Bureaucracy often gets a bad reputation because of the slow processes, endless paperwork and frustrating inefficiencies that are an inevitable part of it. But what if the problem is not bureaucracy itself, but how it is structured and managed?
In November 2023, the UAE government launched its Zero Government Bureaucracy programme, a bold initiative to cut red tape and streamline government services. The results have begun to fructify, with recent assessments highlighting the best and worst-performing departments.
With 2,000 unnecessary procedures identified for elimination and service delivery times set to be slashed in half, the initiative is an ambitious step towards making government more efficient and citizen-friendly.
But elsewhere in the world, including in Argentina and to some extent in the US, more drastic measures have been taken, such as eliminating large parts of the bureaucracy. Which begs the question as to whether such measures risk undermining the very systems that ensure accountability and stability. The challenge is not whether bureaucracy should exist, but how to make it work better.
The UAE, with its visionary leadership, has achieved tremendous progress in its public service delivery, business climate and institutional development, and has opened itself to experimentation. It is, therefore, well-positioned to be a global leader in optimising bureaucratic efficiency.
While the UAE’s digital transformation and AI-enabled initiatives are critical to optimising its bureaucracies’ outcomes, we must not lose sight of certain fundamentals that are essential for their efficient functioning. Addressing inefficiencies requires tackling root causes rather than simply treating the symptoms.
As an academic and researcher of organisations and management, I believe the key to making bureaucracies work lies in refining their design and ensuring competent staffing, rather than dismantling the model entirely.
All large organisations, whether government or private, are bureaucracies by default, in terms of their operating structures, reporting channels and sometimes inflexible functioning styles. Over the years, bureaucracies have become synonymous with inefficiencies, delays and meaningless rules, rather than institutions delivering seamless services.
Unfortunately, it is not practically possible for large entities to completely dispense with the bureaucratic model and its features as they exist today. This is because there is no alternate form to this model, to manage large, complex organisations.
What is possible, however, is to use the model better and make bureaucracies more efficient and accountable. Bureaucracies are by themselves not inefficient. It’s the people who make them so – first, by incorrectly designing them, and next, by staffing them with incompetent employees.
Bureaucratic functioning would significantly improve and costly restructuring exercises avoided, by selecting senior executives through competitive processes, demanding accountability for their actions, remunerating them adequately, ensuring stability of tenure, and creating systemic organisational checks and balances.
Bureaucracies often fail due to disregard for the original model’s key principles established by its founder Max Weber, who pioneered modern bureaucratic theory, and outlined key principles for bureaucratic effectiveness.
Briefly, these include the selection of competent staff through rational processes, assigning them tasks based purely on expertise, having well-defined hierarchical management systems with clear communication channels, career advancement being contingent upon qualifications and achievements, and the equitable treatment of all organisational members.
An effective bureaucracy operates in a professional, impartial manner, free from favouritism and inefficiency. The degree of bureaucratic efficiency achieved is usually proportionate to the extent these basic principles are observed or flouted within organisations.
Merit should override favouritism. Incompetent senior bureaucrats ensure their security of tenure by hiring incompetent subordinates. Over time, this generates organisational inefficiencies that are then attributed to the bureaucratic model, than to the incompetence of those operating the model.
Bureaucracies also fail when basic design principles such as spans of control, authority and responsibility, and unity of command are disregarded. These are vital, though old school.
Internationally renowned scholars Paul Adler and Morris Fiorina had extensively researched bureaucracies globally. While the former claims that properly designed and staffed bureaucracies can be highly innovative and efficient, the latter identified six categories of “bureaucratic failures”, attributable more to political factors than trained bureaucrats. I endorse these claims, having worked in responsible positions within large, efficient bureaucracies.
While Singapore’s public services showcase what efficient bureaucratic models can deliver, the same can be said of Tanfeeth, the local shared services organisation, as well as Amazon’s operations based in the UAE.
As humans, we often forget the past. Recall that this century’s global economic meltdown mainly owed to large corporations’ anti-bureaucratic measures, such as the minimal use of regulations, checks and balances, filtering layers, secrecy and highly centralised authority. While such measures speed up decision-making, they also expose organisations and stakeholders to significant risks.
The 19th-century English politician John Dalberg-Acton once famously said: “Power corrupts, and absolute power corrupts absolutely.” Well-designed bureaucracies help prevent such situations.
Bureaucracies are not perfect, and initiatives aimed at eliminating their inefficiencies should be welcomed. However, getting rid of the bureaucratic model is neither feasible nor beneficial. This leaves senior executives with two choices.
Either continue to live with inefficient bureaucracies and complain about them, or refine and manage them proactively, to enhance their efficiency while maintaining necessary safeguards. The solution is not elimination, it is optimisation.
