Max Weber’s “ideals” and the practical possibilities of their application in modern management

The article considers the main types of legitimate domination according to Max Weber, which cannot exist without mutual interest in management and subordination; for full-fledged domination, a “headquarters” is usually needed, that is, a group of trusted people implementing general instructions; domination cannot do without faith in the legitimacy of management. On the basis thereof the scientist identifies three types of legitimate domination: rational-legal, traditional and charismatic. Each of them, as a rule, is determined by the nature of the motives of the interested parties: whether it is material interest, value-rational motives or emotional attachment.
The most famous model is considered to be “bureaucratic”. Its key elements include the division of labor; a stable hierarchy of power, formed according to the official principle; permanent payments, a system of fixed rules governing the activities of the organization; the objectivity of the head and the high level of qualification of employees corresponding to their competence. The second traditional model is based on the faith of traditions and the personal rights of the person in power. It is no longer just a boss, but an absolute overlord who manages not employees, but subjects. That is, there is a complete opposite of the rational-legal type: subordination is not conditioned by an objective contract, but by the importance of the role of the dominant person, who, due to the established culture, has no restrictions at all, is capable of arbitrariness and requires unconditional personal devotion from subordinates. The third model takes into account the charismatic characteristics of the leader, revered by his followers.
The authors of the article are tasked to study, first of all, the strengths of the rational-legal model against the background of other alternative types of domination, as well as to address criticism that allows identifying shortcomings that were not taken into account personally by M. Weber. The result of the study is to determine the impact of his organizational concept on modern society.

1. Al’pidovskaya, M.L. (2007), “The concept of rational bureaucracy of industrial society by M. Weber”, Bulletin of the Financial Academy, no 2, pp. 82–89.

2. Baiturina, G.R. (2018), “Transformation of the Weber concept of bureaucracy in the models of R. Merton and A. Gouldner”, Socio-humanitarian Knowledge, no 4. pp. 239–244.

3. Breuer, S. (1988), “Max Webers Herrschaftssoziologie”, Zeitschrift für Soziologie, no 5, pp. 315–327.

4. Dmitriev, A.T. (2020), “Max Weber. Milestones of intellectual biography”, Sociology of Power, vol. 32, no 4, pp. 8–44. DOI:10.22394/2074-0492-2020-4-8-44.

5. Downes, E. (2003), “The life cycle of bureaucratic structures”, Classics of Public Administration: American School, transl. from Engl., Shafritz, J., Hyde, A. (eds.), Izdatel’stvo Moskovskogo universiteta, Moscow, Russia.

6. Dreier, H. (1987), Staatliche Legitimität, Grundgesetz und neue soziale Bewegungen,Wien, pp. 139–185.

7. Eisenstadt, S.N. (1982), Revolution und die Transformation von Gesellschaften. Opladen, Germany.

8. Makarenko, V.P. (2013), Russkaya vlast’ i byurokraticheskoe gosudarstvo [Russian power and the bureaucratic state], Rostov/Don, Russia.

9. Mayntz, R. (Hrsg.) (1971), Bürokratische Organisation, Neue wissenschaftliche Bibliothek, Berlin, Germany.

10. Merton, R. (2006), Sotsial’naya teoriya i sotsial’naya struktura [Social theory and social structure], AST: Khranitel’, Moscow, Russia.

11. Ovchinnikova, N.V. and Artemov, O.Yu. (2018), “Scientific priorities of RSUH in the study of the history of managerial thought”, Aktual’nye problemy upravleniya: istoriya i sovremennost’. V Speranskie chteniya. Materialy Vseros. nauch. konf. [Current issues of management. History and the present. Proceedings of the 5th Speranskii scientific conference], RGGU, Moscow, Russia.

12. Presnyakov, I.P. (2020), “’Polytheism of values’ by Max Weber. Contexts, origin, logical and methodological foundations”, Sociology of Power, vol. 32, no 4, pp. 68–106. DOI:10.22394/2074-0492-2020-4-68-106.

13. Roth, G. (1987), Politische herrschaft und persönliche freiheit. Heidelberger Max WeberVorlesungen, Frankfurt, Germany.

14. Semiglazov, O.S. (2020), “The concept of the state in the works of M. Weber and G. Landauer: Analysis of the Weberian definition from the perspective of anarchic theory”, Sociology of Power, vol. 32, no 4, pp. 123–145, DOI:10.22394/2074-0492-2020-4- 123-145.

15. Tenbruck, F.H. (1975), “Das Werk Max Webers”, Kölner zeitschrift für soziologie und sozialpsychologie, no 27, pp. 663–702.

16. Vits, M. (1999), Max Webers idealtypus der bürokratie, GRIN Verlag, München, Germany

17. Weber, M. (1990), “’Objectivity’ of socio-scientific and political cognition”, Weber, M. Selected works, transl. from Germ., Progress, Moscow, Russia, pp. 345–415.

18. Weber, M. (2016), Khozyaistvo i obshchestvo: ocherki ponimayushcheĭ sotsiologii [Economy and society: Essays of understanding sociology], in 4 vols., vol. 1, comp., general ed. and preface by L.G. Ionin, Izd. dom Vysshei shkoly ekonomiki, Moscow, Russia,

19. Weber, M. (2006), Izbrannoe: protestantskaya etika i dukh kapitalizma [The select. The Protestant Ethic and the Spirit of Capitalism [transl. from Germ. by M.I. Levina, P.P. Gaidenko, A.F. Filippov], 2nd ed., revised and enlarged], ROSSPEN, Moscow, Russia.