Challenges and strict guiding Principles of Bureaucracy administrative system

Qn.1 Challenges and strict guiding Principles of Bureaucracy administrative system

A bureaucracy is a large organization composed of appointed officials in which authority is divided among several managers. Bureaucracy is an obvious feature of all modern societies, but American governmental bureaucracy is distinctive in three ways. First, political authority over the bureaucracy is shared among several institutions. Second, most federal agencies share their functions with agencies of state and local government. Finally, America's adversary culture means that the actions of bureaucrats are often fought in court.

The Constitution makes little mention of the bureaucracy, other than to give the president power to appoint various sorts of officials. In 1789 Congress gave the president power to remove officials without congressional assent, but the question of who (if anyone) would actually control the bureaucracy has been hotly contested throughout American history.

Throughout most of American history, patronage was the chief means of determining who would hold federal jobs. Congress was the dominant institution, the president usually accommodated congressional preferences in appointments, and thus appointments were made to reward local supporters of Congress members or to build up local party organizations. By the middle of the nineteenth century there were a lot of federal jobs: from 1816 to 1861 the number of federal employees increased eightfold, with the Post Office accounting for most of this increase. The Civil War and postwar period saw the creation of many additional bureaus. A strong commitment to laissez-faire meant that these agencies did not for the most part regulate, but rather served specialized constituencies such as farmers or veterans. The bureaucracy as we know it today is the product of the New Deal (whose programs gave broad but vaguely defined powers to agencies) and of World War 11 (during which the government made use of the vastly increased revenues the income tax allowed).

The Supreme Court has interceded to restrict political patronage on constitutional grounds. The first step was taken in Elrod v. Burns (1976) in which the Court noted that important First Amendment interests in the protection of free speech must be taken into consideration in patronage firings. According to the majority, the public's interest in the effective implementation of policy "can be fully satisfied by limiting patronage dismissals to policy-making positions." Four years later, in Branti v. Finkel, the Supreme Court elaborated by explaining that "the question is whether the hiring authority can demonstrate that party affiliation is an appropriate requirement for the effective performance of the office." As such, the mere fact that a bureaucrat occupied a policy-making position no longer constituted the ultimate factor in a patronage firing. This line of cases was brought to conclusion with Rutan v. Republican Party of Illinois (1990), when the Court extended the Branti standard to "promotion, transfer, recall, and hiring decisions based on party affiliation and support." Thus patronage has reached the point of nearing political extinction.

People often think of big government in terms of the size of the bureaucracy, but the number of civilian federal employees has not been growing since World War 11. What has increased is the number of indirect federal employees-those working for state or local governments or private firms funded by federal programs. However, the power of the bureaucracy is a function not of its size but of the degree to which appointed officials have discretionary authority: the ability to choose courses of action and to make policies not spelled out in advance by laws. The vast increase in expenditures channeled through the bureaucracy, as well as the vast expansion in the number of regulations issued during the past thirty years, shows that the bureaucracy has indeed become very powerful.

Control of the Bureaucracy

Federal bureaucrats exercise a great deal of power, especially when operating under discretionary authority. It is therefore important to understand what influences bureaucratic conduct. In general, four factors explain the behavior of governmental officials:

1. Recruitment and reward. Once hired, a federal bureaucrat normally serves a one-year trial period before being granted tenure. A tenured bureaucrat is extremely difficult to fire, with the average termination process (including appeals) lasting about two years. Thus, in practice, almost no one is ever fired and executives develop informal strategies for dealing with incompetent employees.

The Senior Executive Service (SES) was created in 1978 to provide presidents with a core group of neutral, professional managers in the upper grades of the bureaucracy. To ensure competence, members of the SES-who join on a voluntary basis-are subject to easier transfer and firing procedures as well as to pay increases determined by performance. The SES has not worked out as intended; almost no member of the group has been fired, and salary raises have been fairly automatic.

In spite of the merit system, hiring in federal agencies remains political, especially at the middle and upper levels. An agency can hire a particular individual on a name-request basis, giving rise to the buddy system. This practice allows the maintenance of issue networks based on shared policy views; bureaucrats in consumer-protection agencies, for example, may hire people from Naderite groups. The end-product of the recruitment and reward structure is that most bureaucrats become quite comfortable in their position and defensive about their agency, adopting an agency point of view.

2. Personal attributes. Bureaucrats at the middle and upper levels of government are not representative of the American public. They tend to be highly educated, middle-aged white males. But none of these factors explains much about the attitudes bureaucrats hold. Surveys have found top-level bureaucrats to be slightly more liberal than the average voter but not as liberal as members of the media. Yet even this generalization is a bit misleading. Attitudes tend to vary depending on the agency for which a bureaucrat works. Those employed by activist agencies (FTC, EPA) are much more liberal than those who work in traditional agencies (Commerce).

While attitudes differ, they do not necessarily influence bureaucratic behavior because much of bureaucratic work is governed by standardized rules and procedures. It is only where roles are loosely structured that a civil servant's attitudes come into play.

3. The nature of the job. Some agencies have a sense of tension, a clear doctrine that is shared by its members. Such agencies (the Forest Service, the FBI, and the Public Health Service) are easy to manage and have high morale but are hard to change and are resistant to political direction. To be sure, a sense of mission probably infiltrates most agencies to some degree; a survey by Kenneth Meier and Lloyd Nigro revealed that federal bureaucrats believe in the importance of their agency's work. Thus the mission of the agency may become synonymous with the public interest in the minds of many bureaucrats. An agency's mission, however, must be accomplished within an array of laws, rules, and regulations-dealing with hiring and firing, freedom of information, accounting for money spent, affirmative action, environmental impact, and administrative procedures. Agencies also have overlapping and even conflicting missions. These characteristics make controlling the bureaucracy difficult, no matter which party occupies the White House.

4. External forces. All government bureaus must cope with seven external forces: executive branch superiors, the president's staff, congressional committees, interest groups, the media, the courts, and other government agencies. All federal agencies are nominally subordinate to the president. In practice, agencies that distribute benefits among significant, discrete groups, regions, or localities within the United States (such as HUD, Agriculture, and Interior) tend to be closely overseen by Congress. Others (such as State, Treasury, or justice) are more under the control of the president. Bureaucrats, like people generally, desire autonomy-to be left alone, free of bureaucratic rivals and close political supervision. They may obtain autonomy through the skillful use of publicity to build public support, as did the FBI and NASA. A less risky strategy is to develop strong allies in the private sector that will provide political support in Congress. However, this limits the freedom of the agency; it must serve the interests of its clients. Thus the Maritime Administration supports high subsidies for the shipping industry, and the Department of Labor could never recommend a decrease in the minimum wage.

External forces influence agency decisions in the form of the so-called iron triangle-the informal policy network involving an agency, an interest group, and a congressional committee. Often, though, an agency will be faced with conflicting interest group demands. The National Farmers Union favors high subsidies to farmers, whereas the American Farm Bureau Federation takes a free-market position. Organized labor favors strict enforcement by the Occupational Safety and Health Administration, whereas business is opposed. In these instances, issue networks emerge. These are an array of groups and individuals, often contentious, and split along ideological, partisan, and economic lines.

Congress has a forn-ddable array of powers to deal with the bureaucracy. First, congressional statutes establish the existence of an agency and occasionally specify in detail how agencies should behave. Lately, however, Congress has given broad discretion to agencies. Second, money must be authorized and then appropriated by Congress. The agency is thus beholden to the legislative committee that authorizes funds and to the Appropriations Committee of the House.

For many decades, Congress made increasing use of the legislative veto to control bureaucratic or presidential actions by vetoing a particular decision within a thirty- to ninety-day period. However, in June 1983, the Supreme Court declared the legislative veto unconstitutional (the Chadha case). This decision's exact effect on congressional oversight of the bureaucracy is still uncertain. Finally, congressional investigations are the most visible and dramatic form of oversight.

Bureaucratic Pathologies

There are five major problems with bureaucracies: red tape, conflict, duplication, imperialism, and waste.

1. Red tape is the existence of complex rules and procedures that must be followed to get something done. Any large organization must have some way of ensuring that one part of the organization does not operate out of step with another.

2. Conflict exists when some agencies work at cross-purposes with other agencies. The Agricultural Research Service tells farmers how to grow crops more efficiently, while the Agricultural Stabilization and Conservation Service pays farmers to grow fewer crops. Because Congress has 535 members and little strong leadership, it is not surprising that it passes laws that promote inconsistent or even contradictory goals.

3. Duplication occurs when two government agencies seem to be doing the same thing, such as when the Customs Service and the Drug Enforcement Administration both attempt to intercept illegally smuggled drugs.

4. Imperialism refers to the tendency of agencies to grow without regard to the benefits their programs confer or the costs they entail. Because government agencies seek vague goals and have vague mandates from Congress, it is not surprising that they often take the broadest possible view of their powers. If they do not, interest groups and judges may prod them into doing so.

5. Waste occurs when an agency spends more than is necessary to buy some product or service. An example would be the much-publicized purchase of $300 hammers by the military.

It should be clear that bureaucratic problems are hard to correct. Congress cannot make the hard policy choices and set the clear priorities necessary to eliminate conflict and duplication. Government exists partly to achieve the kind of vague goals that resist clear cost-benefit analysis; eliminating red tape might make coordination more difficult. Although Americans dislike "the bureaucracy" in general, studies show that they like the appointed officials with whom they deal.

According to the name bureaucracy theory was evolved by the German sociologist Max Weber (1864-1920). The principle of bureaucracy is based upon hierarchy of authority and web of rules and relations. It visualizes a machine model of organisation characterized by impersonal control over human beings.

Characteristics of Principle of Bureaucracy

1. A well-defined hierarchy of authority with clear lines of authority and control and responsibility concentrated at the top of the hierarchy.

2. A high degree of specialization.

3. A division of work based on functional departmentalization.

4. A system of rules covering the rights and duties of employees.

5. A definite system of procedures for dealing with the work situation and “rationally” coordinating activities.

6. A centralized system of written documents (“the files”) for collecting and summarizing the activities of the organisation.

7. Impersonality of relationships between employees.

8. Recruitment of managers on the basis of ability and technical knowledge.

The bureaucracy, or “bureaucratic model,” was one of the first theories of organisation. It was a theory; Weber hoped that would be used to understand how and why organizations were structured as they were, and the standard against which other organizations would be compared.

But like most “ideal” forms of anything it was an extreme, an exaggeration. Having some specialization, adequate procedures and rules, and some centralization was and is clearly better than having no organisation at all. But Weber’s bureaucratic model quickly became synonymous with a rigid, unbending, inflexible structure manned by “robots”.

Criticism of Principle of Bureaucracy

Today when we hear the word “bureaucracy”, it immediately brings to mind visions of a ponderous, slowly moving organisation-one steeped in red tape, meaningless hurdles, and inefficiency. Various grounds of criticisms of principle bureaucracy are as under:

1. The specialization of labor often inhibits effective communication among technical specialists and between higher and lower levels of the organisation.

2. The procedures and rules sometimes encourage organizational members to act mechanically rather than exercising initiative and using their inherent creativity. They often breed resistance to change.

3. Promotions in real life can result from “whom one knows” and “how one plays the organisation game” rather from technical ability. Competent people may be denied promotion.

4. Bureaucracy involves excessive paperwork, as every decision must be put in writing. All documents have to be maintained in their draft and original forms. This leads to great wastage of time, stationery and space.

5. Personnel in a bureaucracy tend to use their positions and resources to perpetuate self-interests or the interests of their sub-units. Every superior ties to increase the number of his subordinates as if this number is considered a symbol of power and prestige. It is hard to destroy bureaucracy even if it has outlived its utility.

6. Bureaucratic procedures involve inordinate delays and frustration in the performance of tasks. The procedures are nevertheless valued, perpetuated and multiplied for their own sake as also to pass the buck.

Despite its drawbacks, bureaucracy has become an integral feature of modern organisations. It cannot be wished away. It is, therefore necessary to overcome its negative aspects through proper application of rules and regulations, and reconciling the individual needs and organisational goals.

QN 2.

Corruption it’s word refers to the form of dishonesty or a criminal offence which is undertaken by a person being in the government or private sector which entrusted with position of authority, in order to acquire some benefits or abuse of power for one personal gain. Or corruption is the mismanagement of the public funds by the top managers in both the government and the private sectors.

Therefore, there are many things which can lead into the demoralization of the spirit of the workers in their work place being in the government or private sector and this has really affected some of the workers in the Government and these can be seen as explained below.

Greedy for money. This is one of the leading element in the role played by the corrupt officials which causes corruption in an organization or company and the government offices where some leaders are so much greedy for the money which belongs to the purposes which are assigned for. Greedy also include the desire to gain an undue advantage over other people in a competitive environment and the unhealthy desires towards materials objects such as property, cars and many other things which has really demoralize the spirit of work by the workers in the company or government offices.

Higher level of bureaucracy. Whenever there is a higher level of bureaucracy, there is low level of organization efficiency, this has also results in higher costs for taxpayer by the organization and which later affects the wages and salaries of the workers which later demoralize them from doing the work effectively since some part of their salaries will be cut off to pay the higher taxes.

Weak framework. In any company or organization and even in the government bodies cannot perform to the best if the work frame is not set well by the top managers in the organization. Weak framework may in the office of either government may lead into the lose of morals by the workers since the processes of the work may not work according to the interest of their working ethics

Lack of motivation by the managers. Lack of motivation to the workers by the managers may also lead into the lose of moral since there are bosses which let their workers to work over time without motivating them with some little cash towards their efforts and energy of doing the job. Therefore, managers or bosses must work hard also to motivate their workers in order to give them that moral of doing the work effectively. Hence the lack of motivation by the managers may lead into the demoralization of the worker’s spirit.

The working environment. The working environment also plays its role in demoralization of the worker’s spirit especially when the working environment is not conducive to the workers. For example, working near the places where there are bars and even in noisy places which has also demoralize the spirit of work by the managers. For this reason, the working environment should be good and clean

Which can give the moral for the workers and one must be a joke creator which later Add the value to the workers especially when they are free.

Low press freedom. The press freedom is an important institution that keeps the company or the organization in check. When there is low press freedom in an organization because dress freedom is limited.

Qn3. The Government has tried all possible means to reduce the corruption in the country whether being public or private sectors and the following are the ten (10) ways of preventing corruption in the office.

Employees stealing company property, managers accepting bribe. It happens every day. Find out how you can prevent workplace corruption in your company.

Corruption is an issue affecting private and governmental organisation around the world. For private organisation, corruption take many forms, like an employee taking home a stapler or something more serious like upper management breaking the law to close a business deal.

In the workplace, corruption not only causes direct monetary loss but also:

• Affects employee morale

• Makes you liable to criminal prosecution

• Damages your company’s reputation, impacting how customers and potential employees perceive your organisation bad reputation is an unmistakable sign of a bad company culture and, therefore, affects your employer brand

It’s clear that the impact of corruption on your company can be catastrophic, and as a business owner, you need to take all necessary measures to prevent it. In this article, we will walk you through concrete steps you can take to this effect.

1. Review your company’s policies

The need to work ethically and not engage in corruption or fraud is a concept that must be transversal to your organisation and, therefore, not limited to one isolated policy. Anti-corruption policies interact and need to be embedded into broader policies for them to be effective.

Make sure your company’s policies clearly state there is zero tolerance for corruption or fraud, and what the consequences are for those involved.

When drafting your policies, make them short and concise, as this will make it more credible and understandable.

2. Offer anti-bribery training

Even though people certainly understand what is right and wrong, they may not be aware of all the forms of bribery that exist. For example, employees may not think that accepting a non-monetary gift can be a form of bribery, so you need to make sure that everyone is properly trained on what constitutes bribery and how to report it.

Anti-bribery training not only reduces risk for your company, but it also ensures your employees are acting in a way that is reflective of your company’s ethical standards. People want to work with companies they can trust, so behaving ethically is key to your company’s reputation and, ultimately, its success.

3. Focus on the culture

It is not enough to state your ethical standards in your core values and have them embedded in your culture. You also need to create a safe and encouraging environment for employees to report corruption and bribery.

Employees must understand that behaving in an ethical manner doesn’t only mean acting in accordance with the standards you have set for the company but also speaking up when they see wrongdoing by another employee.

If you want your company culture to encourage ethical behavior, consistency is key. Make sure that:

• Employees see immediate action being taken when a report is filed

• The action taken is in line with what your policies and procedures state

• There is no retaliation or negative impact whatsoever for those coming forward

• There are consequences for those involved in corruption, also in line with what your policies and procedures state

Tips by employees are one of the most effective ways to detect corruption or bribery. In fact, the 2020 Report to the Nations, a global study on occupational fraud and abuse, found that 43% of occupational frauds were detected by a tip.

Keep in mind that it’s much more effective to reinforce positive behaviour than only focusing on what employees must avoid.

4. Create systems of review

A lack of adequate internal controls can result in many issues for your company. When it comes to corruption, this may even put you in a tough spot with the government, creating high risk for your company.

Make sure you have systems in place that will regularly review financial records and business transactions, and that are efficient in flagging any wrongdoing.

Having systems of review in place won’t only allow you to detect potential issues but also reduce liability for your organization.

Learn how to create an effective employee handbook with LinkedIn Learning, from just $19.99/month.

5. Watch out for red flags

You should definitely look closely at anything that seems unusual, and search for an explanation if something doesn’t make sense.

There are many red flags to watch out for, including:

• Unnecessary purchases

• Poor quality on a purchase being accepted (especially after this concern has been raised by others or someone other than the employee made a complaint about it)

• Inaccurate or incomplete information on expense reports

• Unqualified vendors getting your company’s business

Any of the above situations merits a close look and an investigation to detect if an employee is engaging in corruption.

If you have employee monitoring software in place, you could also review the data it provides to ensure employees act in a compliant manner.

6. Check financial transactions

Keep an eye on all financial transactions taking place and check for any irregular activities and expenses that don’t comply with your company policies.

If you have a budget for entertaining customers, for example, make sure every expenditure is accounted for and that the corresponding receipts and expenses are in line with the budget.

Additionally, check historical records to determine if there are any inconsistencies with what you usually spend on certain concepts.

If you have different teams in charge of the same tasks, responsibilities or deliverables, make sure what they spend is at the same level. Employees incurring on larger expenditures that colleagues in the same roles must be able to properly justify that difference.

Be consistent with how often you run these checks and make sure there’s a system in place that can flag unusual transactions.

Get an introduction to business ethics for managers and leaders with LinkedIn Learning, starting from just $19.99/month.

7. Start from the top

When aligning employees to your ethical standards and providing corruption prevention training, starting from the top is a must.

Even though employee or manager-level personnel are more often likely to engage in corruption than upper management, corruption by top management is much more harmful and it can result in considerably larger losses.

Top management needs to model the behaviour you want the rest of your employees to follow. If they’re properly trained and they embody your ethical standards, then there will be consistency between what you preach and what actually happens in your organization.

If management is aligned and properly trained, they can provide a safe haven for employees reporting corruption. Whistleblowers will feel safe to report if they see commitment at the top of the organization.

8. Hold third parties accountable

Any company policies and anti-bribery laws you apply to your organization must be also applied to any third parties you engage in business with.

It is key to conduct due diligence before you go into business with anyone or before you retain another company’s services. Due diligence is performed to make sure that the third party you are engaging with is a legitimate entity, is properly qualified to provide the services you have retained it to perform and has ethical and legal standards aligned with those of your company.

You also need to get the third party to sign an agreement stating that it will remain in compliance with any anti-corruption laws that apply to the country where your company does business.

9. Set clear whistleblowing procedures

As mentioned earlier, corruption is most often detected by tips or complaints that people file. Therefore, having well-defined whistleblowing procedures in place that allow employees from every rank to report their concerns and come forward with corruption claims is key to preventing corruption.

Whistleblowing procedures will only be effective if they help employees feel safe when reporting. To that end, they must:

• Clearly identify the types of situations that can be reported

• Explain to whom the reports should be made — some HR solutions companies provide a point of contact outside the organisation for employees to raise concerns regarding wrongdoing

• State that the confidentiality of the whistleblower’s identity is safeguarded and that they will be protected from retaliation, and explain how

10. Take corruption claims seriously

Follow through with what you established in your whistleblowing procedures. Employees need to know corruption claims are taken seriously, or they will stop reporting them, and you will lose a valuable source of information.

Showing consistency between what you say you will do and what you actually do when a concern is reported will improve company culture, ensure employees keep coming forward and improve overall employee wellbeing.

Final thoughts

When implementing tighter controls, you might find some resistance within your organisation. Anticipating potential conflict, and preparing for it in advance, will improve your chances of employees aligning with your new policies and standards and, therefore, their success.

Always remember that corruption puts your organisation at risk and can severely damage your reputation. In a world where consumers are looking closely at the ethical standards of the companies that they choose to spend their money on, this becomes even more impactful.