Learning and Development and Max Weber's 'Theory of Bureaucracy'


Maintaining bureaucracy?


"Leaders say they want transformation, engagement, innovation, creativity and agility ... but their actions and the environments they create say otherwise: what they actually value are the status quo, sameness, safety, certainty, busyness and consensus."

Sonja Blignaut

Max Weber (1864 - 1920) developed the theory of bureaucracy. He described an ideal bureaucracy as containing six central elements:

1. A clearly defined division of labour and authority

2. Hierarchical structures and offices

3. Written guidelines prescribing performance criteria

4. Recruitment to offices based on specialisation and expertise

5. Office holding as a career or vocation

6. Duties and authority attached to positions, no persons

Sound familiar?

The challenges for businesses and workers are now to complex to be addressed by the old bureaucracy model. The new leadership formula for success in the digital era means mastering context, communication and enrolment.

Which must mean a new mission for L&D to lead:

"Organisational readiness and the need to adapt"

I believe this is the perfect purpose for L&D - to align new goals, new strategy and new tactics around.

Meanwhile, most corporate L&D strategies continue to reinforce the bureaucracy model. As examples, here are two 'cultural markers' I noticed last week which I believe typify the entrenched perspectives:

Firstly, from the website of a "highly recommendable" 'learning technology solution'. The key features of their proposition:

"Modern e-learning courses all your learners can get excited about..."

 "Minimise administration busy work..."

 "Maximise training utilisation..."

Secondly, from an L&D job ad:

"I'm looking for someone who's worked in L&D and is strong on operating models, governance and process design..."

Leadership in the digital era is about empowering others to lead and to create. To remain relevant this means fundamentally new goals for the work of L&D.

So, a question for L&D leaders:

When you think you are "transforming" are you really just finding new ways to keep things fundamentally the same?


Paul works with L&D leaders who recognise the urgent need to create new environments.




I work as a thinking partner and advisor with mid sized, value oriented companies going through significant change. I help you to build new capability and mindsets through shifting your approach to organisational development.

Comments

Post a Comment

Please let me know your thoughts on this...

Popular posts from this blog

The human stuff is the basis of 'digital learning transformations'...

The human stuff is the basis of 'digital learning transformations'. The technology platforms are secondary. They work best when: They help to simplify or speed up what people have always done while working; (research / answer questions / share / store) They enable people to work in new ways that they have learned are more efficient and effective; (cooperatively / 'out loud' / across different teams) A 'digital mindset' for businesses could include these ideas: Constant change is inescapable - so it's curiosity and adaptability that create value in work teams New possibilities and solutions come from connecting many sources of information People can take responsibility for solving work problems Failing fast is helpful Creating wide and diverse networks of expertise and experience is crucial Customer ('end user') centricity keeps everyone better aligned Silos don't help Flatter, less hierarchical teams move ideas and solutions
Read more

Why organisations resist thinking of themselves as connected 'systems'

“In a world of separation and domination, systems thinking is subversive.” Dr Elizabeth Sawin The key to improving the work of organisations - and the contributions of the people in them - is to look at them as connected 'systems'. (Put another way, because improving the performance of individual silos won’t make the overall performance of the organisation any better). However nobody seems to want to do this. So, who’s resisting systems thinking? Executives don’t want it because means questioning the current mindset and behaviours that have brought them status and ‘results’ Individual managers don’t want it because they assume it threatens their control over their local silos L&D / HR don’t want it because their remit does not extent to the organisation, as its still rooted in the ‘performance’ of individuals (and occasionally, specific teams). And employees don't want it because they often don’t care / need to care about the overall organisation.
Read more

"The future of corporate Learning and Development" debate is five different things

"Pushing fancy new stuff onto your organisation will not change the outcomes if that is not emerging from your system itself, through the ripening of a different worldview." Stelio Verzera The perennial topic  of "The future of corporate Learning and Development" is always everywhere. This ' Shirky Principle ' fuels and sustains the status quo and the players that continue to benefit from it. I'd argue that the discussion is in fact five very   different conversations happening in parallel, but unequally distributed. They are - in current descending order of noise, ambition and opportunity: 1. 'MAKE THE TRAINING BETTER'. The status quo. The economic model. Dependent on maintaining the belief that educating individual workers changes the system through which complex, interconnected organisations perform. This narrative is carefully preserved by (mostly) commercial vendors who have filled the strategy vacuum. New technologies, new (and old) instruc
Read more