Does Bureaucracy Affect Organizational Innovation?
Bureaucracy refers to a particular form of organization, which is structured and hierarchical, and a bureaucratic organization normally consists of strict structure and rules, standard operating procedures, fixed role assignments, and explicit work descriptions (Styhre and Börjesson 6). In this fast paced era, the bureaucratic structure in an organization is not favored because it decreases the organization’s ability to adapt to rapid changes. Von Mises indicated, “The terms bureaucrat, bureaucratic, and bureaucracy are clearly invectives.” (qtd. in Styhre and Börjesson 7) Moreover, Thompson suggested, “bureaucratic practices demotivate and restrain engagement in entrepreneurial, non-routine tasks and limit innovation.” (qtd. in Hirst et al. 627) Further more, findings in research in creativity proved that, compared to the organizational structure with higher level of bureaucracy, the creativity can be easier generated in the structure with lower degrees of bureaucracy (Hirst et al. 637).
When simply look at this issue, we might conclude that bureaucracy hinders the organizational creativity and innovation (Hirst et al. 625). After researching and learning, however, I believe the reason that bureaucracy limits organizational innovation is because we don’t use it in a proper way; if used correctly, it can foster innovation.
I believe the reason that bureaucracy limits organizational innovation is because we don’t use it in a proper way; if used correctly, it can foster innovation.
It is unrealistic for a large company to have smooth business operation in all departments without an organized structure, but innovation is an inevitable task if a company wants to grow and to become prosperous. There are some studies and analysis providing the evidence that the bureaucratic structure in an organization does not massively threaten its innovative capacity. For example, Styhre and Borjesson conducted a study of how employees of two big companies — Volvo Car Corporation and AstraZeneca — — assessed the possibilities for them to conduct innovative works, and the results suggested that the functional and hierarchical structures of these two firms only slightly influenced companies’ innovative capacities (29). Another example is the Internal Revenue Service, which is known as IRS. It is certainly a bureaucratic organization; however, it was successful in utilizing innovation (Power). There are two major reasons of IRS’s success: 1. Congress mandated IRS to change by releasing the U.S. IRS Reform and Restructuring Act of 1998, 2. Selected to drive the innovation in the organization, Charles Rossotti spent five years to achieve significant improvement in service by implementing innovative practices (Power). The example of IRS significantly showed that an organization is able to practice innovation without changing its bureaucratic structure.
Although people usually believe that bureaucratic structure only negatively influences the innovation in workplace, this form of structure can help an organization to conduct innovative task if utilized properly. One of elements of bureaucratic organization structure is strict policy. Policy is mostly considered as boring and as an element to severely inhibit innovation; however, it ensures all employees in a large organization follow a consistent standard when cooperating with colleagues on the routine tasks (Halls 1). In this case, employees are able to spend more time on innovative tasks (Halls 2), and the organization undoubtedly benefits from bureaucracy.
Policy is mostly considered as boring and as an element to severely inhibit innovation; however, it ensures all employees in a large organization follow a consistent standard when cooperating with colleagues on the routine tasks (Halls 1).
Having too many rules or policies can positively hinder the flexibility of the decision-making in workplace (Halls 2); based on the analysis above, how to prevent the organization being negatively influenced from policy becomes a crucial question for bureaucratic organizations to consider. There are two suggestions provided by Halls: 1. Examine each policy and eliminate those policies that are not consistent with the organizational vision, 2. Allow the employees to bend the policy in certain degrees and to make their own decisions, if their ideas can help the organization to achieve its vision more effectively and efficiently (3). Vision is the core of an organization; it provides inspiration and guidance for the organization to drive all power toward the vision (Evans). Therefore, establishing the rules that assist the employees in working toward the organizational vision is the key for a bureaucratic organization to perform well in innovative tasks while maintaining its hierarchical structure.
Bibliography
Evans, Jennell. “Vision and Mission — What’s the difference and why does it matter?” 24 April 2010. Psycology Today. 07 11 2014 <http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/smartwork/201004/vision-and-mission-whats- the-difference-and-why-does-it-matter>.
Halls, Jonathan. “Workplace Innovation: The Impact of Organizational Environment.” 24 July 2010. Jonathanhall.net. 06 11 2014 <http://jonathanhalls.net/2010/07/organizational- environment-does-it-prevent-or-promote-innovation/>.
Hirst, Giles , et al. “How Does Bureaucracy Impact Individual Creativity? A Cross-Level Investigation Of Team Contextual Influences On Goal Orientation–Creativity Relationships .” Academy of Management Journal 54.3 (2011 ): 624–641.
Mises, L. von. Bureaucracy. Ed. 2. New Rochelle: Arlington House, 1944/1969. Power, Brad. “Innovating Around a Bureaucracy.” 2013.
Styhre, Alexander and Sofia Börjesson. “Innovativeness and creativity in bureaucratic organizations: Evidence from the pharmaceutical and the automotive industry .” OLKC 2006 Conference, 2006.
Thompson, V. A. “Bureaucracy and innovation.” Ad-ministrative Science Quarterly 10 (1965): 1–20.
