Weber believed that ‘the specialized experts organized into smoothly functioning units by the bureaucratic managers would provide these elite managers with a decision-making ability foreign to the parliaments and the courts’ (Glassman et al., 1984, 5). However, in order for the role of managers within bureaucratic environments to be understood, it is necessary to proceed to a thorough examination to the structure and the characteristics of such an environment under normal social and political conditions.
Moreover, the acceptance of Weber’s views on bureaucracy has led to the assumption that bureaucracy (Fry, 1989, 41) ‘is not necessarily rational, it may not be efficient, that other forms of organization may well be more efficient, and that bureaucracy, by virtue of its structural and procedural complexity, may permit, if not encourage, evasions of individual responsibility. the paradox is that the very organizational features Weber thought to be associated with rationality and efficiency may instead be associated with irrationality and inefficiency. the impersonal application of the rules is intended to enhance organizational rationality and efficiency by encouraging a high degree of reliability and conformity in behaviour in the organization’. In other words, in order for the bureaucracy to be developed, it is necessary that a series of rules will exist and be applied throughout the organizational activities. If such a model will be applied within an organizational environment, then it is likely that the organization will develop a ‘punctilious adherence to formalized procedures’ (Fry, 1989, 42) which is also known with the name ‘red tape’. Under these terms, it has been found by Fry (1989, 42) that ‘the enforcement of rules becomes an end in itself, and this results in a ‘displacement of goals’ as an instrumental value (the enforcement of rules) is substituted for a terminal value (the accomplishment of organizational goals) as the purpose of organizational activity’.nbsp.