Two Types of Bureaucracy: Enabling and Coercive

This research was supported by several companies affiliated with the Stanford Integrated Manufacturing Association. Research assistance was provided by Emmeline DePillis. An earlier version of this paper was presented at the 1991 Academy of Management meeting. Several colleagues have helped us clarify the argument, in particular, Chris Argyris, Warren Bennis, Ed Lawler, Dick Scott, and Bob Sutton. We owe thanks too for helpful comments from Lotte Bailyn, Daniel Bell, Alan Kantrow, Melvin Kohn, Arie Lewin, Walter Nord, George Strauss, Marcie Tyre, Bart Victor, and Mayer Zald. This version owes much to the insightful comments of Steve Barley and the referees. This article proposes a conceptualization of workflow formalization that helps reconcile the contrasting assessments of bureaucracy as alienating to employees or as enabling them to perform their tasks better. Interpreting formalization as an organizational technology, we use recent research on the design of equipment technology to identify two types of formalization-enabling and coercive. Whether the impact of formalization on employees' attitudes is positive or negative is, we argue, a function of whether that formalization enables employees better to master their tasks or functions as a means by which management attempts to coerce employees' effort and compliance. We identify some forces that tend to discourage the enabling orientation to the benefit of the coercive orientation, as well as some persistent countertendencies that encourage the enabling orientation. We suggest some ways in which this typology can be extended beyond workflow formalization to other facets of bureaucracy such as internal labor markets, hierarchy, and the role of staff functions.*