Text 3. E.F.L.Brech.

E.F.L.Brech wrote widely on management and organisation issues. Whilst sharing Urwick's concern with the development of principles, or general laws, of management Brech was also concerned with the development of people within the organisation. His approach was basically a classical one, but tempered to some extent by the prevailing human relations theories of the 1950s and 1960s. He saw management as a process, a social process, for planning and regulating the operations of the enterprise towards some agreed objective, and carried out within the framework of an organisation structure. Key issues for Brech in the formation of the structure were:

• Defining the responsibilities of the management, supervisory and specialist staff.

• Determining how these responsibilities are to be delegated.

• Coordinating the execution of responsibilities.

• Maintaining high morale.

Brech's own list of principles of organisation overlapped considerably with those Fayol and Urwick. It was less dogmatic in approach than the others, but was nevertheless concerned with the division of responsibilities, lines of communication, unity command and the allocation of authority, to give just a few examples. Fundamentally, in his view, the principles exist to maintain a balance between the delegation of managerial responsibility throughout the organisation and the need to ensure unity of action as well.

In his last writings (1975), Brech regretted that there was still no general agreement about a fundamental body of principles of management. Until such principles are developed, he argued, it will be impossible for management to gain recognition as a science, or indeed as a profession. He believed that such principles, or basic laws of management could be deduced from an analysis of the nature of the management process, and this is what he himself attempted in the footsteps of Fayol, Urwick and others. However, he conceded that the development of principles would probably be acceptable only on the basis of first-hand research into management practices - a view which would undoubtedly have pleased researchers such as Rosemary Stewart (1994), Henry Mintzberg (1973), and others who believe that it is primarily through research into managerial behaviour that a body of relevant knowledge or fundamental truths may emerge.

Brech's writings on principles are much more directed towards helping practising managers become more effective in their roles, than towards contributing to a general body of knowledge concerning the theory of management. In this respect his own contribution is that of a thoughtful management consultant aiming to improve management practice rather than that of an objective research worker seeking to test out hypotheses. Seen in this light, Brech's contribution has been considerably influential, especially in management training and development.

Text 4. Max Weber and the Idea of Bureaucracy.

'Bureaucracy' is a term with several meanings, and this has led to genuine misconceptions about what it truly means. The most common meanings arе as follows:

• Bureaucracy is “red tape”, i.e. an excess of paperwork and rules leading to gross inefficiency. This is the pejorative sense of the word.

• Bureaucracy is “officialdom”, i.e. all the apparatus of central and local government. This is a similar meaning to red tape.

• Bureaucracy is an organisational form with certain dominant characteristics, such as a hierarchy of authority and a system of rules.

In this text the term “bureaucracy” is interpreted as an organisational form. The object of the text is to describe and discuss this important and all-pervading form of organisation, with particular reference to the fundamental work of Max Weber.

Max Weber (1864-1920) spanned the same period of history as those early pioneers of management thought, Fayol and Taylor, to whom we have already referred. Unlike them, however, Weber was an academic - a sociologist - and not a practising manager. His interest in organisations was from the point of view of their authority structures. He wanted to find out why people in organisations obeyed those in authority over them. The observations and conclusions from his studies were first published in translation from the original German in 1947. It was in this publication that the term 'bureaucracy' was used to describe a rational form of organisation that today exists to a greater or lesser extent in practically every business and public enterprise.

In his analysis of organisations, Weber identified three basic types of legitimate authority: traditional, charismatic and rational-legal authority. Before describing these, it will be helpful to understand what he meant by the expression 'legitimate authority'. Firstly, the concept of authority has to be distinguished from that of power. Power is a unilateral thing - it enables one person to force another to behave in a certain way, whether by means of strength or by rewards. Authority, on the other hand, implies acceptance of rule by those over whom it is to be exercised. It implies that power may only be exercised within limits agreeable to subordinates. It is this latter situation to which Weber refers when he talks about legitimate authority.

The three types of legitimate authority described by him can be summarised as follows:

• Traditional authority – where acceptance of those in authority arises from tradition and custom (eg as in monarchies, tribal hierarchies etc).

• Charismatic authority – where acceptance arises from loyalty to, and confidence in, the personal qualities of the ruler.

• Rational-legal authority – where acceptance arises out of the office, or position, of the person in authority, as bounded by the rules and procedures of the organisation.

It is this last-mentioned form of authority which exists in most organisations today, and this is the form to which Weber ascribed the term “bureaucracy”.