Reference no: EM132176049

State if you agree or disagree with the summary provided below in a minimum of 150 words in regards to, the Weberian model of bureaucracy, and neo-classical school of thought Herbert Simon?

There are definitely benefits to the Weberian model of bureaucracy including, a defined hierarchy of labor and that interpersonal relationship are based on positions, not personalities. If one looks at the makeup for groups all over the world, we see that even ones with high coordination, have a leader or a hierarchal system. When it comes down to solving issues, there needs to be a leader to do so. Weber says leaders should be appointed and not influenced by personality or public perception, but my qualifications. As we have discussed in numerous chapters, leadership also involves interpersonal skills. Another potential problem with the Weberian model is that there may be a roadblock of communication and coordination because of the well-defined hierarchal system. Also, there is mention of “tenure for life”, this is great for an individual who is highly motivated through their entire career, but problematic if a person’s productivity and motivation lack, and then the organization suffer. Another benefit of the Weberian model is that there are well-defined rules, regulations, and methods of operation tasks are objective and consistent. This is great for the structure of the workplace setting but an organization must be careful that there is not too much emphasis on rules and regulations which could lead to too much paperwork or a delay in decision making because of the procedure.

The classical movement seems to be very calculated and are based on procedure and efficiency and rarely deviate from the plan. The Weberian school of thought uses the bureaucratic model hierarchy, technical expertise, merit-based appointments, and impersonal procedures while Gilbreth’s motion studies focused on the efficiency of tasks. Gilbreth’s contributions led to the modernization and mechanization of factories, but in the case of reducing their children’s tonsillectomy recovery time, there is a more humanistic aspect the classical theories of management are missing.

With the neo-classical school of thought Herbert Simon said the former theories aren't grounded in scientific research and should be tested empirically with controlled experimentation. This is incredibly difficult just in the standards of research studies. A naturalistic study is problematic because you cannot control all variables, and a structured setting may change behavior because of the focus on the study. Robert Dahl and Dwight Waldo also found issue with Simon’s theory because of the inherent issue of this concept omitting values including morality, ethics, free will, and creativity. 

Robert Merton challenged the Weberian model of bureaucracy with a dominant-subordinate dynamic and moved closer to co-ordination. Merton also acknowledged the “inherent tension between bureaucratic and democratic principles” (Holzer and Schwester 2016, p. 55) and emphasized transparency and citizen participation which are almost nonexistent with Weber. He argued Weber’s system is almost too mechanized and it is harder to complete tasks based on “trained incapacity” (Holzer and Schwester 2016, p. 55). Additionally, he also believed that the Weberian theory also gives the impression that street-level bureaucrats are cold and uncaring due to depersonalization, and reflect poorly upon the profession. Phillip Selzick branched out and believed in co-operation bringing a new elements to organizational leadership, a stark contrast to the classical theories. He also theorized that that formalization of the classical theories could in fact work against them as tools of resistance. 

Chester Bernard’s ideas stemmed from his own managerial experience. He emphasized both monetary and non-monetary work or incentives to foster more cooperation from employees.