies, many philosophers and thinkers began examining the frameworks influencing bureaucracy. Influential thinkers such as John Stuart Mill and Karl Marx have examined the role of bureaucracy as part of a functional society.

But in terms of leadership theory, Max Weber and George Ritzer have perhaps been the most dominant in describing the style. In the study of power and leadership, Weber identified bureaucracy as one traditional form of organizing. In the three-type model, the bureaucratic leadership fell under the first type of legitimate power. Furthermore, he distinguished between two types of leadership: transformational , which would include charismatic leadership, and transactional , which relates to bureaucratic leaders.

The obvious differences of these two types are outlined well in the below image:. According to Weber, bureaucratization was an integral part of the rational-legal authority as well and he believed it to play a key role in the success of the Western society.

The bureaucratic leadership framework is based on specific competencies of the leader and the subordinates, according to Weber. This means the bureaucratic system always has a rigid division of labor and a clear structure of command, which is enabled by specific and strict rules.

In addition, the people within the system are assigned to the roles that best fit their skills and bureaucratic framework requires a continuous development of both the leader and the subordinates. Because of these requirements, the systems tend to focus on rules, laws and regulations as the basis of power and functionality.

Aside from Weber, bureaucratic leadership is closely tied to the concept called McDonaldization. The idea was put forward by an American sociologist in when he published The McDonaldization of Society. In fact, Ritzer saw McDonaldization as the process of rationalization, which Weber linked to bureaucratic leadership.

The below YouTube clip features Ritzer discussing the elements of McDonaldization in the modern context:.

Bureaucratic leadership is based on structure and it requires a clear framework to support its functions. Unlike with certain other leadership theories, such as charismatic leadership, the framework is rather ease to follow and to set up. In Economy and Society , Weber identified the ideal types of governing and leading different organizations. As mentioned above, big chunk of the work was dedicated to the study of bureaucratization of society. He examined the different elements of bureaucracy and how they are organized, creating a theory of civil society, which has been used and analyzed ever since.

Furthermore, a big part of the analysis focused on the conditions and elements required for bureaucratic leadership to work efficiently.

He described six tenets that are crucial for the framework. Bureaucratic leadership relies on a strict and formal hierarchy, which guarantees members within the organization are aware of the structure. The authority is organized in a manner that guarantees a higher level of leadership controls each level of subordinates.

Which in turn is controlled by another layer of leaders. The formal hierarchy ensures authority is clearly defined and the command structure works like a well-oiled machine. The strict and formal hierarchy is the basis for the bureaucratic leadership framework. It guarantees the organization can plan efficiently and ensures the decision-making is centralized.

The formal hierarchy can be withheld in place through a set of rules. A bureaucratic system requires defined rules that will control the structure and keep it in place. These two elements are the cornerstone of the model, because they both complement each other and provide support for each other. The rules will provide consistency within the framework as well. Since the rules define the operations from small tasks to bigger decisions. The bureaucratic system is known for its, sometimes laborious, rules, but it is this that creates the framework for leadership.

Bureaucratic leadership is not always associated with high level of skills , but it emphasizes knowledge and expertise in its framework. The system always tries to combine the best talent with the right position. According to Weber, the function of an efficient bureaucratic system is to focus on specialists. People are directed to roles that fit their skillset perfectly, as this can guarantee they are able to excel and help the organization to succeed. Furthermore, the bureaucratic leadership framework establishes these roles and units clearly.

The job specialization and skillset required to perform them are defined in a manner that makes finding the right person as smooth as possible. While certain leadership frameworks put the persons in the front, such as servant leadership or charismatic leadership, the bureaucratic system is purposely impersonal. The personalities and the individual achievements are not at the core of the system, the main focus should be on the organization and the performance.

The individual takes a lesser role. The reason behind the thinking is about consistency and equal treatment.

According to Weber, this kind of impersonal approach can guarantee the operations and functions perform rationally and are not affected by emotions or individual differences. Just as the subordinates are directed to roles that suit their individual skillsets, the hiring in a bureaucratic leadership model is based solely on technical proficiency.

What this means is that the person who has the skills required in the specific role will always get the role. As long as you are able to do the job appropriately, then you are guaranteed the role. This also results in the companies moving people from one role to another as the skills develop and change. Despite this, I have encountered bureaucratic leaders, and I must say that many of them have been engineers. I will give you an example. Years ago, I was leading a proposal team on a government bid.

We had different sub-streams in responding to this RFP, and an engineering team was one of them. After the engineering team had gone through the technical requirements documentation, our list of deviations was substantial, to say the least. One clause stated that the cabin should be big enough to fit a personal bag. The engineers had listed this as a deviation to my surprise. I found this odd since we had made a deviation on the personal bag not being able to fit in the cabin.

When I brought this up, I got the answer that it was impossible to comply with this requirement since the size of the personal bag was undefined. I finally managed to persuade the engineers that several typical bag sizes would indeed fit and that we could comply with this requirement and remove the deviation. They only agreed after I promised to take personal responsibility for making these size assumptions — a dangerous gamble in their minds.

I was amazed and started wondering how our technical department ever got anything done, to be honest. On the other side, there have also been cases during my career when lack of bureaucracy has been a significant problem, and that is often related to people taking shortcuts when it comes to contract requirements and financial arrangements. In some cases, this lack of willingness to follow bureaucratic rules has resulted in significant liabilities and people getting fired for breaking essential rules.

This lack of control leads me to describe a few areas where a certain level of bureaucratic leadership can do good, or even be a requirement.

Do bear in mind that you can switch between many leadership styles and do not have to commit to using only one completely. As experience has taught me, there must be a certain level of bureaucracy in most processes, and especially so in the following areas:. Please note that all of the above areas, besides perhaps the first one, deserve to be questioned, challenged, and brought up for discussion when it comes to improvement and change.

This is fine, but it has to be done according to some protocol. A salesperson should not make up his or her own contract or make changes on the fly. An assembly worker should not use some other bolts that were lying close by. Changes should be made in a proper way where they can be qualified, certified, and then introduced sensibly, not ad hoc.

Refer to adaptive leadership for inspiration. Change is regarded as a problem, primarily. This rigidity of the bureaucratic leadership style leads me back to using multiple leadership styles in different areas and with different people.

Either push bureaucratic leadership in these processes but create forums and opportunities where innovation is stimulated and welcomed by applying democratic leadership, for instance. Or perhaps ensure complete bureaucracy among the bookkeepers but let a few other individuals in the finance department do the innovation.

There are ways of getting the strengths of bureaucracy where they are needed and couple that with excellent innovation at other times or in other areas. If you want to learn about leadership styles more focused on innovation, creativity, and change, I suggest you read our articles on transformational leadership and visionary leadership, available in our leadership styles portal. Please share your thoughts on bureaucratic leadership and your experience of it in the comment section further down, below the examples of famous bureaucratic leaders.

If you want to learn more about leadership, check out our article collection on leadership styles which has more than twentyfive styles to choose from. Let us finish this article with a few examples of bureaucratic leaders.

The following are examples of Bureaucratic Leaders. Churchill is an example of a bureaucratic leader as he depended on structures and systems to get things done to a high degree. He was decisive and determined to follow through with his plans to overcome the Russians and the Nazis during World War II. He also paid keen attention to details and wanted to be regularly updated about everything that was happening in the government and warzone. Bureaucratic leaders thrive in an environment where predictability is present.

They create rules which are intended to help their teams create consistent results. Everyone is expected to follow the regulations which govern the work in the same way. Although this does place a limit on how creative influences can sometimes be applied, it does allow for an organization to have confidence in the results a bureaucratic leader may promise.

It always seeks to create best practices. There are reasons why work is completed in one specific way for many organizations. That is because the best practices for a project are based on the fastest, cheapest way to do things without compromising the quality of the final work.

Every leadership style has some level of innovation which must be built into the best practices over time. With these items in place, however, the outcomes are consistent enough that they can be used to create budget expectations for the future. It is a leadership style which offers upward scalability. Bureaucratic leaders work within a style which allows for scalability on an almost infinite level.

Companies can keep adding teams to their structure to take on more work because they are confident that each project will be completed to the same skill and quality levels.

Over time, an economy of scale can be built within an organization, allowing for team members to enjoy upward mobility, which has the side effect of lowering the overall churn rate. It is a style of leadership which encourages familiarity. The chain-of-command that is followed within the bureaucratic leadership style is one that is followed by most households, companies, and public service structures in some way. That makes it easy for new leaders to fit right into the company structure.

Team members can identify their roles and meet expectations right away. When there is familiarity, there is confidence, and that can lead toward higher productivity levels. It has a structure which has limited forward movement. The issue with a bureaucratic leadership style is that the focus tends to be on specialization and consolidation.

Leaders tend to stay in their positions until another position with a better salary opens up. Team members become specialists who stay in their position until the bureaucracy requires them to be in a leadership position. According to the business dictionary , bureaucratic leadership is a style of leadership that emphasizes procedures and historical methods regardless of their usefulness in changing environments.

In general, it can be said, that bureaucratic leaders try to solve problems by adding layers of control. Their power comes from controlling the flow of information. This leadership style has been first mentioned by Max Weber towards the end of the 19th century. It is a management line, in which team members, employees are made to follow specific rules and regulations created by their superiors.