By virtue of a general theory of modern organization we can account for the behavior commonly observed in our bureaucracies. Organizational behavior, experts maintain, is in large part institutional in nature and is to be explained not by theories of individualistic psychology but rather by analysis of the system of order in which behavior occurs. The thesis is that modern bureaucratic organization is a composite of the traditional and the new. Upon the hierarchy of arbitrary authority have been superimposed increasingly technical and instrumental forms of specialization. This combination gives us our typical form of modern organization called by Max weber “bureaucracy. ” While technical specialization advances at a rapid rate, cultural definitions of authority roles do not, there results a gap of increasing width, therefore, between those who have the right to make decisions in modern organizations and those who have the ability. The resulting insecurity and friction give rise to “bureaucratic “practices in the pathological sense, bureaupathic behavior, here in the wonderland of bureaucracy we find (as Victor Thompson puts it) the pompous, the frightened, the aloof, individuals who through personal insecurity feel obliged to appropriate to their own ends the uses of power automaton conformity, exaggerated dependence upon regulations and quantitative standard, the “need” to control, many are the forms of bureaupathic behavior. Many also, and wondrous, are the means of role defense practiced not only by members of the hierarchy but also by specialists. Modern organization is a system of human behavior composed of several subsystems. The authority subsystem, the status subsystem, and the technical subsystem. The impact of these three upon inter-personal face-to-face communication creates a fourth subsystem, the group or effective subsystem often called informal organization. Dr. Thompson analyzed each of these subsystems and greatly contributed importantly to our understanding of the world in which we live and work. Theory of organization could not have been developed without the exchange of ideas of government executives from all over the world in seminars held at the Illinois (Chicago) Institute of technology. The tradition of conceptualization of ideas had helped to improve knowledge base for better performance of public and business administration. While technical specialization advances at a rapid rate, cultural definitions of authority roles do not, there results a gap of increasing width, therefore, between those who have the right to make decisions in modern organizations and those who have the ability Max weber conceived of the world as becoming progressively Rationalized and Demystified with corresponding change in organizational forms. Both charismatic and traditional authority became harder to maintain, and a new, rationalized, legalistic kind of authority and structure emerged. He called this kind of organization “bureaucracy”. Charismatic leadership is needed when existing routines cannot cope with growing problems or crisises. The charismatic personality emerges and overshadows routine and procedure. Weber specified as list of criteria for the fully developed bureaucratic form, including technical training of officials, merit appointments, fixed salaries and pensions, assured careers, the separation of organizational rights and duties from the private life of the employee and a fixed and definite division of work into distinct offices or jobs. All offices were arranged in a clear hierarchy of subordination and superordination, that members of the organization were subject to strict and superordination, those members of the organization were subject to strict and systematic control and discipline, and that a rationalized set of rules and regulations tied the whole organization together. Obedience to command should be prompt, automatic, unquestionable. Is is important to pay attention to “BUREAUPATHOLOGY” a set of issues “bureaucratic organization” could face. The issues include: * Bureaupathic Behaviour * Insecurity and need to control * The Bureaupathic reaction * The drift to quantitative compliance * Exaggerated aloofness * Resistance to change * Insistence on the rights of office * Bureaupathology and organization structure; A kind of rigidity grows out of prolonged role enactment and that bureaucrats over a period of time become insensitive to the needs of clients. * Bureaupathology and routinization and issue of abilities vs. rights * Bureaucratic Behavior Issues of discipline and obedience As the bureaucratic form has developed, associated as it is with the advance of specialization, the most stubborn problem has proved to be the securing of cooperation among individual specialists. If the problem of cooperation can be solved, it seems that specialization is capable of accomplishing almost any material objective. Increasingly large amounts of time, effort and thought are expended on the securing of cooperation. Similarly, avenues have to be found to resolve conflicts. People’s right of self-determination has been denied for decades in spite of the United Nations repeated resolutions. For peace and prosperity and meaningfulness of life conflicts have to be resolved. Cooperation is two-way process to be effective. Otherwise, countries will be forced to drown in tides of poverty, violence and haplessness. There is need to re-look at the way international organizations operate. This has to be a priority task for the sake of justice and peace. Positivity could be developed through “you attitude” to make desired change possible Modern Organizations need to be made effectively functional. The writer is former Director, National Institute of Public Administration (NIPA) Government of Pakistan, a public policy expert, political analyst and an established author.