Effective learning supplys organizations with the abilities to cope with problems. Learning is occuring when organizations interact with their environments: organizations develop their understanding of reality by observing the results of their acts (cf. Hedberg 1981: 1). Even and especially bureaucratic organizations need to learn, when taking into account a fast changing environment.
Everybody of us has made his or her own experiences with bureaucracy in their everyday life. This seminar paper with the title “The Development of a bureaucratic personality-consequences for organizational learning” will not focus on impacts on clients but on impacts on the members of organisation, especially on subordinates and the middle management.
The aim of the seminar paper is to find out what negative consequences has bureaucracy on the personality of an individual and on organizational learning. Using a functionalist approach to the topic, bureaucracy intends to create an efficient organisation from a rationalistic point of view. I will focus on the unintended outcomes of bureaucracy, the dysfunctions which show that there are irrational factors that are not easy to predict. I will describe in the theoretical part of this work the he ideal type of bureaucracy, to have a basis from which later on the negative outcomes are explained. The concept of personality will be described after this, which is used to compare in the second part the changes to a bureaucratic personality. The model of organizational learning from Hedberg (1981) will be the focus after that, to show how learning is occurring in organisations and which prerequisites are necessary for this. The next step is the explanation of the model of Bosetzky and Heinrich, which shows the consequences of inner acceptance of the bureaucratic socialization. Then I will show through the description of the work of Robert K. Merton the development of a bureaucratic personality, including trained incapacity occupational psychosis, and the consequences of that for organizational learning. Then I will finish with an conclusion.
Table of Contents
1. Introduction
2. Definitions and theoretical basis
2.1 The ideal type of Bureaucracy
2.2 The definition of Personality and possible development
2.3 organizational learning Hedberg (1981)
3. The Model of Bosetzky and Heinrich
4. The Development of a bureaucratic personality
4.1 Characteristics of a bureaucratic personality
4.1.1 Trained incapacity
4.1.2 Occupational psychosis
5. Discussion
6. conclusion
7. References
Objectives and Topics
This seminar paper investigates the negative impacts of bureaucratic structures on individual personality development and their subsequent hindering effects on organizational learning. By applying a functionalist perspective, the work analyzes how bureaucratic socialization, characterized by strict adherence to rules and hierarchy, can create unintended dysfunctions that inhibit an organization's ability to adapt to a changing environment.
- Theoretical foundations of Max Weber's "ideal type" of bureaucracy.
- The psychological impact of bureaucratic socialization on members.
- Mechanisms of organizational learning and unlearning as defined by Hedberg.
- Dysfunctional outcomes such as "trained incapacity" and "occupational psychosis."
- The role of mental maps and goal displacement in organizational inertia.
Excerpt from the Book
4.1.1 trained incapacity
The term trained incapacity is used by Merton (1960), but also Thorstein Veblen and Kenneth Burke have used this term in different applications (Wais 2005). “Trained incapacity is that state of affairs whereby one’s very abilities can function as blindness’s” (Burke 1984:7). For example actions based upon training and skills which have been successfully applied in the past could result in inappropriate responses under changed conditions. The consequence is a maladjustment and not a efficient working bureaucracy. Especially the lack of ability to recognize the changed status quo becomes a incapacity (cf. Merton 1964:364). Burke states that “people may be unfitted by being fit in an unfit fitness” (Burke 1984: 10), which underlines the fact that knowledge and habits even in case of their long term success may serve as hindrance. The trained incapacity serves as a mental map, which guides the theories of action in bureaucratic organizations. It can be supposed that all oficals in a enterprise share this maps, so that a different choice concerning the choice of different behavior seems not really possible.
The trained incapacity is caused by structural sources. Bureaucracy demands reliability and strict devotion to regulations. This devotion to the rules leads to their transformation into absolutes; they become more important as they should and develop away from their purposes. That’s why adaptation to new rules which were not anticipated in beforehand becomes difficult. The elements which serve toward efficiency in general produce inefficiency in specific circumstances (cf. Merton 1964:366).
Summary of Chapters
1. Introduction: This chapter introduces the research focus on how bureaucracy negatively affects the personality of organization members and impairs organizational learning.
2. Definitions and theoretical basis: This section provides the foundational definitions of Weber's ideal bureaucracy, the concept of personality, and the SR model of organizational learning by Hedberg.
3. The Model of Bosetzky and Heinrich: This chapter presents a systematic model for understanding how individuals accept or reject bureaucratic organization and the consequences for their professional development.
4. The Development of a bureaucratic personality: This core chapter explores unintended outcomes of bureaucracy, such as goal displacement and psychological shifts that hinder adaptive organizational behavior.
5. Discussion: The discussion synthesizes how high formalization and rigid work structures lead to an intellectual decrease in personnel and subsequent negative impacts on organizational learning.
6. conclusion: The final chapter concludes that bureaucratic rigidities and the internalization of rule-bound behavior create a meta-level barrier that makes learning and change difficult to achieve.
7. References: A comprehensive list of academic sources and literature used to support the paper's arguments.
Keywords
Bureaucracy, organizational learning, bureaucratic personality, trained incapacity, occupational psychosis, functionalism, mental maps, goal displacement, socialization, Weberian model, organizational memory, formalization, theory of action, adaptability, institutional rigidity
Frequently Asked Questions
What is the fundamental focus of this paper?
The paper focuses on the negative consequences that bureaucratic structures have on the personality of individuals working within them, specifically how these changes impact an organization's capacity to learn.
What are the central themes discussed in this work?
The central themes include the bureaucratic socialization process, the transformation of individual personality traits into a "bureaucratic personality," and the resulting dysfunctions that hinder organizational flexibility.
What is the primary goal of the research?
The primary goal is to demonstrate that the rationalistic, rule-bound nature of bureaucracy leads to unintended outcomes that block necessary organizational learning and adaptation to changing environments.
Which scientific approaches are utilized?
The paper utilizes a functionalist approach to organizational studies, incorporating concepts from sociologists like Max Weber, Robert K. Merton, and Thorstein Veblen, combined with the organizational learning theories of Bo Hedberg.
What is covered in the main section of the paper?
The main section covers the theoretical definitions, the impact of bureaucratic socialization through the models of Bosetzky and Heinrich, and specific manifestations of bureaucratic personality like "trained incapacity" and "occupational psychosis."
Which keywords best characterize this work?
Key terms include bureaucracy, organizational learning, trained incapacity, bureaucratic personality, goal displacement, and occupational psychosis.
How does the "trained incapacity" concept apply to bureaucracy?
It describes how employees become so accustomed to following established rules and procedures that their very competence in these areas acts as a barrier, preventing them from recognizing when those rules are no longer appropriate for new, changed situations.
What does the author conclude regarding organizational learning?
The author concludes that because bureaucratic organizations rely on rigid meta-levels of action, genuine learning requires a fundamental shift, which can typically only be initiated by superior hierarchical levels.
- Arbeit zitieren
- Markus Winter (Autor:in), 2011, The Development of a Bureaucratic Personality - Consequences for Organizational Learning , München, GRIN Verlag, https://www.hausarbeiten.de/document/176009
