Weber named ten necessities: „How individual officials are appointed and work.“ Administrative staff are subordinated to supreme authority for legal authority in a bureaucratic administrative style. In the 1950s and 1960s, Weber (1949) had a great influence on the sociological study of organizations. Weber`s main contribution in this area was his characterization of organizations in terms of the relationships of authority within them (imperative coordination systems) and how these systems had evolved historically. Each type of ideal, charismatic, traditional, and rational-legal authority had its own organizational form. Weber regarded the rational-legal system of authority with its organizational form of bureaucracy as the dominant institution of modern society. The system of authority is rational because the means are explicitly designed to achieve certain ends, and it is legal because authority is exercised through an office with the rules and procedures that accompany it. For Weber, bureaucratic organization was technically the most efficient form of organization. Let us now briefly review the characteristics of a bureaucracy. Well, he said, „the purest type of legal authority“ – which, as I said, counterintuitive – „one that employs bureaucratic administrative staff.“ And what are the characteristics of this staff to qualify for bureaucracy? Well, they must be personally free.

So it can`t be a customer, can it? – be a mentor. Right? They are legally free individuals. That`s what makes it so different – isn`t it? – a traditional organization. That`s why a family is not a bureaucratic organization, because you`re not there voluntarily. Right? And then a bureaucracy is organized in a hierarchy of offices – this is something we`ve basically covered already – and the offices are filled by a free contract, and in this treaty, what is your qualification, we call – right? –Meritocracy. People have a certain degree, and that degree qualifies them to hold a particular position. Weber defined the legal system as one in which rules are promulgated and followed as legitimate because they are consistent with other laws, how they can be promulgated, and how they must be followed. Moreover, they are enforced by a government that monopolizes their implementation and the legitimate use of physical force. The value of the ideal type is not so much that it serves as a prediction, but that it allows to ask relevant questions or identify relevant causal processes. But this process itself is driven by our cognitive goals and not by something inherent in the historical world itself. Indeed, much of Weber`s discussion of the material of the historical case revolves around the logical unfolding of the implications of basic ideas such as charisma or rational legal authority. However, there is no sense in which this unfolding is causally inevitable.

On the contrary, concepts such as charisma are useful for making processes understandable, precisely because the elaboration of the idea corresponds to the type of developments that historical actors actually bring in the course of their actions with their own ideas, beliefs, etc. As Abbott (1988) pointed out in his influential book, this view of occupations in the 1950s and 1960s had an underlying assumption of professionalization as a natural process; That is, a regular sequence by which a profession has moved to „complete“ professionalism (Wilensky 1964). In essence, this view, along with the „search for bureaucracy,“ has led to a unified view of professions and organizations. Professionals, it was suggested, were socialized in professions where the key values were autonomy, peer control and vocation. For example, Hall (1968) operationalized professional values as a professional organization as a reference, a belief in public service, a belief in self-regulation, a sense of appeal to the field, and a sense of autonomy. Bureaucracy has been operationalized as a hierarchy of authority, division of labor, rules, procedures, impersonality and technical competence. However, it concluded that „the assumption of an inherent conflict between the occupational group and the employers` organisation seems unjustified“. What are the main characteristics of a system based on a legal-rational order? There is continuous rule-related behavior. Again, I don`t think this needs too much clarification. They are always the same rules. The rules change slowly and with great difficulty, as we can see Congress struggling to pass a health care reform bill.

It takes months or years for important new legislation to come into force. And, as a rule, new laws with legal-rational authority become acquired rights. Right? When you pass a new law, you change the rules of the game, you usually have them with vested rights; Those that came into play before the new law are still under the rule of the old law. We do it all the time in universities. Right? For example, if the requirements for a degree at a university change, it is almost always those degree requirements – this new law is a vested right. You know the terminology. Right? It does not apply to individuals who are already participating in the program. It is only valid for people who participate in the program. Or a way to overcome it, that we give people a choice. Do you know? If you want to work according to the new rule, you can opt for the new rule. Or if you want to stay under the old rule, you can stay under the old rule.

Only those who now enter the system are bound by the new rules. So that`s very important, isn`t it? – that it is continuous and subject to rules. Scholars such as Max Weber and Charles Perrow have described rational and legal bureaucracy as the most efficient form of administration. [1] [2] Weber identifies three types of „pure“ legitimate authority: rational-legal authority is „based on the belief in the `legality` of normative rule models and the right of those elevated to authority under these rules to give orders“; Traditional authority is based „on a firm belief in the sanctity of ancient traditions and the legitimacy of the status of those who exercise authority.“ and charismatic authority rests „on devotion to the specific and extraordinary holiness, heroism or exemplary character of one person and to the normative models or orders revealed or ordained by him“ (Weber 1947, p. 328). Elsewhere in his analysis, Weber also describes a rational legitimacy of value that exists „by virtue of a rational belief in its absolute value“ (Weber 1947, p. 130). Barker argues that the rationality of value should be included as the fourth type of legitimacy (Barker 1990, 49). Okay, now we come to this very interesting Weberian theory of bureaucracy: very interesting, very controversial, in many ways very counterintuitive. You can say it`s wrong.

Well, we`ll see. This is a good topic for discussion sections. And that`s what I`m going to go through – a set of topics. What is bureaucracy? Weber makes this rather incredible claim, which you will completely reject at first, that the most efficient organization is bureaucracy. Right? This is exactly the opposite of what you think. If something is very inefficient, you say, „Well, it`s so bureaucratic.“ Right? However, Weber argues that the most efficient organization is bureaucracy. But he said, „Well, if it`s socialism, there`s going to be this great tension.“ Right? You cannot be formally rational and rational on substance at the same time. Either you look at the content of your decisions, or you simply deal with the procedures of the decision.

When it comes to procedure, it is formal rationality. If you`re concerned about content, it`s rationality in terms of content. In traditional authority, the legitimacy of authority comes from tradition.