Max Weber’s concept of bureaucracy was originally presented as an ideal type, a rational and efficient form of organization suited to the needs of modern industrial society. Weber viewed bureaucracy as a response to the limitations of traditional and charismatic forms of authority, emphasizing legal-rational authority as the most stable and predictable basis for administration. Classical Weberian bureaucracy was characterized by features such as a clear hierarchy, division of labor, formal rules and procedures, impersonal relationships, merit-based recruitment, and a career orientation. In this original perspective, bureaucracy was seen largely as a technically superior instrument for achieving administrative efficiency, precision, and continuity. Over time, however, perspectives on Weber’s bureaucracy have undergone significant change, driven by empirical experience, social criticism, and evolving administrative needs. Early reinterpretations began to highlight the unintended consequences of bureaucratic organization. Scholars such as Robert K. Merton argued that excessive reliance on rules could lead to rigidity, goal displacement, and trained incapacity, where adherence to procedure becomes an end in itself rather than a means to organizational objectives. This marked a shift from viewing bureaucracy as purely rational to recognizing