In order to transform bureaucracies, we need to change the bureaucratic/mechanistic mindset to a socio-cultural systemic one. In this view, an organization is a complex system composed of purposeful human beings. When a purpose appeals to the moral conviction of employees, then they are capable of acting with conviction and self-determination without being micromanaged. And when organizations operate with a clear and well-aligned purpose, then they become great and influential.

It's clear from our readers' comments that, when it comes to navigating bureaucracy, they could use tips from a pro. Seek no further. BusinessWeek has enlisted the noted author, professor, and business consultant Ram Charan to help you chart a course through corporate quicksand.

Post your questions here and Ram will answer them as part of BusinessWeek's upcoming double issue "Business@Work."

Don't hold back; let him know what's really on your mind. Confused about whether to stay in a maddening maze of process? Ask him how you know when it's time to go. Frustrated by layers of management that make it hard to be heard? Ask him how you circumvent middle managers to get noticed. It's all fair game.

"Bureaucracy is the common denominator between the intrinsic "lust" for power and those that seek refuge from its umbrella effect of pro-limitation. [...] Negotiating a bureaucratic system comes down to a few pressing factors:

1. Comprehension: of your work/system of work (cannot negotiate or work within the confines of a bureaucracy without knowing what you are responsible to-do).

2. Identification: knowing who and why the underlying factors of "the/a" bureaucracy exists and who the primary suspects are that construct the strain on inquiry/productivity.

3. Confirmation: once confirmed, you must begin the process of evaluating your "profit & loss" within the situation/s. Choice becomes the optimal tool for negotiating a bureaucratic system and must be analyzed by the incumbent" to define the chances for growth and non-growth as they pertain to negotiating the confines of a bureaucracy.

These are just a few of the initial steps to defining the larger characteristics of bureaucracy. Ultimately the answers to solving the non-productiveness of bureaucratic systems (is an individual process).

But, if the properties of the bottom line begin to represent a pride in new ideas and innovation (bureaucracy will slowly become irrelevant to all public, private and social indexes)."

So what do you think? Is C.P. on to something?

As we mentioned before, a characteristic of bureaucracy and of the process of bureaucratization is that the management system and its parts are rewarded in a way that is independent of the effectiveness with which they perform their function – where survival is relatively independent of performance. Thus this process takes place most often in management systems that are subsidized, that do not have "to earn a living."

Since performance is not critical for survival, size is. It is harder to destroy or eliminate a large unit than a small one. Status as well as stability comes to be correlated with size. Therefore, growth becomes an objective because it is an efficient way to secure survival.

When this lack of performance is given as feedback, the bureaucracy resists and fights back to seek stability and minimize risk. It does this by increasing its mass, size, and cost of operation. Growth is essential to increased stability in a changing environment if the concept of stability is static.

The bureaucracy is thus conceived as a relatively permanent, unchanging institution, which provides security and stability to its parts. Therefore, the task structure becomes less effective and even less efficient. Over time, as it becomes increasingly dysfunctional it takes steps to preserve itself: It makes work and introduces red tape, and it imposes nonfunctional requirements on others, which "justify" the made work.

The make-work increases the cost and time required to get things done. Combined to this is the system of promotion either by seniority or for "going by the book" which recognizes the least efficient! This kills intrinsic satisfaction. Employees become more mechanical in their work and acceptance of promotion system.

De-bureaucratization requires a restructuring of the management system in such a way as to give function precedence over structure. Furthermore, de-bureaucratization requires changing the mindset (unlearning) of the bureaucrats.

Unlearning is a challenge because the human tendency to preserve a particular view of the world is very strong and the change to a new paradigm not only requires an ultimate act of learning but also of unlearning.

In these overhead units, real performance is largely irrelevant, as is often the case with monopolies. As we said before, as long as they satisfy the central power – top management – their positions are secure. No wonder political maneuvering and game playing are the keys to personal success. Meeting budget is frequently more important than quality, quantity, or cost of service. The manager who is skilled in obtaining a liberal budget is often the hero.

It is my pleasure to introduce John Pourdehnad, a management consultant and adjunct professor of Systems Engineering at the University of Pennsylvania with 30 years of experience shaping scores industries world over, including healthcare and transportation (two realms where bureaucracy lurks). If you’re not intimidated yet, get this: John is fluent in Farsi and Russian.

John is thrilled to share his insights on how to battle bureaucracy in the workplace. So please, bombard him with questions, and let the dialogue begin!

In recent years, few forward-looking organizations have brought democracy and market mechanisms inside their organizations to create accountability to internal and external clients through learning and adaptation. This approach represents a massive paradigm shift, away from the assumptions of the bureaucratic mindset, which dates back to the early days of industrialization. A transformative leadership will be required.

Does your organization embrace such concepts? Is every unit in your organization a profit center? Do you have planning boards for your functional units?

Indeed it's horrific that doctors there are accused of performing unnecessary surgeries that claimed that lives of five patients and left others permanently maimed.

"How can red tape kill?" you ask. Well, when a system provides monetary incentives for performing certain acts, people will probably perform them. In this case, police allege that doctors at the clinic performed the bogus surgeries to increase the fees received from Italy's public health service.

Does your organization's bureaucracy reinforce reckless behavior?

In fact, "Negotiating a Stultifying Bureaucracy" is such a drag that BW readers ranked it fourth on our list of workplace challenges.

So what we do about it? How we keep it from disheartening our teams and impeding our progress? Can we recreate hives of success within the confines of bureaucratic control?

If you've got tips, let's hear 'em.