 Dear students, in this module, we are going to discuss the dysfunctions of bureaucracy. In our previous module, we talked about different key characteristics of bureaucracy. However, while understanding the bureaucratic structure, not every characteristic makes it more and more functional for the society. There are certain dysfunctions as well. Let us first see its formal definition that bureaucracy can sometimes produce negative outcomes or unintended consequences. In any work organization, the bureaucratic structures are not just positive outcomes, but also negative consequences. Sometimes they are intentional and sometimes they are unintentional. For example, inefficient decision-making, red-tapism, bureaucratic delays, lack of responsiveness to public needs. So, the process of inefficient decision-making is something like this. When bureaucratic organizations over-reliate on written rules and they become less pragmatic towards the existing situation, there may be situations in which they are pragmatic and have to take such decisions on a rational basis that may not be according to the written rules. But since they are bound to follow the written rules, therefore, inefficiency is created in them. Similarly, the red-tapism or formal maintaining the hierarchical structure is something that cannot be done from the top until the bottom and your file may take months to process because the hierarchical structure in the decision-making process cannot be breached. As long as the people sitting on formally established positions do not go ahead with the process, the process will continue to be delayed. The lack of responsiveness for public needs is also very important in this regard that public needs are subject to change. The written rules of bureaucracies are sometimes very obsolete, very old, they are also above the decades. And because of this, due to the absence of up-to-date written rules, which are updated or current existing scenarios are produced, modern needs are created, they are not able to tackle them. Due to which not only inefficiency comes, but there is no mechanism to tackle public needs. So, looking at the functions of formal organizations, when we look at its dysfunctions, we see that if bureaucratic structure doesn't update its rules and processes in time, then these inefficiencies can be created. Then there are different causes of these dysfunctions, for example, rigid adherence to rules and procedures, like we said earlier that formal written rules are very important that sometimes make these organizations more and more ritualistic, for example, more and more rational. So, when we talk about rationalism versus ritualism, then bureaucratic organizations, they are more ritualistic as compared to being more rational. Then lack of accountability or corruption also makes these formal organizations dysfunctional. For example, we take very clear examples of this in Pakistan, let's see how lack of accountability or corruption makes these bureaucratic organizations more and more inefficient, in which personal benefits are more important than public good. What can be the implications of this? What can be the after effects? Bureaucratic dysfunctions can undermine the public trust in the government and can lead to negative impact on the society. So, as you can see in Pakistan as well, the bureaucratic organization that faces corruption charges and its inefficiency becomes very clear, people become aware of it, that without corruption or without any approach, which cannot be done, the biggest implication of this is that they lose the trust of the public. When the bureaucratic organization loses the trust of the public, then the public develops a negative consequence in the government organizations. They develop a negative feeling or opinion. In this way, the formal organizations need to maintain their public trust so that the existence of these organizations is maintained.