Bureaucracy is that friend everybody hates but deep down we know we need him
Ever wondered what life would be like if that annoying bureaucracy system never existed? A lot of people have, you would probably imagine finance efficient and competent governments everywhere and an overall better society. Or not, bureaucracy can’t be all that bad and their existence was essential to a lot of human development. But first, we must consider what a bureaucracy is; according to the dictionary definition provided by ABC Clio, “a bureaucracy is an administrative system based on standardized procedures, a hierarchy of offices, and specialization of functions among experts. Although almost indispensable to modern governments, bureaucracies are often criticized …show more content…
This is no coincidence and evidence of this has been prominent many times throughout history. An article from the Smithsonian magazine details the finding of an anthropologist about bureaucracy, “Spencer found similar evidence timing the rise of bureaucracies and the expansion of states when examining the archaeological record of the Moche state in Peru (c. 200 to 400 A.D.) . . . and the Erlitou state of China (1800 to 1500 B.C.). In each case Spencer found that the development of bureaucracy was necessary for the development of the empire (even on a small, pre-industrial scale).” (Zielinski ¶6).The article essentially details the findings of Spencer the mentioned anthropologist, making it an extension of the original primary source (Spencer’s study). The source provides multiple examples of bureaucracy rising in ancient societies where large governments were forming, as this paper had stated earlier. There is no real concessionary argument to this point as it is one that is pretty much irrefutable and hard solid evidence, this paper is just there to solidify that …show more content…
Bureaucracies were designed for easy replication, easy management, and repetitive task completion. It was not meant for any sudden change in the way it functions which is a major downfall and one of the reasons it is so hard to reform. In A Passion For Leadership, Robert M Gates states that bureaucracies are inefficient, unreliable, inconsistent and are difficult to streamline and/or reform due to a lack of ability to change which is a result of many factors including stubbornness due to differences in political interests and oversight of institutions being controlled by unqualified people (Gates). Robert M Gates happened to be the former secretary of the United States Department of defense meaning that he has had first-hand experience with multiple bureaucracies in the government. The point being made is that the US government has quite a few different hinderments to its ability to change due to how things function. Unqualified people overseeing/making important decisions and people in bureaucracy disagreeing with each other to the point of inefficiency is actually quite common in bureaucracy. Another man with experience in bureaucracy (but this time corporate bureaucracy) was quoted on Harvard business school “Most governmental bureaucracy is the result of crossed purposes: multiple groups who disagree on the desirability of certain results ….” Kamal Gupta, citing his experience with corporate
Ever wondered what life would be like if that annoying bureaucracy system never existed? A lot of people have, you would probably imagine finance efficient and competent governments everywhere and an overall better society. Or not, bureaucracy can’t be all that bad and their existence was essential to a lot of human development. But first, we must consider what a bureaucracy is; according to the dictionary definition provided by ABC Clio, “a bureaucracy is an administrative system based on standardized procedures, a hierarchy of offices, and specialization of functions among experts. Although almost indispensable to modern governments, bureaucracies are often criticized …show more content…
This is no coincidence and evidence of this has been prominent many times throughout history. An article from the Smithsonian magazine details the finding of an anthropologist about bureaucracy, “Spencer found similar evidence timing the rise of bureaucracies and the expansion of states when examining the archaeological record of the Moche state in Peru (c. 200 to 400 A.D.) . . . and the Erlitou state of China (1800 to 1500 B.C.). In each case Spencer found that the development of bureaucracy was necessary for the development of the empire (even on a small, pre-industrial scale).” (Zielinski ¶6).The article essentially details the findings of Spencer the mentioned anthropologist, making it an extension of the original primary source (Spencer’s study). The source provides multiple examples of bureaucracy rising in ancient societies where large governments were forming, as this paper had stated earlier. There is no real concessionary argument to this point as it is one that is pretty much irrefutable and hard solid evidence, this paper is just there to solidify that …show more content…
Bureaucracies were designed for easy replication, easy management, and repetitive task completion. It was not meant for any sudden change in the way it functions which is a major downfall and one of the reasons it is so hard to reform. In A Passion For Leadership, Robert M Gates states that bureaucracies are inefficient, unreliable, inconsistent and are difficult to streamline and/or reform due to a lack of ability to change which is a result of many factors including stubbornness due to differences in political interests and oversight of institutions being controlled by unqualified people (Gates). Robert M Gates happened to be the former secretary of the United States Department of defense meaning that he has had first-hand experience with multiple bureaucracies in the government. The point being made is that the US government has quite a few different hinderments to its ability to change due to how things function. Unqualified people overseeing/making important decisions and people in bureaucracy disagreeing with each other to the point of inefficiency is actually quite common in bureaucracy. Another man with experience in bureaucracy (but this time corporate bureaucracy) was quoted on Harvard business school “Most governmental bureaucracy is the result of crossed purposes: multiple groups who disagree on the desirability of certain results ….” Kamal Gupta, citing his experience with corporate