A “Democratic Authority” for Bureaucracy
| DOI | https://doi.org/10.1108/eb009656 |
| Pages | 48-65 |
| Date | 01 January 1971 |
| Published date | 01 January 1971 |
| Author | MARGARET D. CAREY |
| Subject Matter | Education |
A "Democratic Authority" for Bureaucracy
MARGARET D. CAREY
48 THE JOURNAL OF EDUCATIONAL ADMINISTRATION
VOLUME IX, NUMBER 1 MAY, 1971
After an analysis of Weberian theory the author describes recent
"augmentations" to the bureaucratic model. Although accepted as
a residual feature of organizations, bureaucracy is shown to be
amenable to personalization and democratization. In particular
this appears true of the Catholic church as the repercussions of
Vatican II arc felt. The resultant decentralization of authority
and the amelioration of strict bureaucratic procedures in an
Australian Archdiocesan school system are described. Data pre-
sented lend support to the initial hypothesis that greater organiza-
tional effectiveness and increased administrative efficiency have
resulted.
INTRODUCTION
In the search for this rare hybrid—Democratic Authority in a
Bureaucracy—an analogy has been drawn between Weberian
Bureaucracy and the Bureaucratic structure of the Catholic
Church, with the aim of showing that, as Weber's theory has been
modified, augmented and adapted to become more practical in
operation, so has the Church, facing the need of renewal and
adaptation, modified her traditionally bureaucratic exercise of
authority. The writer hopes to show that as the Weberian theory
has become more applicable with adaptation, so has the Church
become more functionally effective through its exercise of a "new"
concept of authority, an authority which allows for the participa-
tive leadership and shared decision-making advocated by critics of
the Weberian bureaucracy. Specifically, this article seeks an
answer to the following hypothesis: Authority in the Catholic
Church, if exercised in the light of the "new" concept as expressed
by the Second Vatican Council, will achieve within the Church
greater organizational effectiveness and increased administrative
efficiency.
SISTER MARGARET
D.
CAREY
is
Principal
of St.
Joseph's
College,
Goulburn,
N.S.W. She
holds
the
degree
of B.A. and the Dip. Ed.
Admin,
of the
University
of New
England.
Sister
Carey
is a
member
of the
Australian
College
of
Education.
Democratic Authority for Bureaucracy 49
WEBER'S BUREAUCRACY: OUTLINE AND DEFICIENCIES
Authority comes into being when an individual accepts another
individual's judgement or a social norm as legitimately governing
his behaviour. Since the enquiry herein discussed deals with
authority in formal organizations, we turn to the work of Max
Weber who, in his formulative work on bureaucracy, gave much
thought to the development of the concept of authority, of which
he distinguishes three different types:
Charismatic—based on the magnetic force of an individual
personality.
Traditional—resting on a body of traditions, accepted as if
they had always existed.
Rational-legal—which is clearly articulated by rules and
attached to a position, not an individual.
It is this third type, legal authority, which is typical of the
bureaucratic organization, though within the bureaucracy both
charismatic and traditional elements will be found. That bureau-
cratic organization has played a major role in the Catholic Church
is well illustrated in the administrative role of the priesthood in
the modern church, in the appointment and functioning of a
universal Episcopate and in the common allegiance to the bureau-
cratic core, the Vatican.
Since Weber identified three types of authority, it is well to see
why he considered legal authority that typical of bureaucracy.
Traditional authority rests on the basis of the sanctity of pro-
cedure and powers of control which have been handed down from
the past and which "have always existed". Obedience is not owed
to specific rules but to the person who occupies the position of
authority. At the same time, the limitations of the sphere of
authority rest largely on the basis of personal loyalty and it is
difficult to define a boundary line for loyalty. Hence, traditional
authority is an unstable structure compared with the carefully
structured and regulated functioning of an administrative bureau-
cracy of legal authority.1
The strength of charismatic authority lies in the recognition of
the leader's superiority over those subject to his authority, this
recognition producing devotion, hero-worship and absolute trust in
the leader. If proof of his charismatic qualification fails a leader
for any length of time, and if he is consequently unable materially
to benefit his followers, his charismatic authority is likely to
disappear. Bureaucratic authority is rational specifically in the
sense of being bound to intellectually analysable rules; traditional
authority is bound to the precedents handed down from the past
and to this extent is also oriented to rules, but charismatic
To continue reading
Request your trial