The Bureaucracy Revisited

The views expressed are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the views of ASPA as an organization.

By Joe Jarret
August 11, 2025

Introduction

Approximately 50 years ago, scholar Peter M. Blau asserted that the basic characteristics of bureaucratic organizations are specialization, a hierarchy of authority, a system of rules and impersonality. Adler (1999) opined that “bureaucracy means red tape, over-controlling bosses and apathetic employees.” It is the latter traits announced by both authors—the notion that bureaucracies are by their very nature impersonal and filled with apathetic people—that this piece explores.

The Bureaucracy

When exploring this entity known as the bureaucracy, the problem is not a paucity of data or research, but rather the almost overwhelming number of books, treatises, dissertations or other scholarly writings on the topic. When wading through this material, you’ll quickly notice some common threads and a name common to many writings on the subject: Max Weber. Weber suggested that legitimate political and economic order is created and maintained by way of bureaucratic means. His work illustrated how an organization effectively restrains certain forms of behavior while encouraging others (Scott 1972: 16).

The challenge then, for educators and public administrators, is educating the next generation of both the aforementioned by resisting the urge to presume that all bureaucratic organizations are the same. While most organizations contain hierarchical authority, rules and, at times, controlling bosses and apathetic employees as suggested by Adler above, to presume that bureaucracies are generic, one-size-fits-all entities is a misnomer.

Over the years, I have served in organizations dubbed bureaucracies at the federal, state and local levels, as well as in higher education. The one commonality I observed was that each entity was uncommon, possessing its own rules, regulations, mores, folkways, acronyms and language. In other words, each was a subculture of the culture at large. By way of anecdote, I once accepted a leadership/management position with a public sector entity located in the southern United States. By the time I had done so, I already had 10 years of active duty military service and 15 years of public sector experience under my belt.

On my first day on the job, I asked one of the administrative support staff to please let me know when a facsimile I was expecting from the clerk of the court of appeals came in. She smiled broadly and then responded, “I don’t care to.” With that, she walked off. My first reaction was, “I don’t care if you want to or not, just do what I asked!” Fortunately, I didn’t share my thoughts aloud. Later, I overheard a conversation with the same employee and a coworker who invited the former to lunch. Her response? “I don’t care to” and off they went. I once again had to be reminded that there’s always a learning curve when starting out in a new bureaucracy, regardless of one’s experience level.

The Bureaucrats

Downs (1965) observed that bureaucrats share a complex set of goals, which include power, income, prestige, security, loyalty to an idea or an institution, pride in a job well done and ultimately a desire to serve the public interest. Riley (1987) asserted that bureaucrats are human beings, products of a democratic culture and in possession of professional and public service ethics. He further observed that because bureaucrats are people, their personal values and outlook on life tend to influence the way they live their lives. Such personal values, I would argue, tend to influence how they perform in a bureaucratic organization.

Summary

When public administrators talk about diversity in the workplace, they usually think in terms of race, gender and gender identity, age, sexual orientation, religion, and physical and mental abilities. We must, however, give equal weight to the varied backgrounds, values and perspectives of people within an organization. We have to get away from the time-honored, misguided notion that the purpose of the bureaucratic framework is to control employees for fear that, if left to themselves, they’ll mis-perform or underperform or violate the ethical rules and regulations of the entity.

I think Downs said it best: “It is ironic that bureaucracy is primarily a term of scorn, even though bureaus are among the most important institutions in every nation in the world.” It’s essential that we train up the next generation of educators and public administrators to appreciate the fact that most bureaucracies are not populated with faceless, nameless, disgruntled, self-serving automatons, but rather people possessing a diversity of experience, values, goals, needs and desires who ultimately, as suggested by Downs, have a desire to serve the public good and interest.

---

Author: Dr. Joseph G. Jarret is a public sector attorney, administrator and manager who has served public entities at all levels of government. A former United States Air Force Special Investigator and United States Army Armored Cavalry Officer with service overseas, he currently lectures on behalf of the Department of Political Science at the University of Tennessee, Knoxville. He holds a B.S. in Criminal Justice, a Master’s in Public Administration, a Juris Doctorate and a Ph.D. in Educational Leadership & Policy Studies. He is a past president of the East Tennessee Chapter of ASPA.

(1 votes, average: 5.00 out of 5)
Loading...