Demystifying Bureaucracy

07/04/2025

Introduction

The word “bureaucracy” often conjures images of endless stacks of paperwork, slow processes, and a general aversion to change. However, it's crucial to demystify the idea that bureaucracy is inherently bad. In this first post, I want to explore the concept of bureaucracy, differentiating between “red tape” (bureaucracy that hinders) and “green tape” (effective bureaucracy), and how the latter can serve as valuable institutional knowledge, propelling organisations towards their goals.

Red Tape vs. Green Tape

Bureaucracy is an administrative system grounded in formal rules and procedures. This formality, in theory, aims to ensure consistency, impartiality, and predictability in organisational processes, whether governmental or business-related. However, when these rules and procedures become excessive, complex, and unnecessary, bureaucracy evolves into what we call “red tape”—the excessive bureaucracy characterised by complex and unnecessary rules that impede efficiency and agility.

In contrast, researcher Leisha DeHart-Davis introduces us to the concept of “green tape,” which represents the positive and productive side of formalisation. Instead of being an obstacle, “green tape” acts as a facilitator. It provides structure for the smooth functioning of institutional processes.

In an organisational context, “green tape” manifests in rules and procedures that, while formal, are intrinsically effective and add real value. They don't exist just for the sake of existing, but rather to optimize processes, minimize risks, and ensure everyone is “on the same page.” It integrates knowledge into institutional procedures. Imagine a well-defined IT change management process: it involves clear steps for assessment, approval, and implementation, which ensures that changes are made in a controlled manner, preventing unexpected disruptions and potential security problems. This would be an example of “green tape” in action.

The major difference between “red tape” and “green tape” lies, therefore, in the impact and purpose of the rules. While “red tape” is characterised by unnecessary complexity, lack of clarity, and misalignment with organisational objectives, “green tape” is marked by clarity, conciseness, and strategic alignment. “Green tape” rules are easy to understand, easy to follow, and directly contribute to the smooth operation of the organisation.

Bureaucracy as Institutional Knowledge

The idea that bureaucracy, at its core, can be seen as a repository of institutional knowledge is fundamental. Each rule, each formal procedure, can be interpreted as the crystallisation of past learnings, of solutions that worked in specific contexts, and the formalisation of best practices identified over time. Think of a standard operating procedures (SOP) manual in a critical area: it represents the accumulated knowledge about how to perform tasks safely and efficiently. When well-developed and maintained, this “bureaucratic knowledge” becomes a valuable asset, ensuring the consistency and quality of operations.

Therefore, the analogy with knowledge is extremely pertinent, especially regarding its validity and applicability. Just as specific technical knowledge can become obsolete with the advancement of technology, a bureaucratic rule created in a particular context may lose its purpose or even become an obstacle when the scenario changes. In a dynamic and constantly evolving business environment, excessive rigidity of bureaucracy can hinder adaptation and innovation.

A rule created to solve a specific problem in a particular sector or to deal with an exception can, when applied indiscriminately across the entire organisation, generate inefficiency and frustration. An effective solution for a specific issue can have disastrous consequences when applied outside its original context. In IT, for example, a very restrictive security policy implemented to protect highly sensitive data can, if applied to all types of information and all users, impair collaboration and agility.

This issue of undue generalisation often stems from a lack of review and a superficial understanding of the original purpose of the rule. The pressure for uniformity can lead to the application of a “one-size-fits-all” approach to situations that demand more differentiated and flexible approaches.

Another common source of “red tape” is the lack of updating formal rules. The business environment, technology, and regulations are constantly changing. Rules that made sense at a certain point in time can become obsolete, inefficient, or even counterproductive over time. I see this in the adoption of digital procedures that retain actions that only made sense in the era of paper-based procedures, such as the Moving Term (a document that records the transition of a paper-based procedure to a different sector). Now, the digital system already records the movement of the procedure with date, hour, minute, and even seconds, lasting no need to add a Moving Term. The absence of periodic review and update mechanisms leads to the accumulation of outdated norms that only consume time and resources without adding value.

To transform bureaucracy from potential “red tape” into valuable “green tape,” it is essential to adopt it as living and dynamic institutional knowledge. This implies:

By adopting this perspective, bureaucracy can cease to be seen as a burden and become a strategic guide, incorporating the collective wisdom of the organisation in an adaptable and efficient manner.

Conclusion

Demystifying the negative view of bureaucracy, we realize that by adopting the principles of “green tape” and valuing rules and procedures as living institutional knowledge, organisations unlock significant potential. Instead of an obstacle, a well-structured and adaptable bureaucracy becomes an engine of efficiency, a pillar of compliance, and, fundamentally, a driving force for achieving organisational goals with greater security and assertiveness.

May the “green tape” be with you!