Bureaucracy and Adhocracy (관료조직 와 임시조직)

조직설계의 이론
(1) 전통적 조직설계의 이론 - 뷰로크라시(Bureaucracy) 이론
조직설계에 있어 Bureaucracy이론의 대표적인 것은 베버(M. Weber)가 주장한 "관료제"이다. 관료제가 처음 제시되었을 때는 조직의 가장 이상적 형태를 나타내는 말이었다.
베버는 관료제에서 가장 효율적이고 이상적인 조직은 합리성에 기초를 두고 있다고 주장했다. 그가 합리성을 주장한 것은 서구사회에서는 인간생활의 모든 영역에 있어 합리성이 지배하고 있다는 것을 발견하였기 때문이다. 그래서 그는 효율적인 조직도 이 합리성에 기초를 두고 설계되어야 한다고 생각했다. 따라서 조직은 인간의 감정이 완전히 배제된 규칙이나 절차에 의해 지배되는 관료제가 가장 효율적인 조직이 된다고 주장했다.

(2) 새로운 조직설계의 이론 - 애드호크라시(Adhocracy)이론
조직설계에서 뷰로크라시는 표준화된 조직프로그램을 완성시키고 성과지향적 조직이기 때문에 새로운 혁신을 수행하기 위해서는 상이한 분야의 전문가들을 특별한 프로젝트팀으로 통합시킬 수 있는 구조가 필요한데,........조직화된 급속히 변화하며, 적응적이고, 일시적인 조직"이라고 정의하고 있다. 構造的 次元에서 볼 때 애드호크라시는 크게 세 가지 특성을 지니고 있다.
첫째, 구조가 복잡하지 않다는 것이고 둘째, 형식주의나 공식성에 얽매이지 않는다는 점이며 셋째는 意思決定權이 分權化되어 있는 것이다. 이것을 조직구조형성의 3대 구조변수인 '복잡성'·'집권화'·'공식화'에 비추어 보면 낮은 수준의 복잡성, 낮은 수준의 집권화, 낮은 수준의 공식화라고 할 수 있다.

 

====================

 

관료제(bureaucracy)는 원래는 전문적인 능력을 소유함으로써 임명된 행정관(관료)이, 국민에 대한 민주책임의 보장을 면제받고, 정치지도를 행하는 통치기구 내지 지배구조를 말합니다.

관료제는 크게 3가지의 의미로 사용됩니다. 첫째, H.J. 라스키에 의하면 관료제란 정치의 통제력이 완전히 관료의 수중에 장악되어 있어 그들의 권력이 일반 시민의 자유를 위태롭게 하는 통치형태를 말한다. 둘째, 관료제라는 지배형태에 따르는 특정한 행동양식과 정신상태를 지적하는 경우에 사용되는 개념입니다. 이런 의미의 관료제는 국민에 널리 유포되고 있는 관념이며, 국민이 증오하고 적대시하는 관료제로서 일반적으로 관료주의라 부른다. 이러한 관료주의는, 특권적인 사회층을 형성하고 있는 일군의 관료에 의해서 지배되고 대중에 의한 지도를 거부하는 국가의 관료기구에서 뚜렷하게 나타나는 현상입니다. 이런 점에서 라스키는 관료제라는 통치 형태의 속성으로서 행정 선례의 답습, 행정 처리에 있어 융통성의 결여, 정책 결정의 지체, 사실검증의 거부 등을 들고 있습니다. 셋째, 가치중립적인 의미에서 볼 때, 관료제는 분업의 원리에 따라 개별화·특수화된 직무를 전문적으로 처리하는 합리적인 사무처리기구로서 파악되고 있습니다. 이런 의미의 관료제 개념을 체계화한 대표적 학자는 막스 베버입니다. 베버에 따르면 관료제적 지배는 근대적 사회에서 집단조직의 운영을 특징짓는 것으로서 극히 형식적 합리성을 갖는다고 합니다. 베버의 관료제의 특징은 다음과 같습니다. ① 전문적 직무의 범위인 책임과 권한의 범위가 기능적으로 명확히 한정되고 있다(권한의 원칙). ② 직무상의 지휘·명령 계통이 계층을 통하여 확립되고 있다(계층의 원리). ③ 근무자와 근무에 필요한 물적 수단과는 완전히 분리되어 있으며, 보수로는 일정한 화폐봉급이 지불된다. ④ 직무를 수행하는 데 필요한 전문적 지식·기술·경험의 요구 그리고 이것을 확보하기 위하여 임명·보수·연금·승진 등의 제도가 정비되어 있다. ⑤ 사무는 원칙적으로 문서로써 처리된다. ⑥ 지위의 사유·세습은 있을 수 없으며, 근무자를 자유롭게 선택할 수 있고 도태시킬 수도 있다. 베버는 이러한 관료제가 발달한 원인으로서 화폐경제의 발달, 행정 기능의 양적 확대와 질적 강화, 행정에서의 전문적 요소의 우위, 물적경영수단의 집중, 경제적·사회적 차별의 균형화 등을 들고 있습니다.

애드호크라시(adhocracy)는 미국의 미래학자 앨빈 토플러가 그의 저서 '미래의 충격'(1969)에서 종래의 관료조직(bureaucracy)을 대체할 미래의 새로운 조직을 가리키는 말로 사용한 용어입니다. '일시적인, 임시의, 이를 위한' 등의 뜻을 가진 라틴어 ad hoc와 '정체, 조직'을 의미하는 cracy가 합쳐져서 만들어진 말입니다.  애드호크라시는 관료조직처럼 지위나 역할에 따라 종적으로 조직된 것이 아니라 기능과 전문적 훈련에 의해 유연하게 기능별로 분화된 횡적조직을 말합니다.

토플러에 의하면 21세기는 초공업화사회로서 보다 다양한 형태의 문제들과 부닥치게 되고 충격을 받게 되는데, 이것을 문화적 충격(cultural shock)에 비유, 미래의 충격이라 부르고 이를 극복하기 위한 조직이 바로 애드호크라시라 했습니다. 종래의 고정적·반영구적인 관료조직으로는 새로운 문제들을 해결할 수 없으므로 특별한 목적을 위한 일시적인 조직, 즉 기능과 전문적 훈련을 통해 기능별로 분화된 유연한 횡적 조직이 필요하게 됩니다.

 

특히 대규모 기업 조직의 문화가 관료제적인 경우, 비능률·보수주의·책임전가·비밀주의·파벌주의 등의 관료주의가 확대 심화하는 경향이 있으며, 조직의 구성원은 동일 인물이라도 지위와 경우에 따라 관료주의를 발휘하기도 합니다. 사회의 근대화가 늦어진 곳에서는 특히 이런 피해가 심하였는데, 독일·일본·제정 러시아 등이 그 좋은 예입니다.

이에 반해 애드호크라시적인 기업은 유연하게 기능별로 분화된 유연한 횡적조직이기 때문에 관료제적 조직으로써는 해결할 수 없는 다양한 형태의 문제들을 극복하고 해결할 수 있게 됩니다.

 

===============================

 

1. Adhocracy의 의 의

애드호크라시는 관료제(Bureaucracy와 Adhocracy)와 대조를 이루는 개념으로 관료제가 대규모성, 복잡성, 고정적 구조와 계층제적 구조를 갖는데 비해 애드호크라시 구조는 융통성이 있고, 적응도가 높고 쇄신적인 성격을 띠고 있다. 애드호크라시의 기원은 제2차 세계대전 중에 특수임무를 맡았던 기동타격대(Task Force)를 들 수 있는데 애드호크 팀(Ad Hoc Team)인 특수부대는 그들의 임무가 성공하면 해산되었다가 새로운 임무가 부여되면 다시 구성되는 특성을 가졌다. 애드호크라시의 번역은 ‘임시특별위원회’라고 하는데, 베니스(W.G. Bennis)는 애드호크라시를 다양한 전문적 기술을 가진 비교적 낮은 사람들로 구성된 집단이며, 문제해결을 위해 이질적인 집단으로 변화가 심하고 적응력이 강하며, 임시적이며, 역동적이며, 동태적이며, 유기적인 체제라고 정의하고 있다. 이 단어는 토플로(A. Toffler)의 ‘미래의 격동’에서 사용하였다. 조직환경의 급격한 변화는 비일상적이고 비정형적인 일들이 증대하게 되고 이러한 현상은 조직구조의 신축성과 역동성을 요구하게 되었다. 조직과제의 전문성가 복합성의 요구는 전문가의 능력을 활용하는 조직구조의 설계를 탐구하게 되었다.

2. 특 징
애드호크라시의 특징은 구조가 고도의 수평적 분화가 이루어져 복잡하지 않으며, 계층제적 수평적 분화가 낮으며, 조직구조의 공식화가 낮다. 또한 형식주의나 공식성에 얽매이지 않으며, 모든 의사결정권이 전문가로 구성된 팀에 의해 이루어져 융통성과 신속성이 있고 의사결정권이 분권화 되어 있다

[출처] Bureaucracy와 Adhocracy|작성자 nlboman

 출처 http://www.uplink.com.au/lawlibrary/Documents/Docs/Doc11.html

 

Bureaucracy and Adhocracy

The main aim of any organisation is to reach certain predetermined goals. In an attempt to survive and obtain this goals effectively, certain decisions must be made as to what type of structure the organisation will posses which will entail guidance for individuals associated with the group as per their duties and day to day activities. Ultimately determining how efficiently the desired goals will be acquired. Questions this structure will need to confront will include the amount of specialisation in areas of work and responsibility, the levels of management and their consequent size, the grouping of departments together for functionality of expertise, and the kind of integrative mechanism for control over work done.

One of the more common types of organisational structures found within today’s society that has attempted to answer these questions of direction and efficiency is known as Bureaucracy. The Bureaucratic model in itself is not a functioning organisational structure within itself, but more of a hypothetical guide to creating ones own business design based on individual circumstances. Bureaucracy is very similar to such things as blue prints, simple because both are descriptive in a how to build nature, but neither is the final product.

The modern day concept of bureaucracy was developed by a German sociologist named Max Weber (Though the original term ‘bureaucracy’ evolved during the eighteenth century, and is "attributed to the Frenchman ‘de Gournay’"). Weber advanced his concept of bureaucracy throughout the nineteenth century by studying power and authority though out history, and discovered that in early societies three different types could be identified. The first was made up of ‘Traditional authority’ and was based on the belief that rulers had a natural right to rule. The second was that of ‘Charismatic authority’, whereby power was based on the belief that the ruler possessed special control over others through such things as religion (as did the Pope a decade ago) and Heroism (As Hitler possessed during the second world war). The third concentrated on ‘Legal-Rational authority’, indicating that formally written rules held certain individuals (such as prime ministers and school principles) in places of power. Using a combination of these ideas, he then developed his own concept for structuring that featured rigid hierarchical structures, defined authority, set rules and regulations, and a specification of tasks in an impersonal climate. This would then lead to work being divided into parts, allocated amongst relatively specialised workers, dispersing the responsibilities and centralising authority to a small number of administrators. This entire structure would then take the form of a pyramid, with the managers up top passing down rules to their subordinates. Because the chain of command tends to be lengthy in large organisations, the use of codified and impersonal rules would replace the need for supervision as the regulator of the quality in effort, ensuring predictability at all ends of production simply because no action would be allowed that does not "lead directly to the production of formally designated organisational ends".

Weber’s ‘Bureaucratic’ structure is very much based around a combination of his faith in the market with the view that society was the product of rational construction and the principle of legal authority having become increasingly dominant and continuing to spread. His intention was to create an entirely rational system which broke from the "nepotism, whims and fancies" of prior authoritarian systems, while at the same time being characterised by rules and legal order and coping with the changes that were taking place within society at the time, including the rise of science, the development of industrial manufacturing, capitalism and it’s systematic pursuit of profit. It was these social changes of modernity that inspired the development of the bureaucratic systems, in order to keep up with needs in the best possible way.

In today’s society, it is almost impossible not to be confront by bureaucratic structuring at least several times within normal daily activities. This is because of the enormous size of modern nations and their need for efficient organisation that does not allow for personal relations and feelings to get in the way of achieving goals. This system can usually be found in big organisations that are designed to complete numerous complicated tasks that no individual could perform alone. One of its main benefits, as intended by Weber, revolves around the "establishment of rules and regulations to increase the likelihood that employees will be treated fairly, and to create stability over time… purging the organisation of favouritism… prejudice and discrimination" (that had plagued organisations for many years prior). Bureaucracy’s highly formalised mechanism is able to standardise discipline practices by setting policies as to what areas managers have jurisdiction in making choices relating to business activities, while at the same time setting the expectation guidelines for other staff. By doing so, it allows for functionality to flow more fluently and accurately, saving scarce resources such as time and money, by allowing all members to know exactly what duties are expected of them.

The major reasons behind the success and continuation of bureaucracies stems from their ability to succeed at obtaining objectives, to work extremely well for big organisations (so much so that they surpass other such systems) their "structural features are the ones that are selectively retained because they achieve reinforcing consequences, while non-bureaucratic features are eliminated", they maintain control, and even though social environments are for ever changing - social values rarely ever changed dramatically (for example, businesses will never be anything less than goal oriented).

Unfortunately though, bureaucracy has also developing as a dirty word within the minds of many within society, because it is seen as a development at the expense of individual freedoms such as choice. As early as 1878 the ‘Nordic family encyclopedia’ described democracy as being "blind obedience and subservience to those who posses power, and the overbearing and harsh treatment of the general public". Other common complaints voiced about this structure include its impersonal nature which can be inhuman, it is rarely accessible and can subsequently become inefficient. The most general argument against such structures was developed by Robert Merton, who argued that there is a tendency for " the rules to become more important than the ends they were designed to serve, resulting in goal displacement and loss of organisational effectiveness." Examples that have been put forth in support of this argument include typical customer relations failings (which is detrimental to the main purpose of any business, which is to attend to its customers) in order to maintain other job requirements. So too, Merton argues that another fundamental failure that exists is "related closely to the problems of goal displacement and has the undesirable effect of having members’ applying formalised rules and procedures in inappropriate situations; that is, responding to a unique situation as if it were routine, resulting in dysfunctional consequences". Possible reasons for this include the forced ideology within individual minds that a rule exists for each situation, and the misinterpretation of set rules in an attempt to place structure where it evidently does not exist.

 

Adhocracy on the other hand is a structural system that breaks from the traditional ways of bureaucracy by not holding formal rules or regulations, is usually void of hierarchies, has no standardised procedures for dealing with routine problems, is low in formalisation and is organised for a temporary life. The major highlight of this system is its flexibility and responsiveness in dealing with all sorts of situations quickly and efficiently, particularly in dynamic environments such as computer developments. (장점)

 

Adhocracy was developed during the nineteen forties, specifically designed to be flexible in dealing with ever changing demands and goals. Within today’s society, these types of structural systems can be found at work in high risk organisations, newly developing industries (which are attempting to discover their direction), as well as in groups that plan on only existing for short periods of time. If the organisations continue to develop, it is most likely they will become bureaucratic in nature, only because Adhocracy is limited in its ability to cope with large groups of individuals, and the needs of ongoing big businesses.(적절한 경우)

 

The benefits of adhocracy lay in its ability to be adaptive and creative, while at the same time allowing for collaboration from varied specialists with very few rules which removes any hindrances and allows for individual creativeness. And with its horizontal managerial structure allowing for more interaction and collaboration, it becomes a viable alternative to bureaucracy.

 

 

"On the negative side, conflict is a natural part of adhocracy. There is no clear subordinate relationships. Ambiguities exist over authority and responsibilities. Activities cannot be compartmentalised, and in short, this system lacks the advantages of standardised work".(단점)

 

 

Both structural systems have their advantages. Each deals with situations differently. Bureaucracy on one hand is mechanical in how it approaches each problem, systematically developing answers through predetermined guidelines, while adhocracy challenges problems from a variety of angels, with no limitations as to how it will come to its final goal. When faced with changes within the environment, adhocracy will be more able to cope and adapt quickly, while bureaucracy will need more time in order to change its rules to be more suitable. But this does not mean that bureaucracy is by any means inadequate.

In more recent years, businesses have developed a collaborated approach to structuring; combining the sturdiness of bureaucracy with the flexibility of adhocracy. By having the major frame work based on strict rules and guidelines, workers on all levels have direction as to their expected responsibilities. At the same time, smaller departments within each business have been created to deal with individual cases, that vary from the overall goals set. As such, this system can have stability while at the same time dealing successfully with diversity that is brought about by changes within society.

Many theories exist as to the best structure for businesses, but unfortunately there is no one ‘best’ structure of organisation as such. The reason for this is solely because each business has different variables including size and goals, that need to be considered. Generally speaking though, with the majority of larger organisations there is a tendency for them to select a bureaucratic system mainly because it achieves set objectives well in such environments. Organisations that are beginning or only intend to complete certain tasks then dissolve, are more inclined to opt for a system such as adhocracy, that allows them certain freedoms to discover their markets and methods. Both Adhocracy and bureaucracy are only theoretical structural designs, and as such are not complete structures within themselves. They offer information to help set up guide lines in business systems, but as to how they are finally implemented depends solely on one’s interpretation, and that is why not all systems are alike.

Bibliography.

Abrahamson, B, "Why Organisations", Sage publications, 1993
Baum, H, "Invisible Bureaucracy", Oxford Press, 1987
Bilton, T. Bonnet, K. "Introductory Sociology", MacMillan Press, 1997
Blau, P. Meyer, M, "Bureaucracy in modern society", Random House, 1987
Buchanan, D, "Organizational Behaviour", Prentice Hall International, 1985
Cole, K. George, C, "Supervision in action", Prentice Hall, 1992
Prottas, J, "People Processing", Lexington Books, 1979
Robbins, S. Barnwell, N, "Organisation Theory in Australia", Prentice Hall, 1994
Yosef, R. Almond, G, "Bureaucracy and the public", Basic Books Inc., 1973

Written By Evan Sycamnias 

[출처] Bureaucracy and Adhocracy|작성자 라리