Bihar PSC: Weber's Critics

  1. Marxian Argument: Specialized diversion of labour and the accompanying fragmentation of tasks result in alienation of the bureaucrat from his work. He is not able to express all facets of his personality in his work.

  2. Robert Michels: Bureaucracy subverts democracy. It so complicates the affairs of organization that these become incomprehensible to the non-specialists. This results in oligarchy or rule by a small elite. It is status-quoits. Its primary concern is maintenance of its own power, even to the detriment of the goals of organization (displacement of goals).

  3. Phillip Selznick: Division of labour results ultimately in the sub-units setting up goals of their own. These goals may even conflict with the goals of the organization as a whole.

  4. Talcott Parsons: Questioned the internal consistency of Weber? s ideal type. Weber expects the administrative staff to be technically superior, as well as possess the right to direct and control the activities of others. But, it is not always possible that top administrators are also technically proficient. In India, the IAS system is founded on exactly an opposite premise.

  5. Alvin Gouldner: Bureaucrats soon find out the minimum behaviour acceptable under the rules. Their performance then conforms to this minimum. The low performance ironically, increases the closeness of supervision, leading to promulgation of more rules. A vicious circle is thus set up with additional rules and low performance feeding each other.