Chapter Two

Foundations of Industrial Sociology and Key Theories

a.Emile Durkheim

Integration, Anomie

Along with Marx and Weber, French sociologist Emile Durkheim is considered one of
the founders of sociology. One of Durkheim’s primary goals was to analyze how how
modern societies could maintain social integration after the traditional bonds of family
and church were replaced by modern economic relations.

Durkheim believed that society exerted a powerful force on individuals. People’s norms,
beliefs, and values make up a collective consciousness, or a shared way of understanding
and behaving in the world. The collective consciousness binds individuals together and
creates social integration. For Durkheim, the collective consciousness was crucial in
explaining the existence of society: it produces society and holds it together. At the same
time, the collective consciousness is produced by individuals through their actions and
interactions. Society is a social product created by the actions of individuals that then
exerts a coercive social force back on those individuals. Through their collective
consciousness, Durkheim argued, human beings become aware of one another as social
beings, not just animals.

Formation of Collective Consciousness

According to Durkheim, the collective consciousness is formed through social

interactions. In particular, Durkheim thought of the close-knit interactions between
families and small communities, groups of people who share a common religion, who
may eat together, work together, and spend leisure time together. Yet all around him,
Durkheim observed evidence of rapid social change and the withering away of these
groups. He saw increasing population density and population growth as key factors in
the evolution of society and the advent of modernity. As the number of people in a given
area increase, he posited, so does the number of interactions, and the society becomes
more complex. Population growth creates competition and incentives to trade and
further the division of labor. But as people engage in more economic activity with
neighbors or distant traders, they begin to loosen the traditional bonds of family,
religion, and moral solidarity that had previously ensured social integration. Durkheim
worried that modernity might herald the disintegration of society.

Durkheim and Modernity

Following a socio evolutionary approach reminiscent of Comte, Durkheim described the

evolution of society from mechanical solidarity to organic solidarity. Simpler societies,
he argued, are based on mechanical solidarity, in which self-sufficient people are
connected to others by close personal ties and traditions (e.g., family and religion). Also,
in such societies, people have far fewer options in life. Modern societies, on the other
hand, are based on organic solidarity, in which people are connected by their reliance on
others in the division of labor. Modernization, Durkheim argued, is based first on
population growth and increasing population density, second on increasing “moral
density” (that is, the development of more complex social interactions), and third, on the
increasing specialization in work (i.e., the division of labor). Because modern society is
complex, and because the work that individuals do is so specialized, individuals can no
longer be self-sufficient and must rely on others to survive. Thus, although modern
society may undermine the traditional bonds of mechanical solidarity, it replaces them
with the bonds of organic solidarity.

Organic versus Mechanical Solidarity

Further, Durkheim argued, the organic solidarity of modern societies might have
advantages over traditional mechanical solidarity. In traditional societies, people are
self-sufficient, and therefore society has little need for cooperation and interdependence.
Institutions that require cooperation and agreement must often resort to force and
repression to keep society together. Traditional mechanical solidarity may tend,
therefore, to be authoritarian and coercive. In modern societies, under organic solidarity,
people are necessarily much more interdependent. Specialization and the division of
labor require cooperation. Thus, solidarity and social integration are necessary for
survival and do not require the same sort of coercion as under mechanical solidarity.

In organic solidarity, the individual is considered vitally important, even sacred. In

organic solidarity, the individual, rather than the collective, becomes the focus of rights
and responsibilities, the center of public and private rituals holding the society together
—a function once performed by the religion. To stress the importance of this concept,
Durkheim talked of the ” cult of the individual. ” However, he made clear that the cult of
the individual is itself a social fact, socially produced; reverence for the individual is not
an inherent human trait, but a social fact that arises in certain societies at certain times.

Key Points

Durkheim believed that society exerted a powerful force on individuals. According to

Durkheim, people’s norms, beliefs, and values make up a collective consciousness, or a
shared way of understanding and behaving in the world.

The collective consciousness binds individuals together and creates social integration.

Durkheim saw increasing population density as a key factor in the advent of modernity.
As the number of people in a given area increase, so does the number of interactions and
the society becomes more complex.

As people engage in more economic activity with neighbors or distant traders, they
begin to loosen the traditional bonds of family, religion, and moral solidarity that had
previously ensured social integration. Durkheim worried that modernity might herald the
disintegration of society.

Simpler societies are based on mechanical solidarity, in which self-sufficient people are
connected to others by close personal ties and traditions. Modern societies are based on
organic solidarity, in which people are connected by their reliance on others in the
division of labor.
Although modern society may undermine the traditional bonds of mechanical solidarity,
it replaces them with the bonds of organic solidarity.

In the Elementary Forms of Religious Life, Durkheim presented a theory of the function
of religion in aboriginal and modern societies and described the phenomenon of
collective effervescence and collective consciousness.

Durkheim has been called a structural functionalist because his theories focus on the
function certain institutions (e.g., religion) play in maintaining social solidarity or social
structure.

Anomie in Émile Durkheim

The word anomie “means the absence of norms, rules or laws”, anomie is a polysemic
concept and varied meanings have been ascribed to it. . It was not only a health crisis, it
was also a major moral crisis. Anomy may mean “a lack of integration or mutual
adjustment of the functions stemming from industrial crises, from conflicts between
labour and capital, and from specialization of science”; “lack of norms or regulation”, or
a profligacy, normlessness and social deregulation. Even in the Durkheimian
perspective, anomie may be considered an ambiguous and, to a certain extent,
contradictory concept.

Durkheim maintains that “man is not a moral being but because he lives in society, since
morality consists of being solidary with a group and varies with this solidarity”. For
Durkheim, there are two types of social solidarity–types of connection between
individuals:

a. Mechanical solidarity–emphasis on the principle of similarity, unites individuals

in society, fosters internal cohesion, a strong collective awareness and a vigorous
coercion over individuals, prevalence of repressive law; and
b. Organic solidarity–significant division of labour and specialisation of functions;
what unites individuals is the interdependence of social functions, collective
awareness is weak and diffuse, spreading through the various institutions, the
law of restitution prevails, the function of Law, rather than to punish those who
commit a crime, is to restore the order that has been violated; morality regulates
social life through the mobilisation of cultural elements (ways of thinking,
feeling and acting, which are learned and shared through the processes of
socialization).

Anomie and the division of labour in society

In The Division of Labour in Society, Durkheim analyses the pathological forms of the
division of labour and the division of anomic labour. He sustains that the social causes
for the increase of the division of labour in complex societies arise from a combination
of factors that involve: an increase of the population, a higher approximation of the
members of society in the physical space, greater communication and interdependence
of the individuals in the social space. With the growing emergence of organic solidarity
resulting from the division of labour, “each one depends more closely on society, the
more divided the work is, and, on the other hand, his/her activity is all the more
personal, the more specialized it is” continues, stating that Deep changes have taken
place, and in a short time, in the structure of our societies; […] the morale that
corresponds to this social type has regressed, but without another one developing
quickly enough to fill the space that the former has left vague in our consciences. Our
faith has been shaken; tradition has lost its dominance; individual judgment has
emancipated from collective judgment. But, on the other hand, the functions that were
dissociated throughout the storm did not have time to adjust to each other, the new life
that emerged abruptly could not be completely organized and, above all, it was not
organized in such a way as to satisfy the need for justice, which more ardently aroused
in our hearts.

The intensification of the division of labour should increase solidarity and

interdependence among the members of a society; however, the division of labour may
have opposite consequences. Thus, specialization in the field of intellectual activities
leads the scientist, not to solidarity, but to isolation. Another form of anomic division of
labour results from economic development. The development of the production and
markets may make it impossible to harmonise economic actions. The producer’s rule is
not, as in the past, to produce according to identifiable needs, but to produce as much as
possible. This situation results in crises that shake economic systems and in social
conflicts, which are inherent, on the one hand, to the fact that the worker is confined to
limited tasks and, on the other hand, to the fact that contacts between the individuals
who participate in the production become looser, via the division of labour..

In The Division of Labour in Society, Durkheim sustains that “if anomie is an evil, it is,
first and foremost, because society suffers from that and, in order to live, it cannot
deprive itself of cohesion and regularity”. According to Paiva for Durkheim the
maintenance of social order entails integration and societal cohesion in the “transition
between traditional order and industrial order”, in a social harmony through moral rules
shared and respected by individuals. In this socially negative context of reduced social
control and cohesion, for Durkheim, in The Division of Labour in Society (1893),
“anomie is one of the pathological forms of the division of labour, namely: the
temporary lack of a social regulation that is capable of ensuring cooperation between
specialised functions. It originates in the insufficiency of contacts between social
roles”. Thus, there is anomie in the division of social labour when cooperation is
replaced by conflict and competition, and when the values that are accepted or the goals
that are set by individuals cease to be collective to become increasingly individualized.
The individualization of goals and values is one of the main sources of conflict. Anomie
is a concept that allows characterizing societies and individuals. When the division of
labour is anomic, it means that individuals do not abide by the rules imposed by society.
But it also means that societies are organized in such a way that they do not have the
power to impose rules on individuals so as to ensure social harmony. The
individualisation of goals and values is a consequence of social organization itself.

Anomie and the suicide

Anomie of the division of labour is divided into two components that Durkheim calls
egoism and anomie An egoistic individual is one who draws his/her rules of conduct and
life, not from an external moral authority, but from him/herself. The egoistic individual
gives priority to values that are limited to an individual disposition, whereas the non-
egoistic individual abides by values that go beyond his/her own personality. The
egoistic, feeling less supported by the community, has more difficulty in finding a
meaning for his/her existence. Anomie would characterize social situations where the
individual’s desires can manifest freely without being bound by rules. Considering
suicide as every case of death resulting directly or indirectly from a positive or negative
act carried out by the victim him/herself, and which he/she knew would produce this
result, and methodologically advocating the constitution of social types of suicide, not
by classifying them directly according to their afore-described characteristics, but by
classifying the causes that produce them, Durkheim identifies several types of suicide:
the egoistic, the anomic, the altruistic, and the fatalistic. Egoistic suicide would be
embedded in a high degree of individualism that would foster social disintegration.
Individuals would be confined to themselves, suffering to make sense of their
existences. An excess of collective awareness could impose the group’s priority in
relation to the individual, who has no value by him/herself and would lead to altruistic
suicide. Anomic suicide is connected with situations in which society ceases to exercise
a regulating function over passions. The less governed by collective feelings and values,
the more individuals would tend to freely express their desires and to become
dissatisfied with the incompatibility between their desires and the possibilities of
satisfaction. An excess of rules could lead to fatalistic suicide when, through over-
regulation, individuals would lose control over themselves and over their destiny.

According to Paiva anomic suicide, as defined by Durkheim, “results from a lack of an

absence or loosening of social norms” (p. 361) and “usually results from a certain laxity
of social rules, from a loosening of religious practices, or from social chaos, a rapid
change of norms, as in periods following social upheavals, revolutions, severe economic
crises, etc. In Suicide, Durkheim refers to anomic suicide as taking place in a social
context in which “One does not know anymore what is possible and what is not possible,
what is fair and what is unfair, what are the claims and the legitimate hopes, which ones
outweigh the measures. Consequently, there is nothing that is not intended”. This
anomic suicide occurs in a situation in which […] individuals are in permanent
competition with each other; expect much of existence and demand much of it, and find
themselves perpetually haunted by the suffering that arises from the disproportion
between their aspirations and their satisfactions [...] state of irritation and repulse,
irritation linked to the multiple occasions of deception provided by modern existence,
repulse resulting from the awareness of the disproportion between aspirations and
satisfactions. In Suicide (1897), anomie characterizes social situations in which the
individual’s desires can manifest freely without being bound by rules, configuring the
unlimited nature of human desire and the indeterminacy of the goals to attain, being
inherent in the system of values, institutions and the functioning of modern industrial
societies. This is a meaning that differs from anomie in The Division of Labour in
Society.

c. Max Weber
 Rationalization

Rationality has been recognized as perhaps the major theme in Max

Weber's oeuvre. The commentators who have addressed this theme have
generally constricted its polymorphous character. This article inventories
Weber's usage of "rationality" and "rationalization" in Economy and
Society and the Collected Essays in the Sociology of Religion. Four types
of rationality are identified and compared with one another: practical,
theoretical, substantive, and formal. Only "ethical substantive rationality"
introduces methodical ways of life. All four types become manifest in a
multiplicity of rationalization processes orchestrated at all levels of societal
and civilizational process.

Max Weber, a German sociologist, economist, and jurist, defined

rationalization as the process of replacing traditions, values, and emotions
with reason and rationality as the motivators for human behavior.

Weber's theory of rationalization suggests that social processes become

more rational when institutions, laws, and governments are assigned goals,
and people try to achieve those goals by following established procedures
and laws. The goals of rationalization are to: Improve self-esteem and self-
concept and Enable people to understand each other.

Rationalization as an ideal type and as an historical force appears in much

of Weber's writings. He regards the development of rational forms to be one
of the most important characteristics of the development of Western society
and capitalism. Weber viewed traditional and charismatic forms as
irrational, or at least non-rational. The latter may rely on religion, magic, or
the supernatural as a way of explaining the social world and authority may
also derive from these. These may have no systematic form of development,
but may rely on personal insight, revelation, emotions and feelings, features
that are non-rational in form.
In contrast, rationality consists of a set of social actions governed by reason
or reasoning, calculation, plus rational pursuit of one's interests. Rationality
forms a large part of rational-legal authority and there are several
characteristics that Weber considers as aspects of rationality (Ritzer, pp.
124-125). Actions in the economic sphere or in formal organizations such
as universities have most of these characteristics and many of these can be
taken as examples of rationality.

Calculability. Results can be calculated or estimated by adopting

assumptions and considering the methods by which results will be achieved.
This is especially the case in formal institutions or in businesses

Efficiency. Actors have various ends and attempt to find the best means to
achieving these ends.

Predictability. Organizations have rules and regulations, and actors are

subject to structures and authority. This, along with established procedures
and ends, mean that the results of social action can often be predicted,
perhaps not precisely, but certainly probabilities attached to the outcomes.

Non-Human Technology. Technologies such as tools, machinery, and

information technologies make predictability greater. That is, these
technologies are constructed with certain purposes, and so long as they
assist in achieving the desired ends, the results are generally predictable.

Control over Uncertainties. This can never be complete, but rules and
methods are adopted that deal with many possible contingencies. Rules are
set up not so much to deal with specific people or personalities, but attempt
to be generic, dealing with a variety of possibilities. These allow outcomes
to be constrained within certain limits, thereby reducing uncertainties about
outcomes.

These principles of rationality can be applied to many activities and actions

in the economic sphere, and have become highly developed and visible
there. In modern society similar principles emerge in most areas of the
social world, even including religion, politics, administration, sports, and
music. Organizations and actions governed by rationality may produce an
overall rationality for the system as a whole, but this is not a necessary
result. For example, studies of economics show how many producers each
acting rationally to maximize their own profits, may produce too many
products. As a result, the consequences for people involved in formally
rational systems may not always be desirable. Weber considered rationality
to be necessary for organizations to operate efficiently, and he felt that the
trend was that rationality would may take over more and more spheres of
society. At the same time, Weber feared that this could result in increased
control over individual action, stifling charisma and tradition, and allowing
few alternatives for creative human action.

1. Types of Rationality

In his writings, Weber used rationality is various ways. Four of the

meanings of rationality are as follows.

a. Practical rationality involves the individual who considers ends, and on

some systematic basis decides what is the best means or course of action to
pursue in order to achieve these ends. This form of rationality can be
considered to be pragmatic in that it provides individuals with a way of
pursuing practical ends.

b. Theoretical rationality. Abstract concepts form an essential part of logical

reasoning or or theoretical models. These attempt to describe, explain, or
understand the world in terms of models that are constructed from
observation and reasoning. These forms of rationality need not be
associated with social action but are more a part of logical structures and
theory.

c. Substantive rationality. Individuals might consider a range of possible

values or actions, and attempting to make them consistent. Weber termed
this substantive rationality and considered it problematic in modern society
in that rationalization of social life makes it difficult for people to pursue
particular values. For example, pursuit of family or religious values may be
difficult in modern society, given economic pressures and dominance of
bureaucratic organizations.

d. Formal rationality is a broader form of rationality that characterizes

organizations, especially bureaucratic ones. This leads to "universally
applied rules, laws and regulations that characterize formal rationality in the
West ... particularly in the economic, legal, and scientific institutions, as
well as in the bureaucratic form of domination." (Ritzer, p. 123). Rational-
legal forms of authority such as the contemporary legal and judicial systems
are examples of formal rationality

Weber’s fear was that formal rationality was becoming more dominant in
modern, western society, with substantive rationality declining in
importance. Weber notes that formal rationality developed as capitalistic
forms of organizations emerged and its expansion is associated with the
development of formal organizations and methods. This formal rationality,
and the organizational features associated with them, tends to crowd out
other forms of rationality and limit the possibilities of creative social action.

2. Development of Rationality

Weber argues that capitalism is a rational system in the sense of being

calculating, efficient, reducing uncertainty, increasing predictability, and
using increasing amounts of non-human technologies. Accompanying the
development of capitalism has been a decline of magic and religion, and
there has been increased secularization. Weber notes that there are several
preconditions that must be established before capitalist methods can
become dominant. "The most general presupposition for the existence of
this present-day capitalism is that of rational capital accounting as the norm
for all large industrial undertakings which are concerned with provision for
everyday wants" (Giddens and Held, p. 81). In order for capitalism to work,
it is necessary to have a means by which a balance can be created, where
various possible alternative lines of action can be considered, and where
decisions can be made concerning how to organize production so that the
balance at the end exceeds the balance at the beginning.

Authority

Authority is a powerful concept in sociology that helps us understands how people have
the right to control and influence others. Authority refers to accepted power—that is,
power that people agree to follow. Weber defined power as the chance that an
individual in a social relationship can achieve his or her own will even against
the resistance of others. People listen to authority figures because they feel that these
individuals are worthy of respect.

Max Weber talked about three types of authority

Traditional Authority:

Traditional authority is when people respect and obey someone because it has always
been that way. It happens in societies where customs, traditions, or families decide who
is in charge. For example, a king or queen might have traditional authority because their
family has ruled for a long time. According to Weber, the power of traditional
authority is accepted because that has traditionally been the case; its legitimacy exists
because it has been accepted for a long time. Britain’s Queen Elizabeth, for instance,
occupies a position that she inherited based on the traditional rules of succession for the
monarchy. People adhere to traditional authority because they are invested in the past
and feel obligated to perpetuate it. In this type of authority, a ruler typically has no real
force to carry out his will or maintain his position but depends primarily on a group’s
respect.

A more modern form of traditional authority is patrimonialism, which is traditional

domination facilitated by an administration and military that are purely personal
instruments of the master (Eisenberg 1998). In this form of authority, all officials are
personal favorites appointed by the ruler. These officials have no rights, and their
privileges can be increased or withdrawn based on the caprices of the leader. The
political organization of ancient Egypt typified such a system: when the royal household
decreed that a pyramid be built, every Egyptian was forced to work toward its
construction.

Traditional authority can be intertwined with race, class, and gender. In most societies,
for instance, men are more likely to be privileged than women and thus are more likely
to hold roles of authority. Similarly, members of dominant racial groups or upper-class
families also win respect more readily. In the United States, the Kennedy family, which
has produced many prominent politicians, exemplifies this model.

Legal-Rational Authority: Legal-rational authority is when people follow someone's

orders because there are rules and laws that say they have to. This type of authority
happens in modern societies, like when we obey our teachers at school or the laws set by
the government. It is all about following the rules and doing things fairly.According to
Weber, power made legitimate by laws, written rules, and regulations is
termed rational-legal authority. In this type of authority, power is vested in a particular
rationale, system, or ideology and not necessarily in the person who implements the
specifics of that doctrine. A nation that follows a constitution applies this type of
authority
Charismatic Authority: Charismatic authority is when people are drawn to someone
because of their special qualities or abilities. It's like having a magnet that attracts others.
Charismatic leaders can inspire people to follow them because they have a unique vision
or they are really good at something. Think of famous leaders like Martin Luther King
Jr. or Mahatma Gandhi. Followers accept the power of charismatic authority because
they are drawn to the leader’s personal qualities. The appeal of a charismatic leader can
be extraordinary, and can inspire followers to make unusual sacrifices or to persevere in
the midst of great hardship and persecution. Charismatic leaders usually emerge in times
of crisis and offer innovative or radical solutions. They may even offer a vision of a new
world order. Hitler’s rise to power in the postwar economic depression of Germany is an
example.

Charismatic leaders tend to hold power for short durations, and according to Weber,
they are just as likely to be tyrannical as they are heroic. Diverse male leaders such as
Hitler, Napoleon, Jesus Christ, César Chávez, Malcolm X, and Winston Churchill are all
considered charismatic leaders. Because so few women have held dynamic positions of
leadership throughout history, the list of charismatic female leaders is comparatively
short. Many historians consider figures such as Joan of Arc, Margaret Thatcher, and
Mother Teresa to be charismatic leaders.

Table 1. Max Weber identified and explained three distinct types of authority.

Weber’s Three Types of Authority

Traditional Charismatic Legal-Rational

Based on a
Source of Legitimized by long- leader’s Authority resides in the office,
Power standing custom personal not the person
qualities

Leadership Dynamic
Historic personality Bureaucratic officials
Style personality

Patriarchy (traditional
Napoleon,
positions of
Jesus Christ, U.S. presidency and
authority), royal
Example Mother Teresa, Congress, Modern British
families with no
Martin Luther Parliament
political power but
King, Jr.
social influence
 Power

It was the German sociologist Max Weber (1864-1920) who first provided a general
definition of power. In one of his most famous essays from the collection Economy and
Society (1978: 926), Weber defined power as “the chance of a man or a number of men
to realize their own will in a social action even against the resistance of others who are
participating in the action”. That means, “to Weber, power is about getting your own
way, even against the opposition of others” (Giddens 2009, 989)!

Max Weber defined power as 'the probability that one actor within a social relationship
will be in a position to carry out his own will despite resistance, regardless of the basis
on which this probability rests' (Weber, 1978: 53). Max Weber, said that power is the
ability to exercise one’s will over others (Weber 1922). Power affects more than
personal relationships; it shapes larger dynamics like social groups, professional
organizations, and governments.

Industrial bureaucracy

It was Max Weber who propounded the bureaucratic theory of organization

and management. Bureaucracy is an administrative system designed to
accomplish large-scale administrative tasks by systematically coordinating
the work of many individuals. Bureaucracies have four key characteristics:
a clear hierarchy, specialization, a division of labor, and a set of formal
rules, or standard operating procedures. In modern industrial societies, dual
bureaucracies often exist between private companies and government
regulatory agencies. Whenever a regulatory bureaucracy exists to impose
rules on business activity, the private company may create a bureaucracy to
avoid violating such regulations.

In its ideal form, bureaucracy is impersonal and rational and based on rules
rather than ties of kinship, friendship, or patrimonial or charismatic
authority. Bureaucratic organization can be found in both public and private
institutions.

Weber has observed three types of power in organizations: traditional,

charismatic and rational-legal or bureaucratic. He has emphasized that
bureaucratic type of power is the ideal one.

Features (Characteristics) Of Weber’s Bureaucracy:

Weber has given a number of features of bureaucracy. Accordingly,

following features suggest the characteristics of bureaucratic organizations.

According to Weber, these are the six characteristics of bureaucracy.

1. Administrative Class:

Bureaucratic organizations generally have administrative class responsible

for maintaining coordinative activities of the members.

Main features of his class are as follows:

(i) People are paid and are whole time employees,

(ii) They receive salary and other perquisites normally based on their
positions,

(iii) There tenure in the organization is determined by the rules and

regulations of the organization,

(iv) They do not have any proprietary interest in the organization,

(v) They are selected for the purpose of employment based on their
competence.

2. Hierarchy:
The basic feature of bureaucratic organization is that there is hierarchy of
positions in the organization. Hierarchy is a system of ranking various
positions in descending scale from top to bottom of the organization. In
bureaucratic organization, offices also follow the principle of hierarchy that
is each lower office is subject to control and supervision by higher office.

Thus, no office is left uncontrolled in the organization. This is the

fundamental concept of hierarchy in bureaucratic organization. This
hierarchy serves as lines of communication and delegation of authority. It
implies that communication coming down or going up must pass through
each position.

Similarly, a subordinate will get authority from his immediate superior.

However, this hierarchy is net unitary but sub-pyramids of officials within
the large organization corresponding etc. functional divisions exist.

Thus, there are offices with the same amount of authority but with different
kinds of functions operating in different areas of competence. For example,
the Government organizations, we can observe separate offices looking
after particular functions. This happens in business organizations too.

3. Task specialization (division of labor).

Work of the organization is divided on the basis of specialization to take the

advantages of division of labour. Each office in the bureaucratic
organization has specific sphere of competence.

This involves:

(i) a sphere of obligations to perform functions which has been marked off
as part of a systematic division of labour;

(ii) the provision of the incumbent with necessary authority to carry out
these functions; and
(iii) the necessary means of compulsion are clearly defined and their use is
subject to definite conditions.

Thus, division of labour try to ensure that each office has a clearly-defined
area of competence within the organization and each official knows the
areas in which he operates and the areas in which he must abstain from
action so that he does not overstep the boundary between his role and those
of others. Further, division of labour also tries to ensure that no work is left
uncovered.

4. Formal selection rules

A basic and most emphasized feature of bureaucratic organization is that

administrative process is continuous and governed by official rules.
Bureaucratic organization is the antithesis of ad hoc, temporary, and
temporary and unstable relations. A rational approach to organization calls
for a system of maintaining rules to ensure twin requirements of uniformity
and coordination of efforts by individual members in the organization.

5. Impersonal Relations/ environment.

A notable feature of bureaucracy is that relationships among individuals are

governed through the system of official authority and rules. Official
positions are free from personal involvement, emotions and sentiments.
Thus, decisions are governed by rational factors rather than personal
factors. This impersonality concept is used in dealing with organizational
relations as well as relations between the organization and outsiders.

6. Official Record:

Bureaucratic organization is characterized by maintenance of proper official

records. The decisions and activities of the organization are formally
recorded and preserved for future reference. This is made possible by
extensive use of filling system in the organization. An official record is
almost regarded as encyclopedia of various activities performed by the
people in the organization.

7. Efficient and uniform requirements.

8. Achievement-based advancement

Benefits of Bureaucracy:

The following are the advantages of Bureaucracy:

A bureaucracy is an administrative, government, or social system with a

hierarchical structure and complex rules and regulations.

1. Jurisdictional competency

Jurisdictional competency is a key element of bureaucratic organization,

which is broken into units with defined responsibilities. Fundamentally,
jurisdictional competency refers to bureaucratic specialization, with all
elements of a bureaucracy possessing a defined role. The responsibilities of
individuals broaden with movement upward through an organizational
hierarchy. The organizational division of labour enables units and
individuals within an organization to master details and skills and to turn
the novel into the routine.

2. Command and control

Bureaucracies have clear lines of command and control. Bureaucratic

authority is organized hierarchically, with responsibility taken at the top and
delegated with decreasing discretion below. Because of the risk of
organizational parochialism produced by limited and specific jurisdictional
competencies, the capacity to coordinate and control the multiplicity of
units is essential.

3. Continuity

Continuity is another key element of bureaucratic organization. Rational-

legal authority necessitates uniform rules and procedures for written
documents and official behaviour. A bureaucracy’s files (i.e., its past
records) provide it with organizational memory, thereby enabling it to
follow precedent and standard operating procedures. The ability to utilize
standard operating procedures makes organizations more efficient by
decreasing the costs attached to any given transaction. Organizational files
record procedures, antecedent behaviour, and personnel records. They also
allow an organization to be continuous and, thus, independent of any
specific leadership. On the whole, continuity is vital to an organization’s
capacity to retain its identity and even its culture.

4. Professionalization

Professionalization of management, another basic element of bureaucracy,

requires a full-time corps of officials whose attention is devoted exclusively
to its managerial responsibilities. In government, professionalization is
vested in the corps of civil servants whose positions have generally been
obtained through the passage of tests based upon merit. The civil service is
sometimes considered a permanent government, distinct from the transient
politicians who serve only for a limited time and at the pleasure of the
electorate in democratic political systems.

5. Rules

Rules are the lifeblood of bureaucratic organization, providing a rational

and continuous basis for procedures and operations. An organization’s files
provide the inventory of accumulated rules. Bureaucratic decisions and—
above all—procedures are grounded in codified rules and precedents

6. A clear chain of command

Bureaucracy is considered to have a clear chain of command so that every

worker in the bureaucracy chain has his or her own place. Every person is
overseen by a person who works one level above him, and this creates an
efficient hierarchy. It is usually observed that authority flows from top to
bottom, and as it reaches the bottom where is, it is of it is left.

Authority is considered to be the glue which is responsible for holding

diversity together and preventing the unchecked discretion. There is a
popular emphasis that hierarchical organization causes super cautious
behavior amongst their employees, which are based on the expectations of
superiors and whatever they desire.
Every person in the chain of authority has his or her own place in the chain
of command of bureaucracy. It is ensured that every office of the lower
hierarchy is controlled and supervised by the office on a higher hierarchy.

7. Division of work

The work in a bureaucratic organization is based on the specialization in

order to achieve full utilization of the worker. Every office is considered to
have a specific competency sphere. That competencies sphere has to
perform all the functions and obligations which are part of a delegation of
authority and dedicated to a specific worker.

It also has to carry out all the necessary actions which are defined and
determined by higher authorities. Clear definition of different offices is
required to carry out the delegation of authority so that there is no
overstepping between the boundary of one office to the other and the work
is not left out.

8. Competency of jurisdiction

It is considered that bureaucratic specialization with the defined role is what

jurisdictional competency refers to.

Efficient labor because of the delegation of authority and work

specialization can finish the work efficiently consistently and within time.
One of the primary drawbacks of having efficient labor is that they may not
be able to respond or identify to the hurdles which fall beyond their
competency and their approach will be limited and restricted to every
problem based on their earlier experience.

This also brings on a feeling of incompetence in the employees of

specialized labor, and in the end, the problem remains unsolved.

9. Formal relationships

One of the most important features of bureaucracy is that the employees

and their relationships amongst each other are governed by the formal
authority of rules and regulations.
This ensures that all of the employees are free from sentiments and
emotions attached to the decision making and are governed by rational
factors other than personal factors.

This is very critical in dealing with issues inside your organization as well
as outside the organization. Formal relationships help to establish a formal
flow of command in the bureaucracy and help to maintain his own order
and ensure that all of the employees for the rules and regulations.

10. Record keeping

The other important factor of the bureaucratic organization is that they are
very adept in keeping a proper and official record. Cause of the grievances
and the decisions associated with them are formally recorded and kept need
the preserved in order to refer for future decisions.

The official record is also used as an encyclopedia and a reference material

for future activities and may reduce the time and complexity to make the
decisions if the situation repeats itself.

11. Professionalism

Bureaucracy is characterized by professionalism, which is an important

characteristic of all the bureaucratic executives. This is especially true in
case of civil services where the position has significantly great power and is
based upon the merit of the candidate.

12. There are clearly defined duties and responsibilities for each of the jobs
so that there is no conflict of duties and was up in jobs with each other.

13. Workers become experts because of the division of labor and duties,
and their performance is improved considerably, which becomes helpful for
the bureaucratic organization to provide an improved output.

14. A greater amount of consistency is seen in the employees of a

bureaucratic organization because of the rules and procedures which are
pre-decided for every work. The employees are made to follow the rules set
by the organization, and the authority is, which also makes the management
process pretty easy.
15. Merit is the primary criteria considered while the selection process and
also during the promotion so that the right person is put on the right job,
which also helps in the utilization of optimum human resources. This
avoids conflict between the employees and makes your organization doesn’t
orient rather than relationship-oriented.

16. Employee turnover of a does not affect the organization because another
person replaces when one person leaves the work, and overall, the work
suffers less.

Disadvantages of bureaucracy

1. It is found that bureaucratic employees do not have a feeling of

belongingness towards their organization. Because of the constant turnover
of the employees, they might have that this feeling.

2. There is a lot of paperwork and red tape, which is the primary

criticizing point of every bureaucratic organization.

3. Employees are seen often to resist change in the introduction of new

technology because they have become used to the system.

4. The employees of the organization resign excessively on the set

regulations and rules, and because of these policies, the growth of the
employees is inhibited. This also makes the employees feel like machines
and not individuals because of which there is neglect in the human factor.
Sociological Theory in Industrial Relations: Herbert Blumer

Herbert Blumer argues that industrial relations are not fixed, but rather are
tense, unstable, and mobile. Blumer's theory challenges the idea that
industrial relations are best studied as cultural data, or as expressions of
established regulations. Instead, he suggests that industrial relations are
intrinsically unstable and not settled.

Industrial relations is a multidisciplinary academic field that studies the

complex relationships between employers, employees, labor unions,
employer organizations, and the state. The field began after the Industrial
Revolution, when workers began to demand better working conditions and
form syndicates.

Industrial sociology is another related field that studies work groups, work
relations, and the social organization of work in society. It examines trends
in technological change, globalization, labor markets, work organization,
managerial practices, and employment relations.

An analysis of present day industrial relations as dynamic, and changing—

in a state of continuous tension—serves as a background for evaluation of 5
classes of theory and research by sociologists in the field of industrial
relations. These classes are characterized in turn by the assumption that
industrial relations (1) are organized practices and customary routines, (2)
are primarily a structure of stratified or status relationships, (3) are products
of long time trends or super-organic factors, (4) are primarily direct human
relations, synonymous with cultural or structural relations, (5) stem from
attitudes and feelings and are to be understood through the study of these

The primary parties to these relations are workers and management. The
fundamental relation has been elaborated in our society into an extensive,
diversified, complex and indirect network of relations in which the
individual worker becomes an insignificant and inconspicuous figure. With
unionization, especially with industrial unionization, workers have become
incorporated in organizations, usually of vast dimensions. The relations of
workers to management become increasingly led by, directed by, mediated
by and expressed through such organizations. The organization as such
functions through a heirarchy of officers and central committees, who
formulate policies, establish objectives, decide on strategy and tactics, and
execute decisions. On the side of management one finds similar
organization which takes out of the hand of the individual manager the
determination of the major outlines of his relation to the worker. Relations
between workers and management become primarily a matter of relations
between organized groups. The formation of huge national unions has
especially given a new dimension and character to these relations.

The most noteworthy feature of the relations between workers and

management in industry is that the relations are dynamic, and changing.
They may be regarded as in a state of continuous tension, even though the
degree of this tension will vary significantly from time to time. The tension
is itself, an inevitable consequence of a variety of factors which lead
workers and management to exercise pressure against each other at shifting
points and in new ways. Each of these two parties is forced to meet such
pressure.

Fundamentally, workers and management in our economy are necessarily in

conflict with each other. Workers, especially in their organized groups, are
seeking of secure benefits and to preserve benefits and that management is
seeking managerial freedom and opportunities for business profit. Thus, an
advance is in the nature of pressure and as such encounters resistance.
Whenever such advances are initiated the pattern of relations changes. This
simple statement merely sketches the fundamental fact that industrial
relations between workers and management under our economy are
intrinsically instable and inherently disposed toward rearrangement.

All that is needed to set such relations in movement is the initiation of

seeking efforts by workers or by management. Competition in business with
the inevitable effort to achieve efficient, low-cost production and
managerial freedom; the effort of management to coup the gains of
improved efficiency through technological improvements; the shifting and
changing of management personnel with divergent philosophies; the
development of new wishes and conceptions of rights on the part of
workers; the exercise of pressure by the rank and file, particularly in large
democratic unions; the formation of national unions, leading to uniform
demands on diversified industrial concerns; the pressure on union leaders to
produce increased benefits; the struggle for position on the part of union
leaders or those seeking to be leaders; the development of a militant,
aggressive psychology on the part of unions; the rivalry between unions for
prestige, membership and the efforts to weaken rival unions; the change in
price-wage relationships and the movement of the business cycle; shifts in
political power offering to either organized workers or to management the
opportunity to actively advance its particular interest; shifts in public
opinion which yield the same encouragement; and the appearance of new
legislation or new judicial interpretation which open new views of what is
permissible, Such conditions—and the list is by no means complete—lead
and coerce workers and management into new relations as each party seeks
to pursue and to protect its respective interests. In response to such forces,
industrial relations in our society become tense, changeable and ever
moving.

The mobile character of industrial relations has taken on a new dimension

and nature with the organization of workers in vast national unions.