Leader Analysis

In Leadership, James McGregor Burns describes bureaucratic leadership as impersonal, rule-bound, and heavily procedural. Leaders under this model focus on processes rather than people, often failing to tap into the motivations of those they lead. While many nations in history were not fully bureaucratic, their leaders often adopted elements of bureaucracy to execute plans.

Burns warns that bureaucracy can shift an organization’s focus inward, prioritizing relationships between managers and employees over relationships with the customers the organization is meant to serve. When internal processes overshadow external purpose, customers become an afterthought.

This raises a critical question: Can a large, complex organization — one spanning continents or worth a trillion dollars — succeed without falling into bureaucratic leadership? And if bureaucracy is unavoidable, how can leaders keep it from suffocating initiative and connection?

The Hidden Cost of Bureaucracy

Bureaucracy is meant to create order, but it can easily drain energy and morale. Target offers a telling example: in a recent internal survey, 40% of its 260,000 employees said they lacked confidence in the company’s future. Chief Commercial Officer Rick Gomez urged leaders to “remove obstacles and simplify” the way teams work.

That’s the essence of the problem. Processes designed to help people work together can, over time, become ends in themselves — creating delays, blocking innovation, and stifling decision-making.

Peter Rahal, founder of RXBar, admits he made this mistake. Decisions drifted so far from the front line that by the time they reached decision-makers, opportunities had often passed. With his new company, David, Rahal insists that decisions stay as close as possible to the problem. Authority at the customer-facing level — whether to approve a discount or resolve a complaint — keeps the business agile.

Balancing Structure with Agility

While bureaucracy can slow an organization, some leaders master the art of using it selectively. Consider the collaboration between Mondelēz and Hershey on Reese’s Pieces Buttercup, and Oreo mashup product.

Only a small, carefully chosen team knew about the project. They preserved brand secrecy while still working creatively across company lines. Both companies, facing reduced consumer spending due to inflation, needed a win. The leaders’ ability to bypass certain research and procedural barriers shows how bureaucracy can coexist with visionary leadership — but only if leaders know when to step around it.

Leading in Government-Heavy Environments

Some leaders face not only internal bureaucracy but also layers of external regulation. CATL, China’s leading EV battery maker, illustrates this challenge. CEO Zeng Yuqun avoids public flashiness, reflecting an unspoken understanding with the Chinese government: success depends not just on corporate strategy but on political alignment.

Zeng’s career shows skill in navigating both spheres. When his original battery company — a supplier to Apple — was sold to Japanese owners and later blocked from supplying Chinese EV makers, he launched CATL as a new entity. He managed internal organizational needs while respecting and maneuvering through governmental constraints.

Cutting Through Red Tape

At JPMorgan Chase, executives regularly tour branches across the U.S., meeting local officials and staff. In Detroit, this led to a partnership with the mayor to revitalize the city. CEO Jamie Dimon uses these visits to build relationships that open doors and remove red tape.

These visits also uncover internal inefficiencies. On one five-day trip, JPMorgan executives identified outdated procedures in newly acquired branches and corrected them on the spot. Bureaucracy works best when leaders actively review and remove processes that no longer serve the organization.

Keeping Customers at the Center

The throughline in all these examples is that bureaucracy should enable, not obstruct, the organization’s connection to customers. Effective organizations maintain a continuous feedback loop: study the customer, make changes, measure the impact, and repeat.

When internal processes block this flow of information, the organization risks becoming insulated and slow to respond. In contrast, flexible structures give leaders room to act quickly on market opportunities and emerging threats.

Moving Quickly — and in the Right Direction

Speed matters, but so does direction. Some organizations pursuing sustainability targets learned this the hard way. They set ambitious packaging goals with consultants and brand teams — appealing to customers — but failed to consult supply chain or manufacturing experts. Internal processes could have prevented such oversight.

The lesson is clear: bureaucracy should not be dismantled entirely. Well-designed processes ensure speed does not come at the cost of strategic alignment.

The Leadership Imperative

Bureaucracy is neither inherently good nor bad. It is a tool — one that can maintain order, manage complexity, and protect an organization, but also one that can slow progress and stifle initiative if left unchecked.

The most effective leaders know when to lean on structure, when to bypass it, and how to keep decision-making close to the action. They build processes that serve customers first, adapt quickly to the environment, and ensure the organization moves fast — but always in the right direction.