bureaucracy

[Donkey]

Everybody has stories about their travails with government, or other bureaucracy. It is generally used in the pejorative sense, as what is wrong with government.

While I grant that there is a lot wrong with bureaucracy, I would also suggest that there is a lot right with it, that is, there are many benefits to it. I'd like to try to discuss some of the pros and cons that bureaucracy can afford.

Cons:
Inefficiency
Waste of Money
No incentive to cut costs
Enhanced opportunity for petty corruption
Fucking annoying
Unclear responsibilities/accountability

Pros:
Inefficiency
Spread out authority/power
Checks and balance on corruption
Employment
???

[wphelan]

I don't consider employment to be a positive aspect of bureaucracy. I grant that government jobs are necessary to carry out certain governmental functions. However, bureaucracy for the sake of employment is never a good thing. It's wasteful, and worse yet, it's incredibly difficult to eliminate once it is created. I suppose employment could be considered a secondary benefit to government jobs that are absolutely necessary, but I'm extremely leery of giving it any primary importance.

Also, what do you have in mind by labeling inefficiency as positive?

[Michael]

Now I know you are a true poli-sci dude! Only a poli-sci grad would say nice things about bureaucracy. ;)

To everyone else, it is the very definition of evil - "Kafkaesque" and "Byzantine" are two colorful adjectives that are normally used to describe bureaucracies for most people.

I will of course defend bureaucracy as one of the greatest acheivements in human governance. Without it, governments and corporations would collapse from the weight of their own inefficiency. Though, I'm referring to the modern system of bureaucracy as a rational system, not the Court Eunuchs of the Byzantine Empire here.

Btw, Max Weber is a particularly good theorist on this topic - certainly the source of my argument. :)

[Donkey]

I don't consider employment to be a positive aspect of bureaucracy. I grant that government jobs are necessary to carry out certain governmental functions. However, bureaucracy for the sake of employment is never a good thing. It's wasteful, and worse yet, it's incredibly difficult to eliminate once it is created. I suppose employment could be considered a secondary benefit to government jobs that are absolutely necessary, but I'm extremely leery of giving it any primary importance. I agree that it's probably an incidental benefit for society, but for many people it's a primary one.


Also, what do you have in mind by labeling inefficiency as positive?
I think that an overly efficient government is extremely dangerous to its own people.

[drgoodtrips]

Now I know you are a true poli-sci dude! Only a poli-sci grad would say nice things about bureaucracy. ;)

To everyone else, it is the very definition of evil - "Kafkaesque" and "Byzantine" are two colorful adjectives that are normally used to describe bureaucracies for most people.

I will of course defend bureaucracy as one of the greatest acheivements in human governance. Without it, governments and corporations would collapse from the weight of their own inefficiency. Though, I'm referring to the modern system of bureaucracy as a rational system, not the Court Eunuchs of the Byzantine Empire here.

Btw, Max Weber is a particularly good theorist on this topic - certainly the source of my argument. :)

What are you referring to here, exactly? The general idea of a hierarchical form of administration that is proportional to the size of the the body being administered?

Or what the pejorative has come to mean - process for the sake of process (the proverbial "foolish consistency", if you will)? I'm assuming the former, though it looks as though Donkey touts some of the merits of the latter, which makes me curious as to whether you agree.

[Michael]

What are you referring to here, exactly? The general idea of a hierarchical form of administration that is proportional to the size of the the body being administered?

Bureaucracy is a rational system of organization that can be applied to just about anything in large scales. It is a system of rules and standardized procedures within a well defined hierarchical division of powers.

I suppose the best way to understand exactly what bureaucracy is meant to do is to imagine a non-bureaucratic system such as used under feudalism where the hierarchy is not defined, powers are not separated, rules are not standardized and just about anything goes if you have the right political connections.

Thus, in comparison with the inherent corruption and inefficiency of a feudalist type organization, bureaucracy is a model of rational efficiency, despite its many known flaws. :)

Or what the pejorative has come to mean - process for the sake of process (the proverbial "foolish consistency", if you will)? I'm assuming the former, though it looks as though Donkey touts some of the merits of the latter, which makes me curious as to whether you agree.
This would fall under the label of "despite its many known flaws" mentioned above. :D

The proverbial "foolish inconsistency" that you speak of is something that one has to accept in principle as it is a rationally logical result of a rules ordered system. It is inherent to the process. One might seek to mitigate against unfortunate effects of this, but one cannot eliminate this entirely without eliminating the system itself.

Theoretically speaking, a "foolish inconsistency" in a properly functional bureaucracy ought to produce a 'non-functional' result-feedback to the system and a resolution of that particular inconsistency would likely follow (eventually).

[Donkey]

*thread necro alert*

As a professional organizer/activist I attend a lot of, often boring, conferences and trainings. Most of them get rather dreary, but this one (hopefully tomorrow will continue to be) has been rather interesting. We spent a lot of time this morning discussing reframing the debate about government. We discussed differentiating between opposing certain government action (e.g. everything that is happening in Ohio right now) and the tea-party narrative of simply tearing down government. This is a "messaging" conference, but we mostly focused on how we discuss the importance of government services and public structure (whether it be roads, social security, fire departments, parks, etc.) in terms that people do not immediately reject. Example: if you ask people what government does, you'll get a big "uhhhh..." If you ask them in terms of services that they rely on from government, the answer is immediate.

Anyway, it reminded me of this thread. I find it interesting that my views on government haven't really changed.

[Michael]

*thread necro alert*
...
Anyway, it reminded me of this thread. I find it interesting that my views on government haven't really changed.

Thanks for the bump! I never actually addressed your views on bureaucracy outlined in the OP - but now I will! :D

Btw, I'm a bit spooked by your 'blurring' of the terms of "government" and "bureaucracy". The former is the general enterprise, the latter is specifically a technique. They are actually quite different from each other in practice.

Indeed, most 'failures' or 'problems' of bureaucracy occur when the organizational principles are not properly bureaucratic, or non-bureaucratic elements have been permitted to interfere and/or over-rule the bureaucratic order.

Without a doubt, bureaucracy is the greatest advancement in organizational efficiency in the history of society. The idea of bureaucracy is essentially the same principle as the 'rule of law'. All actions and functions of the institution are meant to follow rules that are rational, comprehensive, efficient and impersonal.


Cons:
Inefficiency
Waste of Money
No incentive to cut costs
Enhanced opportunity for petty corruption
Fucking annoying
Unclear responsibilities/accountability
1. The existence of 'waste' (or corruption) in a bureaucratic system is a function of the political or executive level imposing policies or decisions that cause or encourage such waste or opportunities for corruption. This is a failure of political culture, not the organizational principle of bureaucracy.

2. The principle of bureaucracy is mostly policy-neutral. If there are incentives for cost cutting and profit enhancing built into the system - as there is in the private sector - then you will find bureaucracies that are highly efficient at cutting costs and enhancing profits. I understand the US healthcare insurance industry is a good example of this. Most US Government bureaucracies tend to be completely subsumed by political interference that prevents them from functioning as actual bureaucracies.

3. The greatest quality of the bureaucratic process is the reduction of systemic graft. It takes actual political willpower and policy to ensure that opportunities for political graft is protected against bureaucratic interference.
Political graft is the invisible grease of the political system. The US government bureaucracy is merely used to hide or obscure this. As I've previously noted, the US government bureaucracy is not very bureaucratic - it is very much 'meritocratic' where 'merit' is defined by personal political connections and/or political party.

4. The whole definition of bureaucracy is that it is completely defined with rational processes and procedures. It is content-neutral. The key to understanding any given bureaucracy is to observe the actual policy-goals of the organization.

5. Annoyance with properly run bureaucracies often comes from unreasonable expectations of personal service or special treatment. Bureaucracies work best when they treat everyone impersonally and impartially.


Pros:
Inefficiency
Spread out authority/power
Checks and balance on corruption
Employment
???

1. Decentralization of decision-making is a separate but related concept to the idea of bureaucracy. In pure bureaucratic systems, the decision-making process is always centralized by definition. Ergo, decentralization represents the policy choice of reducing the effectiveness of the bureaucracy by forcing it to function according to political goals of regionalism or factionalism.

2. Checks and balance on corruption is indeed one of the greatest qualities of good bureaucratic systems. The obsessive and comprehensive process of cross-checking information rationally produces an investigative process that can and will identify improprieties. But this is directly related to how much political (or executive) willpower is available to support it. When the political or executive authority is the one doing the corrupting, the bureaucracy is powerless to prevent it for they are under orders to follow it (or ignore it).

3. Bureaucracy is much like democracy, it is the worst system of large scale organization, except for all the rest. No other form of organizational principle can ever hope to match the large scale efficiency and effectiveness of a well run bureaucracy. That's why you find bureaucratic systems (and lots of fake copies) just about everywhere (governments, corporations, associations, unions, etc). It just works way better than anything else.

[Donkey]

Thanks for the bump! I never actually addressed your views on bureaucracy outlined in the OP - but now I will! :D

Btw, I'm a bit spooked by your 'blurring' of the terms of "government" and "bureaucracy". The former is the general enterprise, the latter is specifically a technique. They are actually quite different from each other in practice.


Hmm... fair point. Bureaucracy can exist without government, and vice versa. I guess I was speaking specifically to bureaucratic government. :)

[evanescence]

I agree that it's probably an incidental benefit for society, but for many people it's a primary one.


I think that an overly efficient government is extremely dangerous to its own people.

How so? I can't think of any benefits to inefficiency.

[Donkey]

How so? I can't think of any benefits to inefficiency.

The US courts system is highly inefficient for processing criminals...

[Michael]

The US courts system is highly inefficient for processing criminals...

And what's the public benefit in that? :ummm:

[Donkey]

And what's the public benefit in that? :ummm:
The built in inefficiency in, say, taking someone from arrest to execution is great for people falsely accused of murder. In a country where all that lies between you and a shallow grave is a dude with a mustache and aviators, I think the inefficient US system of justice would be pretty welcomed.

But the bottom line of my point is, in a system inherently filled with human error (justice system or anything else), slowing it down provides more checks, accountability, and more likelihood that someone along the way might say "hold on, that's a terrible idea."

Look how close we came to nuclear war a few times. The inefficiency of the bureaucratic system helped with us not ever actually shooting nukes at each other (other than WWII).

[evanescence]

The US courts system is highly inefficient for processing criminals...

And what's the public benefit in that? :ummm:

The built in inefficiency in, say, taking someone from arrest to execution is great for people falsely accused of murder. In a country where all that lies between you and a shallow grave is a dude with a mustache and aviators, I think the inefficient US system of justice would be pretty welcomed.

But the bottom line of my point is, in a system inherently filled with human error (justice system or anything else), slowing it down provides more checks, accountability, and more likelihood that someone along the way might say "hold on, that's a terrible idea."

Look how close we came to nuclear war a few times. The inefficiency of the bureaucratic system helped with us not ever actually shooting nukes at each other (other than WWII).

No matter which form of semantics one uses, inefficiency is not a positive. Simply correcting mistakes instead of relying on inefficiency (mistakes), is a better option.

[Donkey]

No matter which form of semantics one uses, inefficiency is not a positive. Simply correcting mistakes instead of relying on inefficiency (mistakes), is a better option.
Not all that simple. Inefficient is a pejorative, not a negative.

[drgoodtrips]

Theoretically speaking, a "foolish inconsistency" in a properly functional bureaucracy ought to produce a 'non-functional' result-feedback to the system and a resolution of that particular inconsistency would likely follow (eventually).

I didn't remember this from the original conversation, but that's kind of a fascinating thought. I read an article some time back talking about the potential benefits of setting a certain bar for consideration in things like job hiring or college admissions and just picking people at random if they meet the minimum criteria. Further, it discussed the merits of introducing random change to a procedurally ordered system (for instance, promoting people randomly in a company).

I forget the exact nature of the argument, but the gist of it was that people don't really excel at predicting the effects of such snap judgments. One might submit job candidates to a rigorous and calculated process and still hire a dope while passing on a superstar. So, rather than waste time and resources on the equivalent of trying to predict the weather in a year, the argument went, one should focus instead on introducing as much variance as possible to the system and choose the best outcomes. Promote/hire/accept people at random until one group emerges as particularly effective and then seek to duplicate the success, for example.

In the context of a bureaucracy and with a Catch 22 like cynicism, I can imagine a scheme where rules and regulations are created at random (probably not too far from the way things actually work in US government bureaucracies), and then systematically evaluated for effectiveness (this is probably not true at all, currently). If you didn't worry to much about which regulations to create, but focussed on culling bad results, you might 'organically' create a pretty efficient bureaucracy.

Or not. I dunno. Just a random thought that your post inspired.

[Michael]

I didn't remember this from the original conversation, but that's kind of a fascinating thought. I read an article some time back talking about the potential benefits of setting a certain bar for consideration in things like job hiring or college admissions and just picking people at random if they meet the minimum criteria. Further, it discussed the merits of introducing random change to a procedurally ordered system (for instance, promoting people randomly in a company).

I forget the exact nature of the argument, but the gist of it was that people don't really excel at predicting the effects of such snap judgments. One might submit job candidates to a rigorous and calculated process and still hire a dope while passing on a superstar. So, rather than waste time and resources on the equivalent of trying to predict the weather in a year, the argument went, one should focus instead on introducing as much variance as possible to the system and choose the best outcomes. Promote/hire/accept people at random until one group emerges as particularly effective and then seek to duplicate the success, for example.

In the context of a bureaucracy and with a Catch 22 like cynicism, I can imagine a scheme where rules and regulations are created at random (probably not too far from the way things actually work in US government bureaucracies), and then systematically evaluated for effectiveness (this is probably not true at all, currently). If you didn't worry to much about which regulations to create, but focussed on culling bad results, you might 'organically' create a pretty efficient bureaucracy.

Or not. I dunno. Just a random thought that your post inspired.

I don't think you are far off. Studies of the ancient Athenian 'true' democratic system suggest that choosing government officials by random/lot selection is no worse than any other system of selecting officials, and potentially more effective (less wasted effort, less corruption, more inclusive, more popular with the citizenry, etc.).

[evanescence]

Not all that simple. Inefficient is a pejorative, not a negative.

Efficiency is a positive. Inefficiency is not a positive. :shrug:

[Donkey]

Efficiency is a positive. Inefficiency is not a positive. :shrug:
*sigh*

I've already somewhat countered this. Are you going to answer my points, or just make simplistic assertions?

[drgoodtrips]

Efficiency is a positive. Inefficiency is not a positive. :shrug:

If you have an adversary, the inefficiency of your adversary is a positive.

[evanescence]

*sigh*

I've already somewhat countered this. Are you going to answer my points, or just make simplistic assertions?

It is simplistic.

Efficiency:

accomplishment of or ability to accomplish a job with a minimum expenditure of time and effort: The assembly line increased industry's efficiency.

Inefficiency:

unable to perform a task or function to the best advantage; wasteful or incompetent 2. unable to produce the desired result


Sounds cut and dry to me.

[Donkey]

It is simplistic.

Efficiency:

accomplishment of or ability to accomplish a job with a minimum expenditure of time and effort: The assembly line increased industry's efficiency.

Inefficiency:

unable to perform a task or function to the best advantage; wasteful or incompetent 2. unable to produce the desired result


Sounds cut and dry to me.


Great! Unless you are a wrongfully accused person facing execution! Or you are (metaphorically speaking) a large expenditure that is completely wasteful that will be approved by someone not thinking straight that day unless there are built in bureaucratic inefficiencies.

You are either completely close minded to alternative perspectives, or once you make up your mind you are determined to advocate your position to the death. Whichever it is, I don't really care.

[evanescence]

Great! Unless you are a wrongfully accused person facing execution! Or you are (metaphorically speaking) a large expenditure that is completely wasteful that will be approved by someone not thinking straight that day unless there are built in bureaucratic inefficiencies.

Red herring. An efficient system doesn't condemn an innocent person to death. A flawed system does. However, that's neither here nor there. ;)

But I'm glad to see you no longer want to argue about those definitions.

You are either completely close minded to alternative perspectives, or once you make up your mind you are determined to advocate your position to the death. Whichever it is, I don't really care.

Neither.

[Donkey]

:rolleyes:

[evanescence]

:rolleyes:

So eloquently put.

[Donkey]

So eloquently put.

I'll let Barney Frank take it from here.


Edit:

*sigh* Against my better judgment, I'll bite. If we accept what you're saying about the definition of inefficiency, then we'll have to change some of the descriptions of bureaucracy that people like to refer to as "inefficient."

[wphelan]

Red herring. An efficient system doesn't condemn an innocent person to death. A flawed system does. However, that's neither here nor there. ;)

But I'm glad to see you no longer want to argue about those definitions.



Just because a system is effecient doesn't mean it's not flawed. I don't think efficiency and perfection are the same thing.

[Donkey]

Just because a system is effecient doesn't mean it's not flawed. I don't think efficiency and perfection are the same thing.

A justice system can be efficient at arresting, prosecuting, and convicting "criminals."

That doesn't mean that it's a good thing.

[wphelan]

A justice system can be efficient at arresting, prosecuting, and convicting "criminals."

That doesn't mean that it's a good thing.

I meant to say that even a so called 'efficient' system can produce flawed results. So if the system, in this case the laws themselves, are flawed or unjust then I agree that inefficiency can be a positive.

[Donkey]

I meant to say that even a so called 'efficient' system can produce flawed results. So if the system, in this case the laws themselves, are flawed or unjust then I agree that inefficiency can be a positive.

Or perhaps the arbiters/enforcers of the law? Bureaucracy controls for human flaw.

[Americano]

I meant to say that even a so called 'efficient' system can produce flawed results. So if the system, in this case the laws themselves, are flawed or unjust then I agree that inefficiency can be a positive.

Wouldn't that depend on which portion of society, ruling elite or general public, considers them efficient? The US has a judicial system offering vast employment, an enormous bureaucracy and wealth for questioning and in some cases reversing enforcement of laws determined by legal precedent.

[evanescence]

I'll let Barney Frank take it from here.


Edit:

*sigh* Against my better judgment, I'll bite. If we accept what you're saying about the definition of inefficiency, then we'll have to change some of the descriptions of bureaucracy that people like to refer to as "inefficient."

imo, bureaucracy gets less efficient the bigger it gets. I don't believe that bureaucracy by itself is inherently bad, it just becomes less efficient because more people are involved.

Just because a system is effecient doesn't mean it's not flawed. I don't think efficiency and perfection are the same thing.

People are flawed so any system dependent on people will always be flawed.

[Americano]

People are flawed so any system dependent on people will always be flawed.

You've very polite. I view bureaucracies (public workers) as mostly self-serving and politically corrupt. While necessary, they do serve at the whim of their thoroughly corrupt political leadership. A minority would be tolerated in the private sector, which is why they seek the relative security of public service.

[Donkey]

imo, bureaucracy gets less efficient the bigger it gets. I don't believe that bureaucracy by itself is inherently bad, it just becomes less efficient because more people are involved.


Yeah that was kind of my point.

[evanescence]

You've very polite. I view bureaucracies (public workers) as mostly self-serving and politically corrupt. While necessary, they do serve at the whim of their thoroughly corrupt political leadership. A minority would be tolerated in the private sector, which is why they seek the relative security of public service.

Couldn't agree more. I thought the word 'flawed' covered that.

Yeah that was kind of my point.

Sure it was..

[Donkey]

Sure it was..

If you would read my fucking posts...

[evanescence]

You so often disagree with my posts snidely, and then when I rephrase what I mean, you're like "that was my point" or "duh" or some other drive by post. :shrug:

[Donkey]

You so often disagree with my posts snidely, and then when I rephrase what I mean, you're like "that was my point" or "duh" or some other drive by post. :shrug:
But that was (part of) my point. The more people involved in a larger bureaucracy (and the inevitable slow down) can be a good thing!

[Michael]

But that was (part of) my point. The more people involved in a larger bureaucracy (and the inevitable slow down) can be a good thing!

I'm inclined to disagree about the former. The relative and subjective "goodness" of bureaucratic inefficiency is beside the point and entirely unresolvable.

Bureaucracy is popular and useful specifically because it is the only organizational system that can be scaled up. If anything, I'd aver that small-scale bureaucracies are less efficient than large ones due to the quality of management and the lack of expertise from specialization.

As I've noted previously, the frustrating nightmares of bureaucracy come not from the principles or application of bureaucracy, but orginate with orders/laws coming from the political side (or executive side). Bureaucracies often act frustratingly weird, but that's because they are pursuing policy goals and instructions that you probably don't personally agree with.

For example, I have had the experience of having to explain to a group of accountant/consultants how an existing internal paperwork system (a bureaucracy) actually flows around the plant and the office for production-job-costing purposes. They would always focus their questions on the 'weird' detours that were developed to deal with the arbrary inefficiencies of anything involving the owner of the company (the boss). Paperwork for his jobs moved in a different way because the boss himself, just wouldn't play along with the official company system. He owns the company, so no one is going to argue with him. Everyone is ordered to follow the official rules and procedures - the bossman is exempt. So our perfectly bureaucratic systems had to address these 'detours' in ways that were entirely unbureaucratic.

Some smaller jobs belonging to one of the smaller clients on the bossman's client list would occaisionally get lost in a 'black hole' because of this. None of our normal bureaucratic office systems would pick up that ill-fated little job because it wasn't in the system for tracking it. How do you track something that isn't in the tracking system? "You can't". But it is a job in production? "Yes". I love the looks on the faces of the accountants when they ask that! :D

This is common in the private sector. Boss-egos are always 'large obsticles' to work around. The public sector has different 'large obsticles' - usually political ones - and these produce weird results that don't make sense to anyone except those who work there and are familiar with the reason for it. To outsiders, these always look like bureaucratic inefficiencies. That's usually the easiest thing to blame, so that's what gets blamed. :shrug:

[evanescence]

But that was (part of) my point. The more people involved in a larger bureaucracy (and the inevitable slow down) can be a good thing!

I get your point that it could "catch the mistakes" made by a flawed system. But true efficiency should be accurate enough on its own. imo, no matter which system we have in place, people will be what's wrong with the system, so nothing can ultimately be done about it. Let's say we invented a "perfect" system on paper. Once applied to reality, it would quickly disintegrate because of the corrupted, biased, and self centered people who manage the system. The innocent will never be spared no matter which system is in place-efficient or inefficient.

[Donkey]

I get your point that it could "catch the mistakes" made by a flawed system. But true efficiency should be accurate enough on its own. imo, no matter which system we have in place, people will be what's wrong with the system, so nothing can ultimately be done about it. Let's say we invented a "perfect" system on paper. Once applied to reality, it would quickly disintegrate because of the corrupted, biased, and self centered people who manage the system. The innocent will never be spared no matter which system is in place-efficient or inefficient.
Why not?

I'm not really even sure what point you're trying to make. To me it seems like you're saying "Well I guess you might be right, but I don't want to admit that slowing things down might make things better so I'm going to revert back to some truism and dig my heels in."

Ah well. Carry on.

[drgoodtrips]

The subject of efficiency versus inefficiency is a very interesting one, and something that is tangentially touched upon in some of the arcane, math oriented sorts of things I do in pursuit of my MS for computer science. I've been thinking about this a little in the last few days -- the idea of efficiency or inefficiency being beneficial.

I think the problem with the framing of the argument you guys are having might be the lack of a definition of some kind of reasonable constraints. For instance, in theory, more efficiency is always possible (mathematically, take the time it takes to do something and you can always construct something that takes less time). In practice, that isn't going to be the case as there are fixed time tasks. For instance, in the current state of the world, women cannot be more 'efficient' at being pregnant.

So, consider that case for a minute, and let's say you have two tasks: carrying a child to term and being mentally prepared to have an infant. Let's also say that being mentally prepared for the infant too late is bad (obviously) and that it's also bad to be prepared too early as the prospective mother starts to get impatient. Finally, let's assume that the mother has some ability to control how long it takes to be ready, say, by making choices between partying with her friends versus buying items for the nursery and the like.

Forgetting for a moment the vague, psychobabble nature of "being ready to have an infant", we have two tasks: one of fixed duration and one of variable duration, and the outcome of one is tied in with the other. In this scenario, it is clearly desirable to reduce the efficiency of the "being ready" task if it appears to be progressing too quickly and resulting in an impatient mother.

This is a bit of a contrived example, but the ones that I can think of that aren't generally relate to engineering or math/computer science-intensive scenarios involving things like multiplexing and bottlenecks. I didn't really want to go too heavily in that direction for the purpose of an explanation. But, suffice it to say that the prospective that efficiency increase are always better makes sense in a theoretical universe or in a non-theoretical context where all interdependent tasks can be made more efficient together. But, if you have some task that, by its nature, cannot be made more efficient than it already is, then there is no benefit (and often a detriment) to completing tasks dependent on it more efficiently.

[drgoodtrips]

And, as another interesting efficiency consideration, there are tasks whose efficiency is inversely proportional to one another. If, at my office, I have two choices of activity: working and posting on DWF, it stands to reason that from my employer's perspective, me posting at DWF less efficiently (fewer posts per hour) is a good thing because it means that I'm working more efficiently.

That is, you can look at the efficiency of two simultaneous tasks as being a zero sum game. In the context of our justice system, I think we could define three tasks: punishing criminals, punishing innocents, and wasting time in bureaucracy. Theoretically, punishing criminals more efficiently at the expense of the other two tasks is the best outcome, but in practice, the efficiency of punishing criminals and punishing innocents are directly proportional to one another. So increasing the efficiency of bureaucratic time wasting decreases the efficiency of the other two tasks which may be viewed as a positive or a negative, depending on one's politics. Essentially, the question boils down to whether you feel that putting more innocent people in jail is a good tradeoff for putting more guilty people in jail.