5 ms·
Bureaucracy's strength is in getting repeatable results out of large numbers of unreliable human beings. There are places where that's the best strategy. But a
by ef4 14y ago
Bureaucracy's strength is in getting repeatable results out of large numbers of unreliable human beings. There are places where that's the best strategy.
But as soon as you're trying to do something unique or one-off or under-specified, bureaucracy impedes more than it helps. Which is probably why large bureaucratic organizations often get out-innovated by small organizations with far less resources at their disposal.
Bureaucracy is a solution to a coordination problem that I would argue doesn't really exist anymore. Software is, in one sense, bureaucracy codified in mechanical form. It replaces and obsoletes human bureaucracy. The classic bureaucrat essentially applies a rulebook to his input information and passes output information to someone else. He is a human computer.
Even the evolution of war leaves open the question whether bureaucracy is an asset or a liability going forward. War is getting faster and more targeted.
- lutze 14y agoAt least with a human there's the possibility they could be persuaded, reasoned with, or even corrupted. A computer on the other hand is utterly intractable. I'm not sure how that would help with unique, one off or under-specified problems. If you want your bureaucracy to be more adaptable, I'd argue you need to give it more flexibility not less.
- ImprovedSilence 14y ago>> A computer on the other hand is utterly intractable I'm sure several people on here would disagree with that, as there are plenty of people good at "convincing" computers to do things they shouldn't be doing, or to do things that their owners don't want them to. You just have to be more of a black hat, less of a schmmoozer....
- lutze 14y agoYeah, should've probably put a caveat in that! I'd argue that even a hacked system is intractable though, as it still rigidly follows the rules no matter the outcome. That's usually what black hats are exploiting in the first place. If the problem with bureaucracy is rigidity, then replacing human agency with computed agency would only exacerbate that in my opinion.
- sageikosa 14y agoFor a fictional point of reference to the above sentiment: remember HAL 9000 in 2001: a Space Odyssey, and the explanation of why it went homicidal as given in 2010: Odyssey Two. It had two directives: preserving human life and the mission; the first conflicted with its ability to ensure the other's success once the humans started plotting to turn HAL off. In the movie (at least), it was implied that the mission's importance was imparted by Presidential authority, and was given a higher priority than anything else.
- rayiner 14y agoI disagree. Bureaucracy is inherently a job of managing people, in all their imperfect emotional people-like glory. Bureaucrats don't just put numbers into a spreadsheet and get out an answer, they balance the needs and wants of competing stakeholders to allow society to function effectively a collective.
- sageikosa 14y agoSomeone balancing needs without numbers to back up their costly actions is why higher-order bureaucracies exist. A (governmental) bureau is responsible for a delegated area of licensing (pre-emptive control), regulatory oversight (ongoing control), and "criminal" investigation (retributive action for violation), as granted by its enabling authority. Bureaucracy is the discipline/science/art of managing a bureau, which isn't producing competitive market-action revenue (profits), so can only control efficiency by containing costs, which itself is an action that doesn't produce market revenue. Oversight of a bureau (ascendant bureaucracy) exists solely to make sure some metric of cost containment and compliance with enabling authority is maintained within each bureau itself. In short, bureaucracy is the regulatory management of regulatory management.
- bunderbunder 14y agoAnd yet, the (modern) classic symbol of intractable bureaucratic hell is the green screen.