As increasing organizational efficiency is the main goal of every organization, management

theorists have made much effort to pursue this goal. Theoretic management models are used as
guiding principles for governments and businesses around the world. Two of the most common
organizational and management theories are those of Frederick Taylor and those of Max Weber.
Taylor established the Scientific Theory and Weber established the Bureaucratic Theory. The
Scientific Theory is based on using data and human strengths to increase output, while the
Bureaucratic management style focuses on hierarchies and tight job roles.

The aim of this essay is to draw comparisons between Taylor’s scientific management and
weber’s legal rational form of bureaucracy. Further, it will assess their efficacy in solving the ills
of administrative inefficiency in the Zambian Public service. It will start with the definition of
key terms then a discussion will be brought out. Finally a conclusion will be drawn

Public service is a service which is provided by government to people living within its
jurisdiction, either directly or by financing provision of services. The term is associated with a
social consensus that certain services should be available to all, regardless of income, physical
ability or mental acuity (CSO, 2014).

Max Werber (1958) defines bureaucracy as an organization where tasks are divided among
technical specialists who devote their full working capacity to the organization and whose
activities are coordinated by rational rules, hierarchy and written documents.

Efficacy is the ability to produce a desired or intended result (Oxford, 2002).

Legal-Rational form of Bureaucracy to management was formed by Max Weber. It relies on a

stringent set of guidelines and hierarchy. In essence, the theory is based on seniority rules,
following guidelines and adhering to strict processes. This works especially well for some
business models but not so well for others. For example, a manufacturing business will require a
very specific task performed in a repetitive manner. Deviating from this task will, ultimately,
throw off the entire process and damage the output and product. In this situation, a Bureaucratic
management style works well, because the employee is given a strict set of instructions from the
superior and is expected to follow these guidelines. It is a practice in efficiency and control.
Additionally, Weber argues that tracking and recording every single incident and important event
is important for reference. Keeping strict records creates a method for referring to past events
and for making corrections. It’s a solution-based approach to identifying recurring problems, and
then taking effective measures to fix those problems. In a sense, strict record-keeping habits can
lead to more effective management (Blau, 1963).

The Bureaucratic approach relies heavily on traditional principals and on a hierarchy form of
business structure. Individuals are hired, based on qualifications and then promoted, as they
prove value and advance skills on the job. The hierarchy, seniority and levels really matter when
using this method of management. When a superior speaks, the room is expected to listen and
follow orders from that superior position. The chain of command is a defining principal under
this management style. Many modern tech companies and startups buck this trend with a more
collaborative and creative approach to the workplace. Weber would not approve when it comes
to the lack of leadership specific roles and structure within the organizations and while numerous
companies could improve from a partial Bureaucratic approach, the overall system is dated and
does not respond quickly to markets and trends in business (Ibid).

Scientific Management is a management style that focuses heavily on the individual and on the
results generated from processes. Fredrick Taylor believed that finding the best way for each
individual to perform his job would lead to a more productive workplace. It’s a more nurturing
approach on a human level, and it is designed to play on the strengths of each person in the
organization, rather than enforcing a strict set of guidelines. Ultimately, scientific management
relies on refining processes and on measuring results, to find the best mode of output. It is
largely data-based, but it also has a strong human component. Testing different approaches and
calculating the results in a detailed data set makes it possible to understand trends, and to find out
what really works or doesn’t work well in the specific business and industry. The scientific
approach is effective, because the data and the research paint a clear picture over time. It does,
however, require time and intensive record-keeping to calculate and track each approach to
performing job functions. Misreading the results may also be an issue. If performance is down,
that result is not always attributed to the process or employee, although the data will read that
way (Roth et al, 1979).

One of the widespread differences between Bureaucratic and Scientific management models are
the ways in which individuals interact and collaborate. In a Scientific environment, the
individual is offered options and flexibility. Communications and adapting processes to real
world applications are important here. The Scientific approach allows open avenues of social
conversations, and is less segregating in the employee pool. Overlapping job roles may also
happen under scientific principles, and employees can see a shift in which they are moved to
different jobs, based on specific strengths or they are given more responsibility and a diverse set
of job functions (Banaker and Travers, 2015).

In the Legal rational form of Bureaucracy, relationships are not important, and individuals
should just put their heads down and just do their jobs. Socializing and adjusting work styles are
not accepted in a Bureaucratic environment. Bureaucratic styles are very specialized, and every
job role has a predefined, strict set of guidelines with little to no wiggle room. The ability to
move cross-ways within the company, organization or Government is also difficult. It’s a top-to-
bottom hierarchy, with no flexibility and little adaptability to markets. Governments use this
style of management, with very rigid principals and workplace rules and regulations. The
scientific style can adapt and change processes, while also working collaboratively toward higher
output with lower costs (Prasad, 1991).

Bureaucracy does not support businesses that need to strive on creative minds. The business may
still employ a level of hierarchy in the business model, but strict guidelines and well-defined job
roles are not likely to spur creativity. The Scientific approach has more room for creativity, but it
remains very much focused on production and on finding the best route to meet the highest levels
of production possible. This really only allows for creativity within the specific job function.
Ultimately, neither model is designed to inspire new ideas and to motivate people toward
ingenuity and creative solutions. They both work in a manufacturing or production type
environment, in which the job roles are somewhat narrow in scope (Ibid).

The Bureaucratic business model fails to inspire employees, and does not drive exceptional
loyalty beyond the paycheck. This means that turnover rates are higher, as employees seek better
opportunities. Reducing turnover is dependent on higher paychecks, and on the potential for
upward mobility within the business or government, under a Bureaucratic model of management.
The Scientific approach is more human-centered and has a better chance of earning loyalty
among employees. The method does not intentionally stifle socializing in the workplace, and it
actually stands to encourage positive employee programs, if they influence higher output and
performance. Testing positive programs but then revoking them, if ineffective, is a dangerous
game, however, and a business may end up committed to higher overhead structures without
significant gains, as a means of preventing employee outrage (Roth et al, 1979).

In most business applications, the Scientific method prevails because it is designed for maximum
productivity at the lowest possible costs. The model can adapt quickly and relies on a data and
testing to implement effective processes. The Bureaucratic management style does not adapt well
under pressure, and it is very formal. Things happen slowly in the model and often require the
burden of paperwork and legalities for every step forward (in a government setting especially).
The intensive record-keeping in the Bureaucratic style is also problematic, because it is time
intensive, and does not deliver anything immediately actionable and valuable. Ultimately, the
record keeping becomes a log that may be of benefit in a legal situation, but good management
already knows the issues at hand and works proactively to find solutions. The bureaucratic
method requires taking every potential solution to a superior, and then running it through
channels to create a documented process, before reaching the employee and implementing a
change that may or may not actually prove effective. Bureaucratic management works in a
government setting where profitability is not necessarily the goal. Budgets are pre-determined
and based on a tax system, so the entity is not necessarily working to create efficiencies and
increase output (Crass, 2003).

Weber stressed on the need for hierarchy in legal rational authority, hierarchy is the clear
separation between superior and subordinate offices, and each lower office is under the control
of a higher one. Offices or positions are organized in a hierarchy of authority. This is useful and
makes the public service efficient because there is a clear chain of command which develops
from the highest to the lowest level of an organization, which defines different levels of
authority, and thus individual discretion, as well as enabling better communication (Donald,
1979).

Under legal rationality, remuneration is fixed in accordance with the nature of the job and grade
of responsibility. Promotion and career advancement are on basis of seniority and merit (Ibid,
1994). This is useful and helps make the public service efficient in that it helps in the supervision
of work and it is easy to know which department is not performing as expected. According to
Weber legal rationality has no place for personal fancies or irrational sentiments (impersonality)
official activity is conducted in a businesslike manner with a high degree of operational
impersonality and lays emphasis on laid rules. Weber stresses on rules so that personal
favoritism arbitrariness or nepotism may not hinder the working of an organization. Every act of
personal direction of officials must be justified by impersonal ends (Basu, 1994). In Legal
rationality the impersonality and rationality are mainly achieved through formulation of rules and
procedures which are clearly defined official spheres of authority and conduct, Which the
employees are to rigidly maintain in discharging their duties (rule orientation).In legal
rationality, there is supposed to be apolitical and neutral in its orientation and support to the
political regime it serves. It is also value- neutral committed only committed to support work it is
meant to perform which would be useful and make the public service very efficient(Prasad,
1991).

Legal rationality advocates for is impersonality, meaning it follows laid down rules to determine
the consequences of an action and decisions are not made by one in rules and other controls are
impersonal and uniformly applied in all cases. The public institution does not suffer when
someone leaves it if one person leaves then some other occupies that place and the work does not
suffer. This makes the public service efficient in that when rules and other controls are applied
impersonally and uniformly, involvement with personality’s and personal preferences is avoided.
Subordinates are thereby protected from arbitrary actions of their superior (Blau, 1963). People
who go against the laws are described as criminal hence subjected to justices. Citizens are
expected to follow rules as a sign of loyalty cohesion is established by following common rules
thus making people live in harmony without frictions. Also, the rules are used to settle disputes
that exist among people in the organization or nation. Besides, the authority of the legal rational
leaders is obtained from the societal constructs, compliance and legal legitimacy created by
bureaucratic and lawful norms systems (Shalin, 2011). Subjects and citizens in the legal rational
headship accept the power since it is harmonious with the created legal and history doctrines.
However, discontent and uprisings take place when people perceive administration action as
incompatible with the recognized lawful citizen-established and legal doctrine association.

According to Weber (1958), in Legal rationality all personnel’s are appointed based on merit
(qualification). All employees are selected on the basis of technical qualifications demonstrated
by formal examination, education or training. The selection process and promotion procedures
are based on merit and expertise. This way right persons in the public service would be put in
there right jobs and there is optimum utilization of human resources. This is useful in the public
service in that employees are appointed and promoted based on merit and expertise, thus, making
it more efficient. Legal rationality is also useful to the public service in that it advocates well
stipulated rules living no place for personal whims, favoritism or nepotism. Legal rationality
authority is empowered by a formalistic belief in content of the law different (Roth et al, 1979)

Although Legal rationality could be useful in making the public service efficient, as shown by
the above reasons Legal rationality has its disadvantages. Issues in Legal rational authority take
time to be deliberated upon because of hierarchy. The provision of services would be slowed
down by hierarchy because some directives need approval from top management which would
take too long in cases of emergencies. Issues under legal rational take time to be deliberated
upon. Due to hierarchy document have to pass through several offices before they are deliberated
upon and does not apply to all organization for instance in hospitals when there is an emergency
it is not possible for a critically ill patient to go through all the procedures like registering they
are rushed immediately to the emergency room. Hierarchy also increases the use of
memorandums. At the University of Zambia for instance students cannot come into direct
contact with the Chancellor they have to pass through different offices which at times results in
issues not been dealt with promptly (Basu, 1994).

In legal rational authority, because of the stress put on rules relationships extremely formal in
organizations, people present themselves as officials than individuals consequently obeying the
rules become an end instead of means to an end. Weber laid much emphasis on rules without
considering the social welfare of workers he ignored the psychological and social cultural
environment. Rationality cannot be achieved by what Weber believes but rather creating
conditions that will promote the use of individual initiative. In Max werbers’ legal rationality
authority there is emphasis on appointing workers based on merit which does not always
guarantee efficiency in the public service. To a greater extent Legal rational authority is not a
legitimate type of authority as perceived by Weber in the sense that Weber laid too much
emphasis on adherence to laid rules hence workers losing their creativity due to doing everything
in accordance to the book (Swidler, 1973).

The first principle in scientific management that Fredrick Taylor advocated for is selecting and
training employees for increased efficiency. Various states have authorized the generation of
certified hiring lists to increase the pool of applicants for management. The state may provide a
list of qualified applicants and the agency would be responsible for screening applicants. This
shows the level of attention put into finding eligible candidates for certain positions in
Government organizations. It denotes that agencies are looking for applicants who fit the criteria
of certain positions. One may question the criteria used by the state to determine which
candidates are eligible. These requirements may include level of education, level of prior work
experience, lack of criminal convictions etc. The problem here is that many applicants may not
have the experience for which agencies are looking, which could have the effect of severely
limiting the amount of qualified workers to handle various tasks, inadvertently leaving positions
vacant for prolonged periods of time (Crass, 2003).

Another principle that he advocated was studying the methods of operation. Taylor claimed
eliminating procedures that are labour intensive and time consuming and substituting them for
methods that are more efficient, productivity can increase. This has been implemented in most
government agencies. For example, the Social Security Administration in Zambia wanted to
increase the amount of clients served. Employees were surveyed to find out what issues and
concerns come up most frequently, what the majority of the procedures entail throughout the
day, and what information is recorded from the client. The employees were timed in these
various areas after seeing how much time is required and needed to be expended in each
situation. The managers then developed solutions to increase the amount of clients handled by
separating the duties into categories concerning the various issues brought up by the clients.
Managers delegated the task of answering general questions to one employee, the task of
entering client information into database to another worker, and another task of processing the
data for the allocation of benefits to another employee. By dividing the labor, the amount of
clients served increased (Ibid).

In conclusion, the essay has drawn a clear comparison between Fredrick Taylor’s scientific
management and Weber’s Legal-rational form of bureaucracy. It has also assessed the efficacy
of legal rationality and scientific management. Legal rationality has shown that it is a useful tool
to raising efficiency in the public service. Scientific management has also shown through its
principals how important and applicable it is to the civil service to increase administrative
efficiencies.
References

Ashley, David and David Michael 1995.Orenstein, Sociological Theory: Classical Statements,
third edition, Boston, Allyn and Bacon,

Basu 1994. "Rationality and Freedom: Weber and Beyond." Revised version of paper presented
at the Max Weber Symposium, University of Wisconsin Milwaukee, May 5.

Banaker and Travers, 2015. "Weber's Interpretations of the Bourgeois-Capitalistic World in

Terms of the Guiding Principle of 'Rationalization.'" Pp. 101-22 in Max Weber, editedby Dennis
Wrong.Englewood Cliffs,N.J.: Prentice-Hall.

Blau, P. M. (1963). “Critical remarks on Weber’s theory of authority”

Central Statistical Office (2014)

Crass, C. (2003). Scientific Management Perspective : Fredrick Taylor. Montréal.

Jones 1970. "Weber's Interpretations of the Bourgeois-Capitalistic World in Terms of the

Guiding Principleof 'Rationalization.'" Pp. 101-22 in Max Weber, edited by Dennis
Wrong.Englewood Cliffs,N.J.: Prentice-Hall

Levine, Donald. 1979. "Rationality and Freedom: Weber and Beyond." Revised version of paper

Max Weber’s 1958, Sociology in the Genealogy of the Contemporary Mode of Western Legal
Thought. Presented at the Max Weber Symposium, Universityof Wisconsin Milwaukee, May 5,.

Oxford dictionary 2002

Peterborough, Broadview Press, 1997. * Ritzer, George, Sociological Theory, third edition, New
York, McGraw-Hill.

Roth, Guenther, and WolfgangSchluchter.1979. Max Weber's Vision of History: Ethics and
Method. Berkeley: University of California Press.

Swidler, Ann. 1973."The Concept of Rationality in the Work of Max Weber." Sociological
Inquiry43 (January): 35-42.