bureaucratic

简明释义

英[ˌbjʊərəˈkrætɪk]美[ˌbjʊrəˈkrætɪk]

adj. 官僚的，官僚政治的

英英释义

单词用法

同义词

反义词

例句

1.It was the result of a bungle: a bureaucratic rule-change misleadingly announced and over-excitedly reported.

它实际上是一次失误的结果：行政命令的变动被错误地宣读，然后又过于激动地被报道了出来。

2.The first is the need for a strong leader to stop international agencies' turf wars.Somebody needs to bang bureaucratic heads together and set an agenda.

首先，这一任务需要更为强力的领导者，以停止国际机构间的争权夺利，需要有人将官僚机构的头头脑脑们联合在一起并制定出日程表。

3.In general, our society is becoming one of the giant enterprises directed by a bureaucratic management in which man becomes a small well-oiled cog in the machinery.

总的来说，我们的社会变成了一个官僚化管理的大型企业，其中的所有人都成了这台机器中润滑良好的小齿轮。

4.Democracy is incompatible with excessive, bureaucratic regimentation of social life.

民主与受到过度的、官僚化的管制的社会生活是不相容的。

5.Office Darwinism" is a bureaucratic form of "survival of the fittest."

2“办公室进化论”是“适者生存”的官方形式。

6.In fact, the blue- and the white-collar workers have become economic puppets who dance to the tune of automated machines and bureaucratic management.

事实上，蓝领和白领工人已经变成了经济上的木偶，随着自动化机器和官僚管理的节奏起舞。

7.The new policy was delayed due to the bureaucratic 官僚主义的 processes involved in approval.

由于审批过程中涉及的官僚主义的程序，新政策被延迟。

8.Many employees feel frustrated by the bureaucratic 官僚主义的 red tape that slows down their work.

许多员工对拖慢工作进度的官僚主义的繁文缛节感到沮丧。

9.The bureaucratic 官僚主义的 structure of the organization makes it difficult to implement changes quickly.

该组织的官僚主义的结构使得迅速实施变更变得困难。

10.She navigated the bureaucratic 官僚主义的 procedures with ease to secure her grant.

她轻松地应对了官僚主义的程序，以确保获得资助。

11.The bureaucratic 官僚主义的 nature of government agencies often leads to inefficiency.

政府机构的官僚主义的性质往往导致效率低下。

作文

In today's fast-paced world, organizations and governments often face the challenge of balancing efficiency with the need for structure and regulation. One term that frequently arises in discussions about organizational behavior is bureaucratic, which refers to a system of administration characterized by strict policies, procedures, and hierarchy. While some may view a bureaucratic approach as necessary for maintaining order, others argue that it can stifle creativity and slow down progress. To understand the implications of bureaucratic systems, we must first consider their origins. The concept of bureaucracy dates back to the early 20th century when sociologist Max Weber identified it as a way to organize large institutions effectively. Weber argued that a bureaucratic structure could enhance efficiency by clearly defining roles and responsibilities, thus minimizing confusion and overlapping duties. In theory, this model promotes accountability and ensures that decisions are made based on established rules rather than personal preferences. However, the reality of bureaucratic systems can be quite different. As organizations grow, their bureaucratic nature can lead to excessive red tape, making it difficult for employees to navigate processes. For instance, consider a government agency tasked with issuing permits. If the process is overly bureaucratic, applicants may find themselves lost in a maze of forms, approvals, and waiting periods. This not only frustrates citizens but also diminishes the agency's ability to serve its community effectively. Moreover, the rigidity of bureaucratic structures can hinder innovation. In a rapidly changing environment, organizations need to adapt quickly to new challenges. However, when decision-making is confined to a hierarchical structure, it can take considerable time to implement changes. Employees may feel discouraged from proposing new ideas if they believe that the existing bureaucratic framework will stifle their initiatives. This can create a culture of complacency, where individuals are more focused on following rules than on seeking improvement. Despite these drawbacks, it is essential to recognize that some level of bureaucratic organization is necessary. For example, in industries such as healthcare and finance, regulations are crucial for ensuring safety and compliance. A completely unregulated environment could lead to chaos and endanger lives. Therefore, finding a balance between bureaucratic procedures and flexibility is vital for effective management. One potential solution is to incorporate elements of agile management into bureaucratic systems. Agile methodologies emphasize collaboration, adaptability, and customer feedback, allowing organizations to respond more swiftly to changing circumstances. By integrating these principles into a bureaucratic framework, organizations can maintain necessary regulations while fostering an innovative culture. In conclusion, the term bureaucratic encompasses both positive and negative aspects of organizational structure. While it provides a means to maintain order and accountability, it can also lead to inefficiencies and hinder creativity. As we navigate the complexities of modern organizations, it is crucial to strike a balance between the structure of bureaucratic systems and the need for flexibility and innovation. Only then can organizations thrive in an ever-evolving landscape.

在当今快节奏的世界中，组织和政府常常面临平衡效率与结构和规章制度需求的挑战。一个在讨论组织行为时经常出现的术语是官僚主义，它指的是一种以严格的政策、程序和等级制度为特征的管理系统。虽然有些人可能将官僚主义的方法视为维持秩序所必需，但其他人则认为这会抑制创造力并减缓进展。 要理解官僚主义系统的影响，我们必须首先考虑其起源。官僚制度的概念可以追溯到20世纪初，当时社会学家马克斯·韦伯将其视为有效组织大型机构的一种方式。韦伯认为，官僚主义结构可以通过明确定义角色和责任来提高效率，从而最小化混乱和职责重叠。在理论上，这种模式促进了问责制，并确保决策基于既定规则而非个人偏好。 然而，官僚主义系统的现实情况可能截然不同。随着组织的增长，其官僚主义特性可能导致过多的繁文缛节，使员工难以应对流程。例如，考虑一个负责发放许可证的政府机构。如果这个过程过于官僚主义，申请者可能会发现自己迷失在一系列表格、审批和等待期的迷宫中。这不仅使公民感到沮丧，而且还降低了该机构有效服务社区的能力。 此外，官僚主义结构的僵化可能会阻碍创新。在快速变化的环境中，组织需要迅速适应新挑战。然而，当决策被限制在等级结构内时，实施变更可能需要相当长的时间。如果员工认为现有的官僚主义框架会抑制他们的倡议，他们可能会感到不鼓励提出新想法。这可能会造成一种自满文化，个人更关注遵循规则而不是寻求改善。 尽管存在这些缺点，但必须承认某种程度的官僚主义组织是必要的。例如，在医疗和金融等行业，法规对于确保安全和合规至关重要。完全不受监管的环境可能会导致混乱并危及生命。因此，在官僚主义程序和灵活性之间找到平衡对有效管理至关重要。 一种潜在的解决方案是将敏捷管理元素融入官僚主义系统。敏捷方法强调协作、适应性和客户反馈，使组织能够更迅速地应对变化的环境。通过将这些原则整合到官僚主义框架中，组织可以在保持必要法规的同时，培养创新文化。 总之，官僚主义一词涵盖了组织结构的积极和消极方面。虽然它提供了一种维持秩序和问责制的手段，但它也可能导致低效率并阻碍创造力。在我们应对现代组织的复杂性时，必须在官僚主义系统的结构与灵活性和创新的需求之间取得平衡。只有这样，组织才能在不断发展的环境中蓬勃发展。