IN TERMS of communicational and behavioural transparency, expressive organisations are clear and fair in their business dealings that they are vested with. On the contrary, bureaucratic organisations have been stigmatised as opaque and grey in managing their affairs. Even there was a time, 141–87 BC, when bureaucrats were largely positioned into offices weighing and comparing between the recommendations the incumbent carried along, called xiaolian in China, which witnessed the transformation of bureaucracy from recommendation-based intake to the royal court to that of meritocracy-based induction during the Song dynasty. Whether an organisation would flourish as expressive or the opposite depends on a number of issues such as its structure, nature, situation and culture. Of them, widely recognised is Geert Hofstede’s cultural orientation and environment.
Organisational culture defined severally by different authors refers to a common denominator: the idea that culture is shared among members of an organisation. The most prominent organisational cultural model is Handy’s cultural framework which identifies four kinds of organisational culture: power culture, role culture, achievement culture and support culture. Role culture is a type of culture characterised by bureaucracy as work is coordinated by a manager or small number of managers at the top. In this culture, roles are seen to be more important than the people who play them and people have clearly delegated authorities within a highly defined and tall hierarchical structure. Although German sociologist Max Weber praises the efficacy and expertise of such order of a working setup and members of the bureaucracy, it is not considered functional and effective as the Weberian bureaucracy. Bureaucracy is redefined across the world as opaque, sloth and not attuned to the fashion of citizens. What is more interesting is that its ground is losing every moment because of its inability to speed up with the arrow of time.
Bureaucratic organisation along with its characteristic tall order is a labyrinth for a citizen who happens to be seeking service from it. The very gate of such a physical establishment is unwelcoming, ill-lit with unidentified rooms, etc. One cannot even make a wild guess what goes on inside closed rooms, let alone who sits where and who to seek any redress when needed. Another interesting feature to discover is that everyone is at the office but none is at the seat. If asked the whereabouts of the officer to whom a particular room has been allotted to be working in, the porter or assistant lurking around the room would be vexed to chew out an answer, saying that he or she is in the office but does not know for sure where he or she to be found. And, the service-seeker often falls prey to rent-seeking to get the information of equerries like how long it might take him or her to meet or talk to the desired individual. Because, people might pass each other frequently without exchanging any smile or glance. There is a hanging gloom, uneasy silence and fishiness everywhere. Gradually, one discovers that nothing happens therein without clandestine dealings between the ‘parties’ — the rent-seeking official and the outsider citizen.
Bureaucratic or sloth organisations do not limit their unfriendliness to the site. The outlets or public utility services are also distinctly identifiable from the first look — a sheer negligence about cleanliness and order. People are plenty to be seen around but they do not have any definite job. This is more so of the state-owned establishments, especially in under-developed countries. Airport, railway stations, filling stations, etc are manned doubly than the actual needs of staffing. They do everything but providing prompt services for the person in need.
On the contrary, an expressive organisation is well-lit, often using the sunbeams with flat structure or sometimes transparent cubicles arranged in a visible and easy way using a lot of signs, messages and directions — the lift, waiting area, washing places, accounts section or the board meeting room — ushering the service receivers into the right person’s place at the office. Even a stranger might be well guided following the signs and messages meant for leading one in the right direction once he or she is inside the establishment. There, one gets to know without bothering anyone to ask what is what and where.
An expressive, or often termed flat, organisation along with its office bearers is committed to serve its clients the best and articulates its intention to do so in clear messages to service recipients. For an example, the British railways and air services constantly announce what the passengers should do and not do considering their security and comfort while on a journey by train or air. In each platform and port, they make people aware how mindfully they should get on the train and also alight down from the compartment, how to wait for the train not to risk personal safety by standing too close to the gap between the railway and the station, not to let any unattended bag or luggage on the platform for security reasons and if one so does, what are the possible consequences, etc. Besides the 24-hour vigilance camera on the roll, the passengers are also advised to report to the law enforcement agencies immediately if anything suspicious is identified or spotted by the waiting passengers. As such, sojourners do feel like being attended and guided by a well-wisher all the time during his or her travel.
On the contrary, tall-ordered, bureaucratic system of running public transport system such as train or air services do not cater to citizen’s interests as minutely as those of expressive organisations. They just run the show mechanically. Passengers’ comfort and satisfaction are not prioritised in the planning of system development, if any. As a result, citizens lose trust and eventually opt for private services instead, which in the long run brings losses to the organisation concerned.
Could we wait any longer to witness more public organisations as mentioned above counting on the losses at the cost of their being poorly run on people’s hard-earned money which we adoringly call tax?
Md Mukhlesur Rahman Akand is a joint secretary to the expatriates’ welfare and overseas employment ministry.