Max Weber’s Theory of Bureaucracy
Max Weber was a citizen from Germany, a scholar in history, sociology, politics, and economy. He is popularly known for the bureaucratic theory, which was the most therapeutic and effective model instituted in public and private organizations. He argued that the organizations should resemble a government or instead use a legal-rational-based approach system but not a leadership that is family or traditional based (Ang, 2017). He also opposed leadership that influences workers without the use of logic and factual information.
Ideas of Max Weber Concerning the Hospital Organization
He implanted the concept of authority and responsibilities which should be circulated along with the position that one occupies. For instance, a nurse in charge of the pediatric ward is responsible for all activities, resources, and personnel in the unit (Ang, 2017). Additionally, if a nurse leaves for another health facility, then the vacant seat should be occupied by the deputy nurse in that department. In the hospital setting, there are clear rules that govern nurses on and off duty. There is a hospital guide that is instrumental in discipline, firing, and hiring.
Difference and Similarities of Max Weber’s Ideas to That of Frederick Taylor
In both theories, workers are assigned duties according to their specialization area to extract the best in them. In addition, there are specified rules that govern how the job should be done hence making evaluation easy. Work should be performed using different approaches that are most therapeutic and effective. The difference in both theories is noted in how workers relate; in science, workers have the option to flex, while in bureaucracy, how workers communicate and respond to one another is key to the organization’s success (Ang, 2017). Both theories are lucrative and essential in managing organizations and the stimulation of workers to be productive.
Ang, Y. Y. (2017). Beyond Weber: Conceptualizing an alternative ideal type of bureaucracy in developing contexts. Regulation & Governance, 11(3), 282-298. Web.