Bureaucracy Case

1) A hierarchical structure of formal authority.

Every organization is originally formed to achieve some purpose that cannot be attained without the coordinate efforts of a number of persons working on different tasks. This implies that each member of organization must be willling to modified his own behaviour so that it fits in with the behaviour of the other members. If such mutual adaption occured spontaneously, the wil be no need for an explicit hierarchy of authority.

Conflicts of interest spring from differences in the explicit goals officials persue, an in their modes are perceiving reality. In any organization, no two members have exactly the same expicit goals and, as a result, may disagree about what the organization ought to be doing, even if day possess the same information and face no uncertainty. Conflicts as interest, therefore, cannot be eliminated by improving the technical capabilities of the organization.

Differencess in modes of perceiving reality spring from the value structures explicit in the trained outlooks associated with various technical specialitist. For example, engineers do not look at problems in the same way the economists or artists do.

Conflicts based upon technical limitations may not even involved disagreement at all, bit merely the inability of each official to know what all the other officials on his own bureau are doing, have done, or proposed to do. For example, a diplomat in foreign services may decided to increase the numbers or social affairs he holds, at the same time that the man incharge of diplomatic budgets in his home office is reducing his allowence for entertainment. Perhaps these two man would agree completely on what should be done about this matter if they conferred, but each of them is not yet aware that his action is inconsistant with that of the other. In highly specialized organization, this type of inconsistency through ignora