Criminal Justice
Choose one of the three questions posed below and provide a 300-word minimum response.
Question 1: Although the term “bureaucracy” is neutral, it is endowed by deeply negative connotations. Why is this the case? Is bureaucracy doomed to this status because carrying out power is a necessary evil or are there other avoidable aspects to bureaucracy’s bad rap? The text cites a prime minister from the former Soviet Union saying “Creating the appearance of work, taking cover behind hollow rhetoric, bureaucracy may hold back the improvement of the economic mechanism, dampen independence and initiative and erect barriers to innovation.” What do you think?
Question 2: How have the systems theory and the structural approach been attacked? Are these criticisms valid? Are any of the criticisms so problematic that the approaches should be disregarded? Have these critics missed any weaknesses in the two approaches? If so, what are they?
Question 3: Some of the alternatives to systems theory and the structural approach are the humanist, pluralist, and formal approaches. How does the humanist approach humanize organizations? What are some of the criticisms of the humanist approach?
ANSWER
Systems Theory and the Structural Approach focus on the wholeness of society and organisation. The two frameworks aim at the comprehension of relationships and interactions of the various pieces of a system and their environments that makes it whole including the complexities and the numerous number of variables. Systems Theory and the Structural Approach have throughout time faced sharp criticism some to the level of putting the frameworks on disregard. These weakness include the facts that the approach creates a huge assumption that the different part of system work and aim for harmony and unity. Evidently, some variables have more impact than others while others have a higher degree of control than others (). This factor increases the unpredictability and uncertainty of a system when operated on as a whole rather than as smaller parts.
The question then becomes if the systems theory and the structural approach is able to gather the increasing complexities of human societies, the exponential variables and the operations required for efficient performance. Greater criticism from recent discussions offers that unless you are capable to map and view a system in its entirety, then it is impossible to understand it and hence operate on it (). This limitation draws the difference between a philosophical ideal and laboratory research which is the universe’s significant problem of solving the differences between theory and practice.
No single approach is able to actively offer perfect output but the combination of different theories and approaches may somewhat offer a clearer picture. Systems theory is a proper tool to observer the mechanics of a society and an organisation but not a perfect tool to found a final conclusion. More development is required which means that disregarding the Systems Theory and the Structural Approach is not an option for anyone.
References
Evered, R. 1980, “Consequences of and Prospects for Systems Thinking in Organisational Change”, in T.G Cummings (ed), Systems Theory for Development, John Wiley & Sons, Chichester.
Forrester, J.W. 1995, “The Beginning of Systems Dynamics”, McKinsey Quarterly, Issue 4, pp4-17.
