Rules are the lifeblood of bureaucratic organization and provide a rational and continuous basis for procedures and operations. An organization`s files provide an inventory of cumulative rules. Bureaucratic decisions and, above all, procedures are based on codified rules and precedents. Although most people do not like rules that inhibit them, the existence of rules is characteristic of legal-rational authority that ensures that decisions are not arbitrary, that standard procedures are not easily circumvented, and that order is maintained. Rules are the essence of bureaucracy, but also the curse of leaders who want to get things done immediately. Bureaucracies have clear lines of command and control. Bureaucratic authority is organized hierarchically, with responsibilities assumed at the top and delegated at the bottom with decreasing discretion. Due to the risk of organizational narrowness caused by limited and specific skills, the ability to coordinate and control the diversity of units is essential. Authority is the glue that holds diversity together and prevents entities from exercising uncontrolled discretion. Yet few features of bureaucratic life have received as much negative attention as the role of hierarchical authority as a means of achieving organizational leadership and control. Popular critics point out that hierarchical organization stifles creative impulses and injects overly cautious behaviors based on expectations of what superiors might want. Command and control, which are necessary to coordinate the various elements of the bureaucratic organization, ensure increasing responsibility upwards, delegation and decreasing discretion downwards. Therefore, the most fundamental elements of the purely bureaucratic organization are the emphasis on procedural regularity, a hierarchical system of responsibility and responsibility, the specialization of the function, continuity, a legal-rational basis and basic conservatism.
The advent of capitalism and the emphasis on standard monetary transactions beyond barter systems created the need for bureaucratic forms of organization in the private and public sectors. However, critical elements of the bureaucratic form of the organization can also conflict with each other and are often at the center of criticisms that view bureaucracies as dysfunctional. In short, it can be said that what makes the bureaucracy work can also work against it. A hierarchy of regional proconsuls and their deputies administered the Roman Empire. [Citation needed] The reforms of Diocletian (emperor from 284 to 305) doubled the number of administrative districts and led to a large-scale expansion of the Roman bureaucracy. [24] The Christian author Lactantius (c. 250 – c. 325) claimed that Diocletian`s reforms led to widespread economic stagnation because „the provinces were divided into tiny parts and many presidents and a variety of inferior officers were heavily in each territory.“ [25] After the split of the empire, the Byzantine Empire developed a notoriously complicated administrative hierarchy, and in the 20th century, the term „Byzantine“ referred to any complex bureaucratic structure. [26] [27] Why, then, did bureaucracy remain the dominant organizational paradigm? The bureaucratic model is simple and well codified, so it can be easily understood and applied by managers in any industry. The things it does well – such as planning what needs to be done, breaking that goal down into specific actions, and coordinating those actions among employees – are still valuable in many situations. Bureaucracy is also a practical mental model that is often used, even though the actual network of the organization is somewhat different from the formal model.
Although the hierarchical administrative structure of many governments is perhaps the most common example of bureaucracy, the term can also describe the administrative structure of private sector enterprises or other non-governmental organizations such as colleges and hospitals. Rules inhibit arbitrary behavior, but they can also be formidable obstacles to realization. The accumulation of rules sometimes leads to the development of inconsistencies, and the procedures needed to change an element of the status quo can become extraordinarily cumbersome due to the nature of rules-based bureaucracy. One perspective is that strict compliance with the rules limits a bureaucracy`s ability to adapt to new circumstances. On the other hand, markets that can operate with very few rules force rapid adaptation to changing circumstances. However, most large business organizations are organized in bureaucratic form, as hierarchy and delegated responsibility reduce the transaction costs of decision-making.