Bureaucracy
Good sell, Taylor, and Weber well articulate the intersection of bureaucracy, the law, and management of personnel (and public agencies) from a scientific perspective. In all their work, the three authors evaluate public and private organizations’ structure and management, with the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention featuring prominently to bring these two critical aspects of public administration home. Bureaucracy is synonymous with public administration as state officials implement excessively complicated procedures, often blamed for ineffective and slow service delivery. While the authority, activities, and systematic provision constitute bureaucracy authority in public and lawful governments, they account for what Weber (2009) describes as bureaucratic management in privately dominated economies. Therefore, it means that why authority is synonymous with government bodies and organizations, the private sector hugely uses management, but the bureaucracy elements exist in both. And this is why Taylor (1914) talks about the concept of scientific management by comparing the artisan and the unskilled laborer in a private entity. While the artisan uses his skills to make decisions and gain some autonomy, the unskilled worker’s work is specialized and reduced so much that their independence has been taken away. The people at the top make the decisions, work is apportioned, and the only thing needed from them is hard work, which is rewarded with higher pay and bonuses. Therefore, for the unskilled laborer, the motivation is found in the money and not the desire to gain knowledge, expand expertise or become autonomous, and this explains the massive gap between the artisans and what Taylor describes as the unskilled workman. However, what stands out from the comparison between Weber (2009) ‘s piece on bureaucracy and Taylor (2014) ‘s breakdown of scientific management from the perspective of comparing the skilled and unskilled laborer- the former greatly suffer in a bureaucratic system where most decisions are made at the top of the organizational hierarchy.
While often criticized for being a slow and laborious way of doing things, especially from the public service front, Weber (2009) makes a case for some of the technical positives of a bureaucratic organization centered on the specialization of administrative functions. Though not explicitly illustrated, such specialization is seen in the CDC’s hierarchy, which has been touted for successful programs like the anthrax terrorist threat that was swiftly and effectively handled by the public health body. For instance, it emerges that in a bureaucratic organization, individual performances are allocated to functionaries who have specialized training, which means they are highly effective in discharging their mandate in serving the public. This could be said of Julie Gerberding’s performance during the anthrax scare; she had a technical grasp of the problem, and her incredible performance did not go unnoticed. She ended up being the CDC director following the bioterrorism scare.
The intersection of bureaucracy and the law is not only clear but is fascinating, especially when looked at from the perspective of traditions. The law sets how public agencies should be run and managed. Yet, the advance of the bureaucratic structure rests upon the technical superiority, which means that the law issue takes a backburner. However, it must be noted that the bureaucratic machine is permanent, which means that it can be challenging to eliminate and destroy once it has been established. This is why social structures must be careful not to embrace it.