2.2. 逆機能の構造

(1) 官僚制の非人格化の構造と規則による支配

　官僚制の職員は職務では「非人格性」が強調される(Merton,1968:256)．このことは，一般的規則が個別状況に適用され，法の下で平等な扱いが要請されるからである．「非人格性」は人物の個別性を問わないことを意味する．法の下では，出自・性別・家柄・貧富を問わず，形式的に平等に扱われる．特殊な個別ケースも他のケースと変わらぬ一般的対応が要請される．官僚制の職員は「人格的な関係を最小限にとどめ，…，個々のケースがもつ特殊性は無視される．しかし顧客は自分自身の問題は他とは性格が違うのだと確信している」(Merton,1968:256)．官僚制の職員は「取り扱いが非人格的で，…余りにも人情がなさすぎる」と非難される(Merton,1968:256)．逆に官僚制の職員の個人的で親身な対応は「情実，えこひいき，ご機嫌取り呼ばわりされる」(Merton,1968:258)．これらは組織の矛盾過程の問題である．マートンの「逆機能」は，官僚制の「合理的管理」と運営上の非合理的な「心情」との矛盾を指摘する．一方，ヴェーバーの官僚制理論の問題提起は，組織運営上の「合理性」と「合理性」との矛盾関係であり， 官僚制の合理性のサブ・カテゴリーを理解する必要がある．

(2) 逆機能と組織の「合理性」の矛盾過程

　官僚制の逆機能の一つは規則への「過同調」であった．規則順守への要請と過同調への非難は同一ケースで同時に成立する．規則は順守される必要があると同時に状況に応じて規則の枠を超える意思決定が要請される．規則の順守が本来の目的達成に逆効果の場合があり得る．しかし，規則の適用は状況に応じて異なれば，その場限りの規則の運用となり，制定規則それ自体を危うくする．何が「逆機能」で何が「順機能」なのかは利害状況で左右される．ヴェーバーは，一定の利害前提や党派性から判断される「非能率」の視点を回避した．「悪法」も「法」，「悪法」は「法」とは言えないのか，その妥当性は問題の深刻さ，党派性や利害状況に制約される．たとえば，臓器移植の脳死判定では，手順と規則が順守されねば，担当医師は殺人罪に問われる．原子力発電所の作業工程など場合，放射線量の重篤性を考慮すれば，手続き規則が，どれだけ「過同調」であっても「過同調」にならない．深刻で重大な事案や事故を想定すれば，手続き規則への順守は徹底気に，過同調くらいで問題ない．「逆機能」を指摘しても組織の問題解明にはならない．より重要な視点は逆機能にかかわる矛盾過程をどのように組織論的に認識するかである．

　ヴェーバーは，マートンが正しく指摘するように，官僚制の非効率の問題を重視しなかった．しかし，それこそが官僚制の問題を明確にさせる理論戦略であった．マートンは，合理的な規則の運用への心情的な反発(Merton,1968:252;253;254)を逆機能とする．官僚制理論の問題提起は，近代の合理的組織に固有な合理性と合理性の矛盾関係である．官僚制の場合，「形式」と「実質」の二律背反である．ヴェーバーは，組織の規則制定と運用の合理的性質に着目したのであり，効率性ではなかった．

　ヴェーバーは，官僚制の問題状況や矛盾を無視した訳ではない．マートンの逆機能の分析の問題の一つは，逆機能の動機の問題である．マートンは，逆機能を訓練の非合理的な心情に帰属させるが，より重要なのは，官僚制職員の意思決定の動機である．合理的な利得計算による官僚制の職員による意識的な「逆機能」の問題，W.A.ニスカネンの官僚制の経済的分析というよりも，ヴェーバーの問題意識は，規則の順守の利害ではなく，義務による動機，規則を順守すること自体が正しいとする組織成員の道徳や倫理観の現代的状況での喪失である．

．

(1) Structure and Rule-Based Governance of Bureaucratic Impersonalization

Within the bureaucratic system, emphasis is placed on the "impersonalization" of officials' duties (Merton, 1968:256). This is because general rules are applied to individual situations, demanding equal treatment under the law. "Impersonalization" signifies the disregard for individual characteristics. Under the law, regardless of one's background, gender, lineage, or wealth, individuals are formally treated equally. Special individual cases require the same general response as other cases. Bureaucratic officials are criticized for their "impersonal treatment" and being "too devoid of human feeling" (Merton, 1968:256). Conversely, personalized and empathetic responses from bureaucratic officials are labeled as "favoritism, bias, or attempts at flattery" (Merton, 1968:258). These are issues within the organizational contradictory process. Merton's concept of "dysfunction" highlights the contradiction between the bureaucratic "rational management" and the irrational "sentiments" in operation. Conversely, Weber's bureaucratic theory raises concerns regarding the contradiction between the "rationality" of organizational operation and its irrationalities, necessitating an understanding of the subcategories of bureaucratic rationality.

(2) Dysfunction and the Contradictory Process of Organizational "Rationality"

The dysfunction within bureaucracy manifests as "over-conformity" to rules. The demand for adherence to rules and the condemnation of over-conformity coexist within the same cases. Rules must be adhered to, yet decision-making beyond the confines of rules may be necessary depending on the situation. Adherence to rules can be counterproductive to the original purpose. However, if rule application becomes situational, leading to ad-hoc applications, it jeopardizes the rules themselves. Organizational objectives are not singular but intersect hierarchically with multiple objectives. What constitutes "dysfunction" or "function" depends on interests and circumstances. Even with specialized knowledge, judgments become entangled. Weber avoids the perspective of "inefficiency" judged from certain interests or biases. The validity of "bad laws" as "laws," or whether "bad laws" can be considered as "laws," is constrained by the severity of the problem and partisan interests. For instance, in cases like brain death determination for organ transplants or the decommissioning process of nuclear power plants, adherence to procedural rules may require just the right amount of over-conformity, lest it lose the trust of local residents. Failure is not just technical but also social. Pointing out "dysfunction" does not contribute to solving organizational issues. Understanding the contradictory process involving dysfunction from an organizational perspective is more critical.

Weber, as correctly noted by Merton, did not prioritize the issue of inefficiency within bureaucracy. However, this serves as a theoretical strategy to elucidate the problems within bureaucracy, as Merton identifies the emotional backlash against the rational application of rules as dysfunction. The issue raised by bureaucratic theory is the inherent contradiction between rationality and irrationality within modern rational organizations. In the case of bureaucracy, it is a dilemma between "form" and "substance."

Weber did not ignore the problematic situations or contradictions within bureaucracy. What matters is the motivation behind bureaucratic decision-making. The concern raised by Weber predates W.A. Niskanen's economic analysis of bureaucracy. Weber's focus is not on the interests of adhering to rules but on the loss of contemporary organizational members' morality and ethical views, where adherence to rules itself is considered right due to duty, rather than rational calculation of gains by bureaucratic officials leading to conscious "dysfunction."