4 ms·

I find this view interesting if you think the origin of the concept (of bureaucracy) illustrates the transition from arbitrary management towards a rule-based,

I find this view interesting if you think the origin of the concept (of bureaucracy) illustrates the transition from arbitrary management towards a rule-based, rational (and very much productivity enhancing) approach...

quickthrower2 4y ago
Great for work that is amenable to strict process. Getting burgers out in 3 minutes for example.
- namaria 4y ago
  Also great when you want national resources managed by policy and not by cronyism. I get the modern trope that bureaucracy = bad, the whole point I'm trying to make is: the concept was first proposed as an idea of improvement in administration in the 1800s.
  - pixl97 4y ago
    One half of people think that bureaucracy is bad because it's in the way of the work they are trying to get done. The other half think it's bad because they can't steal everything that's not nailed down.
    - pishpash 4y ago
      And sometimes stealing everything that's not nailed down is the way work gets done, i.e. disruption. Trying to manage this out based on some anodyne rules out of a committee makes for a perfectly harmonious but completely static, risk-averse organization of little potential. It's like trying to censor speech. You get rid of "bad" speech but you also get no interesting speech. Is it really worth it?
bawolff 4y ago
Most things have a golden middle amount, where its great in the right amount but sucks if you have too much or too little. Bureaucracy is no exception. Trying to make a large group of people work towards a common goal effectively is really hard without some management. Too much though is extremely stifling.
Rury 4y ago
The thing is, it's needed. You can't have an organization without some level of bureaucracy. It's what ensures an organization, works and remains to be a functional organization. But it's very nature is anti productive. By this I mean: documenting, discussing, approving, and creating boundaries, all work to slow down an organization, even though it's necessary to ensure the wellbeing of the organization. As a specific example, organizations often have separation of duties for certain things (like activities involving payment to prevent embezzlement from happening), but doing so naturally slows down the handling of these activities. If one person has to do his part, then write documentation to instruct what they're trying to do and what they need someone else to do, send those instructions to someone else, wait for their approval, and then send it to someone else to process it... all of this is slower than if the person who wrote the instructions, skipped writing the instructions, and approved and processed it themselves. But obviously that can result in some bad situations, and hence why some bureaucracy is inevitably necessary.

quickthrower2 4y ago

Great for work that is amenable to strict process. Getting burgers out in 3 minutes for example.

namaria 4y ago
Also great when you want national resources managed by policy and not by cronyism. I get the modern trope that bureaucracy = bad, the whole point I'm trying to make is: the concept was first proposed as an idea of improvement in administration in the 1800s.
- pixl97 4y ago
  One half of people think that bureaucracy is bad because it's in the way of the work they are trying to get done. The other half think it's bad because they can't steal everything that's not nailed down.
  - pishpash 4y ago
    And sometimes stealing everything that's not nailed down is the way work gets done, i.e. disruption. Trying to manage this out based on some anodyne rules out of a committee makes for a perfectly harmonious but completely static, risk-averse organization of little potential. It's like trying to censor speech. You get rid of "bad" speech but you also get no interesting speech. Is it really worth it?

bawolff 4y ago

Most things have a golden middle amount, where its great in the right amount but sucks if you have too much or too little. Bureaucracy is no exception. Trying to make a large group of people work towards a common goal effectively is really hard without some management. Too much though is extremely stifling.

Rury 4y ago

The thing is, it's needed. You can't have an organization without some level of bureaucracy. It's what ensures an organization, works and remains to be a functional organization. But it's very nature is anti productive. By this I mean: documenting, discussing, approving, and creating boundaries, all work to slow down an organization, even though it's necessary to ensure the wellbeing of the organization. As a specific example, organizations often have separation of duties for certain things (like activities involving payment to prevent embezzlement from happening), but doing so naturally slows down the handling of these activities. If one person has to do his part, then write documentation to instruct what they're trying to do and what they need someone else to do, send those instructions to someone else, wait for their approval, and then send it to someone else to process it... all of this is slower than if the person who wrote the instructions, skipped writing the instructions, and approved and processed it themselves. But obviously that can result in some bad situations, and hence why some bureaucracy is inevitably necessary.