Weber's rational, legal model of organisation is an important one for members andstakeholders. They accept the purpose of the organisation as rational. Theauthority of role relationships, the hierarchical structure of vertical andhorizontal links, the dependencies in duties, obligations and accountabilitiesare logical. Authority is accepted/legitimised because the structures fordecision-making and action are defined with objective purpose.
However Weber modelled three forms of power giving rise to authority structures.Power vacuums and struggles for position result if these structures fail toprovide a holding framework for members. The three forms are charismatic,traditional and rational-legal.
Traditional values and behaviours can be found in the modern world - theauthority of the father in some families is an example.Those who are totallywilling to dedicate themselves to a spiritual doctrine or ideology may adopt avery powerful position - an insular reality - which cuts across secular orscientific logic. Theirs is the one right way regardless of evidence to thecontrary.
Well-established, modern business relies on the bureaucratic form - albeitconstrained in what it can do by the bureaucratic regulation imposed bycommunity legislators - for the community's benefit.
Roles, rights, duties and behaviour are guided by policies, rules, reportingregulations and controls, standard operating procedures, hierarchical andfunctionally specialised work structures.
Standardisation of methods and rules ensures that members of the organisationbehave in predictable conformist ways and not personal whim. Their discretion islimited by the methods and rules that apply within the scope of their duties andresponsibilities.
Divide and rule may minimise the influence of a large department or group. Theefficacy of project teams (Harrison's task culture) set up to co-ordinate workacross functional departments, would be significantly inhibited if projectmanagers did not have the full co-operation of Heads of Departments. The lattercould easilyset up rule-based and procedural barriers to matrix managers.
Many such rules were designed to control empoyees, ensure safety and protectemployees, the public and the railway authorities. If a major accident occurredthen clear regulations/rules define responsibilities and accountabilities. Yetparadoxically in, say, a railway organisation, zealous application of rules madeover decades and not modified or rescinded means that few trains would leave ontime. Work done to the letter and with all rules being inflexibly appliedtogether can render a system inoperable. Normal working requires the applicationof individual discretion and interpretation of rules to the situation. Theindividual learns integration of rules not sequencing. The procedural aspects ofa bureacracy become streamlined by the skills and competences of those carryingthem out.
If there is a major accident, a public investigation frequently follows.Investigators compare actual events with norms of formal regulations - who is inerror - and try to record deviations in practice, gaps in rules and wherenegligence has occured. The accident may be an act of god. Such a probabilityPerrow would argue is acknowledged by the system itself.
Rules and regulations are often created, invoked and used in proactive orretrospective ways as part of power play. They give potential power to both controllers and controlled. Controllers may try to "streamline"procedures and thus lock the relationships they seek to control. They are then ina position to use the rules to their advantage. These are important sources oforganisational power. They define a contested terrain
