THE BUREAUCRATIC ENCOUNTER
… unfamiliar order
Bureaucracy introduced the people to unfamiliar paper, procedure and policy creating a new and uncomfortable social encounter. Unfortunately it had come to stay. It would need integration to be accepted and effectively incorporated to operate efficiently. This however was simply assumed.
Bureaucracy is the instrument used to create uniformity and order in running the affairs of national government. Leadership in Africa took up the challenge of learning the administrative ropes and as they gradually took over the staffing of organizations, leadership began to experience the power of privilege and position. Bureaucracy is a very powerful form of order but can also be a very painful form of oppression.
Leadership in Africa learned to use bureaucracy to exercise power. Bureaucracy has one main advantage and a glaring weakness; it creates a formal structure to handle social issues, but also offers the temptation to use procedure to defeat purpose.
With the attainment of independence came the challenge of handling power but also came a transition from “informal” organization to “formal” organization particularly in institutions.
Bureaucracy introduced a strain on personal relationships in society that can only be understood in the African context. The simple process of visiting another was intruded upon by an appointment. This and other ordinances of bureaucracy transformed social life and made certain groups of people completely inaccessible.
The desk is important imagery in bureaucracy. It represents and symbolizes bureaucracy. Bureaucracy is at once a barrier, a power and an intimidator as well as a long drawn out process. Depending on which side of the desk you are seated. you will either experience the thrill of control or the agony of submission? Bureaucracy provides an opportunity for uniform service provision but what is not so obvious is that it also provides an avenue and opportunity to exert undue influence.
During the intense years leadership in Africa came to handle hitherto unknown power and influence over their own and they could exercise it “officially”. The more crafty ones and those ill prepared for leadership realized the unprecedented opportunities it offered them and fell prey to the temptation of corruption. The culprits of this vice range from the high and mighty to the meek and lowly, form the most informed to the most ignorant. The vice offers very few demarcations on clients, patronage or usage.
OFFICE AND THE OFFICER
Bureaucracy also spread another new identity crisis for leadership in Africa. The line between what is mine and what is official. Does my whole identity change when I am appointed Officer. Am I still an officer at home? Can anyone question me outside of office? The demarcation between office and person suffered a scandalized gray area in which leadership could not determine how to act with bureaucratic responsibility and official resources. Society did not help to delineate the roles by providing the officer in society with an enhanced social status – The VIP. Thus society granted the officer (especially senior officer) unbridled social influence which opened doors for tremendous amounts of mischief.
SOCIAL CHALLENGE
Bureaucracy taught leadership in Africa that all people are equal but in different social stations in life. It introduced a good measure of segregation into society at large that was previously unfamiliar. The formalization of social classes also began to eat away at leadership development by maintaining a safe distance between the communication and progress of various cadres. It may have been acceptable when the foreigner was the officer, but it became a major rift when locals took office. Later on local officers began to experience untoward resistance from local staff whenever they tried to exercise the power that the foreign officers exercised freely thereby creating organization inertia that inhibited organization performance.
The later circumstances gave rise to the myth that only foreigners could effectively manage formal office (especially top executive positions) and that local officers were not only incompetent, but also incapable of managing office. Leadership in Africa suffered serious erosion of development by the bureaucratic process and many officers (leaders) had little or no opportunity to develop sufficient leadership competencies before being appointed to run offices.
As if to hit back at leaders, leadership learned how to frustrate leaders efforts using bureaucratic procedure and creating organization inertia. In effect leadership in Africa abandoned leadership to the leaders. Leadership was able to dismantle leaders initiatives by disabling the leadership process. A classic case of how bureaucracy can defeat itself.
THE BOSS
The boss may be the boss but the boss is not always right. Unfortunately bureaucracy does not offer the junior officer that option. The boss is not only the boss but the boss is always right because it is almost impossible to have him overruled. Bureaucratic order might appear sensible, but consider an organization that happens to have two or three officers of questionable competence situated in several layers of the administrative hierarchy. The errors of that institution may never be discovered until the officer leaves office. Given that many of the systems were “permanent & pensionable” how many people would have been injected with water instead of vaccine by the end of the officers tenure? This again points to the importance of leadership development at every level of an organization.
Bureaucracies are particularly famous for creating multiple layers of administration and a maze of procedures hidden in a labyrinth of doors in long corridors that finding error (or direction) requires a consultancy service. Many bureaucratic systems require detailed pace notes plus an experienced guide to navigate their rulebooks and decode appropriate procedure.
PROCEDURE
Leadership in Africa under the burden of bureaucracy was relegated to following procedure. It did not matter that you have a good idea. Bureaucracy took away ideas and the responsibility for coming up with them. Bureaucracy retained the duty of implementation alone and cut off decision making to a privileged few somewhere up at the top of the organization. Leadership was for a chosen few. This centralization of leadership functions damaged the development of leadership to the point that leadership instead of remaining a universal responsibility at every level of organization became a top organization function. An exclusive body of decision makers took over leadership in organizations. Nobody could effectively challenge them on any matter whether right or wrong.
TIME
The bureaucratic process raises an interesting conflict of priorities in Africa. Bureaucracy requires time and moves things along in bits and pieces. This is very frustrating because in Africa issues take precedence over time. Society makes time available for an issue; bureaucracy makes an issue of available time. One emphasizes resolution the other emphasizes process. I wonder which is a more effective use of time? Making time for issues or making an issue of time. Dragging matters on through time or dealing with them conclusively.
ETHICS
Adopting formal structures and systems and keeping them working has been a learning curve on which many mistakes have been made. The bureaucratic encounter serves to interpret the transition crisis from informal to formal leadership. But this is no excuse for leadership in Africa to turn away from the social responsibility so ably displayed in informal organization. Ethics is a big issue in leadership but more so in bureaucracies where the person sitting on the unfavorable side of the desk is rendered particularly vulnerable.
During the intense years there have been instances where those in power have taken undue advantage of those who do not have the power. Leadership in Africa must appreciate that this causes an erosion of confidence and support for leadership initiatives. This introduces organization inertia, compromises organization performance, fuels social unrest and generates socio-economic despondency. Bureaucracy however is found in and affects every area of national affairs.