bureaucracy alienates, fosters dissatisfaction, stifles creativity, and demotivates.
employees; the positive view maintains that bureaucracy provides needed guidance,.
clarifies responsibility, reduces role stress, and helps individuals feel and be more.
effective (Adler and Borys, 1996; Hoy and Miskel, in press). The purpose of this research.
is twofold; first, to reconcile theoretically these two views, and second, to develop and.
test empirically a new construct "enabling bureaucracy.
Bureaucratic Characteristics.
Two of the pivotal characteristics of bureaucratic organization are formalization.
(formal rules and procedures) and centralization (hierarchy of authority). We turn to an.
examination of each with the aim of sorting out the features that capture the positive.
outcomes of bureaucracy while preventing negative ones.
Formalization.
In the Weberian sense, formalization is the extent to which there are written rules,.
regulations, procedures, and instructions. Adler and Borys (1996) suggest two types of.
formalization "enabling and coercive, which are not unlike Gouldner's (1954).
representative and punishment-centered rules. Adler and Borys (1996), however, provide.
a much deeper theoretical analysis of how the features, design, and implementation of.
two types of formalization influence work practices. We turn to their description of the.
two types of formalization.
Coercive formalization is a collection of procedures, rules, and regulations that.
attempts to force subordinates to comply. Unfortunately, such formalization tends to.
generate alienation rather than commitment. Coercive rules and procedures constrain and.
punish rather than promote or support productive practices. Instead of giving committed.
employees access to accumulated organizational learning, coercive procedures are.
designed to force reluctant subordinates to comply. The consequences are predictable.
For example, Rousseau (1978) found rules and procedures were positively related to.