Ajustes para los relés de distancia

While the maze of rules in many organisations may have a dehumanising effect, personalities prevail, even if only at an "unofficial" level. Peter Selznick noted that formal organisations are co-operative systems, where the control of the superior is responded to with consent from the subordinate, as functions of each of their roles in the organisational structure. However, "individuals have a propensity to resist depersonalization, to spill over the boundaries of their segmentary roles, to participate as wholes"

(Selznick 1961: 21, emphasis his). The importance of the individual within an impersonal power structure of a bureaucracy was a major concern of later theorists.

The best means of analytically reconciling the problem of the individual and the impersonal organisation is to deal with them separately within the argument. Selznick distinguished between two analytically distinct stand­ points which had reciprocal consequences - organisations can be viewed as

economic structures and also as adaptive social structures (1961: 20). This is the approach adopted here. Unlike Selznick however, I am not considering types of bureaucratic organisations but types of roles and identities available within them.

As Weber clearly outlined, rules and routines are necessary for the functioning of large organisations: they increase efficiency by allowing each person's behaviour to be predictable. But the reliance on rules within a bureaucracy can have its dangers as well. Over-compliance can lead to dependence, conservatism and an inability to react flexibly to new situations. Robert Merton wrote that this is due to the development of an esprit de corps amongst the workers. Because they have adapted their thoughts, feelings and actions to the organisational structures within which they function, a sense of common destiny develops between co-workers and they can actually focus their attentions more upon defending their own entrenched positions rather than responding effectively to their clients or superiors (Merton 1961: 55).

Weber’s writings were undoubtedly influenced by the prevalent

Zeitgeist The extreme disciplined rationality of the Prussian military, and Taylorism's 4 reduction of work into discrete and sometimes disassociated parts, probably had a strong influence upon Weber’s thoughts. According to David Beetham, these influences added to the mechanistic quality of his model. Weber expected the worker to hide any part of the personality that did not coincide with the goals of the organisation. Since that time, it has become clear to social scientists that people bring their own needs and personalities to the workplace so that Weber's ideas of depersonalisation are not found in real situations. Even in a bureaucracy, management cannot force the workers to perform, to be efficient, to work with commitment. These things actually

4 Frederick Tylor proposed a system of the scientific management of work. His studies, which dated back to the 1880s, though his major work "The Principles of Scientific Management" did not appear until 1911, sought to increase worker efficiency by eliminating wasted movements wherever possible. His elaborate time and motion studies proved to have a dramatic effect upon office routines and equipment. For more information, see: Forty 1986; Harvey 1989; Atfield and Kirkhams eds. 1989).

require the workers' co-operation which is a matter for informal negotiations (Beetham : 1987, 16-17).

The highly idealised nature of Weber's model can be illustrated with the experience of the workers in the office under study and other work situations generally. The contrast between the theory of bureaucracy and the practice of work in this office will begin to show how tensions between artificial bureaucratic and organic social identities begin to evolve as the workers' expectations based on the ideal are met with the sometimes confusing, sometimes welcome, counterpoint of reality.

In the remainder of this section I will discuss how Weber’s idealised model of bureaucracy is counter-balanced by social aspirations. I will briefly discuss some issues raised by the Weberian model of bureaucracy, referred to hereafter in this section as "the model". The discussion goes beyond that of Weber’s "pure" bureaucrats and takes account of all office workers.

In Weber’s model, power moves downward only. The superior can control the subordinate but not vice versa. However, people who occupy positions of lesser power don't enjoy that condition, and they, being people just as interested in self-determination as the most senior manger, will do what they can to retain some control over their own and perhaps others' lives. If the management of the organisation lays down a new edict for the workers and they do not accept it, they will subvert it in order to avoid carrying out the unwanted action. Even if they are not entirely successful, recalcitrant juniors will at least gain some satisfaction that their disobedience has confounded their superiors' intentions. In another vein, subordinates may actively seek to guide their superiors into behaviours that they believe are best. For instance, the personal assistant to the chief, whose job it is to organise his work, may delay him from seeing some incoming post while promoting in importance something else.

The model implies that people are completely bounded by their areas of jurisdiction. It is true that the phrase "Sorry, its not in my job description" can be heard from an office worker who is trying to avoid doing an unwanted extra task, and while job descriptions are important in letting a person know

what is expected of them, most people working in offices do much more than is formally required. Most importantly, taking on extra work and gaining added responsibility is the best way of getting a promotion, so the ambitious at least, will welcome straying from the confines of their formal jurisdictions. Exploitation in offices is also common where people are forced to take on extra work that is beyond their job descriptions. Even if they do not want to go beyond it, they feel obliged to do so because they do not wish to curry the disfavour of their superiors in the chance that some treat or benefit will become available in the future.

According to the model, people will not change profession and the profession that they have chosen will occupy all their time. This may apply to most office workers but not all. While it is somewhat difficult to switch to another profession of equal status from one year to the next because of the long lead time required to gain the requisite knowledge needed in a responsible post, lateral moves are common and the shift from one occupation to another can take place over a number of years. Occupational shift also commonly occurs within organisations as people take on new responsibilities and areas of expertise. The most common of these is the shift away from technical expertise to management expertise as people progress up the hierarchy.

Workers should be selected for their posts on objective criteria according to the model. This is partly true, and is at least what people sitting in a job interview hope, but interpersonal skills are what really count in an interview situation (Herriot 1987). The ability to argue effectively and to overcome shyness while extolling one’s own virtues are equally persuasive in an interview as work history and the clarity of the job application. Nobody wants to choose a work colleague that they fear will be unfriendly, unkempt or annoying. It is also sometimes the case that organisations will actively recruit personnel according to criteria that are wholly unrelated to technical qualifications to enhance the organisation’s public image (Cole 1988: 106- 112). Most receptionists are attractive and well-spoken young women. Urban local authorities actively recruit women, ethnic minorities and people

with disabilities for their vacant positions in the interests of "equal opportunities considerations".

Promotion is also assumed to follow seniority or technical ability. This is also usually the case, but being on friendly terms with the boss doesn't hurt. People who have insulted or displeased the people who grant promotions rarely move up the ladder as quickly as they might (The Independent, 1/9/93). Thus, when office workers complain about their bosses they do it out of earshot. It can be assumed that people who have worked in a particular job for a long while will have learned all that there is to know on a technical level. The reason that some of them have not moved on while younger people have overtaken them in the progression is because the younger ones have shown something non-technical that they lacked such as imagination, the ability to organise and manage, new ideas or personal charisma.

The worker does not appropriate the materials or means of administration of the office in the model. This is true in a legal sense but not a literal one. Yes, the office worker should not take advantage of his or her position for gain that he or she would not normally be entitled to, for instance the policeman should not release a prisoner that is a personal friend, allowing him to run free. The banker should not transfer funds from other accounts into his own and the cleaner should not eat the cakes produced in the factory where he works 5. But beyond these quite gross offences lie a plethora of little ones that can be overlooked or even deemed to be almost acceptable. The boss can ask the secretary to type a short personal letter, the typist can take an envelope to send off her gas bill, the professional can make a personal telephone call on the office phone. These small transgressions are perfectly acceptable under most circumstances, but they are guided by the norms of the particular organisation and some are more lenient than others. The actual

5 A cleaner In a cakes factory was fired for hiding Genoa sponge cakes down his overalls for later transfer to a secret stash under a sink. Company policy at that factory is that no staff may eat the products (Daily Telegraph, 12/4/94).

limits that a person does not dare to cross will depend upon what all the workers have collectively decided is acceptable.

Similarly, workers in the model are expected to restrict themselves to official business while working. This will usually be the case, but time is also wasted doodling, falling asleep, "looking busy" while not doing anything constructive, gossiping and reading newspapers. These are all activities carried out regularly and invisibly, so that when the supervisor comes within eye range, all is designed to look well. Beyond this are more drastic deviations from the work at hand. Personal business letters can be written at work, computer time used to compose a church newsletter, telephone conversations about the mortgage somebody is trying to arrange are also things that are done by office workers and hidden from view.

These are but a few examples of how the formal bureaucratic structure in the work context is augmented by social processes.