The logic behind rationalization and formalization in the machine bureaucracy is premised on minimizing discretion and separating theory from practice. The theory behind the work rests with the technocrats who rationalize and formalize it; they do the thinking and the workers simply follow the rules. Conversely, specialization and professionalization are meant to increase discretion and to unite theory and practice in the professional. This is necessary because containing the uncertainty of complex work within the role of a particular professional specialization requires the professional to adapt the theory behind the work to the particular needs of his or her clients (Schein, 1972). In principle, professionals know the theory behind their work and have the discretion to adapt it to the actual needs of their clients. In practice, however, the standardization of skills is circumscribed ; it provides professionals with a finiterepertoire of standard programs that are applicable to a finite number of contingencies or presumed client needs. Given adequate discretionary space (see below), there is room for some adjustment. However, when clients have needs that fall on the margins or outside of the professional's repertoire of standard programs, they either must be forced artificially into the available programs or sent to a different professional specialist, one who presumably has the right standard programs (Perrow, 1970; Weick, 1976). A fully open-ended process — one that seeks a truly creative solution to each unique need — requires a problem-solving orientation. But professionals are performers, not problem solvers. They perfect the programs they have; they do not invent new ones for unfamiliar contingencies. Instead of accommodating heterogeneity , professionals screen it out by squeezing their clients' needs into one of their standard programs or by squeezing them out of the professional-client relationship altogether (Segal, 1974; Simon, 1977).
Listen