此它们是由管理层预先定义的，并且是“为了实现特定目标而故意和有意识地创建的”。
Bureaucracy or Post-bureaucracy? 官僚制还是后官僚制？
For most of us today when we think of the term bureaucracy, negative connotations such as inefficiency, redundancy, rigidity, red tape culture and the like come to mind. However, bureaucracy in Weber’s period was considered extremely successful and was seen as efficient machine devised to ultimately achieve desired goals. The purpose of this essay however is not to discuss the success or failure of a bureaucracy, but rather to analyze if we still live in a bureaucratic world, or in a post-bureaucratic one.
对于今天的大多数人来说，当我们想到官僚主义这个词时，我们会想到低效、冗余、僵化、繁文缛节等负面含义。然而，韦伯时期的官僚制度被认为是极其成功的，被视为最终实现理想目标的高效机器。然而，这篇文章的目的不是讨论官僚制的成败，而是分析我们是否仍然生活在官僚制世界，还是生活在后官僚制世界。
Post-bureaucracy is an refined organizational model developed to best suit today’s dynamic organizations. Salaman (2005) asserts that post-bureaucracy is supposed to be more efficient, more dynamic, more innovative and more understanding towards the need to change. It merely refers to a fundamental shift away from traditional bureaucratic features which can be characterized through reduced formal levels of hierarchy, more flexibility than rule-following, decentralization of authority, and a collaboration of trust, teamwork, and shared responsibility (Heckscher, 1994).
后官僚制是一种完善的组织模式，最适合当今充满活力的组织。Salaman断言，后官僚制应该更高效、更具活力、更具创新性，并对变革的需要有更多的理解。它仅仅是指从根本上改变了传统的官僚特征，这种特征可以通过减少正式等级、比遵循规则更灵活、权力下放以及信任、团队合作和分担责任来体现。
One of the features of Weber’s ideal type of bureaucracy is based upon centralization; however most large and successful organizations today are organizing themselves into smaller, autonomous and more manageable units thus becoming more decentralized. Various scholars (Miner et al., 2000; Repenning, 2002; Sigglekow and Rivki, 2003) have recently developed a resurgence of interest towards the linkage of structure and strategy, and have focused on how smaller structures in dynamic environments can be used to produce organizational adaptations. Their study links to how simpler structure can improvise learning, increase professionalism and be an appropriate mechanism for controlling organizations. Although Daft (2009:348) argues that decentralization “represents a paradox because, in the perfect bureaucracy, all decisions would be made by the top administrator, who would have perfect control.” Nevertheless, it can be seen that larger an organization becomes, the more decentralized and complex it
韦伯理想的官僚体制的特征之一是建立在中央集权的基础上；然而，今天大多数大型和成功的组织正在将自己组织成更小、自主和更易于管理的单元，从而变得更加分散。各种学者最近对结构和战略之间的联系重新产生了兴趣，并关注如何利用动态环境中的较小结构来产生组织适应。他们的研究与更简单的结构如何能够即兴学习、提高专业性以及成为控制组织的适当机制联系在一起。尽管达夫特认为，权力下放“代表了一个悖论，因为在完美的官僚体系中，所有决策都将由最高管理者做出，而最高管理者将拥有完美的控制权。”然而，可以看出，组织越大，权力下放越复杂
gets. The rationale behind this is that when an organization grows, the number of levels in hierarchy (vertical complexity) and the number of departments (horizontal complexity) grow with it, thus decisions are diffused to the lower levels of management and pressure to subdivide arises, or else managers cannot control them effectively. We can see today that most successful companies such as IBM, Hewlett-Packard, General Foods, 3M, etc are now seen adapting decentralization. CEO Mike Quinlan of McDonald’s says that he pushes directions as far down the hierarchy as he can; otherwise, McDonald’s decision making would be too slow. Hage and Aiken (1967) support this idea in their research on organization size that “larger organizations permit greater decentralization” and use Campbell Soup Company and American Airlines as examples (cited in Daft, 2009:348). A small group of theorists (Heckscher and Donnellon, 1994; Gratton, 2004; Pollitt, 2008) have developed upon the theory of typical shift towards post-bureaucracy that in a world of such increasing uncertainty and complexity; hierarchies have now become flat, horizontal connections are emphasized, companies are now more fluid and virtual. As all of these features can be observed in large-scale organizations today, I am in su
