The Impact of Bureaucracy in Catch-22
The Catch-22 film is based on the experiences of John Yossarian, a successful air force pilot. The clip discusses the impact of war and the bureaucracy that governs it on everyday people. Men's activities in battle are dictated by rules that have nothing to do with reality; their powerlessness stems from bureaucratic laws that prevent sensible actions (Ghengy, 2012).
Excessive Bureaucracy and Inhumane Behavior
There is a humorous exchange in the clip that is centered on the issue of following bureaucratic rules and regulations. For instance, the doctor claims that he has no obligation to ground anyone just because they ask him to, even though he admits that there is a rule that says he has to ground anyone who is crazy (Ghengy,2012). The example serves as an example of the excessively bureaucratic behavior of men in the war zone. Moreover, this conversation is pitiful as it highlights the inhumane aspect of bureaucracy. This clip depicts the process of bureaucratization, which was an integral part of the development of the United States economy in the 1950s.
The Endless Trap
The number of missions and rotations that are required to fly before being sent home are consistently raised so that no one is ever sent home. Essentially, since Colonel wants to gain promotion to become general, he keeps changing the number of missions that men should fly to be discharged. Each time a squadron member completes his tasks, the number is yet raised again, thereby becoming a primary trap from which these men are unable to escape. Furthermore, squad members continue to risk their lives by going to dangerous missions which the colonels have no trust in. Additionally, Colonel sends the soldiers on volunteer missions without their consent; to the superiors, the soldiers are inhumane resources who can be sent to brutal combat wars any time (Ghengy, 2012). For example, the superior officer tells the squadron that it is more important to capture good aerial photographs than to destroy their targets. In addition, he promises to look after the wives and girlfriends of those members who will not make it back after the mission(Kriger,& Barnes, 2002). All that soldiers can do is learn how to navigate their way through the bureaucracy, sometimes using its illogical rules and regulations to their advantage whenever possible.
The Dysfunctional Leadership
The leadership at the military is an illustration of bureau-pathology because the lives of men are governed by the decisions of impersonal frightening commands rather than their wills. Additionally, their attempt to get out of the corrupted system in an honest way was difficult and it prompted some members such as Yossarian and Orr to find other ways to escape. The superior officers are deaf to any attempts made by squadron members to reason logically; instead, they defy logic at all times. For instance, Major will only let people access his office when he is not around and also, Doctor Daneeka will not ground Yossarian for insanity due to Yossarian's desire to be grounded, which proves that he is sane (Way, 2008). All these instances show the irrational and dysfunctional aspects that result from exaggerated bureaucratic controls.
Flexible Decision Making in Critical Environments
Decision making in critical environments such as military combat operations is guided by a set of hierarchical procedures. As such, normative courses of action that are based on classical training models are rarely implemented in such environments (Cable, 2012). Also, colonels or superior officers making major decisions rely on a more intuitive adaptive process as opposed to the deductive analytic process. The adaptive decision making process leads to means-end inversion since the focus of the commander is on the expected outcomes rather than on the members, risks and possible alternatives to carry out the similar missions. Therefore, it is necessary for officers in this sensitive environment to consider incorporating flexible and decentralized decision making models instead of hierarchical decision making techniques (Ghosh, 2012). As a result, decision making will address competencies and effectiveness in carrying out duties and flying missions in order to achieve better outcomes.
Importance of Flexible Decision Making in Organizations
For innovation to flourish and to enhance effectiveness in any organization or environment, it is essential to promote flexible and decentralized decision making models (Whitford, 2010). In my case, when working for a printing organization, my boss needed printing papers for a huge order from a regular client. However, there are strict regulations in the company that no employee should be in the office after business hours. In addition, by the time the boss gave the instructions, it was close to the end of office hours. I was flexible to do the task in the evening and produce quality papers; however, due to the strict rules and regulations, I had to do the work only during working hours. The bureaucracy in the company rules hindered my ability to use an innovative approach to produce quality papers for the client. A means-end inversion model concentrates more on the end goal and pays little or no attention to the means, quality or process to the end goal.
Conclusion
In conclusion, it can be noted that bureaucracy as a component of formal organizations uses rules and hierarchical rankings to achieve efficiency. However, this form of decision making process leads to the de-motivation of employees and time wastage, which directly affects the ability of a company to be successful. Thus, it is important to note that bureaucracy and hierarchical decision making leads to dehumanization and excessive control of employees in an organization; as much as the processes have a few positive impacts on people. To ensure that a company realizes its goals, has motivated employees and maintains a steady growth in the world of business, it is of the essence to incorporate decentralized decision making models.
References
Cable, J. (2012). For Innovation to Flourish, “Bureaucracy Must Die”. Industry Week/ IW, 261
(6), 54.
[Ghengy]. (2012, December 18). Catch- 22 Explained. [Video File] Retrieved from
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5yeGMaT3Pvl
Ghosh, N. K. (2012). War and the pity of war: Joseph Heller's catch-22. Iup Journal of English
Studies, 7(2), 51-60.
Kriger, M. P., & Barnes, L. B. (2002). Organizational Decision-Making as Hierarchical Levels
of Drama. Journal of Management Studies, 29 (4), 439-457.
Way, B. (2008). Formal Experiment and Social Discontent: Joseph Heller's "Catch-22". Journal
of American Studies, 2 (2), 253-270.
Whitford, A. B. (2010). The Hierarchical Consequences of Reinvention: Evidence from the
American Bureaucracy. Journal of Management History, 16 (1), 59-74.
