Consejo de Europa

Another manifestation of the pre-bureaucratic in contemporary organisations, specifically in non-Western cultural contexts, stems from the role of local cultural practices and how they shape the conduct of everyday work. In this section, I will discuss three classic examples of such practices from different and geographically varied contexts; namely, the cultural practice of ‘wasta’ in the Middle East, the practice of ‘guanxi’ in China, and the practice of ‘jeitinho’ in Brazil. I chose these practices for

these three cultural practices originate in three different contexts and disparate parts of the globe, and hence it is helpful to draw out their similarities in terms of their pre- bureaucratic underpinnings and how widespread they are to indicate the broader relevance of the pre-bureaucratic. Third, these three practices are the most common cultural practices that have been studied in organisational settings and have been shown to imbue how organisations function in those societies. Each of these practices will be discussed next.

Wasta

Wasta is a cultural practice shaped by collectivistic familial and tribal social bonds and relations that characterise Middle Eastern societies (Aldossari & Robertson, 2016; Al-Ramahi, 2008; Brandstaetter et al., 2016). The word ‘wasta’ is derived from the term ‘waseet’, which can be translated as an ‘intercessor’. Wasta refers to a form of

intercession by an influential figure (e.g., a tribal chieftain or any person of notable social status as perceived by the relevant parties), who assumes the role of an intercessor. This intercession is conducted on behalf of an individual or group to resolve a conflict between two parties or vouch for someone to establish trust such as in economic exchanges, for instance (Gold & Naufal, 2012; Lackner, 2016). Historically, the practice of wasta, in its broader sense, is used in resolving conflicts between tribes and maintaining peace (Al-Ramahi, 2008; Cunningham & Sarayrah, 1993; Thomas, 2003). In this regard, it is a pre-bureaucratic substitute for what in other context are formal bureaucratic legal-rational institutions (Lackner, 2016). Cunningham and Sararyrah, one of the earlier writers on wasta, stated that:

Wasta as mediation has a long and honourable history. In a tribal setting, wasta mediation binds families and communities for peace and well-being in a hostile

environment. This face of wasta benefits society as a whole, as well as the parties involved. (1994, p. 29)

Wasta thus is vital to how Middle Eastern societies function, especially before the advent of modern ‘bureaucratic’ institutions, which in theory were poised to replace ‘wasta’. As Weber (1978) indicated, modern institutions and legal-rational rules came to ‘rationalise’ and replace pre-bureaucratic forms of social governance including those enshrined in cultural practices such as ‘wasta’. The close-knit social bonds that characterise wasta stand in contrast to the ‘distance’ and ‘depersonalisation’ that a

bureaucratic institution tends to bring forth (Bauman, 1989; McCabe, 2015). Nonetheless, this transition from what is presumably the pre-modern/pre-bureaucratic to the modern/bureaucratic has not materialised fully not only in Gouldner’s (1954) plant or Strauss’s (1978) two hospitals, but also especially in other cultural contexts

such as the Middle East, where wasta became woven into the fabric of modern bureaucratic organisations.

Several studies have shown how wasta suffuses organisational practices. In the context of public sector organisations, Barnett et al., (2013) explained that:

One is said to “have wasta” when those from whom one can request assistance are in positions of power that make it possible for them to grant the requested assistance. Those who have wasta can jump the queue in acquiring public services while those who do not will struggle through the normal bureaucratic process. (ibid., p. 40).

In Middle Eastern organisations, therefore, social obligations inherent in the practice of wasta exist in tension with formal bureaucratic rules and what Weber called

the ‘ethos of the office’. Obligations to family, clan and kin as well as customs and local

social values are imbued with, and at times subvert, bureaucratic distance, formalisation, and commitment to follow the rules in the conduct of everyday work. Tribal social values and customs mean that if an employee fails to honour the intercession of esteemed members of their tribe or even those of other tribes, they will lose ‘face’ (Al-Ramahi, 2008; Brandstaetter et al., 2016). This, as Lackner (2016) stated, makes it:

[V]ery costly for someone to refuse to serve as a wasta. An individual’s reputation in his tribe or solidarity network will indeed rapidly be known outside of it, and a high-ranked person refusing to perform his duties for the group will see his reputation shrink rapidly. (ibid., p.45).

Therefore, it is expected that wasta shapes organisational practices such as promotions (Tlass & Kauser, 2011); performance appraisals (Harbi, Thursfield, & Bright, 2017); expatriations and training (Aldossari & Robertson, 2016); legal practices and dispute resolution (Al-Ramahi, 2008) as well as facilitating business deals (Weir et al., 2016). This intermeshing of the cultural relations that underpin wasta with the conduct of formal work in bureaucratic organisations indicates how the pre-bureaucratic remains widespread and resilient throughout the Middle East.

Guanxi

Guanxi is a cultural practice common in Chinese speaking countries (e.g., China, Taiwan, Hong Kong, Singapore) and seems to subvert the formal bureaucratic rationality in ways that sustain forms of the pre-bureaucratic. The word ‘guanxi’ means ‘relationship’, and it is used to indicate relations of reciprocity and obligations to those

predicated on social bonds and connections among different people who act within established collectivistic cultural relations (Chen & Chen, 2004). But, unlike wasta, relations of reciprocity and obligations are less reliant on extended tribal bonds where typical populations of tribes in the Middle East might reach hundreds of thousands of individuals (Maisel, 2014). Instead, in chinse cultures, familial bonds are less expansive and such relations of obligation and reciprocity are typically created with non-relative others through ritualised practices such as gift exchanges and banquets:

Guanxixue—the “art of guanxi”—involves the exchange of gifts, favors, and

banquets; the cultivation of personal relationships and networks of mutual dependence; and the creation of obligation and indebtedness. What informs these practices and their native descriptions is the primacy and binding power of personal relationships. (Ledeneva, 2008, p. 120).

These exchanges of gifts are not made purely based on economic terms rather they are “ritualised, codified, and predictable” (ibid., p.128).

Although guanxi often involves the exchange of gifts, these gifts are viewed as investments in the relationship. The emphasis in China is on the relationship being built […]. They are not fee-for-service bribes, as they often are in other

countries. (Xin & Pearce, 1996, p. 1646).

Even though the relationship built (the guanxi) might not be based on familial bonds, it can still be strong and long-lived as it is maintained through institutionalised behaviours (e.g., banqueting or gift exchanges) and norms of reciprocity (see Gouldner, 1960).

This reciprocity is not one of universalistic exchange between autonomous actors but one of socially situated obligations. […] obligations of reciprocity are heavily shaped by the hierarchically structured network of guanxi in which one is involved, by the long time period over which these relations are expected to last, and by the public nature of the obligations incurred in continuing exchanges. (Hwang, 1987, p.968).

Typically, individuals carry these reciprocal obligations enshrined in guanxi into their economic activities and work practices within formal organisations. Several studies show how guanxi is instrumental in how organisations function in China and similar neighbouring countries. Guanxi has been shown to shape the process of tendering and contracting (Xin & Pearce, 1996); Human Resource Management (HRM) (Chen, Chen, & Xin, 2004); firms’ profitability and competitiveness (Park & Luo, 2001); supervisor-subordinate work relations (Farh, Tsui, Xin, & Cheng, 1998; Liu & Liu, 2018); supplier search and choice practices (Millington, Eberhardt, & Wilkinson, 2006). In all these settings, guanxi colours decision making, allocation of resources, and dispensing of services in a pre-bureaucratic fashion characterised by different forms of favouritism that benefit those that engage in guanxi. Next, I will discuss another similar cultural practice from the Brazilian context.

Jeitinho

Jeitinho is a cultural practice that pervades Brazilian organisational lives. Similar to guanxi and wasta, jeitinho ‘refers to the importance of personal

relationships (e.g., family, friends, neighbors, classmates) as reflected in the Brazilian maxim “for friends, everything; for enemies, the law”’ (Chen et al., 2017, p. 65). Others describe it as a form of “creative ingenuity in rapidly achieving short-term solutions to problems. This may include ways of circumventing bureaucratic rules or

of avoiding potential difficulties with superiors in strongly hierarchical contexts.”

(Smith et al., 2012, p. 336). Jeitinho, therefore, is seen to resemble pre-bureaucratic practices that help individuals to bypass bureaucratic rules and regulations. Rosenn (1971) referred to it as a form of an ‘institutional bypass’ that while might entail clear rule-breaking such as in guanxi and wasta; it is mostly nonetheless, enacted through manipulating rules in favour of someone else in ways that preserve a “façade of legitimacy” (ibid., p.548). An example of such an exercise of jeitinho is illustrated in

the following quote from Rosenn (1971) where one individual was engaged in jeitinho during a case of migration to Brazil:

During his visa appointment with the Brazilian consul in Paris, the would-be immigrant was asked his profession. He replied that he had recently graduated from medical school. The consul responded, “Then in place of doctor, let’s put

down agronomist. In that way I can issue you a visa immediately. You know how these things are? Professional quotas, confidential instructions from the department of immigration. Nonsense! . . . In any event, this way will make it perfectly legal. (ibid., p. 514).

In this regard, the processing of the visa for this immigrant appears legal when looking at the record, but in reality, creative manipulation of rules was involved in helping this individual gain entry to the country. Jeitinho thus seems to subvert the bureaucratic formalism and legal rationality, but in ways that are more subtle than in the cases of wasta or guanxi. But like wasta and guanxi, local cultural relations remain central to how jeitinho is exercised.

These cultural relations are characterised by what Duarte (2006) called ‘simpatia’ or emotions of sympathy toward others. Typically, jeitinho;

[R]equires certain ‘techniques’ to foster simpatia (e.g. a smile and a gentle, pleading tone of voice); it can be used between strangers, but it works more effectively between people who know each other; and it is perceived by Brazilians as an important element of their cultural identity. (ibid., p.511). This dominance of emotions over what should be a formalised, and depersonalised bureaucratic encounter indicates the pre-bureaucratic characteristics of the cultural practice of jeitinho. Empirical studies on how jeitinho imbues organisational practices are very limited with few notable exceptions such as Duarte (2006), who revealed how jeitinho was crucial to the everyday operations of Non-Governmental Organisations (NGOs) in Brazil. Duarte highlighted the positive elements of jeitinho in helping NGOs to fulfil some of their social change objectives under severe economic and bureaucratic constraints.

In conclusion, it is prudent to highlight that pre-bureaucratic practices such as wasta, guanxi, or jeitinho exist widely in other contexts where they are embedded in and enacted through local cultural relations. Additional examples of these include ‘blat’ in Russia and ‘jaan-pehchaan’ in India (see Puffer, McCarthy, Jaeger, &

Dunlap, 2013; Smith et al., 2012). What these practices share is that they represent culturally shaped patterns of pre-bureaucratic practices that subvert what otherwise might be rationalised bureaucratic organisations. The fact that these practices are widespread in contexts such as China, India, Brazil, Russia and Middle Eastern

countries indicate their importance to our understanding of how organisations operate. Yet, these practices have not received attention in the debate on bureaucracy versus post-bureaucracy. This thesis is positioned to address this shortcoming and advance the debate through considering the role of the cultural practice of wasta. Next, I will review another expression of the pre-bureaucratic, namely, the literature on street-

level bureaucracy, which focuses on the bureaucratic discretion through which such cultural practices are enacted in formal organisations.

2.2.3 Street-level bureaucracy as an expression of the pre-