6

MAX WEBER
C. La/cshmanna, A. V. Satyanarayana RQO
In the study of administrative sciences. the subject of bureaucracy occupies a significant
place, for, this concept aims at explaining the power-control tandem in organised situations. Max Weber's
name became synonymous with bureaucracy, f01 he enjoys a unique place in the galaxy of social scientists
who have attempted to explain the concept of bureaucracy. Weber's analyses encompassipg sub diversified
f'telds of study ranging from history to comparative social sciences, have earned him immortality in the
academic circles all over the world. Weber's influence on the modem thinkers on administration is obvious
from the fact, that a majority of propositions and models on bureaucracy spanning over half a century are
considered either as different versions of Weberian model or attempts at contradicting it, thus making the
Weberian model the all important point of beginning. Similarly, Weber's theories on legitimacy and
domination have formed the basis for a number of further studies.
Max Weber was born in 1864 in a family of textile manufacturers in Western Gennany. After
completing preliminary schooling in 1882, Weber studied law at the University of Heidelberg. In 1889 he
submitted his doctoral dissertation on "A Contribution to the History of Medieval Business Organizations". He
joined the University of Berlin as an instructor in law and completed his second work called "Roman Agrarian
History and its significance for Public and Private Law" in 1891. He wrote a number of papers on law,
focussing the attention on social, political and economic factors prevalent at that time. In 1894, he became a
Professor of Economics at Fidelburg University. In 1896, he accepted a position at the University of
Heildelberg.
There are some factors in Weber's life which need to be considered before attempting to analyse his
writings. First, Weber's urge for analysis and systematised study, began at the age of thirteen. Second, Weber
always referred knowledge obtained through practical experience than library research. Third, Weber was
rogressive in outlook and yet conservative at heart. Fourth. Weber's writings reflect the social conditions
of Gennany of his times. Weber saw the decline of liberalism and the threat to the individual in the
bureaucratization of that society. Unification of Gennany under Bismark and elimination of liberal
middle-class movement convinced Weber that tne great goal could only be achieved through power
politics.

Authority, Organisation and Legitimacy

Among Weber's works on administration, his theories on domination, leadership and legitimacy merit
special mention. He propounded these theories with a broad perspective, keeping in view religion and
society and the way they mould the patterns of leadership. Weber differentiated authority, power and
control. To him, a person could be said to possess power, if in a social relationship, his will could be
enforced despite resistance. And such exercise of power becomes controlled. Structuring of human groups
owe their existence to a special instance of vested control authority. It manifests when a 'command of
definite content elicits obedience on the part of specific individuals'.' For Weber 'authority' was identical
with the 'authoritarian power of command'.a Weber identified five essential components of authority: (I)
an individual Or a body of individuals who rule; (2) an individual or a body of individuals who are ruled;
(3) the wiU of the rulers to influence the conduct of the ruled and an expression of that will or command;
( 4) evidence of the influence of the rulers. in terms of the objective degree of command; (5) direct or
indirect evidence of that influence in terms of the subjective acceptance with which the ruled obey the
command. Authority exists as long as it is accepted as legitimate by the ruled. An organisation thus can
rule or administer only when it has legitimacy. Explaining, tl!e authority of different kinds, in various
organisations, Weber conciuded that .. all administration means domination.''
He categorised the persons in organisations as under:

(1) Those who are accustomed to obey commands;

(2) Those who are personally interested in seeing the existing domination continue because they derive
benefits;
(3) Those who participate in that dominaticn in the sense that the exercise of functions is divided among
them; and
(4) Those who hold themselves in readiness for the exercise of these functions.
One thing that needs to be noted here is that Weber defined administration as domination or exercise of authority
while most other administrative scientists have defined it as service or performance of duty. He prescribed three
states of legitimacy each with a different type of apparatus' to justify the power of command. They are: legal
authority, traditional authority and charismatic authority.
Legal Authority

Manifestations of legal authority are found in organisations where rules are applied judicially and in accordance
with ascertainable principles valid for all members in the orga.raisation. The members who exercise the power are
the superiors and are appointed or elected by legal procedures to maintain the legal order. The subject persons to the
commands are legal equals who obey 'the law . The apparatus that implements the system of legal authority is
also subject to the same principles. Thus organisation is continuous and its members are subject to rules which
elimit their authority with necessary controls over its exercise.
Traditional Authority

Traditional authority derives its legitimacy from the acceptance of it since hoary past. The persons exercising
authority generally are called Masters' who enjoy personal authority by virtue of their inherited status. Their
commands carry legitimacy because of the customs but they can also give orders based on their personal decision.
Thus confirmity with customs and personal arbitrariness are two characteristics of traditional authority. The persons
who obey the orders here are called Followers'. They carry out the oommands of the master out of sheer personal
loyalty and a pious re~ardfor his time-honoured status. In this patrimonial regime the persons who carry out the
orders are personal retainers, household officials, relatives. favourites of the master. In a feudal society they are the
loyal allies oftht}master. Thus, in the system of traditional authority, the officials G~UTYingout the orders, look like
the household staff of the master quite spheres of activity change according to his whims and fanci~~ ,'1{~ver,all
these actions are legitimized in the name of traditions and customs.