The Standard-Bearers

Abstract

This paper emphasizes the importance of leadership within a bureaucratic setting, and examines the numerous factors that make up the components of good leadership within the workplace, as well as the implications and drawbacks of bureaucracy in the workplace. The paper will also examine the philosophies of many famous scholars such as Max Weber to determine just how workplace bureaucracy fits in with the internship I attended.

The Standard-Bearers

The famed sociologist and classical theorist Max Weber (1922) defined bureaucracy—the structure that dominates the professional lives of millions of Americans today—as “fundamentally domination through knowledge” (p. 223). Today, almost a century later, one can see that domination featured in a number of ways, including but not exclusively internet access, nonverbal barriers between supervisors and employees, and in workplace dynamics. One can also see that the engine behind the functionality of workplace bureaucracy is housed in a chief figure’s charisma (Weber, 1922, p. 1112)—in this case, the supervisor or manager. The key, therefore, to understanding why a workplace is the way it is almost always lies with the person at the top. If he or she lacks that power to motivate and convince, then the workplace is doomed to drudgery and a lack of productivity. When one is looking to pinpoint, identify, and change the dynamics of a bureaucratic workplace, one must always examine the character and norms of the person in charge. The employees merely follow the example of their manager.

INTERNSHIP DESCRIPTION

I saw this kind of pace-setting at my internship location. I was placed at the King County Prosecuting Attorney’s office – Sexually Violent Predators (SVP) Unit, Not Guilty By Insanity (NGIRI) Unit, and Involuntary Treatment ACT (ITA) Unit. The office is located at Downtown Seattle on the 9th floor in the King County Administration Building. My supervisor, Elizabeth, introduced me to all of my colleagues at the office. Elizabeth’s official work title is Legal Services Supervisor. I also met three paralegals, Dan, Tyler, and Jenny, and one investigator, Chris. My workplace is very similar to every other office setting – there are personal office rooms, employee lounge, and desks for the interns. I was the only intern there that day.

My position was known as the “Administrative Intern”. According to the booklet that my supervisor handed me, my main duty was to assist paralegals, investigator, and LAS with scanning, filing, updating pleading indexes, doing projects, and etc. Elizabeth did not describe my position to others; instead, she stated “Gina will be joining us.” While she was pleasant, the way she introduced me to the group conveyed a sense of high expectations for the employees. For the most of the time, everyone just stayed in their offices and did their own things, as if she never introduced me in the first place. When I walked pass their rooms, they were either on the phone, talking about a case, or on the computer.

I read through news articles in regards to the most current Washington laws. Later on, Elizabeth trained me on how to update pleading index of a sexually violent predator. I spent the entire day sorting out the documents which include discoveries, annual reviews, and violations. I was sorting the documents and reading them at the same time. I worked on Tuesday and Thursday, from 9.30AM to 4.30PM. My task was to work on organizing a pleading index for a Sexually Violent Predator (SVP) who will be going on trial with our unit. Elizabeth handed me a stack of the SVP’s paperwork, and she showed me the different types of legal documents needed to organize the pleading index. The legal documents include hard copies from the Courts of Appeals (COA), Motions, Orders, Discretionary Review, as well as Electronic Court Records. The goal of organizing a pleading index is to assist the attorney in finding documents and know where the documents are located. My task was to type out a pleading index in chronological order and to scan missing documents into respective folders.

It took me two days to complete the pleading index. The final step was to submit the pleading index to a paralegal to double-check the content. After the paralegal finished checking, I finalized the pleading index and scan the missing documents. Elizabeth also informed me that my next task is to assist a paralegal on a SVP case. I was given a summary of the SVP including his criminal records. In addition, I was granted an opportunity to visit the Court Room on Tuesday, 22nd January. I witnessed a burglary hearing.

METHODOLOGY

The atmosphere inside the office was noticeably tense. I felt it from the first moment I walked in the doors—the security guard with the empty smile to the other workers in their cubes, barely looking up from their work when I was introduced. They each smiled and said hello, and then the smiles dissolved and they shifted back to their formidable backlog of work. I took a few more steps on the blue carpet to my cube and got settled in. Everything in the office conveyed seriousness.

Soon after that first day Elizabeth assigned me the pleading index. Once that was done I assisted a paralegal with a case involving a sexually violent predator. My first two weeks was more of the same, until the fourth week came and I was assigned to a new supervisor named Marjorie. She took me on a visit to the Courthouse. There was a burglary case going on and for the first time in my life, I actually saw an offender in the orange uniform. The Courtroom was not as big as I imagined, much smaller compared to the ones I saw on television shows. Sadly, I was not able to hear what was happening inside the Courtroom as the Judge has already made a ruling and they were just finishing up the paperwork. Another highlight was that one of the prosecutors won a case last week and everyone in the office went to congratulate her. However, the celebration atmosphere lasted for about ten minutes and everyone went back to work. I was one of the two people who did not have the guts to go over and congratulate her – the other was also an intern. We were both intimidated by her authority figure since she is considered the “boss” of our unit.

CONSOLIDATED POWER

Weber (1922) outlined six major characteristics of bureaucracies, and all six emanate from the authorities in charge of them. They are the ones who establish the office jurisdictional areas and represent and impose the office hierarchy. At my internship, employees were separated into cubicles and assigned specific tasks; they answered to Elizabeth and Marjorie regarding what they were doing, when they were expected to finish, and whether or not they needed their work adjusted or corrected. It is the supervisor who has access to the written documents—work logs, files, timecards—that keep the office in order. It is the supervisor who possesses the thorough and expert training. They are expected to operate at their full working capacity, without hard limits on their time on-the-clock. At my internship, not only were Elizabeth and Marjorie always working, but they always appeared to be working. They never appeared to be wasting time or waiting on a project with arms folded; even when they were expecting projects to be completed before a case could move forward, I noticed that they always would switch gears and remain productive and active in the interim. Finally, Elizabeth and Marjorie, like all supervisors, follow learnable general rules, with the expectation that the staff will do the same. In each case, it is the manager or supervisor who sets the tone for the employees, who dominate the workplace through knowledge, and who therefore possess the power within the bureaucracy.

The power consolidated in these individuals exists there due to the responsibilities of the positions the managers hold. At the King County Prosecuting Attorney’s office, in our department, Elizabeth and Marjorie were not only the power holders, they were also the ones accountable to the county prosecutor for our production. Weber’s (1922) basic assertion that a managerial position is a vocation—that is, has the implication of duty to the organization—was easily visible in our office. It is important to note here that as employees, we were not duty-bound to the prosecuting attorney’s office like Elizabeth and Marjorie were. While we were only held to office standards, we had no expectation that we represented that office outside of it. For us, it was a job; for Marjorie and Elizabeth, the story was different. As people who represented the prosecuting attorney, sometimes within the courtroom, they could arguably be held to a higher standard, as their conduct could perceivably have either a direct or indirect impact on the verdict in the case at hand. For example, if I had failed to complete the pleading index, I would merely have been dismissed and reported to my instructor. Elizabeth, however, would have to deal with the consequences of not having that index ready for the hearing, which in turn could affect the sentencing of the offender. Additionally, she would come under scrutiny for assigning me the pleading index in the first place.

In a bureaucracy, then, while the power is concentrated in the authority, a dependency relationship exists between the manager and his or her employees. As Emerson (1962) pointed out, “power resides implicitly in the other’s dependency” (p. 32). However, the dependency relationship is two-way. Elizabeth’s reputation within the prosecuting attorney’s office depended on me getting that pleading index done, as well as on the output of my co-workers. So while her power over me and my co-workers is and was palpable, she also was dependent on us performing the tasks she assigned. This did not serve to limit her power, but this mutual dependency did serve to hold her to the higher “dutiful” standard.

It then becomes all the more important for the supervisor-manager, who as the standard bearer of the bureaucracy to its workers and the public at large, to recognize and appreciate the inherent reciprocity in employer-employee relationships. Since so much of life is influenced in some way by bureaucratic organizations (Handel, 2003, p.1), it is vital for the workers’ well-being and effectiveness for the supervisor-manager to effectively lead - with good managerial leadership comes employee motivation. This in-office leadership is the crucial difference-maker in workplace attitudes and productivity. A large part of this is activity. As Weber (1922) pointed out, a developed office succeeds when the manager is working at his or her fullest capacity. Meyer and Rowen (1977) posited that meaningful activity by the supervisor-manager has ritualistic significance, because it validates the organization and maintains appearances that are conducive to positive employer-employee relations (p. 340). If the manager is present and working, the employees can be expected to be more focused and productive as well.

The supervisor-manager has to not only be active, but also many times needs to be engaged as a street-level bureaucrat as to set the appropriate example. At the King County Prosecuting Attorney’s office where I interned, each individual and each case is recognized as different and an in depth understanding is required before implementing a policy or service. The street-level bureaucrats are the ones who interact directly with the general public, and have the best knowledge of the facts of their fields; the top-level administrators rarely do, which prevents them from having a direct influence on our department’s actions. It is widely believed there that public policy is better understood at the street-level than at the upper level of administration. Hence, street-level bureaucrats in public administrations that operate under a hierarchy structure are the ones implementing public policies; in order to be seen as relevant, the supervisor-manager must appear active and knowledgeable in said implementation, while also appearing to delegate. This is why the position of supervisor-manager is both one of the most versatile and difficult in the business: because they must act as judge, jury, and executioner, in many ways, having to combine street-smarts, assertiveness, and other street cop attributes with knowledge in their respective fields. This means that supervisor-managers require a great deal of both training and experience before reaching the peak of their performance, and this was apparent at the attorney's office.

However, witnessing the supervisor-manager during his street-level bureaucratic tasks brought to the forefront some of the inherent weaknesses of street-level bureaucracy as a concept. Most notably, it can be extremely time consuming, which is a huge problem for a position such as supervisor-manager where time is already a precious commodity. There is also the question of power. More specifically, it is very possible, although I never personally witnessed it, for whoever is tasked with the role of street-level bureaucrat to abuse their position of power. This is because street-level bureaucrats possess both the authority to change policy but also the street-smarts, skill, and authority to actually implement these policy changes themselves. This creates one of the great failures of a government: where one entity is given both power and influence over the governmental process, which brings with it a whole host of problems. Of course, the supervisor-manager at the internship did not exhibit any of these symptoms, but from a purely theoretical standpoint, it is certainly possible.

My internship also brought into question the very concept of bureaucracy in this specific workplace in the first place. Surely, it is beneficial in many applications, but applying the concept to the legal world has a number of drawbacks. For starters, the bureaucracy system was only originally intended to be used in large institutions, and attorney's offices, for example, would not be considered to be a large institution, or at least not one large enough to warrant a sweeping bureaucracy policy. Furthermore, much of the goings on in the attorney's office, from my personal observations, did not really require a higher-up board of executives or administrators to make difficult decisions. Quite frankly, from a decision-making standpoint, everything was relatively cut-and-dry, and while problems did arise, quite frequently, in fact, they were usually resolved in a timely manner by the appropriate person to handle that specific problem. To that end, having a centralized leader under which the employees may thrive is a much more effective solution as it does not lead to the dissonance and poor employee retention that is so often associated with large committees or groups of executives making important business decisions. However, whether it is effective or not, many scholars, including Weber himself, believe bureaucracy is the wave of the future, and will be a staple in the modern workplace for many years to come (Weber, 1922).

One way to gain a stronger grasp of bureaucracy in the workplace is to extrapolate many of the writings of Weber and other experts and apply them to my specific internship. To start with Weber, he believed strongly in the power that bureaucratic organizations possessed. To that end, Weber would endorse bureaucracy in virtually any organization, great or small, simply because of its proven effectiveness. Weber also believed that bureaucracies should keep their knowledge and intentions secret from everyone, even those that were serving within that bureaucracy (Weber, 1922). This means that the transparent nature with which many bureaucracies in the modern workplace operate would disgust Weber, since Weber felt strongly that the common masses and their superiors should not be sharing a great deal of information with one another aside from what is strictly required (Weber, 1922). Weber would likely not approve of the highly centralized structure so often found within law organizations, especially when this centralized structure has a tendency to be completely transparent with its workers. One cornerstone of Weber's philosophy is the use of a strong "patriarch" within an organization, who acts as the natural leader of the daily routine, which Weber himself likens to patriarchalism simply transplanted into a more rational structure (Weber, 1922, p.245). This means that Weber believed that bureaucracy is designed to keep within normal bounds a set routine, and that these patriarchs are responsible for the maintenance of this routine (Weber, 1922).

While many organizations would benefit from this specific philosophy, as set, reliable routines are common in many professions, law is not one of them, especially within the attorney's office that I interned at. Every day brought new cases and with them, new challenges, to the point where I was always unsure of what would come each day I came into work. This means that Weber's philosophy of the patriarch being the lord of the routine would be both ineffective and pointless within the application of the attorney's office, as there is simply too little of a routine to adhere to in the first place for there to be a requirement for a ruler over it. Lastly, Weber also believes in what he refers to as "sociology of charismatic authority" (Weber, 1922, p.247). Essentially, this means that charisma is a crucial component of any leader, especially one within a bureaucracy (Weber, 1922). Weber believed that charisma was an aspect of a man that had to be earned, and that charisma was largely created and perpetuated by those serving under him (Weber, 1922). He believed strongly that a charismatic leader could mean the difference between success and failure in many organizations (Weber, 1922). In the case of my internship, none of the higher-ups were particularly charismatic, both in their own right, and in terms of their own reputation or worth within the office. Surely, the supervisor-manager, for example, was more than competent at his numerous duties, but he was not, strictly speaking, what one would call charismatic. Still, he was regarded well by the rest of the office, and his numerous accomplishments more than spoke for themselves. This helps to show that not all of Weber's theories and ideas about bureaucracy necessarily hold up today, as the workplace is not as needing of charisma in its leaders than, say, a governmental position, for which bureaucracy was originally intended.

Another scholar who would feel strongly about the role of bureaucracy in the workplace is Casey Ichniowski, who believes in what he refers to as a "participatory bureaucracy" (2000, p.93). Essentially a participatory bureaucracy is one where groups of problem-solving workers collaborate with one another in order to achieve a specific goal (Ichniowski, 2000). It should be noted that this concept is not necessarily mutually exclusive to the concept of workplace bureaucracy, as it is very possible for there to still be workers collaborating with one another, but also a ruling body that makes the important decisions for the workers. Applying the concept of participatory bureaucracy to my internship reveals a startling revelation. The structure of work within the attorney's office is surprisingly similar to the participatory bureaucracy outlined by Ichniowski. While, physically, workers in the attorney's office were not always adjacent to one another, able to freely exchange ideas, they were, nevertheless, working as cohesive "cells." That is to say, there were specific groups of people working on specific projects. Perhaps more importantly, there was no real central power that was mandating what they should or should not be working on. In a way, it is a work environment that is governed largely by self-interest, since the motivator of losing a case, client, or, perhaps one's job is a powerful enough motivator in the workplace to encourage even the strongest of enemies to cooperate with one another in order to accomplish the task at hand.

This brings into observation the role that the workers themselves play within a typical workplace, as well as within a bureaucracy. While it is obvious that workers are the lifeblood of virtually any organization, they themselves also possess a great deal of power, simply from a political standpoint, especially after one considers things like worker's unions. While it might seem positively socialist to consider the workers of an organization so important, the point here is to assess their role within a bureaucracy, as the cogs of the machine, so to speak. To that end, Weber believes that the very concept of workers within an organization do not function well within the confines of capitalism (Weber, 1922). He believes that capitalism separates the worker from his or her means of production, which essentially means capitalism keeps workers from their fullest potential. Within a bureaucracy, however, Weber believes they are much more effective, as Weber believes that workers are dependent entirely upon the implements that their superiors put at their disposal (Weber, 1922). This means that in order for workers to be successful, or at least to live up to their own potential, they must function as if they are a bureaucracy at all times, which means always delegating to authority when necessary. This seems to contradict some of the other thoughts about workplace hierarchical structure, especially the concept of workers being the lifeblood of an organization, and entirely self-sufficient. These are merely two different philosophies, however, and in my personal experience, I found the former explanation, about workers being perfectly capable as cohesive units operating without any sort of greater power within the organization, to be much more accurate on a day-to-day basis.

Lastly, the ultimate value of the manager-supervisor within the attorney's office must be explained and analyzed in order to gain a greater understanding of the underlying concepts of workplace bureaucracy. While it is true that oftentimes there does not appear to be any sort of real "higher up" structure within the attorney's office, the fact remains that there is always somebody who calls the bigger shots within an organization, the manager-supervisor, in this case. The "domination" style of governing, which Weber mentioned numerous times, does not appear to be present within the organization I am interning at nor, it would seem, most organizations in general (Weber, 1922). However, some scholars believe that the very concept of bureaucracy within an organization is inherently flawed due to privileged technical expertise, impersonality, and rational-legal authority (Casey, 2004, p.16). Many would consider many of these features to be true for the role of manager-supervisor, Marjorie and Elizabeth, in this case. Indeed, examining the way these superiors operate, it is easy to see how one could view traits such as impersonality, which is prevalent during my internship, as large disadvantages, especially after considering Weber's assertion that charisma is one of the most crucial qualities for a leader within a bureaucracy to possess. While Marjorie and Elizabeth do fine jobs in their respective roles, the fact remains that there are many who would consider this style of workplace authority unacceptable, even if I do not personally agree. However, in order to cause a significant change within the workplace at the attorney's office would require a shift of not just the higher authority themselves, but the very concept of workplace bureaucracy, and even of authority in general, since these concepts are ingrained enough in the psyche of almost every human that they are virtually immortal (Casey, 2004).

The person in charge of any organization has a number of responsibilities, but the most important of these is their role as a figurehead for the organization. The thesis presented in the beginning continues to hold true, as it has proven true that the authority figure or figures within an organization and the workers under these authority figures are inexorably linked with one another, to the point where changing one or the other would have profound effects on any organization. This is due to what appears to be workplace bureaucracy, or at least many attributes of it. From my personal observations, it seems obvious that the workplace does not possess many of the drawbacks that are so commonly associated with bureaucracy, which creates a sort of "best of both worlds" situation. While employees within any given organization might find the inclusion of authority within the workplace pointless, the fact remains that they play a crucial role that cannot simply be removed. The worker and their authority figures are linked by far more than the job itself. The relationship between these two groups are as old as civilization itself, and one simply cannot exist without the other, especially in the modern era, where technology and connections with one another are so crucial.

References

Casey, C. (2004). Bureaucracy re-enchanted? Spirit, Experts and Authority in Organizations. Organization, 11(1), 59-79.

Emerson, R. M. (1962). Power-dependence relations. American Sociological Review, 31-41.

Handel, M. J. (Ed.). (2003). The sociology of organizations: Classic, contemporary, and critical readings. Sage.

Ichniowski, C. (Ed.). (2000). The American workplace: Skills, pay, and employment involvement.

Cambridge University Press.

Meyer, J. W., & Rowan, B. (1977). Institutionalized organizations: Formal structure as myth and ceremony. American Journal of Sociology, 83(2), 340.

Weber, M. (2009). From Max Weber: Essays in sociology. Routledge.