Shafritz, J. M., & Hyde A. C.
(1987).
Classics of Public Administration.
"Another feature of the bureaucratic structure, the stress on depersonalization of relationships, also plays its part in the bureaucrat's trained incapacity. The personality pattern of the bureaucrat is nucleated about this norm of impersonality. Both this and the categorizing tendency, which develops from the dominant role of general, abstract rules, tend to produce conflict in the bureaucrat's contacts with the public or clientele." (p. 112)
Costley, D. L., Santana-Melgoza C., & Todd R.
(1993).
Human Relations in Organizations.
"One approach in dealing with the problems of individual versus organization in the bureaucratic model is to develop an impersonal approach to human relations. Managers become more impersonal in their dealings with employees and attempt to ignore individual differences and focus on the task accomplishments. This leads to individual dissatisfaction because the employees believe that the organization is impersonal and is using them like a machine." (p. 75)
Morgan, G.
(1986).
Images of Organization.
As we examine the bureaucratic form of organization, therefore, we should be alert to the hidden meaning of close regulation and supervision of human activity, the relentless planning and scheduling of work, and the emphasis on productivity, rule following, discipline, duty, and obedience. The bureaucracy is a mechanistic form of organization, but an anal one too. And not surprisingly, we find that some people are able to work in this kind of organization more effectively than others. If bureaucracies are anal phenomena encouraging an anal style of life, then such organizations will probably operate most smoothly when employees fit the anal character type and can derive various hidden satisfactions from working in this context." (p. 209)
Allen, R. F., Kraft C., Allen J., & Letner B.
(1982).
The Organizational Unconscious: How to Create the Corporate Culture You Want and Need.
"One company we had the good fortune to work with some twenty years ago was shockingly changed when we visited it recently. People who had once cared deeply for one another and demonstrated high levels of creativity and innovation had become bureaucratized and uncaring, both in their work and in their interrelationships. The company had grown in size, but had shrunk in quality. Its earlier dynamism had become only a memory in the minds of the few who had originally created it." (p. 110)
Hodson, R., & Sullivan T. A.
(1995).
Social Organization of Work.
"In contrast [to bureaucratic rigidity], the conditions that have been found to promote innovation and change include the decentralization of power, low levels of formalization, equity of rewards, low emphasis on volume, low emphasis on cost-cutting, and high levels of job satisfaction (Hall, 1991). In brief, excessive bureaucracy and hierarchy may interfere with productivity rather than promote it. At some point excessive rationality becomes irrational. (Ritzer, 1993)" (p. 199)