Sophistry
Words and more words in defense of bureaucracy.
Again with the false dichotomies. Here, the opposite of bureaucracy is chaos.
We can have process without experts hijacking some measure of control despite providing little to no incremental improvement in outcomes.
Did a bureaucrat write this?
‘But bureaucracy isn’t just inertia, disengagement and red tape. It’s also order and stability. While bureaucracy has evolved into a pejorative term used to describe complicated and pointless administrative procedures, bureaucracy is, at its core, an administrative system and way of organizing. It’s the framework that provides the hierarchy and formalized rules that help an institution run. “The opposite of bureaucracy is not freedom and agility — it’s chaos,” says Mike Lee, a professor of organizational behavior at INSEAD. “When you remove all the formal structures, things become opaque, less fair and power concentrates at the top.” Exhibit A: DOGE, which has managed to create more turmoil in the federal government than it has efficiency.’
Who Is A Bureaucrat And Who Is An Engineer
According to the author, the answer is simple: engineers tell the truth and bureaucrats tell lies.
‘It is said that the CEO wants to replace bureaucrats with engineers but this may be easier said than done because it will be bureaucrats who will implement the policy of sacking bureaucrats and bureaucrats are notoriously effective a protecting their turf – it is, after all, their core competence.
‘How do you sack only bureaucrats in a group of 100,000 mixed bureaucrats and engineers? You can restrict the sackings to those without technical qualifications but many technically qualified people may have done nothing but bureaucratic work for decades while some staff without formal qualifications may be performing vital roles in technological functions.’
Apparently, without bureaucracy, we’d all be huddled in caves.
Did an expert write this? Why, yes she did. And she’s European.
‘Populists are wrong. As I argued at the recent Delphi Economic Forum, bureaucracy is not a sclerotic force doomed to stifle innovation and freedom, but rather creates the basis for both. From drafting laws and issuing permits, to preparing communications, to coordinating crisis responses, bureaucrats perform the everyday tasks that make society function. Without them, economies would grind to a halt, the rule of law would crumble, and political visions would never be realized.
‘Bureaucracy is, at its core, an act of rationality. As US President Woodrow Wilson pointed out, administration requires expertise – which is inherently neutral, not ideological – and therefore exists outside the tumultuous sphere of politics. For Max Weber, the intellectual giant of administrative theory, obedience to the impersonal, rule-based order that bureaucracy represents – rather than to charismatic individuals or entrenched traditions – is a sign of a society’s maturity.’
Bureaucrats get a bad rap, but they deserve more credit − a sociologist of work explains why
This false dichotomy in which organizations are made up of either bureaucrats or dilettantes manages to be tautological all at the same time. Throw in an overt reliance on authority (hey, Max Weber said it, so it must be true).
We don’t need any more experts like this, thank you very much.
‘Weber defined bureaucrats as people who work within systems governed by rules and procedures aimed at rational action. He emphasized bureaucrats’ reliance on expert training, noting: “The choice is only that between ‘bureaucratisation’ and ‘dilettantism.’” The choice between a bureaucrat and a dilettante to run an army − in his days, like in ours − seems like an obvious one. Weber saw that bureaucrats’ strength lies in their mastery of specialized knowledge.’
Author scandalized that the former head of the British civil service is sympathetic to measures to reform bureaucracy.
Once you’ve been in the sausage factory, you can’t get that smell out of your nose.
‘Whatever the fate of Musk’s experiment, Case’s kneejerk enthusiasm for it is, in our own context, perhaps the more interesting development, signalling a shift in the legitimacy of Britain’s civil service in 2025, and perhaps of liberal government in general. Nor is Case the first senior public servant to depart their office in a state of frustration, tipping into admiration for strongmen. David Frost, for example, who now writes outlandish Telegraph columns praising Trump and attacking “indoctrination” of children by teachers, was not only the chief Brexit negotiator under Boris Johnson, but a career civil servant in the Foreign Office since the 1980s. Mervyn King, who spent over 20 years at the Bank of England (and as governor for ten of those) was, by 2019, demanding a “no deal” Brexit, viewed by civil servants and businesses as national economic suicide.
‘Years spent inside Britain’s governmental machine at a senior level appears to have a radicalising effect on many individuals, nurturing their sympathy for libertarian and small-state regimes. In less polarised political times, Gus O’Donnell, one of Case’s predecessors as cabinet secretary, suggested Britain learn from Singapore by opening up the civil service to top private sector talent, through matching their pay and allowing senior staff to move back and forth between government and business.’
What Is Bureaucratic Leadership? Characteristics, Pros, Cons
Shopify “staff” put out a blog post explaining bureaucracy. Strange.
‘The most effective leadership style depends on company size, goals, and business environment. The bureaucratic leadership style is versatile and well-suited to large organizations and industries with strict regulations. In the construction industry, for example, work must adhere to building codes and safety standards. Construction managers may employ a bureaucratic leadership style to enforce safe-working practices and produce consistent results. Strict rules, such as the requirement that all employees wear a hard hat on site, help protect workers. A management chain running from individual workers up to the client ensures accurate results and creates accountability.
‘Companies that prioritize quick action and innovation may prefer a less rigid management system. Choosing a leadership structure that places more emphasis on individual contributors can foster a more dynamic, creative business environment. For organizations that prioritize speed, a system that retains control at the top for quick, unilateral decision making may be the right approach.’
Michael Lewis’s Paean to Federal Workers Hits Differently Under DOGE
Not every civil servant is the equivalent of Billy Beane or Michael Oher. The narrative here suggests they are.
‘Reading the essay collection Who Is Government? The Untold Story of Public Service inspires something of that same haunting dissonance. Edited by long-form megastar journalist Michael Lewis, the book draws together seven portraits of heroic individual federal bureaucrats—along with one essay about a particularly heroic statistic, the Consumer Price Index—that first ran as a series in The Washington Post. Two of the pieces are Lewis’s, while the remaining six come from a roster of non-wonky, literary-leaning essayists: Geraldine Brooks, W. Kamau Bell, Dave Eggers, John Lanchester, Casey Cep, and Sarah Vowell. These are good writers, and the book is a fun read. Indeed, the fun is what’s strange. The contributions vary in quality as narrative and analysis, but what unites them is a deliberately light, human interest-y, ingratiatingly accessible tone—“wouldja look at these geeky do-gooders go?” That tone is the source of the dissonance. As substance, the book is timely in an extraordinarily urgent way; as vibe, it’s a disconcerting fit for that very topicality. The plucky, unheralded bureaucrats get their day in the sun in this book, their song finally sung at the exact moment that their work and the institutional scaffold supporting it fall victim to a mad paroxysm of destruction. Cue the power ballad: Don’t know what you’ve got till it’s gone.
‘As deliberately light-touch as Lewis and Co. are with explicit argumentation, the essays in Who Is Government? do ultimately make the implicit case for bureaucracy—the core rationale for why we use government to perform certain tasks, and why lawmakers in that government would want to grant significant autonomy to unelected agents to carry them out. The writers’ shared instinct for character observation and portraiture, moreover, helps to elucidate a distinct ethos and personality type common in the civil service. It’s a culture that belies the image of a rogue deep state that animates Donald Trump’s demolition squad, whether in its vanguardist iteration under the Office of Management and Budget Director Russell Vought and his Project 2025, or in the edgelord tech-right anarchism suffusing Elon Musk’s DOGE. But it also stands unmistakably at odds with those wreckers’ own vision of work and collective purpose.’
Keene: Bureaucratic meltdown floods news by design
Americans in every industry in the private sector have had to contemplate job uncertainty and layoffs. Don’t expect a ton of pity for the civil service.
‘Now, we are at the “national security risk” portion of the left’s Outrage Cycle. Last week, CNN proclaimed “Our CIA Assets are in Danger from an Internal Email,” amid staffing cuts and an audit of the intelligence agency, complete with the “He’s Only 25 Years Old!” coda that omits the fact that the legislative branch is staffed predominantly by people in their 20s.
‘I would know. I was one. Shame on me for taking a congressional communications job at 23. Why should I have been given that level of responsibility at such a young and tender age?
‘Do not be fooled by the opalescent cries from disgruntled federal employees or their anointed guardians. This is by design. These are the final mews of a dying beast that knows the jig is up. While we each may know someone within the federal workforce, it is essential to remember that these jobs were never designed for people to make their permanent homes. The American people know this, which is why they voted for change in November.’