Raz Kr

Pencil

editedbyD.RavindraPrasad

V.S.PrasadP.SatyanarayanaY.Pardhasaradhi

STERLINGPUBLISHERSPRIVATELIMITED

STERLINGPUBLISHERSPRIVATELIMITEDA-59,OkhlaIndustrialArea,Phase-II,NewDelhi-110020.Tel:26387070,26386209Fax:91-11-26383788e-mail:mail@sterlingpublishers.comwww.sterlingpublishers.com

AdministrativeThinkers©2010,D.RavindraPrasad,V.S.Prasad,

P.Satyanarayana,Y.PardhasaradhiE-ISBN9788120793217FirstEdition1991SixteenReprintsSecondRevisedandEnlargedEditionJune2010

Allrightsarereserved.Nopartofthispublicationmaybereproduced,storedinaretrievalsystemortransmitted,inanyformorbyanymeans,mechanical,photocopying,recordingorotherwise,withoutpriorwrittenpermissionoftheoriginalpublisher.

Dedicatedto

OurTeacher,GuideandPhilosopher

Prof.G.RamReddy(1929-1995)SocialScientistandInstitutionBuilder

W

PREFACE

ith theexpansionof thedisciplineofPublicAdministration, theneedfor literatureonadministrativetheoryisbeingincreasinglyfelt.Thereisnotenoughliteratureproviding

conciselyvariousfacetsofadministrativetheory;particularlythecontributionsofthinkerstothedevelopmentofthediscipline.Thisbookisaneffort inthedirectionoffillingthisgap;albeitinpart.Theobjectiveistoacquaintthescholars,teachers,studentsandpractitionersofadministration with the contributions of outstanding administrative theorists. The bookprovidesanaccountoftheideasandcontributionsoftwentyonethinkerstothediscipline.Itdoes not provide all the ideas of the thinker, but covers an outline of their life,writings,principalcontributionstotheadministrativetheoryandacriticalevaluation.

Thisvolumeisacooperativeacademiceffort.Itisweavedtogetherwiththecontributionsof twenty-one teacherswhohavehadvast experience in the studyand teachingofpublicadministration,politicalscience,sociologyandmanagement.Theresultisasinglesourceofreference on the theory of Public Administration; particularly the contribution of selectthinkers.Wethankthecontributorsprofusely.

We express our profound sense of gratitude to Prof. G. RamReddy, an eminent socialscientist, analyst of administrative process, above all a humanist and our teacher, for theenduring inspiration, encouragement and valuable support he gave to us in our academicendeavours.Werespectfullydedicatethisvolumetohismemory.

Inthisrevisededitiononechapterandtwothinkershavebeenadded.Otherwisethetextremainsasbeforeexceptcorrectionswhererequiredandpossible. Inourmodesteffortwehadtheencouragement,helpandassistancefromanumberofourcolleagues,scholarsandfriends. In this revisionwegothelp, supportandassistance frommanyofour friendsandcolleagues, particularly from the Administrative Staff College of India. Ms. Eswari Alla,smilinglysparedweekendsandpublicholidaysandhelpedus in therevisionexercise,Mr.Murali Mohan, Ms. Vandana, Mr. Krishna, Mr. S. Chary, Ms. Vijayalakshmi, Mr. SafdarAhmadandmanyothersextendedlibrary,bibliographicalandtechnicalassistance.Prof.V.S.Charyhelpedusinmorethanonewayandextendedsupport.Wethankthemall.

WethankMr.S.K.GhaiofSterlingPublisherswhotookakeeninterestintherevisionandextendedtechnicalsupport.

Weoweaheavydebtofgratitudetoourfamiliesfortheirencouragement,supportandforbearanceandmeetinginchoatedemandsonworkofthisnature.

–Editors

CONTENTS

Preface

Introduction

1. AdministrativeTheory

- D.RavindraPrasad- Y.Pardhasaradhi

2. Kautilya

- N.R.Inamdar

3. WoodrowWilson

- D.RavindraPrasad- P.Satyanarayana

4. HenriFayol

- C.V.Raghavulu- B.P.C.Bose

5. FrederickTaylor

- V.BhaskaraRao

6. MaxWeber

- C.Lakshmanna- A.V.SatyanarayanaRao

7. LutherGulickandLyndallUrwick

- S.P.RangaRao

8. MaryParkerFollett

- D.RavindraPrasad

9. EltonMayo

- M.Kistaiah

10. ChesterBarnard

- P.A.James- A.AmrutaRao

11. HerbertSimon

- N.Umapathy

12. AbrahamMaslow

- D.RavindraPrasad

13. DouglasMcGregor

- P.D.Sharma

14. ChrisArgyris

- C.V.Raghavulu

15. FrederickHerzberg

- V.Lakshmipathy

16. RensisLikert

- P.Seshachalam

17. FredRiggs

- V.S.Prasad- K.MuraliManohar

18. YehezkelDror

- G.Haragopal

19. DwightWaldo

- Y.Pardhasaradhi

20. PeterDrucker

- D.RavindraPrasad

21. KarlMarx

- PrabhatKumarDutta

SelectBibliography

Index

AbouttheContributors

A

INTRODUCTION

dministration,thoughasoldassociety,begantoattractattentionasanactivityandasanintellectualdisciplineonlysincethelaterpartofthe19thcentury.Thecomplexnatureof

themodernstateresulted inanenormousexpansionof the functionsofgovernment.Suchexpansiongeneratedacompulsiveneedforanin-depthstudyandcomprehensiveresearchinto various aspects of the administrative phenomenon. The seminal contributions ofacademics and practitioners to the development of various facets of administration anddisseminationofknowledgepertainingtoit,causedthegerminationofvarioustheoriesandsome particularly significant ones are permanently etched in the saga of administrativedevelopment.

Administrative theory is based on conceptualisation of experience of administrators orobservationof theoperationalsituations inadministration; itmaybederivedorreinforcedfromthecomparativestudiesortheymaybeideasandopinionsofintellectuals.Becauseofthe integrated nature of the social sciences, developments in other disciplines help in theconceptualisation in administration as well. Thus, theoretical or practical development inothersocialsciencesinfluencetheoreticalbaseofPublicAdministrationandviceversa.1

The twenty thinkers included in this volume have contributed substantially to theevolutionofpublicadministrationasadiscipline.Therearemanymorewhosecontributionsare substantial for expanding the frontiers of knowledge of public administration andstimulatedresearchinthefield.Allofthemcouldnotbeincludedinthisshortvolume;spacebeingoneofthelimitations.

AncientIndianWisdomonStatecraftOne of the outstanding contributions of ancient Indianwisdom to statecraft is Kautilya’sArthashastra. It ranks in importancewithManusmriti andKamashastra and forms a triad indealingwiththethreeimperativesofthesocialphilosophyofthattime-Dharma,Kama,andArtha.ThoughitistitledasArthashastra–scienceofeconomics–itactuallydealswithvariousaspects of political administration and management of state. It also deals with statecraftfocusing on king, law and justice, foreign policy, war, espionage, financial and personneladministration, etc. The treatise is considered as a counterpart ofMachiavelli’sThe Princeboth in importance and contribution to the art and science of state administration andgovernance..

TheArthashastraisatextbookofpracticalpoliticsandstatecraft.Itdealsmainlywiththescience of polity,which according to Kautilya, is a combination of science ofwealth, andscience of government - Vittashastra (economics) and Dandanithi (statecraft). To Kautilya,financesprovide the sinewsof government and financial considerations areparamount inthegovernment’sactivities.Thus,histreatiseadoptsthepoliticaleconomyapproachtotheunderstandingoftheproblemsofgovernance.H.V.R.IyengardescribedtheArthashastra“asan exceptionally abledissertationbothon the aimsof the state aswell as on thepracticalmeans by which aims can be achieved”. The Arthashastra is both an analytical and aperspectivedocumentrevealingamazingperceptionandmasteryofdetail.

Kautilya’s Arthashastra mainly discusses three aspects of the science of publicadministration,viz., theprinciplesofpublicadministration,machineryofgovernmentandthemanagementofpersonnel.Theprinciplesofadministrationarenotexplicitlydealtwith.They are detailed in the functions of the monarch, ministers, etc. The machinery ofgovernment,asdescribedintheArthashastra,mainlyrelatetothemonarch,hisrelationswithministers,etc.Theproblemsofthehigherlevelpersonnelreceivedgreaterattentionthanthelowerlevelfunctionaries.

TheBeginningsoftheStudyWoodrow Wilson (1856-1924), who became the President of USA in his later years, wasamong the earliest thinkers to outline the concept of public administration as a separatedisciplineof study.WoodrowWilson integratedhistory,philosophyand theconceptof thegoodsociety(culture)inawaytomakeorderforstudentsofpublicadministration.Wilson’sseminal essay “The StudyofAdministration”published in thePoliticalScienceQuarterly in1887, laid foundation for a systematic study of public administration. To many students,Wilsonasanadministrativetheoristmaysoundillogicalashedidnotpropoundanyconceptortheorybutitwashewhodelineatedpublicadministrationasadistinctivesubjectofstudyandemphasisedtheneedforcontinuedstudyandresearch.“TheStudyofAdministration”stimulated interest among later scholars into this aspect of the functioning of thegovernment.Wilson described administration as an art but emphasised that it be studiedscientifically.Hestressedtheneedtoaugmentlegalinstitutionalanalysiswiththepanoplyof science and is required to manage complex organisations of men and machines.2 Thedichotomybetweenpoliticsandadministrationwas firstmootedbyWoodrowWilson,andthe cleavage acquired the name after him— ‘the Wilsonian dichotomy’. His pioneeringarticle stimulated quite a lot of interest in the study of administration not only from thestandpoint of its relationwith politics but also to examine administration and theway itworks.Wilsonarticulatedtheneedfordevelopingmethodsofenquiryandemphasisedthesignificance of comparative method in the study of public administration. The viewsexpressed in “The Study of Administration” led to many controversies and variedinterpretations. Wilson’s theories may have been naive, as Peter Self observed, but theyprovidedan‘ideologicalbasisforreformsinadministrationin19thcenturyAmerica’.3

ClassicalPerspectivesThe classical organisational and administrative formulations are also variously termed asstructural,mechanistic,formal,engineering,andempiricalapproaches.Theyareclassicalinthe sense that theyare inuse for ‘quite some time’.4 They are labelled so verydifferentlybecause the classicists attempted to propound simple principles of general applicationpossessing characteristics of formality, symmetry and rigidity. The theories emphasise theimportance of structure and subsume the amenability of humans to work to meet theadministrativeandorganisationaldemands.Theunderlyingassumptionisthatthepatternsof behaviour and relationships can be deliberately planned for the members of anorganisation.TheconceptsandprinciplesformulatedbyHenriFayol,FrederickTaylor,MaxWeberandGulickandUrwickcomeunderthisclassicalperspective.

Henri Fayol (1841-1925) is one of the earliest administrative theorists to propounduniversalprinciplesofadministration,basedonhislongpersonalexperience.Heperceivedadministration from manager’s viewpoint and confined his analysis mostly to top

managerial functions.Hedefined administration in terms of five elements, viz., planning,organising, command, coordination and control. These five elements provide a system ofconcepts, through which, managers may seek to clarify their perception of activities. Heoutlined fourteen additional principles of administration, to be regarded as fundamentaltenets, applicable to both industrial andpublic administrations equally.ThoughFayolwascriticised for evolving principles solely based on his personal experience, he contributedsignificantly to the emergence of a general theory of administration. In the history ofadministrative theory Henri Fayol has an enduring place, as one of the earliest knowntheoreticalanalystsofmanagerialactivity.

F.W.Taylor(1865-1915),apioneerinmanagementscience,conductedstudiesduringtheearlypartofthetwentiethcenturyonhumans,particularlyatoperatinglevelsinindustrialsettings. The impact of his studies was so great that management which was hithertoconsideredanart,wasgiventhestatusofscience.Anengineerbyprofessionandtraining,Taylor,withhisvariedworkexperiencerangingfromalabourertothatofachiefengineer,conductedmanyexperimentsindifferentindustrialundertakingsandintroduced‘scientism’into management. To Taylor the primary object of management is to secure maximumprosperity to the employer and employee. He suggested four principles of scientificmanagementviz.,developmentofatruescienceofwork;scientificselectionandprogressivedevelopmentoftheworkman;bringingtogetherofthescienceofworkandthescientificallyselectedandtrainedmen;andconstantandintimatecooperationbetweenmanagementandworker.Applicationoftheseprinciplesandthedegreeoftheirsuccess,accordingtoTaylor,depends on ‘mental revolution’.He advocated anunderstanding and sharing of functionsand responsibilities between the workers and management for achieving increase inproductionwhichlogicallyresultsinmoreprofitsandmorewages.

Throughaseriesofexperimentsspreadoveraperiodoftime,Taylordevelopedanumberoftoolsandtechniquestoaidboththeworkerandmanager.Heinsistedonhighdegreeofspecialisation to achieve better performance and propounded a theory of ‘functionalforemanship’toachievethis.Anumberoftechniqueslikeworkstudy,workmeasurement,exception principle, etc., which are now being adopted in public and industrialorganisations,wereallinitiallydevelopedbyhim.UrwickandBrechaptlyobservedthat‘asour industrial civilisation develops, broadens and deepens, there will be an increasingrecognition both of his originality and the fundamental value of the ideas which heinitiated’.5

Oneoftheinevitableconsequencesoftheexpansioninthefunctionsofthestateandtheemergenceof largeorganisations isbureaucracy- a termwhichraisesambivalentemotions.Though bureaucracy existed - both in private and public organisations - ever since theemergenceofcivilisedlife,iteludesauniversallyacceptablemeaninganddefinition.Manyanalysed bureaucracy even before the 19th century, but systematic analysis andconceptualisation took place only at the hands of Max Weber. A German historian andsociologist,MaxWeber(1864-1920)wasessentiallyconcernedwiththeanalysisofauthorityinthe19thcenturyEuropeansociety.Hecategorisedauthorityintothreetypes:traditional,charismaticandlegal-rational.Heidentifiedbureaucracywiththeexerciseof legal-rationalauthority and enunciated a few immutable characteristics of bureaucracy viz., hierarchy,merit based selection, specialisation, impersonality, etc.He assumed that any organisationpossessingthesecharacteristicscanperformitsfunctionsmostrationallyandthisresults inmaximum efficiency and effectiveness. Weber characterised his bureaucratic model as an

ideal type.To the students ofpublic administrationWeberianmodel serves as the startingpoint for an analysis of the functioning of the government.Most present day research onbureaucracy endeavours to locate the degree of conformitywith theWeberianmodel andwheretherearevariations,examinethereasonsandnatureofsuchvariations,andidentifyoperationallimitationsandshortcomings.

Eventothecritics,Weberianbureaucracyisthestartingpointforstudyandanalysis.Itisarguedthatthecharacteristics,whichWeberadvanced,leadtodelays,dysfunctionality,etc.Fewevenwenttotheextentofcallingitbureau-pathology.FewothersarguedthatWeber’sbureaucracy,whichwasessentiallybasedontheEuropeanexperience-particularlyFrenchand German, cannot be applied to the developing countries. Notwithstanding thesecriticisms, Weber’s bureaucracy provides a very essential and basic framework forunderstandingthepresentdayadministrativeorganisations.

The classical theory, chronologically is theearliest and the credit for its systematisationgoestoLutherGulick(1892-1993)andLyndallUrwick(1891-1983).Gulickasanadministratorand academic and Urwick as management historian and consultant wrote extensively onadministrativemanagement.Keepingefficiencyandeconomyastwobasicvalueswhichtheadministration should attain, they tried to develop universal principles to achieveorganisationalgoals.Gulick’sacronymPOSDCORB,a‘verbalartifact’,isawordmadeupofthe initial letters of the most distinct functions of administration. The four ‘ P’ bases ofdepartmental organisation, the concept of line and staff, the principles of organisationincludingspanofcontrol,unityofcommand,workdivision,coordination,etc.,haveallbeenemphasised by them based on their experience in the military, industrial and publicorganisations. These principles deal with, what Gross calls, ‘ the architectonics’ of formalorganisation.6 Though their principles have many deficiencies, as is evident from thecriticismbylatterwriterslikeSimon,POSDCORBstillservesasaconvenientstartingpointfor innumerablewriters interested indealingwithdifferent aspects of administration andsoonthetermcameintowideusetodelineatethedifferentadministrativeprocesses.Laterwriters on public administration took this as a cue and with additions, subtractions andamendments,adopted itaccording to theirneeds.Thus the ‘universalprinciples’ofGulickandUrwick,despitevariedcriticisms,continuetobeimportantandvalidinadministrativescience.

Theconcepts,principlesandtheoriespropoundedbytheclassicalschoolwerecriticisedfortheneglectofhumanelementandforviewingorganisation“inacold-blooded,detachedspiritlikethepreparationofanengineeringdesign”7 ignoringmentalattitudeswhichplayan important role in administration. Another major attack on these formulations is theiremphasisonuniversality.Thecriticisms,limitations,ordevelopmentofnewideas,however,donotrelegatetheprinciplesoftheseclassiciststoobsolescence.For,inthefirstplace,thesethinkersidentifiedadministrationasadistinctareatobestudiedindependently.Secondly,aclearerthinkingwasintroducedconcerningvariousaspectsoforganisationfunctioninglikeauthority,delegation,etc.8Thirdly,theseprinciplesarenotonlywidelyusedbutarebeing‘staunchly supported’. As Koontz has observed that critics call these principles platitudesforgettingthataplatitudeisstillatruismandtruthdoesnotbecomeworthlessbecauseitisfamiliar.9

BeyondClassicalFormulationsTheinadequacyofclassicaladministrativetheoreticalformulationstoexplainthetotalityof

administrative phenomena led to more extensive researches into the working of humanorganisations.Theprinciplesandconceptsdevelopedbytheclassicistscouldnotexplainthebehaviourof individual employees.The later researches, variously calledhuman relations,behavioural, social, psychological, systems, etc., went beyond classical formulations andconcentrated onhumanmotivation andbehaviour. These theories focus onunderstandinghumanbehaviourattheworkincludingmotivations,conflicts,groupdynamics,etc.,whichare critical for organisational and administrative analysis. They viewed employees asindividuals, resources and assets andnot asmachines as classicists seem to have believed.While classical theorists emphasised the structural aspects of organisations, thebehaviouralists and human relations theorists focused on the human factors. They alsoaimed, likeclassicists, atgettingbestof theemployeesandstudysocial conditionsof theirwork, work environment and individual and group relations. Mary Parker Follett, EltonMayo,ChesterBarnard,HerbertSimon,AbrahamMaslow,DouglasMcGregor,ChrisArgyris,Herzberg,RensisLikert,etc.,comeinthiscategoryofpostclassicaltheorists.

Mary Parker Follett (1868-1933), a political scientist turned management philosopher,made a study of the psychological aspects of administration andmanagement. Hermainfieldofinterestwaspsychologicalfoundationsofhumanactivity,andemotionalfactorsthatunderlie theworkingofhumanbeings.Toherahumangroupissomethingmorethanthesumtotaloftheindividualscomprisingit.10

ToFollett,conflictsareinevitableinanyorganisation,asviews,attitudesandemotionsofindividuals vary and assert that conflicts should be viewed constructively and not to beabhorred.Tomakeconstructiveuseofconflicts,shesubscribestointegration,asopposedtodominationandcompromise, tobe thebestway.She felt thatgivingoforders tosomeonemayaffectthehumandignityandmayfindresistance,andtherefore,rejectstheprocessofordersfromindividualtoindividual.Shesubstitutestheprocesswithwhatshecallsthe‘lawof the situation’, wherein orders flow from situation. She highlights the importance ofdepersonalisingorders,tomakeagroupacohesiveone,heralding‘with’concept,inplaceof‘under’ concept. She applied the concepts of behaviouralism inher analysis of leadership,authority,responsibility,etc.Sheunderpinnedtheimportanceoffunctionalandintegrativeunityandtoachievethisshedevelopedfourprinciplesofcoordination.

Follettcanbeconsideredasalinkbetweentheclassicalandbehaviouraltheories.Itissaidthatchronologicallyshebelongedtoascientificmanagementeraandphilosophicallytothesocialman era.11As a classicist, she developed certain principles and strongly believed intheiruniversality.Asabehaviouralist,shestressedtheimportanceofhumanemotions.Thus,shewasaprecursorofbehaviouralismandhumanrelationsmovement.EltonMayo(1880-1949),anindustrialsociologist, iswidelyrecognisedastheprogenitorofthe human relationsmovement and hiswork laid foundations for latermanagement andorganisationalthinking.Hetriedtoviewtheproblemsofworkersfromadifferentangle,tothat of traditionalists. Through extensive research he proved the importance of ‘humangroup’, and its causal effect on thebehaviour of individuals atwork. Inhis studies,Mayoanalysedtheproblemsoffatigue,monotony,morale,workenvironmentandtheirimpactontheworker.

The famous Hawthorne experiments conducted under his leadership led to deeperinsights intothephenomenaofgroupbehaviouranditssignificancetomanagement.Theyalso led to themodificationof earliernotions inmanagement and laid thebasis formanysubsequentstudies.Mayo,throughthesestudiesfoundthattheemployeesrespondtonon-

physical variables like social organisation, perceived intentions ofmanagement, etc.,morethan to the physical variables. This meant that work gets affected through the workerattitudesand feelingsandmanagements should lead,motivateand improve themoraleofemployees.12Anothersignificantfindingoftheseexperimentsisthe‘discovery’ofinformalorganisationanditspervasiveinfluenceinallorganisations.Itwasfound,thattheinformalorganisation provides an outlet to the aspirations of employees and the effectiveness ofmanagement depends on its capacity to use these informal relations, to achieve theorganisationalobjectives.Healsobroughtouttheimportanceofthecommunicationsystemto facilitate worker to motivate fellow worker. For Mayo, achieving the spontaneouscooperation between individuals in the organisation, is themain concern ofmanagementand administration.He sought to use social science insights to secure the commitment ofindividualstoachievetheendsoftheorganisation,throughtherealisationof‘humanfactor’inworksituation.

Chester I. Barnard (1866-1961), a highly successful executive, is considered to be thespiritual father of the ‘ social system’ school, which influenced many an organisationalsetting of administrative activity and institutionalised patterns of behaviour. He directedattentiontotherelationshipsofcomponentpartsintheadministrativesystem.HisFunctionsoftheExecutivepublishedin1937isaclassicinorganisationandadministrativetheory.

Barnard begins his analysis on the basic premise that individuals have innate physical,social and biological limitations. To him the most effective method of overcoming theselimitations is cooperative social action onwhich he builds his theory of organisation. Hedefines organisation ‘as a system of consciously coordinated activities of two or morepersons’. The organisation comes into beingwhen there are persons able to communicatewith each other that are willing to contribute action to accomplish a common purpose.Barnard disagrees with the concept of economic man and propounds a concept of‘contribution-satisfaction equilibrium’. The individual’s contribution depends on thepersonal satisfaction he derives as a result of participation and the satisfaction in turndepends on the incentives or inducements. Barnard considers economic or materialinducements as only one of the multiplicity of satisfactions, others being personal non-material like opportunities for distinction, prestige, personal power, desirable physicalconditionsofwork,andidealbenefactionssuchasprideofworkmanship,senseofadequacy,patriotism,etc.Organisationowes itsexistencetothemaintenanceofequilibriumbetweencontributionsandsatisfactions.

Barnardconsidersinformalorganisationasveryimportantandbothformalandinformalorganisations as interdependent aspects of the same phenomena. To himmaintenance oforganisational communications, securing of essential services from individuals, andformulation of purpose and objectives are the three important executive functions. Hisconceptsonacceptanceofauthorityandleadershipasaprocessoffulfillingthepurposeoforganisation and management by consent have immense contemporary significance andtheystrengthenthedemocraticspiritinthemodern‘administrativestate’.

Studiesonadministrativesciencetendtoclusteraroundtwodistinctpointsofview.Thefirst one concerns with the institutional arrangements of performance - job content, jobstructure and job relationships.Thismechanistic approach subsumes thehumanelement’sparticipation in organisation opinion, and thus relegates it to a secondary position in theorder of importance, and in the analysis of administrative behaviour. The a prioriassumptionsonhumanelements areopen to contest and in theprocessofdisposing their

fallacy,thesecondpointofviewemergesonthescene.HerbertSimon(1916-2001)wasverycriticaloftheadministrativestudiesofthescientific

management era and called them superficial, oversimplified and lacked realism. He wasparticularlycriticalofthegeneralisationsoruniversalprinciplesenunciatedbyFayol,Taylor,Gulick, etc., and criticised them as ‘proverbs and myths’ with many fundamentalambiguities.Simon’sconcernwastodevelopageneraltheoryofadministrationbasedontheprinciplesgoverninghumanbehaviour.Only such adifferent groundingof administrativeprinciples, Simon felt, would form the basis for administrative science and would insurecorrect decision-making as well as effective action. His concept of administrative theory,therefore,wasbuiltaround ‘decision-making’.Hedescribedalladministrationasdecision-making and explained various factors involved in the decisional process. To himdecision-makingischoosingbetweendifferentavailablealternatives.Insuchaprocesstheindividualisconditionedbybothvalueandfactualpremises.Thoughitisnoteasytoisolatevalueandfactualpremises,heemphasisedthatadministrationshouldbebasedonfacts.

Rationality, according to Simon, is another important factor in decision-making. In thedecisional process, the decision-maker is influenced by both rational and non-rationalelements. A complete knowledge and better understanding of the latent non-rationalelements is very essential, to make administration more and more rational. As theadministrative behaviour is a complex totality of the behaviour of individuals, Simonemphasisedontheneedtounderstandtheindividualbehaviourinanorganisationalcontext.Inhislaterwritings,Simonendeavoredtoapplyhistheoryofdecision-makingtoindustrialadministrationusingcomputers,cognitivescience,simulation,operationalresearch,etc.Hewasconcernedwiththeuseofmodernscienceandtechnologytomakedecisionsgraduallyprogrammed,therebyincreasingrationalityinadministration.Hisconcern,asisobvious,istodevelopavalue-freeadministrativescience.Thoughhislaterresearchisconcernedmorewithindustrialadministration,thethinningawayofdifferencebetweenpublicandprivateadministrationmakeshisresearchinvaluabletopublicadministration.

Abraham Maslow, Douglas McGregor, Chris Argyris, Rensis Likert and FrederickHerzberg attach great significance to the human behaviour in organisations and thepsychological character of such grouping forms the foundations of their theories. Theirstream of thought encompasses such diversified fields of study such as sociology, socialpsychology,industrialpsychology,socio-metrics,economics,cybernetics,etc.

AbrahamMaslow (1908-1970) developed his theory of human motivation in terms ofneedhierarchy.He identifies five important needs viz., physiological, security, social, self-esteemandself-actualisation.Theseneedscanbearranged inahierarchicalorderwhereinphysiologicalneedsareatthebottomandself-actualisationneedsonthetop.Ifaneedisnotsatisfied, the individual experiences dissatisfaction and is always motivated to satisfy hisneed. Once a need is fulfilled, he experiences satisfaction. A satisfied need, according toMaslow, ceases to be a motivator. Individuals first pay attention towards satisfying theirphysiological and security needs in the hierarchy. Once these basic needs are fulfilledreasonably well, the individual loses interest in them and diverts his attention towardssatisfyingnextlevelneedsinthehierarchyviz.,security.Whentheseneedsarealsomet,theindividualaddressestothefulfillmentofnexthigherlevelneeds.

Maslow’s concept of need hierarchy has several implications to the organisations. Thetheorysuggeststhattheorganisationsmustprovideopportunitiesandrewardstosatisfytheneedsofthemembersoftheorganisationwhichmotivatethemtomaketheircontributions.As individuals grow in the organisation, the latter provides different rewards and

opportunities to its members. As individuals move in the hierarchy, their needs andaspirationsalsomoveupinthehierarchyandtheorganisationshouldattempttomotivatethemby fulfilling their needs so as to enable them tomake their contributions.Maslow’stheory was subjected to critical examination both on methodology and other grounds.Notwithstanding the criticisms, it has provided a base for understanding the basis for thecontributionsofindividualstowardstheorganisation.

DouglasMcGregor (1906-1964) treats the problemmore confidently and optimistically.Hestartsoffwithanexplanationofcausal factorsof individualbehaviourandinvestigatesthe phenomena of reluctance and enthusiasm encountered in organisations. He proceedssystematically from micro level of the individual, progressively to the macro level oforganisational life,describingtheramificationsofthemultitudinousinteractionsatvariouslevels and finally leads to a viable explanation. His explanation synthesise the tenets ofclinicalpsychologywithanunderpinningofsocialdynamics.McGregor’stheories‘X‘and‘Y ‘ are not straitjackets limiting the leader from delving further into the field of humanendeavour.Theyarelimitsofaspectrumencompassingassumptionsofclassicalschoolandtheapparentlylatestentrantstothefield—theproponentsofmodels.

Chris Argyris (July 16, 1923) focuses attention on individual dynamics, intermediateinteraction between participating members based on a stimulus-response tandem. Theconcernisprimarilywiththeprocessbywhichtheindividualandtheorganisationadapttothe needs of each other. Argyris suggests that the organisational objectives should reflectmanifestations of individual goals. Such integration of goals could release thewill on thepartoftheparticipants,tostrivefortheaccomplishmentoforganisationalgoals.Tobringthisconcept into reality, Argyris advocates a process of fusion of individual aspirations withorganisational goals, individual skills with organisational position and individual conductwith organisational role. The emergent three-dimensional fusion is the basis forArgyris’sfusionmodel.Hiscomprehensiveanalysislaysemphasisonthebehaviouralaspectwithinanorganisation, but the relationships in the field of forces, affecting the component elementremain in a maze of confusion. His study is one of a descriptive character rather thanprescriptiveinnatureandisofinteresttorelatedacademicexercises.

RensisLikert(1903-1981)makestheblurredfieldofapplicationobtainedfromthestudiesof Argyris, as a point of departure. He analyses the blockades inhibiting effective fusionbetween an organisation and its members. His overview of leadership styles andinterpersonal reactions in different organisations bring into fore the inadequacy ofNewtonianmechanicstodescribetheorganisationaldynamics.Hiscomparativeanalysisoforganisationalstyles,explains thedysfunctionalityof theauthoritarian typesof leadership.He advocates a switchover, albeit gradually, from authoritarian to cooperative andparticipatory styles. He also investigates the mechanics of institutional structuring tofacilitate the switchover. The focus is on the systematic nature of enterprise and themotivational forces at work. The application of scientific procedures to relatively specificactivities, such as selection and job-skill training are not included in his ‘universe’. Thispreclusion is intentional. For, Likert recognises the role of psychiatrists in unravelling themysteryandleavesittothem.

During the 60s, behaviouralists began to examine the human problems facingmanagement and searched for new techniques of humanmotivation. Frederick Herzberg(1923-2000), throughhisstudies inPittsburgh,developeda theoryofmotivationwhichhasbroadimplicationsforhumanresourcemanagement.Heconcludedthatworkershavetwodifferent types of needs which are independent of each other but affect the human

behaviour in many ways. His studies reveal that the events leading to satisfaction aredifferentfromthosethatleadtodissatisfaction.Fivestrongdeterminantsof jobsatisfactionidentifiedbyHerzbergare:achievement,recognition,work,responsibilityandadvancement.Similarly,companypolicyandadministration,supervision,pay,inter-personnelrelationsandworkingconditionswereidentifiedasimportantfactorsleadingtojobdissatisfaction.Thesefactors are distinct and separate and are not opposite of one another. Instead, they areconcernedwith twodifferent ranges ofman’s needs. The satisfiers—when the people feltwell about their job—are related to thework itself and the dissatisfiers are related to thework environment. Herzberg called the first set of factorsmotivators and the second sethygiene ormaintenance factors. BeforeHerzberg, behavioural scientists emphasised on ‘ jobenlargement’or‘jobrotation’forworkermotivation.ButHerzbergsuggestedthatwhatwereallyneedistoenrichthejobi.e.,deliberatedupgradingofthescopeoftheworkaswellasresponsibility. Job enrichment calls for vertical job loading, introduction of new andmoredifficult tasks not previously undertaken, removal of controls, conferring additionalauthority,etc.

WiderPerspectivesDuring the post SecondWorld War problems of development in the newly independentcountriesaswellastheproblemsofgovernanceinthedevelopedcountriesinthecontextofemergingcomplexities,theneedforbetterunderstandingofstatecraftbecameinevitableandurgent. Several streamsof researcheswereundertaken focusingondevelopingmodels foradministration, examining governance in the context of policy, and analysing publicadministrationinthecontextofpoliticalprocessesandpublicmanagementofstate,economyand society. Though the contributions of these theorists can be considered from thedisciplinaryperspectivesofdevelopment,policyanalysis,politicaladministrationandpublicmanagement,wehaveput them in a broader rubric ofwiderperspectives as they have andcontinue to have immense influence and impact on theory and practice of publicadministrationinallcountriesacrosstheglobe-developinganddeveloped.ContributionsofFredRiggs,DwightWaldo,YehezkelDror,andPeterDruckercomeinthiscategory.

AftertheSecondWorldWarmanyAfro-Asiancountriesattainedindependenceandfacedandcontinuetofacechallengingtasksofdevelopment.Thewesternadministrativemodelsandpracticeswerefoundwantinginmanyrespectswhentheyappliedtothesecountries.Itisinthiscontexttheneedfordevelopingentirelynewconceptswasfeltandtheresultwasthe emergence of development and comparative public administration, which emphasisecross-culturalandcross-nationaladministrativestudies.

FredW.Riggs(1917-2008),apioneerinthisfield,developedmanyanalyticalmodelsandapproaches to study public administration in a comparative perspective. He used threeimportantanalyticalapproachesviz.,ecological,structural-functional,andidealmodels.Heemphasisedthattheadministrationanditsenvironmentinfluenceeachotherandthereforeanunderstandingofthedynamicsofthisprocessisnecessarytounderstandadministration.This is termed as ecological approach. In analysing the administrative systems from theecologicalpointofview,Riggsmainlyusedstructural-functionalapproachusinganumberofideal models. Riggs is one of the most creative and ambitious model builders.13 First, heconstructedagrariaandindustriabyclassifyingsocietiesasagriculturalandindustrial.Asthismodelprovedtobetooabstract toapplyandfailedtoexplainthetransitionalsocieties,hedevelopedanothersetofmodels, fused,prismaticanddiffracted.Thesemodels,Riggssays

emphatically, are designed to be ‘ideal’ types not to be found in any actual society, butperhaps approximate to some, and useful for heuristic purposes and as an aid in theorganisationofdata.

Riggs made significant contribution to the field of comparative and developmentadministration. He defined development as the increasing ability to make and carry outcollectivedecisionaffectingtheenvironment.Heconsidereddifferentiationandintegrationas the twokey elements in theprocess ofdevelopment.Thedegreeofdifferentiation andintegrationrepresentdiffractedandprismaticconditionsof thesociety.Riggsconsiderstheprismatic society as less developed because of maladjustment of differentiation andintegration. Riggs’ ecological approach touches wider horizons than classical andbehavioural theories, and provides an integrated approach of administrative system. Thishelpsusinunderstandingtheadministrativeprocessindevelopingcountries.AsChapmanobservedthatinspiteofmanylimitations,Riggsmodelsmaydeepenourinsightintosomeoftheunderlyingproblemsofadministrationintransitionalsocieties.14

During the later part of the twentieth century public administration has come toemphasise ‘public policy’ concept of its scope and method. This, apart from having asubstantial intellectual and practical interest, has had a significant impact on publicadministrationasadiscipline.15YehezkelDror (born in1928) isapioneer inattempting tocarve out a separate field of policy science.He, in hiswide ranging studies, identifies theinadequacy and weakness in public policy-making in the contemporary society andemphasises on the need for the development of supra discipline ‘ based on systematicknowledge,structuredrationalityandorganisedcreativity’.Hisbasicthesisisthatthereisasignificant gap in the knowledge on how policies can best be made. The gap betweenavailable knowledge and practice of policy-making will get widened unless some radicalchanges are made in policy-making methods, organisations and qualifications of policy-makers.Heparticularlyemphasisedtheneedforgreatintegrationoftheexistingknowledgefortheenrichmentofthisnewscience.Thisisfortwobasicreasons-firstly,theinadequacyofthepolicysciencestocontributetothegrowingdemandsofmodernisationandchallengesof development, and secondly, a more academic one, is the intellectual curiosity of theacademics to apply the enormously increasing knowledge in various disciplines forqualitativeimprovementofthepublicpolicy-making.

Dror underpins the urgency and need for the development of this new discipline ofpolicy,identifiesanumberofproblemsblockingitsevolutionandexplainsthedirectionsinwhich policy science research is moving, and has to move. He critically surveys, in hisvarious writings, the existing normative models of public policy-making, pinpoints theirlimitationsanddevelopsanoptimummodelwhichisafusionofthemeritsofthenormativemodelswithout their deficiencies. For improving public policy-makingDror identifies themajorchangesneeded in theknowledge,personnel,structures,processesandenvironmentviz., in the public opinion, culture, behaviour, etc. He attempts to findways to integrateknowledgeandpowerandmakesanumberof concretepropositions for improvingpublicpolicy-making. He says that better policy-making is an essential precondition fordevelopment and modernisation and policy sciences aim to reassert the role ofintellectualismandrationalismtoguidehumandestiny.

DwightWaldo(1913-2000),a ‘definingfigure’ inthedisciplineofpublicadministration,unequivocally abandoned politics-administration dichotomy. He contends that theseparation is inadequate, either as a description of reality or as a prescription for

administrative behaviour. He represents ‘the administration as politics’ approach andbelieved that there ismuch to learn fromhistoryand is criticalof anti-historicalnatureofpublic administration literature. He was critical of organisational paradigm of classicaltheory and identified three different stages of development of organisation theory viz.,classicalperiod,neoclassicalapproachandmodernorganisationtheory.

Discussing the trends in modern organisation theories, Waldo critically examined thenatureofcomparativeanddevelopmentadministration.HeplayedasignificantroleinNewPublicAdministrationMovement,whosegoalwas toestablishnewdirections for the fieldandtoreconcilepublicadministrations’roleinthecontextofsocialandpoliticalfermentoflate1960’sandearly1970’s.Waldowasmoresympathetic toa ‘professional’orientation inpublic administration despite being aware of limitations of public administration as aprofession. Foreseeing the future world as turbulent and characterised by change, heexamined the role of public administration in such turbulent times. He predicts thatorganisationsoffuturewillbemorecomplexandlessbureaucratic.Theenterpriseofpublicadministration, according to Waldo, will be marked by philosophical, disciplinary andmethodologicalpluralismasweattempttosurvive,adoptandcontrolchange.Waldo’sworksare criticised for its essential ambivalence. Someof the areasof criticism relate topolitics-administration relations, public and private administration differences and professionalnature of public administration. Waldo may not have provided definitive answers toproblems of public administration, but raised right questions and provided insights thatbetterequipustomoreinformedchoicesbetweendifferentalternatives.

Peter Drucker (1909-2005), the management guru and consultant, is a writer ofuncommon verve and practicality and deals with management in the context of largersociety. His vision can be uncovered from his voluminous writings over the last severaldecades and extrapolated to governmental administration.Drucker believed that the termmanagement is generic and not related to business or any other profession. Tracing thehistoricaldevelopmentsinmanagementstudies,helamentsthatdespitethesedevelopmentsafeelingpersiststhatmanagementisbusinessmanagement.Tohimmanagementisaspecifictool, specific function and specific instrument to make institutions capable of producingresults and ninety per cent of it is generic to all types of organisations. Describingmanagementasaliberalart,Druckersaysthatitdealswithfundamentalsofknowledge,self-knowledgewisdomandleadership.Itisanartbecauseitdealswithpracticeandapplication.Hewas the first to seemanagement as a profession – a body of theoretical and practicalknowledgeaboutorganisations,tasksandpeople.Hebelievedthatmanagersaremadeandnotbornandemphasisedtheimportanceofmanagementeducationandtraining.

Drucker is very critical about the non-performance of public agencies and identifiedseveral‘sins’thatcontributedtonon-performance.Hearguesthatthegovernmentisapoormanager and is concernedwithprocedures and in theprocess becomes ‘bureaucratic’.Headvocated restructuring of government based on ‘rethinking’ and suggested continuousimprovement and benchmarking in restructuring government. Aware of difficulties in‘rethinking’ingovernmentsystem,hepleadsfor‘atheoryofwhatgovernmentcando’andmaintainsthatgovernmentshould‘abandon’functionsthatitcannotandshouldnotdo.Theconcept of Management by Objectives (MBO), as is understood today, was firstconceptualisedbyDrucker.MBOreferstocollectivesettingoforganisationgoals,targetsandmeasurement.When it is considered thatmanagement exists toproduce results, theMBObecomes an important tool for performance assessment and management by self-control.Druckerdevelopedtheconceptofknowledgeworkerinorganisations.Heidentifiedseveral

factors that determine knowledge worker’s productivity and argues that making themproductive requires changes in the attitudes of individual workers as well as the entireorganisation.

DespitephenomenalcontributionsbyDruckertothepracticeofmanagement, therearemanycriticismsandtheyrelatetojournalisticnatureofhisworkwithoutmuchintellectualdepth, failure to appreciate the different contexts of public administration, failure torecognisethelimitationsinapplicationofmarketapproachesingovernment,andfailuretodiscerntheactualtenorandtextureofpublicmanagement.Druckerthroughhiswritingsonmanagement focused on relationships among human beings and they provide lessons onhoworganisations can bring out the best in people and howworkers can find a sense ofdignityinmodernsociety.ManyofhisideasformedthebasisforNewPublicManagementmovementwhichisunderway.

MarxianPerspectiveDerived from the works of Karl Marx (1818-1883) and Friedrich Engels, Marxist theoriesfocusondialecticalmaterialismandadvocateproletarianrevolution.Thesetheoriesarethemost powerful and aremost debated. They inspired both dedicated exponents and bittercritics and are the basis for modern day communism. They envisage the emergence ofclassless society. Social and political institutions progressively change their nature aseconomicdevelopmentstransformthematerialconditions.Theybelievedthatresistancetochangenecessitatesitsoverthrowofsuchinstitutionsthroughclassstrugglethanwaitingforincremental changes andmodifications.Marxismgoesbeyond thedefined confinesof anysingle discipline and encompasses anthropology, psychology, social theory, philosophy,economics,politicalscience,publicadministration,etc.

ItmaylookveryunconventionaltoincludeKarlMarxamongadministrativethinkers.Heisincludedconsciouslytoprovideabroaderperspectiveonadministrativetheories.ThoughMarxdidnotparticularlywriteaboutbureaucracyandadministrativeconcepts,hedealt insufficientdetailonthenatureofadministrationandroleofbureaucracyinhisvariousworksonstateandsociety.His ideasonbureaucracycanbemainlydiscernedfromTheEighteenthBrumaire of Louis Bonaparte, Critique of Hegel’s Philosophy of Rights, etc. Marx examinedbureaucracy from the philosophical perspective of dialectical materialism. He consideredbureaucracyasapartof thestate’sexploitativemachineryandaninstrumentof therulingclass.Inaclasssocietybureaucracyisaninefficientandinhumaninstrumentbecauseofitsexploitative nature. He questioned the Hegelian assumptions about bureaucracy. Theconceptofalienation,whichMarxexplainedindetail,isusefultounderstandthealienationof bureaucracy in the modern state. Marx visualised the transformation of the role ofbureaucracyinaclasslesssocietyfromadministrationofpersonstoadministrationofthings.ItisveryimportanttoexaminetheviewsofKarlMarxonthebureaucracyinthecontextofexperienceofnatureandroleofadministrationinsocialistcountries.

SignificantWorksandIdeasofThinkersThethinkersincludedinthisvolume,throughtheirstudiesandresearches,havegeneratedalarge number of ideas, concepts and theories and wrote extensively on organisation,administration and management. As a pedagogic exercise, we have identified threeimportantworks and concepts/and ideas of each thinkerwhich are useful to the scholarsandstudentsofPublicAdministrationandincludedintable1.Thisisareflectiveexercisetofurthertheknowledgeinpublicadministration.

Table1:SignificantWorksandIdeasofThinkers

References1 See Chaturvedi, T.N., in Arora, Ramesh K., (Ed), Administrative Theory, New Delhi, Indian Institute of Public

Administration,1984,p.v.2 Golembiewski,RobertT.,PublicAdministrationasaDevelopingDiscipline,PartI,PerspectivesonPastandPresent,NewYork,

MarcelDekker,Inc.,1977,p.5.3 PeterSelf,AdministrativeTheoriesandPolitics,London,GeorgeAllen&UnwinLtd.,1972,p.20.4 Baker,R.J.S.,AdministrativeTheoryandPublicAdministration,London,HutchinsonUniversityLibrary,1972,p.31.

5 Urwick,L.,andBrech.E.F.L.,TheMakingofScientificManagement,Vol.I.London,SirIsaacPitman&Sons,Ltd.,Reprinted1955,p.37.

6 Gross,BertramM.,TheManagingofOrganisations:TheAdministrativeStruggle,Vol.I.NewYork,TheFreePress,1964,p.145.7 Ibid.,p.145.8 Baker,R.J.S.,op.cit.,p.23.9 Koontz,Harold.,“TheManagementTheoryJungle”,in.Richards,MaxD.,andNielander,WilliamA.,(Eds.),Readingsin

Management,Bombay,D.B.TaraporevalaSons&Co.,P.Ltd.,IIIEd.,1969,p.16.10 Urwick,L.,andBrech.E.F.L.,op.cit.,p.51.11 Wren,DanielA.,TheEvolutionofManagementThought,NewYork,TheRonaldPressCompany,1972,p.301.12 Henderson,KeithM.,EmergingSynthesisinAmericanPublicAdministration,Bombay,AsiaPublishingHouse,1970,p.17.13 Caiden,GeraldE.,TheDynamicsofPublicAdministration:GuidelinestoCurrentTransformationsinTheoryandPractice,New

York,Holt,RinehartandWinston,Inc.,1971,p.260.14 Chapman,Richard,A.,“PrismaticTheoryinPublicAdministration:AReviewoftheTheoriesofFredW.Riggs”,Public

Administration,Vol.44,Winter,1966,p.427.15 Golembiewski,RobertT.,op.cit.,p.4.

E

1ADMINISTRATIVETHEORY

D.RavindraPrasadY.Pardhasaradhi

xplosionofknowledgeledtotheemergenceofdisciplinesoveryearsresultingingrowthof autonomous areas of specialisation eachwith distinct boundaries of its own. This is

accompanied by the development of concepts and theories which form the basis of eachdiscipline.Anunderstandingofthediscipline-specialisedareaofknowledge-presupposesanunderstandingof the relatedconceptsand theories.What, then, is theory?Whatare itselements,functionsandrole?Whatconstitutesagoodtheory?Asthebookisconcernedwithpublic administrative theory, it is necessary to understand what theory is and also thepresentstatusofpublicadministrationtheory.

WhatisTheory?

The term theory is derived from the Greek word ‘theoria’1 which means ‘looking at’,‘viewing’, ‘contemplating’, ‘speculating’. Theories are ideas organised in a logical order toreinforce or demolish an existing conviction or to form the basis for a new conviction. Itenables one to distinguish between real from the ideal and right from wrong. Theoryrepresents a systematic explanation of causal factors and their fusionwithin a conceptualframework. Theory is based on logical reasoning and consists of a set of principles andgeneralisations which represent universal truths. These may initially constitute testablehypotheses,whichindifferentsituationsmayprovetobetrueoruntruewhentested,othersget incorporated into theory. Gradually a body of knowledge emerges containing a set ofinterrelated concepts, definitions, and propositions that provide a systemic view of thephenomenonbyspecifyingrelationshipsbetweenvariableswiththeobjectiveofexplainingandpredictingphenomenon.Theoryissystematicgroupingofinterdependentconceptsandprincipleswhichgiveaframeworktoortietogetherexistingknowledge,explainingeventsorrelationshipsandintheendpredictwhathasnotyetbeenobserved.

Theoryisaconcisepresentationoffactsandlogicalsetofassumptions.Kerlinger2definestheory as a ‘set of interrelated constructs or concepts, definitions and propositions thatpresentsasystematicviewofphenomenonbyspecifyingrelationsamongthevariableswiththe purpose of explaining and predicting the phenomenon’. Gibbs,3 on the other hand,definesthat‘atheoryisasystemoflogicallyinterrelatedstatementsintheformofempiricalassertionsaboutproperties,ofinfiniteclassesofeventsorthings’.ToSamuelson4theoryisasetofaxiomsorpostulatesorhypothesesaboutobservablereality.5

ElementsofTheoryA theoryhas three important characteristics, viz., it consists of a set ofpropositions, thesepropositions are interrelated, and some of these propositions can be empirically tested.Aproposition is a statement about the relationship between two or more concepts. Thestructureofthetheoryconsistsofcertainelementsthatarebuiltoneupontheother,formadeductive system of reasoning. These elements are assumptions and they form a logical

skeleton for theexplanatory systemanddefine thebasicnotionsabout the system.Suchaconceptualabstractmodelissimplerthantherealworldandcontainsonlytheforcesthatthetheoryassertstobeimportant.

ClassificationofTheoriesTheories are classified according to their extent of application as pure and practical. Puretheory builds conceptual model for explaining observable phenomena6. Practical theorygeneralisesrelationsabstractedfromobservablephenomenaandputsmeaningandpurposeinto the logic of pure theory for the solution of practical problems. Henry Mehlberg,7 aFrenchphilosopher,classified theoriesas independentand intradependent.The formerarefurtherclassifiedintoaxiomatic,phenomenologicalandtranscendenttheories.

WhatConstitutesaGoodTheory?Theory should broadly conform to the criterion of objectivity, reliability, universality,coherence and comprehensiveness. Miner identifies seven criteria to examine whether atheoryisgoodornot.8Thecriteriaincludesthatagoodtheoryshouldcontributetothegoalsofscience,beexplicitandhelpful in focusingresearch,clearlydelineate thedomainof thediscipline,belogicallyconsistentbothinternallyandexternally,shouldbeatestablerealityand be a simple statement and most parsimonious. Miner adds that theories are notsacrosanctforalltimesandwhatwasagoodtheoryatonepointoftimemaynotbesogoodyears later. The other criterion towhich theory should conform to be acceptable as goodtheory include that it must be logically consistent and there should not be internalcontradictions; must be interrelated; exhaustive and cover the full range of variationsconcerning the nature of the phenomena in question; there should be no repetition orduplication; and capable of being subjected to empirical scrutiny.Nan Lin9 has identifiedthree criteria for evaluating theories and fordecidingwhichof them is superior.Theyaretestability,clearandunambiguouslanguage,andparsimony.

SignificanceofTheoryTheoryprovidesanorganisedandsubstantiatedplanorreasoningaboutphenomenonandtheirinterrelations.Itprovidesasystematicmethodforconductingsocialresearchandleadstoknowledgediscovery.HenriPoincare,aFrenchmathematician,providedexcellentguideforunderstandingtheroleoftheoryinscientificresearch.Hesaysthatscienceisbuiltwithfactsashouseisbuiltwithstones,butacollectionoffactsisnotscienceasmuchasaheapofstonesdonotmakeahouse.Theoryisanessentialtoolfortheprogressofcivilisationanditenables people to communicate quickly and effectively. It is intellectual shorthand,whichsaveseachgenerationhavingtorelearnallthathasalreadybeendiscoveredorlearnt.

PublicAdministrationTheoryWe shall nowdiscuss the nature and status of theory in public administration for greater,deeperandproperunderstandingof thediscipline.Thegovernmental functionsareontheincrease, thereby increasing the role of public administration to achieve societal goals.Dynamicnatureofsocietyandcomplexnatureofgovernmentalactivitiesmakesitdifficultfor generalist administrator to function in an old fashioned way and yet realise theadministrative goals. One of the reasons attributed for the failure of the administrator torealisetheobjectivesisinadequateunderstandingoftheadministrativetheory.Theinflatedsense of achievement and overrated sense of intellectual superiority of the generalistadministrators have largely contributed to the failures in administration.Onewitnesses a

general antipathy against theory, which is labelled as ‘Ivory Tower Thinking’, which theadministrators feel is far removed from the reality they confront.Bureaucraticpretenseofomniscienceisanotherreason.Theadministratorbelievesthat‘powerisknowledgeandhisexperience is greater than theory’. For this and many other reasons the administratorsjealouslyguardtheirtraditionalismabhorringandresistingchange.Butiftheadministratorhas to fashion theadministration tomeet thesocietal requirementsofchangeandmanagetheadministrativesystemeffectivelyoneshouldhaveabroaderanddeeperunderstandingoftheadministrativetheory.

In an ‘administrative state’, theory has an important role to play. Stephen Bailey10believesthat“theobjectivesofpublicadministrationtheoryaretodrawtogethertheinsightsofthehumanitiesandthevalidatedprepositionsofthesocialandbehaviouralsciencesandto apply these insights and propositions to the task of improving the processes ofgovernment and aimed at achieving politically regimented goals by constitutionallymandated means”. Bailey argues that we should select from the whole body of humanknowledge whatever appears relevant and useful in explaining the nature of publicadministration,verifiable throughobservationorexperimentandcapableofpredictingthebehaviourofpublicorganisationsandthepeoplewhocomposethemandcomeintocontactwiththem.Bailey furtherargues thatpublicadministrationtheoriesshouldprescribewhatconditionsandrelationshipsshouldexistinpublicadministration.Howshouldgovernmentbe organised? How should public servants be selected? How should authority andresponsibility be assigned to public agencies? What principles should govern publicdirections?etc.

EvolutionofPublicAdministrationPublicadministrationasasubjectmatterexistedsincethedawnofcivilisation,thoughasanacademic discipline it is of recent origin. Origins of administration can be traced to theorganisation of King’s household, which was divided into two different organs — onelookingafterKing’spersonalservicesandtheotherlookingaftertheadministrationoflands,finances,justice,armies,etc.Inthepast,publicserviceswerelimitedandconfinedtolawandorder, regulatory activities and select public works, communal welfare was limited andadministrative methods unsophisticated and technologies simple. Mostly governmentalfunctions were internally organised into specialised areas. Modern times are witnessinggrowthinlegislationandconsequentlytherehasbeenasubstantialincreaseingovernmentaladministration.

Two important institutions that contributed significantly to the development ofadministrative theory and practices are the church and the military. The former is bestexemplified by theRomanCatholicChurch,which has endured formore than 2000 yearswithafive-levelhierarchyi.e.Pope,Cardinals,Archbishops,BishopsandtheParishPriests.11Biblical references brilliantly explain the need to delegate authority in large organisationsand to reviewexceptional cases that cannot be resolved by the subordinates. Themilitaryorganisation contributed to the theory of administration substantially. The use of staffsupport, advise, uniform methods and discipline were practiced by the military. Morerecently,armedforceshaveattractedtheattentionofthescholarsforstudiesonleadership,authority and conflict resolution. Another important influence on administrative theorybuildingisindustrialadministration.

StreamsinAdministrativeTheory

Modern state is characterised as an ‘administrative state’, signifying thepreponderance ofadministration in themanagement of governmental functions. Public administration is inconstantfluxasitisconstantlyexpandingalongwithchangingnatureofstate.Emergenceofglobalsocietyandnewworldordercontributedtotheexpansionoftheboundariesofpublicadministration. Itsgrowingpervasiveness in thedaily livesof thecommunity isevident inthe proliferation of public law, expansion of public sector, growth in public capital andinvestment,growthofpublicemploymentandpublicprovisions,etc.Thisexpansionmadesomepeople to believe that if the cycle is not soon reversed, itwill become enslaved to aleviathan that will order all our affairs, while others hope that further extension willeliminate selfish, private interests that exploit the common man that bring good societynearer.

Administrativetheory,thoughnotexplicitly,wasinevidenceduringtheancientperiodaswell.Kautilya’sArthashastrainIndiaduringthe4thcenturyB.CandSunTzu’sTheArtofWarinChinaduring 6th centuryB.Chaveglimpsesof administrative theory.TheChinese alsoseemtohaverecognisedtheneedforplanning,organising, leadingandcontrollingaround1000BC.Theseareclassicexamplesof thepresenceofadministrativetheoryinthispartoftheglobeevenbeforeChrist.Similarly,Egyptianspracticeddecentralisationandtheuseofstaffadvicealmost2000yearsbeforeChrist.Theconstructionofpyramids isareminderofthe existenceof systematicplanning, organisation, leadershipand control systemswithoutwhich it would not have been possible to build them. This clearly indicates the effectivepracticeofadministrativeprinciples.

Ifonewererequiredtospecificallypinpoint thetime,whenthemodernadministrativetheorywasborn,thedatewouldhavetobethepublicationofF.W.Taylor’s‘ThePrinciplesofScientific Management’. Taylor’s efforts became known for his experiments on time andmotion.IncontrasttoTaylor,HenriFayoltookabroaderviewandhecanbedescribedasthefirst administrative theorist i.e., those concerned with principles of organisation and thefunctions of administrator. Fayol’s important contribution was the designation ofadministrativefunctionsandrecognitionofthediscipline.TaylorandFayolwerealmostthefirsttodiscerncertainpostulates,whichwerelatersynthesisedas‘principles’thatformthebasisandsubstanceofclassicalapproachtothestudyoforganisations.

Theclassicaltheoristsemphasisedonthephysiologicalandmechanisticaspectsofpublicorganisations. The next historical stream of administrative thought is described as a neo-classical or human relations approach. Starting with the human relations many variedcontributions from behavioural scientists have enriched administrative theory. Thestructuralist-mechanisticapproachtopublicmanagementwaschallengedbybehaviouralistasthelatterfocusedonthehumanandsocialelements.FromtheHawthorneexperimentsofthe 1920s, clinical investigations into human behaviour in organisational setting led tosubstantialmodifications in the concepts andmethodologies of public administration. Theworks of Follett, Barnard and Simon resulted in a significant change in the direction ofadministrative theory.ChesterBarnard’s social theoryhasbroadenedunderstandingof therelationshipbetweenpublicadministrationandsociety.

Although, much of public administration theory is culture-bound the study ofcomparativeanddevelopmentadministration,afieldvirtuallyunknownbeforetheSecondWorld War, broke through cultural barriers and stimulated much original thinking. TheecologicalapproachtothestudyofadministrationoriginatedinthewakeofemergenciesofThirdWorld and increased realisation of relevance ofmost of theWestern theories to the

study of administration. F.W. Riggs and the comparative administrative group of theAmerican Society of PublicAdministration pioneered a new administrative vocabulary todescribe different societal typologies, administrative cultures and administrative systems.TheresulthasbeenaquestioningofthetraditionalframeworkofPublicAdministrationandwesternegocentricity.

Dwight Waldo made substantial contribution to strengthen the administrative theorythrough his contributions to politics - administration dichotomy, organisation theory andlaunchedthenewpublicadministrationmomentwiththegoaloffindingnewdirectionstothe fieldofpublic administrationwhichwas fermentduring the sixties and seventies.Hiscontemporary Peter Drucker, a management thinker through his writings believed thatmanagementisgenericandisequallyapplicabletogovernmentadministration.Hepositedthe view that the future organisations both corporate and governmental, are going to becomplex and knowledge-based till management becomes critical. He paved theway, in awaytothenewpublicmanagementmomentwhichhasattractedtheattentionofscholarsofpublicadministrationandbegantoworkonadministrativeconceptivetheoriestakingfrommanagementconceptivetheories.

Inrecentyears,publicadministrationhascometoemphasisepublicpolicyconceptofitsscopeandmethod.Thishasa significant impactonpublicadministrationasadiscipline.12ThecontributionsofDrorareverysignificantinthisarea.

ThecontributionstothedisciplineofPublicAdministrationhavecomemainlyfromtheWestandmoresofromtheUnitedStatesofAmerica.TheAmericanPublicAdministration,rooted in American political and civic culture, is widely acknowledged as advancedcapitalism blendedwith pluralism. The spirit of the discipline is naturally instrumentalistandmanagement-oriented. This is a conventional and empirically oriented administrativetheory.Themarxist’sconcernformacrosocialstructuresandthehistoricaltransformationofthewholepoliticaleconomyneedstoberelatedtoorganisationalanalysesandthestudyofPublic Administration. A theory of Public Administration can be inferred from the largebody of Marxist and non- Marxist literature on the nature of state and a radical PublicAdministration grounded in theMarxist perspective is yet to take definite shape. But thebroad outline is steadily emergingwith obvious attraction for the “ThirdWorld” scholarswhoaregropingforanewparadigmtoexplainthesocio-politicalrealityofthethirdworld.

Thisbriefsurveyofadministrative theoriesshowsthat traditionalpublicadministrativeassumptions are frequently shattered by contemporary happenings.13 The actualconfigurationofpublicadministrationisinaconstantstateofflux.Itisneverthesamefromone period of time to another as perceptions change incessantly and with them theboundariesofpublicadministration.Thesubjectmatterisexplodinginalldirections.Societalactivitiessubjecttopoliticaldirectionsareexpandingfastinresponsetocontemporaryneeds.Newtypesofpublicorganisationsarebeingcreatedandnewtechniquesandprocessesarebeing developed and service level benchmarks are being identified for improving theperformanceofpublicservicedelivery.Asaresulttheadministrativetheoryisinaconstantflux.

PublicAdministrationasaAcademicDisciplinePublic administration as a discipline evolved mostly in the West. Consequentlyadministrative theorizing has been thework of practitioners and reformers in theUnitedStatesofAmericaandEurope.Adiversityofdisciplinesfromthesocialsciences,humanitiesand even physical sciences has made direct contribution to administrative theory. It is

difficulttoconceiveofanyareaofacademicstudythatisnotordidnotcontributetopublicadministration.Assuchadministrativetheoryisaproductofdiverseinputs.

Theorybuildinginpublicadministrationisnotaneasytask,astherearevarioustypesofpublic organisations, administrative structures and processes. Therefore, publicadministration theorists have gone searching far and wide for new ideas, concepts andmodels thatmayhave relevance topublicorganisations.Their searchhas carried them farbeyond boundaries for administrative theory. ThismadeAlberto Ramos14 to observe that“Public administration may have lost a sense of its specific assignment and become ahodgepodgeoftheoreticalramblings,lackingbothforceanddirection”.Moreimportantlyithaslostitsbearingstothemystificationofbothpractitionersandstudentswhocannolongerrelatetheorytopracticeorvice-versa.AsMartinLandau15commentedadministrativetheoryismarked by a plethora of competing schools, a polyglot of languages, and accordingly aconfusionoflogic.Thereisneitheracommonresearchtraditionnorthenecessaryconsensusfor a common field of inquiry. Each of the competing schools questions the others.Consequently thewhole field is confused, the core conceptsneedclarification.Thismakesmanytoarguethattoolittlerelevantpublicadministrationtheoryexists.

Manybelievethatpublicadministrationhasyettodevelopasystematicbodyoftheoryofits own as there are theories in public administration, but not theories of publicadministration. In fact the term public administration theory is rarely employed by thescholarsintheliteratureofpublicadministration.ThedisillusionmentabouttheabsenceoftheoryofpublicadministrationpersistsfromthedaysofHerbertSimonwhoquestionedthebasesoftheoryofpublicadministrationinhis‘AdministrativeBehaviour’.Ataboutthesametime Dwight Waldo in his “Administrative State” noted that the administrative theory ascrude, presumptuous, incomplete,wrong in some of its conclusions, naive in its scientificmethodologyandparochial“initsoutlook”.

TheoryBuildinginPublicAdministrationThere are several reasons for the absence of proper and acceptable theory in publicadministration. Public administration, as a discipline has grown as part of either law orgovernment. Formulation of theory, therefore, becomes difficult as it is an exercise inassimilationofknowledgedrawing fromdifferentdisciplines.Secondly, theorybuilding inpublicadministrationbecomesdifficult,asthesubjectismostlyapractitionersdomain.Butthe practitioners are not too interested to build theories. Most practitioners of publicadministration feel that theory is of no relevance to them. They believe that theirs is apracticalworldand theirproblemsdonotwait theoretical solutions.What is interesting isthatthepractitionersdoemploytheories,thoughunconsciously,andmakeassumptions,testconcepts, verify hypotheses and evaluate ideas. Thirdly, theories in public administrationshouldbebasedonsocialtheory,butsofartheletterhaseludedeverybody.

Theorybuildinginpublicadministrationisinter-disciplinaryandmulti-disciplinary.Asaresultuni-disciplinarymooringscannotfathomthephenomenainall itsramifications.Thenatureofthestate,socialrelations,politicalculture,etc.,influencestheworkingofallpublicorganisations.Anytheorythatdoesnottakeintoconsiderationthesefactorswouldanalysethe phenomenon only partially. It is this aspect that is hindering the growth of theory inpublicadministration.Anotherfactoristheanalysisbywesternscholars,orwesternorientedscholarswhoanalysethephenomenonwithoutdeepinsights intothemilieuwithinwhichthepublicorganisationshavetooperate.Professionofpublicadministrationwhichconsidersit self omniscient and panacea for all social and political ills, harbinger of the peace and

prosperity and policy formulator and implementer has systematically endangered thegrowthofthedisciplinewiththeirtouch-me-notattitude.Thepublicadministrators,comingas they do from different disciplines, could not integrate in them as to what is theadministrativephenomenon,which theyattempted to fathom. It is these factors thathavehinderedthegrowthofdiscipline.

Administrativestudiesinthirtiesbeganwithahopefulnoteonthepossibilityofbuildingascienceofadministration.ThisisevidentwhenGulickassertedwithconfidence,that“wemayexpect in time, to construct avalidandaccepted theoryof administration”.16Urwickwasmoreemphaticwhenhesaid,thattheprinciplescanbestudiedasatechnicalquestion.Irrespective of purpose, the enterprise, the personnel compose it, or any constitutional,politicalorsocialtheoryunderlyingitscreation.17Therefollowedanumberofstudies,whichled to the formulation of different theories in administration. However, the efforts tosynthesisethosetheoriesdidnotbearfruit.TheeffortsofafewlikeLitchfield,18andBertramGross19 have not been rewarding. As Caiden has observed administrative theorists haveshown no inclination to accept any framework 20. Instead they continue to go in theirrespective ways and fly off at tangent, to the utter confusion of fellow theorists andnewcomerstotheadministrationtheory.ThisfailuremadepeoplelikeWaldotoremarkthatthereisnoreasontobelievethatagreement,unification,simplificationandsystematisationlyingintheimmediatefuture.21

Whatare theconstraints that inhibit the theorybuilding inadministration?AsDimocknoted,administrationisconcernedwithallfieldsofknowledgeandallmatterswhichenterintocarryingoutofpoliciesandprogrammes.22Therefore,itdrawsheavilyfromavarietyofdisciplinesviz.,politicalscience,sociology,social-psychology,management,etc.Itisunlikelythat thinkers with different backgrounds, perceptions and expectations would tread acommonpath,withacommonapproachandwithacommonpurpose.This,inpart,appearsto be the reason for the divergence in administrative theory. Another limitation, atintegrating the several streams of administrative thought, is the impact of culture. Noorganisation can function beyond the pale of cultural constraints. For, culture of a societyexerts immense influence on organisations and on thosewhowork in them.23 Therefore,administrativetheorymusttakeintoaccounttheculturalcontext.ButmostlytheeffortsoftheorybuildinghavetakenplaceinAmerica.FifteenoutoftwentythinkersincludedinthisvolumeareAmericansandmostofthe“Americanwritersconcentratedonthelocalscene,with only incidental references to other systems“ in understanding and analysing theadministrative phenomenawhichHeady called parochial.24 It is doubtful, then, to expectuniversalvalidityofsuchtheories.

Administrative values have been changing through the passage of time. Gone are thedayswhenadministrationisconcernedwithonlysuchvaluesaseconomyandefficiency,andgonearethedayswhenadministrator isconcernedwithonlypsychologicalandemotionalfactorsinvolvedingroupbehaviour.Today,societiesallovertheworldareinfluxandsocialtransformation is takingplace at a faster rate, and administration is expected tomeet andhandle these challenges thrown up by the competitive globalmarket. Social relevance ofadministration is being questioned.25 There are new and varied demands from varioussections of the society and the administrative structures are finding it difficult to addresstheminarationalandtime-boundmanner.Theveryefficiencyoftheadministrativesystemsis being called into question necessitating the administration to learn new ways of

transforming a society.As long as society continues to be dynamic and fast changing, theadministration should also be dynamic and no static theory of administration will everdeliver the goods. The goal is to formulate theories and models that can help in betterunderstandingthecomplexadministrativephenomenonindifferentsettings.

Viewed from a different perspective, administration qualifies itself to be labelled asscience in the samesenseasmedicineandengineeringare.Theclassical,behavioural, etc.,approachesintheadministrativestudiesarebutsegmentsofaunifiedandintegratedfieldofadministrativescience.Thebewildermentaboutadministrativescienceistheconsequenceofa myopic view of science and its attributes of definiteness and universal validity. Theseattributes loose significance when applied in isolation. If they are to be meaningful anduseful, theymustaid indevelopingabodyofknowledge that can furtherhumanwelfare.Thusviewed,administrationisdefinitelyascience.

Theperplexityaboutadministrative sciencedeepenswhensomeconsider theeffortsoftheorybuildingasterileexerciseinthemanipulationofabstractandemptyconcepts.26Buttheobjectiveoftheorybuilding,asMouzelisobserved,isnottoprovidereadymadesolutionstotheproblemsofsocialorderordisorder,orthediscoveryofNewtonian-likeLaws.Butitonly tries to elaborate conceptual tools which might help empirical investigation bysuggesting useful ways of looking at realities. Such tools do not provide, according toMouzelis,prefabricatedanswerstosocialproblems;theysimplypreparethegroundfortheiradequatehandling.27Itisalsotobeemphasisedthatnoconceptualisationwilleverbefinal,definite and settled. It is’ andmust be, subject to continual alterations, elaborations, andrefinements—all this being necessary in order to keep theory always at the service ofempiricalresearch.28

Administrationasaseparateintellectualdisciplinewastheresultofsearchforreformsin1887.Morethanacenturyandaquarterlatertheadministrationcontinuestobeinthesamesearch for a theory of administration - an administration that can administer the complexsocietaltransformations.

References1 Seehttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theory2 Kerlinger,F.N.,FoundationsofBehavioralResearch(4thed.),Wadsworth,Belmont,CA,2000,p.9.3 Gibbs,J.(Ed).,SocialControl:ViewsfromtheSocialSciences,SagePublications,BeverlyHills,CA,1977,pp.83-114.4 Samuelson,‘OnTheoryandRealism”,TheAmericanEconomicReview,Vol.54,No.5,Sep.,1964,pp.733-7355 For other definitions see http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&defl=en&q=define:theory&ei=ggxfS6OyB8-

HkQXygYHlCw&sa=X&oi=glossary_definition&ct=title&ved=0CAcQkAE.6 Allin,BushrodW.,“Theory:DefinitionandPurpose,”JournalofFarmEconomics,Vol.31,August1949,pp.410-16.7 Mehlberg,Henry,Cohen,RobertS.,EssayontheCausalTheoryofTime,NewYork,Springer-Verlag,1980.8 Miner,JohnB.,OrganisationalBehavior:FromTheorytoPractice,Volume4,NewYork,M.E.Sharpe.Inc.,2007.Ch.1.Seealso

Miner, John B., “The Validity and Usefulness of Theories in an Emerging Organizational Science,” The Academy ofManagementReview,Vol.9,No.2(April1984),pp.296-306.

9 Lin,Nan,SocialCapital:ATheoryofSocialStructureandAction,NY:CambridgeUniversityPress,2001.10 Bailey,Stephen.“ObjectiveoftheTheoryofPublicAdministration,”inCharlesworth,JamesC.,(Ed.),TheoryandPracticeof

Public Administration : ScopeObjectives, andMethods, Philadelphia, American Academy of Political and Social Sciences,1968.pp.128-139.

11 DavidThenuwaraGamage&NicholasSun-keungPang,LeadershipandManagementinEducaton:DevelopingEssentialSkillsandCompetencies,HongKong,TheChineseUniversityPress,2003,p.4.

12 Henry,Nicholas,PublicAdministrationandPublicAffairs,PrenticeHallofIndia,NewDelhi,2007,p.42.13 Lee, ElizaWing-Yee, “PublicAdministration and the Rise of theAmericanAdministrative State,”PublicAdministration

Review,Vol.55,199514 Ramos, Albert Guerreiro, “Misplacement of Concepts andAdministrative Theory”,PublicAdministrationReview, 38(6),

1978,pp.550–55715 Landau,Martin,“Redundancy,Rationality, and theProblemofDuplicationandOverlap”,PublicAdministrationReview,

29(4),1969,pp.346–35816 Gulick, Luther and Urwick, Lyndall, (Eds.), The Papers on the Science of Administration, New York, Institute of Public

Administration,1937,p.v.17 Urwick,L.,“OrganizationasaTechnicalProblem,”inLutherGulickandLyndallUrwick,eds.,Ibid.p.49.18 Litchfield,EdwardH.,“NotesonaGeneralTheoryofAdministration”,AdministrativeScienceQuarterly,Vol.1No.1.June,

1956,pp.3-29.19 Gross,Bertram,M.,ManagingOrganisations:TheAdministrativeStruggle,Vol.1.,NewYork,TheFreePress,1964.20 Caiden,Gerald,E.,PublicAdministration,PalisadesPublishers,California,1982,p.208.21 Waldo,D.,“OrganisationTheory:AnElephantineProblem,”PublicAdministrationReview,Vol.11,1961,p.20.22 QuotedinGolembiewski,RobertT.,op.cit.,p.14.23 Robson,WilliamA.,“TheManagingofOrganisation”,PublicAdministration,Vol.44,Autumn,1966,p.276.24 Heady,Ferrel,PublicAdministration:AComparativePerspective,SecondEdition,NewYork,MarcelDekker,Inc.,1979,p.4.25 SeeMarini,Frank, (Ed.),TowardaNewPublicAdministration:TheMinnobrookPerspective,NewYork,ChandlerPublishing

Company,1971.26 SeeMouzelis,NicosP.,OrganisationandBureaucracy:AnAnalysisofModernTheories,Rev.Ed.,London,Routledge&Kegan

Paul,1975,p.177.27 Ibid.,p.177-178.28 Ibid.,p.179

T

2KAUTILYA

N.R.Inamdar

Introductionhe Mauryan era of ancient India gave the world a significant Sanskrit treatise, theArthashastra ofKautilya.1 It offers deep insights into political statecraft, particularly the

principles of public administration, machinery of government, economic policy, militarystrategy,andpersonnel.KautilyaisknownastheIndianMachiavellibecauseofhisruthlessandshrewd tacticsandpolicies reflectinganapproach to statecraft includingwarfare.TheArthashastracounselsthatnomeansarebeyondthescopeoftherulertoexpandtheterritory,gainpowerandwealth.

Theword artha denotes the substance of livelihood. TheArthashastra is thus a sciencewhichdealswiththeacquisitionandprotectionofthemeansoflivelihood.Itshowshowthisactivityshouldbecarriedout.Itisalsoameansofensuringthewell-beingofhumanbeingingeneral.Itsobjectiveistwo-fold.Thefirst,palana,referstotheadministrationandprotectionofstate.Thesecond,labha,isaconquestandacquisitionofterritory.Arthaisanall-embracingwordwithavarietyofmeanings.Itisusedinthesenseofmaterialwell-being;livelihoods;economic and productive activity, particularly in agriculture, and in general as wealth.AccordingtoKautilya,theArthashastradealswiththeperennialproblemof“acquiringandmaintainingtheearth”.Thusthisshastra,writesKautilya,“iscomposedasaguidetoacquireand secure this world”. It is the art of government in its widest sense. Therefore, theArthashastra is a science that deals with statecraft in the internal as well as the externalspheres.

(c4thCenturyB.C)

LifeandWorksKautilyawas a professor at Taxila University and later became the PrimeMinister of the

MauryanEmpire. It isbeingbroadly felt thatArthashastrawas compiledduring the fourthcenturyB.C.andsomegivethedateas350-283B.C.Butthereisadisputeoverthehistoricalveracityofthetreatiseanddisagreementovertheauthorshipandthedateofitscomposition.Kangle analysed several arguments exhaustively in his study.2 Chandragupta Mauryaascendedthethronearound321B.CandvariousscholarsconcludedthattheArthashastrawascompiledbetween300B.CandfirstcenturyA.D3.Kautilya’sauthorshipaswellasthedateofabout300B.C.issupportedbyShamasastry4andothers.

A full textof the treatisewasnotavailableuntilapalm leaf in thegrantha script alongwith a fragment of an old commentary by Bhattasvamin came into the hands of R.Shamasastry of Mysore in 1904.5 He published not only the text in 1909 and an Englishtranslation in 1915 but also an index verborum in three volumes listing the occurrence ofeverywordinthetext.6Inaddition,thereisacompleteSanskritcommentarybyT.GanapatiSastri,GermantranslationwithvoluminousnotesbyJ.J.Meyer,Russiantranslationaswellastranslations inmany Indian languages.7 R.P. Kangle of theUniversity of Bombay devotedmanyyearsofpainstakingscholarshipcomparingthevarioustextsandtranslations.

OfthefifteenadhikaranasorbooksintowhichArthashastraisdivided,8thebooksrelatingto the pattern of public administration are four - first, second, fifth and sixth. Half ofArthashastra is devoted to strategies and tactics of foreign policy and defense. The secondbookentitled‘TheDutiesofGovernmentSuperintendents’dealswiththedepartments.Butaconsiderationof themachineryofgovernmentwouldbe incomplete ifportions in thefirstbookregardingtherelationsofthekingwiththeministers,spies,envoys,andprincesarenottaken into account. Various aspects of personnel were dealt in Arthashastra, but higherpersonnelgotmoreattentionthanthelowerones.ThefocusofattentionwastheKing.EverymemberofthestaffisconsiderednotinisolationbutasfarashisbehaviouraffectstheKingandhisdomain.Thequalitativeaspectofthepersonnelistreatedinminutestdetail.Thisisobviousbecauseintheabsenceofwrittenandfixedrulesrelatingtothevariousconstituentsofadministrativemachineryandpersonnelandprevalenceofunstablepoliticalconditions,thecharacterandtheveryexistenceofthegovernmentinKautilya’stimesdependedonthequalitiesoftheKingandthepersonnelassistingandsupportinghim.

NatureofStateThestateof‘nature’isimaginedtobeoneoftotalanarchy,inwhich‘mightwasright’.Whenpeoplewereoppressedbymatsyanyaya,thelawofthefish,accordingtowhichthebiggerfishswallowsthesmallerones; theyselectedManu–sonofVivasvat–theking9. Itwassettledthatthekingshouldreceiveone-sixthofthegrain,andonetenthofmerchandiseandgold,ashisdue10. Itwas therevenuewhichmade itpossible for theking toensure thesecurityandprosperityofhissubjects.Peopleagreedtopaytaxesandberuledbyonepersoninorderthattheymightbeabletoenjoywell-beingandsecurity.InKautilya’sArthashastra, there isno explicit theory of social contract as laid down by the contractualists. Neither doesKautilyausethecontracttomakethekingallpowerful.

Since Manu was the son of Vivasvat, that is the Sun, the ruler was thought of as adescendent of God. Kautilya attaches an element of divinity to the king when he says:“Divinepunishmentalsofallsonthosewhotreatkingswithdisrespect”.Aking,accordingtohim,isabletograntfavourslikeIndraandinflictpunishmentlikeYama.Monarchy,rulebya

single individual, is tacitly assumed to be the acceptednorm.There is no reference to theelectionofaking.Kautilyaalsoreferstosomeotherformsofgovernment,suchasDvairajya,whichisajointruleoverthewholekingdombythemalesofthesamefamilyandVairajya,rule by a foreign rulerwho seized the kingdom by force and ousted the legitimate ruler.Kautilyadisapprovesthelatterformofgovernmentbecauseaforeignrulerwouldhavenogenuine interest in the welfare of the conquered state and is likely to deplete it of itsresources.

NatureofDuties

TheArthashastrabringsoutthatanadministratormustpossesstheknowledgeofthescienceofPublicAdministration.AccordingtoKautilya,anadministratorcanbeanadeptintheartofPublicAdministrationonlyifheisconversantwiththescienceofPublicAdministration.The proficiency in the science of Public Administration is enjoined on almost all theimportantdignitariesinthegovernmentsuchastheKing,thecrown-prince,thepriest,theministers,etc.ThusaprinceisaskedbyKautilyatostudythesciencesandtostrictlyobservetheir precepts under the authority of specialist teachers. The high priest, according toKautilya,shouldbewellversedinthescienceofgovernment.Abouttheministers,Kautilyasays that whoever is not well versed in science should be unfit to hear the councildeliberations.AnerringKing,whoisbentupondoingwhatisagainstthescience,Kautilyainsists, brings about destruction to himself and his kingdom by maladministration. ThusKautilya exhorts a prince to study the science of Varta (economics) under governmentsuperintendentsandthescienceofDandaniti (thescienceofgovernment)undertheoreticalandpracticalpoliticians.Forthesamepurpose,headvisesthatwhenaprincepossessesgoodand amiable qualities, he might be made the commander-in-chief or installed as heirapparent.

Thecrownprinceisbestowedbysomescholarswiththemembershipoftheinnercabinetof the King.With regard to the art of Public Administration two things areworth beingnoted.KautilyadoesnotsayanythingaboutproficiencyintheartofPublicAdministrationin the case of lower personnel below superintendents of departments. And secondly,knowledge of the art of Public Administration on the part of the King, according toArthashastra, includesmastery ofmanymore things, such as the systemof espionage. Themore the concentration of power, the more responsibility it entails. However, even apowerful king cannot run the state alone. The presence of certain elements is essential tomakeastate.Thesethingsaredetailedinthewell-knowndoctrineofsevenprakritisor thesaptanga theory. No ruler, however competent or powerful, can run the state alone. TheArthashastrasays11“onewheelalonedoesnotturnandkeepthecartinmotion”.

SaptangaTheory

Kautilya enumerates seven prakritis or essential organs of the state12. They are Swamin,Amatya,Janapada,Durga,Kosha,DandaandMitra.

TheSwamin,ortheRulerKautilyagivesextensivepowerstothekingandattachesanelementofdivinity.Hisforemostduty is protection of the subjects and their property. This is called as rakshana or palana.Protection is from both, natural calamities and anti-social elements. He is also asked to

ensure theirYogakshema.Yoga refers to the successful accomplishment of an object whilekshema refers to the peaceful employment of that object13. Yogakshema is a broad termimplyingtheideaofwelfare,well-being,prosperityandhappiness.Thetextasserts14:“inthehappinessofthesubjectsliesthehappinessofkingandinwhatisbeneficialtothesubjects,lies his own benefit”. The king was expected to take an active part in war and theadministrationofjustice.Appointmentstothemostimportantofficesweremadebyhimandheoftenlaiddownthebroadlinesofpolicyandissuedcodesofregulation,dharmaniyama,fortheguidanceofhisofficersandthepeople.

TheAmatya,ortheMinisterThePrimeMinisterandtheHighPriestarethemostimportantministers.Withoneortwoadditions theymight forman inner cabinet. It is theywhoassist theKing to examine thecharacter of ministers appointed in government departments. The qualities of the HighPriestaredescribedthus:“Hewhosefamilyandcharacterarehighlyspokenof,whoiswelleducated in the Vedas and the six Angas, is skillful in reading portents, providential oraccidental, iswellversed in the scienceofgovernment, andwho isobedientandwhocanprevent calamities, providential or human, by performing such expiatory rites as areprescribedintheArthashastra,theKingshallemployashighpriest.Asastudenthisteacher,asonhisfather,andaservanthismaster,thekingshallfollowhim.”Thosewhosecharacterhas been tested under all kinds of allurements are to be employed as primeministers. Intimesofemergency,KautilyaaskstheKingtoconsultthemembersofwidercouncil,widerthan the body ofministers. This larger council is calledCouncil ofMinisters and body ofministers is known as Inner Cabinet. The important ministers inArthashastra include thesacrificial priest, the teacher, the prime minister, the high priest, the commander of theArmy,ChamberlainorTreasurer-General,andtheCollector-General.

TheJanapadaIn the analysis of Kautilya, citizens are not referred to directly. Their existence is to beunderstood by implication in the reference to the janapada. As regards the population,Kautilyasaysthatitshouldbeprosperousenoughtobeabletopaytaxes,shouldbeloyalandshouldhabituallyfollowtheordersoftheking.Regardingterritory,hegoesontosaythatitshouldhavethebestofnaturalresources15andneighbouringstatesshouldnotbeallowedtobecomeverypowerful.

TheDurgaortheFortifiedCapital

Thedurga is as importantas the janapada and is the symbol of thedefensive andoffensivecapacityofthestate.Itshouldbefortifiedtotallyandmustcontainallfacilitiesforthearmy.Kautilyadescribesfourtypesofforts:Audikwhichissurroundedonallsidesbywater,Parvatwhichisinthecentreofhills,Dhanvanwhichliesinadesert,andVanDurgawhichissituatedinaforest16.

TheKoshaortheTreasuryThestatetreasuryshouldbeapermanentsourceofrevenueforthestate.Thekingisadvisedto takeone-sixthpart of theproducedand theremustbe sufficient currencyandvaluablemineralslikegold.Themoneyinthetreasurymustbecollectedbyjustmeansandmustbevastenoughtoletthestatesurviveonitforalongtimeincaseofemergencies.Itwasnotthe

personal treasury of the king. Each gift given to the king had to be entered in a recordbook.17

TheDandaortheArmyThekingshouldhaveathis commandastrongmilitary force.Thearmyought tobewell-versedinmilitaryarts,beloyalandpatriotic.Acontentedarmy,accordingtoArthashastra,isthe key to the king’s success.18 Therefore, the king should cater to its needs properly.Heconsiders the Kshatriya Varna as the best suited for martial activities but, in case ofemergencies, the Shudras and the Vaishyas could also be drawn. The head of defensedepartmentseemtobetheSenapati.TheSenapatiisnotthecommander.Underhimtherearetwobranches,one inchargeofactualdefenseforcescontrollingstrategyandtacticsonthefield,andtheotherinchargeofsupplies.Totheformerbranchbelongthecommander,thechiefconstableinchargeofinfantry,thechiefsofelephants,cavalryandchariots,charioteers,physicians of the army, and trainers of horses. The latter branch consists of thesuperintendentsofinfantry,cavalry,chariotsandelephants,andguardsofelephantforests.

TheMitraorAllyandFriendAlliesarevaluabletotherulerintimesofneed.Alliesshouldbemadeonapermanentbasisandtheseshouldbechosenasfriendswithwhomthepossibilitiesofbreakingoffofrelationsarethelowest.Theallyis,however,therulerofanotherstateand,therefore,doesnotformpartofanotherstate’sinternalorganisation.Allthesearementionedinconnectionwiththeforeign relations as explained by the Arthashastra. Transmission, maintenance of treaties,issueofultimatum,gainingof friends, intrigue, sowingdissensionamong friends, fetchingsecretforces,breakingoftreatiesofpeace,etc.,aredetailedinArthashastrafromthepointofview of advancing thewar-and-peace policy of the country rather than of advancing theeconomicinterests.

PrinciplesofPublicAdministrationThe principles of public administration, that regulate the working of the machinery ofgovernment, can be grouped in two sets: firstly, principles of authority, obedience anddiscipline,ofdutyandinterest,andofresponsibility;andsecondly,theprinciplesofdivisionoflabour,ofcoordination,ofseparation,ofspeciality,ofhierarchy,andofequity.ThefirstsetofprinciplesembodiestheessentialattributeoftheState,namelysovereignty.Thesecondsetof principles governs the actualmethod ofwork of the administration. Both these sets ofprinciplesarefoundinArthashastra.Theformersetismoreexplicitlystatedthanthelatter.

Theprinciples of authority,19 obedience anddiscipline sumup the essenceof the Stateaccordingtothelegalistictheory.TheimportanceofthesetwinprinciplesisexpressedverygraphicallyinArthashastra.Thepassagerunsasfollows,“Butwhenthelawofpunishmentiskeptinabeyance,itgivesrisetosuchdisorderasisimpliedintheproverboffishes;forintheabsenceofmagistrate,thestrongwillswallowtheweak;butunderhisprotectiontheweakresistthestrong.Thuspeopleconsistingoffourcastesandfourordersofreligiouslife,whengoverned by the kingwith his scepter,will keep to their respective paths, ever devotedlyadheringtotheirrespectivedutiesandoccupations”.Fromanotherpassage,itwouldbeclearthat Arthashastra does not believe in the efficacy of the principles of authority and ofobedience and discipline alone. Kautilyamellows these principles by laying stress on theprinciples of duty and interest and of responsibility. He abhors both severe and mild

punishments. “But whoever imposes punishment as deserved becomes respectable. For,punishment20 when awarded with due consideration, makes the people devoted torighteousnessandtoworksproductiveofwealthandenjoyment,whilepunishments,whenill-rewardedundertheinfluenceofgreedandangerorowingtoignorance,”aversKautilya,”excites fury even among hermits and ascetics dwelling in forests, not to speak ofhouseholders.”

Kautilya identifies five elements of administration21 viz., the means of startingundertakings;theexcellenceofmenandmaterials;appointmentofplaceandtime;provisionagainst failure; andaccomplishmentof thework.The first concernof theKing ishis ownpersonalsafety,becauseonthatdependsthoroughexerciseofauthorityandtheobedienceofthatauthorityonthepartofthepeople.“Justasheattendstothepersonalsafetyofothersthroughtheagencyofspies”22,statesKautilya,“soawisekingshallalsotakecaretosecurehis person from external dangers.” And hence the wide prevalence of the system ofespionage, not merely for the purpose of security of the King’s person, but also for thepurposeofmaintainingsecurity,integrityandstabilityofadministrationagainstthedangersof internal dissension and corruption and external aggression. No person including thehighestgovernmentofficerisimmunefromdetectionbyspies.Thattheunity,stability,andindependenceof commandare ensured in thekingdom is evident frommanyprecautionsprescribedintheArthashastra.Theunityofcommand23anddirectionismaintainedbecauseoftheKing’sauthority.AllmembersofthebureaucracyderivetheirauthorityfromtheKing,standbeforethepeopleasrepresentativesofroyalauthority,andareultimatelyresponsibletotheKing.ThisisevidentfromthereferenceinArthashastratotheenforcement,oforders,the sending of writs and the procedure of forming royal writes. As for the stability ofcommand, Kautilya writes: “A royal father who is the prop for many (people) shall befavourablydisposedtowardshisson.Exceptindangerssovereigntymay(sometimes)bethepropertyofaclan;forthecorporationofclansisinvincibleinitsnature,andbeingfreefromthecalamitiesofanarchy,canhaveapermanentexistenceonearth.”OntheKing’sdemise,Kautilya does not favour usurpation of royal power by theminister, so he attachesmuchimportancetothestabilityofroyalcommand.

Fear,dutyandinterest,areamonganumberofmotivesbehindtheactofobediencefortheordersofadministrationcanbetracedtoArthashastra.ThemotiveoffearisexpressedintheArthashastra in the followingwords: “...the lifeof amanunder the serviceof aking isaptlycomparedtolifeinfire;whereas,fireburnsapartofthewholebody,ifatall,theKinghaspowereithertodestroyortoadvancethewholefamily,consistingofsonsandwivesoftheservants.”ToemphasisethemotiveofdutyKautilyareferstotheinjunctionsofthetripleVedas,whichifobservedbytheworld,wouldbringaboutprogress.Kautilyabringsouthow,for carrying out orders of administration, cooperation of the people as well as of thebureaucracy is required. He points out many ways to make people and bureaucracyinterestedincarryingoutordersoftheadministration.

Thepurposeofdanda,thesymbolofauthority,istomakepeopledevotedtorighteousnessand to works productive of wealth and enjoyments. This, the government of Kautilya’sconceptiontriestoachieve,bygivingpositivefinancialhelptotheneedyandthedistressed,as alsoby ensuring just treatment to thepeople in financial, economic, judicial, andotheradministrativemattersbyactivelyparticipating inor regulatingactivities ineconomicandother spheres.Government servants are to be enthused, according toKautilya, to actively

help the administration in carrying out orders by granting them promotion in salary,pension, financial and other kinds of help when needed, agricultural lands, and also bymaking them permanent in service. Authority is obeyed by the people on account ofsanctionsbehindorders,positionoftheofficerconcernedwhoissuesauthority,andqualitiespossessedbytheofficerconcerned.Kautilyaprescribesaseriesofpunishmentsforanumberof offences committed both by people and the government servants. Qualities of thepersonnelarestressedatanumberofplacesbyKautilya.Helaysdownaseriesofqualities,differing in number and order, for officers holding different positions of responsibility.Kautilyamentionstheprincipleofresponsibilitynotonlyinthecaseofthekingbutalsoofthegovernmentofficers.

Thesecondsetofprinciplesisembodiedinthemachineryoftheadministration.Thefullimportof thisgroupofprinciples isnot clear inArthashastra in so far as someof the linksbetweenthedifferentpartsofgovernmentmachineryarenotjoined.Thisisillustratedinasubsequent paragraphdealingwith themachinery of government in theArthashastra. Theprincipleofdivisionoflabourisbasicfortheproperandefficientworkingofthemachineryof the government. This is clearly brought out in the Arthashastra while elaborating thescheme of government. “Sovereignty is possible onlywith assistance. A single wheel cannevermove.”Hence,tellsKautilya,“heshallemployministers,andheartheiropinion.”Theprinciple of coordination automatically evolves out of the principle of division of labour.Unless coordination is effected between the parts divided for the sake of efficiency andsmoothworking,divisionoflabourwouldbefutile.TheapplicationofthesetwinprinciplesstartsintheArthashastraobviouslyatthelevelofthecouncilofministers.Theprinciplesofdivision of labour and coordination are affected at several levels of the hierarchy ofgovernment. The principle of hierarchy is followed to make coordination and executionpossible. Authority would be frittered away if it is not channelised through hierarchicalorganisationandifitdoesnotinfiltratedowntothefinalstageofexecutionunimpairedandintact.

MachineryofGovernment

SomeoftheofficersmentionedintheArthashastraaredirectlyundertheKing,whileothersare controlled by the King indirectly through higher officials. The King is the supremeexecutiveoftheland.Theministersareselected,notelected,bytheKingonthebasisoftheirqualities.Theso-calledministers, inrealitythehighestofficersdirectlyundertheKing,areindividuallyandcollectivelyresponsibletotheKing.Theministerialofficerpertainingtoasubjectdealswithadministrationofthatsubject,andassuchismorecompetentthanotherministerialofficers,tocontributetothedeliberationonhissubjectinthecouncilofministers.ButKautilyasays24,“Theseministersshallhave toconsiderall thatconcerns thepartiesofboththeKingandhisenemy.”

The Arthashastra catalogues a phalanx of officers, called superintendents, lower inimportancethantheministerialofficersandmuchbelowthem,belongingtothesixthorder,accordingtoremuneration.Theyarenotheadsofdepartments.Thesuperintendentsmightbe regardedas chiefsof sectionsdealingwithvariouseconomicandotheractivitiesof thegovernment.Mostofthesesectionsarethemodernbusinessdepartments.Adualcontrolisexercised over the superintendents.As far as control of the services of the personnel andcollectionofrevenueareconcerned,theyareundertheCollector-General.Butinthematterof supply of produced and collected commodities and articles, they are responsible to the

Treasurer-General.And there is the thirdcontrol, thatof theKing, towhichallofficesareultimatelysubject.Thesuperintendentsarehelpedby‘experts’intechnicalmatters.

Thedivisionofdepartmentsismadeaccordingtotheservicesrequiredbythepeopleanddischargedby thegovernment.Only inone casea separate sectiondealingwitha classofpersonsseemstohavebeenorganised.Thesuperintendentofprostitutessecuresinformationfromthemregardingtheirearnings,inheritance,incomeandexpenditure,collectsfeesfromthem,employstheminroyalcourt,andregulatestheirrelationswithparamoursandothers.

Another instance where sections are organised on the basis of classes of animals isSuperintendents and Chief of horses, chariots, and elephants. But these sections areorganisedonthebasisofdivisionsofthearmy,andforefficientworkingofdefenseforces.Thesuperintendentofcowsalongwiththeofficerinchargeofrearingofanimalsformsthedepartment of animal husbandry acts as an adjunct to the department of agriculture. Thedifferentfunctionsofgovernmentseemtohavebeenarrangedhorizontally.Thedepartmentof revenue in the charge of the Collector-General and the City-Superintendent is aprominent example of vertical arrangement. Under the Collector-General are theCommissioner,thedistrictofficer,andthecircleofficer-in-chargeofadivision,adistrictanda circle of villages, respectively. Under the City-Superintendent are the district officer inchargeofaward,onecircleofficerinchargeofwardandtheotherinchargeofagroupoffamilies.Whether thedistrict officer and the circleofficer areofficersmainly representingthelocalgovernmentisnotveryclear.Kautilyadoesnotmentionthemasrepresentativesofthe village and municipal governments. So the question whether Arthashastra prescribesterritorialarrangementoffunctionsisnotveryclearandcannotbeanswereddefinitely.

ImportantOfficersoftheState

Kautilya categorises the amatyas,mantrins and heads of departments into 18 tirthas. Theyare25:

1. Mantrin — Minister/Counsellor

2. Purohita — Priest

3. Senapati — CommanderoftheArmy

4. Yuvaraja — Prince

5. Dauvarika — ChiefofPalaceAttendants

6. Antarvamsika — ChiefoftheKing’sGuards

7. Prasastr — Magistrate

8. Samahartr — Collector-General

9. Samnidhatr — ChiefTreasurer

10. Pradestr — Commissioner

11. Nayak — TownGuard

12. Paur — ChiefoftheTown

13. Karmanta — SuperintendentofMines

14. Mantrin-ParishadAdhyaksa — ChiefoftheCouncilofMinisters

15. Dandpala — OfficeroftheArmyDepartment

16. Durgapal — GuardianoftheForts

17. Antapala — Office-in-charge,Boundaries

18. Ativahika — Officer-in-charge,Forests

FinancialAdministration

Thefinancedepartmentconsistsofthreeofficers26-theCollector-Generalofministeriallevelin charge of revenue collection; the Treasurer - General of ministerial level in charge oftreasury in the broad sense of the term consisting of treasurer-house, trading-house,storehouseofgrains,storehouseofforestproduce,armoryandjail;andtheSuperintendentof Accounts much below ministerial level according to remuneration. These threedepartmentsareinasenseinterdependent.But,asnotedearlier,theCollector-Generalandthe Treasurer-General are independent, the former controlling revenue collection and thelatter controlling supplies of expenditure. Both exercise authority over superintendents ofseveral sections.Kautilya’s advice to theTreasurer-General is that he should attend to thebusinessofrevenuecollectionasitappearsconfusing.RevenuecollectionislookedafterbytheCollector-General.Howis it that thesamefunction iscontrolledby the twoofficersofthesamelevelwhenalreadybothofthemaretoldtobeinchargeofseparatefunctions?Itseems Kautilya means ‘Custody and Preservation of Revenue’ when he uses the term‘revenuecollection’withreferencetothedutyoftheTreasure-General.TheSuperintendentofAccountsseemstobeundertheCollector-General.TheexaminationofaccountsisstatedasoneofthedutiesoftheCollector-Generalandtheseaccountsarereceipts,expenditureandnotbalance.Thedistrictaccountantswhoareaskedtopresentthemselveswithsealedbooks,commodities and net revenues before the superintendent of accounts, seem to be districtofficers (or officers directly under district officers) under the Collector-General, or theymightbeseparateaccountants.Thecentralaccountspertainnotonlytothosesubmittedbydistrict accounts, but they are also classified on the basis of works in hand, worksaccomplishedandofworkpartly inhand.Both theaccountsandauditare lookedafterbythe superintendent of accounts, so there is no strict separation of audit from accountsalthoughKautilyalaysdownaseparateauditprocedure.

TheKingisaskedtopersonallyattendtotheaccountsofreceiptsandexpenditure.Heisexpectedtohearthenarrativeoftheactualaccountspertainingtoeachdepartmentfromtheministersinacouncilmeeting.TheSuperintendentsdealinginbusinessactivitiesaresubjectto the dual control of the Collector-General and the Treasurer-General and they includeSuperintendentsoftreasury,manufactories,mines,ofmetals,mint,oceanmines,salt,forestproduce, gold, storehouse, and weaving. The superintendent of manufactories is giventwelve times the remuneration secured by other superintendents. There are some othersuperintendentsbut theyare treatedunderotherdepartments.Ofall thedepartments, thedescriptioninArthashastraofthefinancedepartmentconsistingofthreemainofficersisthemostsatisfactory.

The finance department, although a basic department, includes a number of businessactivities, according toArthashastra. These business departmentsmight be classified underthe departments concerned with economic protection. The government of Kautilya’sconceptionisengagedinanumberofsocialwelfareactivities.Itmightbenotedthatinthosedays,whenKautilyawroteArthashastra,socialwelfarewasprimarilytheconcernofreligiouscorporations,villagesandmunicipalcommunities,craftguildsandcasteassemblies.Chapter

IofBookIIdetailsmanyactivitiesofsocialwelfareinwhichthegovernmentoughttotakeinterest.Forexample,Kautilyawritesthatthosewhodonotheadtheclaimsoftheirslaves,hirelings, and relatives should be taught their duty, and the King should provide theorphans, aged, infirm, afflicted, and helpless with maintenance and should also providesubsistence to helpless pregnant women and also to the children they give birth to. Ingrantinglands,exemptingfromduties,thegovernmentisexhortedbyArthashastratolooktosocialjustice.

HomeDepartmentThehomedepartment includesthePrimeMinister,Doorkeeper,SuperintendentofHarem,all ofministerial level, the Superintendent of Country Parts and that of boundaries, bothbelongingtothenextorderbelowtheministersmentionedabove;andtheSuperintendentofPassportsandthatofpasturelandsbothofseventhorderaccordingtoremuneration(getting1,000 panas per annum). The Collector-General, like the District Collector under Britishregime and even today, also discharges magisterial function. The duty of a minister asspecifically handling the home portfolio is notmentioned in theArthashastra. Nor are hisrelations with other officers mentioned above related. The Doorkeeper and theSuperintendentofHaremattendtothepersonalsecurity,safety,andhappinessoftheKing.TheymightbesaidtolookaftertheKing’spersonalestablishment.

The Superintendents of Country and of Boundaries look after defense affairs. TheSuperintendentsofPassesissuespassestothosewhowanttoleaveorenterthecountry,assuchhealsocontrolsthemovementofaliensintoandoutofthecountry.TheSuperintendentof Pasturelands examinespasses, protects forests, arrests thieves to secure safety of traffic,protectscowsandalsokeepsroadsinrepair.Thelastdutydoesnotstrictlycomeunderthehomedepartment.Besides theSuperintendentofLaws, thereseems tobeadepartmentofjustice.TheArthashastraissilentastowhetherthedepartmentofjusticeisunderaminister.

JusticeThe preponderance of administrative courts, consisting of three persons proficient indharmashastraandthreeministerialofficersintheadministrationoflaw,isevident.Thereisahierarchyof courts from the courtof agroupof tenvillages risingup to theKing’s court.WhethertheKingpersonallyortheChiefJudgepresidesovertheSupremeCourtisnotclearintheArthashastra.Theregulationof liquor traffic is the functionof theSuperintendentofLiquor.Casesregardingslavetrafficfallwithinthejurisdictionofcourtsoflaw.Thespiesarethemostimportantfieldagencycomingunderthehomedepartment,inthespecialcareoftheKing.

TheKing is under an obligation to observe and carry out injunctions about social andeconomicjusticeindharmashastrasandcustomsamongthepeople.Thecourtsoflaware,forexample,todealwithcasesoflabourers,slavesandguilds.Thedepartmentsinchargeofthesuperintendents of a slaughter-house, prostitutes, liquor, and weaving are social welfaredepartments.

WagesandSalaries

AccordingtotheArthashastrathemoreresponsibletheofficeis,themorenumerousandthehigherarethequalitiesrequiredofthatofficer.Accordingtoremuneration,therearemorethansevenrungsofofficersonebelowanother,thehighestofficer,drawing4800panasperannum,andthelowest,lessthan1,000panasperannum.TheArthashastraisnotclearabout

therelationshipsbetweendifferentofficers.Theprincipleofequityalsosuffersfromclarityon the same score. The machinery of administration in theArthashastra also suffers fromhaziness in certain respects.The first characteristicof themachineryofgovernment in theArthashastra is worth noting is that we do not come across well-defined departments ofadministrationassuch.Thedivisionofthefunctionsofgovernmentindifferentdepartmentsisacomparativelyrecentprocess.

RecruitmentandTraining

The Arthashastra prescribes certain tests before assigning critical responsibilities to theadministrators.They relate to testing technical competence; intelligence,perseverance anddexterity; eloquence, boldness and presence of mind; ability to bear troubles duringemergencies;uprightness, friendlinessandfirmnessofdevotionindealingwithothersandstrengthofcharacter.27

According to theArthashastra, recruitmentof thosegetting 1,000panasper annumandaboveseemstobemadebytheKing,assistedbythehigherpriestandtheprimeminister.Superintendents are given the power to regulate the salaries, wages, transfer andappointmentsofthepersonnelunderhimgetting100or1,000panasperannum.ThereisnoreferenceintheArthashastratothetrainingafterrecruitmentexceptinthecaseofmeninthearmy. There are no definite rules about promotion. But theArthashastra suggests that thegovernment servantswho increase revenue and serve loyally should bemade permanent,andthattheKingshouldincreasethesubsistenceandwagesoftheservantsinconsiderationoftheirlearningandwork.Transferofpersonnelissuggestedasaprecautionandaremedyagainstmisappropriationofgovernmentmoney.

Kautilya prescribes that there should be no transfer of officers employed in guardingroyal buildings, forts and country parts. So it implies that transfers are made of otherservants. No leave is allowed by Kautilya. If a government servant absents himself fromwork, his dependents that stand as sureties are asked to bear the loss to the governmentcausedbyabsence.Everygovernmentservantissubjecttopunishmentifheisfoundcorrupt,slackorharassingthepeople.Norulesaboutsuperannuationaregiven in theArthashastra.Pensionstosonsandwivesofthoseservants,whodieinharness,andsoalsotoinfants,agedanddiseasedpersonsrelatedtodiseasedservants,areallowed.ButnoruleaboutpensiontotheservantafterretirementislaiddownbyKautilya.Thekingisrequestedtograntspecialpresentstoservantsonfunerals,sickness,andchildbirth.AcodeofconductforgovernmentservantsisspecifiedintheArthashastra.

OtherAspectsofPublicAdministrationThereferencetowritsandlettersintheChapteron’TheBusinessofCouncilMeeting’(BookI,ChapterXV)bringsout thedevelopmentof ‘writtenword’ and its importance inpublicadministration inKautilya’s times.A separate chapter (Book II,ChapterX)dealswith the‘TheProcedureofFormingRoyalWrits’.The‘spokenword’retainsitspre-eminenceintheArthashastra.ChapterVIIofBookIIon‘TheBusinessofKeepingUpAccountsintheOfficeofAccountants’ refers to ‘shelves of accounts books’, ‘scaled books’, – ‘regulated form ofwriting accounts’, and emphasis on documentation. The Arthashastra does not refer to aseparatesectionofdocuments.TheimportanceofstatisticsinadministrationwasrealisedbyKautilya. The district officers and circle officers are asked to collect a variety of statisticsregardinglandsandotherproperty,families,andpersons.Thecollectionanduseofstatistics

in departments other than finance is not insisted upon, nor can he hit upon a centralstatisticalorganisation,becausethatisaveryrecentdevelopment.

Inhisdescriptionofbusinessdepartments,Kautliyadrawsattentiontothelawsofsupplyanddemandand tootherbusinessmethods.Financebeingavitalmatter toKautilya, it isproper that he pays adequate attention to the use of business methods in publicadministration. He decries decrease of expenditure on ‘profitable works’. He advocatesfrequentmeetings between the King andmembers of public as he is alive to the evils ofbureaucratisation. Against corruption in administration he has devised punishments andchecks.Therearereferencestoadministrativearchitectureinthecontextoftheconstructionofharem(BookI,ChapterXX),andofbuildingsinforts(BookII,ChapterIV).Butfromthemwe do not get a definite idea about the location and the architecture of administrativebuildings.InChapterVIIofBookII,Kautilyawritesthatsuperintendentsofaccountsshouldhave the accountants’ office constructedwith its door facing either the north or the east,withseats(clerks)keptapartandwithshelvesofaccountbookswellarranged.Thatshowsthatherealisesthesignificanceofadministrativearchitectureinpublicadministration.

RelationshipbetweenOrgansofStateWhat are relations between the administration on the one hand, and legislature, thejudiciary,theexecutive,andthepublic,ontheother,asenvisagedintheArthashastra?Therewasno legislatureas such.Thebody remotely resembling the legislature is theCouncil ofState.Theministersare included in thatbody. Inanemergency, itsmeeting is tobecalledanddecisionstakenbythemajority.ThequestionwhethertheCouncilofStatepossessesthepower to sit in judgmenton thepoliciesandactionsofministerswasnotdiscussed in theArthashastra. The body of ministers is not a cabinet in the sense that it is elected by andresponsibletotheCouncilofState;theirresponsibility,collectiveandindividual,istowardstheKingas thesupremeexecutive.The judgesarenot independentof theexecutive.Theyare appointedby theKing, controlled and removed fromwork if foundunjust, slack, andcorrupt,bytheCollector-General.Intheadministrationofjusticetheyarenotindependentof the influenceof the executive, becauseministerial officers sit jointlywithpersonswell-versedindharmashastraasjudges.TheGovernmentservantsdonotseemtocomewithinthepurviewof courtsof law if theyviolate rules inadministration.Forbreachof law in theirprivate conduct they can of course be tried by courts of law. The members of theadministrationhavenorightsassuchagainsttheexecutive,sotheexecutivecantreattheminanywayitlikesandremovethem,ifitthinksfittodoso.

Conclusion

Kautilya’s Arthashastra is a treatise concerned with political science and publicadministrationasmuchasitiswithstatecraft,economyanddiplomacy.Itiswrittenwiththepracticalaimofshowinghowthegovernmentoughttoberun.Itisalsoahighlypolemicaldiscourse thathasastonishedscholars,particularlyon the themesofviolence,conspiracies,espionage,etc.Fromthatpointofview,itishighlyembarrassingtoputforththeArthashastraasthesymbolofIndianpoliticalthoughttogetherwithwhatGreecehastoofferbywayofPlato’sRepublic andLaws, andAristotle’sPolitics.However, the fact remains thatKautilyarecommended such measures only against enemies and traitors in emergencies. Hispropositionwasthatpoliticsandethicsdonotmixeasily.ThatdoesnotmeanthatKautilyadisregarded ethics or morality. What he meant was that there is a difference between

individualandpublicmorality.Kautilyamadenoseriousattemptattheorybuilding.Atbest,he described and discussed empirical reality and was normative and prescriptive in histreatment.Hewaskeenonefficiencyandrationalityaspectsofadministration.Hismaximsof administration include characteristics like hierarchy, defined competence of each office,selection by merit, promotion by seniority, compensation, training and discipline. TheArthashastra has many insights and lessons to offer even to the present-day students andpractitionersofpublicadministration.

InBriefKautilya’sideasonstateandstatecraftcanbesummarisedas:• Kautilya, authorof ancient Indian classicArthashastra,wasanAdviserandMinister to

the first Mauryan Emperor Chandraguta Maurya (C321-297 BCE). Though historicalveracity ofArthashastra is disputed, it nevertheless offers deep insights into statecraft,particularly theories and principles governing a state. It is described as a manual onstatecraft.

• InArthashastrathefocuswasthekingwhowasthoughttobethedescendentofGodandKautilyaattachesanelementofdivinitytotheking.Monarchy,rulebyanindividual,wasconsideredasadesirableformofgovernment.Kautilya justifiedabsolutepowerstothemonarch.

• Kautilya enumerates seven prakritis or essential organs of the state, viz., Swamin (theruler); Amartya (theminister); Janapada (people); Durga (fortified capital); Kosha (thetreasury); Danda (the army); andMitra (ally).He considered that no state is completewithout these elements and described in detail the role and nature of each of theseelementsofstate.

• Kautilya has elaborated the principles of administration governing the activities ofvarious elements of state and considered it necessary to everyone associatedwith stateactivitiestopossesstheknowledgeofscienceofpublicadministration.

• VariousaspectsofpersonnelweredealtintheArthashastra.Fear,dutyandinterestwereconsidered as main motivators of employee behaviour. The Arthashastra prescribesregulations for the recruitment of officials and their salary. Loyalty to king is theimportant requirement in all the appointments. Realising the difficulty to detect theofficial’s dishonesty, Kautilya elaborated on the methods of corruption and alsoprescribedanelaboratesystemofespionageandpunishment.

• Kautilya elaborated on the organisation of government and categorised them into 18Thirthasorunits.Thedivisionofdepartmentsismadeaccordingtotheservicesrequiredby the people and discharged by the government. The organisation principles andfunctionsofallthe18Thirthaswerediscussedindetail.

• TheArthashastraprovidesphilosophicalfoundationsofmonarchicalformofgovernmentandthedecisiveroleofthemonarchinadministration.Thetextasserts:“Inthehappinessofhissubjectsliesthehappinessofkingandinwhatisbeneficialtothesubjectslieshisownbenefit”.

• Kautilya’sapproachofendsjustifyingmeansandabsolutepowerstothemonarchwerecriticisedasnon-relevantideastomoderndemocraticstates.HisviewsarecomparedbymanytoMachiavelli’sThePrince.

• TheparadoxofKautilya’sphilosophyisthatsomeofhisideasarepubliclycriticisedand

privatelypracticed.Kautilyaisalternativelycondemnedforhisruthlessnessandtrickeryandpraisedforhistimelesspoliticalwisdomandknowledgeofhumannature.

Notes

Parmar,A.,AStudyofKautilya’sArthashastra,Delhi,AtmaRam&Sons,1987.Rangarajan,L.N.,RangaswamiAiyangarK.V.,IndianCameralism,Madras,TheAdayarLibrary,1949Ray,B.N.,TraditionandInnovationinIndianPoliticalThought,Delhi,AjantaBooksInternational,1999.Roger,Boesche,TheFirstGreatPoliticalRealist:KautilyaandHisArthashastra,Lanham,LexintonBooks,2003.Sihag,B.S,“Kautilyaonpublicgoodsandtaxation”,HistoryofPoliticalEconomy,Vol.37,No.4,2005,pp.723-51.Sihag,B.S,“Kautilyaoninstitutions,governance,knowledge,ethicalvaluesandprosperity’,Humanomics,Vol.23No.1,2007,

p.5.28.Sihag,B.S,“Kautilyaoneconomicsasaseparatescience”,Humanomics,Vol.25No.1,2009,pp.8-36.SunilSenSarma,Kautilya’sArthashastra:IntheLightofModernScienceandTechnology,NewDelhi,D.K.PrintWorld,2001.

References1 KangleR.P.,Kautilya’sArthashastra,NewDelhi,MotilalBanarsidas,1972.2 Ibid.,Part-III,pp.61-98.Seealsohttp://www.newworldencyclopedia.org/entry/Arthashastra3 Bhashyam, A.L., The Wonder that was India, New York, 1954, p.79. See Trautmann, Thomas R., The Structure and the

CompositionoftheKautilya’sArthashastra,Ph.D.,Thesis,UniversityofIowa,1968quotedinRangarajan.LN.,Kautilya:TheArthashastra,NewDelhi,PenguinBooks,1992,p.19.

4 Shamasastry,R.,ArthashastraofKautilya,UniversityofMysore,OrientalLibraryPublications,Mysore,1908.TheidentificationofKautilyawiththeMauryanministerChanakyawoulddatetheArthashastra tothe4thcenturyBC.CertainaffinitieswithSmritis and references thatwouldbeanachronistic for the4th centuryBCsuggest assigning theArthashastratothe2ndthrough4thcenturies.ThomasR.Trautmann and I.W.Mabbett agree thatArthashastra is a composition from no earlier than 2nd century AD. ThomasBurrow goes even further and says that Chanakya and Kautilya are two different people. Seehttp://www.bharatwiki.com/index.php?title=Arthashastra

5 Rangarajan,L.N.,op.cit.p21.6 Shamasastry,R.,op.cit.LaterreferencestoArthashastraaretothisbook.7 Rangarajan,LN.,op.cit.p.21.8 TheArthashastra ismainly in prose in sutra form,with 380 slokas. The actual number of sutras and shlokas inKangle’s

editionis5,348.RangarajanLN.,op.cit.p.22.9 BeniPrasad,TheoryofGovernmentinAncientIndia,Allahabad,CentralBokDepot,1968,p.95(Ph.D.,Thesisapprovedby

UniversityofLondonin1924).10 Ibid.,11 BookI,Chapter7.12 BookVII,FordetailsseeBeniPrasad,op.cit.,p.14713 BookI,Chapter9.14 Ibid.,15 BookVII,Chapter5.16 Ibid.17 Ibid..18 Ibid..19 BookI,Chapter420 Ibid.,21 BookI,Chapter1522 BookI,Chapter423 BookI,Chapter2124 BookI,Chapter2425 BookV,Chapter6.26 BookII,Chapter19

27 Book1,Chapter9

T

3WOODROWWILSON

D.RavindraPrasadP.Satyanarayana

Introductionheintellectualrootsof‘PublicAdministrationasaDiscipline’aretracedtothepioneeringcontributionsmadebyWoodrowWilsoninthe1880’s.Wilson,throughhisfamousessay,

‘TheStudyofAdministration’,1stimulatedinterest inandstressedtheneedforascientificstudyofadministration.Hisessaywasepochalindelineatingtheconductofgovernmentasafieldforanalyticalstudyandgeneralisation,2andthebeginningofpublicadministrationasasubjectofenquiry.WoodrowWilsonprovidedtherationaleforpublicadministrationtobeanacademicdisciplineandprofessionalspecialty.3ThoughWilsonassertedthat theaimofhisworkwas to produce a ‘semi-popular introduction to administrative studies’, the essay isgenerally regarded as the beginning of public administration as a specified study.4 Asignificant feature ofWilson’s contributionwas that hewrote the essaywhen he had nopersonalexperienceofAmericanadministrationandhisarticlewasregardedasa‘significanttrail-blazingeffort’.Wilsondidnotfollowhisearlysuccessinthisfieldeitherwithteachingorresearchthoughhislaterworkscontainedelementsofhisadministrativethought.5

(1856-1924)

LifeandWorksThomasWoodrowWilson (1856-1924)was born in Stanton,Virginia,USA, and he studiedpolitics, government and law. He went to Davidson College for a year in 1873 and latertransferred toPrinceton fromwherehegraduated in1879.Aftergraduation,he joined thelawschooloftheUniversityofVirginiaforabriefperiodandlaterstudiedonhisownandpassedtheGeorgia Bar examination.Wilson startedpracticing law in 1882 inAtlanta. Butafterayear in1883he joinedJohnsHopkinsUniversity fromwhereheobtainedaPh.Din1886inhistoryandpoliticalscience.AninterestingfeatureofhisacademiccareeristhathepublishedhisfirstbookCongressionalGovernment inhistwenty-eighthyearwhenhewasinhissecondyearofgraduationatJohnsHopkinsUniversity.ThisbookwasquiteindependentofhisstudiesandwasusedonlyexpostfactoforpurposesofPh.D.6Thedissertationbroughthim fame and also teaching appointment at BrynMawrCollege forWomen (1885-88).He

later worked atWesleyan University (1888-90). In 1890 he joined Princeton University asProfessor of Jurisprudence and Political Economy and continued there for over a decadeuntil1902.HewasPresidentofPrincetonUniversitybetween1902-1910andhistenuresawsweepingreformsincurriculumandadministration.Herevolutionisedteaching,establishednewfaculties,andplayedasignificantrole inthedevelopmentof theuniversityasagreatuniversity in the twentieth century.7 He was elected President of the American PoliticalScienceAssociationin1911.WilsonwasGovernorofNewJersey(1911-1913)andPresidentofUSA (1913-1921). He wrote eight books 8 and published several papers. Wilson was arecipient of the Noble Peace Prize in 1919 for his peace efforts and contribution to theformationofLeagueofNations.

Wilson was an outstanding professor of political science, an administrative scholar, ahistorian, an educationist, a reformer and a statesman.Having beendeeply influenced bycontemporary events, he felt that the study of administration was a possible method forcorrectingthepoliticalabusesofthespoilssystemthatweresoapparentinthosedays.WhileEdmund Burke was more influential than any other person in shapingWilson’s politicalphilosophy, Walter Bagehot turned his attention to administration and comparativegovernment.9 Itwas Professor Richard T. Ely of JohnsHopkinsUniversity, however,whoinfluencedandstimulatedWilson’sinterestinadministrativestudies.Hislecturesweremostsignificant to Wilson as they stimulated him to think about assimilation of EuropeanadministrativesystemsintoAmericandemocraticpolity.AsElywrote,“WhenItalkedoftheimportanceofadministration,IfeltthatIstruckasparkandkindledafireinWilson.”10

TheStudy–ThreeDraftsWilsonstartedseriousworkoncomparativesystemsofadministrationsoonafterhestartedteachingatBrynMawrin1885.BeforehisseminalessaywaspublishedinthePoliticalScienceQuarterlyin1887,Wilsonpreparedthreedraftsofthesametopic.Thefirstwasentitled‘NotesonAdministration’; itwas changed to ‘TheArt ofGovernment’ and finally gave the title‘TheStudyofAdministration’.11Alookatthesethreedraftswouldclearlyindicatethattherewas considerable change in Wilson’s ideas from draft to draft. The paper, before it waspublished,was presented before theHistorical andPolitical ScienceAssociation in Ithaca,NewYorkat the invitationof itsPresident,CharlesK.AdamsofCornellUniversityandaformer teacher of Wilson. Although Wilson thought so light of it, as hardly to meritpublication, itwasconsideredoneofthebestheeverwrote.Accordingtooneauthority, itimmediately became famous among specialists on administration and has always been amine of wisdom.12 In his article, Wilson outlined the history of the study, how it was acomparativelynewdevelopment inpolitical science,verycogentlypresented thenecessityandvalueofthestudyandindicatedthemethodsbymeansofwhichitoughttobecarriedon.

AdministrationandGovernmentWilsonbeginshisessaybyintroducingthereadertothegeneralfieldofadministration.Thestudyofadministrationdeveloped,accordingtoWilson,asaconsequencetotheincreasingcomplexitiesofsociety,growingfunctionsofstateandgrowthofgovernmentsondemocraticlines. This ever-growing array of functions raised the question as to ‘how’ and in what‘directions’thesefunctionsshouldbeperformed.Wilsonsuggestedthattherewasaneedtoreformthegovernmentandthereformsshouldbeintheadministrativefield.ToWilson,the

objectofadministrativestudyistodiscoverwhatgovernmentcanproperlyandsuccessfullydoandhowitcandothesethingswiththeutmostpossibleefficiencyandtheleastpossiblecost either of money or of energy.13 Another object is to rescue executive methods fromconfusion and costliness of empirical experiment and place them upon foundations, laiddeeponstableprinciples.14

Wilsonconsideredadministrationasthemostobviouspartofgovernmentandfeltthatitis government in action; it is the executive, the operative, the most visible side of thegovernment.15Butthis‘governmentinaction’,didnotprovokethestudentsofpolitics,andtherefore,noonewrotesystematicallyaboutadministrationasan importantbranchof thescienceofgovernment.Beforethenineteenthcentury,politicalscientistswerebusywritingabout theconstitution,natureofstate,essenceandseatof sovereignty,popularpowerandking’sprerogative and thepurposeof government, etc.Theyweremostly concernedwiththeproblemsofdemocracyandmonarchy.Thequestionalwayswas‘who’shouldmakelawsandwhatthat lawshouldbe,andthequestion‘how’thelawshouldbeadministeredwithequity,speedandwithoutfrictionwasputasideaspracticaldetailwhich‘clerks’couldlookafter.16

Wilson analysed the reasons for the neglect of the study of administration. Before thenineteenthcenturypopulationsweresmall,andtherefore,thefunctionsofgovernmentandtheir administrationwere very simple. But by the 19th century, complexities of trade andcommerce, emergence of giant corporations, problems of personnel management, etc.,assumedominousproportionsandtheoncesimplefunctionsofgovernmenthad,almostinall cases, becamemore complex, difficult andmultiplying. The very idea of state and theconsequent ideal of its duty had undergone phenomenal change. The problem, therefore,was‘how’thesefunctionsshouldbeperformedbythestate.

AdministrativeScienceWilson strongly believed that administration is eminently a science. This is clearwhenhesaidthatthescienceofadministrationisthelatestfruitofthestudyofthescienceofpolitics.Later inhis essayhe says thatwearehavingnowwhatweneverhadbefore, a scienceofadministration.17WilsonwascriticalthatnotmuchscientificmethodwastobediscernedinAmericanadministrativepractice.Asamatteroffact,hefelt,therewerenoclearconceptsofwhat constitutesgoodadministration.Thiswas sobecauseadministrative sciencewas firstdeveloped in Europe by French and German academics. Consequently, administrationdeveloped tomeet the requirements of compact states and centralised forms of Europeangovernment. The reasons for the growth of administration on European soil, according toWilson, are two-fold: first, as governments in European countries were independent ofpopularassent, therewasmoregovernment;andsecond, thedesire tokeepgovernmentamonopoly made the monopolists interested in discovering the least irritating means ofgoverning. If one wants to use the concepts of European administrative science in othercountries includingAmerica,onehas toradicallychange itsaims, thoughtsandprinciples,Wilsonargued.

The slow progress in the science of administration in America was attributed to thepopular sovereignty. Wilson felt that it was difficult to organise administration in ademocracythaninamonarchy.For,administrationhastobecontinuouslyresponsivetothe‘multitudinous monarch called public opinion’. Wherever public opinion is a governingprinciple of government, administrative reforms will always be slow because of

compromises. Wilson strongly believed that unless a nation stops tinkering with theconstitution, it will be very difficult to concentrate on administration. This is because noconstitutioncanlastmorethantenyearswithoutchanges,andtherefore, thegovernmentswouldalwaysbebusywiththesechangesandalterations,leavinglittletimetoconcentrateondetailsofadministration.Therefore,Wilsonwantedthatthedebateontheconstitutionalprinciplesshouldbesetasideastheyareoflittlepracticalconsequence,andoneshouldtrytosystematicallyanalyseandunderstandthe‘scienceofadministration’.Wilsonaptlyobservedthatitismoredifficulttorunaconstitutionthantoframeone.Hewasconcernedwiththeimplementationaspects andnot just theprinciples enunciated in the constitutionorotherdocuments.

Afterdiscussingindetailthehistoryofthestudyofadministrationandthedifficultiesinits study, Wilson discusses its subject matter and characteristics. To Wilson, publicadministration is a detailed and systematic execution of public law. Every particularapplicationofagenerallawisanactofadministration.Illustratingthepoint,hesaysthatthebroadplansofgovernmentalactionarenotadministrativethoughthedetailedexecutionofsuch plans is. The distinction is between general plans and administrative means.18 Thestudyofadministration,viewedphilosophically,writesWilson,iscloselyconnectedwiththestudyoftheproperdistributionofconstitutionalauthority.

PoliticsandAdministrationWilson examines the relationship between administration and politics. His views on thesubject, however, do not appear to be very clear because at some places he explains theinterdependenceandintimaterelationshipbetweenthetwo.Thisisclearwhenhesaysthat“no lines of demarcation, setting apart administrative from non-administrative functions,canberunbetweenthisandthatdepartmentofgovernmentwithoutbeingrunuphillanddown dale over dizzy heights of distinction and through dense jungles of statutoryenactment, hither and thither around ‘ifs’ and ‘buts’, ‘whens’ and ‘howevers, until theybecomealtogetherlosttothecommoneye.”19Laterin1891,Wilsonwrotethat“notopicinthestudyofgovernmentcanstandbyitself-leastofallperhapsadministrationwhosepartitistomirrortheprinciplesofgovernmentinoperation….Administrationcannotbedivorcedfrom its connections with the other branches of Public Lawwithout being distorted androbbedof its true significance. Its foundationsare thosedeepandpermanentprinciplesofpolitics.”20 From these statements, it is evident that Wilson was aware of theinterdependencebetweenpoliticsandadministration,whiletryingtocarveoutthefieldofpublicadministration.

Wilsonargues,atotherplaces,thatadministrationandpoliticsareseparate.Hefeltthatadministrationliesoutsidethesphereofpolitics.Administrativequestionsarenotpoliticalquestions.21 He further says that politics is the special province of the statesman andadministrationthatofthetechnicalofficial.Laterinhisessayhesaysthat“bureaucracycanexistonlywherethewholeserviceofthestateisremovedfromthecommonpoliticallifeofthe people, its chiefs as well as its rank and file. Its motives, its objectives, its policy, itsstandards must be bureaucratic.”22 Thus, Wilson tries to establish a distinction betweenadministrationandpolitics.

From the foregoing, it appears that Wilson vacillated between separability andinseparabilityofadministrationandpolitics.Thismade the later scholarson the subject tospeculate differently about his ideas and intentions on the subject. For instance, Mosher

stressed that Wilson made the most vigorous statement on the politics-administrationdichotomy.23Riggs,ontheotherhand,thoughtdifferently.HesaysthatforWilsonnotonlypolitics and administration are closely intertwined, but administrative actions are scarcelyconceivableexceptastheimplementationofgeneralpoliciesformulatedbypoliticalmeans.ThusWilsonwasunder no illusion that administrativedevelopment could takeplace in apolitical vacuum.24Wilson attempted to outline a coherent idea about politics and publicadministration and how each should be separate, and yetwork together.His ideawas toimprove efficiencyof government operationsbydeveloping an administrative system freefrompoliticalinterference.

AdministrationandBusinessThere are also writers who argue that toWilson ‘the field of administration is a field ofbusiness’and‘isremovedfromthehurryandstrifeofpolitics.’ ‘Administrationisbusinessand like business it does not involve itself in questions of politics…administration beingremoved from politics is not subject to the vagaries and vicissitudes but it goes onuninterrupted continuing the promise of the system.’25 Buechner argues that the “basicpremiseofWilson’sargumentwasthattheaffairsofpublicadministrationweresynonymouswith thoseofprivate administration.”Tohim, the importanceofWilson’s essay lies inhisargument that thestudyofpublicadministrationshouldbeakinto thecentralconcernsofbusinessadministration,namelythevaluesofeconomy,efficiency,andeffectiveness.26

AdministrationandPublicOpinionTherelationsbetweenpublicopinionandadministrationwerealsoexaminedbyWilson.Thequestionwaswhatpartpublicopinionshouldtakeintheconductofadministration.TothisWilsonsaysthatpublicopiniontakestheplaceofanauthoritativecritic.But“theproblemisto make public opinion efficient without suffering it to be meddlesome.” Though publiccriticism in the details of administration is a clumsy nuisance, as a mechanism ofsuperintendingpolicy it isnotonlybeneficialbutalsoaltogether indispensable.Therefore,Wilson felt that the administrative study should find the best means for giving publiccriticism this control and at the same time should shut it from all interference inadministration.

TheCivilServiceTheindispensabilityofatechnicallyschooledcivilservicewasstronglyadvocatedbyWilson.A civil service based on merit was necessary to organise democracy. Although, Wilsonbelievedthatadministratorswere inprinciplenot involved in thepoliticalprocess,hewasstronglyopposedtothecreationofbureaucraticelitenotsubjecttodemocraticcontrol.27Hefeltthatthecivilservicereform,whichwastheninprogressinAmerica,wasonlyapreludetoafulleradministrativereform“amoralpreparationforwhatistofollow”.Thesereforms,which were intended to make the service unpartisan, opened the way for makingadministrationbusinesslike.Thereformsinthemethodsofappointment,hesaid,shouldbeextended to executive functions and tomethodsof executiveorganisation andactions.Hewanted the civil service to be “cultured and self-sufficient enough to act with sense andvigour,andyetsointimatelyconnectedwiththepopularthought,bymeansofelectionsandconstantpubliccounsel,as to findarbitrarinessorclassspiritoutof thequestion.” 28 ThusWilson,asNicholasHenryobserved, facilitated theexpansionofanethical senseofpublicduty beyond the conceptual confines of the civil service and into the entire intellectual

terrainofpublicadministration.29

ComparativeMethodWilson,inthefinalsectionofthearticle,examinedthemethodsbestsuitedforthestudyofadministration. He rejected the philosophical method and emphasised the historical andcomparativemethods.Hesaysthatnowhereelseinthewholefieldofpolitics,canoneusethesemethodsmore safely than in the province of administration.30Without comparativestudies ingovernment,Wilsonasserted,wecannot ridourselvesof themisconception thatadministration stands upon different basis in democratic and other states. One can neverlearn theweaknesses or virtues or peculiarities of any systemwithout comparing it withothersystems.Allayingthefearsthatcomparativemethodmayleadtotheimportofforeignsystems,hesays;‘IfIseeamurderousfellowsharpeningtheknifecleverly,Icanborrowhiswaysofsharpeningknifewithoutborrowinghisprobableintentiontocommitmurderwithit.’31 Wilson felt that one can learn from European autocracies, their more efficientadministrativemethodswithoutimportingtheirautocraticspiritandends;‘indeedthatwemustdosoifdemocracyistobeabletomeetthechallengeofchaosfromwithinandofforcefromwithout’.32

There are divergent interpretations of Wilson’s thinking on the important aspect ofexport of administrative technology from one country to another. Riggs, for example,believesthat“Wilsongavehishighestloyaltytodemocraticgovernmentandhewouldneverhaveapprovedexportofadministrativetechnologytonon-democraticcountries.Hewouldhaverecommendedfirsttoconcentrateonpoliticaldevelopment,inthesenseofpromotingdemocratic reforms as a prelude to administrative reorganisation.” Thus Riggs felt that“Wilson was quite aware of the political context of administrative reform and ofdevelopment administration.33 But Heady thinks differently. He observes that Wilson’s“essay seem to assume that there is no restriction on the availability of administrativetechnology for export, and his attention is given exclusively to the question of thecircumstancesunderwhichitshouldbeimported.”34

TheGovernment–NewMeaningWilson,wehavenotedearlier,didnotpursuehisacademicinterestinpublicadministrationbeyond “The Study”. The publication of article “TheNewMeaning of Government” 35 aquarter century later in 1912 inwomen’smagazine in themonthwhenhewas elected aspresidentofUS,however,canbeconsideredasasignificantpublication inwhichheagainreflectedongovernanceandadministration.Inthisveryshortarticle,hereinforcessomeoftheideasandconceptionsarticulatedin“TheStudy”andtakessomeofthemfurtherashepreparestotakethereinsofadministrationandgovernanceoftheUSA.Animportantaspectisthathefocusesmoreonimplementationaspectsofadministration.In“TheStudy”hetalksofthe‘consentofthegoverned’butin“TheNewMeaningofGovernment”heextendstheconsenttothe‘participationingovernmentofallclassesandinterests’anddisentanglementofthegovernmentfromallvestedinterestsand‘freefromeverykindofprivateandnarrowcontrol’ to become responsive to genuine public opinion and develop ‘the vision of thenation’.36 He reinforces the earlier argument that the government should be thoroughly‘efficientasasuccessfulbusinessorganisationwouldbe.’37Hearguesthat‘thelaw(s)shouldbeclear,explicit,foundeduponfact,unmistakableinit’scommandandinit’spenalties’andshould be changed if they are bad. He emphasises on the implementation of the laws

thoroughly,intelligently,fearlesslyandwithoutreferenceto‘personsorinterests-financialor political.’ 38 Wilson argues that the government must administer resources as a ‘goodtrustee’andasan instrumentofhumanity for socialbettermentand identifies thepriorityfunctions as food security, conservation of natural resources including rivers and forests,maintenance of health and sanitation, development of agriculture, industries, education,womenandcitiesandhecallsthis‘thenewmeaningofgovernment’.

AnEvaluationThepublicationofWoodrowWilson’sfamousessaymarksthebirthofpublicadministrationas a self-conscious inquiry.39 Through his essay,Wilson sought to aid the establishment ofpublicadministrationasarecognisedfieldofstudy.40Doctrineafterdoctrine,whichpublicadministrationhas accepted as valid,was first clearly enunciatedbyWilson inhis essay.41

The reader, after a study of Wilson’s “The Study of Administration,” however, remainsuncertain about its actual substance. Wilson likens administration to business methods,institutingacivilservice,fixingresponsibletopublicforactionoraproblemofdistributingconstitutional authority, which is indeed exasperating to any careful reader.42Wilsonobservesthattheobjectofadministrativestudyistodiscoverwhatgovernmentcanproperlyand successfully do in the very opening paragraph of the essay. But the essay is devotedlargelytotheargumentontheseparabilityofpoliticsandadministration,whichaccordingtoWaldo,isaseriousinconsistency.43ThisledthelaterscholarstointerpretWilson’sviewsindifferingways.

“TheStudyofAdministration”,asWilsonhimselfnotedistoogeneral,toobroadandtoovague.44Wilsonwasambivalentonmanyissuesandheraisedmorequestionsthanprovidinganswers.Hefailedtoamplifywhat thestudyofadministrationactuallyentailed;what theproper relationshipshouldbebetweenadministrativeandpolitical realmsandwhetherornot administrative study could ever become a science akin to the natural sciences.45 Thismakesone towonderwhetherWilsonhimselfwas clear as towhatPublicAdministrationreallyis.Someresearchers,however,questiontheassumptionthatWilsonwasthefounderofthe academic study of Public Administration. Van Riper, in particular, ascribes the initialversionofAmericanadministrativestudytotheFoundingFathersofAmericaandrelievesWilsonandhisessayofanyresponsibility.46

These limitations,however,donotunderminethesignificanceofWilson’scontribution.JudgedfromthestandpointofthedevelopmentofPublicAdministrationinthe19thcentury,hisessaycancertainlybetermed‘seminal’.AsWaldonotedhisessayis“themostimportantdocument in thedevelopmentofpublicadministration.” 47LouisBrownlowobserved thatWilsonthroughhisessay‘laiddownasaprogrammeofstudywhichIthinkeveryoneinthesociety,everyoneofuswhoisinterestedineithertheartorscienceofpublicadministration,woulddowelltoreadagainandtoheed.’48Throughhis‘mostdistinguished’essay,Wilsonnotonlyintroducedthe‘ideaofadministration’,49butalsolaunchedPublicAdministrationasagenericcourse.50

InBriefWoodrowWilson’scontributiontothefieldofpublicadministrationmaybesummarisedas:• Wilson laid the intellectual roots for the emergence of public administration as a

field/subjectofenquirythroughhisessay“TheStudyofAdministration”in1887;

• “The Study of Administration” traced the history of administration as a newdevelopment in Political Science, presented the value of the study and indicated themethodsbymeansofwhichitoughttobecarried;

• “TheStudyofAdministration”wastheresultofWilson’ssearchtofindanswerstothepolitical abuses of the spoil system and finding ways of assimilation of EuropeanadministrativesystemsintoAmericandemocraticpolitics;

• He emphasised the importance of study of administration in the context of increasingcomplexityinsociety,increasingroleofstateanddemocraticnatureofgovernments;

• Wilsonconsideredadministrationeminentlyascienceandpleadedforthedevelopmentofclearconceptsofgoodadministration;

• Heexaminedtherelationshipbetweenpoliticsandadministrationandconsideredthemasseparateactivitiesatonelevelandinterdependentatanother.Thisvaguenessleadtodifferentinterpretationsofhisviewsonpoliticsandadministrationrelationships;

• He focusedon the implementationaspectsofgovernmentandadvocated theneed fortechnicallycompetentcivilservicebasedonmerit;

• Wilson emphasised the importanceof comparativemethod,particularly learning fromothersaboutthewaysofdoingthingswithoutlearningtheirmotivesandends;and

• “The Study of Administration” was too general, too broad and too vague, asWilsonhimself put it. It gave scope for different interpretations of Wilson’s views and alsoassessment of his contribution to the study of public administration. Looking in ahistoricalcontextwhenthepoliticaldebatewasmainlyon“who”shouldmakelawsand“what”thelawsshouldbe,hisfocuson“how”lawsaretobe‘administered’isaseminalcontribution.

References1 WoodrowWilson,“TheStudyofAdministration”,PoliticalScienceQuarterly,Vol.2,(June,1887),pp.197-222.2 Stone,AliceB.,andStone,DonaldC.,“EarlyDevelopmentofEducationinPublicAdministration”,inMosher,FredericC.,

(Ed.),AmericanPublicAdministration:Past,Present,Future,Alabama,TheUniversityofAlabamaPress,1975.3 Shafritz,JayM.,andHyde,AlbertC.,ClassicsofPublicAdministration,FortWorth,HarcourtBracePublishers,1997,p.5.4 Ibid.,p.1.5 Turner,HenryA.,“WoodrowWilsonasAdministrator”,PublicAdministrationReview,Vol.XVI,No.4,1956,p.251.6 Buchrig,EdwardH.,“WoodrowWilsonto1902:AReviewEssay”,TheAmericanPoliticalScienceReview,Vol.67,No.2,June

1973,p.590.7 Link, Arthur S., http://etcweb.princeton.edu/CampusWWW/Companion/wilson_woodrow.html See also

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Woodrow_Wilson#Early_life.Retrievedon3rdJanuary,2010.8 Theeightbooksare:CongressionalGovernment(1885);TheState :Elementsof InstitutionalHistoryandAdministration(1889);

DivisionandReunion(1829-1889)(1893);AnOldMasterandOtherPoliticalEssays(1893);MereLiteratureandOtherEssays(1896);GeorgeWashington(1896);AHistoryoftheAmericanPeople(1902);andConstitutionalGovernmentintheUnitedStates(1908). For details of the studies onWoodrowWilson seeRobertGoehlert andDawnChildress,WoodrowWilson –ABibliography of Books in English, Bloomington, Indiana University, 2006.http://www.indiana.edu/~global/resources/guides/WilsonGuide.pdfRetrievedon3rdJanuary,2010.

9 Turner,HenryA.,“WoodrowWilsonasAdministrator”,PublicAdministrationReview,Vol.XVI,No.4,1956,p.249.10 Ely,RichardT.,Groundunderourfeet,NewYork,MacmillanCo.,1938,p.114citedinTurner,HenryA.,op.cit,atfootnote

5.11 For the two early drafts see Link, Arthur S., The Papers of Woodrow Wilson, Vol. 5, Princeton, New Jersey, Princeton

UniversityPress,1968,pp.43-54.12 Bragden,HenryW.,WoodrowWilson:TheAcademicYears,Cambridge,Massachusetts,HarvardUniversityPress, 1967,p.

154.13 WoodrowWilson,op.cit.,p.197.

14 Ibid.15 Ibid.,p.198.16 Ibid.17 Ibid.,p.200.18 Ibid.,p.212.19 Ibid.,p.211.20 Link,ArthurS.,ThePapersofWoodrowWilson,Vol.7,op.cit.,p.115.21 WoodrowWilson,op.cit.,p.210.22 Ibid.,p.217.23 Mosher,FredericC.,DemocracyandPublicService,NewYork,OxfordUniversityPress,1968,p.68.QuotedinStillman,II,

RichardJ.,“WoodrowWilsonandtheStudyofAdministration:ANewLookatanOldEssay”,AmericanPoliticalScienceReview,Vol.67,No.2,June1973,p.582.

24 Riggs,FredW.,“RelearninganOldLesson:ThePoliticalContextofDevelopmentAdministration”,PublicAdministrationReview,Vol.XXV,No.1,March,1965,p.71.

25 WoodrowWilson,op.cit.,p.209.26 CitedinStillman,RichardJ.,op.cit.,p.582.27 InternationalEncyclopediaofSocialSciences,Vol.16,p.557.28 WoodrowWislson,op.cit.,p.217.29 Henry,Nicholas,PublicAdministrationandPublicAffairs,EnglewoodCliffs,NewJersey,PrenticeHallInc.,1975,p.190.30 WoodrowWilson,op.cit.,p.219.31 Ibid.,p.220.32 Waldo,Dwight,(Ed.),IdeasandIssuesinPublicAdministration,NewYork,McGraw-HillBookCompanyInc.,1953.p.406.33 Riggs,FredW.,op.cit.,p.79.34 Heady, Ferrel, “Bureaucracies indevelopingCountries”, in FredW.Riggs, (Ed.),Frontiers ofDevelopmentAdministration,

Durham,NorthCarolina,DukeUniversityPress,1971,p.474.35 WoodrowWilson,”TheNewMeaningofGovernment,”PublicAdministrationReview,May-June,1984,pp.193-5.36 Ibid.37 Ibid.38 Ibid.39 Waldo,Dwight,op.cit.,p.406.40 Ibid.,p.64.41 Ibid.42 Stillman,RichardJ.,op.cit.,p.587.43 Waldo,Dwight,op.cit.,pp.64-65.44 ThePapersofWoodrowWilson,Vol.5,1886-1888,op.cit.,pp.518-521.45 Stillman,RichardJ.,op.cit,p.588.46 SeeVanRiper,PaulP.,“ThePolitics-AdministrationDichotomy:ConceptorReality?”inRabin,JackandBowman,James

S.,PoliticsandAdministration:WoodrowWilsonandAmericanPublicAdministration,NewYork,MarcelDekkerInc.,1984,pp.203-218.SeealsodifferentarticlesinthevolumeforacriticalanalysisofWilson’sideasandcontributiontothedisciplineofpublicadministration.

47 Waldo,Dwight,TheEnterpriseofPublicAdministration,Novato:ChandlerandSharp,1980,p.46.48 Brownlow,Louis,“WoodrowWilsonandPublicAdministration”,PublicAdministrationReview,Vol.XVI.No.2,1956,p.81.49 White,LeonardD.,TheRepublicanEra,1889-1901,NewYork,MacmillanCo.,1958,p.46.50 Schick,Allen,“TheTraumaofPolitics:PublicAdministrationintheSixties”,inMosher,FredrickC.,(Ed.)op.cit.,p.166.

S

4HENRIFAYOL

C.V.RaghavuluB.P.C.Bose

Introductioncoresofpeoplehave contributed to theevolutionofwesternmanagement thought.Thecreditforintroducingthescientificmethodinmanyspheres,includingmanagement,goes

to theGreeks.1 Frederick Taylor andHenri Fayol, however, introduced refinements to theobjective type of inquiry. Henri Fayol, French practitioner and theoretician, like Taylor,contributed significantly to the corpus of management concepts and is considered thefounderofthe‘ManagementProcessSchool’.AlthoughscientificmanagementwasforlongconsideredanAmericaninventionandrootedinthewritingsofTaylor,Fayol’swritings,infact, precede those of Taylor. 2 It is no wonder that many historians of the EuropeanmanagementthoughtconsiderFayolasapioneerofscientificmanagement.Itisapitythat,justasinthecaseofWeber,theimportanceofFayol’sideaswasdiscoveredoutsideEuropeonlyafterthetranslationofhisworksintoEnglish.HenriFayol’sAdministrationIndustrielleetGeneralewas firstpublished inFrance in1916,3but itdidnotcometo light in theEnglish-speakingcountriesuntilitsEnglishtranslationpublishedin1949underthetitleGeneralandIndustrial Management. His work is considered a classic and a foundation in classicalmanagementtheory.Thebookoffersatheoryandprinciplesofmanagement.4

(1841-1925)

LifeandWorksHenri Fayol was born in Constantinople, Istanbul, Turkey in 1841, where his father wasworkingasanengineer.HewaseducatedattheLyceeinLyons(France)andthereafterattheNationalSchoolofMines-EcoleNationalSuperieurdesMinesinSaint-Etiennefromwherehegraduatedin1860.Nineteen-year-oldFayolstartedhiscareerasanengineerattheminingcompany Compagnie de Commentry-Fourchambeau-Decazeville. He worked as juniorexecutiveduring1860-1872,waspromotedasManagerin1872andManagingDirectorofthecompany in 1888; a post he held for about thirty years with distinction. Fayol retired asManaging Director in 1918, having spent his entire working life with the company, heremainedDirectorof the companyuntilhisdeath inDecember1925, at theageof eighty-

four.Fayol’seffortsastheManagingDirectorenabledthecompanytorisefromapositionoffinancial disaster to that of great financial success. As Urwick observed, the success withwhichFayolcarriedoutthosedutiesasManagingDirectoris‘oneoftheromancesofFrenchindustrialhistory’.5Fayolattributedhissuccessnottohisownpersonalattributes,buttothesystem of management, which he evolved and applied with great care and imagination.FayolwasinfluencedbyCartesianphilosophyandAdamSmith’swritings.HisconceptionoffunctionalismcouldbetracedtoAdamSmith’s ideasondivisionof labour.Thebulkofhismanagementconcepts,however,grewoutofhisreflectionsasanexecutive.Onretirementhe devoted time to popularise his views on management and administration anddevelopmentof theoretical studies.He founded theCentre d’EtudesAdministratives6whichhasprofoundinfluenceonbusiness,armyandnavyinFrance.AttheCentreheusedtochairweeklymeetings of prominent industrialists,writers, officials, academics, andmembers ofthemilitary.HealsoinfluencedtheFrenchgovernmenttopayattentiontotheprinciplesofadministration.HeadvisedthegovernmentandinvestigatedintotheworkingsofthePostsandTelegraphsandtheTobaccoindustry.

Fayolwasaprolificwriterontechnicalandscientificmattersaswellasonmanagement.Apart from ten publications on mining, engineering and geology, he published as manybooks/papersonmanagement.ThemostoutstandingofhiswritingsishisbookGeneralandIndustrialManagementfirstpublishedin1916.7Hisreputation,toalargeextent,restsonthissingle short publication,which is still being frequently reprinted.8 A large number of hispapers are concerned with the reform of the public services. His paper on The Theory ofAdministrationoftheStatepresentedtotheSecondInternationalCongressofAdministrativeSciencesin1923,isconsideredamajorcontributiontothetheoryofpublicadministration.9

Terminology-AdministrationandManagementTherehasbeenconsiderabledisagreementanddebateontheterminologyusedbytranslatorsof Fayol’s works; particularly his General and Industrial Management. Fayol used the termadministrationinhisclassicAdministrationandIndustrielleetGenerale.Butthiswastranslatedinto management, creating confusion among scholars as well as disagreement. LyndallUrwick and Brodie argued that the term should have been translated into English as‘administration’.BrodiesaysthatifonehastogobyStorrstranslation,onecannotavoidthefeeling that Fayol wasmostly concernedwith industrial management, whichwould be amistake. The better and correct term would have been ‘Business and GeneralAdministration’. For, Fayol nowhere distinguished business management and publicadministration.10

WrenconcludedthatStorrswasinaccurateinadoptingtheword‘management’todefinethe activitywhichFayol called ‘administration’.Hewas critical that Storrs introduced theidea thatmanagement is a task that is restricted to ‘workingwith people’. Urwick in hislengthyintroductiontotheStorrstranslationexpresseddisappointmentforuseoftheword‘management’insteadof‘administration’.Similarconfusionexistsincaseofothertermsaswell.11

AdministrativeTheory:UniversalAwidespreadtendencyintheEnglish-speakingcountrieswastodrawadistinctionbetweenmanagement as an activity confined to conducting industrial or commercial undertakings,

and public administration as the art of conducting governmental activities. Fayol in hisaddresstotheSecondInternationalCongressofAdministrativeSciencesarguedthatsuchadistinction between management and public administration is false and misleading. Henotes:

The meaning which I have given to the word administration and which has been generally adopted broadensconsiderablythefieldofadministrativescience.Itembracesnotonlythepublicservicebutalsoenterprisesofeverysizeand description, of every form and every purpose. All undertakings require planning, organisation, command,coordination and control, and in order to function properly, allmust observe the same general principles.We are nolongerconfrontedwithseveraladministrativesciences,butwithone,whichcanbeappliedequallywelltopublicandtoprivateaffairs.12

To Fayol, the attempt to sub-divide the study of Management or Administration inaccordancewith the purpose of the activity is untenable. It is sometimes argued that thiscould simplymean thatFayol is concernedonlywith industrialmanagement,whereashisclaim to universality is categorical when he says that the “Management plays a veryimportant part in the government undertakings, large or small, industrial, commercial,political, religious or other”.13 Indeed, in his later years he studied the problems of statepublic servicesand lecturedat theEcoleSuperieurede laguerre. It canbepresumed thathisintentionwastoinitiateatheoreticalanalysisappropriatetoawiderangeoforganisations.

Fayol’s ideas aboutmanagerial activity are presented in the context of hiswritings onindustrial undertakings.14 The totality of activities of an industrial undertaking is dividedintosixgroupsviz.:1. Technical activities - production, manufacture, adaptation: These are sometimes more

conducivetotheprogressandgoalattainmentthanotheractivities.2. Commercialactivities-buying,selling,andexchange:Knowledgeofcommercialactivity

isjustasimportantasknowledgeofefficientproduction.Commercialactivityincludes,togetherwith acumen and decisions, a through knowledge of themarket and of thestrengths of the competitors, long-term foresight, the use of contracts and priceregulation.

3. Financialactivities-searchforandoptimumuseofcapital:Capitalisaprerequisiteforpersonnel, plant, raw material, expansion of the plant or machinery, reserves, etc.Proper financialmanagement is necessary to obtain capital, tomake optimumuse ofavailablefundsforthesuccessoftheundertaking.

4. Securityactivities-protectionofpropertyandpersons:It isnecessarytosafeguardthepropertyandperson’stheft,fireandfloodandallsocialdisturbancesincludingstrikes.

5. Accounting activities - stock-taking, balance sheets, costs, and statistics: An efficientaccountingsystem,providinganaccurateideaoftheorganisation’sfinancialcondition,isapowerfulmanagerialinstrument.

6. Managerialactivities-Fayoldescribesmanagementasafunction,akindofactivity.Heisquite indifferent whether those exercising this activity are described as ‘ManagingDirectors’,or‘Supervisors’,or‘Clerks’.Heisconnectedwiththefunction,notwiththestatusof thosewhoexercise it.However,he issensitive to the fact that thoseholdingpositionsathigherlevelinthehierarchywoulddevotealargerproportionoftheirtimeto this function thanemployeesat lower levels. Fayol classifies thiskey function intofivemainelementsviz.,planning,organisation,command,coordinationandcontrol.

Fayol says that irrespective of the nature of organisation – big or small, simple or

complex,non-industrialornon-profitmaking- thesixactivitiesarealwayspresent thoughthe importance and significance of the first five activities may vary.15 He laments thatmanagementwasnotbeingtaughtandwasnotpartofthecurriculum.Thiswasnotbecauseitsimportancewasnotrecognised,butbecauseoftheabsenceoftheory.Hefeltthatwithouttheorynoteachingispossible.16His“GeneralandIndustrialManagement”isanattempttofillthisgap.

ElementsofManagementFayol identified, as we have seen earlier, five elements of management viz., planning,organisation,command,coordinationandcontrolwhicharediscussedbelow.

Planning

FayolusedtheFrenchtermPrevoyancewhichinFrenchmeansto‘foresee’,to‘anticipate’andto ‘makeplans’.Theadministration’schiefmanifestationandmosteffective instrument, toFayol,istheplanofaction.Planningenablestheseparationoftheshort-runeventsfromthelong-rangeconsiderations.Itendowsforethoughttotheoperationsofanorganisation.Fayolconsiders that experience is an asset in drawing a realistic plan. To him, unity, continuity,flexibilityandprecisionarethebroadfeaturesofagoodplanofaction.17

OrganisationTo organise an industrial firm or a government agency is to provide it with everythingrequired for its functioning: raw materials, tools, capitals, personnel, etc. Fayol classifiestheseactivities into twocategories: thematerialorganisation,andthehumanorganisation.Thelatterincludespersonnel,leadershipandorganisationstructure.Everyorganisationhastoperformthefollowingmanagerialfunctions18:1. Ensurethattheplanisjudiciouslypreparedandstrictlycarriedout;2. See that the human and material organisation is consistent with the objectives,

resourcesandrequirementsoftheconcern;3. Setupasingle,competent,energeticguidingauthority;4. Harmoniseactivitiesandcoordinateefforts;5. Formulateclear,distinct,precisedecisions;6. Arrangeforefficientselectionandappropriateplacementoftheemployees;7. Definedutiesclearly;8. Motivateemployeestoshowinitiativeanddemonstrateresponsibility;9. Rewardemployeesinafairmannerforservicesrendered;10. Makeuseofsanctionsagainstirregularandunethicalconduct;11. Provideforthemaintenanceofdiscipline;12. Ensurethatindividualinterestsaresubordinatetothegeneralinterest;13. Payspecialattentiontounitofcommand;14. Supervisebothmaterialandhumanorganisations;15. Provideforappropriatecontrols;and16. Preventexcessofregulations,redtapeandpapercontrols.

CommandTheartofcommand,accordingtoFayol,restsoncertainpersonalqualitiesandknowledgeofthe general principles ofmanagement. Its degree of proficiency differs from unit to unit.

Fayolclaimsthatthemanagerwhohastocommandshould:1. Haveathoroughknowledgeofhispersonnel;2. Eliminatetheincompetent;3. Bewell-versedinthearrangementbindingthebusinessanditsemployees;4. Setagoodexample;5. Conductperiodicauditoftheorganisationandusesummarycharts;6. Bringtogetherhischiefassistantsbymeansofconferences,atwhichunitofdirection

andfocusingofeffortareprovidedfor;7. Notbecomeengrossedindetail;and8. Aimatmakingunity,energy,initiativeandloyaltyprevailamongthepersonnel.19

CoordinationItconsistsofworkingtogetherand‘harmonizing’allactivitiesandeffortssoastofacilitatethefunctioningoftheorganisation.Essentially,theobjectiveofcoordinationistoensurethatonedepartment’seffortsarecoincidentwiththeeffortsofotherdepartments,andkeepingallactivitiesinperspectivewithregardtotheoverallaimsoftheorganisation.20

ControlIts objective is to obtain conformity with the plan adopted, the instruction issued andprinciples established. In the process, weakness and errors have to be rectified and theirrecurrenceprevented.Forcontrol tobeeffective itmustbedonewithina reasonable timeand be followed up by sanctions. He uses the term control in the wider French sense ofwatch,monitor,check,auditandobtainsfeedback.

AttributesofManager

FayolsuggeststhatManagersshouldhavethefollowingattributes21:

1.Physical : Health,vigourandappearance.

2.Mental : Abilitytounderstandandlearn,judgment,mentalvigourandadaptability.

3.Moral : Firmnessandwillingnesstoacceptresponsibility.

4.GeneralEducation

: Generalacquaintancewithmattersnotbelongingexclusivelytofunctionsperformed

5.SpecialKnowledge

: Specialknowledgeofthefunctionsbeinghandled-beittechnical,commercial,financialormanagerial,

6.Experience : Knowledgearisingfromtheworkproper.

PrinciplesofAdministrationHenryFayolstatesthattheprinciplesofadministration/managementarenotrigid.Onthecontrary, they must be capable of adaptation to various enterprises and settings. Fayolderivesfourteenprinciplesviz.:1. Divisionofwork:Specialisationoflabourproducesmoreandbetterworkwiththesame

effort.2. Authority and responsibility:Authority shouldbe commensuratewith responsibility. In

otherwords, theoccupantofeachpositionshouldbegivenenoughauthoritytocarry

outalltheresponsibilitiesassignedtohim.3. Discipline:Obedienceshouldbeobservedinaccordancewiththestandingagreements

betweenthefirmanditsemployees.4. Unityofcommand:Foranyaction,anemployeeshouldhaveonlyoneboss.5. Unityofdirection:Oneheadandoneplanforeachactivity.6. Subordination of individual interest to general interest: The interest of one employee or

groupshouldnotprevailoverthatofthetotalorganisation.7. Remunerationofpersonnel:The remunerationpaid for services rendered shouldbe fair

andaffordsatisfactiontobothpersonnelandthefirm.8. Centralisation: The degree of initiative left to managers varies depending upon top

managers,subordinatesandbusinessconditions.9. Scalar chain (Hierarchy): The line of authority of superiors ranging from the ultimate

authoritytothelowestranks.10. Order(Placement):Once thebasic jobstructurehasbeendevisedandthepersonnel to

fillthevariousslotshavebeenselected,eachemployeeoccupiesthatjobwhereinheorshecanrenderthemosteffectiveservice.

11. Equity: For the personnel to be encouraged to fulfill their duties with devotion andloyalty there must be equity based on kindness and justice in employer-employeerelations.

12. Stability of tenure of personnel: Suitable conditions should be created to minimiseturnoverofemployees.

13. Initiative: The ability to think afresh would act as a powerful motivator of humanbehaviour.

14. Espritdecorps:Harmony,unionamongthepersonnelofanorganisationisasourceofgreatstrengthintheorganisation.22

NeedforAdministrativeTrainingFayol is a pioneer in suggesting the need for systematic training in administration. HecriticisescivilengineeringcollegesinFranceforexcludingadministrationfromtheirsyllabi.Fayolstressesonadministrativetraininginthefollowingwords:

Everyoneneedssomeconceptsofadministration;inthehome,inaffairsofState,theneedforadministrativeabilityisinproportiontotheimportanceoftheundertakingandforindividualpeopletheneediseverywheregreaterinaccordancewith the position occupied. Hence, there should be some generalised teaching of administration: elementary in theprimary schools, somewhat wider in the post primary schools, and quite advanced in higher social educationalestablishments.

Fayolsuggeststhattrainingisacontinuousprocess,startingfromtheschoolandcoveringin-service training of the employees within an organisation. He considers every superiorofficerinanorganisationasateachertohisimmediatesubordinates.

GangplankTheGangplankreferstotheneedfor‘leveljumping’inahierarchicalorganisation.AlthoughFayol places emphasis on formal organisation, he is alive to the dangers of conformity tohierarchyandformalism.‘Itisanerrortodepartneedlesslyfromthelineofauthority,butitis even greater one to keep it when detriment to the business ensues’, asserts Fayol. He

illustratestheproblemwithreferencetothefiguregivenbelow.If ‘F’ follows the principles of proper channel of communication, he has to send his

messageorfileto‘P’through‘E’,‘D’andsoon,coveringninelevels.Itis,however,possiblefor‘F’touse‘gangplank’andavoidgoingthrough‘A’andalltheotherinterveninglayersasintermediaries.Recourse to ‘gangplank’ ispossibleonlywhen the immediate superiors (inthe case, ‘E’ and ‘O’) authorise such a relationship. Whenever a disagreement developsbetween ‘F’ and ‘P’, they must turn the matter to their superiors. While suggesting‘gangplank,’ Fayol is rather cautious.He feels that itmay be less relevant toGovernmentagenciesinwhichthelinesofauthorityarelessclearthaninprivateorganisations.

FayolandTaylor:AComparisonFayol and Taylor can be considered as the pioneers of scientific management. Both weretrained as scientists before they becamemanagers. They attempted to buildmanagementtheoryonthebasisofobservationofthepracticalissues.ThestableEuropeanpatternoflifeledFayoltoassumearelativelystableindustrialorganisation,whereasTaylorhadtorespondtoarapidlychangingcapitalistindustrialorganisation,intheUSA.TaylordevelopedspecificmanagementprinciplestobeapplieddirectlyinthefieldofproductionbutFayoldealtwithageneraltheoryofadministrationtobeappliedatthetop-managementlevel.ManagementwasnotviewedbyFayolfromtheperspectiveofworkshopmanagementasinTaylor’scase,but as auniversal set ofprinciples applicable to anykindof functional andorganisationalsetting. Despite these dissimilarities, the writings of Fayol and Taylor are essentiallycomplementary. 23 Their ideas on management indicate the need to arrange processes,materialresourcesandpeopleintoastructuralhierarchythatismoreorlesspermanent.Thisstructure, in turn, provides a starting point for accomplishing organisational objectives.While their approach is fairly mechanistic, it remains a useful approach for studyingorganisationsandtheiroperations.24Consequently,contemporarythoughtonorganisationaldesigndoesnotdisregardtheworkofFayolandTaylor.Instead,itbuildsontheirconceptswithfindingsfromthebehaviouralsciences.

Criticism‘Fayolism’ has been criticised on several grounds. Some argued that while devotingconsiderableattention to functional classificationFayolneglected the structuralaspectandhistreatmentoftheorganisationwasconsidereddefective.25PeterDrucker,amajorcriticofFayolism, observes that some of the worst mistakes of organisation-building have beencommittedby imposing amechanisticmodel of an ‘ideal’ or ‘universal’ organisation on aliving business.26Moreover, the fourteen principleswhich Fayol lists have a great deal ofoverlapping.

FunctionalorganisationwasdesignedbyFayolintheearlyyearsofthetwentiethcentury.Although functionalism is empirically expedient, it is found to be deficient in design andlogic.Ittakesasingledimensionofmanagementtodetermineallfacetsoftheorganisationstructurearoundit.27Besides,theempiricalbaseusedbyFayolforgeneratingafull-fledged

theoryofmanagementistoonarrow.Fayolproceededtotheorisefunctionalismonthebasisoffunctionsundertakeninamanufacturingcompany.Itwouldbeunrealistictoexpectthattheinsightsandderivationsfromtheminingorganisationwouldbeequallyapplicabletotheneedsandchallengesofotherorganisations.Miningwasafairlylargebusinessattheturnofthecentury,butitwouldbeconsideredasmallbusinesstoday.Contemporaryorganisationsaredefinitely larger in sizeandmuchmorecomplex.PeterDrucker, therefore,argues thatanythingmorecomplex,moredynamic,ormoreentrepreneurialthanatypicalminingfirmof Fayol’s time demands performance capacities which the functional principles do notpossess.28 Ifusedbeyond the limitsofFayol’smodel, functional structure rapidlybecomescostly in termsof timeandeffort, and runsahigh riskofmisdirecting theenergiesof theorganisation away from performance. Considering these limitations, it is imperative thatfunctionalismshouldbeusedonlyasoneoftheseveralprinciplesandneverastheprinciplein the design of organisations that are large in size, complex and innovative in goalorientation.

ToHenriFayoltheprincipleofunityofcommandisofsupremeimportanceand‘canbeviolatedwithimpunity’.Criticsoftheprinciplearguethatitwouldbedysfunctionaltotheorganisationtostrengthenthishierarchy,wherethesenseofunityisless,personalcontactislimited and real differences of outlook are desirable.29 It is further suggested that theapplication of the principle would overwhelm the chief executive with problems ofcoordination.

Fayol’sideashavebeencriticisedbycriticsoftheclassicaladministrativetheoryfortheirvalue judgments involving ‘should’ or ‘ought’ statements, for lack of a sufficientexperimentalbasisandfortheirinternalcontradictions.Elaboratingtheircriticisms,BarnardandSimonarguethatamanagerialorganisationcannotbeexplainedpurelyintermsofasetofprinciplesaboutformalorganisationstructure.30Theysuggestthattheactualbehaviouroforganisationalparticipantsdepartsinmanywaysfromthebehaviourthatisplanned.Writersof thehuman relations school feel that Fayol (andTaylor) havemostly ignored the social-psychologicaloremotionalneedsoftheemployees.

AnAssessmentDevoidofMaxWeber’ssweepforsocialsciencegeneralisationsorFrederickTaylor’spassionforempiricism,HenriFayoltriestogenerateatheoryofmanagementthathasrudimentsofboth.Hispredilectionformacro-leveltheorybuildinghasaWeberianflavour.IndeedamongtheearlywritersonmanagementFayolhastheuniquedistinctionofattemptingtobuildauniversalscienceofmanagementapplicableto‘commerce,industry,politics,religion,warorphilanthropy’.31Unlikeothercontemporarywriters,Fayolwroteextensivelyonproblemsofpublic administration. Fayol shares Taylor’s pragmatic approach in suggesting that thesuccessofanenterprisedependsuponthepresentationandapplicationofsimplemethodsinalogicalandcoherentmanner.32AsBrechnotedthatFayolmadeasystematicanalysisoftheprocessofmanagementandadministrationandadvocatedthatmanagementcanandshouldbetaught.33

Fayol tried to design a rational system of organisation inwhich the fulfillment of theprimarygoaloftheenterpriseconstitutesthebasicobjective.Tohimtheenterprisejustifiesitsexistenceonlybymeeting theprimarygoalofprovidingvalue in the formofgoodsorservicestoconsumers.Attainingtheobjectivepermitstheorganisationtorewardemployees,managers, etc., for their contributions.34 Fayol was a pioneer of the concept of viewing

managementasbeingmadeupoffunctions.Heprovidedabroadandinclusiveperspectiveof themanagement anddeveloped a framework,which stimulated subsequentwriters onmanagementtheory.Oneofthemostimportantandinterestingpartofhisconceptualisationis that at the higher levels the proportion of technical knowledge diminishes, butadministrativeskillandknowledgeareofgreatimportance.

The principles Fayol developed are widely used today in planning and developingcompanyorganisationstructure.35Amongthemostwidelyusedare‘unityofdirection’(oneheadandoneplanforeachactivity)and‘unityofcommand’(eachpersonshouldhaveonlyoneboss).Anotherprinciplewithahighfrequencyofutilisationisthatresponsibilityshouldbe equal to authority or authority should be commensurate with responsibility. In otherwords,theincumbentofeachpositionshouldbegivensufficientauthoritytocarryouttheresponsibilities assigned to him. Even Peter Drucker, a severe critic of Fayol’s theory offunctionalism, acknowledges that the latter’smodel is still unsurpassed in some respects.Fayol’sfunctionalorganisationisstillthebestwaytostructureasmallbusiness;especiallyasmall manufacturing business.36 Max Weber considered the chain of command to be anextremely importantelementof the formalorganisation.Fayol referred to thishierarchicalstructure of authority as the scalar concept and discussed its role in improvingcommunicationanddecision-making.

CriticsofFayolseemtooverstressthepointthatFayolwasobliviousofthehumanfactorin hiswritings.AsAlbers asserts Fayolwas not ignorant of the importance of the humanfactor.37He is credited to have followed a human relations approach in his dealingswithemployees of the Frenchmining firm inwhich hewas the chief executive. The followingstatementofFayolindicateshisawarenessoftheissueevenatatheoreticallevel:

Thereisnolimittothenumberofprinciplesofadministration.Everyadministrativeruleor device which strengthens the human part of an organisation or facilitates its workingtakesitsplaceamongtheprinciplesforsolongasexperienceprovesittobeworthyofthisimportantposition.38

Fayol’s ideas concerning human relations have a broader conception than Taylor’s. AsBertramGrosspointsout,toFayolpersonnelistheessenceoforganisation.39Fayolwasalsocarefultostatethathisprinciplesshouldnotbeconsideredasrigidrules.Thisisclearwhenheobserves:

Thereisnothing…absoluteinmanagementaffairs.Seldomdowehavetoapplythesameprincipletwiceasinidenticalconditions;allowancemustbemadefordifferentchangingcircumstances.40

Itwasinthisspirit,Fayolwaspreparedtorevisehisearlierviewsabouttheplaceofunityofcommandwithinhistheoryoffunctionalism.Hewasabletoappreciatethecriticismthatfunctionalismposedgreatdifficultiesforthemaintenanceofunifiedcontrolandcommand.Fayol clearly admitted thathisown formulations couldbe improvedupon, and that thesedidnotrepresent ‘onebestway’,whichcouldbeappliedwithoutmodificationstovaryingorganisationalsituations.

InBriefHenriFayol’scontributiontothetheoryofpublicadministrationisasfollows:• Henri Fayol, a successful executive of a mining company in France, made significant

contributions to the management concepts and is considered as the founder of“ManagementProcessSchool”.

• Heconsideredmanagementasasciencewhichcanbedeveloped,studiedandappliedequallywelltopublicandprivateaffairs.

• He emphasised the universality of management processes and made a distinctionbetweenmanagementandpublicadministration.

• He identified fivekeyelementsoforganisationviz.,planning,organisation, command,coordinationandcontrol.

• Fayolderivedfourteenprinciplesofadministrationwhichmustbecapableofadaptationto various enterprises and settings. He also emphasised the importance of training inadministration.

• Although Fayol places great emphasis on formal organisation, he is alive to thelimitations of hierarchy and formalism. Therefore, he suggested Gangplank – “leveljumping”-inahierarchicalorganisation.

• A comparison of contributions of Henri Fayol, a Frenchmanager and F.W. Taylor, anAmerican engineer is useful to understand the complementarity of their contributionsand the differences in their approach and focus. Taylor focused mainly on themanagementprinciplestobeapplieddirectlytothefieldofproductionandFayolmainlyfocusedonthedevelopmentofgeneraltheoryofadministrationtobeappliedatthetop-managementlevel.

• Fayol’s theory of functionalism is criticised for its narrow focus,mechanical approachandneglectofcomplexfactorsaffectinghumanbehaviourinorganisations.

• Fayol’s framework of systematic analysis of administrative processes stimulatedsubsequentwritersonadministrationandmanagement.Hisprinciplesofadministration,invariantforms,areappliedintheworkingofmodernorganisations.

References1 SeeGager,CurtisH.,“ManagementthroughoutHistory,”inMayward,H.B., (Ed),TopManagementHandbook,NewYork,

McGraw-HillBookCompany,1960.2 ItisimportanttonotethatwhileTaylor’sbookonPrinciplesofScientificManagementwaspublishedin1913,Fayol’smajor

workwasreadyforthepressin1914,butwasprolongedinitspublicationuntil1916.AmajorpaperbyFayolonGeneralPrinciplesofAdministrationwaspublishedasearlyas1908.

3 About15,000copiesofthebookseemtohavebeenpublishedby1925signifyingtheattentionitattracted.SeeWren,DanielA.,“TheInfluenceofHenriFayolonManagementTheoryandEducationinNorthAmerica”,ENTRPRISEETHISTOIRE,Vol.34.No.3,2003.p.98.

4 CharlesdeFreminvillepublishedabriefbutcomprehensivesummaryofFayols’ scientific studiesandanoverviewofhisadministrative ideas in Taylor Society Bulletin in 1927. Thiswas followed by JACoubrough’s translation Industrial andGeneralAdministration in1930ontheinitiativeofUrwick.Finally, itwasConstanceStorrstranslationofthebookunderthe titleGeneraland IndustrialManagement in 1949 that brought the book to theEnglish speaking audiences andhad amajor impact onmanagement education inUSA. See for details Daniel A.Wren, op.cit. pp. 98-107. Storrs translatedFayol’stermadministerasmanage incontrasttoCoubrough’stoadminister.UrwickdisagreedwiththeStorrstranslationof administration as management but conceded that in the absence of French equivalent, the Storrs translation wasaccurateandconvenient.DanielA.Wren,op.cit.p.102.

5 Urwick, Lyndall, in his 26 page foreword to the English translation ofHenri Fayol’sGeneral and IndustrialManagement,London,IsaacPitman,1949,p.vii.

6 Breeze,JohnD.,”HenriFayol’sCentreforAdministrativeStudies,”JournalofManagementHistory,Vol.1,No.3,1995,pp.37-62.

7 ‘Administration Industrille etGenerale ‘This article consists of first twoof four section ofwhat Fayolwishes topublish onadministration. These two sections were later published by Dunod as a volume in 1918 in a two volume set onadministration.ItisthisworkthatformsthebasisofmanyEnglishtranslationsofFayol’sworks.SeeWood,JohnD.andWoodMichaelD.HenriFayol:CriticalEvaluationsinBusinessandManagement,Vol.2,London,Rutledge,2002,p.18.

8 Pugh,D.S.,Hickson,D. J.,andHinings,C.R.,WritersonOrganisation,Ontario,Penguin,1976,p.60;TheAdministration

IndustrielleetGeneralewastranslatedintoEnglish,Spanish,Italian,Portuguese,German,Swedish,Polish,Hebrew,Greekandotherlanguages.DanielWren,op.cit.p.107.

9 Fordetailsoflife,workandacriticalanalysisofhiscontributionseedifferentarticlesinWood,JohnD.andWoodMichaelD.op.cit.

10 Fordetails seeCuthbert,Norman, “Fayol and thePrinciples ofOrganisation” inWood, JohnD. andWoodMichaelD.op.cit.,pp.3-25.

11 FordetailsseeBreeze,JohnD.,“ADiscussionoftheTranslationofSomeofFayol’sImportantConcepts”,inWood,JohnD.&WoodMichaelD.,op.cit.,pp.79-101.

12 HenriFayol, “TheAdministrativeTheory in theState,” inGulickLuther, andUrwick,L., (Eds.),Papers intheScienceofAdministration,NewYork,ColumbiaUniversityPress,1937.

13 QuotedinPugh,D.S.,Hickson,D.J.,andHinings,C.R.,op.cit.,p.60.14 HenriFayol,op.cit.,pp.3-6.15 SeeSheldrake,John,ManagementTheory,London,ThomsonLearning,2003.p.46.16 HenriFayol,op.cit,p.1417 Ibid.,pp.43-45.18 Ibid.,pp.53-54.19 Ibid.,pp.97-98.20 Ibid.,p.103.21 Ibid.,p.7.22 Ibid.,pp.19-41.23 Urwick,Lyndall,inhisforewordtotheEnglishtranslationofHenriFayol’sGeneralandIndustrialManagement,op.cit.,p.ix.24 Trewatha,RobertL., andPort,GeneM.,Management:FunctionsandBehaviour,BusinessPublications Inc.,Dallas, 1976,

pp.53-54.25 Urwick,L.,and.Brech,E.F.L,TheMakingofScientificManagement,Vol.I,London,IsaacPitman,1955,p.43.26 Drucker,PeterF.,Management:Tasks,Responsibilities,Practices,London,Heineman,1974,p.559.27 Ibid.,pp.551-52.28 Ibid.,p.563.29 Albers,HenryH.,PrinciplesofOrganisationandManagement,NewYork,JohnWiley,1961,p.110.30 Barnard,ChesterI.,TheFunctionsoftheExecutive,Cambridge,Mass,HarvardUniversityPress,1938,p.163andHerbert

A.Simon,AdministrativeBehaviour,NewYork,TheFreePress,1957,ChapterII.31 HenriFayol,op.cit.,p.41.32 Urwick,L.,andBrech,E.F.L.,op.cit..,p.40.33 SeeBrech,E.F.L.,(Ed.),ThePrinciplesandPracticeofManagement,London,Longman,1953,p.86.34 George,Jr.C.S.,TheHistoryofManagementThought,NewDelhi,PrenticeHall,1972,p.114.35 ForadetailedstatementseeDale,Earnest,ReadingsinManagement:LandMarksandNewFrontiers,NewYork,McGraw-Hill

BookCompany,1970,pp.146-47.36 Drucker,PeterF.,op.cit.pp.551-52.37 Albers,HenryH.,op.cit.,p.36.38 HenriFayol,op.cit.,p.19.39 Ibid.40 Ibid.

A

5FREDERICKTAYLOR

V.BhaskaraRao

Introductiont the turnof the twentieth century, the first ever-serious effortwasmadebyFrederickTaylortomakeresearchesinmanagementofindustryintheUSA.Heisoneofthemost

influential persons who made very significant impact on the management science andthought.Amechanicalengineer,hesoughttoimproveindustrialefficiency.Heisregardedasthe father of scientific management and was one of the first management consultants.Though a controversial figure in management history, he was considered as one of theintellectualleadersofefficiencymovementandhisideaswerehighlyinfluential.Apioneerof modern management approaches and techniques, Taylor believed that the “bestmanagementisatruescience,”applicabletoallkindsofhumanactivities.Hebelievedthathisprinciplesofmanagementare ‘applicablewithequal force toall socialactivities; to themanagement of homes, farms, churches, philanthropic institutions, universities, andgovernmentdepartments’.1AstudyofTaylor’slifeandideas,therefore,isindispensableforeveryoneconcernedwithadministrationandmanagement.2

(1856-1915)

LifeandWorksFrederickWinslowTaylorwas born inGermantown, Pennsylvania onMarch 20, 1856.HestudiedfortwoyearsinFranceandGermanyandin1872enteredPhilipsExeterAcademyatExter, New Hampshire. Although he passed the entrance examination for Harvard LawSchool,hecouldnotcontinuehisacademicpursuitsbecauseofimpairedeyesightowingtotoomuchstudyinkerosenelight.In1873,attheageof18hejoinedtheEnterpriseHydraulicWorksofPhiladelphia and served as apprentice for four yearswithoutwages. In 1878, hewenttoworkattheMidvaleSteelCompanyasalabourerandoveryearswaspromotedasGang-boss, Foreman,ResearchDirector, and finally becameChief Engineer in 1884. Taylor

receivedamaster’sdegreeinMechanicalEngineeringfromStevensInstituteofTechnologyofHoboken,NewJerseythroughnightstudyandcorrespondencecourseswhichwasmostunusualatthattime.In1890,hebecameGeneralManageroftheManufacturingInvestmentCompany inPhiladelphia. In1893,hestartedaconsultingagency inPhiladelphia. In1898,TaylorjoinedBethlehemSteel,wherehedevelopedhighspeedsteelwithhiscolleaguesforwhichhereceivedagoldmedalataParisexhibitionin1900andwasawardedElliottCressonGoldMedalby theFranklin Institute,Philadelphia. In1906,hewasawarded thehonorarydoctorateofSciencebytheUniversityofPennsylvania.HealsoworkedasaprofessorattheTuckSchoolofBusinessatDartmouthCollege.3Taylorpublisheda largenumberofpapersbased onhis studies and research andmadepresentations before professional bodies.4Heinvented a cutting tool, a steel hammer, hydraulic power loading machine, tool feedingmechanismandaboringandturningmill.From1901,hedevotedhis timeforresearchforimproving the techniques of scientific management till his death on March 28, 1915. Hebecame president of the American Society of Mechanical Engineers in 1906. Taylor isimportantandinterestingnotonlybecauseofhiswork,butalsobecauseofhispersonality.His passion for efficiency was boundless and his capacity for work phenomenal. Hisincrediblyactivelifeillustratesaremarkablecharacter.5

SoldieringTaylorbelieved that industrialmanagementduringhis timeswasamateurishand felt thatbest results could be achieved through partnership between trained staff, qualifiedmanagement and cooperative workers. He noticed a phenomenon of workers purposelyoperatingbelow their capacity and called thephenomenon as ‘soldiering’ or ‘skiving’.Heattributedthreereasonsforthis,viz.• workersdeliberatelydoaslittleasonecansafelydoduetothebeliefthatiftheybecome

moreproductive,someofthemwouldbecomesurplusandwouldbeeliminated;• non-incentivewagesystemsencourage lowproductivity,employees takecarenever to

workatahighpaceforthefearthathigherpacemaybecomethestandardasaresultofwhich,theemployeesfearthattheirwagesmaycomedown;and

• workers waste their time and effort by relying on rule-of-thumb and unscientificmethodsandpracticesthanthosescientificallydetermined.To counter the practice of soldiering and to improve efficiency,6 Taylor undertook

experimentstodeterminethebestlevelofperformanceforjobs-theprocessofpresentdaybenchmarking - andwhatwas necessary to achieve this level of performance. Theywerecharacterisedby theuseof stop-watches to timeaworker’s sequenceofmotionswith theobjectiveofdeterminingthe‘onebestwaytoperformajob’.Taylorattractedpublicattentionin1880swhenhereducedthenumberofworkersshovellingcoalatBethlehemSteelworksfrom500to140withoutanylossofproduction.

The term ‘scientific management’, which is associated with Taylor, was not coined byhim.ItwasLouisBrandies,wholaterbecameajudgeoftheSupremeCourt,whocoinedthetermduringhis arguments before the InterstateCommerceCommission in 1910. Brandiesargued that the railroads could save ‘a million dollars a day’ by applying scientificmanagementmethods.Taylorwasinitiallyopposedtothephrase, thinkingthat itsoundedtoo academic,7 but later used it as the title of his monograph The Principles of ScientificManagementin1911.

DevelopmentofScientificManagementDuring the latterpartof the19thcenturyanew industrial climatebegan todescenduponAmerican business giving rise to the growth of managerial class. The practices ofmanagement began to change fromaday-to-dayproblem-solving approach to amore all-inclusive, comprehensive, long-term approach to grapple with the emerging managerialproblems, which were not faced previously. Prominent leaders like Henry R. Towne andHenryMetcalftriedtodevelopaunifiedsystemofmanagementandTownecalledthisnewphilosophy-scienceofmanagement.Townein1886presentedapaperentitled“TheEngineeras an Economist” to the American Society ofMechanical Engineers (ASME). Taylor, whojoinedthesocietyinthesameyear,wasinspiredbyTowne’sideasanddirectedhiseffortstounderstandallfacetsofafirmandtodevelopscientificmanagement.Taylor’scontributiontothedevelopment of scientificmanagementwas recorded in his papersAPiece-Rate System(1895);ShopManagement(1903);TheArtofCuttingMetals(1906)andThePrinciplesofScientificManagement(1911).8

Taylor’sfirstpaper,APiece-RateSystemwasconsideredasanoutstandingcontributiontotheprinciplesofwageadministration.Heproposedanewsystemconsistingofthreeparts:(a)observationandanalysisofwork through timestudy toset the ‘rate’orstandard, (b)a‘differentialrate’systemofpiecework,and(c)‘payingmenandnotpositions’.InhissecondpaperonShopManagementhediscussedatlengthworkshoporganisationandmanagement.Hefocusedattentioninthispapertohisphilosophyofmanagement.9Tohimtheobjectiveofmanagementshouldbetopayhighwagesandhavelowunitproductioncosttoachievetheincreasedindustrialefficiency.Theotherobjectivesofhisphilosophyinclude:• application of scientific methods of research and experiments to the management

problems;• standardisation ofworking conditions andplace theworkers on the basis of scientific

criteria;• giving formal training to workers and specific instructions to perform the prescribed

motionswithstandardisedtoolsandmaterials;and• ensuringfriendlycooperationbetweenworkersandthemanagement.

Taylorwantedtodevelopanewandtotalconceptofmanagement.Headvocatedthatthetraditionalmanagers, instead of being authoritarian, should develop a new approach andchangetoamorecomprehensiveandbroaderviewoftheirjobsincorporatingtheelementsof planning, organising and controlling. While at Midvale Steel Company, after seriousobservation and study of operations of factories, he identified many defects in themanagement.Theyinclude:• managementhadnoclearunderstandingofworker-managementresponsibilities;• lackofeffectivestandardsofwork;• restrictedoutputbecauseof“naturalsoldering”and“systemicsoldering”ofworkbythe

workers;• failure of management to design jobs properly and to offer the proper incentives to

workerstoovercomesoldering;• most decisions of the management were unscientific as they were based on hunch,

intuition,pastexperience,andrule-of-thumb;• lackofproperstudiesaboutthedivisionofworkamongdepartments;and• placementofworkerswithoutconsiderationoftheirability,aptitudeandinterests.

Taylor experienced bitter labour-management conflicts, particularly between foremanandworkers,over thequantityofoutput.He failed to resolve theproblemsbypersuasionandevenforce.Realisingthatthenewindustrialschemewasessentialtopreventencounters,hebegansearchingforascienceofwork.Intheprocessheconductedaseriesofexperimentsformorethantwodecades.Heexperimentedwithmachinetools,speeds,metals,materials,etc.Hisexperimentsat theMidvaleandBethlehemSteelCompany led to thediscoveryofhigh-speedsteelthatrevolutionisedtheartofcuttingmetals.HispaperonTheArtofCuttingMetals, presented to American Society ofMechanical Engineers as presidential address in1906,wasconsideredasthemostremarkableeverpresentedtoalearnedsociety.Thepaperwasbasedonthelongestandmostexhaustiveseriesof30,000to50,000recordedexperimentswith experimental tools, in addition to many unrecorded, conducted over a period of 26years, at a cost of about $2,00,000. The experiments were designed to find answers torecurringquestionslikewhattoolstobeused?Whatshouldbethecuttingspeed?Whatfeedshouldbeused?etc.10TheachievementsofmetalcuttingexperimentswereconsideredmoreimportantthanTaylor’sothercontributions,becausetheyinitiatedamajorbreakthroughinthedevelopmentoftheAmericanindustry.

In the development of the shop system, Taylorwished to know, that under controlledconditions,howlongamanoramachinewouldorshouldtaketoperformagiventask,inaspecified process, using specified materials and methods. He used scientific fact-findingmethods to determine empirically instead of traditionally the rightways to perform taskswiththehelpofastopwatch.Taylorrecognisedtheneedforscientificmethodofselectionofthe right men for the right jobs considering their initial qualifications and potential forfurther learning. He wanted the effective supervision of a worker and his workingconditions after placing the worker in the right place. Taylor wanted to lay down thefoundationforsoundpersonnelmanagementi.e.tomatchtheworker’sabilitiestothejob.

Inother experimentsonmotionand time studyheanalysedhow theworkershandledmaterials, machines and tools and developed a coordinated system of shopmanagement.Taylor set out todetermine scientifically the abilityofworkers indealingwith equipmentandmaterialsandthisapproachledtothetruebeginningofscientificmanagement.

Taylor’sConceptofManagementThe principle object of management, according to Taylor, is to secure the maximumprosperityfortheemployer,coupledwiththemaximumprosperityforeachemployee.Hisphilosophyofscientificmanagementisthatthereisnoinherentconflictintheinterestoftheemployers,workers and consumers.Theprimary concernofTaylorwas that the results ofhigher productivity should equally benefit all people i.e., workers, employers, andconsumersintheshapeofhigherwagestotheworkers,greaterprofitstothemanagementand payment of lower prices for the products by the consumers. Taylor observed thatmanagementneglecteditsfunctionsandshifteditsburdentothelabourwhilekeepingforitselfminor responsibility.He advised thatmanagement should take the responsibility fordetermining standards, planning work, organising, controlling and devising incentiveschemes.

PrinciplesofScientificManagementTaylor emphasised, in the interest of societal prosperity, close collaboration anddeliberatecooperation between the workmen and the management for the application of scientificmethods. His philosophy of management was based on four basic principles of scientific

management:• developmentofatruescience;• scientificselectionoftheworkers;• scientificeducationanddevelopmentofworkers;and• intimateandfriendlycooperationbetweenthemanagementandthemen.11

DevelopmentofaTrueScienceofWorkWhenscienceisviewedas‘organisedknowledge’everyactofaworkmancanbereducedtoscience. In the interestof theworkerandmanagement, it isnecessary toknowas towhatconstitutesafairday’swork.Itsavestheworkerfromtheunnecessarycriticismofthebossand enables the management to get the maximum work from the worker. This needs ascientificinvestigationofa‘largedailytask’tobedonebyqualifiedworkersunderoptimumconditions.Thiscanbedonebygatheringtraditionalknowledgeoftheworkers,whicharetheirlifelongfixedcapitalandamostvaluableproperty.Theresultsofinvestigationhavetobe classified, tabulated, and reduced into rules and laws to find out the ideal workingmethodsorwhatiscalled‘onebestwayofdoingajob’.Suchdevelopmentofscienceofworkenablestheorganisationtoproducemore;enablestheworkertoreceivehigherwagesandamuchlargerprofittothecompany.

ScientificSelectionandProgressiveDevelopmentoftheWorkmanThere is a need to select the worker scientifically possessing physical and intellectualqualitiestoensuretheeffectiveperformanceofthescientificallydevelopedwork.Thisneedsadeliberate studyof the aptitude, nature andperformanceof theworker and findingoutwhatpossibilitiesandlimitationsonehasforfuturedevelopment.Taylorbelievedthateveryworker has the potential for development. He insisted that every worker must besystematicallytrained.Taylorfeltthatitistheresponsibilityofthemanagementtodeveloptheworkerofferinghimopportunitiesforadvancementtodothejobtothefullestrealisationof his natural capacities. It is necessary to ensure that the employees accept the newmethods,toolsandconditionswillinglyandenthusiastically.12

BringingtogetherScienceofWorkandScientificallySelectedandTrainedMenTo enable theworker to do his job and to ensure that hemaynot slip back to the earliermethodsofdoingwork,theremustbesomebodytoinspiretheworkers.This,Taylorfelt,istheexclusiveresponsibilityofthemanagement.Hebelievedthatworkersarealwayswillingto cooperate with the management, but there is more opposition from the side of themanagement. Taylor maintained that this process of bringing together causes the mentalrevolution.

DivisionofWorkandResponsibilitybetweenManagementandWorkersInthetraditionalmanagementtheory,theworkerwasentirelyresponsiblefortheworkandthe management had lesser responsibilities. But Taylor’s scientific management assumesequal responsibility between management and the worker. This division of work createsbetween themanunderstandingandmutualdependence.Therewill alsobe constant andintimatecooperationbetweenthem.Thisresultsineliminationofconflictsandstrikes.

None of the above principles, however, could be isolated and called scientificmanagement.Itisacombinationofalltheelementsthatconstitutesscientificmanagement.Thephilosophyoftheseprinciplesmaybesummarisedas:13

• science,notrule-of-thumb;• harmony,notdiscord;• cooperation,notindividualism;• maximumoutput,inplaceofrestrictedoutput;and• developmentofeachmantohisgreatestefficiencyandprosperity.

FunctionalForemanshipTaylordoubtedtheefficacyof the ‘linear’systemormilitarytypeoforganisationinwhicheachworker is subordinate to only one boss.He replaced this systemwithwhat is calledfunctional foremanship in which the worker receives orders from eight specialisedsupervisors. Thus, he divided work not only among workers, but also at the supervisorylevel.Of the eight functional bosses, four are responsible for planning and the remainingfour forexecution.Theorderofworkandroute clerk, the instructioncardclerk, timeandcost clerkandshopdisciplinarianare the fourplanningbosses.Thegang-boss, repair-boss,speed-bossandtheinspectorarethefourexecutionfunctionalbosses.Taylorbelievedthatinthis functional typeof organisation, the foreman canbe trainedquickly and specialisationbecomesvery easy.This concept ofdivisionofworkbetweenplanning and executionwassubsequentlyincorporatedinthestaffspecialist inlineandstaffconcept.14Taylorspecifiednine qualities viz., education, technical knowledge, manual dexterity and strength, tact,energy,grit,honesty,judgmentandgoodhealth15whichwillmakeagood‘foreman’.

Apart from functional foremanship, Taylor also developed mechanisms to operate hisprinciplesofscientificmanagement.Theyinclude:• timestudy,withtheimplementsandmethodsforproperlymakingit;• standardisationofalltoolsandimplements;• actsormovementsofworkmenforeachclassofwork;• thedesirabilityofaplanningroomordepartment;• the‘exceptionprinciple’inmanagement;• useofslide-rulesandsimilartimesavingimplements;• instructioncardsfortheworkman;• the task idea in management, accompanied by a large bonus for the successful

performanceofthetask;• the‘differentialrate’system;• mnemonicsystemsforclassifyingmanufacturedproductsaswellasimplementsusedin

manufacturing;• aroutingsystem;• moderncostsystem,etc.16

Taylorobservedthatscientificmanagementisnotanefficiencydevice.Tohimitisnotanewschemeofpayingmen;notanewsystemoffiguringcosts;notatimestudyormotionstudy;andit isnotdividedforemanshiporfunctionalforemanship.17Taylorbelievedinallthese efficiency devices but emphasised that in whole or in part they are not scientificmanagement; they are useful adjuncts to scientific management as they are also usefuladjunctsofothersystemsofmanagement.

MentalRevolutionScientificmanagement,accordingtoTaylor,primarilyinvolvesacompletementalrevolution

on the part of the workers and the management as to their duties, towards their work,towards their fellow workers, and towards all of their daily problems. It demands therealisationofthefactthattheirmutualinterestsarenotantagonisticandmutualprosperityispossibleonly throughmutualcooperation.Without thisgreatmental revolutiononbothsides,Taylorsaid,scientificmanagementdoesnotexist.18

Taylorwasoftheviewthatthegreatrevolutionthattakesplaceinthementalattitudeofthetwosidesunderscientificmanagementisthatbothpartiestaketheireyesoffthedivisionof the surplus as the all important matter and together turn their attention towardsincreasing the size of the surplus until the surplus becomes so large that it becomesunnecessary to quarrel overhow it shouldbedivided.19 Then, both the sides stop pullingagainst one another, and instead both turn and push shoulder to shoulder in the samedirectiontillthesizeofthesurpluscreatedbytheirjointeffortistrulyastounding.Boththesides realise that friendly cooperation and mutual helpfulness make the surplus soenormouslygreater than itwas in thepastandthere isampleroomfora large increase inwagesfortheworkersandequallygreatincreaseinprofitsforthemanufacturer.“Itisalongthislineofcompletechangeinthementalattitudeofbothsides,ofthesubstitutionofpeaceforwar; the substitutionofheartybrotherly cooperation for contention and strife; of bothpulling hard in the same direction instead of pulling apart or replacing suspiciouswatchfulnesswithmutualconfidence;orbecomingfriendsinsteadofenemies.”Taylorsaidthatalongthislinescientificmanagementmustbedeveloped.

CriticismAlthoughscientificmanagementbecamesomethingofa‘movement’andofferedthehopeofresolvingindustrialproblems,organisedlabourandmanagersaswellwereantagonistictoit.The trade unions were against the methods of increasing output by introduction of thepremium bonus system. The labour leaders considered Taylorism as not only destroyingtradeunionismbutalsodestroyingtheprincipleofcollectivebargaining.Theythoughtthatthe system was a menace to the community at large as it causes continuous increase inunemployment. The trade unions felt that Taylor was more interested in the mechanicalaspectsofworkandnotmuchconcernedaboutthetotalworksituation.

Scientific management, though it had enormous impact on industry and improvedproductivity, it increasedmonotonyandresulted in theabsenceof skillvariety.Theuseofstop-watcheswasprotestedandledtostrikeswhereTaylorismwasunderimplementation.Therewere complaints thatTaylorismwas ‘dehumanising’.Anumberof agitationsby thelabour organisations and their representations to the American Congress led a SpecialCommitteeoftheHouseofRepresentativestoinvestigateintoTaylorismin1912.AlthoughthereportoftheCommitteeneitherclearlyfavouredthelabournorTaylor,thetradeunionsin1915succeededingettinganamendmenttotheArmyAppropriationAct,forbiddingtheuseofstopwatchesorthepaymentofpremiumsorbonusesinArmyarsenals.Itwasonlyin1949thattheserestrictionswerelifted.

The trade union’s opposition to Taylorism also led to an investigation conducted byProfessor Robert Hoxie for the United States Commission on Industrial Relations. In hisreport, Hoxie criticised scientific management and Taylor’s approaches, as they wereconcerned only withmechanical aspects and not with human aspects of production. Thereportalsostatedthat thebasic idealsofscientificmanagementandlabourunionismwereincompatible.

Taylorismwasalsooftenattackedbymanagers.Thosewhowantedquickpromotionsto

thehighmanagerialpositionswithoutanymeritbasedonhighereducationopposedTaylor’sstand,whichadvocatedtrainingbyhighlytrainedexperts.Themanagersdidnotappreciatehisscornfulcommentsonrule-of-thumbmethod.ThosewhohadfoughttheirwaytohighermanagerialpositionswithoutthebenefitofhighereducationweresensitivetoTaylor’sstandthatunlessassistedbyhighlytrainedexperts theywereunqualifiedtomanage.20 It isveryinterestingtonotethatTaylorhadtoresignfrombothMidvaleSteelWorksandBethlehemSteel,becauseofthefrictionwiththecompanymanagers.21

OliverSheldon,aBritishmanagementexpert,MaryParkerFollett,anAmericanbusinessphilosopher,SamLewisJohn,EltonMayo,PeterDruckerandotherscriticisedTaylor’sideas.TheychargedthatTaylor’sscientificmanagementwasimpersonalandunderemphasisedthehumanfactor.Thiscriticismledtoaseriesofexperimentsinindustrialsociologyandsocialpsychology.Theclassic,‘Hawthorneexperiments’ofEltonMayoandotherstudiesonhumanrelationsandgroupdynamicsinindustryrejectedTaylorism.EltonMayo,throughhisclassic“Hawthorneinvestigations”,conclusivelyproveditisnotthestructuralarrangementsoftheorganisation, which are important for increasing productivity and efficiency. But it is theemotionalattitudeof theworker towardshisworkandhiscolleagues.Taylor’sphilosophythatmenweregenerallylazyandtrytoavoidworkhasalsobeendisputed.ItisevidentfromBrown’s analysis that “work is an essentialpart ofman’s life, since it is that aspect of lifewhichgiveshimstatusandbindshimtothesociety.Whentheydonotlikeit,thefaultliesinthepsychologicalandsocialconditionsofthejob,ratherthantheworker.”22

ThebehaviouralistschargedthatTaylor’smethodsofscientificmanagementsacrificetheinitiative of the worker, his individual freedom and the use of his intelligence andresponsibility. SimonandMarchdescribed the scientificmanagement as the ‘physiologicalorganisation theory’.23 There are also criticisms that Taylorism dehumanised the industryand made workers automatons and assumed that the workers are satisfied with moneyalone.His specification ofwhat should bedone and inwhat time leaves no scope for theworkertothink.

Another criticismof Taylor is that he did not properly understand the anatomyof thework. Taylor’s emphasis on the minute division of work and specialisation was severelycriticised on several grounds. Firstly, thework gets depersonalised, theworker becomes amere cog in the machine, and the relations between the worker and executives becomeremote as a result ofwhich theworker lacks the senseofparticipation in thework.Morethananything, theworker findsnooutlet toexhibithisabilitiesandpotential.Secondly, itmayevenleadtoautomationoftheworkers,whichmayhavephysiologicalandneurologicalconsequences. As aptly put by Peter Drucker, the organisation becomes a piece of poorengineering judgedby thestandardsofhumanrelations,aswellasby thoseofproductiveefficiency and output.24 Thirdly, Taylor’s division of work into planning and executivedivisions has severely been criticised. It is argued that in such situations it is difficult todevelop proper team spirit, and if planning is totally diversed from the execution it isdifficulttosecuretheparticipationoftheworkersintheprogressofthefirm.IthasalsobeenarguedthatTayloroverlookedthefactthattheprincipleofdivisionandsub-divisionofworkintominutestparts is subject to the lawofdiminishing returns.25 Taylor’sphilosophywassummarised in the followingwords: “First, he confuses the principle of analysiswith theprincipleof action….Second,planninganddoingare separateparts of the same job; theycannotbetotallydivorced.”26

There are studies, however, which counter some of these criticisms. For example, it is

significanttonotethatTaylorhimselfrecognisedthepotentialforabuseofhismethods.Thisiscleatwhenhesaidthat“itmaybeusedmoreorlessasaclubtodriveworkmenintodoingalargerday’sworkforapproximatelythesamepaythattheyreceivedinthepast.”27SomearguethatthecurrentliteraturepresentsapartialviewofTaylor’swork.ButinfactTayloranticipated several key motivational strategies generally associated with human relationsmovement.He createda senseofmission, increased twoway communication,understoodthathigherneedsarealso importantasagainst economicmanapproach,usedesteemasamotivatorandgaveworkersachanceatself-actualisation,etc.ItisalsoarguedthatTaylor’swritings show that he used managers to realise that technical success requires enhancedhumanrelationsand togetanaccurate senseofTaylor’smessageonehas to readhisownaccount.28

ConclusionDespite the limitations - limitations concerning an adequate understanding of humanpsychology, sociology and the anatomyofwork - Taylor’swork remains important. By allaccountsTaylormustberegardedasapioneerinthestudyofhumanbeingsatwork.29Hewas the first to apply quantitative techniques to the study of industrial management.Modern scientific management - operations research, method study, time study, systemanalysis,managementbyexceptions,etc.,-areallpartofTaylor’sheritage.Hisconceptsofwork design, measurement, production control, etc., changed the nature of industry andbegan to establish departments of work study, quality control, etc. Taylor’s scientificmanagement became something of a movement. In an age of growing achievement inphysical sciences it offered the hope of resolving industrial problems through the use ofobjective principles. For young and imaginative engineers, it provided an ethos and amission. After the initial period of resistance, it conquered the citadels of old fashionedindustrial management in the United States and had a tremendous effect on industrialpractice.30ItevenspreadtoGermany,England,France,USSR,andotherEuropeancountries.ScientificmanagementwassupportedinRussiaandTaylor’sprincipleswereincludedinthecurriculumoftheeducationandtrainingoftheengineers.Taylorinbrief,combinedtheoryandpractice, thoughtandexperimentanddoingand teachingall inone life.Hisscientificmanagement had a major influence on the growing reform and economy movements inpublicadministration.31Theimpactcanbeseeninseveraldisciplinesincludingaccounting,education,libraryscience,architecture,health,military,genderandpublicadministration.32

InBriefFrederickTaylor’scontributiontomanagementandadministrationcanbesummarisedas:• Frederick Winslow Taylor, a mechanical engineer by training, was regarded as the

“FatherofScientificManagement”forhispioneeringworkinthestudyofhumanbeingsatwork;

• Based on extensive studies of industrial work situation, Taylor identified defects inmanagementandproposedaphilosophyofmanagementforindustrialefficiency,whichwassubsequentlylabelledas“ScientificManagement”byLouisBrandies;

• Taylor’sphilosophyofscientificmanagementisthatthereisnoinherentconflictintheinterestsofemployees,workersandconsumers.Basedonthisphilosophyhedevelopedfourprinciplesofscientificmanagementnamelyviz:(a)developmentofatruescienceofwork; (b) scientific selection of workers; (c) scientific education and development of

workers, and (d) intimate and friendly cooperation between themanagement and themen;

• Taylordevelopedmanymanagementtechniques likefunctional foremanship; timeandmotion studies; piece-rate system; standardisation of tools; the exception principle; thedifferential rate system, etc., as application tools of scientific management. The tools,Taylorfelt,willhelpinidentifying“onebestwayofdoingthings”;

• The essence of scientific management, according to Taylor, is mental revolution i.e.changeofattitudeonthepartofworkersandmanagementtowardstheirworkandtheirrelationships;

• Bothtradeunionsandmanagersofthedaywereverycriticalofscientificmanagement,thoughfordifferentreasons.The tradeunionsconsidered thescientificmanagementasanti-labour and anti-trade union, focusing onmechanical aspects ofwork ignoring thehuman aspects. The labour organisations protested the “dehumanising” aspects ofTaylorism;

• The managers did not appreciate the criticism of rule-of-thumb methods andprescriptionoftechnicaltrainingtomanagerstoincreaseefficiencyandeffectiveness inorganisations;

• Taylor’sprinciplesandprescriptionswerecriticisedbylatterwritersfortheirfailuretounderstandtheanatomyofwork.SimonandMarchcharacterisedscientificmanagementasthe“physiologicalorganisationtheory”;and

• Taylor’s work, in spite of limitations and criticisms, greatly influenced the study andpracticesofindustrialadministrationinthemodernworld.Taylor’sheritageisvisibleinmanymodernmanagementtechniqueslikeoperationresearch,methodstudy,timestudy,etc.Taylorshouldbegivenduecreditforlayingfoundationsforthesystematicstudyofworkandworker.

References1 Taylor, Frederick W., Principles of Scientific Management, New York, Harper Brothers, 1947, See Introduction.

http://www.eldritchpress.org/fwt/ti.html2 FordetailsofTaylor’slife,career,contributionandimpactonsociety,economy,polity,administrationandmanagementsee

different articles inWood, JohnC., andWood,MichaelC.,F.W.Taylor:Critical Evaluations in Business andManagement,NewYork,Rutledge,2005.

3 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FrederickWinslowTaylor.4 Taylor’smainworksincludeShopManagement(1903),ThePrinciplesofScientificManagement(1911)andTheTestimonybefore

theSpecialHouseCommittee(1912).ForadetailedbibliographyofhispublicationsaswellasstudiesonTaylor’sworkandcontributionseeRobertaA.Cowan,“AnnotatedBibliography–FrederickWinslowTaylor (1856-1915)”, inWood, JohnC.,andWood,MichaelC.,(Eds),op.cit.pp.15-67.

5 Sapre,S.A.,F.W.Taylor:HisPhilosophyofScientificManagement,Bombay,GovernmentCentralPress,1970,p.1.6 TheconceptofefficiencyarticulatedbyTaylorcontinuestobethestartingpointinanydiscussionofefficiencyintheNew

PublicManagementera.ForadiscussionseeSchachter,HindyLauer,“DoesFrederickTaylor’sGhostStillHaunttheHallsofGovernment?ALookattheConceptofGovernmentalEfficiencyinOrTime”,PublicAdministrationReview,Sep.-Oct.,2007,Vol.67,No.5,2007,pp.800-810.

7 Shafritz,JayM.,andHyde,AlbertC.,ClassicsofPublicAdministration,FortWorth,HarcourtBraceCollegepublishers,1997,p.3.

8 ShopManagement,ThePrinciplesofScientificManagementandF.W.Taylor’sTestimonybeforeaSpecialCommitteeoftheHouseofRepresentativesin1912,werelaterpublishedinonevolumeunderthetitlePrinciplesofScientificManagement,op.cit.

9 SeeClaudeS.George,Jr.TheHistoryofManagementThought,NewDelhi,Prentice-HallofIndiaPrivateLimited,1972,p.92.10 See Hayward, Elizabeth Gardner, Classified Guide to the Frederick Winslow Taylor Collection,

http://www.stevens.edu/ses/about_soe/history/frederick_winslow_taylor.htmlRetrievedon3rdJanuary,2010

11 Taylor,FrederickW.,op.cit.,pp.36-37.12 Sapre,S.A.,op.cit.,p.14.13 Taylor,FrederickW.,op.cit.,p.140.14 Ibid.,pp.99-107.15 Ibid.,p.96.16 Ibid.,pp.129-30.17 “HearingbeforeSpecialCommitteeof theHouseofRepresentatives to Investigate theTaylorandotherSystemsofShop

Management under Authority of House Resolution 90,” Washington, D. C. U. S. Government Printing Office, 1912.QuotedinWren,DanielA.,TheEvolutionofManagementThought,NewYork,TheRonaldPressCompany,1972,pp.142-143.

18 Ibid.19 Ibid.,p.143.20 Gross,BertramM.,TheManagingofOrganisation:TheAdministrativeStruggle,Vol.I,NewYork,TheFreePress,1964,p.125.21 Ibid.22 Brown,J.A.C.,TheSocialPsychologyofIndustry,Pelican,1954.23 March,JamesG.andSimon,HerbertA.,Organisations,NewYork,JohnWiley&Sons,1958,pp.12-22.24 QuotedinSapre,S.A.,op.cit.,p.25.25 Ibid,pp.25-26.26 Ibid.27 Taylor,FrederickW.,op.cit.,pp.133-3428 For details of this perspective see, Hindy, Lauer Schachter, “Frederick Winslow Taylor and the idea of Worker

Participation: A Brief Against Easy Administrative Dichotomies”,Administration and Society, Vol.21, NO.1, May 1989,pp.20-30.

29 Sapre,S.A.,op.cit.,p.29.30 Gross,BertramM.,op.cit.,p.127.31 Ibid.,p.128.32 FordetailsseedifferentarticlesinWood,JohnC.,andWood,MichaelC.,op.cit.,pp.9-10.

I

6MAXWEBER

C.LakshmannaA.V.SatyanarayanaRao

Introductionnadministrative sciences, bureaucracyoccupies a significantplace.MaxWeber’s name issynonymouswithbureaucracyandheenjoysauniqueplaceinthegalaxyofsocialscientists

whohaveattemptedtoexplaintheconceptofbureaucracy.Weber’sanalysesencompassingsuchdiversefieldsofstudyrangingfromhistorytocomparativesocialsciences,haveearnedhim immortality.Weber’s influence on the thinkers on administration is obvious from thefactthatamajorityofpropositionsandmodelsonbureaucracyspanningaboutacenturyareconsideredeitherasdifferentversionsofWeberianmodelorattemptsatcontrollingit,thusmakingtheWeber’sconceptualisationsanimportantpointofbeginning.Similarly,Weber’stheoriesonlegitimacyanddominationhaveformedthebasisforanumberoffurtherstudies.

(1864-1920)

LifeandWorksMaximilianCarlEmilWeber(1864-1920)wasborninawealthyandpoliticalfamilyinErfurt,Thuringia,thenpartofPrussiaandnowinGermany.In1882,WeberwenttotheUniversityofHeidelbergtostudyLaw.Breakinghisstudiesin1884hespentayearinStrasbourgasaconscripted JuniorOfficer in theGermanArmy.Webercompletedhisuniversitystudies in1886 and spent the next three years in Berlin working in a minor legal position whilepreparing his doctoral dissertation on the History of Medieval Trading Companies. Hereceived Ph.D in 1889. He joined the University of Berlin as an instructor in law andcompleted his secondwork calledRoman AgrarianHistory and its significance for Public andPrivateLawin1891.Hewroteanumberofpapersonlawfocusingonthesocial,politicalandeconomic factors prevalent at that time. In 1894, Weber became a Professor of PoliticalEconomyatFidelburgUniversityandin1897returnedtotheUniversityofHeidelbergasaProfessorofEconomics.Thedeathofhisfatherin1897leftaseriouscrisisinhislifeaffectinghisphysicalandmentalhealth.Heresignedhisprofessorship,travelledthroughoutEurope

andtheUSAandavoidedteachingforabouttwentyyears.Duringthisperiodheshiftedhisacademic interests from law and economics to sociology. In 1918, he returned to teachinginitiallyinViennaandlateratMunich.Hediedattheheightofhisintellectualpowerandabulk of his writings are still incomplete. His academic interests are very wide spanningeconomics,history,religion,politicsandsociology.1

TherearesomefactorsinWeber’slife,whichneedtobeconsideredbeforeattemptingtoanalysehiswritings.First,Weber’surgeforanalysisandsystematisedstudybeganattheageof thirteen. Second,he alwayspreferredknowledgeobtained throughpractical experiencethan library research. Third, hewas progressive in outlook and yet conservative at heart.Fourth,hiswritingsreflectsocialconditionsofGermanyofhistimes.Hesawthedeclineofliberalismandthethreattotheindividualinthebureaucratisationofsociety.

Authority,OrganisationandLegitimacyAmong Weber’s works on administration, his theories on domination, leadership andlegitimacymerit specialmention.Hepropounded these theorieswithabroadperspective,keeping in view religion and society and theway theymould the patterns of leadership.Weberdifferentiatedauthority,powerandcontrol.Tohim,apersoncouldbesaidtopossesspower, if in a social relationship, his will could be enforced despite resistance. And suchexerciseofpowerbecomescontrolled.Structuringofhumangroupsowetheirexistencetoaspecial instance of vested control authority. It manifests when a ‘command of definitecontent elicits obedience on the part of specific individuals’2. To Weber, ‘authority’ wasidentical with the ‘authoritarian power of command’.3 Weber identified five essentialcomponentsofauthority:1. Anindividualorabodyofindividualswhorule;2. Anindividualorabodyofindividualswhoareruled;3. Thewillof therulers to influencetheconductof theruledandanexpressionof that

willorcommand;4. Evidenceof the influenceof the rulers in termsof theobjectivedegreeofcommand;

and5. Directorindirectevidenceofthatinfluenceintermsofthesubjectiveacceptancewith

whichtheruledobeythecommand.Anauthorityexistsas longas it isacceptedas legitimateby the ruled.Anorganisation

thuscanruleoradministeronlywhenithaslegitimacy.Explainingtheauthorityofdifferentkinds, in various organisations, Weber concluded that “all administration meansdomination”.4Hecategorisedthepersonsinorganisationsasthosewho:1. areaccustomedtoobeycommands;2. are personally interested in seeing the existing domination continue because they

derivebenefits;3. participate in that domination in the sense that the exercise of functions is divided

amongthem;and4. holdthemselvesinreadinessfortheexerciseofthesefunctions.Weber defined administration as domination or exercise of authoritywhilemost other

administrative scientists defined it as service or performance of duty. He identified threeforms of legitimacy each with a different type of ‘apparatus’ to justify the power ofcommand.Theyarecharismatic,traditionalandlegalauthority.

TraditionalAuthorityTraditionalauthorityderivesitslegitimacyfromtheacceptanceofitshoarypast.Thepersonsexercisingauthoritygenerallyarecalled‘Masters,’whoenjoypersonalauthoritybyvirtueoftheirinheritedstatus.Theircommandscarrylegitimacybecauseofthecustombuttheycanalso give orders based on their personal decision. Thus conformity with customs andpersonalarbitrarinessaretwocharacteristicsoftraditionalauthority.Thepersonswhoobeytheordersare called ‘Followers’.Theycarryout the commandsof themasteroutof sheerpersonalloyaltyandapiousregardforhistime-honouredstatus.Inthispatrimonialregime,the personswho carry out the orders are personal retainers, household officials, relatives,favouritesofthemaster,etc.Inafeudalsocietytheyaretheloyalalliesofthemaster.Underthis type of authority, according to Weber, the administration becomes irrational asdevelopmentofrationalregulationsisimpededastherewouldbenostaffwithformalandtechnicaltraining.5Thus,inthesystemoftraditionalauthority,theofficialscarryingouttheorders look like the ‘household staff’ of the master and their spheres of activity changeaccordingtothemaster’swhimsandfancies.However,alltheactionsarelegitimisedinthenameoftraditionandcustoms.

CharismaticAuthorityThepowerexercisedbyaleader-maybeaprophet,aheroorademagogue–substantiatingtheclaimbyvirtueofhismagicalpowersorheroismorotherextraordinarygiftorqualities.Charisma and its acceptance form the basis for legitimacy.Weber defines charisma as thequalityofanindividualpersonalitybyvirtueofwhichheissetapartfromordinarymenandtreated as endowed with supernatural, superhuman or at least specifically exceptionalpowersorqualities.6Thepersonswhoreceivethecommandsobeythe leaderbecausetheybelieve in his extraordinary abilities rather than the stipulated rules or the dignity of aposition. The charismatic leader selects his disciples or the followers as his officials basedpurelyontheirpersonaldevotiontohimratherthanontheirspecialqualificationorstatus.These‘discipleofficials’constitutetheorganisationandtheirsphereofactivityandpowerofcommanddependsuponthelikesanddislikesoftheleader.

LegalAuthorityManifestations of legal authority are found in organisations where rules are appliedjudicially and in accordance with ascertainable principles valid for all members in theorganisation.Thememberswhoexercisethepowerarethesuperiorswhoareappointedorelectedbylegalprocedurestomaintainthelegalorder.Thesubjectpersonstothecommandsare legal equalswho obey ‘the law’. The ‘apparatus’ that implements the system of legalauthority is also subject to the same principles. Thus, organisation is continuous and itsmembers are subject to rules, which limit their authority with necessary controls in itsexercise.

Weberbelievedthatallthethreetypesofauthorityclaimlegitimacyaslongasthe‘ruled’accept them. The authority ceases to carry legitimacy when the rulers do illegal things,ignorethetraditionsandlosecharisma.Weberdiscussesindetailthethreetypesofauthorityasalsothekindsof leadership.Hestates that, ‘puretype’ofauthorityarealwaysfoundincombinationratherthanseparatedfromeachother.ButWeberinsiststhatthereisaneedtoanalyse them separately to find out the composition of legal, traditional and charismaticelementspresent ina combination. It is alwayspossible thatwith thepassageof timeonetypeofauthoritytendstoacquirethecharacteristicsoftheotherresultinginmodificationsin

theinstitutionalstructure.Ofthethreetypesofauthority,Weberpreferredthelegaltypeofauthorityordominationbecauseof the inherent rationalities in it.Hemaintains that legaltype of authority ordomination alone is suitable for themodern governments andWeberdesignedhismodelofbureaucracykeepingthe‘legal-rationality’inmind.Inwhatfollows,anattemptismadetoelucidatethevariouscharacteristicsofWeberianmodelofbureaucracy-aninstitutionalmechanismfortheexerciseoflegal-rationalauthority.

BureaucracyThebureauorpublicoffices, insomeformortheother,werealwaysadjunctsoforganisedgovernmentsallovertheworld.Forinstance,inChina,evenintheperiodof186B.C.,publicoffices were in existence and persons for those offices used to be recruited throughcompetitive examinations. History is replete with instances and reasons to show thatindividuals appointed to government offices acquire special characteristics some ofwhichwereevenuniversal.

ItwasMr.deGourney,Frencheconomist,whousedtheword‘bureaucracy’forthefirsttime, during the first half of the 18th century. Several French writers, after de Gourney,popularised thewordwhile theBritish social scientists startedusing thewordonly in the19thcentury.J.S.Mill,aneminentpoliticaleconomist,includedbureaucracyinhisanalysis.Mosca and Michels are two other important sociologists who wrote extensively onbureaucracy.7 Yet, one is reminded of Max Weber whenever there is a discussion onbureaucracy. For, Weber was the first social scientist who made a systematic study ofbureaucracy and its characteristics. The Weberian model of bureaucracy is a source ofinspirationtomanybecauseit largelyreflectsthespiritofmodernbureaucracy.That is thereason why Weberian model is being used as a reference base for other models onbureaucracy.

Weber never defined bureaucracy; he only described its characteristics. To himbureaucracy is“anadministrativebodyofappointedofficials”. Inbureaucracyhe includedexplicitlyappointedofficialsonly leavingout theelectedones.As in thecaseofauthority,Weber categorised bureaucracy into (i) patrimonial bureaucracy found in traditional andcharismatictypesofauthoritiesand(ii)legal-rationalbureaucracyfoundonlyinlegaltypeofauthority. The characteristics of legal-rational bureaucracy, popularly known as Weberianmodel,areanalysedfurther.Weberbelievedthatlegitimacywasbasictonearlyallsystemsofauthorityandlegitimacyofauthoritydependsonthefollowingfiveimportantbeliefsthat:1. a legal code can be established which can claim obedience from members of an

organisation;2. law is a system of abstract rules which are applied to specific cases, and that

administrationlooksaftertheinterestsoftheorganisationwithinthelimitsoflaw;3. theindividualexercisingauthorityalsoobeysthisimpersonalorder;4. onlyquamemberdoesthememberobeythelaw;and5. obedienceisnottothepersonwhoholdsauthoritybuttotheimpersonalorderwhich

grantshimtheposition.These five elements substantiate the view that Weber laid greater stress on the

relationshipbetweenlegitimacyandimpersonalorder.FourfactorsseemtohaveinfluencedWeber in his discussion on bureaucracy. They are: (1) the historical, technical andadministrative reasons form the process of bureaucratisation particularly in westerncivilisation; (2) the impact of the rule of law upon the functioning of bureaucratic

organisation; (3) theoccupationalpositionand typicalpersonalorientationofbureaucraticofficials as an elite group; and (4) themost important attributes and the consequences ofbureaucracyinthemodernworld,particularlyofgovernmentalbureaucracy.

ModelofBureaucracyThe model of legal-rational bureaucracy designed by Weber has the followingcharacteristics:8

1. Officialbusinessisconductedonacontinuousbasis;2. An administrative agency functions in accordance with stipulated rules and is

characterised by three inter-related attributes: (a) the powers and functions of eachofficial is delimited in terms of impersonal criteria; (b) the official is givenmatchingauthoritytocarryouthisresponsibility;and(c)themeansofcompulsionathisdisposalarestrictlylimitedandtheconditionsunderwhichtheiremploymentislegitimateareclearlydefined;

3. Every official and every office is part of a hierarchy of authority.Higher officials orofficessupervisewhilelowerofficesandofficialshavetherightofappeal;

4. Officials do not own the resources necessary for rendering the duties, but they areaccountable for use of official resources. Official business and private affairs, officialrevenueandprivateincomesarestrictlyseparated;

5. Officescannotbefilledbytheincumbentsasprivatepropertywhichcanbesoldandinherited;and

6. Administrationisconductedonthebasisofwrittendocuments.Weberalsodiscussedindetailthecharacteristicsoftheofficial.Theofficial:1. is personally free (and not a servant to anybody personally) and appointed to an

officialpositiononthebasisofacontract;2. exercisestheauthoritydelegatedtohiminaccordancewithimpersonalrules,andhis

loyaltyisexpressedthroughfaithfulexecutionofhisduties;3. appointment and job placement depends on his technical (administrative)

qualification;4. administrativeworkishisfull-timeoccupation;and5. work is rewarded by a regular salary and by prospects of regular advancement in a

lifetimecareer.Weber thought that this legal-rational bureaucracy is technically superior to all other

administrative systems.Furtherhe stressed that thepeopleonce ruledbybureaucracy canneverthinkofanyotheralternative.Hence,itispermanentandindispensable.InWeberianmodelofbureaucracythemainelementsareimpersonalorder;rules;sphereofcompetence;hierarchy; personal and public ends; written documents; and monocratic type. Theseelementsarediscussedindetail.

TheImpersonalOrderInWeber’s ‘ideal type’ construct of bureaucracy themost striking and thought-provokingideaishisbeliefthat‘impersonalorder’shouldorienttheactionsofthebureaucracybothinthe issuanceof thecommandstosubordinatesandtheirobediencetothem.9Toputthis inthewordsofMerton,“authority,thepowerofcontrol,whichderivesfromanacknowledgedstatus,inheresintheofficeandnotintheparticularpersonwhoperformstheofficialrole.”Thestressondepersonalisationofrelationshipsalsoplaysitspartinthebureaucrat’strained

incapacity.10

RulesThe fundamental characteristics of Weberian rational legal authority is the attribute ofcontinuousorganisationofofficialfunctionsboundbyrules.11Theruleswhichregulatetheconduct of an officemaybe technical rules or norms.Their rational application, however,requiresspecialisedtraining.12Ashasbeen rightly saidbyMerton, adherence to the rules,originallyconceivedasameans,becomesanendinitself;thereoccursthefamiliarprocessofdisplacementofgoalswhereby“an instrumentalvaluebecomesa terminalvalue.”13 Rulesbecomemore important than the ‘game’.Thisapart, rules causeproceduraldelaysas theycreatecomplicationsinadministration.

SphereofCompetenceToWeber a specified sphere of competence involves (a) a sphere of obligation to performfunctionswhichhavebeenmarkedoff as apart of a systematicdivisionof labour; (b) theprovisionoftheincumbentwiththenecessaryauthoritytocarryoutthesefunctions;and(c)theclearlydefinedmeansofcompulsionsubjecttodefiniteconditionsintheiruses.14

HierarchyWeberarguedthat“theorganisationofofficesfollowstheprincipleofhierarchy,thatis,eachlowerofficeisunderthecontrolandsupervisionofahigherone.15Healsostatesthat,“thewhole administrative staff under the supreme authority…is organised in a clearlydefinedhierarchyofoffices.”16Weberattachesgreaterimportancetotheprincipleofhierarchyintheorganisationofofficesandalsoinregardtoadministrativestaffwhomanthem.

PersonalandPublicEndsThereisagreatamountofutilityandrelevanceinWeber’sidealtypeasfarasitpleadsforthe separation of administrative staff from the ownership of the means of production oradministration.Italsopleadsforthecompleteabsenceofappropriationofofficialpositionbythe incumbent.17 These are necessary checks on the bureaucrats to prevent them frommisusingtheirpositions.

WrittenDocumentsThe last principle ofWeberian bureaucracy is that “the administrative acts, decisions andrulesareformulatedandrecordedinwritingevenincaseswhereoraldiscussionistheruleor is even mandatory.”18 Documents make the administration accountable to people andprovideareadyreferenceforfutureaction.

Themost commendablepartof theWeberianmodel is its insistenceon the selectionoftechnicallyqualifiedpeople.Theothercriteriafortheofficialarethe ‘fixedsalariespaidinmoney’, the full-time occupation in the office, the prospects for further promotion in thecareer, and the strict and systematic discipline and control. Weber asserted that themonocraticbureaucraticorganisation,fromapurelytechnicalpointofview,couldbecapableofattainingthehighestdegreeofefficiency.19

CriticsofWeberWeber’s model of bureaucracy has attracted criticism mainly on three points viz., therationality in his model; suitability of the model to the administrative requirements of

differentplacesandchangingtimes;andwhetherthemodelcanattainmaximumefficiencyas visualised by Weber?20 Robert Merton and other sociologists have questioned therationality of the legal-rational model of Weber as it produces certain dysfunctionalconsequences.ToMerton,thestructures-especiallyitshierarchyandrules,whichisrationalinWeber’ssense,caneasilygenerateconsequenceswhichareunexpectedanddetrimentaltothe attainment of objectives of an organisation. In stressing this point Merton is onlyproviding a more sophisticated vindication of the view that bureaucracy meansinefficiency.21PhilipSelznick,pointingtothedivisionoffunctionsinanorganisation,showshow sub-units set up goals of their own which may conflict with the purpose of theorganisation as awhole.Merton andSelznickhave shown that the formal specificationoforganisationalstructureoutlinedbyWeberisinsufficientasadescriptionofhowbureaucratswill in fact behave, because the officials have their own characteristics as social beingsbeyond those which the administrative code specifies. These criticisms reflect the majorinsightsonthebehaviouralsideoftheindustrialsociology.

TalcottParsons,whotranslatedWeber’sfamousbookWirtschaftandGesellschaft,questionstheinternalconsistencyofWeber’sidealtypeofbureaucracy.ParsonsdrawsattentiontothefactthatWeberexpectstheadministrativestafftobetechnicallysuperioraswellaspossesstherighttogiveorders.Butthisitselfgivesrisetoconflictswithinbureaucracysinceitisnotalwayspossibletoensurethathighpositioninthehierarchyofauthoritywillbematchedbyequivalent professional skill. In such case the individualsworking in an organisationwillfacetheproblemofwhomtoobey,thepersonwiththerighttocommandorthemanwiththegreaterexpertise.22

UsingParson’scriticismasstartingpoint,AlvinGouldnerdistinguishestwomajortypesof bureaucracy. Firstly, punishment-centered bureaucracies, where members of theorganisationconformreluctantly to ruleswhich theyconsiderare imposedon thembyanalien group. Secondly, representative bureaucracy, where the members regard rules asnecessaryontechnicalgroundsandintheirowninterest.23Gouldnerandothershaveraisedthe problems of compliance with rules by the members of an organisation not so muchbecauseoftheinformalprocessesarisingwithinanadministrativestructurebuttoconditionsoutsidetheorganisationwhichorientthebehaviourofthemembersvis-à-vis therules.ThecriticsfeelthattheWeberianmodeldoesnotincludetheorientationofmembersinrelationtotherulesinanorganisation.Anumberofotherwritersalsoemphasisedonthesignificantinfluenceof environmental factorson thebehaviouroforganisations andpointed to theseshortcomings in Weberian model. Rudolf complained that Weber’s model carries amisconceptionthatadministrationwasarationalmachineandofficialsweremeretechnicalfunctionaries.ReinhardBendix,oneofthefamousintellectualbiographersofWeber,arguesagainstthebeliefthatitispossibletoadheretoarulewithoutintrusionofgeneralsocialandpoliticalvalues.Allruleshavetobeappliedtoparticularcasesanditisherethattheattitudeoftheofficialsplaysadominantroleinmakingdecisions.

AnumberofcriticslikePeterBlaubelievedthatWeberianmodelofbureaucracycannotbeappliedtoadministrationofdifferentplacesandtimes.Blaufeltthatafreshlookhastobetakenattheconceptofrationaladministration.Inachangingenvironment“theattainmentoforganisationalobjectivesdependsonperpetualchangeinthebureaucraticstructure.’Thatis why efficiency cannot be guaranteed by tethering the official to a set of rigid rules.AccordingtoBlau,theefficientadministrationispossibleonlywhenanindividualisallowedtoidentifywiththepurposeoftheorganisationandtoadopthisbehaviourtohisperception

ofchangingcircumstances.Robert Presthus considers that Weber’s concept of bureaucracy makes implicit

assumptions about human motivations, which are not necessarily valid in non-westernenvironments.WilliamDelaney considers that patrimonial bureaucracymaywell bemoreconducivetoeconomicgrowthinunderdevelopedsocietiesthanrationalbureaucracyoftheWeberiantype.JosephLaPalombarabelievesthatdevelopingsocietiesmayfindRussianorChinesemethodsofadministrationmoreeffectivethanwesternbureaucracy.

H.C.CreelandA.B.SpitzertookobjectiontoWeber’sclaimthatrationalbureaucracyisamodern phenomenon. Creel, for instance, asserted that almost all the characteristics ofWeberian model existed in China by 200 B.C. Spitzer considers that the functions of thePrefect in the 19th century France are far more comprehensive than those attributed toWeber’s bureaucrat. According to Frederick Burin, Weber’s thesis ignores the importantchanges brought about in the operation of the bureaucracy by the rise of the doctrines ofpublic liability and accountability and their enforcement by the council of the states. Allthese criticisms, are directed to prove that Weberian model does not fit in changingcircumstances and requirements of administration particularly in non-western countries.They also proved, with necessary empirical proof, that Weberian model of bureaucracycannot attainmaximum efficiency. In fact Barnard and Simon argued that administrativeefficiency would fall if we follow Weber’s structural approach and efficiency in theorganisationwouldincreasethroughinformalrelationsandunofficialpractices.24

Weberdefinedhis ideal type as internally consistent 25 and only due to this reason hemighthave thought that it attainsmaximumefficiency.ButGouldner,who testedWeber’sidealtypeempirically,foundthatithasinternalcontradictionssuchasthetensionsbetweenthe ‘claims of expertise’ and the ‘claims of obedience’ based on discipline. La Palombarapoints out that, “a bureaucracy heavily encumbered by Weberian norms may be lessefficaciousinstrumentofeconomicchange”.WhilegivingIndianexample,headdsthat“inaplace like India,public administration steeped in the traditionof the IndianCivil Servicesmaybe lessusefulasdevelopmententrepreneurs thanthosewhoarenotsorigidlytiedtomotionsofbureaucraticstatus,hierarchy,andimpartiality,”26WilliamDelaney,whohastriedtoutiliseWeberian ideal types for creating adevelopment construct concludes that unlessfurtheridealtypesarecreated,theexistingWeberianworkseemtohavelittleapplicabilityoutsidewesternEuropeandcertaincommonwealthcountriesandtheUnitedStates.27

SimonandMarch includedWeber in the companyof classical thinkers likeGulick andUrwick as he too did not pay any attention to the human behaviour in organisations.28Weberian ideal type would not attain maximum efficiency as it emphasises more on thestructureofthebureaucracythanonthehumanbeingswhopersonifyit.PhilipSelznickandotherscriticisedWeberforhisneglectofthepowerthatabureaucratassumeswherebyheis‘increasinglypreoccupiedwithhisownsocialpositionandintheendsubvertstheprofessedgoals of the organisation only on his ownpower position’.No impersonal order can stopbureaucratsbecomingpowermongersandmayevenencourageclandestinemotivesinthem.Inademocraticsettingitisalsoverydifficulttoabureaucrattobeneutralandimpersonalinthefaceofhecticpoliticalactivityaroundhim.

It is doubtful whether the specified sphere of competence stands as good as Weberthought it to be in relation to development administration. Development administrationthrowsmultifarious new challenges and the administrator can only justify his services bymeeting themratherwait toget the clarification fromsuperiorswhetheraparticularnew

situationfallsunderhiscompetenceornot.StrictadherencetothisWeberianprincipleleadstodelaysandinefficiencyinadministrationbyprovidinganexcusefortheofficerstoshirkresponsibility.

Rigidadherencetotheprincipleofhierarchywasalsocriticised;itdoesnotcontributetorepose of mutual-trust, either in the inter-organisational or inter-personal relation in theadministration.Thisonlyembodies‘mutualsuspicion’asitsprimetenetintherelationshippatternsoforganisationandtheirstaff.Theseapart,therearesomedangersinherentinthisprinciple, which are disastrous to the modern administration. The first danger isauthoritarianism of the superiors, which is detrimental to the organisational necessity towork with a team spirit. This is a division tool, which will impede the forming ofbureaucracyintoacohesiveteam.

Documents, which Weber insisted as important in his rational bureaucracy, also havenegative effects; particularly in the context of welfare bureaucracies committing todevelopment. Firstly, the expert drowned in the files becomes a ‘glorified clerk’ andsecondly,Weber’s insistence that everyoraldiscussion shouldbe recordedwould result intoomuchformalism.Botharedeleteriousforefficiencyandeffectivenessofthebureaucraticorganisation.

Succinctly,thethemeofthesecriticismspointouttothreemaindefectsintheWeberianmodel,viz.,(1)therationalityofthemodelisdisputedbothbecauseoffactorsomittedfromit,andbecauseofinternalinconsistency;(2)thedegreeofrationalitybureaucracycanhave,isheldtodependontheculturalcontextinwhichitislocated.Acceptingthatthereisrationalbureaucracy everywhere in theworld, the critics hold that itmust havedifferent featuresfromthose,whichWeber listed,and(3) finally, theverybasisonwhichWeberconstructedtheidealtypeisheldtobeinvalid.CarlFriedrichexplainedastohowthewords‘ideal’and‘type’canceleachother.

ConclusionThecriticsofWeberarguedthattheWeberianmodelofbureaucracylacksempiricalvalidity,particularlywhen it is related tomodern administration. ButWeber constructed his idealtypekeepingtheconditionsofGermanyofhistimes.Tosaythatitdoesnotsuitthemodernconditionsisnotappropriatebecauseatthestartofthenineteenthcentury,nobodyincludingWeber,couldevervisualisethechangesthathavecomeaboutinthelastfiveorsixdecadeswhichalteredtheverynatureofthesociety.IfWeberhassaidthathisidealtypeissuperiorandpermanentitisonlybecausehecomparedhislegalrationalmodelwiththetraditionalandcharismatictypesoforganisations.

As observed by Martin Albrow, Weber in his German writings would have used thewords ‘rationality’ and efficiency in different contexts. Moreover, Weber might not havevisualisedallthemeaningsattachedtotheEnglishword‘efficiency’.IfWeberhassaidthathismodelwouldattainmaximumefficiency,itwasbecauseofhisloveforlegalrationality.Hethoughtthathismodelispermanentsimplybecauseheexpectedthattheadvancementincivilisationinitstrainwouldalsoincreasetheadherencetorationality.CantherebeanydisputewithWeberwhenhesaysthatlegalrationalmodelwithskilledofficialswouldattainmaximumefficiencywhencomparedtothenon-skilledandservantilebureaucraciesfoundintraditionalandcharismatictypesoforganisations?

The other criticism is on his stress on formalism. As noted by Albrow the formalrationalityhasincreasedmanifoldinthepresentdayadministration,thankstoadvancementof management techniques. The researchers on decision-making, operation research and

othermanagement techniqueswouldcontribute to thescientificcontentofadministration,whichinturnenhancesformalisminadministration.Today,weseeinpracticeinallsocietiesof theworld,Weber beingproved correctwhenhe said that the societies,which are oncegoverned by bureaucracy, can never get rid of it. The Afro-Asian countries starting fromIndia could get rid of the alien rule, but not the bureaucratic practices established by thecolonialrulers.

Weberianmodel,nodoubtincludesbothpositiveandnegativeelements.Elementssuchasselectionthroughmeritandtechnicalqualification,completeabsenceofappropriationofofficial positions by the incumbents come under positive category. Elements such asimpersonal order, rules, spheres of competence, hierarchy, technical rules, and writtendocumentsformthenegativecategory.Asthenegativeelementsaregivengreaterweightagein the model, the positive elements get gulfed and enfeebled by the huge stream ofnegativism.

Those who criticise Weberian model are not criticising Weber but the present daybureaucracies,whichmoreorlessreflecthismodel.Thetalkofde-bureaucratisationorlessbureaucracyappears tobe idealistic; for,wearenotable toavoidbureaucracyeven inourwelfareanddevelopmentorganisationsbecauseoftheweaknessinherentintheindividualsand the organisations. Social scientists in large numbers now are engaged in finding outwaysandmeanstoreducethebureaucraticinfluencesindevelopmentandwelfaresectorsofpublic administration.Writers like Presthus have even constructedmodels of bureaucracythat would suit the welfare requirements. But even those theorists who argue for de-bureaucratisation cannot proceed further without understanding the Weberian analysis.Weberappearstobethesourceofinspirationforthestudentsofbureaucracyatpresent.Andthereisnowonderifheinspiresthefuturescholarsaswell.

From students of administration to research teams greater focus is being laid on theinfluences of bureaucracy on administration today. Administrators are considered as thechange-agentsandbureaucracyasacatalystofmodernisationanddevelopment.Aslongasthisconsiderationdominatestheadministrativestudies,bureaucracyattractswiderinterestsandtheanalysisanddiscussiononWeberianbureaucracygoesonandon.

InBriefWeber’scontributiontothestudyofbureaucracycanbesummarisedas:• MaxWeber,abroad-basedscholarwithacademicinterestsspanningeconomics,history,

politics, religion and sociology made a significant contribution to the analysis andunderstanding of bureaucracy. Today, there cannot be any study or discussion onbureaucracywithoutreferencetoMaxWeber.

• Weberdefinedadministrationasexerciseofauthorityandidentifieddifferentformsoflegitimacyviz., traditional, charismaticand legalandanalysed thenatureofexerciseofauthorityinideal-typeauthority.

• Weberconsidered legalauthorityasrationalandcalled it legal-rational.Heconsideredbureaucracy,theinstitutionalformoflegal-rationalauthority,asthemostappropriatetomoderngovernments.

• HedescribedindetailthecharacteristicsoflegalrationalbureaucracywhichispopularlyknownasWeberianmodelofbureaucracy.

• Weberlaidstressonlegitimacyoflegal-rationalauthoritywhichisbasedonimpersonalorders, rules, sphereof competence,hierarchy,writtendocuments, technicallyqualifiedpeopleandseparationofpersonalandpublicends.

• Weberian model of bureaucracy attracted criticism mainly on three grounds i.e.,rationality,suitabilityofmodel todifferentplacesandchangingtimes,anditsabilitytoattainmaximumefficiency.

• Thecoreof criticism ison its’ emphasisonstructureandneglectofhumanbehaviour.Themodelisdescribedbysomeasastructuralapproachtoorganisations.

• TheWeberianmodelhasbothpositiveandnegativefeatures.InassessingWeberianidealtype,thehistoricalcontextofGermanyofhistimesshouldbekeptinmind.

• TheWeberianmodelcontinuestobetheframeworkfor theanalysis,criticismsandforimprovementsinbureaucracy.Thatistheimmortalityofthemodel.

References1 Sheldrake,John,ManagementTheory:FromTaylorismtoJapanisation,London,InternationalThompsonBusinessPress,1966,

p.57.2 Albrow,Martin,Bureaucracy,London,Macmillan,1970,p.39.3 AccordingtoBendix,Weberdidnotuse‘authorityasaseparatetechnicaltermbutappearedtothinkofitasasynonymfor

domination.’FordetailsseeBendix,Reinhard,MaxWeber:AnIntellectualPortrait,London,Heinnmann,1960,p.296.Asdistinctfromthisseveralothersusedthetermauthority.Inthispaperthelattertermisused.

4 Ibid.,p.295.5 MaxWeber,TheTheoryofSocialandEconomicOrganisation,(TranslatedbyAMHendersonandTalcottParsons),NewYork,

OxfordUniversityPress,1947,p.343.6 Ibid.,p.358.7 MartinAlbrow,op.cit.,pp.16-37.8 SeeMaxWeber,op.cit.9 Thisstandsgoodevenforpoliticaloffices.10 Merton,RobertK.,et.al.,(Ed.),ReaderinBureaucracy,Glencoe,FreePress,1952,p.361.11 Ayoungandenergeticfreshgraduateentersbureaucracywithalotofzealandenthusiasm.Butwefindhimbecoming

‘Bureaucratic’: that is passive, indifferent, rule-minded, delaying, and either irresponsible or too cautious as the timepassesoff,maybe,assaidbyMerton,thisis‘trainedincapacity’.Bureaucracysocialisesitsincumbentstothe‘incapable’andunmindfulofthechange.Itprovidesatraininggroundfor‘incapacity’.

12 MaxWeber,op.cit.p.330.13 Ibid.,p.331.14 Merton,RobertK.,op.cit.,p.365.15 MaxWeber,op.cit.p.331.16 Ibid.,p.333.17 Ibid.,p.332.18 Ibid.19 Ibid.,p.337.20 InwritingthissectiontheauthorsdrewfromAlbrow,Martin,op.cit.,pp54-61.21 Ibid.,p.5522 Parsons,Talcott,StructureandProcessModernSocieties,Glencoe,FreePress.23 Gouldner,Alvin,PatternsofIndustrialBureaucracy,Glencoe,FreePress,1954.24 Blau,PeterM.,BureaucracyinModernSociety,RandomHouse,NewYork,1962,p.36.25 MaxWeber,TheMethodologyoftheSocialSciences, (TranslatedandeditedbyEdwardA.ShilsandHenryA.Finch),The

FreePress,NewYork,1969,p.90.26 Palombara, Joseph La,”Bureaucracy and Political Development”, in his edited Bureaucracy and Political Development,

Princeton,N.J.PrincetonUniversityPress,1963,p.12.27 QuotedinDiamont,Alfred,“PoliticalDevelopment:ApproachestoTheoryandStrategy”,inMontgomery,JohnD.,and

Siffins, William J., (Eds.),Approaches to Development: Politics, Administration and Change, New York, McGraw-Hill BookCompany,1966,p.29.

28 March,J.C.,andSimon,H.A.,Organisation,JohnWiley&SonsInc.NewYork,1963,p.36.

W

7LUTHERGULICKANDLYNDALLURWICK

S.P.RangaRao

Introductionith the coming of the industrial revolution in the 19th century many attempts weremade to develop the principles of organisation to meet the requirements of the

emerging industry. Among such attemptsmention should bemade of theworks of F.W.Taylor, an American engineer and Henry Fayol, a Frenchmanager, who developed whattoday is known as the classical organisation ormanagement theory. There are alsomanyotherswho contributed to the conceptualisationof the theory.Theydeveloped theories ofkeeping organisational efficiency and increased productivity as their goal. Subsequently,American and British theorists synthesised the organisational or management theories asapplicable to public organisations. Among such writers Gulick and Urwick meritprominently. Their edited volume The Papers on the Science of Administration (1937) isconsideredtobeanimportantlandmarkinthedevelopmentofthescienceofadministration.They synthesised and integrated the ideas, writings and researches of earlier theorists onorganisations,structuresandexecutivefunctions.

(1892-1993)

(1891-1983)

LifeandWorksLutherHalseyGulickIII(1892-1993),anacknowledgedfounderofadministrativethought,apioneerandalegend,wasborninYumamoto,Japanwherehespenthisinitialtwelveyears

beforereturningtotheUSA.HegraduatedfromOberlinin1914majoringinpoliticalsciencewith high honours and obtained Ph.D in 1920 from the ColumbiaUniversity. He securedLitt.D in 1939 and was conferred LL.D. in 1954. He was Director, Institute of PublicAdministrationfrom1921to1961andlaterchairmanoftheBoardofTrusteesoftheInstituteforanother21years.GulickservedontheNationalDefenceCouncilduringtheFirstWorldWar, Administrator of New York City (1954-56) and was Eaton Professor of MunicipalScience and Administration at Columbia University (1931-1942). He undertook severalconsultancy assignments on administration in US Administration and in several othercountriesincludingoneatCalcutta,IndiaconcerningwatersupplyundertheaegisofWorldBank.Hewas amember of the President’sCommittee onAdministrativeManagement in1936.Heauthoredmore than20booksandresearchstudies,over160articlesandover250unpublished papers, studies, reports, etc. Notable among his publications includeAdministrativeReflections fromWorldWar II,MetropolitanProblems andAmerican Ideas,ModernManagement for the City of New York and The Papers on the Science of Administration. Hepromoted theestablishmentofnotable institutions likeBrookings Institution, InternationalCity Managers Association, American Society for Public Administration, etc. He waspresident of both American Political Science Association and American Society of PublicAdministration;adistinctionhesharedwithLDWhite.1

Lyndall Fownes Urwick (1891-1983), an avid advocate of scientific management, anoutstanding management consultant, thinker and prolific writer, was born at Malvern,Worcestershire, UK. After graduation from New College, Oxford in 1913, he joined thefamily business and during the FirstWorldWar he joined the army rising to the rank ofMajor. In 1922, he joined Rountree at York and later worked as Director of InternationalInstituteofManagement(1928-33).During1934-61hewasassociatedwithUrwick,OrrandPartnersLimitedinthecapacitiesofpresident,managingdirector,andchairman.DuringtheSecondWorldWar(1940-42),heworkedasadvisortotheTreasury.HechairedtheUrwickCommitteeappointedbytheMinistryofEducationtoinvestigatewhateducationalfacilitiesarerequiredtoensureadequatetrainingfacilitiesforitsmanagers.Hewasactivelyinvolvedin spreadingmanagement education, he undertook several consultancies across the globeincluding theUSAand India.Hewas a key figure in the establishment ofAdministrativeStaff College at Henley-on-Thames (now called Henley Management College). He wasrecipient of several international awards and gold medals including Taylor Key, GanttMemorialMedal (1959) and in 1958was elected as a Fellow of International Academy ofManagement.Hepublishedseveralbooks includingManagementofTomorrow;TheMakingofScientificManagement (3Vols.);TheElementsofAdministration;ThePatternsofManagementandLeadershipintheXXthCenturyOrganisations,DynamicAdministration,FreedomandCoordination.He,alongwithGulick, editedThePaperson theScienceofAdministration, 2 and founded theAdministrativeScienceQuarterly.3

GulickandUrwickhadrichexperience in theworkingof thecivilservice,militaryandindustrialorganisations.Itisbecauseofthis,thatonefindscontinuedreferencestodisciplineandefficiency in theirwritings.They evenborrowed concepts like line and staff from themilitary organisation. Theywere influenced by themachinemodel ofman developed byTaylor. The studies in industrial management conducted by Henry Fayol also influencedtheirthinking.4Derivinginspirationmainlyfromtheirworks,thetwothinkerssynthesisedtheclassicaltheoryoforganisation,whichisalsoknownastheAdministrativeManagement

theory. They believed that it is possible to develop a science of administration based onprinciples.Theypointedouttothefactthatevenanengineeratonetime,wasconsideredtobe a craftsmanwhodevelopedhis skills at the bench only. Itwas only, through empiricalobservations,analysesandsystematisedfindingscommittedtorecordinganddocumentationoveraconsiderableperiod,ascienceofengineeringbecamepossible.Inthesamewayiftheexperiences of administrators are processed it could be possible to develop a science ofadministration. Administration hitherto remained an art and there is no reason why itcannotbedevelopedintoascience;theybelieved.

StructureofAdministrationOnenotablefeatureinthewritingsofthesethinkersistheimportancetheyattachedtothestructure of administration while almost neglecting the role of men in the organisation.Urwickremarksthat‘itisimpossibleforhumanitytoadvanceitsknowledgeoforganisationunless the factoronstructure is isolated fromother considerations,howeverartificial suchisolationmayappear”.5Hetracesalargeproportionoffrictionandconfusioninsociety,withitsmajor consequences, to the faulty structural arrangements in organisations.Hedefinedorganisation as determining activities that are necessary for a purpose (or plan) andarranging them in groups, which may be assigned to individuals.6 Thus while theidentificationofthetasksandtheirgroupingisgiventoppriority,theindividualstowhomthe functionsare entrusted come later.Urwick is awareof the fact that tobeginwithonemaynothaveacleanslatebuthesuggests thatonemayassume tohaveacleanslateanddesignanidealstructureoforganisation.Anyalterations,ifrequired,maybemadelater.

Whileconceivinganorganisationchieflyasadesigningprocess,Urwickfeltthatlackofdesign is illogical, cruel, wasteful and inefficient. Illogical because it is inconceivable toappointapersonandpayhimwageswithoutanideaofthepositionheislikelytooccupy.Cruelwhenanorganisationalmemberdoesnotknowthequalificationsrequiredforthejobandthedutiesassignedtohiminthejobsituation.Wastefulbecauseifjobsarenotarrangedproperly, functionalspecialisationisnotpossibleandtrainingpeopletooccupy jobsfallingvacantduetodeathorretirementbecomesdifficult.Inefficientbecausethesupervisorshavenothingtofallbackexceptonpersonalitiesintheeventofconflictandconfusion.7

PrinciplesHavingstressed the importanceof the structureasadesigningprocessGulickandUrwickdevotedtheirattentiontothediscoveryofprinciplesbasedonwhichthestructuremaybedesigned.Gulickenumeratestenprinciplesoforganisation.8Inworkingouttheseprinciples,Gulick was influenced by Henry Fayol’s fourteen basic elements of administration. Theprinciplesare:• Divisionofworkorspecialisation;• Basesofdepartmentalorganisation;• Coordinationthroughhierarchy;• Deliberatecoordination;• Coordinationthroughcommittees;• Decentralisation;• Unityofcommand;• Staffandline;• Delegation;and

• Spanofcontrol.Amongthetenprinciplesofadministration,Gulicklaysspecialemphasisondivisionof

work.Hefeelsthatthedivisionofworkisthebasisfororganisation;indeedthereasonfororganisation.9Theotherclassicaladministrativetheoristsalsomadethedivisionoflabourasthe central tenet. Work division implies that the job to be performed is broken into itscomponent functions and again each of the component functions be broken down intosimplerepetitiveactivities.Ateachstagethesub-divisionofworkisfollowedbytheinter-relating of the divided parts. The focus of attention shifts from grouping the variousactivitiesintosub-units,collectingthesub-unitstogethertoformunitsandinter-relatingtheunits to create the overhead organisation. Thus, Gulick says that division of work andintegrationare thebootstrapsbywhichmankind lifts itself in theprocessof civilisation.10However,Gulickwasconsciousofthelimitationsbeyondwhichthedivisionofworkcannotgo.Hecitesvolumeofwork,technology,customandphysicalandorganiclimitations.11

Urwickidentifiedeightprinciplesoforganisation,viz.,(1)the‘principleofobjectives’,-organisation should be an expression of a purpose; (2) the ‘principle of correspondence’ -authority and responsibility must be co-equal; (3) the ‘principle of responsibility,’ -responsibilityofsuperiorsfortheworkofsubordinatesisabsolute;(4)the‘scalarprinciple’;(5) the ‘principleof the spanof control’ - a superior cannot supervisedirectly theworkofmorethanfiveorsixsubordinateswhoseworksinterlock;(6)the‘principleofspecialisation’-limitingone’sworktoasinglefunction;(7)‘principleofcoordination’and(8)the‘principleofdefinition’-aclearprescriptionofeveryduty.12

Later by integrating Fayol’s fourteen principles, Mooney and Reiley’s principles ofprocessandeffect,Taylor’sprinciplesofmanagementandtheideasofFollettandGraicunas,Urwick derived twenty-nine principles and a host of sub-principles. They are: (1)investigation, (2) forecasting, (3) planning, (4) appropriateness, (5) organisation, (6)coordination, (7) order, (8) command, (9) control, (10) the coordinative principle, (11)authority, (12) scalarprocess, (13) assignmentof functions, (14) leadership, (15)delegation,(16) functional definition, (17) determinative, (18) applicative, (19) interpretative, (20) thegeneralinterest,(21)centralisation,(22)staffing,(23)spirit,(24)selectionandplacement,(25)rewardsandsanctions,(26)initiative,(27)equity,(28)disciplineand(29)stability.13

Urwickfeltthattheadministrativeorganisationisstillanunexploredfieldandtherearemanyunknownfactorsforafullerunderstanding.He,therefore,suggeststhathisprinciplesare a framework of thought and an arrangement of ideas which would help others tosynthesiseoutoftheirownexperience.14

ExecutiveFunctionsGulickidentifiedtheexecutivefunctionsandcoinedtheacronymPOSDCORBincorporatingthe first lettersofall the functionsdetailedearlier.15Each letter in theacronymrepresentsoneimportantfunctionofthemanagers.Thefirstletter‘P’standsforplanning.Planningisconcernedwith the identification of the various activities required to reach the goal andarrangingthemintermsofprioritiesandsequencesothattheobjectivesoftheorganisationmaybe reached in a systematic and efficientmanner. Inotherwords, it is the functionofplanning to estimate the human andmaterial resources available to the organisation anddiscoverwaysandmeansofreachingthegoalsoforganisationthroughappropriatemeanswhileaimingateconomyandefficiency.

‘O’ stands for organisation. After planning the activities of administration one should

thinkof the structureofadministration,viz.,organisation throughwhich theactivitiesareoperationalisedandobjectivesachieved.

‘S’ stands for staffing and it is concernedwith all aspects of personnel administration.Recruitment,appointment,promotion,discipline,retirement,etc.,arefunctionswhichmustreceivedueattentionoftheexecutive.Astheefficiencyoftheorganisationlargelydependsuponitspersonnel,mostofthetimeoftheexecutiveusuallyisdevotedtothisfunction.

‘D’ stands for directing and relates to the orders issued by the managers to thesubordinatesdirectingtheactivitiesoftheadministration.

‘Co’ stands for coordination and relates not only to the evidence of conflicts andduplication in organisationsbut to secure cooperation and teamworkbetween thevariousunitsandemployees.

‘R’standsforreportinganditsymbolisesupwardflowofinformationtotheexecutive.Itistheresponsibilityoftheexecutivetokeephimselfpostedwiththeprogressofactivitiesintheorganisation.Agoodcommunicationsystemisimperativethroughwhichsuchprogressisreportedtotheexecutive.Itisthroughreportingthattheexecutivebecomesawareoftheproblems in the organisation for which he may initiate corrective measures by issuingnecessarydirections.

Finally, the word ‘B’ stands for budgeting covering the entire field of financialadministration.Asfinanceisindispensableforanyadministration,theexecutivehastopayadequateattentiontobudgeting,financialprocedures,accounting,etc.

TheoryofDepartmentalisationThe theoryofdepartmentalisation addresses theproblemof bases onwhichworkmaybedivided and departments created. Luther Gulick identifies four bases viz., purpose(function),process,persons(clientele),andplace,whicharepopularlyknownasthe‘4Ps’ofGulick. He discussed at length the merits and demerits of each one of these bases ofdepartmentalisation.16Themainpropositionofthediscussionisthattheadvantagesofeachofthebasesprovetobelesscostlyintermsoftheothers.

Inthefirstplace,theworkmaybedividedonthebasisofmajorpurposeorfunction.Onehastoidentifythemajorfunctionsandgoalsoforganisationandcreatedepartmentsforeachone of such functions.Gulick emphasises on the self-containment of the organisation andlow coordination costs involved as advantages of this base. Secondly, process or skillspecialisationissuggestedasanalternativetopurpose.Ifthisbasisisacceptedthenallworkbasedonsimilarprocessorskillshouldbegroupedtogethersinceitinvolvesuseofthesameknowledge,skillsandprocesses.

Gulickdiscussesatlengththemeritsanddemeritsofthetwobases.Forinstance,helistsoutadvantagesofthepurposeasbases.Hesaysitmakesmorecertain,theaccomplishmentof a given purpose or project by bringing the whole job under a single director withimmediate control of all the experts, agencies and services which are required in theperformanceoftheworkwithminimumoutsideinterference.Hecandevoteallhisenergiestogetonwiththejob.Afterlistingouttheotheradvantagesofthebase,healsocommentsonitsdemerits.For instance,hesaysthatthere isadangerthatanorganisationcreatedonthe basis of purpose will fail to make use of the most up-to-date technical devices andspecialists because there may not be enough work of a given technical nature to permitefficientsub-divisionandutility.LikewisethevirtuesoftheprocessbasisarementionedbyGulick thus: “…bringing together in a single office a large amount of each kind of work(technically measured) makes it possible in each case to make use of the most effective

division of work and specialisation. Second, it makes possible also the economies of themaximumuseoflaboursavingmachineryandmassproduction.Theseeconomiesarisenotfrom the total mass of the work to be performed, but from the fact that the work isperformedwiththesamemachine,withthesametechnique,withthesamemotions.”

Specialisationofworkaccordingtotheclienteleservedisthethirdbases.Gulick.observesthatthemembersofthedepartmentdevelopspecialisedskillsinservingaparticulargroup.Butthisprincipleisnotonlyinadequateforuniversalapplicationbutcoordinationbetweensuchorganisationsbecomesdifficultonaccountofoverlappingandduplication.Territoryorplace isanotherbases. In thisall functionsperformed inagivenareaareclubbed togetheranddepartmentscreated.Thisbasemaybefruitfullyusedfortheintensivedevelopmentofanyarea.Themembersofsuchdepartmentsalsobecomeareaspecialists.

Thetheoriesofdepartmentalisationarebasedonsuchcommonsensetermsthatthebasictruthsunderlyingdivisionofwork cannotbedenied.Even today,wheneverwork is tobedivided and sub-units are to be created, themerits and demerits of the bases have to beweighedbeforetakingadecision.ButGulickdidnotconsiderotherimportantfactors,whichinfluencework division. For instance, of the four bases the type of specialisationmay bedeterminedbythecultureinwhichtheorganisationissituated,bytheenvironmentandbytheavailabilityofpersonnelandpoliticalfactors.

SingleExecutiveGulickandUrwickdidnotfavourorganisationsheadedbypluralbodieslikecommitteesbutinsisted on single top executive. Urwick, for instance, felt that the committees encourageirresponsibility. They are used to shield mistakes and to avoid responsibility. To himcommittee is likeacorporationwithout ‘asoul tobedamnedorabodytobekicked’.17 Tosubstantiate his point he quotes from the Report of the US President’s Committee onAdministrative Management, of which Gulick was a member. The Committee says, ‘forpurposes of management, boards and commissions have turned out to be failures. Theirmechanismisinevitablyslow,cumbersome,wastefulandineffectiveanddoesnotlenditselfreadily to cooperation with other agencies…. The conspicuously well-managedadministrative units in the government are almost without exceptions headed by singleadministrators’.18 They also felt that a subordinate should receive orders only from onesuperior. At the same time they were aware of the fact that this principle of unity ofcommandisnotcapableofuniversalapplication.It isaknownfactthatTaylorprovedthatthe functional supervisionwould help increase efficiency. ButGulick argues thatwemayprefertheadvantagesthatarelikelytoaccruewhenwefollowtheprincipleratherthantheconfusion,inefficiencyandirresponsibilitythatmayfollowitsviolation.19

StaffPrincipleTheprincipleofstaffisbornoutoftheprincipleofunityofleadership.Whenallauthorityrestswith the leader, he requires assistance in running the organisation. The staff renderssuchassistance-bothspecialandgeneral.GulickandUrwickfeelthatthespecialstaffunitsdo not exercise any direct authority and that their job is to render technical advice andprovidetimelyandadequateinformation.Theobjectiveofthesestaffagenciesistodischargeknowing,thinkingandplanningfunctionsandtheymustgetthethingsdoneby‘authorityofideas’.Thegeneralstaffisalsonecessarytoassisttheexecutiveinthetasksofcommand,controlandcoordination.Theymustdrawupandtransmitorders,followupoperationsandhelp coordinate thework of staff specialistswithout themselves taking on any specialised

functions.20 As a member of the President’s Committee on Administrative ManagementGulick applied his idea to the civil organisation and paved the way for the creation ofpresentstaffagenciesundertheAmericanPresident.

DelegationThe delegation of authority is another important principlementioned by these classicists.Theystressedtheneedfortheadministratorstokeeptherequisiteauthoritywiththemanddelegatetheresttotheirsubordinates.Intheabsenceofdelegation,thesubordinatescannotdischarge their responsibilities and administer the functions entrusted to them. They alsodiscussedastohowandwhentodelegateauthority.Urwicksaysthatorganisationsdonotfunctionefficiently,ifexecutivesdonothavetheenterprisetodelegateandalsodonotknowhowtodelegate.21Theyalsoemphasisedtheneedtodelegateresponsibilityofexecutivesinwhomauthorityisvestedthattheyshouldbe‘absolute’andthattheyshouldbepersonallyaccountable for the actions of their subordinates.22 He also maintains that authority andresponsibilitymust be coterminous, co-equal and defined. Thus these authors emphasisedtheprincipleof‘correspondenceofresponsibilityandauthority’.23

SpanofControlThe principle of span of control postulates that an official cannot effectively controlsimultaneouslymore thanacertainumberofsubordinates,ata time.Urwicksays that ‘nosuperior can effectively supervise directly thework ofmore than five or, at themost, sixsubordinates whose work interlocks’. He observes that if the number of subordinatesincreases in arithmetic progression, there is a simultaneous geometrical growth in thepermutations and combinations of the relationships requiring the superior’s attention.24Urwick,however,wasnotdogmaticabout thenumberandsays that thespanofcontrol isnot a rigid rule to be applied woodenly in all situations. But it is a very useful generalprinciple and a diagnostic instrument in cases where organisational weakness exists.25However, Gulick unlike Urwick was less categorical in fixing the maximum number ofsubordinatesanexecutivecaneffectivelymanage.Instead,hediscussedsomeofthefactorsthat determine the span of control. Three factors that would determine the span wereidentified by him.26 In the first place, the span depends on each individual supervisor. Aperson with superior knowledge - intellect and personality - may effectively be able tocontrolmorenumberofsubordinates.Itisalsoamatteroftimeandenergyoftheexecutive.Secondly, the spandependsupon thekindofwork -work transactedby the subordinates.Where thework is routine, repetitive,measurable and homogenous it will be possible toeffectivelysupervisemanyofthem.Ontheotherhand,whereworkisdiversified,qualitativeandworkersarescatteredexecutivecansuperviseonlyafew.Thirdly,elementoftimespanwillbemoreinstableorganisations,whichareinexistenceforalongtime.Theprocedures,methods and techniques of administration in such organisations could have beenconsolidated and consequently there could be less necessity for the intervention by thesuperiors.Ontheotherhand,innewandchangingorganisationsthesuperiorshavetokeepaconstantwatchforgoodprecedents tobeestablishedandproperproceduresadoptedfortheadministration.Gulickwantedfurtherresearchonthesubject.27

HumanFactorandTimeinPublicAdministrationGulick in his later writings noted that much has happened to affect the field of Public

Administration and his analysis of its nature since he edited The Papers on the Science ofAdministration seventy years ago. Based on fifty years of analysis, he notes that ‘after all,governmentsareconstitutedofhumanbeings,are runbyhumanbeingsandhaveas theirmain jobhelping, controllingandservinghumanbeings’.28He considershumanbeings asthe major and essential variables for understanding the nature of Public Administrationtoday and guiding the field into the future. On this foundation, he identifies as to howhumanbeingsconstitutethedynamicfactorsthatareintrinsicinthestudyofadministration.Gulick emphasises that themain functionsof the state shouldbehumanwelfare, survivalandimprovementtomeetthechallengesoftheeverchangingenvironmentandnotwar.29Butunfortunately, the structureof themodernstate is specificallydesigned forwarand isdistinctlymilitary. It isauthoritative,withallauthorityconcentratedat the topandall thework, but not the authority, assigned to subordinate echelons and field commanders. Inpublic administration our very vocabulary is military in origin. We talk about “line andstaff”,“fieldcommanders”,and“materialandmanpower”,andwhenwemakecost-benefitanalyseswemanipulatehardstatistics,nothumanvaluesandhumanwelfare.30

Gulick emphasises in the field of public administration, that there is need for a newapproachtothefundamentalorganisationofthestateintroducinggreaterdecentralisationinplaceofthepresentcentralised,hierarchical,militarystructure.Healsosuggeststhatpublicadministrationshouldforgetthenon-existenteconomicman,dealrealisticallywiththenon-existentfreemarketandincludehumanwelfareandcompassioninitsembrace.31Gulickalsoemphasises that time is thecrucial factor ineveryevent.Without it there isnochange,nogrowth,nocauseandeffectandnoresponsibilityformanagement.Henotesthatallpublicpolicy innovations are rooted in timing and in democracy timing is the hallmark of thestatecraft.32

Gulick identifies five different aspects of time, namely, time as an input, time as anoutput,timeastheflowofevents,timeasagapbetweentwoormoresignificanteventsorprocesses and finally, timing as a management policy.33 He emphasises that time haspracticalandsignificantimplicationsforpublicadministration.Itmeansthattheprinciplesofmanagement and administration should be eternally tied to the culture inwhich theywork,andthat theculturemustevolveappropriatelywellbeforemajorchanges inhumanorganisationcanbesuccessfullyundertaken.Timingisessentialforanyorganisationasitisnotamachinebutanorganism.34Heemphasisesthattimemustbecomeacentralstrategicandmoralconcerninpublicmanagement.Therefore,governmentmustplanandworkwiththisflowintimeandfortime.35Buthelamentsthattimehasbeenaneglectedfactor.

ACriticalEstimateTheprinciplesoforganisationofGulickandUrwickweresubjectedtoseverecriticism.Whilewritingsomuchaboutprinciplestheyhavenotmadeitclearastowhattheymeantbythem.Normally principles are said to be universal truths subject to verification. However, suchuniversalvalidityappearstobeabsentasfarasprinciplesofadministrationareconcerned.They appear more in the nature of the postulates of experienced men who have closelyobserved organisations at work. At best they may be action recommendations but notscientific principles. L. D. White says that the terms line, staff and auxiliary agencies,hierarchy, authority, centralisation, were useful terms for describing or classifyingadministrativesituations; theyarenomore.Theyarenotrules.Theysuggestonlyworking

rulesofconductwhichwideexperiencevalidated.36HerbertSimonstandshighamongthosewhoattackedthe‘principles’.BertramGrosshas

notedthat‘Simonwilllongberereadwithpleasureforhisfree-swingingattacksonGulickandUrwickprinciplesashomelyproverbs,myths,slogans,inanites’.37Simonsaysthat“itisa fatal defect of the current principles of administration that, like proverbs, they occur inpairs. For almost every principle one can find an equally plausible and acceptablecontradictoryprinciple.Althoughthetwoprinciplesofthepairwillleadtoexactlyoppositeorganisationalrecommendations,thereisnothinginthetheorytoindicatewhichtheproperone to apply”.38 For instance one of the ‘proverbs’ says that administrative efficiencyincreases by specialisation. But it is notmade clearwhether area specialisation is good orfunctionalspecialisation.Theprincipleofspecialisationdoesnothelp inchoosingbetweenthe two alternatives. It appears to be simple; a simplicity that conceals fundamentalambiguities.39Likewise,thereiscontradictionbetweentheprincipleofspecialisationandtheprincipleofunityofcommand.TheunityofcommandofGulick’sspecificationneverexistedin any administrative organisation. The specialists working in organisations are alwayssubject to theduelcontrolof thesuperiors inadministrationand in technicalmatters.Theevidence of ‘actual administration practices would seem to indicate that the need forspecialisationistoaverylargedegreegivenpriorityovertheneedforunityofcommand”.

Anothercontradictorysituationrelatestotheprincipleofspanofcontrol.Oneprincipleasserts that administrative efficiency increasesbykeeping the levelsof organisation to theminimum.Thisissupposedtohelpthesimplificationoftheprocedures.Butwhenlevelsarethus reduced, the spanof control increases resulting in theviolationof another importantprinciple.Moreover,thespecificationoftheidealnumberofsubordinatesasbetween5and11hasnoscientificvalidityatall.40Simonalsopointedouttothecontradictionsinvolvedinchoosing between theprinciples of departmentalisation. Simon felt that “theprinciples ofadministrationareatbest criteria fordescribinganddiagnosingadministrativesituations.”All the stated principles are to be considered in the design of an efficient administrativeorganisation.41Noneofthemshouldbeconsideredsuperiororinferiorinterse.Keepingtheoverallefficiencyinview,therelativeadvantagesanddisadvantagesofthevariousprincipleshavetobecomparativelyweighedandtherelevantoneshouldbeselectedfortheoccasion.Perhaps themost critical failure of the classical administrative science is its incapacity to“confronttheorywithevidence”.Theprinciplestendtodissolvewhenputtotest;partlythisis because of the consequence of difficulties in operation. It is not possible to conductcontrolledexperimentstotestthetheoriestimeandagain.

The bases of departmental organisation are criticised on the basis that they areincompatiblewith each other. There is an overlap between them and they are said to bevague.Further, it ispointedout that theprinciplesareprescriptiverather thandescriptiveand they state how work should be divided rather than how work is actually divided.Organisations grow according to the dictates of the situation and in consonancewith therequirementsofefficiencyandgoalachievement.Thus,onemayseethatallthefourbasesofdepartmental organisation are being adopted though not deliberately, in a singleorganisation.Forinstance,theDefenseDepartmentbasedonpurposemayhavegeographicalsubdivisionsasthebasisofitsworking.Theymayhaveclientelesub-unitwhichlooksafterthewelfareofthewar-widows.Again,theremaybeanaccountsdivisioninthedepartmentbasedonskillspecialisation.

Theclassicaladministrativetheoryiscriticisedforitsneglectofthehumanelementinan

organisation. In the writings of classical thinkers, there are certain trends, which areconsideredbyhumansasinsignificantinadministrativeprocesses.Inthefirstplace,thereisatendencytotreat thehumanbeingasaninstrument incapableof individualcontributionbasedonpersonalqualification.Itisthiscriticalfailurethatgaverisetothehumanrelationsmovementandbehaviouralstudies.Thenewdevelopmentscompensatedthefailureoftheclassical theorists by viewing organisations essentially as human associations. Being livingentities, thehumanshavebothpsychologicalandphysiologicalprocesses involved in theirbehaviour.Hence,humanelementcannotbe taken forgranted.Mereassignmentofdutiesand functions does not ensure the optimum contributions of effort by the employees.Moreover, personnel are not static factor but a variable in the system. We may not getpersons to suit organisational requirements.At best there could be only an adjustment ofpersonnelwhoapproximatelysuittherequirementsofthejobs.Hence,thevagaryofhumanresourcesisanimportantlimitationtothemechanisticapproachtoorganisations.Itisafactthat humans have to be constantly motivated to contribute their efforts towards theattainmentoftheirgoals.Thesemotivationalassumptionsinclassicaltheoriesareincompleteandhence,inaccurate.Severalwritershavesubsequentlydevotedconsiderableattentiononaspectsofmotivationandmorale,etc.42

There is no doubt, that some evidence has been found in thewritings of the classicaltheoriststhattheywereawareofthehumanelementinorganisations.Forinstance,Gulicksays social experimentsmustbemadebymenonmen.This greatly restrict theprocess ofverificationofhypothesisnotonlybecauseof thevalueanddignityofhumanlifebutalsobecause, human beings continually interferewith experiments involving themselves.43Healsopointedout that indealingwithhumanbeingsweencountera raredynamicelementwhich is compounded in proportions of predictable and unpredictable or rational oremotionalconduct.Secondly,wearenotable,except in the rarest circumstances, tosetupcontrolledexperimentsandtestthetheoriesoverandoveratwill.44Fromtheseobservations,itisevidentthattheclassicaltheoristswereawareofthehumanelementinanorganisation.However,theytookintoconsideration,onlytherationalbehaviourofthehumans.Itwasleftto thinkers like Simon, to point out to the several limitations to rationality in humanbehaviour.Itisamatterofcommonknowledgetoday,thatrationalityindecision-makingaswellasbehaviourissubjecttoaparticularframeofreferencecompoundedbytheknowledgeof employee, his perception of goals of organisation as well as the consequences of hisdecisions and actions. But the subjective character of rationality did not receive the dueattentionoftheclassicaltheorists.

There are arguments thatGulick andUrwick have shown concern only for the formalorganisation to the total neglect of the informal organisational process. It is a matter ofcommonknowledgethatorganisationsdonotconformtotheformalmodelallthetime.Thehumansbehave in away that suits their instincts andwants.Hence, the actual behaviouralwaysdiffersfromtheintendedbehaviour.Neglectofthisvitaltruthisveryunrealisticasfarastheadministrativeprocessesareconcerned.

Thedynamicnatureofadministrationandtheeverchangingsettinginwhichitfunctionsisnotgivenadequateattentionbytheclassicaltheorists.AsAlfredDiamant45says,mostofthe conceptual constraints in organisations have a ‘steady’ bias. The organisations andorganisationalgoalsundergoaconstantchangeasaresultoftheeconomic,socialorpoliticalstimuliandhence,anystudyofadministrationmusttakeintoconsiderationthiselementofchange.Nodoubt,Gulicktosomeextentwasawareoftheroleofchangewhenheobserved

thattheprinciples“appropriateatonestagemaynotbeappropriateatallduringsucceedingstages’. But the fact is that the change as such has not received adequate attention of theclassicaltheorists.

SimonandMarchpointoutimportantlimitationstotheclassicaladministrativescience.The first relates to the improper motivational assumptions. Secondly, there is littleappreciation of the role of intra-organisational conflict of interests in defining limits ororganisational behaviour. Thirdly, the constraints placed on the human being by hislimitationsasacomplexinformationprocessingsystem.Fourthly, littleattentionwasgivento the roleof cognition in task identificationandclassification.Lastly, thephenomenonofprogrammeevaluationreceiveslittleattention.46Thelastoftheselimitationsisinfactverysignificant. It is wrong to assume that the administration is not concerned with thespecification,elaborationandredefinitionofgoalsoftheorganisation.Failuretoidentifytheadministrativefunctionsmaybesaidtobeavitallapseonthepartoftheclassicaltheorists.

V.Subramaniampointsouttwoimportantlimitationsoftheclassicaltheories.Inthefirstplace,thereislackofsophisticationinthetheories.Theyappeartobecommonplacegeneralknowledge propositions, which do not appeal to the intellectual curiosity of theacademicians and practitioners of administration. Secondly, all the classical theoristsexhibited a pro-management bias in their theories. The theorists only dealt with theproblemsofmanagement in the organisation andnot the other operationalproblems thatinvolvetheotherlevelsofmanagement.47

In spiteof thevaried criticisms,GulickandUrwick’s ideasandconceptualisations, alsocalled classical administrative theory, stands out prominently in the literature of publicadministration.No textbookonPublicAdministration is completewithout adiscussionofthe principles. The simple truths underlying the propositions stated as principles by theclassical thinkers cannot be denied. But these propositions aremisleading as they, at best,representonlyhalf-truths.Whilecalling themproverbs,Simondevotedconsiderablespaceto these principles in his writings. Even he could not discard them. The inescapableconclusion is that theydo not represent all aspects of administration.However, there is acommon element between the classical theorists and the works of several contemporarywriters on administration. The commonness of approach relates to an interest in thestructure, economy and efficiency, settlement of conflict, delegation of authority,decentralisation,etc.

Gulickcapturedthedevelopmentofthefieldofpublicadministrationandpointedtotheimportanceofpublicadministrationasamanagerial,political,moralandethicalconcern.AsDenhardthasnotedthatwenowrecognisethatadministrativeactionispermeatedbymoralchoices andwhetherwe like it or not administrators aremodel of not only technical andprofessionalbutalsomoralbehaviour.48

InBriefThecontributionofGulickandUrwicktotheadministrativetheoryis:• Luther Gulick, an acknowledged founder of administrative thought, and Lyndall

Urwick,anoutstandingmanagementconsultantwiththeirrichexperiences incivilandmilitary administration made significant contribution to the synthesis of classicaladministrativetheory;

• ThePapersontheScienceofAdministration,editedbythem,isconsideredalandmarkinthedevelopmentofthescienceofadministration.Intheirviewtheprocessofdevelopment

ofengineeringscience,whichisbasedonempiricalobservationsandanalysis,isequallyapplicabletothedevelopmentofscienceofadministration;

• GulickandUrwickemphasisedtheimportanceofstructureintheadministration.Theyconsideredstructureasadesigningprocessanddevotedtheirattentiontothediscoveryofprinciplesbasedonwhichthestructuremaybedesigned.Theyconsideredprinciplesas a framework of thought and arrangement of ideas to help in the development ofscienceofadministration;

• Gulick discussed in detail the executive functions and coined POSDCORB byincorporatingthefirst lettersofall thefunctionsoftheexecutive.Theacronym,thoughnotcomprehensive,helpsinunderstandingandanalysingthefunctionsoftheexecutive;

• Gulick considered division of work as the basis of organisation. His theory ofdepartmentalisation addresses the basis of division of work for the creation ofdepartments. The four basis of departmentalisation viz, purpose, process, persons andplace, popularly known as the “4Ps”, are extensively used in the creation ofdepartments/units in organisations. Gulick and Urwick in their writings discussed indetail the application of many other principles like single executive, staff principle,delegation,spanofcontrol,etc.

• Gulick,inhislaterwritingsfocusedonhumanfactorsinadministration.Basedonoverfiftyyearsofanalysis,Gulickobserves:“afterallgovernmentsareconstitutedofhumanbeings,are runbyhumanbeingsandhaveas theirmain job,helping, contributingandservinghumanbeings”.Heconsideredthehumanbeingasthedynamicfactorintrinsicinthestudyofadministration;

• Gulick also emphasised time as the crucial factor in organisations. He identified fiveaspectsoftime,viz.,timeasinput,timeasanoutput,timeastheflowofeventsandtimeas a gap between two or more significant events or processes and finally timing as amanagementpolicy.Heconsiderstimefactorascriticalinpublicadministration;

• The principles of organisation of Gulick and Urwick were criticised for theircontradictionsand inadequacy toanswerpracticalorganisationalquestionsandalso fortheirneglectof roleofhumanelement inorganisationalprocesses. Inhis laterwritingsGulickemphasisedtheroleofhumanbeingsinorganisations;and

• Therecannotbeanyseriousstudyofthescienceofadministrationwithoutreferencetothe principles of organisation. Understanding and theorising the dynamic nature ofapplicationoftheseprinciplesindifferentadministrativesituationsisthemajorchallengeofadministrativestudiestoday.

References1 See fordetails,Fitch,LyleC.,“LutherGulick”,PublicAdministrationReview,Vol. 50.No.6, 1990,pp.604-08;PaulP.Van

Riper,“TheLiteraryGulick:ABibliographicalAppreciation”,PublicAdministrationReview,Vol.50.No.6,1990,pp.609-14.http://www.bartleby.com/65/gu/GulickL92.html

2 See for details A Schedule of the Lyndall Fowness Urwick Archive,http://www.cardiff.ac.uk/carbs/icon/boyns/schedule.pdf. Retrieved on 26th May, 2009. See also Sheldrake, John.,ManagementTheory,London,ThomsonLearning,2003,p.93.

3 Seehttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LyndallUrwickretrievedon26thMay,20094 FordetailsofideasofTaylorandFayolseethecompanionarticlesinthisvolume.5 Urwick,L.,“TheFunctionsofAdministrationwithspecialreferencetotheworkofHenryFayol”, inGulick,Luther,and

Urwick,L.,(Eds.),ThePapersontheScienceofAdministration,NewYork,InstituteofPublicAdministration,1937,p.122.6 Urwick,L.,TheElementsofAdministration,London,SirIssacPitmanandSonsLtd.,1947(2ndEd.),p.36.

7 Ibid.,pp.38-398 Gulick,Luther,“NotesontheTheoryofOrganisation,”inLutherGulickandL.Urwick,(Eds.),op.cit9 Ibid.p.3.10 Ibid.p.4.11 Ibid.pp.4-5.12 QuotedinWren,DanielA.,TheEvolutionofManagementThought,NewYork,TheRonaldPressCompany,1972,pp.357-58.13 See,Urwick,L.,TheElementsofAdministration,op.cit.pp.118-23.14 Ibid.,p.118.15 Gulick,Luther,“NotesonTheoryofOrganisation,”op.cit.p.13.16 Ibid.17 Urwick,L.,TheElementsofAdministration,op.cit.p.72.18 Ibid.19 Gulick,Luther,“NotesonTheoryofOrganisation,”op.cit.p.9.20 D.Gvishiani,OrganisationandManagement,Moscow,ProgressPublishers,1972,p.198.21 Urwick,L.,TheElementsofAdministration,op.cit.p.51.22 Ibid.,p.125.23 Ibid.,pp.45-46.24 Ibid.,pp.52-53.25 Urwick,LyndallF.,“TheManager’sSpanofControl”,HarvardBusinessReview,Vol.34,No,3,May-June1956,p.4126 Gulick,Luther,”NotesonTheoryofOrganisation,”op.cit.pp.7-9.27 SeeMeier,KennethJ.,andBohte,John,“SpanofControlandPublicOrganisation:ImplementingLutherGulick’sResearch

Design”,PublicAdministrationReview,Vol.63,No.1,January-February,2003,pp.61-7028 LutherGulick,”TheDynamicsofPublicAdministrationTodayasGuidelinesfortheFuture”,PublicAdministrationReview,

No.3,May-June,1983,p.193.29 Ibid.,196.30 Ibid.31 Ibid.,198.32 Gulick,Luther,”TimeandPublicAdministration”,PublicAdministrationReview,No.,1,Jan-Feb.,1987,pp.115-116.33 Ibid.,p.116.34 Ibid.,p.118.35 Ibid.,p.119.36 White,L.D.,AnIntroductiontotheStudyofAdministration,NewYork,MacmillanCompany,(IIIEd.),1948,p.37.37 Gross,BertramM.,TheManagingofOrganisations:TheAdministrativeStruggle,London,TheFreePressofGlencoe,1964,p.

182.38 Simon,HerbertA.,AdministrativeBehaviour:AStudyofDecision-MakingProcess inAdministrativeOrganisation,NewYork,

TheFreePress,1965,p.20.39 Ibid.,p.21.40 Ibid.,p.21.41 Ibid.,pp.35-38.42 FordetailsoftheideasofEltonMayo,ChrisArgyris,McGregor,RensisLikert,etc.,seetherelevantarticlesinthisvolume.43 Gulick,Luther,“Science,ValuesandPublicAdministration,”inGulick,Luther,and.Urwick,L.,(Eds.),op.cit.,p.194.44 Ibid.,p193.45 See,Diamont,Alfred, “The TemporalDimensions inModels ofAdministration andOrganisation/” inWaldo,Dwight,

(Ed.),TemporalDimensionsofDevelopmentAdministration,Durham,NorthCarolina,DukeUniversityPress,1970.46 SeeMarch,J.G.,andSimon,H.,Organisation,NewYork,JohnWiley,1959.47 Subramaniam,V.,“TheClassicalOrganisationTheoryanditsCritics,”PublicAdministrationReview,Vol.44,Winter,1966,

pp.435-42.48 Denhardt,RobertB.,quotedinPaulP.VanRiper,op.cit.p.613.

M

8MARYPARKERFOLLETT

D.RavindraPrasad

IntroductionaryParkerFollettoccupiesaprominentplaceamongthecontributorstoadministrativethought,thoughsheislessknowntothepublicandeventosomewritersandteachers

on administration.1 She carved out a prominent place in what was then largely a man’sworld.Butunfortunately,herworkshavebeenundeservedlyforgotten.2Itgoestohercreditforinitiatingstudiesonindustrialgroupswhichhadseldombeensubjectmatterofstudybypoliticalorsocialscientists.Sheturnedherattentionfromthetraditionalsubjectsofstudy-thestateorthecommunity-toconcentrateonthestudyofindustry.Sheevolvedprinciplesof human association and organisation specifically in terms of industry and convincedbusinessmen of the practicability of these principles in dealing with current problems.3Follett blended theory, fact and ideal admirably. Shedemonstratedher beliefs bydrawingillustrationsalmost fromeverywalkof life - from theaffairsofgovernment, industryandbusiness,home,warandpeace,internationalinstitutions,etc.4Shewasagiftedwriterwithararecapacityforpresentingoriginalideaswithgreatsimplicityandlucidity.Herwritingsarerepletewithpracticalwisdom,deepflashesofintuition,undepartmentalisedthinkingandanall-pervadingspiritofdemocraticdynamism.5Mostprominentamongthoseassociatedwiththe‘classic’orscientificmanagementschoolslikeOrdwayTead,HenryFayol,OliverSheldonand Lyndall Urwick were influenced by her philosophy. Peter Drucker, the managementtheoreticiancalledher‘theprophetofmanagement’andhis‘Guru’.6Abetterunderstandingof someof thepresent trends inadministrative thought, therefore, requiresa studyofherworks.7

(1868-1933)

LifeandWorksFollett(1868-1933)wasborninQuincy,Massachusetts,USAandhadherearlyeducationat

ThayerAcademyinBraintree,Boston.Shewas influencedbyher teachers fromwhomshegot stimulation of intellect and learnt simplicity of life. She joined Redcliff College, theWomen’s Branch ofHarvard in 1892,went toNewnhamCollege, England for studies butreturned to graduate summa cum laude in economics, law, philosophy and government in1898.ShewenttoParisforayearforpost-graduatestudies.Aninterestingpartofhercareeris that while she was still a college student, she published The Speaker of the House ofRepresentatives in 1896.As a student, shewas keenly interested in philosophy, history andpolitical science, which she pursed with enthusiasm. After her studies, she developedinterestinsocialadministrationandsocialwork.From1900to1908shedevotedhertimetosocialworkintheRoxburyNeighbourhood,Boston.In1908,shebecameChairpersonoftheCommitteeonExtendedUseofSchoolBuildingsoftheWomen’sMunicipalLeague,Boston.In 1911, she opened East Boston High School Social Centre and was instrumental in theformationof such centers throughoutBostonwhichhelpedher to transformherviewsondemocracy.Shedidsocialworkforwomen,childrenandslumdwellers.In1912,shetooktovocationalguidanceandbecameamemberofthePlacementBureauCommittee,Boston.Inthiscapacity,shecameincontactwithindustryandcontributedtothemanagementthought.She also served on the Massachusetts Minimum Wage Board and in 1917 became Vice-president of theNational Community CentersAssociation. During 1915-33, she presentedpapers on industrial organisation at the annual conferences of business executives. Thus,Follettapoliticalscientistturnedherattentiontosocialadministrationandthesolutionstosocial problems and thence smoothly to the realm of business management andadministration.ShepublishedTheSpeakeroftheHouseofRepresentatives(1896),TheNewState(1918), Creative Experience (1924), Dynamic Administration (1941) posthumously edited byMetcalf and Urwick and Freedom and Coordination: Lectures in Business Organisation (1949)editedbyUrwick.

Follett’sideasandconceptionsprovideafascinatingperspectiveoncriticalmanagementand administrative themes like conflict, power, authority and responsibility, leadership,control, role of individual in group, participation, place of business in society, labour-management relations, etc., and they have continued relevance even today.Her ideas arecharacterised by cohesiveness of thought, subtlety of language, breadth of understanding,and wisdom of insights. It is very difficult, almost impossible, to summarise heradministrative ideas and concepts. We shall examine some of them, which have beenparticularlyinfluential.

ConstructiveConflictFollett accords a very high importance to the problems of conflict in organisations. Shepresented her celebrated paper ‘Constructive Conflict’ before the Bureau of PersonnelAdministrationin1925.Sheadvancestheideaof“constructiveconflict”recognisingtherebythat conflicts shouldbe regardedasanormalprocess inanyactivityofanorganisationbywhichsociallyvaluabledifferencesregisterthemselvesfortheenrichmentofallconcerned.8To Follett, conflict is neither good nor bad and has to be considered without passion orethical prejudgements. Conflict is not warfare, but is only an appearance of difference -differenceofopinions,ofinterestsnotonlybetweentheemployerandtheemployeebutalsobetween managers, between directors or wherever differences appear.9 Conflict is not awasteful outbreak of incompatibilities, but a normal process by which socially valuabledifferencesregisterthemselvesfortheenrichmentofallconcerned.10Becauseof individual

differences, conflict is unavoidable in human organisations. Since conflict is unavoidable,insteadofcriticisingitassomethingbad,oneshouldtrytocapitaliseonitandmakeuseofittodosomethinggood.ToFollett, conflict isamoment in the interactionofdesires. Justastherearedestructivewaysofdealingwithsuchmoments,therearealsoconstructiveways.Conflict,as themomentofappearingandfocussingofdifferences,maybeasignofhealthandaprophecyofprogress.Drawinganalogiesfromtheuniverseshesays:“Allpolishingisdonebyfriction.Weget themusicfromtheviolinbyfrictionandweleft thesewagestatewhenwediscoveredfirethroughfriction.”11

Thequestionishowtomakeconflictworkconstructively.Follettsaysthattherearethreeways of resolving a conflict: domination, compromise and integration.12 Domination is avictoryofonesideovertheotherandthisistheeasiestwayofresolvingconflicts.Thoughitis the easiest for the moment, it is not successful in the long run. The problem withdomination is that, in addition to thediscomfort caused to the ‘dominated’, the repressedtendencies are always there to rebel against the dominatorwhenever possible. Since eachpartyretainstheactiontendenciesthatledtotheconfrontationinthefirstplace,assoonasitispossibleandattheearliesttheconfrontationwillsurfaceagain.ThisisevidentfromwhathashappenedaftertheFirstWorldWar.Compromiseisgenerallythewaypeoplesettlemostoftheirconflicts.Inthis,eachsidegivesupalittleandsettlestheconflictsothattheactivity,which has been interrupted by the conflict,may go on. In this, each side involved in theconflict gives up a part of its ‘desire’ to settle the issue. Though compromise is a widelyacceptedmethodof resolvingconflicts, rarelypeoplewant tocompromise,as this involvesgivingupsomething.

Integrationis thethirdmethodofresolvingconflicts. Inthis, twodesiresare integratedand neither side needs to sacrifice its desires. Follett considers integration as amethod ofdealing with conflict, as it has some advantages compared to compromise. She says thatcompromise does not create but only dealswith the existing,whereas integration createssomethingnew,leadstoinventionandtotheemergenceofnewvalues.13Itleadstotheuseofbettertechniquesandalsosavestimeandresources.Anotheradvantageisthatintegrationgoestotherootoftheproblemandputsanendtotheconflictpermanently.Ifwedealwithconflicts throughcompromise, theymaycomeupagain in someother form,aspeoplearenotalwayshappywith the fulfillmentofonlyapartof theirdesirebutwant to fulfill the‘whole’desire.She illustrates thispoint fromthe industrialandinternationalcontroversieswherethisoftenoccurs.Butintegrationstabilisesandconflictsaresettledpermanently.

Whilepointingouttheadvantagesofintegrationasamethodofsettlingconflicts,Follettis not unaware of the difficulties involved in achieving it. Follett does not think that it isalways possible to achieve integration. She says when twomenwant tomarry the samewoman; there can be no integration. There may be many such cases of conflict whereintegrationisdifficult;almostimpossible.Follettsaysthatitisoftendifficulttosaywhetheradecisionreflectstrueintegrationorsomethingofacompromise.However,sheassertsthatthedesireofthepeopletosolvetheirproblemsthroughintegrationinitselfisencouraging.If we are conscious of its advantages, we can try integration instead of compromise ordomination.

BasesofIntegrationFollett also discusses the bases of achieving integration. The first step towards achievingintegration,accordingtoher,istobringthedifferencesintotheopeninsteadofsuppressingthem.“Wecannothopetointegrate,”sheasserts,“ourdifferencesunlessweknowwhatthey

are.” 14 What is needed, therefore, is to uncover, identify and understand the real issuesinvolved in a conflict. This involves finding out the significant, rather than the dramatic,features involved in a conflict. This is more so the case with conflicts involving complexsituations and numerous and overlapping activities. This is necessary because there is atendencyamongmanagerstodealwiththedramaticmomentsforgettingthattheyarenotalwaysthesignificantmomentsandthatleadstotheuncoveringoftherealconflict.

Thesecondstep isbreakingupof thewhole i.e., toconsider thedemandsofbothsidesinvolvedinconflictandtobreakthemintotheirconstituentparts.Thisinvolvesexaminationof symbols, use of which is unavoidable in organisational work. This in turn involves acarefulscrutinizingofthelanguageusedtoseewhatitreallymeans.ToFollett,alllanguageused is symbolic, and therefore, one should be on guard to know as to what is beingsymbolised.Integrationnotonlyinvolvesbreakingupofthewholebutsometimesonehastodo theopposite. It is important toarticulate thewholedemand, therealdemandwhich isbeingobscuredbymiscellaneousminorclaimsorbyineffectivepresentation.15

Anticipationofconflictisthethirdstep.Anticipationdoesnotmeanavoidanceofconflictbut responding to it differently. To illustrate this, Follett gives the example of amanwholikedmotoring,whilehiswifelikedwalking.Heanticipatedwhatherresponsemightbetoasuggestion that theymotor on a Sunday afternoonby tiringher out playing tennis in themorning.ToFollett, integrationis likeagameofchess.Anticipationofresponseisbyitselfnotenough;thereisneedforpreparationforresponseaswell.Thisinvolvesbuildingupofcertainattitudesinthepeople.Responseisoftwotypes-circularandlinear.Agoodexampleof circular response is thegameof tennis.This conceptof circular responseandbehaviourthrowsmuchlightonconflict. Infact,circularbehaviouras thebasisof integration,Follettsays,isthekeytoconstructiveconflict.

ObstaclestoIntegrationIntegration requires high intelligence, keen perception, discrimination, and a brilliantinventiveness.Itisalwayseasiertofightthantosuggestbetterwaysofresolvingconflicts.Aslongasintelligenceandinventivenessarenotthere,resolvingconflictsthroughintegrationwouldbedifficult.Anotherobstacleisthepeople’shabitofenjoyingdomination.Tomany,integration is a tame affair; it does not give them the thrill of conquest or satisfaction ofvictory. Follett says that people with such habit patterns always prefer domination tointegration.Theorisingtheprobleminsteadoftakingthemasproposedactivitiesorpracticalissuesneedingimmediatesolutionsisthethirdobstacletointegration.Quiteoften,people,forgetting that disagreements will disappear if they stop theorising, go on theorising theproblem. Follett says that intellectual agreement alone does not solve conflicts and bringintegration. Language used is the fourth obstacle. Language used, Follett says, must befavourableforreconciliationandshouldnotarouseantagonismandperpetuatetheconflict.Sometimeslanguageusedcreatesnewdisputes,whichwerenotthereearlier.Afifthobstacletointegrationistheundueinfluenceofleaders.Finally,themostimportantofallobstaclestointegration is lack of training. Follett says that inmost cases there is a tendency to ‘pushthrough’orto‘forcethrough’theplanspreviouslyarrivedat,basedonpreconceivednotions.Therefore,shepleadsthatthereshouldbecoursestoteachtheartofcooperativethinking,tomasterthetechniqueofintegration,bothforworkersandmanagers.

GivingOrdersFollett examines at length thequestionof givingorders and theprinciplesunderlying the

differentways of giving orders. Follett says that there are four important steps in givingordersviz.:• aconsciousattitude-realisetheprinciplesthroughwhichitispossibletoactoninany

matter;• aresponsibleattitude-todecidewhichoftheprinciplesoneshouldacton;• anexperimentalattitude-tryexperimentsandwatchresults;and• poolingtheresults.16

Follettsaysthatmostpeople,withoutevenknowingthedifferentprinciplesthatunderliegivingorders,giveorderseveryday.Toher,toknowtheprinciplesthatunderlieanygivenactivity is to takeaconsciousattitude.After recognising thedifferentprinciples,onemustthinkofwhatprinciplesone shouldact onand thengiveorders in accordancewith thoseprinciples.Togiveordersbasedonprinciples isa responsibleattitude.Tryingexperiments,notingwhethertheysucceedorfailandanalysingastowhytheyaresuccessfulorfailuresistaking an experimental attitude. Finally, one shouldpool the experiences of all and see towhatextentandinwhatmannerthemethodsofgivingorderscanbechangediftheexistingmethodsarefoundinadequate.

Many think that giving orders is very simple and expect that they would be obeyedwithout question. But in practice, issuing orders is very difficult. Past life, training,experience, emotions, beliefs, prejudices, etc., form certain habits of mind, which thepsychologists call ‘habit-patterns’, ‘action-patterns’ and ‘motor-sets’. Unless these habit-patterns and mental attitudes are changed, one cannot really change people. Sometimesorders are not obeyed because the employees cannot go contrary to lifelong habits. Forinstance, Follett says, the farmerhas ageneraldisposition tomanage the lands alone, andthis is being changed by the cooperatives. To bring about such a change, Follett suggeststhreethingsviz.,(1)buildingupofcertainattitudes;(2)providingfortheirrelease;and(3)augmentingthereleasedresponse,asitisbeingcarriedout.17Follettgivestheexampleofasalesmanwhocreatesinusanattitudethatwewanthisarticle;thenatjustthepsychologicalmoment,heproduceshiscontractformwhichwemaysignandreleasetheattitude;thenifwearepreparingtosign,someonecomesintotellus,howpleasedheiswithhispurchaseofthisarticleandthataugmentstheresponsebeingreleased.18

Beforegivingorders, theemployershouldconsiderthewaysandmeansofformingthe‘habits’ among the employees to ensure acceptance of the orders. This involves fourimportantsteps: first, theofficialsshouldbemadetoseethedesirabilityofanewmethod;second, the rulesof theoffice shouldbe so changed tomake itpossible for theofficials toadoptthenewmethod;third,afewpeopleshouldbeconvincedinadvancetoadoptthenewmethodtosetanexample.Thelaststepisintensifyingtheattitudetobereleased.Thiswillpreparethewayfortheacceptanceoforders.19

Follett then turns her attention to the environment of giving orders and says that theresponsetotheordersdependsupontheplaceandthecircumstancesunderwhichordersaregiven.Shesaysthatthe‘strengthoffavourableresponsetoanorderisininverseratiotothedistance the order travels’. 20To Follett, both giving and receiving orders is a matter ofintegration through circular behaviour. There are two dissociated paths in the individual.Therefore,before integrationcanbemadebetweenordergiverandorderreceiver, there isneedforintegrationwithintheindividual.Anordershouldseektouniteandintegratethedissociatedpath.21

The manner of giving orders is equally important. Alleged harassing, tyrannical andoverbearingconductofofficialsisanimportantreasonformanyacontroversy.Treatingmenwithout regard to their feelings and self-respect would result in strikes and strainedindustrialrelations.Thelanguageusedoftenarouseswrongbehaviouralpatterns.Themoreoneisbossed,themoreonedevelopsoppositiontobossing.

DepersonalisingOrdersFrom the foregoing it is evident that giving orders is a complexprocess. Therefore, eitherpeoplestopgivingordersorbecome‘authoritarian’toensurecompliancetotheirorders.Toavoid too much of bossism in giving orders or giving no orders at all, Follett suggestsdepersonalisingtheorders.Thisinvolvesastudyoftheproblemstodiscoverthe ‘lawof thesituation’ andobeying itbyall concerned.Oneshouldnotgiveorders toanother,butbothshould agree to take orders from the situation. If orders are a part of the situation, thequestionofsomeonegivingandsomeonereceivingdoesnotariseandbothtakeordersfromthe situation.Follett says that twoheadsofdepartmentsdonotgiveorders to eachother.Eachstudiesthesituationanddecisionsaremadeasthesituationdemands.Depersonalisingorders, however, does not mean that one should not exercise authority. It only meansexercising the authorityof the situation. Shegives the exampleof a boywho saysno andthengetsapailofwatertohismother.Inthiscase,heresentsthecommand,butrecognisesthedemandofthesituation.

Follett also observes that the situation is never static; it always develops and evolves.Therefore,theorderstooshouldneverbestatic;butshouldalwayskeeppacewithsituations.Theexternalorderscanneverkeeppacewiththesituationsandonlythosedrawnfreshfromthe situation cando so. Therefore, Follett says, that ordersmust always be integral to thesituation.Anotherfactortobekeptinmindingivingordersisthatpeopleresentafeelingofbeing ‘under’ someone or subordinate to somebody. People would like to work ‘with’someone, not because it connotes functional unity, but the study of the situation involves‘with’proposition.‘Withpropositionheightensself-respectandincreasesefficiency.’

Givingordersisacomplexprocessanditisfraughtwithmanyaproblem.Thefirstishowmuchandwhatkindofsupervisionisnecessaryoradvisableinordertoseethattheordersare carried out. Many people do not like and object to being watched. Supervision isnecessary,butit isresented.Howtomakeintegrationhere?Anotherproblemiswhenandhowtopointoutthemistakesandmisconduct.Follettsuggeststhatsupervisionshouldnotbeforthesakeofsupervision,buttoaccomplishsomething.Thesubordinatesshouldalwaysbetoldinthatform,atthetime,underthosecircumstances,whichprovidearealeducationtothem.22

Power,AuthorityandControlFollettgives special attention to theproblemsofpower, control andauthority.She revealsprofound,penetrating and strikinglyoriginal insight inher analysis ofpower. Shedefinespower as “the ability to make things happen, to be a casual agent, to initiate change”.23Power is the capacity to produce intended effects. It is an instinctive urge inherent in allhuman beings. She makes a distinction between ‘power-over’ and ‘power-with’.24 Theformermay tend to be ‘coercive-power’ while the latter is a jointly developed ‘coactive-power’. Power-with is superior to power-over as it is a self-developing entity, whichpromotesbetterunderstanding,reducesfrictionandconflict,encouragescooperativeactionandpromotesparticipativedecision-making.Follettdoesnot think itpossible toget ridof

power-over, but thinks that one should try to reduce it. This can be accomplished byintegrating the desires, obeying the law of situation and through functional unity. In afunctional unity, each has functions and one should also have the authority andresponsibility,whichgoesonwiththatfunction.25Follettbelievesthatpowercanneverbedelegated or handed out orwrenched from someone as it is the result of knowledge andability.But,shefeels,wecancreateconditionsforthedevelopmentofpower.26

Follett defines authority as vested power - the right to develop and exercise power.Authority in termsof status and the subordinationof one another offendshumandignityand may cause undesirable reaction and friction. Therefore, it cannot be the basis oforganisation.Toherauthoritystemsfromthetaskbeingperformedandfromthesituation,andsuggeststhatfunctionis thetruebasisfromwhichauthorityisderived.Therefore,shesays that central authority i.e., derivation of authority from the chief executive should bereplacedbyauthorityoffunctioninwhicheachindividualhasthefinalauthoritywithintheallotted functions. She feels that the authority can be conferred on others and suchconferment is not delegation. She expresses in clear terms that ‘delegation of authority’should be an ‘obsolete expression’.27 Like authority, responsibility also flows from thefunction and situation. Therefore, one should ask, “for what is he responsible?” than “towhom is he responsible?” Follett believed in pluralistic concept of responsibility orcumulativeresponsibilityandrejectsultimateresponsibilityasanillusion.

Control,likeauthorityandresponsibility,isanimportantaspecttoachieveorganisationalgoals.Unlikeclassicalthinkers,Follettbelievesinfact-controlratherthanman-controlandincorrelated-controlthansuperimposedcontrol.28Sincefactsvaryfromsituationtosituation,control should depend upon the facts of each situation instead of superiors controllingsubordinates.Similarly,situationsaretoocomplexforcentralcontroltobemeaningfulandeffective.Follettsuggests,therefore,controlmechanismsshouldbecorrelatedatmanyplacesin the organisational structure. If organisations are to be well integrated, unified andcoordinated,controlshouldbedesignedanddevelopedaspartoftheunifyingprocessasaunifiedorganisationisself-regulatingandself-directing,organism.Inallsuchorganisations,Follettfeels,controltendstobeself-control.

PlanningandCoordinationTo Follett, planning is a scheme of self-adjustment and self-coordination of various andvarying interests. The process of self-adjustment is possible only through coordination.Follettpostulatesfourprinciplesoforganisaton:29

1. Coordination as the reciprocal relating of all factors in a situation: All factors in asituation have to be related to one another and these inter-relationships themselvesmustbetakenintoaccount.

2. Coordinationbydirectcontrol:Responsiblepeopleintheorganisationmustbeindirectcontactwithoneanotherirrespectiveoftheirpositioninthehierarchy.Shebelievesthathorizontalcommunicationisasimportantasverticalchainofcommand.

3. Coordinationintheearlystages:Allpeopleconcernedshouldbeinvolvedatthestageofpolicy formulation than being involved only at the implementation stage. Suchparticipation at the early stages will benefit the organisation through increasedmotivationandmorale.

4. Coordination as a continuing process: Follett emphasises the need for a permanentmachinery to achieve coordination from planning to activity and from activity to

furtherplanning.Theadvantagesofsuchmachinery,Follett feels,wouldbe immense.Similarly,sheemphasisestheimportanceofinformationbasedoncontinuousresearch.Theinformationitselfwouldbeaformofcontrol.For,therewouldbeatendencytoactinaccordancewiththeinformationgiven,ifitwereacceptedasaccurate.

LeadershipFollett discusses at length the process of leadership. She believes that the old ideas ofleadership are changing because of the changes in the concept of human relations anddevelopmentsinmanagement.30ToFollett,aleaderisnotthepresidentoftheorganisationorheadofthedepartment,butone“whocanseeallaroundasituation,whoseesitasrelatedto certain purposes and policies, who sees it evolving into the next situation, whounderstandshowtopassfromonesituationtoanother”.31Accordingtoher,leaderis“themanwhocanenergisehisgroup,whoknowshowtoencourageinitiative,howtodrawfromallwhateachhastogive”.32Heis“themanwhocanshowthattheorderisintegraltothesituation”.33Leadershipgoestothepersonwhocangrasptheessentialsofanexperienceand“canseeitasawhole”and“towhomthetotal inter-relatedness ismostclear”.34Leader istheexpressionofaharmoniousandeffectiveunity,whichhehashelpedtoform,andwhichhewasabletomakeagoingconcern.35Suchpeople,Follett feels,arefoundnot justat theapex but throughout the organisation. According to Follett, coordination, definition ofpurpose andanticipationare the three critical functionsof a leader.36A leaderhas also toorganiseexperienceofthegroupandtransformitintopower.37Follettstressesthatleadersare not only born but can be made through education and training in organisation andmanagement.

Follett distinguishes between three different types of leadership - of position, ofpersonalityandfunction.Inthefirst,theleaderholdsapositionofformalauthorityandinthesecond,onebecomesaleaderbecauseofone’sforcefulpersonality.Onewhoholdsbothpositionandpersonalitycan‘lead’muchmoreeasily.Butinmodernorganisations,itisnotthepersonsof formal authority or ofpersonalitywho ‘lead’ but thosewhopossess expertknowledge. They exercise leadership because others are influenced by their judgements.“The man possessing the knowledge demanded by a certain situation tends in the bestmanagedbusiness,andother thingsbeingequal,becomes the leaderof thatmovement.”38Thusleadershipgoestothepersonwiththeknowledgeofthesituation,whounderstandsitstotalsignificanceandwhocansee it through.Theexpertscangiveordersevento thoseofhigher rank. For example, Follett says the dispatch clerk can give orders to thesuperintendentandthestoresclerkcantellthepurchasingin-chargewhentoact.Thus,theleadership of function is inherent in the job. Though personality plays a large part inleadership,Follettalsobelievesthatleadershipoffunctionisbecomingmoreimportantthanleadershipofpersonality.39Follettbelievesthat thesuccessofanyorganisationdependsonitsbeing“sufficientlyflexibletoallowtheleadershipoffunctiontooperatefully-toallowthe men with the knowledge and the technique to control the situation”.40 Thus, FollettcalledattentiontotheemergenceinAmericanlifeof“leadershipbyfunctions”,longbeforetheterm“situationalapproach”cameintouse.41

AnEvaluationFollettwascalledbysomewritersonorganisationa‘classical’thinker;whileotherscriticised

herstatingthat‘thereisnothingclassicalinherideas’.Follettherselfcriticisedtheclassicaltheoryforitsone-sidedness,mechanisticapproachandforignoringpsychologicalaspects.42Butherownideasonvariousaspectsofadministrationandmanagementwerenotfreefromcriticism.Shewas criticised for ignoring the socialnatureor theprocesses involved in themanagementoforganisation.Herideasonintegrationwerecriticisedasbeingillusory.Shewas also criticised for not interpreting social content of organisation scientifically.43 BakerobservesthatFollettwasneverasystematicwriter,shethrewoutinterestingideasmoreorless randomly and, therefore, the thread of consistency was hard to find and harder tofollow.44Notallher readerswouldseewhereher thoughtswould lead them.45 Therefore,her valuable ideas and useful recommendations do not conform to a theoretically wellfoundedandintegratedsystem;fewobserve.

TworeasonswereattributedforFollett’sfailuretogainstatureasanadministrativeandmanagement theoretician. First, she never had the institutional base to facilitate a secureposition.Secondly,asDruckerandKanterhaveargued,ideologyofcooperation,negotiation,conflictresolutionandconsensuswerenotinsyncwithaworldduringherprofessionallife-before,duringorpost-warperiod.46 Somealsoattributed thather ideaswereneglectedasshewasawoman,thoughDruckerdidnotagree.

Notwithstanding these criticisms, Follett’s contribution to administrative theory is“seminal and indeed prophetic”.47 Her ideas in the realm of conflict, integration,coordination, control, authority, leadership, etc., convince everyone about the validity andjustificationof themulti-dimensional focusofheruniversalisticapproach.Apioneerandafundamental theorist, her theories are often invoked and have been consistently laudedthrough generations of scholarship.48 As Metcalf and Urwick have observed, ‘herconceptionswereinadvanceofhertime.Theyarestill inadvanceofcurrentthinking.Butthey are a gold mine of suggestions for anyone who is interested in the problems ofestablishingandmaintaininghumancooperationintheconductofanenterprise.’49

InBriefFollett’scontributiontothetheoryofadministrationandorganisationcanbesummarisedas:• Mary Parker Follett, whom Peter Drucker called “The Prophet ofManagement”, is a

political scientist of repute and is known for her work in social administration andbusinessmanagement.Herwork is characterisedby“practicalwisdom,deep flashesofintuition, undepartmentalised thinking and all pervading spirit of democraticdynamism”.

• Sheaccordedhighimportancetotheproblemsofconflictinorganisations.Consideringthatconflictsareunavoidable,sheadvancedtheideaof“constructiveconflict”–awayoflooking at conflict as a constructive activity inorganisations. Follett says that there arethreewaysofresolvingaconflictviz,domination,compromiseandintegration.

• Follett considered integration as the bestway of conflict resolution and discusses thebasis of achieving integration. Realising the difficulties in achieving integration, shediscussesthemethodstoovercometheobstaclestointegration.

• Givingordersisanimportantmanagementactivityintheorganisation.Sheanalysedthenature,principlesandcontextofgivingordersandsuggesteddepersonalisationofordersandpreferredordersemanatingfromsituationsthanfrompersons.Thisphenomenoniscalledas“lawofsituation”.

• Follettgivesspecialattentiontotheproblemsofpower,authorityandcontrol.Definingpower“astheabilitytomakethingshappen”,shemakesadistinctionbetween“powerover” and “powerwith”.Defining authority as vestedpower, sheprefers function andsituation as the basis of authority and questions the effectiveness of person-basedauthorityinorganisations.Follettalsobelievedinpluralisticconceptofresponsibilityorcumulativeresponsibilityandrejectsultimateresponsibilityasanillusion.Similarly,shebelievedin“factcontrol”ratherthan“personcontrol”.

• She discussed various principles of planning and coordination and preferred self-adjustingandself-coordinationofvariousandvaryinginterests.

• Follett took a broad and functional view of leader’s role and identified coordination,definition of purpose and anticipation as three leadership functions. She distinguishedbetween three types of leadership i.e., leadership of position, personality and functionandconsidered“leadershipbyfunction”mosteffective.

• Follett’sviewsarecriticisedmainlyforignoringthesocialcontextoforganisationsandthe complex social processes involved in the management of organisations. Some arecriticalofFollett’sideasforlackofrigourandbeingillusory.

• Follett laid foundations for the application of democratic concepts and practices toorganisations.BetterunderstandingofthepresenttrendsinadministrativethoughtandpracticesrequiresastudyofFollett’sworks.

References1 Gross,BertramM.,TheManagingofOrganisation,Vol.I,NewYork,FreePress,1964,p.151.2 See fordetailsDrucker,PeterF., “Introduction:MaryParkerFollett:ProphetofManagement” inGraham,Pauline, (Ed.)

MaryParker Follett: Prophet ofManagement -ACelebration ofWritings from the 1920s, Cambridge,MA:Harvard BusinessSchoolPress,1995,pp.1-10.

3 Urwick,L.TheGoldenBookofManagement,London,NewmanLimited,1956,pp.132-133.4 Urwick,L.,andBrech,E.F.L.,TheMakingofScientificManagement,Vol.I.London,SirIsaacPitman&Sons.Ltd.,1955,pp.

54-55.5 Gross,BertramM.,op.cit,p.152.6 Graham,Pauline,op.cit.,p.12.7 Waldo,Dwight,TheAdministrativeState,NewYork,TheRonaldPressCompany,1948,p.210.8 Metcalf,Henry,C., andUrwick, Lyndall,DynamicAdministration:TheCollected Papers ofMaryParker Follett, New York,

HarperandRow,1940,p.30.9 Ibid.,p.30.10 Follett,M.P.,CreativeExperience,London,LongmansGreen,1924,p.200.11 Metcalf,HenryC.,andUrwick,Lyndall,op.cit.,pp.30-31.12 ThereisalsofourthformwhichFollettcallsmanipulation.It’smaintechniqueisanemotionalappealdesignedtoobscure

differences that may exist. For details see Fox, Elliot M., “Mary Parker Follett: The Enduring Contribution”, PublicAdministrationReview,Vol.XXVIII,No.6,Nov.-Dec.1968,p.526.

13 Metcalf,Henry,C.,andUrwick,Lyndall,op.cit.,p.36.14 Ibid.,pp.30-31.15 Ibid.,p.42.16 Ibid.,p.51.17 Ibid.,pp.51-52.18 Ibid.,p.52.19 Ibid.,pp.52-53.20 Ibid.,p.54.21 Ibid.,p.56.22 Ibid.,p.67.

23 Ibid.,p.99.24 Ibid.,p.101.25 Ibid.,pp.106-107.26 Ibid.,pp.112-113.27 Follett,M. P.,Freedom andCoordination—Lectures inBusinessOrganisation, London,Management Publications Trust Ltd.,

1949,p.4.28 Follett,MaryParker,“TheProcessofControl”, inL.GulickandL.Urwick (Eds.),PapersontheScienceofAdministration,

ColumbiaUniversity,1937,p.161.29 Ibid.,pp.161-16630 Metcalf,Henry,C.,andUrwick,Lyndall,op.cit.,p.24731 Ibid.,p.266.32 Ibid.,p.247.33 Ibid.,p.27534 Ibid.,p.279.35 Sapre,S.A.,MaryParkerFollett:HerDynamicPhilosophyofManagement,Bombay,GovernmentCentralPress,1975,p.38.36 Metcalf,Henry,C.,andUrwick,Lyndall,op.cit.,pp.260-266.37 Ibid.,p.258.38 Ibid.,p.277.39 Ibid.40 Ibid.,p.278.41 Negro,FelixA.,andNigro,LloydG.,ModernPublicAdministration,(3Ed.),NewYork,Harper&Row,Publishers,1973,p.

238.42 Gvishiani,D,.OrganisationandManagement,ASociologicalAnalysisofWesternTheories,Moscow,ProgressPublishers,1972,p.

218.43 Ibid.44 Fox,ElliotM.,op.cit.,p.521.45 Baker,R.J.S.,AdministrativeTheoryandPublicAdministration,London,HutchinsonUniversityLibrary,1972,p.44.46 SeethePrefaceandIntroductionchaptersbyRosabethMossKanterandPeterDruckerrespectivelyinGraham,Pauline,

op.cit.47 Ibid.48 Monin, Nanette, The manager who lost his mojo: Mary Parker Follett’s nowhere man, See

http://www.le.ac.uk/ulsm/research/conf_jan08/pdf/monin_ab.pdf.Retrivedon1stJune200949 Metcalf,Henry,C.,andUrwick,Lyndall,op.cit.,p.9.

F

9ELTONMAYO

M.Kistaiah

IntroductionewresearchersandveryfewresearchstudieshavethedistinctionofexercisinginfluenceformorethanhalfacenturyaswasexercisedbyEltonMayoandhisHawthornestudies.

His studies on Industrial Psychology are profound and he is considered as one of thepioneersofhumanrelationsapproach.Hewasoneofthemostinfluentialsocialscientistsofhistimes.Heiswidelyrecognisedastheprogenitorofhumanrelationsmovementandhiswork laid foundations for later works highlighting the importance of communicationsbetween the workers and management. Though Mayo’s findings were contrary to thetheories of his contemporaries that the worker is motivated by self-interest, his work onmotivationrevolutionisedthetheoryandpracticeofmanagement.

(1880-1949)

LifeandWorksGeorgeEltonMayo(1880-1949)bornatAdelaide,Australia,hadachequeredschoolingandabortedmedicaleducation.1HewaseducatedatQueen’sSchoolandtheCollegiateSchoolofSt.Peter. In1897,he joinedtheUniversityofAdelaide tostudymedicinebutsoon left theuniversityandwenttoUKtostudyatmedicalschoolsinEdinburghandLondon.Boredwithmedical education, hewent toWestAfrica in 1903 but returned soon and spent time as ajournalist and by teaching English at the Working Men’s College. At Edinburgh, he wasassociated ina studyofpsychopathology,whichhelpedhim in lateryearsasan industrialresearcher.ReturningtoAdelaidein1905,hejoinedapartnershipprintingfirm.In1907,hereentered the University of Adelaide to study philosophy and psychology and graduatedwithhonoursin1910.In1911,hejoinedasalecturerinmentalandmoralphilosophyattheUniversityofQueensland.Mayosuccessfullyorganisedpsychiatrictreatmenttothesoldierswhosuffered fromshell shockduring theFirstWorldWar in recognitionofwhichhewasappointedthefirstChairmanofPhilosophyDepartmentattheUniversityofQueenslandin1919.AttheUniversityhetaughtLogicandEthicsinadditiontoPhilosophy.

Hemigrated to theUS in 1922with a Rockefeller Fellowship and joined theWharton

School,University of Pennsylvania as a research associate. In 1926, he joined asAssociateProfessorofIndustrialResearchandDirectoroftheDepartmentofIndustrialResearchandin1929 asProfessor of IndustrialResearch at theHarvard School of BusinessAdministrationwhereheundertookpath-breakingHawthorneexperiments.Heconcentratedhisattentionon private industrial establishments and was supported by Rockefeller and CarnegieFoundation grants. After retirement in 1947, he moved to Surrey, UK where he died. IntributetohiscontributionsEltonMayoSchoolofManagementwasestablishedinAdelaide.

The influence of theworld famous psychologists Pierre Janet and Sigmund FreudwasprofoundonMayo.InallhisresearchprogrammesMayofocusedattentiononthebehaviourof the workers and their production capacity keeping in view the physiological,psychologicalandeconomicaspects.Hecalledthisaclinicalmethod.Mayopublishedafewbooks2andcontributedanumberofscholarlyarticlestoseveraljournals.

EarlyExperimentsEltonMayoinhisstudiesconcentratedonfatigue,accidents,productionlevels,restperiods,workingconditions,etc.,ofindustrialworkersinfactories.In1923whileatPennsylvania,hewas involved in research forwhichhe subsequentlybecameworld famous.He startedhisresearchinthespinningdepartmentofatextilemillnearPhiladelphia.Themillprovidedallfacilitiestotheworkers,waswellorganisedandconsideredtobeamodelorganisation.Theemployerswerehighlyenlightenedandhumanebutthepresidentanddirectorofpersonnelfacedproblemsinthemule-spinningdepartmentsofthetextilemill.Thelabourturnoverinallthedepartmentswasestimatedtobeapproximately5-6percentperannumwhileinthemulti-spinningdepartmenttheturnoverwasestimatedatnearly250percent.Itmeantthatabout100industrialworkerswererequiredeveryyeartokeepabout40working.Sinceitwasacrucialdepartmentforthesmoothfunctioningofthemill, themanagementintroducedanumberofschemesbywayofincentivesbuttotheirsurpriseallattractionsfailedtoretainthe workers. Efficiency engineers were consulted and several financial incentives wereintroducedontheirsuggestion,buttheyyieldednoappreciableresults.Despitesetbacks,thepresidentofthemillrefusedtoacceptthesituationtobebeyondremedy.

Mayo studied the problems of the multi-spinning department intensely from variousanglesi.e.,physical,socialandpsychological.Afteralongparticipantobservation,hefoundthat almost every piecer working in the mule-spinning department, suffered from foottroubleforwhichtheyhadnoimmediateremedy.Thistroubledevelopedsinceeverypiecerhadtowalkupanddownalongalley,adistanceof30yardsormore,oneithersideofwhichthemachine headwas operating for spinning the frameswith cotton thread.While theseframesmovedbackandforth,theworkerwasexpectedtowatchtheworkingofthemachinecloselytoweavetheendstogetherwhenevertherewasabrokenthread.Sincetherewere10to14suchmachinesinthecareofasingleworkerhefeltmiserableattendingtothejob.

Mayoalsofoundthatalthoughthereweretwoorthreepiecersinthesectiontheywerelocatedfarapartandcommunicationbetweenthemwasalmostdifficultduetothenoiseofthemachine.Addedtothis,someoftheworkerswereyoung-intheirtwenties-andotherswere in their fifties. All of them confessed that they were too fatigued to enjoy socialeveningsafterwork.But theworkerswouldneverprotest,asmostof themworkedunderthecompanyPresident,whowasaColonelintheUSArmyinFrancebothbeforeandduringtheFirstWorldWar.Mayofoundthesedetailswiththehelpofanursetowhomtheworkersconfidedtheproblemsonthepromiseofmaintainingsecrecy.

Onthebasisoftheinformationcollectedbythenurseandhisownfindings,Mayowith

thepermissionofthemanagementstartedexperimentingwithrestperiods.Heintroducedtworestperiodsoftenminuteseachinthemorningandagainintheafternoonwitheveryteamofpiecers.Fromthebeginningtheresultswereencouraging.Gradually,therestperiodschemewas adapted by all theworkers to eliminate the problem of physical fatigue. Theworkersevincedinterestintheschemeandwerepleasedwiththeresults.Thesymptomsofmelancholydisappeared; the labour turnoveralmostcametoanend,production increasedandthemoraleimproved.

Inadditiontotheeliminationofphysicalfatigue,Mayosuggestedanewformulatoearnbonus,which themule-spinningdepartmentneverhad.Under thisscheme, if theworkersweretoproducemorethanacertainpercentage,theywouldearnbonusinproportiontotheextraproduction.Withrestperiodsandnewbonusformula,theworkerswerehappy.Butthenewschemeswerenot,however,withoutproblems.Theimmediatesupervisorsneverlikedthesightofworkers lyingasleeponthesackswhile theydidnotenjoythesameprivilege.Theysuggestedthattheworkersshould‘earn’theirrestperiods.Thatistosay,ifataskwasfinishedinagiventime,themenwereallowedtorest.Underthenewschemetheworkersearnedthreetofour‘rests’everyday.

The situation continued for sometime but in view of a heavy demand for goods, thesupervisorshaddoneawaywiththenewsystem.Withinaweektheproductionfellandtheworkers were unhappy and the old symptoms started reappearing. At this point thepresident of the company, “The Colonel” took charge of the problem. After prolongeddiscussionswithMayoandthemembersofhisresearchteam,thepresidentorderedthatthespinning department should be shut down for tenminutes, four times a day and that allhandsfromthesupervisorsdowntotheworkersshouldavailtheopportunitytorest.Withthispessimismdisappeared,productionpickedupandtheworkersstartedearningbonus.

Mayoinhisfirstresearchstudywasabletoprobeintotheproblemandsuggestremedies.Inhis endeavour, he found theColonel a sincerepresidentwhohad immense faith inhisworkers, evinced interest in their welfare and, true to his military background, neitherwavered inhisdecisionsnor forgothismenandtheirproblems. Inaddition, thepresidentalsointroducedanotherchange.Heplacedthecontrolofrestperiodssquarelyinthehandsofworkerswhichledtoconsultationsamongworkers.Socialinteractionwassetinmotion.Anew awakening began whereby the assumptions of ‘rabble hypothesis’ which assumes‘mankindasahordeofunorganised individualsactuatedbyself-interest’,wasquestioned?Mayosummarisedthefindingsofhisexperimentsasfollows:• Spinningproducesposturalfatigueandinducespessimisticreverie;• Rest pauses relieve these conditions and increase productivity by restoring normal

circulation,relievingposturalfatigue,andinterruptingpessimisticreverie;• Rest pauses aremore effectivewhen they are regular and theworkers have received

instructioninthetechniquesofrelaxation;and• Thelifeoftheworkeroutsidethemillisimprovedasworkersbecomemoreinterested

intheirfamiliesandbecomemoresober.3

Mayobelievedthattheturnoverwasnottheresultofworkingconditionsbuttheresultof emotional response of workers to the work performed. He also believed that themonotonypersewasnottheproblembutrepetitiveworkdoneunderconditionsofisolationleadtoabnormalpreoccupations.4

HawthorneStudies

Mayo’smajor involvementwaswith the now popularHawthorne Studies at theWesternElectricity Company, Chicago employing 25,000 workers and was conducted in differentphases.5 At that time it was felt that there was a clear-cut cause and effect relationshipbetweenthephysicalwork,environment,thewell-beingandproductivityoftheworker.Themanagement assumed that given proper ventilation, temperature, lighting and otherphysical working conditions and wage incentives, the worker could produce more. Theproblems,which blocked efficiency,were believed to be improper job design, fatigue andother conditions of work. Illumination of the work place was also believed to be animportant aspect since it affected the quality, quantity and safety. Therefore, theNationalResearch Council of the National Academy of Science decided to examine the preciserelationship between illumination and the efficiency of the worker with a researchprogrammeattheHawthornePlantofWesternElectricityCompany.Theresearchbeganin1924.

TheGreatIllumination(1924-27)Two groups of female workers, each consisting of six, were selected and located in twoseparaterooms,eachgroupperformingthesametask.Theroomswereequallyilluminatedand thiswasmainly designed to examine the level of production on the basis of varyinglevelsofillumination.Inthebeginning,thephysicalenvironinwhichthegirlswereworkingwas stabilised to acclimatize them to room temperature, humidity, etc. Then slowly theconditions of work were changed to mark the effect of this change on the output. Theresearchersobservedthegroupsandkeptaccuraterecordofproduction.Thisresearchspreadoveraperiodofone-and-ahalfyears,establishedthatregardlessofthelevelofillumination,production in both the control and experimental groups increased. The researchers weresurprisedtonotethisandabandonedtheilluminationtheoryandbeganmanipulatingwagepayments, rest periods, duration of working hours, etc. Subsequently, instead of groupincentive plan, an individual piece rate plan was introduced. All these changes led to acontinued rise inproduction.Reductionofworkinghours and totalwork time in aweek,provisionofrefreshmentslikecoffee,soup,etc.,yieldedafurtherriseinoutput.

Surprisedby the results, the research teamdecided toabolishall thenewly introducedprivilegesand return to the conditionsprevailingat thebeginningof the experiments i.e.,theoriginalconditionsofworkwiththeexceptionofindividualpieceratearrangement.Forawhiletheoutputfellalittlebutsoonitrosetoapointhigherthanatanyothertime.Theriseinproduction,inspiteofthewithdrawalofincentives,puzzledtheresearchteam.Theillumination hypothesis was rejected as the relationship between incentive schemes, restperiods, etc., hadno apparent relevance to the productivityperse. Itwas surmised that itmightbeduetotheinterestshownbytheresearchteamintheworkersortotheincentivewageplanthatwasretainedwhileseveralotherprivilegeswerewithdrawn.

Duringthewinterof1927,GeorgePennockhappenedtoattendalectureprogrammeofMayoat theHarvardClub inNewYork.Pennock toldMayoof the rest roomexperimentsandinvitedhimtotheHawthornePlanttounraveltheproblemsconfrontedbytheresearchteam. In these studies, Mayo had the benefit of knowledge of the company officials likePennock, William J. Dickson, and Harold A. Wright. From the academic side T. NorthWhitehead,W.Lloyd,E.WarnerandL.J.Hendersonjoinedtheresearchgroup.InthisstudyMayo collaborated with F.J. Roethlisberger, who later became a leading exponent of thephilosophy of human relations. The results of theNational ResearchCouncil experimentsweresointriguingthatMayofeltthattherewasaremarkablechangeinthementalattitude

of the group and this was perhaps responsible in the behaviour of the workers at theHawthornePlant.Mayoelaboratedthatthetestroomgirlsbecameasocialunitandbecauseoftheincreasedattentionoftheresearchteam,theunitdevelopedasenseofparticipationinthe project. Thus,Mayo opened the door to research into socialman. TheHarvard groupthen picked up the loose threads of theNational Research Council studies and found farmore valuable insights into industrial man than earlier studies. They proposed fivehypothesestoexplainthefailureoftheoriginalilluminationproject.6Theyare:

Firstly,improvedmaterialconditionsandmethodsofworkwerepresentinthetestroom,leading to greater output. It was rejected because the level of illumination had beenpurposelyreducedandyettheoutputhadincreased.

Secondly,therestperiodsandshorterworkingdayshadprovidedrelieffromfatigue.Itdid not explain the results since output still increased despite the withdrawal of all theprivileges.

Thirdly, relating relief from monotony to increased production was not conclusivebecause monotony had nothing to do with the physical environment as it was a matterpertainingtothestateofmind.

Fourthly,theindividualwagepaymentincentivehadstimulatedincreaseintheoutput.Lastly,changesinsupervisorytechniqueshadimprovedtheattitudesandoutput.Thelasttwohypotheseswereexaminedandtestedthroughsupplementaryexperiments.

Twogroupsof fivegirls eachwere identified for the study.Thesegirlswereplacedon anindividual incentiveplanonapieceworkbasis. In thebeginningtotaloutputwentupandthenremainedconstantatthelevel.Inthecaseofsecondgroup,althoughtheywereplacedonindividualincentivesystem,theyaresubjecttovariationsinrestperiodsanddurationofworkandchangeintheoutputwererecorded.Inthisgroupoveraperiodof14monthstherewasanaverageriseofoutputintheproduction.Therefore,theresearchteamexplainedthatthefourthhypothesiswasalsorejectedsinceitwasnotwagesbutsomethingelsethatledtogreateroutputinboththegroups.Thisconclusion,ledtotestofthelasthypothesis.Sincetheresearch teamconsistedofadifferentsetofmanagers, therewasaperceptiblechangeandtheatmospherewasmorerelaxedandcongenial.Thegirlswereallowedto talk freelyandsupervisorsalsotookpersonalinterest.Abettersocialsituationdevelopedwithinthegroupandtheexperiment-orientedsupervisorwasnotregardedastheboss.Thesecondimportantfactorwas themodifiedmanagerial practices.Workerswere consulted and advised aboutchangesandtheirviewswereconsidered.Thisprocessallowedtheworkerstofeelfreetoairtheir problems and they established new interpersonal contactswith their fellowworkersandsupervisor.

Mayo and his team had re-discovered Robert Owen, who earlier, advocated moreattention to theworkers as against themachines by themill owners.Mayo felt thatworksatisfactiondependstoalargeextentontheinformalsocialpatternofthegroup.Hethoughtthatthesupervisorcouldbetrainedtoplayadifferentrole,whichwouldhelphimtotakeapersonal interest in the subordinates and discharge his duties better than earlier. He alsonotedthattheworkershouldbemadetocomeoutopenlywiththeirneeds,interactfreelyandwithoutfearwithcompanyofficials.Improvingmoraleistobecloselyassociatedwiththestyleofsupervision.Thislinkbetweensupervision,moraleandproductivitybecamethefoundation stone of thehuman relationmovement. These experimentswerehailed as theGreatIlluminationbecauseithadthrownlightonthenewareasofindustrialrelations.

HumanAttitudesandSentiments(1928-31)

In1928,theHarvardstudyteamstartedinthesameplant,aspecialstudyofhumanattitudesandsentiments.Theworkerswereaskedtoexpressfreelyandfranklytheirlikesanddislikeson the programmes and policies of themanagement,working conditions, how theyweretreatedbytheirboss,etc.Inthebeginningtheinterviewschedulewastightbutastherewasno direct relation between the subject matter and the views of workers, the interviewtechniquewaschanged.Theinterviewerplayedaminorrole.Afterabriefinitialexplanationofthetopic,hedisplayedrealinterestineverythingtheworkersspoke.Thischangecaughttheimaginationoftheemployeesandeachoneofthemtookmoretimethantheydidearlierin answering the schedule. After a few days there was a change in the attitude of theworkers. Although no reforms were introduced, the workers thought in view of theircomplaints that theworking conditionswere changed.They also felt that thewageswerebetter although thewage scale remained at the same level. It appeared that therewas anopportunityto‘letoffsteam’whichmadetheworkersfeelbettereventhoughtherewasnomaterialchangeintheenvironment.

After interviewing21,126workers, thecomplaintswereanalysedanditwasfoundthattherewasnocorrelationbetweenthenatureofcomplaintsandthefacts.Theresearchteamconcluded that therewere two types of complaints: themanifestmaterial complaints andlatentpsychologicalcomplaint.TheHarvardteamfeltthatthepre-occupationoftheworkerwith personal problems like family tragedies, sickness etc., which Mayo labelled as‘pessimistic reveries’ in his early research, inhibited the performance in the industry. Thestudysucceededinidentifyingthefollowingthreeaspects:

First,theworkersappreciatedthemethodofcollectingtheinformationontheproblemsofthecompanyfromthem.Theythought they had valuable comments to offer and felt elated on the feeling that they had an equal status withmanagement.Theyrealisedthattheywereallowedtoexpressthemselvesfreelyandfeltsatisfiedwithit.Theyentertainedafeelingthattheconditionsintheenvironmentwerechangedtothebetteralthoughnosuchchangetookplace.

Second,therewasachangeintheattitudeofthesupervisorsbecausetheyrealisedthattheirmethodofsupervisionwascloselyobservedbytheresearchteamandthesubordinateswereallowedtocommentfreelyabouttheirsupervisor.

Third,theresearchteamrealisedthattheyhadacquirednewskillsinunderstandinganddealingwiththeirfellowbeings.Itwas felt that in the absence of proper appreciation of the feelings and sentiments of theworkers itwas difficult tounderstandtheirrealproblems,personalfeelingsandsentimentsderivedfrombothanemployee’spersonalhistoryandhissocialsituationatwork.

SocialOrganisation(1931-32)The final phase of the research programme atWestern Electricwas to observe a group ofworkers performing a task in a natural setting. An observation method was adopted toanalysethegroupbehaviour.Anumberofemployeesconsistingofthreegroupsofworkmenwhoseworkwas inter-relatedwere chosen. Their jobwas to solder, fix the terminals andfinish thewiring. Itwasknownas ‘theBankWiringExperiment’.Wageswerepaidon thebasisofagroupincentiveplanandeachmembergothisshareonthebasisoftotaloutputofthe group. It was found that the workers had a clear-cut standard of output, which waslowerthanmanagementtarget.Thegroup,accordingtoitsstandardplan,didnotallowitsmemberstoincreaseordecreasetheoutput.Althoughtheywerecapableofproducingmore,theoutputwashelddowntomaintainauniformrateofoutput.Theywerehighlyintegratedwiththeirsocialstructureandinformalpressurewasusedtosetrighttheerringmembers.Thefollowingcodeofconductwasmaintainedforgroupsolidarity:• Oneshouldnotturnouttoomuchwork.Ifonedoes,heisa‘ratebuster’.

• Oneshouldnotturnouttoolittlework.Ifonedoes,heisa‘chesler’.• Oneshouldnottellasupervisoranythingdetrimentaltoanassociate.Ifonedoes,heisa

‘squealer’.• Oneshouldnotattempttomaintainsocialdistanceoractofficious.Ifoneisaninspector,

forexample,heshouldnotactlikeone.7

MayoandhisHarvardteamfoundoutthatthebehaviouroftheteamhadnothingtodowith management of general economic conditions of the plant. The workers viewed theinterference of the extra departmental personnel, such as ‘efficiency men’ and other‘technologists’ as disturbance. They thought that the experts follow the logic of efficiencywith a constraint on their group activity. Further, the supervisors were considered as aseparatecategoryrepresentingauthoritytodisciplinetheworkers.Thelogicofefficiencydidnot go well with the logic of sentiments, which had become the cornerstone of ‘socialsystem’.

Mayo and his colleagues concluded that one should not miss the human aspects oforganisationswhileemphasisingtechnicalandeconomicaspects.TheHawthorneexperiencesuggestedanewmixofmanagerialskills.Inadditiontothetechnicalskills,themanagementshouldhandlehumansituations,motivate, leadandcommunicatewith theworkers.MayoalsofeltthatoveremphasisonthetechnicalprogressandmateriallifeattheexpenseofsocialandhumanlifewasnotgoodandlaidtheblameatthefeetofDavidRicardoandhis‘rabblehypotheses’.Mayosuggestedthattheconceptofauthorityshouldbebasedonsocialskillsinsecuringcooperationratherthanexpertise.

AbsenteeismintheIndustriesDuring the SecondWorldWar,Mayo came across a typical problem faced by the foundryshopsinthreeindustrialundertakingsmanufacturingimportantcomponentsforaircrafts.Inviewofthewarsituation,therewasall-rounddislocationinseveralwalksoflife,includingtheindustrialestablishments.Peoplemigratedfromindustrytoarmedforcesorjoinedotherspeculativeactivities,whichresultedinanuncertainsituation.Theturnoveroflabourinthetwoindustrieswasmorethan70percentandabsenteeismwaschronicwhilethesituationinthe remaining industry was, however, better. Alarmed at this state of affairs, themanagements requested Mayo to study the problem of heavy turnover and unjustifiedabsenteeismandsuggestremedialmeasures.Theresearchbeganin1943.

On the basis of Hawthorne experience, Mayo and his research team found a fewdistinctive characteristics in the three plants. In the industry in which turnover wasminimumandabsenteeismwasnegligible, themanagementwasfoundtohaveintroducedgroupwage scheme andmade it clear thatworkerswould earn groupwagewithout anyshortfallinanyshiftinaday.Intheeventofanyshortfallinanyshift,thecutinwageswasuniformlyapplied.Therefore,alltheworkersbecamealertandformedintoagroupunderanatural leaderwhodevoted timeandenergy in consolidating thegroupsolidarity.Now itwastheturnoftheemployeestoensuresmoothfunctioningof thewheelsof the industry.Mayofoundouthowaninformalgroupdemonstrateditsstrengthandcapacityinraisingthelevelofproductionbycooperatingwith themanagement. In thepresentcase, thepositiveresponsewaspossiblebecausethesupervisorsandhisassistantsweretoobusyotherwiseandrarelypaidanyvisittothedepartment.Alltheworkwasunderthechargeofamanwhohadnoofficialstandingandthispersonemergedasanatural leaderoftheteam.Inthecaseofother two factories there were neither informal groups nor natural leaders to knit theworkers into a team. They were unable to form a team because of certain personal

eccentricities,astheywerenotgivenanopportunitytoformaninformalteam.Hence,therewas a heavy turnover and labour absenteeism in the production centres of the industries.Mayoprescribedthattotheextentpossiblethemanagementshouldencourageformationofinformal groups and treat the problems of the worker with humane understanding. Hesuggested that the workers should be treated as human beings but not as cogs in themachine.Thelabourshouldnotdevelopafeelingthattheyweresubjecttoexploitationbythe management.8 Mayo thought the managements should take the initiative in thedevelopmentofhumanrelationsintheindustryandencourageaconducivesituationamongtheindustrialworkers.

ThesignificanceoftheHawthornestudieswasindiscoveringtheinformalorganisation.Mayo was also interested in discovering as to how spontaneous cooperation could beencouraged in organisations, so that organisational objectives may be achieved withoutbreakdowns.Hisstudiesledtoarealisationandunderstandingofthehumanfactorinworksituations, importance of an adequate communication system, particularly upwards fromworkerstomanagement.9

CriticismMayoandhisresearchfindingsweresubjecttobittercriticism.Firstly,theywerecriticisedonthegroundthatthetheorytriedtosubstitutehumanrelations-oriented-supervisorsforunionrepresentation.Hewascriticisedfornotunderstandingtheroleofunionsinafreesociety.10ItwasarguedthatMayonevertriedtointegrateunionsintohisthinkingandwascriticisedas anti-union and pro-management. In fact, in 1949, United Auto Workers lashed out atMayoismwithbittercriticismandbrandedtheHawthorneresearchersas‘cowsociologists’.Secondly,sweepingconclusionsweredrawnfromarelativelyfewstudieswhich,somecriticspointedout,werefullofpitfalls.

CriticslikeCareypointedoutthattheHawthornegroupselectedintheirfirstexperiment‘cooperative’girlswhowerewillingtoparticipateintheresearchprogrammeandthistypeofresearchwas‘worthless’,sinceasampleoffiveorsixcannotbetakenasareliablesampleto make generalisations. Carey also observed that the evidence obtained from theexperiments does not support any of the conclusions derived by the Hawthorneinvestigators.Thereexistsavastdiscrepancybetweentheevidenceandtheconclusions.Onthe other hand, the data only supports, according to Carey, the old view of monetaryincentives, leadership anddiscipline asmotivating factors for better performance.He alsocriticisedHawthorne’sinvestigationsfortheirlackofscientificbase.11

Peter Drucker criticised human relationists for their lack of awareness of economicdimension.HefeltthattheHarvardgroupneglectedthenatureofworkandinsteadfocusedon interpersonal relations.12Mayowas criticised for his sentimental concentration on themembersofanorganisationtotheneglectofitsworkandpurposes,andageneralsoftnessandlackofdirection.13Mayowascriticisedasencouragingapaternalisticdominationoftheprivate livesandeven theprivate thoughtsof individualsby theiremployers.14The criticsargue that therewasnoplace inMayo’sphilosophy for conflict, andhe sought toachieveorganisationalharmonythroughthesubordinationofindividualandthegroupinterestsbytheadministrativeelite.15

BendixandFisherarguedthatMayo’sfailureasasocialscientistarisesinlargemeasurefromhisfailuretodefinesharplytheethicalpre-suppositionsofhisscientificwork.Withoutmakingpre-suppositionsclear,theknowledgeandskill,whichMayofindssoundervaluedin

democratic societies, deserve no higher rating than they get.16 Daniel Sellwas one of thebittercriticsofthehumanrelationstheorypropoundedbyMayoandhiscolleagues.Hesaidthemethodologyadoptedby theHarvardgroupwasdefective.Otherspointedout that tothink that a conflict-free state and worker contentment would lead to success of thecompany was not tenable because some tensions and conflicts were inevitable in everyhuman situation. The goal should be to provide healthy outlets instead of indulging inutopianidealsofconflict-freesociety.Therefore,thecriticsarguedthattheteamdisplayedatotallackofawarenessoflargersocialandtechnologicalsystems.17

ConclusionThecontributionofMayotoadministrativeorganisationtheoryisinnovativeandsubstantial.Forthefirst time,hemadeanattempttounderstandtheproblemsoftheindustrial labourfrom an angle different from the traditional approach of scientific management era. Inaddition to human relations in organisations, Mayo critically examined the employee-employer relations, stability of the labour, supervision, etc., of the industrial workers.AlthoughthedetailedanalysisofhisworkwasconductedbyhisassociatesintheHawthornePlantandelsewhere,hewas themovingspiritbehindall theseattemptsatvarious stages.TheHawthorne studies soonbecamehistoric and a landmark in administrative thought.18The studies, as Drucker has put it, “are still the best, the most advanced and the mostcompleteworks in the fieldofhumanrelations. Indeed, it isdebatable,whether themanyrefinementsaddedsincebythelabourofcountlesspeopleintheindustry,labourunionsandacademic lifehave clarifiedorobserved theoriginal insight”. 19The contributionsofMayoareimmenselyusefulnotonlytotheindustrialsectorbutalsointheadministrativesystemofastate,particularlyinthecaseofbureaucracy.Hisworkalsopavedthewayforadequatecommunicationsystembetween the lowerrungsof theorganisationand thehigher levels.Hismain emphasiswas on the individualwell-beingwith the help of social skills in anyorganisation.The total contributionofMayo is suchaphenomenon thathe is regardedasoneof the founding fathersofhuman relations concept in the administrative thought.Hewas a behavioural scientist long before the term becamepopular.20 Taken as awhole, thesignificance of Hawthorne investigations by Mayo was in ‘discovering’ the informalorganisation,which it isnowrealised, exists inall organisations.The importanceofgroupaffecting the behaviour of workers at work was brilliantly analysed through theseexperiments.

InBriefEltonMayo’scontributiontoorganisationtheorycanbesummarisedas:• EltonMayoiswell-knownforhisHawthorneexperimentsandconsideredasoneofthe

pioneersofhumanrelationsapproachtoorganisation.• Mayo’s early experiments were concentrated on fatigue, accidents, rest periods,

production levels,etc.,of the industrialworkers in the factories.Hisstudies resulted innewawakeningquestioningthe‘rabblehypothesis’,whichassumesmankindasahordeofunorganisedindividualsactuatedbyself-interest.

• TheGreatIlluminationexperimentsatHawthornePlantofWesternElectricalCompany,popularlyknownasHawthornestudies,mainlyfocusedonunderstandingthecauseandeffect relationship between the physical work, environment, well-being and theproductivityoftheworker.Thelaterstudyknownas‘bankwiring’equipmentfocusedon

groupbehaviourinaworksituation.• Mayo, based on extensive studies, concluded that theworkers’ productivity is not the

resultofworkingconditionsbut the resultofemotional responseof theworkers to theworkperformed.

• Mayo’s studies at Hawthorne found that there is a continuous increase in theproductivity ofworkersunder observation in spite ofpositive andnegative changes inthe working conditions. This phenomenon, called ‘Hawthorne Effect’, is a form ofreaction whereby subjects improve their behaviour being experimentally measured inresponse to the fact that they are being observed, not in response to any particularexperimentalmanipulation.

• Mayo and his colleagues concluded that one should not miss the human aspects oforganisations. They emphasised that the group behaviour and dynamics in industrialorganisationsgreatlyinfluencetheproductivityoftheworker.

• Thestudiesrecognisedtheimportanceofinformalgroupsinorganisations.Theeffectofinformal groups was closely observed in the experiments. The experiments show thepositiveeffectsoftreatingtheworkerwithhumanunderstandingandconcludethattheyaffecttheproductivity.

• The studies were criticised for drawing generalisations based on limited sample anddiscrepancies between the evidence and the conclusions. Mayo’s studies were alsocriticisedfor their failuretotake intoaccountthe impactof largereconomic,socialandtechnologicalfactorsontheproductivityofworkerinorganisations.

• Mayo and his colleagues should be credited with significant contribution to therealisationofimportanceofhumanrelationsinworksituations.Theexperimentsledtoabetterappreciationoftheroleofinformalorganisationsandinternalgroupdynamicsinthefunctioningorganisations.

References1 FordetailsofMayo’slifeandworkseeWood,JohnD.andWood,MichaelD.,(Eds.),GorgeEltonMayo:CriticalEvaluations

inBusinessandManagement, London, Rutledge, 2004.Also see, Fry, BrainR.,MasteringPublicAdministration: FromMaxWebertoDwightWaldo,Chatham,NJ,ChathamHousePublishers,1989,pp.123-125.http://adbonline.anu/biogs/A100454b.htm;

2 ImportantbooksofMayoinclude:TheHumanProblemsofIndustrialCivilization,Boston,HarvardBusinessSchool,1946,2nded.;TheSocialProblemsofIndustrialCivilization,London,Routledge&KeganPaul,1975;ThePoliticalProblemsofIndustrialCivilization, Boston, Harvard Business School, 1974. For details of his studies, bibliography of his works and a criticalevaluationofhiscontributionseethevariousarticlesinWood,JohnD.andWood,MichaelD.,(Eds.),op.cit.

3 Mayo,Elton,“ReveryandIndustrialFatigue,”PersonnelJournal,Vol.3,No.8,December1924,p.280,quotedinFry,BrainR.,op.cit.,p.135.

4 Ibid.5 FordetailsoftheHawthorne’sexperimentssee,Roethlisberger,FritzJ.,andDickson,WilliamJ.,ManagementandtheWorker,

Cambridge,Mass,HarvardUniversityPress,1939,SeealsoMayo,Elton,TheHumanProblemsofIndustrialCivilization,op.cit.,L.UrwickandE.F.L.Brech,TheMakingofScientificManagement,London,SirIsaacPitman&Sons,Ltd.,1955,Vol.III.

6 Roethlisberger,FritzJ.,andDickson,WilliamJ.,op.cit.,pp.86-89.7 Ibid.,p.522.8 Gross,BertramM.,TheManagingofOrganisations:TheAdministrativeStruggle,Vol.I,NewYork,FreePress,1964,p.166.9 Pugh,D.S.,etal.,WritersonOrganisations,PenguinBooks,1971,pp.129-130.10 Sheppard,HaroldL.,“TheTreatmentofUnionisminManagerialSociology”,AmericanSociologicalReview,Vol.14,No.2,

April1949,pp.310-313.11 SeeCarey,Alex,“TheHawthorneStudies:ARadicalCriticism”,AmericanSociologicalReview,Vol.32,No.3,June1967,pp.

403-416.SeealsoMiller,DelbertandForm,William,IndustrialSociology,NewYork,Harper1951,pp.74-83.12 Drucker,PeterF.,ThePracticeofManagement,London,MercuryBooks,1961,pp.272-273.13 Baker,R.J.S.,AdministrativeTheoryandPublicAdministration,London,HutchinsonUniversityLibrary,1972,p.44.14 Whyte,WilliamH.,TheOrganisationMan,Penguin,1960,pp.36-40,and45-46.15 InternationalEncyclopediaoftheSocialSciences,Vol.10,p.83.16 Bendix,ReinhardandFisher,LloydH.,“ThePerspectiveofEltonMayo”TheReviewofEconomicandStatistics,Vol.31.No.4

November1949,p.319.17 FordetailsofcriticismsseeWren,DanielA.,TheEvolutionofManagementThought,NewYork,TheRonaldPressCompany,

1972,pp.370-381.SeealsoKnowles,WilliamH.,“HumanRelationsinIndustry:ResearchandConcepts”,inHuneryager,S.G.,andHeckmann,I.L.,(Ed.),HumanRelationsinManagement,Bombay,D.B.TaraporewalaSons&Co.P.Ltd.1972,pp.31-58.

18 Gross,BertramM.,op.cit.,p.160.19 Drucker,PeterF.,op.cit.pp.268-269.20 Pugh,D.S.,etal.,op.cit.,p.129.

C

10CHESTERBARNARD

P.A.JamesA.AmrutaRao

IntroductionhesterBarnard,abusinessexecutive,publicadministratorandauthorofmanagementandorganisation theories, is one of the very few administrative theoristswho propounded

managementandorganisationaltheoriesandprinciplesbasedonpersonalexperience.Heisconsidered the spiritual father of the ‘social system’ school, which influenced manyorganisational thinkers of the last century.1 His outstanding classic ‘The Functions of theExecutive’,wasbasedonaseriesoflectureshegaveonadministrationattheLowellInstituteat Boston and is a compulsory reading in all public administration, management andorganisation studies across the globe. As BertramGross noted, Barnard is one of the fewtheorists inmodern administrative thoughtwhowas highly successful as aman of affairsandalsoasatheoretician.2

(1886-1961)

LifeandWorksChester Irving Barnard (1886-1961), born at Malden, Massachusetts, USA in a family ofmodestmeans, had towork very hard for his livelihood.He joined as an apprentice to apiano tuner andwhileworking he prepared for the pre-school and joined the prestigiousMount Herman School. In 1906, he joined Harvard and majored in economics andgovernment. Though he successfully completed his studies by 1909, he failed to obtain adegreeontechnicalgrounds-becauseoflackoftraininginscienceandhisinabilitytomasterchemistry. 3 To support his studies financially he undertook diverse tasks like typing,conductingdanceorchestra,etc. In1909,he joinedasastatisticianwiththeBellTelephoneCompanyandwaspromotedasaCommercialmanagerin1915.In1922,hebecameAssistantVice-president andGeneralManager of the Bell TelephoneCompany at Pennsylvania andwas promoted as Vice-president of the company after four years. In 1928, he becamePresident of the Bell Telephone Company of New Jersey at the age of forty-one and

continueduntil1948.AfterretirementfromtheBellCompany,heworkedasPresidentoftheRockefeller Foundation (1948-52)4 and Chairman, National Science Foundation (1952-54).DuringhislongcareerwiththeTelephoneCompany,hewasalsoassociatedwithvoluntarypublic service. He worked with the New Jersey Emergency Relief Fund and New JerseyReformatory. During the SecondWorldWar he was the president of the United ServicesOrganisation (1942-45), Director of the National War Fund and member of the NavalManpower Survey Committee. He also served as Assistant to the Secretary of Treasury,Consultant FederalOffice of Science Research andDevelopment,MemberAtomic EnergyCommittee,Director,NationalBureauofEconomicResearchandmemberontheBoardsofseveral companies. Thus he occupied many positions both in government and privateadministrations.Hisexperiencesinvariouscapacitiesandindifferentorganisationsaffordedhimanopportunitytounderstandadministrativeprocesses inthegovernment.Despitehisnotearninga‘degree’,hewasawardedseveralhonorarydegreesbyprestigiousuniversitieslike Princeton, Pennsylvania, Brown and Rutgers. During his long career he authored hismostinfluentialandbestknownclassicTheFunctionsoftheExecutiveandpublished37papers5andearnedadistinctplaceinthehistoryofadministrativethought.

Barnard spent considerable time in understanding and analysing management. OliverSheldon,EltonMayo,M.P.Follett,etc.,inspiredhisthinking.Whilebeinganactivemanager,hetaughtinvariousuniversitiesinUnitedStatesandpublishedbooksonmanagement.6HisThe Functions of the Executive brought him fame and continues to be the most thought-provokingbookonorganisationandmanagementeverwrittenbyapracticingexecutive.ItisthedirectoutcomeofBarnard’sfailuretofindanadequateexplanationofhisownexecutiveexperienceinclassicorganisationsoreconomictheory.7TheFunctionsreflectsBarnard’swidereadingsinpsychology,sociology,socialpsychology,economics,anthropology,law,politicaltheory and philosophy of science.8 The reasons for the endurance of Barnard’s thought,according toAndrews, is his stamina in abstract thought, his capacity to apply reason forprofessional experiences, and his probable sensitivity and expertness in practice. 9 TheimpactofBarnard’sthoughtisconsiderablebothontheoryandpracticeofmanagementandhasinspiredanumberofoutstandingthinkerslikeSimon.AsMahoneynotedthatBarnardcombines twocultures– thescienceoforganisationandtheartoforganisingandhisbookwaswrittenforposterity.10

OrganisationasaSystemofHumanCooperationBarnard viewed the organisations as systems of cooperation of human activity. But theindividualhumanbeingpossessesalimitedpowerofchoiceandisconstrainedbyfactorsofthe total situation for cooperation. Themost important limiting factors in the situation ofeachindividualarehisownbiologicallimitations,othersbeingphysicalandsocial.Themosteffectivemethodofovercomingtheselimitations,accordingtoBarnard,iscooperativesocialaction. This requires that he adopts a group or non-personal purpose and takes intoconsideration the process of interaction. With the basic premise that individuals mustcooperate,Barnardbuildshistheoryoforganisation.

Rejectingtheolddefinitionsoforganisationasemphasisingmembership,Barnarddefinesorganisation as a system of consciously coordinated activities or forces of two or morepersons.11 In this definition, he emphasises the system of interactions. It is a systemcomposedoftheactivitiesofhumanbeings,asysteminwhichthewholeisalwaysgreater

thanthesumofitspartsandeachpartisrelatedtoeveryotherpartinsomesignificantway.As a system, it is held together by some common purpose by the willingness of certainpeopletocontributetotheoperationoftheorganisation,andbytheabilityofsuchpeopletocommunicatewitheachother.12

Raising the question as to why an individual should contribute his activities to theoperationsofanyorganisation,Barnardstronglydisapprovestheconceptofeconomicman13and propounds the theory of contribution-satisfaction equilibrium. Contributions, whichmay be regarded in terms of organisation as activities, are possible only when it isadvantageous to individuals in terms of personal satisfaction. Barnard says that if eachpersongetsbackonlywhatheputs in, there isno incentive, that is,nonetsatisfaction forhim in cooperation.What he gets backmust give him advantage in terms of satisfaction;which almost always means return in a different form from what he contributes.14 Thesatisfactionwhichan individualreceives inexchangeforhiscontributionmayberegardedfrom the view of organisation as inducement or incentive. Barnard, while rejecting theviewpointthatmanismainlymotivatedbyeconomicincentives,analysesthemultiplicityofsatisfactionsandidentifiesfourspecificinducements.Theyare:15

• materialinducementssuchasmoney,thingsorphysicalconditions;• personalnon-materialopportunitiesfordistinction,prestigeandpersonalpower;• desirablephysicalconditionsofwork;and• ideal benefactions, such as the pride of workmanship, sense of adequacy, altruistic

serviceforfamilyorothers,loyaltytoorganisationinpatriotism.Barnardalsomentionsfourtypesof‘generalincentives’.Theyare:• associationalattractivenessbaseduponcompatibilitywithassociates;• adoptionofworkingconditionstohabitualmethodsandattitudes;• opportunityforthefeelingofenlargedparticipationinthecourseofevents;and• conditions of communicating with others, a condition based on personal comfort in

socialrelationsandtheopportunityforcomradeshipandformutualsupportinpersonalattitudes.16

Indiscussingtherelationshipbetweenthespecificinducements,Barnardmaintainsthateconomic rewards are ineffective beyond the subsistence level. He also says that theinducements cannot be appliedmechanically, and their proportion depends on particularsituations, time and individuals. The arrangement of inducements is a dynamic process,requiring experiences and imagination. Barnard feels that the primary function of theexecutiveistohandletheeconomyofincentiveswithinanorganisation.

FormalandInformalOrganisationsBarnard defines formal organisations, as we have seen earlier, as a system of consciouslycoordinatedactivities or forcesof twoormorepersons.Organisation comes into existenceonlywhen(1)therearepersonsabletocommunicatewitheachother,(2)whoarewillingtocontributeaction,(3)toaccomplishacommonpurpose.Thuscommunications,willingnesstoserveandcommonpurposearethethreeelementsinaformalorganisation.Therecanbenoorganisationwithoutpersons.Morethanthepersonstheirservicesoractsshouldbetreatedas constitutinganorganisation.Willingness canbeexpressed in termsof loyalty, solidarityandstrengthoforganisation.Itimplies,surrenderofpersonalconductanddepersonalisationofpersonalaction.

Barnardmaintains that inamodernsociety“thecontributors toanorganisationalwaysareonlyasmallminorityactuallyhavingpositivewillingness,”andamajorityisnegativeintheir commitment. More importantly, the commitment of individuals always fluctuates,therebycreatingunstableconditionsinorganisations.Willingness,positiveornegative,istheexpressionofthenetsatisfactionordissatisfactionexperiencedbyeachindividual.Fromtheviewpoint of the individual, willingness may be the joint effect of personal desires andreluctance and from the point of organisation, it is the joint effect of the objectiveinducementsofferedandtheburdensimposed.

Forcooperation,theremustalwaysbeanobjectiveor‘purpose’.Thenecessitytohaveapurpose is axiomatic, implicit in the words “system, coordination, and cooperation”. Thepurpose need not always be specific; sometimes it can be inferred. Unless a purpose isaccepted by all those whose efforts constitute the organisation, it will not stimulatecooperative action. It may be useful to distinguish between the cooperative and thesubjectiveaspectsofpurpose.Apurposecanserveasanelementofacooperativesystemaslong as theparticipants note that there is no seriousdivergence of their understandingofthatpurposeastheobjectofcooperation.ToBarnard,anobjectivepurposethatcanserveasthebasis for a cooperative system is theone that is believedby the contributors tobe thedetermined purpose of the organisation.17 Again, a distinction has to be made betweenorganisational purpose and individualmotive. Individualmotive is internal, personal andsubjective.Commonpurposeisimpersonal,externalandobjective.Theoneexceptiontothegeneralruleisthattheaccomplishmentofanorganisationpurposebecomesitselfasourceofpersonalsatisfactionandamotiveformanyindividualsinmanyorganisations.18

In organisations, the accomplishment of a common purpose through the personscontributing towards it can be achieved only through ‘communication’. This is a dynamicprocess,whichtranslatespurposeintoaction.Themethodsofcommunicationmaybeverbal,orwrittenorobservational.Theabsenceofsuitabletechniquesofcommunicationeliminatesadoptingsomepurposeasthebasisfororganisation.

The formal organisations as systems are part of a wider social system withinterdependencieswithdynamicchangesandtheorganisationsaremorethanthesumofitsconstituent parts. 19 Barnard identifies four characteristics of formal organisations viz.,systems,depersonalisation,specialisationandinformalorganisations.20 Inorganisationstheefforts of the individuals are ‘depersonalised’ in that they are determined by theorganisations than the individual. Specialisation is another characteristic and in thisBarnard’sanalysis ismoreor lessonthe linesofGulick’sanalysisof fourbasesofpurpose,process,personnelandplace.21Andlastly,Barnardarguesthat inallcomplexorgnisationsthereexistsaninformalorganisation.

InformalOrganisationsIndividuals in the organisation continuously interact based on their personal relationshipsrather than the organisational purpose. Such interaction may be due to the gregariousinstinct or fulfillment of some personal desire. Because of the continuous nature ofinteractions, relations become systematised and they result intowhat are called ‘informalorganisations’.Barnarddescribesinformalorganisationsastheaggregateofpersonalcontactsand interactions and the associated grouping of people. Such organisations are indefinite,structurelessandareashapelessmassofvarieddensities.Such informalorganisationswillhave a serious impact on the members of the formal organisations, thereby bringing a

continuous interaction between formal and informal organisations. An informalorganisation, tobe effective,must always establish formal organisationswithin it. In turn,formal organisation creates informal organisations as a means of communication and toprotecttheindividualsfromthedominationoftheformalorganisation.InBarnard’sword,“theyareinterdependentaspectsofthesamephenomenon-asocietyisstructuredbyformalorganisations, formal organisations are vitalised and conditioned by informalorganisations”.22 What is asserted is that there cannot be one without the other. If oneorganisationfails,theotherwillnecessarilydisintegrate.

Though the relationship between formal and informal organisations appears to be acontradictionintheverynatureoftheirdefinitions,itisafactofvitalimportance.Itisonlywhentheindividualshavethediscretiontoexercisetheirpersonalchoiceunimpairedbythepurposesoftheformalorganisations,onecansafeguardthepersonalityandcontributetotheformal organisation to realise its purpose.Many executives with ample experience eitherdeny or neglect the existence of the informal organisation within their own formalorganisation. This may be due to their pre-occupation with the problems of the formalorganisationorreluctancetoaccepttheexistenceofwhatisdifficulttodefineordescribe.Itmay be noted that the organisations are quite unaware of the widespread influences,attitudes and agitation within their own organisations. This is equally true of politicalorganisations, governments, army, churches and universities. To Barnard, one cannotunderstandanorganisation from theorganisation chart or its rules and regulationsornoteven by watching its personnel. It is important to learn the organisation ropes - “inorganisation-thatischieflylearningwho’swho,what’swhatandwhy’swhyofitsinformalsociety”.23 Barnard considers communication, maintenance of cohesiveness throughregulating the willingness to learn and the ability of the objective authority, andmaintenanceofthefeelingofpersonalintegrity,self-respectandindependentchoicearethefunctionsofinformalorganisations.24Barnardfeelsthatinformalorganisationsshouldnotbeviewedasavoidableevilandassertsthatwheretheydonotexist,theyneedtobecreatedastheyperformanumberoffunctionstosustaintheformalorganisations.

TheoryofAuthorityBarnard’s conceptualisation of authority is most significant. He did not agree with thetraditional concept of authority and introduces ‘acceptance’ as the basis of authority. Hedefinestheauthorityas“thecharacterofacommunication(order)inaformalorganisationby virtue ofwhich it is accepted by a contributor to, or ‘member’ of, the organisation asgoverningtheactionhecontributes;thatisasdeterminingwhathedoesorisnottodosofarastheorganisationisconcerned”.25Thisdefinitionhasbothsubjectiveandobjectiveaspects.Theformerimpliesacceptanceofacommunicationasauthority.Thelatterisconcernedwiththecharacterinthecommunicationbyvirtueofwhichitisaccepted.Theindividualsintheorganisation accept authority only when the following four conditions obtainsimultaneously:26

1. Whenthecommunicationisunderstood::Unlessthecommunicationsareintelligible,theycannotbeunderstoodandinconsequencehavenoauthority.Orders issuedingeneralterms encounter problems of interpretation, and implementation. As mostcommunications inorganisationsaregeneralandunintelligible,Barnardsays,mostofthetimeisspentininterpretationandreinterpretationoforderstoconcretesituations.

2. Consistencywiththeorganisationalpurpose:Anycommunication,notcompatiblewiththe

purposeoftheorganisation,isunlikelytobeaccepted.Becauseofthecrosspurposes,itmay result in frustrated action. An intelligent person will deny authority if heunderstands that it is a contradiction with the purposes of the organisation. Anyapparentconflicthastobeexplained,otherwise,ordersarenotlikelytobeexecuted.

3. Compatibility with personal interests: If the communications are detrimental to thepersonalinterestsoftheindividuals,theyhavelittlechanceofbeingaccepted.Similarly,theordersshouldalsoprovidepositiveinducementstotheindividualtomotivatethem.Orelsetheorderswouldbedisobeyedorevadedasinconsistentwithpersonalinterest.Thecaseofvoluntaryresignationsfromorganisationscanbeexplainedonthisbasis.

4. Physicalandmentalabilitytocomply:Incaseswhereapersonisunabletocomplywithanorder, it will generally be disobeyed or disregarded. Therefore, orders should not bebeyondthementalandphysicalcapacityoftheindividuals.

From the foregoing, it is evident that the determination of authority lies with thesubordinate. Then question is how to ensure enduring cooperation of an individual in anorganisation.AccordingtoBarnard,itispossibleunderthreeconditions:(a)whentheordersissuedinorganisationsareinaccordancewiththefourconditionsdiscussedabove;(b)whenthe orders fall within the ‘zone of indifference’; and (c) when the group influences theindividual resulting in the stability of the zone of indifference. The principle of goodexecutiveconduct is thattheordersthatcannotbeobeyedshouldnotbeissued.Whentheissue of orders, which are initially or apparently unacceptable, becomes necessary, then apreliminary educationorpersuasive efforts or offeringof inducements shouldbemade sothattheissueisnotraised,resultingintheacceptanceofauthority.

ZoneofIndifferenceTheacceptanceofauthorityinorganisations,asnoted,dependsonthezoneofindifference.Iftheordersarearrangedinorderoftheiracceptabilitytothepersonaffected,theyfallintothreedifferentcategories,viz.,(1)thosewhichwillclearlybeunacceptableandnotobeyed,(2) thosewhich are onneutral line i.e., either just acceptable or justunacceptable, and (3)thosewhichareunquestionablyacceptable.Orders,whichfallunderthelastcategory,comewithinthe‘zoneofindifference’.27Aslongastheordersfallwithinthis‘zone’,theywillbeacceptedby the individualsunmindfulof thenatureofauthority.Thezoneof indifferencewillvarydependingupontheinducementsofferedandtheburdensandsacrificesmadebytheindividualsintheorganisation.Itisclearthatwhentheinducementsarenotadequate,therangeofordersthatwillbeacceptedwillbelimited.Theexecutivesintheorganisationshouldbeconsciousofthe‘zone’andissueonlythoseorders,whichfallwithinthe‘zone’.Todootherwisewouldbetoopenthemselvestothechargethattheydonotknowhowtouseauthorityorareabusingit.28Acceptanceoftheauthorityisalsobasedontherealisationthatdenying the authority of an organisation communication is a threat to the interests of allindividualswhoderiveanetadvantagefromtheirconnectionwiththeorganisation.

TheFictionofAuthorityTheefficiencyofanorganisationdependsonthedegreetowhichtheindividualsaccepttheorders.Normally,theauthorityofacommunicationwillnotbedenied,astheyknowitisathreat toall individualswhoreceiveanetbenefit fromtheorganisation.Therefore,atanytime, the contributors have an active personal interest in the orders, which to them arewithinthezoneof indifference.This interest ismaintained largelybecauseof the informalorganisation.Itmayalsobeduetopublicororganisationalopinion,feelingintheranksor

groupattitude.29Thefictionofauthorityestablishesthepresumptionthatindividualacceptsorders from superiors because theywant to avoidmaking issue of such orders and avoidincurring personal subservience or loss of personal status with their colleagues. Thecontributorsaccept theauthorityofcommunication,ascare is taken toseeonlyacceptablecommunicationsare issued;mostofthemfallwithinthezoneofpersonal indifferenceandthecommunalsenseinfluencesthemotivesofthecontributors.

The fiction of superior authority appears to be necessary for two reasons. Firstly, thefiction of authority enables the individual to delegate upward or to the organisation,responsibilityforwhatisanorganisationdecision.Mostpersonsobeyauthoritybecausetheydislikethepersonalresponsibilitywhentheyarenotinapositiontoacceptit.Thedifficultiesin the operation of the organisation lie in the reluctance of the individuals to take theresponsibility for their own actions in organisation, and not in the excessive desire ofindividuals to assume responsibility for organisational action. Secondly, the fiction driveshomethepointthatwhatisatstakeisthegoodoftheorganisation.Disobeyingauthorityforarbitraryreasonsand twistingorganisational requirements forpersonaladvantagemustbeconstruedasdeliberateattackontheorganisationitself.AccordingtoBarnard,“tofailinanobligation intentionally is an act of hostility”. No organisation will permit it and it willrespondwithpunitiveaction.

Barnardholdstheviewthatasuperiorisnotanauthorityand,strictlyspeakinghemaynothaveanyauthority.Acommunicationmaynotbeauthoritativeunlessitisaneffortoranaction of the organisation. In fact, assent of those to whom the communications are sentdetermines the character of the authority. Authoritative official communications are onlyrelated to organisational action.Theyhavenomeaning to thosewhose actionsdonot fallwithinthecooperativesystem.For instance, the lawsofonecountryhavenoauthority forcitizensofanother.

Authority is imputed to communications from superiors if they are consistent and arecredited to the positions. This authority is independent of the personal ability of theincumbent.Sometimeseveniftheincumbenthaslimitedpersonalability,hisadvicemaybesuperior by reason of the advantage of the position he occupies. This may be called theauthority of position. But some men have superior ability and they command respect,irrespective of their position because of their knowledge and understanding.Authority isimputedtowhattheysayinanorganisationforthisreason.Thismaybecalledtheauthorityofleadership.

The determination of the authority finally remains with the individuals. A leader canhaveauthorityaslongasheisadequatelyinformed.Authoritydepends,however,uponthecooperativepersonalattitudesoftheindividualsanduponthesystemofcommunicationinthe organisation. If a system results in inadequate, contradictory and inept orders, manyadherentsofanorganisationwillquit,becausetheycannotunderstandwhoiswhoandwhatiswhatandaredeprivedofthesenseofeffectivecoordination.Thefollowingfactorscontrolthecharacterofthecommunicationsystemasasystemofobjectiveauthority:30

1. Thechannelsofcommunicationshouldbedefinite;2. Objective authority requires a definite formal channel of communication to every

memberofanorganisation;3. Thelineofcommunicationshouldbeasdirectandasshortaspossible;4. Thecompletelineofcommunicationshouldusuallybeused;5. Thecompetenceofthepersonsservingascommunicationcentres,thatis,officersand

supervisoryheadsshouldbeadequate;6. The line of communication should not be interrupted during the time when the

organisationisfunctioning;and7. Everycommunicationshouldbeauthenticated.

ResponsibilityBarnard examines responsibility in a greater detail, along with authority. To him,responsibility is themost important function of the executive.He examines responsibilityfromthepointofviewofmoralityanddefinesitasthepowerofaparticularprivatecodeofmoralstocontroltheconductoftheindividualsinthepresenceofstrongcontrarydesiresorimpulses.31Responsibilityisnotdeterminedbyanyonesinglemoralcodebutbyacomplexset of moral, legal, technical, professional, and institutional codes. Therefore, these codesalwaysregulatetheworkingoforganisations.Inthisprocessofregulation,theinternalmoralsanctionofindividualsismoreeffectivethantheexternalsanctions.Sinceindividualconductorbehaviourisgovernedbyacomplexofcodes,itmayresultinconflicts.Thisisparticularlysowithcodeshavingsubstantiallyequalvalidity.Suchconflictsmayresultin32:1. the paralysis of action accompanied by emotional tension, and ending in a sense of

frustration,blockade,uncertainty,orinlossofdecisivenessandlackofconfidence;or2. thereisconformitytoonecodeandviolationoftheotherresultinginasenseofguilt,

discomfort,dissatisfaction,oralossofrespect;or3. findsomesubstituteactionwhichsatisfiesimmediatedesireorimpulseorinterest,or

thedictatesofonecode,andyetconformstoallothercodes.Barnardarguesthatexecutiveactionsarealwaysconditionedbytheconceptsofmorality.

Butbusiness is totallyunaffectedby thehigher conceptsofmorality.Therefore,heargues,that more and more research needs to be undertaken on this important aspect of therelations between executive behaviour and principles of morality. He feels that largeorganisations cannot be operatedunless responsibility isdelegated. 33 Buthe laments thatoneofthegreatweaknessofTheFunctionsoftheExecutiveisthatitdidnotadequatelyaddressthequestionofresponsibilityanditsdelegationandemphasisistoomuchonauthority.34

Decision-MakingOrganisations take decisions to achieve the purposes for which they come into being.Barnard defines decisions as acts of individuals which are the result of deliberation,calculationandthoughtinvolvingtheorderingofmeanstoends.35Therearetwotypesofdecisions-personalandorganisational.Theformerrelatestotheparticipationorotherwisein the organisational process and are taken outside the organisation based on incentivesorganisations offer and they need not necessarily be logical. On the other hand, theorganisationaldecisionsrelatetotheorganisationalpurpose,information-based,logicalandcanbedelegated.Theyaretheresultofdiscrimination,analysisandchoice.Decision-makingin organisations, according to Barnard, is a specialised process. He emphasises thatorganisationaldecisionsneednotalwaysbepositive.Thisisclearwhenhesaysthatthe‘fineart of executive decision consists in not deciding questions that are not pertinent, in notdeciding prematurely, in not making decisions that cannot be made effective and in notmakingdecisionsthatothersshouldmake’.36Basedonhislongyearsofexperience,Barnardsays that decision-making in orgnisations is a burdensome task. For fear of criticism, theexecutives avoid taking decisions and there is also a tendency not to delegate decisional

powersresultingintheexecutivesbeingoverwhelmedwiththeburdensofdecision-making.

TheExecutiveFunctionsIn organisations, executivesperformvarious functionsnecessary to ensure coordination ofthecooperativesystem.Theyalsoactaschannelsofcommunication.However,alltheworkundertakenbythem,accordingtoBarnard,isnotexecutivework.Quiteoften,theexecutivemay undertake certain functions like the Vice-Chancellor giving classroom lectures or amanagersellingtheproducts,whichcannotbecalledexecutivework.ToBarnard,executiveworkinvolvesaspecialisedworkofmaintainingtheorganisationinoperation.Theexecutivefunctionsarelikethoseofthenervoussystem,includingthebraininrelationtotherestofthebody.Barnardclassifiedthefunctionsoftheexecutiveunderthreeheadsviz.,• formulationofpurposeandobjectives;• maintenanceoforganisationcommunication;and• securingessentialservicesfromtheindividuals.37

FormulationofPurposeandObjectivesThefirstfunctionoftheexecutiveistoformulateanddefinepurpose,objectivesandendsoftheorganisation.Thepurposeoftheorganisationmustbeacceptedbyallthecontributorstothesystem.Purposemustbesubdividedintofragmentsandspecificobjectivesmustreflectthedetailedpurposesandactions.Thepurposecanbegeographic,socialandfunctional,andasingleexecutivecanaccomplishandcandoonlythatpartofitwhichrelatestohisposition.Assumptionofresponsibilityanddelegationofauthorityarecrucialaspectsofthefunctionsoftheexecutive.Ateverylevelbelow,purpose,objectivesanddirectiongetredefinedwithreferencetothatlevel,thetimeandtheresultstobeaccomplished.Allthismayinvolveupand down communications, reporting obstacles, difficulties, impossibilities,accomplishments,redefiningandmodifyingpurposes,levelafterlevel.

Purposeisdefinedintermsofspecificationoftheworktobedoneandspecificationsaremadewhenandwhereworkisbeingdone.Thepurposebecomesmoreandmoregeneralasunitsoforganisationbecomelargerandmoreandmoreremote.Responsibilityforlongrundecisions is delegated up the line and responsibility for action remains at the base. Theformulationanddefinitionofpurposeisawidelydistributedfunctionandonlythegeneralpart of which is executive. The formulation and redefining of purpose requires sensitivesystemsofcommunication,imagination,experienceandinterpretation.Thefunctionsoftheexecutive are elements in anorganicwhole and their combinationmakes anorganisation.The combination involves two inducements to action: (a) executive functions are partlydeterminedbytheenvironmentoftheorganisation,and(b)itdependsonthemaintenanceofvitalityofaction,thatis,thewilltoeffort.Inshort,theexecutiveroleismainlyrelatedtothesynthesisofphysical,biologicalandsocialfactors.

MaintenanceofOrganisationCommunicationThisfunctionhasthreeimportantphases.Thefirstisdefiningthe‘schemeoforganisation’ordefiningtheorganisationalpositions;secondismaintainingapersonnelsystemandthethirdis securing an informal organisation. The scheme of organisation deals with theorganisational charts, specification of duties and division of labour. It also representssecuring the coordination of work by dividing the purpose into subsidiary purposes,specialisationandtasks.Itisalsorelatedtothekindandqualityofservicesofthepersonnelthatcanbebroughtunderacooperativesystem.Theinducementsthataretobeofferedare

alsorelevant.Butdefiningtheschemeoforganisationororganisationalpositionsisoflittleconsequenceunless therearepeople to fill thepositions.Theprocess includes, toBarnard,the selection of men and offering of incentives, techniques of control permittingeffectivenessinpromoting,demotinganddismissingmen.

Thepersonnelrecruitedfororganisationalpositionsshouldbeloyalandpossessspecificpersonal abilities. These abilities are of two kinds: general abilities involving alertness,comprehensiveness of interest, flexibility, faculty of adjustment, poise and courage; andspecialised abilities based on aptitudes and acquired techniques. The first two phases arebothcomplementaryandaredependentoneachother.Since,accordingtoBarnard,menareneither good nor bad but become good or bad in particular positions, there is need torestructuretheorganisations,takingintoconsiderationtheavailablemanpower.

The informal organisations promote themeans of organisational communication.Withgood informal organisations, the need for formal decisions gets reduced except inemergencies. Even a formal order implies the informal agreement. The executives mustalways try to avoid orders, which are clearly unacceptable and should deal with suchsituations through informal means. The informal organisations perform the followingfunctions:• communicate unintelligible facts, opinions, suggestions and suspicions which cannot

easilypassthroughformalchannels;• minimiseexcessiveclicksofpoliticalinfluence;• promoteself-disciplineofthegroup;and• makepossiblethedevelopmentofimportantpersonalinfluencesintheorganisation.

SecuringtheEssentialServicesfromIndividualsThetaskofsecuringessentialservicesfromindividualshastwomainaspects,viz.,bringingofpersonsintocooperativerelationshipwiththeorganisation,andelicitingofservicesafterthey have been brought into that relationship. These are achieved bymaintainingmoraleandbyprovidingincentives,deterrents,supervision,control,educationandtraining.Everyorganisation,inordertosurvive,mustdeliberatelyattendtothemaintenanceandgrowthofits authority, to do things necessary for coordination, effectiveness and efficiency. Barnarduses ‘efficiency’ in the specialised sense of an organisation’s capacity to offer effectiveinducementsinsufficientquantitytomaintaintheequilibriumofthesystem.

LeadershipBarnard attaches significance to leadership in organisations as it is critical to achieve‘cooperation’. To him the cooperation is the creative process and the leadership is the‘indispensable fulminator’of its forces.38Oneof the functionsof the leader is to createanenvironment thatwill facilitate commitment of themembers to the organisation. Barnardarguesthataleadershouldbearealistandshouldrecognisetheneedforactionevenwhenoutcomescannotbeforeseen.Heshouldalsobean idealist topursuethegoalswhichmaynotbeachievedintheimmediatefuture.39Barnardlistsoutfiveessentialqualitiesofaleaderviz., vitality and endurance, decisiveness, persuasiveness, responsibility and intellectualcapacity.

OrganisationalScienceBarnardbelieved that it ispossible todevelopascienceoforganisation.Heargued for theintegration of two cultures of management - its science and art. To develop a science of

organisation requires understanding of social anthropology, sociology, social psychology,institutional economics,management, etc. It also requireshigherorder intellect.40 Intellectbyitselfisnotenough;it isalsonecessarytoinculcateasenseofunityandcreatecommonideals.

Evaluation

KennethAndrews,whowroteahighlycomplementary introductiontoTheFunctionsof theExecutive, provides some of the criticisms levelled on Barnard’s work. They includeabstractness of the presentation, the paucity and pedestrian quality of examples and thedifficultstyleasthemainweaknessesofthebook.41Bakerconsiderstheabsenceofpracticalexamples fromexperienceasunfortunate. 42Barnardwho is consciousof these limitationsfeelsthattheorising,andwhenit isbeingaddressedtosomanygroupsofwidelydifferentattitudes and experience, a certain amount of abstractness is inevitable. Barnardacknowledgesthesedeficiencies.43

EventhoughBarnardconsiderspurposeascentraltothecooperativeeffort,Andrewsfeltthat he has not given full descriptive or prescriptive attention to the process of itsformulation.Barnard’sdefinitionofauthority,accordingtoAndrews,understatestheroleofobjective authority and appears to assign individuals the choice of acceptance or rejectionrather than participation in the active integration of conflicting alternatives andinterpretations. He further says that leadership is effectively but abstractly examined; itsproblemsarenotanalysed.44

Barnard argues that the individuals make utilitarian decisions based on availableincentives.MatthewEnsor,ontheotherhandargues,thatthepsychologicalperspectiveseesthekeytocooperationastheavoidanceofregressivebehaviouranditisthefunctionoftheexecutivetoprovideanenvironmentwheretheindividualsintheorganisationcanexaminethemselvesand thecontextof theirwork fromacollectiveperspective. 45Thisperspectivealsochallengestheexecutivetotakeamoreholisticroleinenablingongoingorganisationalchange. Barnard also did not attempt to resolve the apparent paradoxes in the relationsbetween man and organisation is another criticism. Instead, Fry, observes, that Barnardacceptstheinevitabletensionsintherelationshipwhileseekingabalancebetweentheneedsoftheindividualandtheorganisation.46

Notwithstandingthecriticisms,cooperationasabasicnecessityofhumanlifeandasthecause of human development is profoundly elucidated by Chester Barnard. The physical,biologicalandsocialfactorsaffectingcooperativeactionandthefunctionsoftheexecutivetofacilitatethecooperativeeffortarebrilliantlyanalysedwithpracticalwisdom.Anumberofhisremarks,conclusionsandevaluationsdemonstrateanunusuallyprofoundunderstandingofthecomplexityoforganisationprocesses.Thepointhemakesabouttheconstantneedtoconsider strategic factors in taking managerial decisions is worthy of attention, so is hisformulationofthezoneofindifference.Hisacceptanceconceptofauthority,leadershipasaprocess of fulfilling the purposes of organisation and management by consent have animmensecontemporaryvalueandstrengthenthedemocraticspiritinthemodernworld.

Barnarddismantles theoutdatedconceptof ‘economicman’andeffectivelyapplies theideasofMayoandotherhumanrelationsthinkerstomiddleandtoplevelsofmanagement.Inanageoforganisations,hisanalysisofformalandinformalorganisationsandtheirmutualinteractionhaspracticalutilityandscientificvaluetoeveryoneinterestedinunderstandingsocial problems. His theories, though abstract, are of practical importance to modern

executives interested in the effective and efficient functioning of the organisation or inmaintainingtheorganisationinoperation.TheviewsofBarnardstillholdrelevancebecausetheyarethecombinationofintellectandexperienceandaretheoutcomeofrationalanalysisof thereality,viewingthesituationasawhole.The impactofhis ideas is indisputableandTheFunctionsisoneofthemostwidelycitedintheliteratureonorganisationsandcontinuesto have substantial influence. 47 Barnard’s contribution was a conscious effort towards a‘science of organisation’ 48 and he combines the science of organisation with the art oforganising.

InBriefChesterBarnard’scontributiontoorganisationandmanagementcanbesummedupas:• ChesterBarnard,anAmericanbusinessexecutive,isconsideredasthespiritualfatherof

“socialsystem”school.Hisclassic“TheFunctionsof theExecutive” is themost influentialworkinadministrativeandmanagementtheory.

• Barnard viewed the organisations as systems of cooperation of human activity andproposedthetheoryof“contribution-satisfaction-equilibrium”asthebasisforindividualcontributiontoorganisations.Barnardrejectedthetheoryofeconomicmanandanalysedmultiplicityofsatisfactionsandinducementsasthebasisforactionsinorganisations.

• He examined the role of informal organisations and considers them as essential andcomplementarytoformalorganisations.

• Barnard’sconceptualisationofauthorityismostsignificant.Introducing“acceptance”asthebasisofauthority,heexplainstheconditionsofacceptanceandproposestheconceptof“ZoneofIndifference”asthebasisforacceptanceoforders.Elaboratingonthenatureofexerciseofauthority,Barnarddescribesthefeaturesofcommunicationsystemformingthebasisofobjectiveauthority.

• Barnard examines responsibility from the point of view of morality and considersinternal moral sanctions as more effective than external sanctions in controllingindividualbehaviourinorganisations.

• Elaborating the functionsof executive,Barnardclassified themunder threeheadsviz.,formulationofpurposeandobjectives;maintenanceoforganisationcommunication;andsecuringessentialservicesfromtheindividual.

• Barnardbelievedthat it ispossible todevelopascienceoforganisation.Hearguedfortheintegrationoftwoculturesofmanagementi.e.,scienceandart.

• The criticisms of Barnard’s work include abstractness of ideas and the paucity andpedestrian nature of examples. Barnard’s views on authority are criticised forunderstatingtheroleofobjectiveauthorityandforgivinganimpressionthatindividualswillhaveanoptiontoacceptorrejectauthorityinorganisations.

• The impact of Barnard’s ideas is very extensive both on theory and practice ofmanagementandadministration.His theoryofauthority,roleof informalorganisationsand functions of executive are of practical relevance to modern organisation andpractitioners.

References1 Gvishiani,D.,OrganisationandManagement:ASociologicalAnalysisofWesternTheories,Moscow,ProgressPublishers,1972,p.

38.2 Gross,BertramM.,TheManagingofOrganisations:TheAdministrativeStruggle,Vol.1,NewYork,TheFreePressofGlencoe,

1964,p.1713 Fry,BrainR.,MasteringPublicAdministration:FromMaxWebertoDwightWaldo,Chatham,N.J,ChathamHousePublishers,

1989,p.158.Forbiographicaldetails seeWolf,WilliamB.,TheBasicBarnard:AnIntroductiontoChesterI.BarnardandHisTheories ofOrganisationandManagement, Ithaca,N.Y.NewYork State School of Industrial andLaborRelations,CornellUniversity,1974.

4 See also Sheldrake, John,Management Theory: From Taylorism to Japanisation, London, International Thompson BusinessPress,1966,pp.117-119.

5 Fry,BrainR.,op.cit.p.159.ForadetailedlistofBarnard’sarticles,lectures,andmanuscriptsofBarnardseeWolf,WilliamB.,TheBasicBarnard,op.cit.,Appendix1.

6 Two of his most important books are: Barnard, Chester I., The Functions of the Executive, Cambridge, Massachusetts,HarvardUniversityPress,1938;OrganisationandManagement,Cambridge,Massachusetts,HarvardUniversityPress,1948.HislastpublishedwritingisElementaryConditionsofBusinessMoralsbasedonalecturegivenin1958.Barnard,ChesterI.,TheFunctionsoftheExecutive,Cambridge,Massachusetts,HarvardUniversityPress,1938,p.x.

7 Barnard,ChesterI.,TheFunctionsoftheExecutive,op.cit.,p.x.8 Mahoney, Joseph T., “The Relevance of Chester I. Barnard’s Teachings to Contemporary Management Education:

Communicating theAestheticsofManagement”, InternationalJournalofOrganisationTheory&Behaviour,Vol.5,No.1&2,2002,p.162.

9 KennethR.AndrewsinChesterI.Barnard,TheFunctionsoftheExecutive,op.cit.,p.xii.10 Mahoney,JosephT.,op.cit.,p.160.11 Barnard,ChesterI.,TheFunctionsoftheExecutive,op.cit.,p.72-73.12 Ibid.,pp.82-91.13 Barnard,ChesterI.,OrganisationandManagement,op.cit.,p.15.14 Ibid.,p.58.15 Barnard,ChesterI.,TheFunctionsoftheExecutive,op.cit.pp.142-146.16 Ibid.,pp.146-149.17 Ibid.,p.87.18 Ibid.,p.89.19 Ibid.,p.79.20 Fry,BrainR.,op.cit.pp162-6421 Ibid.22 Barnard,ChesterI.,TheFunctionsoftheExecutive,op.cit.p.120.23 Ibid.,pp.12124 Ibid.,pp.122.25 Ibid.,p.163.26 Ibid.,pp.165-166.27 Ibid.,pp.168-69.28 Ibid.,p.168.29 Ibid.,p.169.30 Ibid.,pp.175-181.SeealsoGross,BertramM.,op.cit.,pp.178-179.31 Barnard,ChesterI.,TheFunctionsoftheExecutive,op.cit.,p.263.32 Ibid.,264.33 See,Wolf,William,B.,ConversationswithChester I.Barnard, School of IndustrialLaborRelations:CornellUniversity, ILR

PaperbackNumber12,Ithaca,NY,1973,p.35.34 Ibid.,p.1535 Barnard,ChesterI.,TheFunctionsoftheExecutive,op.cit.,p.185.36 Ibid.,194.37 Ibid.,pp.175-181.38 Ibid,p.25939 Barnard,ChesterI.,OrganisationandManagement,op.cit.,pp.109-11040 Barnard,ChesterI.,TheFunctionsoftheExecutive,op.cit.,p.293.41 Ibid,p.xii.

42 Baker,R.J.S.,AdministrativeTheoryandPublicAdministration,London,HutchinsonUniversityLibrary,1972,p.48.43 Andrews,KennethR.,op.cit.,p.xii;andChesterBarnard’spreface,p.xxxiii.44 Andrews,KennethR.,op.cit.,p.xiv.45 Ensor,Matthew, A Psychoanalytical Critique of Chester I. Barnard’s “The Functions of the Executive”, September, 2002 See

http://homepages.paradise.net.nz/ensor/papers/barnard.pdfRetrievedon13thJanuary,201046 Fry,BrainR.,op.cit.,p.178.47 Andrews,KennethR.,op.cit.,p.vii.48 Mahoney,JosephT.,op.cit.,pp.159-172.

A

11HERBERTSIMON

N.Umapathy

Introductiondministrativestudiesinthe1930sandthe40sreflectasignificantamountofempiricism,which led to a substantialmodification in the previously held views aboutman in an

organisation. These studies have built theoretical constructs of social systems and someessentialnotionsofhumanbehaviour.Thesebehaviouralstudiesdealwithhumanbehaviourthroughinterdisciplinaryapproachdrawingfromtheknowledgeavailableinanthropology,sociologyandpsychologyandhavebecomeapartofthevitaldevelopmentthatisgenerallylabelled as behavioural science. In the field of administrative behaviour, major studiespertain to bureaucracy, human relations, motivation and decision-making. A polymathicintellectual, Herbert Simon’s contribution has been particularly significant in the field ofdecision-makingandheisconsideredafoundingfigureinthefieldofartificialintelligence,acreatorofthinkingmachine,acentralfigureinthecognitiverevolutioninpsychologyinthe1960swhencomputermodelsbegan tobeused tostudy the thoughtprocessesofhumans.His pioneering studies on decision-making led him to develop a theory of boundedrationality.

(1916-2001)

LifeandWorksHerbertAlexanderSimon(1916-2001),borninMilwaukee,Wisconsin,enteredtheUniversityofChicagoin1933andstudiedsocialsciencesandmathematics.HeobtainedB.A.(1936)andPh.D (1943) in political science with a major field in public administration from theUniversityofChicago.Simonstartedhisprofessional career in1936with the InternationalCityManager’sAssociationas anassistant toClarenceE.Ridley,moved toAdministrativeMeasurementStudiesattheBureauofPublicAdministration,UniversityofCaliforniaasitsDirector in1939. In1942,he joinedasAssociateProfessorofPoliticalScienceat theIllinois

Institute of Technologywhere hewas chairman of theDepartment of Political and SocialSciences during 1946-49. He became Professor of Administration and Psychology at thefamousCarnegieMellonUniversityin1949andlaterbecameProfessorofComputerScienceandPsychologyattheRichardKingMellonUniversityandremainedthereuntilhisdeath.Hisirrevocableandindelibleinfluencecouldbeseeninseveralschoolsanddepartmentsofthe university including philosophy, Social and Design Sciences, Graduate School ofIndustrialAdministration, theHeinz School of Public Policy, School ofComputer Science,etc.HewasalsoamemberoftheBoardofTrusteesoftheUniversity.

Simon was associated with several public organisations including Bureau of Budget,Census Bureau, Economic Cooperation Administration, President’s Science AdvisoryCommittee,AmericanSocialScienceResearchCouncil,etc.Hewasassociatedwithseveralother government and business organisations and professional associations of politicalscience,economics,psychology,sociology,computerscience,management,philosophy,etc.,signifyingthathewasatruesocialscientist.

Simon did not remain a political scientist for long. In 1949’s he began work ineconometrics, inmid 50’s he started researching in psychology of problem solvingwhichearnedhimAmericanPsychologyAssociation’sLifeTimeAchievementAwardand inmid50’swrotehisfirstcomputerprogrammewhichbroughthimtheAMTuringAward(1975).For his pioneering program research on decision-making process within economicorganisations Simon received the Noble Prize in Economics (1978), Simon received theDistinguished Scientific Contribution Award of the American Psychological Association(1969),NationalMedal of Science (1986),American PsychologicalAssociation’sAward forOutstandingLifetimeContribution (1993), inducted into theChineseAcademyofSciences(1994), Research Excellence Award of the International Joint Conference on ArtificialIntelligence (1995),membershipofNationalAcademyofScience,andawards fromseveralprofessionalorganisationsincludingAmericanSocietyofPublicAdministration.

Simon was influenced by Follett’s idea on group dynamics in organisations and thehuman relations approach pioneered by EltonMayo and others. Barnard’sFunctions of theExecutivehadapositiveinfluenceonSimon’sthinkingaboutadministration.Simonisoneofthemostinfluentialsocialscientistsandhisroleinshapingthe20thcenturysocialscienceswasunparalleled.1Hewasanindefatigableadvocateofsocialsciencesandanexemplar2ofamodern scientist. He was called a scientist’s scientist and received major awards fromdifferent science communities.3Heauthoredover 1,000highly citedpublications,manyofwhichwere translated into various languages includingTurkish, Persian andChinese.Hispublications,ifneedtobeclassifiedintodisciplines,includepublicadministration,politicalscience, operation research, management, system’s theory, organisation theory, decisiontheory, economics and econometrics, sociology, social psychology, cognitive psychology,socio-biology,mathematics,philosophy,linguisticsandcomputerscience.4Humandecision-making and problem solving processes and the implications of these processes to socialinstitutions provide the thread of continuity in all his studies. Simon started his researchwork in the 30’s on city management that later culminated into a book titledMeasuringMunicipal Activities in 1938.5 Simon published his doctoral dissertation as AdministrativeBehaviour6in1947anditisoneofthetwentiethcentury’stentopmostinfluentialworksinpolitical science, public administration and management. This, along with his later workOrganisation(1958),becameastapleincoursesonbusinesseducation,publicadministration

andorganisationalsociology.7Hisotherprincipalpublications includePublicAdministration(1950),FundamentalResearch inAdministration (1953),TheNewScienceofManagementDecision(1960), Shape of Automation (1960), Science of the Artificial (1969) andHuman Problem Solving(1972).8Simonreceivedhonorarydegreesfromovertwodozenuniversitiesfromaroundtheworld including Harvard, Columbia, Yale and Chicago (United States), Lund (Sweden),McGill(Canada),andtheNetherlandSchoolofEconomics.9

AdministrativeScienceSimon sought to develop a science of administration and unlike classicists made humandecision-makingas the central themeofhis studiesall throughhis life.He considered thedecision-making as a process of drawing conclusions from premises and therefore thepremisethanthewholedecisionservesastheunitofanalysis.10Heequated‘administration’withdecision-makingandlaidemphasisonhowdecisionsaremadeandhowtheybemademoreeffectively.Inadditiontothemajoremphasisondecision-makingasthealternativetothe‘principlesapproach’ofthetraditionalists,Simonrecommendedanempiricalapproachto the studyof administration.Heoffers a seriesofhypotheticalpropositionsof empiricalrelevance.Heconsideredtheconceptsof‘efficiency’and‘economy’asserviceablecriteriaofadministrativeeffectivenessinthecontextoftheoreticallydemonstrable‘means-endschainconstructs’.11

Basedontheoriesandmethodologyoflogicalpositivism,Simonproposedanewconceptofadministrationwithfocusondecision-making.Hearguedthatdecision-makingisthecoreof administrative action. The shift in emphasis from the ‘doer’ to decision-making inadministration is not novel. The exponents of ‘classical’ school had earlier separated‘technology from operation’ in their administrative theories. But this does notmean thatSimon’s contribution is less significantashiswritingsaided in the fullerunderstandingoftheadministrativephenomena.AnotherreasonfortheacceptanceandpopularityofSimon’stheorywasduetoitsapparentsubsumingofseveraladministrativefunctionssuchasFayol’sPOCCandGulick’sPOSDCORBintoasingleallembracingconceptofdecision-making.

Simondisapprovedpolicy-administrationdichotomybothondescriptiveandnormativegrounds and in its place proposed, based on his decision-making schema, fact-valuedichotomy, which he believed provides a better basis for a science of administration. ToSimon, a science of administration should be based on factual premises of administrativedecisions.Thisisimportantforthedevelopmentofascienceofadministration.12Thisshouldbe based on systematic, empirical investigation and analysis, inductive and descriptivemethods.Hetalksoftwokindsofadministrativesciences-pureandpractical-andobservesthatthelatterassiststheadministrationindecision-making.Simonbelievedthatthescienceof administration is applicable tobothprivate andpublicorganisationsas theyhavemoresimilarities than differences.13 He argued that the first task to develop an administrativetheory is to develop concepts that permit the description of administrative situations, 14whichprovidethebasisforprescription.ToSimon‘untiladministrativedescriptionreachesahigherlevelofsophistication,thereislittlereasontohopethatrapidprogresswillbemadetowardtheidentificationandverificationofvalidadministrativeprinciples’.15

ClassicalTheory:AnIndictmentSimonpassesacriticalindictmentonthenarrownessandsterilityofthetraditionalapproach

andthe‘principles’ofadministrationandcallsthemasproverbsandmyths.16Inthisattack,asBertramGrossnoted,Simongaveexpressiontothewidespreaddisenchantmentofmanypeople,bothacademicsandpractitioners,whoweredisturbedbytheyawninggulfbetweentheprinciplesandeffectivepractice.17Simonsaysthatwhenresearchhasbeendone,whenabasic vocabulary to the satisfaction ofmany scholars has been developed,when decision-makingaswellasthe‘doing’havebeenanalysed,whenthelimitstorationalityimposedbyrestrictingabilities,habits,values,andknowledgehavebeenexploredfully-thenandonlythen-itmaybepossibletohavevalidprinciplesofadministrationandknow-howtoapplythem.18 The principles of work division, unity of command and span of control wereattacked as being ambiguous and as mere proverbs, each paired with a contradictoryproverb.Thereasonforsuchanambiguity,accordingtoSimonisthe‘inadequate’diagnosisofsituationsanddefinitionsoftermsandlackofdetailedresearchintorealsituations.19Hesaysthattheseprinciplesaremorelikeaseriesoforderlycubiclescontrivedaccordingtoanabstractarchitecturallogicthanofahousedesignedtobeinhabitedbythehumanbeing.HefindsnocompatibilitybetweentheperfectionofadministrativeprocessesasconceivedinthePOSDCORBformula,andtheirutilityintheattainmentofobjectives.Throughtheseattacks,Simonpointstothegapbetweentheprinciplesandpractice.Themissingfactor,accordingtohim, is correctdecision-making,bywhichhemeant theoptimumrational choicebetweenalternative courses of action. Thus begins his search for rational decision-making modelsfromwhichguidestorealworlddecision-makingmightbederived.

Decision-MakingAnorganisationisviewedbySimonasastructureofdecision-makers.Tohimdecisionsaremadeatall levelsoftheorganisation,someofthemaffectingmanymembers,whileothersare relatively less importantdecisions aboutdetail.Eachdecision is basedonanumberofpremisesandSimon focuseshisattentiononhowthesepremisesaredetermined.Someofthesepremisespertaintothedecision-maker’spreferences;sometohissocialconditioning,and others to the communications he receives from component units of the organisation.Simonassertsthatthetopmanagementcannotdictatetoeverymemberoftheorganisationwhateachdecisionmustbe,butitcaninfluencesome,perhapsthemostimportantpremiseson which the decisions are based. It can also create a structure which will permit andstimulatethetransmissionofnecessaryinformation.20

Decision-making process, according to Simon, involves three phases viz., intelligenceactivity-findingoccasionsfordecision-making,designactivity-findingpossiblecoursesofaction, and choice activity - choosing among courses of action.21 The first stage involvesfindingoccasions calling fordecision.The executive tries tounderstand the organisationalenvironment and identifies conditionswhichneed fresh action.The second stage involvesidentifying, developing and analysing all possible alternative courses of action involvingmoretimeandenergythanthefirststage.Finally,theexecutiveselectsoneofthealternativecoursesof actionavailable tohim.Simon says that though these three stagesappear tobesimple andonepreceding theother, inpractice the sequence ismore complex.Each stagemayinvolveallthethreestagesinitself.

FactandValueinDecision-MakingSimonmaintainsthattobescientificonemustexcludevaluejudgmentsandconcentrateonfacts,adoptprecisedefinitionofterms,applyrigorousanalysis,andtestfactualstatementsor

postulates about administration. ‘An administration science, like any science, is concernedpurelywithfactualstatements.Thereisnoplaceforethical(value)statementsinthestudyofscience.’Simonexplainsthatdecision-makingbasicallyinvolveschoicebetweenalternativeplansofaction,andchoiceinturn,involvesfactsandvalues.Tohim,everydecisionconsistsof a logical combination of fact and value propositions. A fact is a statement of realityindicating the existing deed, act or state of things. A factual premise can be proved byobservableandmeasurablemeans.Avalueisanexpressionofpreference.Avaluepremisecanonlybesubjectivelyasserted tobevalid.Simon,however, isaware thatmostpremiseshavebothfactualandvalueelementsandhispurposeofstressingthisdistinctionisonlytoclarifythedifferentcriteriaofcorrectnessthatmaybeappliedinanalysingtheethicalandfactualelementspresentina‘decision’.Heassertsthattherulesofscientificanalysis,mostparticularly the ruleofobservation,precludeethical judgementsalthoughbothvaluesandfacts are inextricably joined.Most value premises involve intermediate facts and they areopen to segregation only for purposes of illustrative analyses. To bring out the differencebetweenfactandvalue,themeans-endsdistinctionissometimesused.Simonconsidersthisphenomenonassignificantbecauseoftheamenabilityoffactstorationaldecisionasagainstvalues,whosebase,hetracesouttonon-rationalcausesuchasfaith.

Mixed issues of fact and value impinge on administration complicating the decision-process.Therelevanceofthisimpingementonadministrationistobeseeninthepurposivecharacteroforganisation,whichdevelopsgroupsof individuals toachievegoalsordinarilybeyond their individual reach. The continuum of purposiveness includes the concept of a‘hierarchy of decisions’. Simon concludes that behaviour in an organisation - a complexnetworkofdecisionprocess - is, therefore, intendedlyrational incharacter,adjustedto thegoals thathavebeenerected.Speakingof thecomplexnetworkofdecisionprocess,Simonsays that ‘eachdecision involves theselectionofagoalandabehaviourrelevant to it; thisgoalmayinturnbemediatetoasomewhatmoredistantgoal;andsoon,untilarelativelyfinal aim is reached’.22 The ambiguous synonym between means-ends and fact-value, isclarified throughadefinition that in so farasdecisions lead to the selectionof finalgoals,theymaybetreatedas‘valuejudgments’-i.e.,thevaluecomponentpredominates,andinsofaras thedecisionsrelate to implementationof suchgoals, theymaybe treatedas ‘factualjudgments’-i.e.,thefactualcomponentpredominates.23Therelationshipofadecisiontoaset of ends remains a factual proposition. Simon does not refer to ‘value decisions’ and‘factual decisions’. For, there are only value or factual premises and components and inadministrationbothvalueandfactualpremisesareintertwined.

RationalityinDecision-MakingAfterestablishingfact-valuecontinuumofdecision-making,Simondelvesintothedynamicsofdecisiononadifferentplane-theplaneofrationality.Heexpoundsthenecessityofbeingrational inmaking a choice.Hedefines rationality as one concernedwith the selection ofpreferred behaviour alternatives in terms of some system of values whereby theconsequences of behaviour can be evaluated.24 To him it requires a total knowledge andanticipation of the consequences thatwill follow on each choice. It also requires a choicefromamongallpossiblealternativebehaviours.25Heexplainsrationalityintermsofmeans-endsconstruct.Theterm‘ends’-ultimatepurpose–referstoanystateorsituation,whichislaterinapurposechainorsetofchains.Thesamestateorsituationmayalwaysbeameansfrom one point of view and an ultimate objective from another. If appropriatemeans are

chosen to reach desired ends, the decision is rational. However, there are manycomplicationstothissimpletestofrationality.For,itisdifficulttoseparatemeansfromendsbecause an apparent end may only be a means for some future end. This is commonlyreferred to as the means-ends chain hierarchy. Simon points out that “the means-endhierarchy is seldom an integrated and connected chain. Often the connection betweenorganisation activities and ultimate objectives is obscure, or they are incompletelyformulatedorthereareinternalconflictsandcontradictionsamongtheultimateobjectives,oramongthemeansselectedtoattainthem.”26Besides,seeminglyrationaldecisionsbasedoninaccurateconclusions,mayproduceundesirable,sometimes,evenunanticipatedresults.Finally,theinherentproblemsofmeans-endsanalysisaresummedupbySimonasfollows:

“First,theendstobeattainedbythechoiceofparticularbehaviouralternativeareoftenincompletelyorincorrectlystatedthroughfailuretoconsiderthealternativeendsthatcouldbereachedbyselectionofanotherbehaviour….”

“Second, in actual situations a complete separation of means from ends is usuallyimpossible….”

“Third, the means-end terminology tends to obscure the role of the time element indecision-making….”27Simondifferentiatesbetweendifferenttypesofrationality.Adecisionis:1. objectivelyrationalwhereitiscorrectbehaviourformaximisinggivenvaluesinagiven

situation;2. subjectively rational if thedecisionmaximisesattainment relative toknowledgeof the

subject;3. consciouslyrationalwhereadjustmentofmeanstoendsisaconsciousprocess;4. deliberately rational to the degree that the adjustment of means to ends has been

deliberatelybroughtabout;5. organisationallyrationalifitisorientedtotheorganisation’sgoals;and6. personallyrationalifthedecisionisdirectedtotheindividual’sgoals.28

Simondisputestheconceptoftotalrationalityinadministrativebehaviourandobservesthathumanbehaviourisneithertotallyrationalnortotallynon-rational.Itinvolves,whathecalls, ‘bounded rationality’. The bounded rationality was Simon’s building block ineverythingfrompublicadministrationtoeconomicstoartificialintelligence.Thoughitwasasimple concept, it has revolutionary implications.29 He discounts the possibility ofoptimizingdecisions,which flows fromtheconceptof total rationality.Theseconceptsarebasedontheassumptionthatthedecision-makersknowallthealternatives;theyknowtheutilities (values) of all alternatives; and they have an ordered preference among allalternatives.30AsSimonfindstheseassumptionstobe‘fundamentallywrong’,herejectsthetheory of total rationality. In the place of optimising decisions, whichwas based on totalrationality, he advances the idea of ‘satisficing’- a word derived from satisfaction andsufficing.Satisficinginvolvesthechoiceofacourseofaction,whichissatisfactoryoratleastgoodenough.

ModelsofDecision-MakingBehaviourSimon attempts at describing various models of decision-making in vogue and builds amodelincorporatinghisconcepts.Therearemanymodelsofdecision-makingbehaviourandthese models attempt to determine the extent of rationality of the decision-makers. Themodelsrangefromcompleterationalitytocomplete irrationalityoftheeconomicmanand

thesocialmanrespectively.Simondevelopsthemodelof ‘administrativeman’whostandsnexttotheeconomicman.

As the administrativeman cannot perceive all possible alternatives nor can predict allpossibleconsequences,he insteadofattempting toarriveat ‘optimal solutions’, is satisfiedwith ‘good enough’ or ‘some-how muddling through’. Again as the administrative manrecognisesthattheworldheperceivesisthesimplifiedversionoftherealworld,hemakeshis choicesusinga simplepictureof thesituation that takes intoaccount justa fewof thefactors he regards asmost relevant and crucial.31 Thus the administrativemanmakes hischoicewithout ‘examining all possible alternatives’, ‘with relatively simple rule-of-thumbthat do notmake impossible demands upon his capacity for thought’. In a sense Simon’sadministrativemantriestorationaliseman,buthedoesnothavetheabilitytomaximiseandsatisfice. However, the difference between maximising and satisficing is relative. Undercertain conditions satisficing and maximising are far apart. The construct of a modeldepictingtheadministrativemanisfollowedbyattemptsatunderstandingtheimpedimentsandobstacles thatcome in thewayofmaximisation.ToSimonresistance tochange,desirefor status quo, or dysfunctional conflicts caused by specialisation, etc., may impedemaximisation.

ProgrammedandNon-programmedDecisionsTheprocessofdecision-making inorganisationswasexaminedbySimon ingreaterdetail.He makes a distinction between two types of decisions – programmed and non-programmed.Decisionsareprogrammedtotheextentthattheyarerepetitiveandroutineinnature.Insuchcasesdefiniteprocedurescanbeworkedoutandeachdecisionneednotbedealtwithseparately.Decisionsaremadebasedonestablishedpractices.Non-programmeddecisionsarethosewhicharenovel,unstructuredandhavetobetackledindependentlyasnocut-and-driedmethodsareavailable forhandling them. Inall suchcases theexecutiveshave towork out new decisions in each case. Simon identifies characteristics common tobothkindsofdecisions.Theyincludedefinitionofthesituation,analysisofmeansandendstolinkactionstotheorganisationalobjectives,divisionofproblemsintoindependentparts,choosing the alternatives based on ‘satisficing’ than ‘optimising’ criteria, uncertaintyabsorptionandroutinisationoftheprocess.32Themajordifferencebetweenthesetwotypesis that incaseof the former theorganisationprovides thealternatives throughroutinesorstrategyandincaseofthelattertheorganisationonlyprovidestheparametersforthesearchprocedures.33

Thetechniquestodealwithprogrammeddecisionsarehabit,clericalroutines,knowledgeand skills, and informal channels. Rules-of-thumb, selection and training of executives,higher skills, judgment, innovative ability, etc., are the techniques to deal with non-programmeddecisions.Simonsuggeststhatit ispossibletoconstructmathematicalmodelsto make a rational choice. The application of mathematical tools, operations research,electronicdataprocessing,systemsanalysis,computersimulation,etc.,canprofitablybeusedto make decisions. Use of such techniques will reduce the dependency on the middlemanagerialpersonneland lead tocentralisation indecision-making.Simonargues that theuseofcomputersandthenewdecision-makingtechniqueswillleadtorecentralisation.34Hepoints out that the use of new techniques of decision-making will radically change theconceptofdelegatingresponsibilityanddecentralisingdecision-making,makingitpossibleformorerationalandcoordinatedcommunicationofdecisionsthanisotherwisepossible.35

Withtheincreaseduseofcomputersandsimulationmodelsmoreandmoredecisionscanbeprogrammed,whichinturnincreasesrationalityindecision-making.Therefore,hethinksitmost desirable to computerise as much of the decision-making process as possible. Suchautomationandrationalisationofdecision-makingwillaltertheclimateoforganisationsinmanyimportantways.Itwillalsomaketheexecutive’sworkeasierandsatisfying.36

ModesofOrganisationalInfluenceThe behaviour of organisation man is subject to two types of influences - internal andexternal.Theformerinvolvesestablishingintheemployee,attitudesandhabits,whichleadhim to reach the desired decisions. This is achieved through organisation loyalty, concernwithefficiencyandtraining.Thelatterinvolvesimposingontheemployeedecisionsreachedelsewhere in the organisation. This is achieved through authority and advisory andinformationalservices.Theindividualsaccepttheseinfluencesastheorganisationobjectivesalso indirectly become personal objectives of the individuals and acceptance of influencessatisfyingpersonalmotives.Theseinfluencesare,however,neitherexhaustivenormutuallyexclusive.37

AuthorityAuthority isoneof themeans throughwhichorganisationman ismade toconformto theorganisationaldemands.However,thegeneralimpressionthatauthorityflowsfromaboveisnot correct. For, the exercise of authority, in the ultimate analysis, depends upon thewillingnessof thosewhoaccept it. It shouldalsobenoted thatauthoritymightoperateatvarious levels and not necessarily downwards. Organisations develop both formal andinformal relations and authority is largely used to settle the disputes in the organisation.Simonsaysthattheoperativeemployeeissaidtoacceptauthoritywheneverhepermitshisbehaviour to be guided by the decision of the superior. Following Barnard’s ‘zone ofindifference’, Simon discusses about the ‘zone of acceptance’, and says that if exercise ofauthorityisattemptedbeyondthiszone,thesubordinatedisobeysit.Themagnitudeofthiszoneofacceptancedependsuponthesanctionsavailabletoenforcetheauthority.38

OrganisationalLoyaltiesIt isgenerallyobserved thatmembers inanorganisation identify themselveswith it. Suchtype of loyalty is fundamental for an organisation. Organisation loyalty fulfils a mostimportant function of making individuals in the organisation confine themselves to theirtasks insteadofprobing into thebasicsof theproblems.However,narrowloyalties lead tofriction and over competition for the resources. Nevertheless organisation loyalty rendersgroupeffortpossible.Internalinfluencesareequallyimportant.

AdviceandInformationContinuousflowofinformationdownwards,upwardsandsidewaysisessentialforeffectivefunctioning of an organisation. However, the nature of information and advice to betendered may change from situation to situation. Therefore, collecting dependableinformationandproperutilisationofitensuresgreatereffectivenessinthedecision-makingandprovidesadequatelinesofcommunicationandpersuasion.

TrainingTrainingisavitaldevicethroughwhichorganisationmanisequippedtofacechallenges.Anefficienttrainingprogrammewouldfacilitategreaterdiscretiontotheindividualindecision-

making. Training is applicable to the process of decisionwhenever the same elements areinvolved in a number of decisions. Further, training supplies facts, provides frame ofreference and indoctrinate desirable values. Thus, it can be used for developing effectivedecision-making.

AdministrativeEfficiencyTheadministrator,accordingtoSimon,mustbeguidedbythecriterionofefficiencyofthecomplicated nature of its application in governmental organisations, which are notcommercial innature.Thecriterionofefficiency‘dictates’ thatchoiceofalternative,whichproducesthelargestresultsforthegivenapplicationofresources.39 Itdemands,ofthetwoalternatives having the same cost, the one that leads to the greater attainment of theorganisationobjectivetobechosen;andofthetwoalternativesleadingtothesamedegreeofattainmentthatonewhichentailslessercostshouldbechosen.40Thecriterionofefficiencyisclosely related to both organisation and conservation of objectives. It is related to theorganisationobjectivesinsofarasitisconcernedwiththemaximisationofoutput.Itrelatesto the conservation of objectives in so far as it is concerned with the maintenance of apositivebalanceofoutputover input.41Where resources, costsandobjectivesarevariable,decisionscannotbetakenpurelyonthebasisofefficiencycriteria.However,whenthesearegiven,efficiencybecomesthecontrollingfactorofadministrativechoice.42Simoninhislaterwritings,however,downgradestheefficiencycriteria.Heapplies itonlytothe lower leveldecisions, as higher-level decisions do not lend themselves to measurement andcomparability.43While authority andorganisational loyalty influence the valuepremise ofthe individual, the criterion of efficiency influences his capacity to handle the facts.Efficiency implies adoption of shortest path and cheapestmeans in achieving the desiredgoals. “Be efficient” is one of the major influences on organisational man. This leads torationalbehaviour.

EvaluationSimon focusedon thedynamicsofdecision-makingprocesses and its role inorganisationsthrough his penetrating study and analysis. His studies provide deep insights intoadministrative behaviour and the interaction between decision-making processes andadministrativebehaviour found inorganisations.Butwhile concentratingon theprocessesand the role of decision-making, Simon relegates social, political, economic and culturalfactors into the background although their role is no less significant in the analysis ofadministrativedecision-makingandbehaviour.Similarlyexclusionofvaluepremises,whichare integral and essential components of policy-making, would steer the study of publicadministrationtomechanical,routineandlessimportantaspects.Simon’sideaoffact-basedadministrative theory, it is argued, ismore relevant tobusinessadministration thanpublicadministration.

In1945, Simondecided to revisehis thesis forpublicationand sent 200mimeographedcopies to friends for comments.Thecomments receivedon themanuscript containedbothpositive aspects as well as criticisms. On the positive side there was agreement on hisargumentthatdecision-makingistheheartofadministration.44Butsomefoundittobetooabstract, too formalistic and too functionalistic arguing that it did not take into accountpersonalmotivationsandemotions.45 JamesMcCamyfelt that individualdisappearedintoorganisation and that emotion had vanished in a puff of reason.46 The most significant

critique was Chester Barnard. While appreciating that it was the first good book onadministration, he commented that Simonwas trying toproducephysics and at the sametime trying to solve the riddle of the universe. Barnard’s criticism on Simon’smanuscriptboils down to four aspects viz., it was inconsistent in its use of the terms rational andefficient; didnot take into account the enormous amount ofuncertainty involved inmostdecisions; did not pay sufficient attention to the processes of communication withinorganisationsanddidnottakeapoliticallyneutralstance.47

Simon’scriticsmainlycontendthatalthoughthedecision-makingprocessisanimportantaspectintheorganisationalsituation,italoneisnotadequatetoexplainthetotality.Tothemdecision-making is a process involving the other dimensions - emotional or expressive aswellasrationalor instrumental.Simon’sstudyofdecision-makingincorporatesandmakesuse of the logical positivists’ distinction between fact and value. This approach has beenattackedasrevivinginanewguisethediscreditedpolitics-administrationdichotomy.48

Simon’s efforts to construct a value-free science of administration was criticised byNortonE.Longonthegroundthatitmayleadtotheunintendedandlogicallyunwarrantedresultofrevivingthepolicy-administrationdichotomyinnewverbiageandmayalsoleadtoempirically untenable and ethically unwarranted view of administration as largelyinstrumental. Long further observes that bureaucracy is not, and cannot be, a neutralinstrument solely devoted to the unmotivated presentation of facts to, and the docileexecutionofordersfrom,politicalsuperiors.49Selznickarguesthatradicalseparationoffactand value too often identified with the logical distinctions between fact statement andpreferencestatementsencouragesthedivorceofmeansandends.50

Simon’sanalysisassumesthatadministrationplaysasimilarroleinallsocieties.Butitisobservedfromexperience thatadministrativesystems indevelopingcountriesdonothavesimilarroleorientationastheircounterpartsindevelopedcountries.Therefore,developingatheorypurelyonthebasisofadministrationindevelopedcountries,moreparticularlyonthebasisofAmericanexperience,cannotbeuniversallyvalidasthefactorsaffectingdecisionalprocessandbehaviourvary.

Simon’sconceptofefficiencywassubjectedtofrequentcriticism.Somecriticisedthetermequating itwitheconomyandothersobjectedto theuseof the termonthegroundthat itleadstoamechanicalconceptofadministrationandtoaninconsistentrelationshipbetweenmeans and ends. Efficiency is not, and cannot be, the only goal of administration becausethere is a whole range of other major categories of organisational purposes, such as,satisfaction of various interests, production of goods and services, mobilizing resources,conformingwithcertainorganisedcodesandusingthemostrationaltechniques.Anyoneofthese objectives may, under certain circumstances, be more important than efficiency.Further,thegoalofefficiencymayoftendeclineinimportance.Efficiencyisrelevantonlytothe extentof scarcityof resources and itsperceptionbymembersof theorganisation. It ismeasurable in precise terms onlywhen it is possible to quantify both inputs and outputs.ThisisthereasonforSimon’slaterconclusionthatefficiencycriteriaareapplicablelargelytolowerleveldecisions.51

The study of decision-making encountersmanydifficulties. For one, executives believethat it is often unwise to reveal the reasons for a decision or the procedure followed. Foranother,bythetimetheconfidential factsarereleasedviathe ‘memoirs’route, thecaseorthematterisnolongerimportant.Nevertheless,itisgoodformenaspiringtobeexecutivestolearnhowdecisionsaremade.52

Simon’s theory of decision-making is criticised as being extremely general. Though itprovides a framework, it does not provide details to guide the organisation planners.Hisconceptofrationalityisalsocriticised.Forexample,ArgyrisopinesthatSimon,byinsistingonrationality,hasnotrecognisedtheroleofintuition,traditionandfaithindecision-making.Simon’stheoryfocusesonstatusquoante.Itusessatisficingtorationaliseincompetence.53

The utility of Simon’s study in the decision-making process in terms of search andcomparison and its criteria of maximising or satisfying, despite the criticisms, areunquestionable.Indifferencetotheeffectiveuseoffact-valuedistinctionbymanydecision-makers is no argument against its effective use by academics as a tool in the analysis ofdecision-makingphenomena.54 Simon’s contribution isundoubtedlyamajorbreakthroughintheevolutionofadministrativetheorydespitecriticismsonseveralofhispropositions.Itisunfortunate that after his major work on Administrative Behaviour, Simon did notconcentratemuch on public administrative system but diverted his attention to economicandbusiness systems. It is equallyunfortunate that the subsequentadministrative theoriesdonotadequatelydealwithdecision-makinginpublicorganisations.

InBriefSimon’scontributiontopublicadministrationtheory,particularlytheprocessanddecision-makingandbehaviour,canbesummarisedas:• HerbertSimonisoneofthemostinfluentialsocialscientistsandreceivedNobelPrizein

Economicsin1978forhispioneeringworkindecision-makingprocessinorganisations.• Based on theories and methodology of logical positivism, Simon sought to develop

scienceofadministrationwithafocusondecision-making.Heviewedorganisationasastructure of decision-makers and identified three phases in decision process viz.,intelligenceactivity,designactivityandchoiceactivity.

• Hemakesadistinctionbetween facts andvalues indecision-makingandanalyses factandvaluecontinuum.

• Simonconsideredrationalityasanimportantbasisindecisionmakingandexplainsitintermsofmeans-endsconstruct.Tohim,choiceofappropriatemeanstoreachthedesiredendisrational.Realisingtheimpossibilityoftotalrationalityinadministrativebehaviour,Simonproposedtheconceptof‘boundedrationality’.Insteadof‘optimising’hesuggests‘satisfying’asthebasisofdecisions.

• Simon describes various models of decision-making in vogue and builds a modelincorporatinghisconcepts.Hedevelopsamodelof‘administrativeman’whosedecisionsarebasedonbounded rationality in contrast to themodelof ‘economicman’basedoncompleterationalityand‘socialman’basedoncompleteirrationality.

• Simon distinguishes between programmed and non-programmed decisions. Hediscusses the techniques of two types of decisions and suggests the application ofmathematical tools, operations research, computer simulation, etc., in making rationaldecisions.Simonwasthefounderofthefieldofartificialintelligencewhichmaybeusedasatoolindecision-making.

• Discussingthemodesoforganisationalinfluences,Simonproposes‘zoneofacceptance’as the basis of exercise of authority in organisations. Simon considers efficiency – theadoptionofshortestpathandcheapestmeansinachievingthedesiredgoals–asoneofthemajorinfluencesonorganisationalman.

• Simon’s efforts to construct a value-free science of administration were criticised as

unrealistic. His theory of decision-making is criticised as inadequate to explain thetotalityoforganisation.Hisotherconceptslikefact-valuedistinctions,rationalityarealsosubjectedtocriticism.

• Simon’s studies provide deep insight into administrative behaviour in organisations;particularlyinthefieldofdecision-making.

References1 Augier,Mie,andMarch,JamesG.,“HerbertA.Simon,Scientist”,inMieAugierandJamesG.March,ModelsofMan:Essays

inMemoryofHerbertA.Simon,MITPress,2004,p.32 Ibid,p.43 Ibid,p.34 Hunter, Crowther-Heyek, Herbert A. Simon: The Bounds of Reason in Modern America, Baltimore, The Johns Hopkins

UniversityPress,2005,p.35 Ibid,p.86 Simon,HerbertA.,AdministrativeBehaviour:AStudyofDecision-MakingProcessesinAdministrativeOrganisation,NewYork,

TheFreePress,1957,2ndEd.7 Hunter,Crowther-Heyek,op.cit.,p.28 Fordetailsofhislife,worksandimpactonsocialsciencedisciplinesseethedifferentarticlesinWood,JohnD.andWood,

MichaelD.,(Eds.),HerbertSimon:CriticalEvaluationsinBusinessandManagement,3Vols.,London,Rutledge,2007.9 See also BrainR. Fry,MasteringPublicAdministration : FromMaxWeber toDwightWaldo, Chatham,NJ,ChathamHouse

Publishers,1989.10 Simon,HerbertA.,AdministrativeBehaviour,op.cit.,p.xii.11 Hoselitz,BertF.,(Ed.),AReader’sGuidetotheSocialSciences,NewYork,TheFreePress,1970,pp.156-157.12 Fry,BrainR.,op.cit.,pp.186-188.13 Ibid.14 Simon,HerbertA.,AdministrativeBehaviour,op.cit.,p.37.15 Ibid.,p.3816 For details of Simon’s indictment of principles see Simon, Herbert A., ‘The Proverbs of Public Administration,’ Public

AdministrationReview, Vol.6,No. 1,Winter 1946, pp.53-67; Simon,HerbertA.,AdministrativeBehaviour, op. cit., Ch. II;March,JamesG.,andSimon,HerbertA.,Organisations,NewYork,JohnWiley&Sons,Inc,1958,Ch.II.

17 Gross,BertramM.,TheManagingofOrganisations:TheAdministrativeStruggle,London,TheFreePressofGlencoe,1964,p.182.

18 Henderson,KeithM.,EmergingSynthesisinAmericanPublicAdministration,Bombay,AsiaPublishingHouse,1970,pp.19-20.

19 Baker,R.J.S.,AdministrativeTheoryandPublicAdministration,London,HutchinsonUniversityLibrary,1972,p.51.20 Haynes,WarrenW.,andMassie,JosephL.,Management:Analysis,ConceptsandCases,EnglewoodCliffs,N.J.Prentice-Hall,

Inc,1961,p.86.21 Simon,HerbertA.,TheNewScienceofManagementDecision,NewYork,Harper&RowPublishers,Inc.,1960,pp.1-4.22 Simon,HerbertA.,AdministrativeBehaviour,op.cit.,p.4.23 Ibid.,pp.4-5.24 Ibid.,p.75.25 Ibid.,p.81.26 Simon,HerbertA.,AdministrativeBehaviour,op.cit.,p.64.27 Ibid.,p.65.28 Ibid.,pp.76-77.29 Hunter,Crowther-Heyek,op.cit.,p.930 InternationalEncyclopediaofSocialSciences,Vol.IV,p.56.31 HerbertA.Simon,AdministrativeBehaviour,op.cit.,p.XXIX.32 Fry,BrainR.,op.cit.,pp.202-03.33 Ibid.,p206

34 Simon,HerbertA.,TheNewScienceofManagementDecision,op.cit.,pp.44-45.35 Ibid.36 Ibid.,p.50.37 Simon,HerbertA.,AdministrativeBehaviour,op.cit.,pp.11-16.38 Ibid.,p.12.39 Ibid.,p.179.40 Ibid.,p.122.41 Ibid.,p.173.42 Ibid.,p.122.43 Gross,BertramM.,op.cit.p.185.44 Hunter,Crowther-Heyek,op.cit.,p.13145 Ibid.46 QuotedinIbid,p.13147 Ibid,p.13248 Subramaniam,V.,“FactandValueinDecision-Making”,PublicAdministrationReview,Vol.XXIII,No.4,December1963,

p.232.49 QuotedinSubramaniam,V.,Ibid.,p.233.50 PhillipSelznich,LeadershipandAdministration,Row,Peterson&Sons,1957,pp.79-82.51 Gross,BertramM.,OrganisationsandTheirManaging,NewYork,TheFreePress,1968,pp.104-105.52 Charlesworth,James,ContemporaryPoliticalAnalysis,NewYork,TheFreePress,1967,p.5.53 Ibid.54 Subramaniam,V.,“TheFact-ValueDistinctionasanAnalyticalTool”,TheIndianJournalofPublicAdministration,Vol.XVII,

No.1,Jan.-March1971,pp.1-2.

12ABRAHAMMASLOW

D.RavindraPrasad

IntroductionhemostwidelyknownneedhierarchytheorywasdevelopedbyAbrahamMaslowaspartofhis theory of human motivation during the 1940’s.1 Maslow’s interest in research inunderstandinghumanbehaviourwastheresultofhisearlycareerasapsychologist.Hetriedto understand human behaviour through psychoanalysis. His clinical experiences as apsychologist enabled him to develop his five level theory of need hierarchy. Based on hisstudies, Maslow started writing a book during the 30’s and it was ‘intended to be asystematic psychology of the older type’.2 His efforts were ‘to synthesise the holistic, thedynamicandtheculturalemphasiswhich,eachone,excitedsomanyyoungpsychologistsofthetime’.3Maslowpublishedhisstudiesatperiodicintervalsduringthe40’sand50’sandhiswritings generated interest among clinical and personality psychologists. Managers andadministrators,however,begantoreadMaslowonlyafterMcGregorpopularisedhisideas.

(1908-1970)

LifeandWorksAbrahamHaroldMaslow(1908-1970)borninBrooklyn,USAwasanAmericansociologistandisknownforhisconceptualisationofthe‘hierarchyofhumanneeds’andconsideredasthefatherofhumanisticpsychology.MaslowstudiedlawattheCityCollege,NewYorkandlaterwenttotheUniversityofWisconsintostudypsychologyandpursuedoriginalresearchon primate dominance behaviour and sexuality.He received BA in 1930,MA in 1931 andPh.Din1934-allfromtheUniversityofWisconsin.Later,hemovedtoColumbiaUniversitywhere he continued his research in psychology. Between 1937-1951, Maslow was on thefacultyofBrooklynCollegeand from1951-1969wasprofessorandchairof thePsychologyDepartment at Brandies University and then became Roosevelt Fellow at the LaughlinInstitute inCalifornia.Hewroteextensivelyonpsychology that emerged in the1950sand1960swhichwas later referred as the third force.He compiled his early publications andbroughtouthispopularbookMotivationandPersonalityin1954.Later,hewroteseveralbooksandarticles.HispublicationsincludeATheoryofHumanMotivation(1943),Religion,Valuesand

Peak Experiences (1965),EupsychianManagement (1965),The Psychology of Science (1966), andTowardsPsychologyofBeing(1971).4

Human behaviour is a reflection of their conscious and unconscious goals. It can beanalysedfromtheiractionsandthemotivesbehindthem.TheseassumptionsabouthumanmotivationhavebeenfamiliarsincethedaysofSigmundFreud.Analysinghumanbehaviourthrough human needs andmotives is a new path in social psychology. Among themanycontributors to the motivation theory, Maslow’s contribution in the form of his needhierarchy is significant in organisational research. It provides the framework to study andanalysehumanmotivation.AsMaslow’s theory isnotsynonymouswithbehaviour theory,themotivationsareonlyoneclassofdeterminantsofbehaviour.Whilebehaviourisalmostmotivated, it is also almost always biologically, culturally and situationally determined aswell. 5Maslow’s contribution tomotivation theory lies in his simple and straightforwardanalysis of human motivation by taking human needs as the basis of human behaviour.Maslow felt that most theories of motivation mainly focused on physiological needs andomittedotherimportantneedsrelatingtopersonalgrowth.Headdressedtheseaspectsinhistheory.

NeedHierarchyHumanbeingisanorganism,whichdrivesintoactiontofulfillitsneedsandseveraldrivesplay a critical role in motivation. Physiological drives cannot become a central point inexplaining themotivation theory. A sound theory ofmotivation depends on the ultimategoalsofhumanbeings.Humanbehaviouratatimeisareflectionofmorethanonemotive.Allhumanactionsareoutcomesofseveralunfulfilledneedsandmotives.Humanneedstooperate in an order of hierarchy of prepotency. A satisfied need gives place to anotherunsatisfied need and this process goes in a continuum because human is a perpetuallywanting animal. Themotivation theory is a part of the behaviour theory andmotives arepartofthebehaviour.

Maslow’stheoryisbasedontheideaofprepotencyofneeds.Accordingly,hedevelopedascaleonwhichatoneendislowerorderneedslikephysiologicalandsecurityneedsandattheotherendhigherorderneeds likeself-actualisation. Inbetweentherearemiddleorderneeds,viz.,socialandself-esteemneeds.Oncethephysiologicalneedsaresatisfied,thentheneed forotherneedsarise ina step-by-stepmanner, each lowerorderneedonce satisfied,andgivingwayforanunfulfilledhigherorderneed.Asatisfiedneednolongermotivateaperson.Maslowpropoundedhistheoryonthebasisofseveralassumptionsandconclusions.6MaslowarrangedhumanneedsinahierarchyasshowninFigure1.

The lowest needs in the hierarchy are the physiological and security needs, and self-

actualisation is the higher order need. In between there are social and self-esteem needs,which may be called middle order needs. The fulfillment of a lower order need is apreconditionforahigherorderneedtosurface.Unless the lowerorderneedsarefulfilled,the middle or higher order needs would not surface. In what follows the meaning andconnotation of each of the five needs in the hierarchy, viz., physiological, security, social,esteemandself-actualisationarefurtherdiscussed.7

ThePhysiologicalNeedsPhysiological needs are synonymous with the biological needs of the human beings likehunger,thirst,sex,etc.Thegripoftheseneedsonthehumanbeingsissostrongthatunlesstheseneedsaresatisfiedthereisnoroomforotherneeds.Toahungrypersontheutopiaisaworld full of food and he thinks not only of food but also of comfort to body andmind,whichcanbefulfilledbyeatingfood.Forapersonwhohasmissedmostofthebasicneedsinhislife,physiologicalneedsarethemainmotivatingforces.Forpeoplewhoseworldis justfulfillmentofphysiologicalneeds,allother things like freedom, love, community life, etc.,are unimportant. Those who have not faced food problem any time in their lives, it isappetiteneed,whichisthephysiologicalneed.Suchpeoplehavetheirneedinaparticularfood,which is to be fulfilled.Once a physiological need is satisfied, the human organismlooksforsocialneeds.Ifhungerissatisfied,itbecomesunimportantinthecurrentdynamicsof the individual. People who have always satisfied a need are capable of tolerating itsdeprivationinfuture.

TheSecurityNeedsHuman being searches for security and safety from natural calamities, dangers anddeprivations. Human organism is a safety-seeking organism. For a person whosephysiologicalneedsaresatisfied,hisnextgoalissafety,security,stability,andprotection.Forhimeverythinglookslessimportantthansafety.Theneedforsafetycanbebetterobservedin infantsandchildrenamongwhomwecanclearlysee thereactions tobodily illnessandinjury.Achild,whoissick,hasaneedofreassurancefromparentsthatthesicknesswillbecured and will never repeat. Another feature of the security need, very clearly seen inchildren, is their preference for a rhythm and routine in daily life. Even adults, for thatmatter, are normally against any disturbing changes in life. In an orderly, peaceful andcivilisedsociety,thesafetyandsecurityistakencareof,toagreatextent,bythegovernment.In such societies safetyneed is no longer amotivator.We can see the expressionof safetyneeds in people’s preference for a jobwith tenure and protection, the desire for a savingbankaccount,insurance,etc.InIndiansociety,theneedtohaveamalechildinafamilyisanexpressionofsecurityneed.

TheBelongingnessandLoveNeedsHumanbeingisdescribedasasocialanimal.Oncehis/herphysiologicalandsafetyneedsarefulfilled,he/sheseeksaffection, loveandbelongingness fromotherhumanbeingsand thesociety around. A person with social needs severely feels the absence of friends, family,spouse and children. He/she craves for affectionate relationships and a place ofbelongingnesswith his/her people. Childrenwho are products of broken homes or thosewhoareneglectedbytheirparents in theirchildhooddevelopastrongdesire for loveandaffection. Thesedesiresmotivate their behaviour consciously andunconsciously. The needforloveisnotsynonymouswithsexwhichmaybestudiedasamerephysiologicalneed.

TheEsteemNeedsPeople have a desire for respect and recognition from society, work place, family andfriendshipcircles.Peoplenormallyhaveahighestimateofthemselves.Theyhaveaneedforself-respectandselfesteem.Theydesiretoworkaccordingtotheirownnormsandbeliefs.Self-esteem needs can be broadly divided into two groups, viz., achievement needs andrecognitionneeds.Achievementneedsare expressed in the formofdesire tobewith self-confidence, desire to possess strength and assertiveness and a desire to be free fromdependingonothers.Recognitionneedsareexpressedintheformofaspiringrespectfromothers, recognition in society, attracting attention and the desire to become an importantperson. Satisfactionof esteemneedsmakes aperson confident, adequate anduseful.Non-fulfillment of these needsmakes one feel inferior,weak and helpless. This need plays animportantroleinmouldingthepersonalityofahumanbeing.

Maslowcallsallthefourneedsasdeficitneedsor‘D’needs.Deficiencymotivationoccurswhenwelacksomethingandattempttomeetthatdeficiency.Ifonedoesn’thaveenoughofsomething i.e., there isdeficit, thenone feels theneed. If onegets all that isneeded, theycease to bemotivating.Maslow also talks about these levels in terms of ‘homeostatis’ – aprincipleonwhichfurnacethermostatworks.Whenitgetstoocold,itswitchestheheatonandwhenitgetstoohot,itswitchestheheatoff.Maslowextendsthishomeostatisprincipleto human needs. He also calls these needs as ‘survival needs’. They are needed formaintenanceofhealthandtheyarebuiltintothehumanbeingsgeneticallylikeinstinctandhecallstheminstinctoid-instinctlikeneeds.

TheSelf-actualisationNeedsSelf-actualisation, a term that was first coined by Kurt Goldstein, is considered to be thehighestneedinthehierarchyofneedsandassuchisdirectedtowardssearchingthemeaningandpurposeinlife.Evenifallotherneedsaresatisfied,ahumanbeingfeelsrestlessandtriestoachieveexcellenceinfieldsdearertohim.Thedesireforself-fulfillment,actualisationandlivingameaningfullifeisreflectedinthisneed.Thespecificformthisneedtakesvariesfromperson to person. For example, onemay desire to become an ideal mother, another maydesire to become an ideal teacher and so on. At the same time, these needs need notnecessarilybeaneedforcreativity.

Maslowusedavarietyof terms to refer to this level -growthmotivation incontrast todeficitmotivation, beingneedsor ‘B’ needs in contrast to ‘D’needs and self-actualisation.Thesedonotinvolvehomeostatis;theycontinuetobefeltandmayevenbecomestrongerasthey get fulfilled. But a prerequisite of self-actualisatioon is satisfaction of physiological,safety, love and esteem needs; at least partially. Only a small fraction of people arepredominantly self-actualising; not more than two percent. What is self-actualisation?Maslowsaysthat“amusicianmustmakemusic,anartistmustpaint,apoetmustwrite,ifheistobeultimatelyatpeacewithhimself.Whatamancanbe,hemustbe.Thisneed,wemaycallself-actualisation.”It isabasicforcethatdrivesapersonforwardandonward.Maslowadopted biographical method to study the lives of famous people like Abraham Lincoln,Eleanor Roosevelt, Gandhi, Thomas Jefferson, Albert Einstein, etc., He looked at theirwritings,works,etc.,anddevelopedalistofqualities.Hefoundseveralsimilaritiesintheirlivesandcalledthosefeaturesas‘self-actualisingtendency’.Self-actualisersare:• realitycentered–coulddifferentiaterealfromfakeandgenuinefromdishonest;• problemcentered–treateddifficultiesasproblemsdemandingsolutions;• needprivacy–comfortablebeingalone;

• are independent of culture and environment – relayed on their own experience andjudgment;

• resistenculturalism-notsusceptibletosocialpressures;inawaynon-conformists;• havedemocraticvalues-opentoethnicandindividualvariety;• haveunhostilesenseofhumor-preferjokesattheirownexpense.• havefreshnessofappreciation-haveabilitytoseeevenordinarythingswithwonder;• havespontaneityandsimplicity-prefertobethemselvesthanbeingpretentious;• have a quality called Gemeinshaftsgefuhl (social interest compassion and humanity),

freshnessofappreciationandabilitytobecreative.Self-actualisers, Maslow did not think, are perfect. They suffer anxiety and guilt,

absentmindedness and have unexpected moments of ruthlessness. The emergence of thisneed depends on the fulfillment of all other lower order needs. However in any society,satisfiedpeoplewill alwaysbevery fewandas suchhowmanypeoplehave thisneed forself-actualisation is a question for further research.Despite this fact,wehave examples ofpeoplewhohavereachedheightsofexcellenceindifferentfieldsinlife.Maslowfeltthatthisneedisachallengingprobleminresearch.Self-actualisationispresumablythehighestdesireofanynormalindividual.Who,then,isaself-actualisedperson?Whatfeaturescharacterisesuchaperson?Maslowundertookseveralstudiestogetanswerstothesequestionsandbasedon these studies provided an exhaustive list of characteristics of a self-actualised person.8They:• lackoverridingguilt,cripplingshameandanxiety;• likesolitudeandprivacyandatthesametimeretaintheirdignityeveninundignified

surroundingandsituations;• likeautonomyandfreedomtopursuetheirendeavoursinlifeandwork;• deriveecstasy,inspirationandstrengthfromthebasicexperienceoflife;• havemysticexperienceandadeepfeelingofidentification,sympathyandaffectionfor

mankind;• maintaininterpersonalrelationswithafewpeople;• democratic and they candifferentiate between ends andmeans and right andwrong;

and• haveasenseofhumourandpossesscreativenessandoriginality.

Aself-actualisedpersonpossessesanunusualabilitytodetectthespurious,thefake,andthedishonestandingeneral,tojudgepeoplecorrectlyandefficiently.

HowaSelf-actualisedPersonisMotivated?Incaseofneedsotherthanself-actualisation,itispossibletopredictbehaviourandassuchthe accuracy of the prediction will be higher when one goes lower and lower on thehierarchy. Incaseofaself-actualisedperson, if the lowerorderneedsaregratifiedandhisbehaviour is only influenced by self-actualisation need onemight be able to predictwhatsuchpeopledo,butsuchapredictionisnotpossibleonthebasisofmotivationtheory.Itiseven questionable whether self-actualised persons are motivated or not. As Maslowemphasised that “theywork, they try and they are ambitious even though in an unusualsense.For them,motivation is just charactergrowth, characterexpression,motivation,anddevelopment is a word self-actualisation.”9 Maslow also talks of the special and drivingneeds of the self-actualisers. They include truth, goodness, uniqueness, perfection, justice,

self-sufficiency, meaningfulness, etc. When self-actualisers don’t get these needs fulfilled,theyrespondwithmetapathologiesanddevelopdepression,despair,disgust,alienationandcynicism.10

TheBasicNeeds:SomeFurtherCharacteristicsMaslow, after discussing in detail the basic needs of humans and their hierarchical order,discussesafewcharacteristicsofthesebasicneeds.11Firstly,thehierarchyisnotasrigidasitis implied theoretically and there is no fixity in thehierarchyof needs.There is scope fordeviations. For example, some people have a strong preference for self-esteem than to asocialneed.Thisisadeviationfromthehierarchyofneeds.But,suchbehaviourisduetothenotionthataself-confidentpersonattractsloveandaffection.Presumably,peoplewholackloveandaffectiontrytoseekitbyputtingabraveface.Somepeoplemayhaveaverylowlevelofaspiration.Amongsuchpeoplethelessprepotentgoalsmaydisappearforeverandthey get satisfiedwith very low levels of need fulfillment. Psychopathic personalities, forexample,sufferpermanentlossoflowneeds.Whenaneedhasbeensatisfiedforalongtime,itlosesitspowertoinfluenceaperson.Peoplewhoneverexperiencedhunger,considerfoodasbasicandimportant.Againapersonmaysacrificealowerorderneedforacertainperiodoftimetosatisfyhishigherneedandvice-versa.

Secondly,thehierarchyofneedsisnotwatertightcompartments.Satisfactionisarelativeterm.Emergenceofaparticularneed,aftersatisfactionofalowerorderneed,isnotsudden;but a gradual phenomenon. Thirdly, in an average person, need areas are more oftenunconsciousthanconscious.Fourthly,thebasicneedsanddesiresarethesameirrespectiveofthe societies and cultures they live in.Fifthly,humanbehaviour ismulti-motivatedandassuch it is not influenced by a single variable like a need. All behaviours cannot bedeterminedbythebasicneeds.Andfinally,asatisfiedneedisnotamotivator.

PeakExperiences

Maslow expounded the concept of peak experiences.12 The term represents Maslow’sattempt to naturalise those experiences which were generally identified with religiousexperiences.Hedescribespeakexperiencesasexcitingmomentsinlifeinvolvingfeelingsofhappiness,well-being and an awareness of transcendental knowledge of higher truth.Hedescribes them as a state of witnessing or cognitive blissfulness, achievement of whichrequires longandhardeffort andalso self-actualisation.These experiences come suddenlyandare theresultofmeditation,exposure toart,musicandnature.Maslowdescribeshowpeakexperiences tends tobeuplifting, releasescreativeenergies,givesa senseofpurpose,andfeelingofintegrationandleavesapermanentmarkontheindividual.Peakexperiencescan be therapeutic increasing individual’s creativity, determination, and empathy. Thehighestpeak,Maslowsays,referstofeelingsoflimitlesshorizonsopeninguptothevision,thefeelingofbeingsimultaneouslypowerfulandalsomorehelpless thaneverwasbefore,thefeelingofgreatecstasyandwonderandaweandthelossofplacingintimeandplace.13Maslow argues that all human beings are capable of peak experiences and will have anumberofpeakexperiences in life.The ‘non-peakers’resistandsuppresssuchexperiencesandMaslow argues that they should be studied and cultivated. He felt that thewillfullyinduced peak experiences as the characteristic of the self-actualised and it is a state ofcognitiveblissfulness,theachievementofwhichrequiresalongandhardeffortandalsoself-actualisation.

EupsychianManagementMaslowfeltthatorganisationsshouldbedesignedinsuchawaythatemployeescansatisfytheir safety, love and self-actualisation needs are met. This he calls ‘EupsychianManagement’.Ifanemployeeisunhappywithhisworkheloosesthemostimportantmeansof his self-fulfillment. Maslow argued that the ability of any organisation to satisfy itsworkers’needsmustbeassuredthroughstudyofemployeecomplaints.

EvaluationMaslow’stheorywascriticisedmainlyongroundsofmethodology.Selectingasmallnumberofpeople,readingaboutthemortalkingwiththemanddrawingconclusionsaboutthemasself-actualisers isnotconsideredassoundmethodology.Dunhamnotedthat inspiteof thetremendous amount of research generated by Maslow’s theory; it has never been testedadequatelyascompletetheoryforanumberofmethodologicalreasons.14Sophisticationandvalidityofhisresearchdataandtheorderofhierarchyofneedsarealsoquestioned.Somecriticisedthattheneedsfromalowerordertoahigherorderneednotnecessarilyoperateinthesameorderallthetime.Hisconceptofself-actualisation,thoughattractive,iscriticisedasvague,impreciseandtoogeneral.ThusthecriticismagainstMaslow’stheorymostlyrestsonits lackofsophisticationandvalidityofhis researchdata,disputeover thearrangementofhierarchyofneeds,andtoogeneralandimprecisenatureofthetermself-actualisation.

Several researches thatwere undertaken on needhierarchy andworkmotivation gaveinconclusiveresults.StudiesbyWabhaandBirdwell15donotsupportMaslow’smodel.TheirreviewsofseveralpreviousstudiesleadthemtoconcludethattherearetwoprimaryclusterofneedsinsteadoffiveassuggestedbyMaslow.Theyfoundnosupportfor‘thecontentionthatsatisfactionofonelevelofneedwillbepositivelyassociatedwiththeactivationofthenext higher level of needs’. 16 Bass and Barrett felt that Maslow’s theory has been mostinterestingandmostpopular than true.17WabhaandBirdwellalsonoted that“there isnoclear evidence that human needs are classified in five distinct categories, or that thesecategoriesarestructured inaspecialhierarchy.There issomeevidencefor theexistenceofpossiblytwotypesofneeds,deficiencyandgrowthneeds,althoughthiscategorisationisnotalwaysoperative.”Theynoted that theoverall attempts to establish evidenceofMaslow’shierarchyhavefailed.Noristheremuchtoshowthatthestrongeraneed,themorelikelywearetoacttosatisfyit.18

Vagueness, philosophical connotation and a very generic meaning of the term self-actualisation is another criticism. Cofer and Appley noted that the emphasis on self-actualisation suffers from the vagueness of its concepts, looseness of its language and theinadequacy of the evidence related to its major contentions.19 The characteristics of self-actualising people, as suggested byMaslow, are also subjected to criticism. UnfortunatelyMaslow tellsus little about themethodologyadoptedbyhim to select the cases for study.Thelistsuggestedbyhimalsocontainsseveralinternallyoverlappingfeatures.20

MichaelNashfeltthatMaslow’stheoryisinterestingbutnotvalid.21Hecharacterisedthetheories ofHerzberg andMaslow as “MajorWrong Theories” To him,Maslow’s theory ismore complex than simply an inside/outside view of the nature ofwork. “Maslowhad agood idea. There is logic to his progression of needs, from the lower order needs(physiological) to the higher order needs (self-actualisation). The needs themselves makesense;theyhavefacevalidity.Werecognisephysicalneedsinourselves;theneedtobewithothers,andtheneedtofeelthatwearedoingwhatwearecapableofdoing.Theseneedsare

present in everyone to some degree at some time. The problem with Maslow’s needhierarchy is that itcannotbe turned intoapracticalguide formanagerswhoare trying tomakepeopleproductive.”Maslowwasalsocriticisedforignoringenvironmentalfactorslikeschooling and personal support that can facilitate or impede self-actualisation. His is anindividualist theoryanddoesnot fit inwith thecollectivistapproachesofcooperationandgroupaction.

Maslowwasoneofthepioneersandaninspirationalfigureinthemovementtodeveloppersonalitytheories.Heinauguratedafourthforceinpsychology.22Hedevoted,towardstheend of his life, more time and attention to humanistic psychology and human potentialmovement.Maslow’scontributionisalandmarkinsocial-psychologicalresearchandhewasaforerunnertomanylikeHerzbergandVroom.Maslow’stheoryhastremendousimpactonmodernmanagementapproachtomotivation23andiswidelyaccepted.Hiscontributiontomotivationtheory,despitecriticisms,issubstantialandhistheoriesledtofurtherresearchesintheareaofmotivation.Histheoryismorecomprehensiveandemphasisesonesteemandself-actualisation; human values that were previously ignored. He focused on positiveexperiencesunlikeFreudwhoemphasisedonnegativeones.Histheoryisuseful,asDunhampointsout, toassess theneedlevelsofemployeesandto identifysuitabletypesofrewardsandopportunitiestoimproveorganisationaleffectiveness.24Maslowidentifiedhisparticularhierarchy as representative of the total set of humans.He never intended to suggest thatevery person would have the needs arranged in the same hierarchical pattern.25 Maslowhimselfnotedthat,“Wehavespokensofarasifthishierarchywasafixedorder,butactuallyitisnotnearlyasrigidaswemayhaveimplied.Itistruethatmostofthepeoplewithwhomwehaveworkedhave seemed to have these basic needs in about the order that has beenindicated.However,therehavebeenanumberofexceptions….Thereareotherapparentlyinnately creative people in whom the drive to creativeness might appear not as self-actualisationreleasedbybasicsatisfaction,butinspiteoflackofbasicsatisfaction.”26

InBriefThecontributionofAbrahamMaslowcanbesummarisedas:• Analysis of behaviour through human needs andmotivations is a new path in social

psychology. Among many contributors to motivation theory Abraham Maslow, anAmerican sociologist and who is considered the father of humanistic psychology, isknown for his conceptualisation of hierarchy of human needs and has contributedphenomenallyandprovidedaframeworktostudyandanalysehumanmotivation.

• Maslowarrangedhumanneedsinahierarchy.Thelowestneedsinthehierarchyarethephysiological and security needs and self-actualisation is the higher order need. Inbetweentherearesocialandself-esteemneedswhicharecalledmiddleorderneeds.Thefulfillment of lower order need is a precondition for the higher order need to surface.Maslowcallslowerorderandmiddleorderneedsasdeficitneedsor“D”needsandself-actualisationasbeingneedor“B”need.

• Self-actualisation, the higher order human need, is a desire for self-fulfillment,actualisationand livingameaningful life.Thespecific formthisneedtakesvaries fromperson to person. It is a desire to achieve excellence in fields dearer to them.Maslow,based on biographical studies of famous people, developed a list of qualities of self-actualisers.

• Maslow raised the question of who is a self-actualised person and undertook several

studiestoanswerthisquestion.Basedonthesestudies,heidentifiedanexhaustivelistofcharacteristicsofself-actualisedpersons.

• Maslow, conscious of complexity of self-actualisation process, talks of special drivingneeds of self-actualisers. They include truth, goodness, uniqueness, perfection, justice,meaningfulness,etc.Whenself-actualisersdonotgettheseneedsfulfilled,theydevelopmetapathologies.

• Maslow expounded the concept of peak experiences as exciting moments of lifeinvolving feelings of happiness, well-being, and an awareness of transcendentalknowledge of higher truth and also considered them the characteristics of the self-actualised.

• Maslow’s theory of need hierarchy was criticised on methodological grounds andvaguenessofconcepts likeself-actualisation.Despitecriticismshe isapioneer insocial-psychological research and his theory of need hierarchy, with its limitations, has hadtremendousimpactonmodernmanagementapproachtomotivation.

References1 Maslow,A.H.,“ADynamicTheoryofHumanMotivation”,PsychologicalReview,Vol.50,1943,pp.370-396.2 Maslow,A.H.,MotivationandPersonality,NewYork,Harper&Row,1954,p.IX.3 Ibid.4 His books include Eupsychian Management: A Journal, Homewood, Irwin-Dorsey, 1965; The Psychology Science: A

Reconnaissance,NewYork,Harper&Row,1966,TowardsAPsychologyofBeing,2nded.NewYork,VanNostrandReinhold,1968.

5 Maslow, A. H., “A Theory of Human Motivation”, in Huneryager, S. G., and Heckmann, I. L., Human Relations inManagement,Bombay,Taraporevala&Co.,1972,p.334.

6 Ibid.,pp.333-334.7 SeeMaslow,A.H.,MotivationandPersonality,op.cit.,Ch.5.8 Ibid.,Ch.12.9 Ibid.p.211.10 http://www.ship.edu/-cgboeree/maslow.html11 Maslow,A.H.,MotivationandPersonality,op.cit.,pp.98-106.12 SeeMaslow,Abraham,Religions,ValuesandPeakExperiences,196413 Ibid,p.16414 Dunham,RandallB.,OrganisationalBehaviour,Homewood,III.RichardD.IlwinInc.,1984,p.108.15 QuotedinLuthans,Fred,OrganisationalBehaviour,NewYork,McGraw-HillCompany,1973,pp.155-156.op.cit.,p.409.16 Ibid.17 Bass,BernardM.,andBarrelt,GeraldV.,People,WorkandOrganisations,Boston,AllynandBacon,Inc.,1981,p.18 QuotedinBass,BernardM.,andBarrelt,GeraldV.,op.cit.,p.71.19 Cofer,C.N.,andAppley,M.H.,Motivation:TheoryandResearch,NewDelhi,WileyEasternLimited,1980,p.692.20 Ibid.pp.668-669.21 Nash,Michael,MakingPeopleProductive,London,Jossery,BassPublishers,1985,p.101.22 Freudian psychologies constituted the first force; behaviourism as the second; Maslow’s humanism and European

existentialiststhethirdandthefourthwasthetranspersonalpsychologies.23 SeeLuthans,Fred,OrganisationalBehaviour,NewYork,McGraw-Hill,1977,p.408.24 Dunham,RandallB.,op.cit.,p.108.25 Ibid.,p.105.26 Maslow,A.H.,MotivationandPersonality,op.cit.,p.98

13DOUGLASMCGREGOR

P.D.Sharma

IntroductionouglasMcGregor,a socialpsychologistandahouseholdname in theworldofprofessionalmanagers,will longbe remembered forhiscreativecontributions to theartandscienceofmanagement.Standinginthevanguardofthebehaviouralistmovementofpost-warera,heemergedasamanagementpsychiatrist,whoscientificallydemonstratedtheunrealisticandlimitingassumptionsof traditional theoriesofmanagement concerninghumannatureandthecontrolofhumanbehaviourinanorganisationalsetting.McGregordemonstrablyprovedthat reliance on authority as the primarymeans of control in industry leads to resistance,restrictionof output and indifference toorganisationobjectives. It creates theproblemsofrefusal to accept authority and ultimately results in inadequate motivation for humangrowthandorganisationdevelopment.

(1906-1964)

LifeandWorksDouglasMurrayMcGregor(1906-64)wasborninDetroit,Michigan.Duringhisschooldaysheworkedasanightclerkandalsoplayedthepiano.HeenrolledforapsychologydegreeattheCollegeoftheCityofDetroit-nowcalledWayneStateUniversity-andaftertwoyearstrieda termat theOberline inOhio.At19,hedroppedoutofcollegeandtoearna livingjoinedasagasstationattendantinBuffelo,whereherosetotherankofRegionalGasStationManagerby 1930.Heobtainedbachelor’sdegree fromWayneStateUniversity (1932), andmaster’s (1933) and doctorate (1935) degrees in psychology from Harvard University. HejoinedasalectureratHarvardUniversityin1935,andaftertwoyearsin1937hemovedtoMITtoestablishIndustrialRelationssectionandalsostartedconsultancywork. In1948,hebecamePresidentoftheAntiochCollegeinYellowSprings,Ohioattheageof41wherehespent thenext sixyears. In recognition of his contribution, themainAntiochCollegewasnamedasAntiochUniversity.McGregorismorecommonlycalledjustMcGregor.In1954,he

returned to MIT as a faculty member of the Sloan School of Management.1 He wasconsultant to government and industry.Heworked asDirector of Social ScienceResearchCouncil,NationalTrainingLaboratoriesandBoardMemberoftheFoundationforResearchonHumanBehaviour.

McGregor’sclassicTheHumanSideof theEnterprise2marksawatershed in thehistoryofmanagementmovement. It is hailed as themost original and seminal book on industrialpsychology. The book has a profound influence on management education and practice.McGregor identified approaches of creating an environmentwithinwhich employees aremotivated either throughdirection and control or through integration and self-control. Innumerous articles hemade an eloquent plea for a brand ‘new social architecture’, a newvalue system to which man and management can gainfully commit themselves for theattainmentofprofessionalobjectives.HisotherbookTheProfessionalManagerisamajorstepahead of his unconventional thinking in linking behavioural concepts to organisationbehaviour and showingwith rare empathy how the human side of the enterprise can bedevelopedthroughappropriatemanagerialinterventionandunderstanding.In1993,hewaslistedasthemostpopularmanagementwriterofalltimesalongwithHenriFayol.3

ThePerennialQuestioninManagement

TheHumanSideof theEnterprise seeks toanswer theperennialquestion ‘whethersuccessfulmanagersarebornormade’.FacingthequestionquitesquarelyMcGregorobserves:

Itseemscleartomethatthemakingofmanagers,insofarastheyaremade,isonlytoarathersmalldegreetheresultsofmanagement’s formal efforts inmanagement development. It is to amuch greater degree the result ofmanagement’sconception of the nature of its task and of all the policies and practices which are constructed to implement thisconception. The way a business is managed determines to a very large extent what people are perceived to have‘potential’ andhow theydevelop.Wegooff on thewrong trackwhenwe seek to studymanagementdevelopment intermsoftheformalmachineryofprogrammescarryingthislabel.4

McGregor’smain argument in the book -which ismore popularly known for its twoimportant suppositions called Theory X and Theory Y - has been that ‘the theoreticalassumptionswhichthemanagementholdsaboutcontrollingitshumanresourcesdeterminethewholecharacteroftheenterprise’.5ToMcGregor,theseassumptionsalsodeterminethequality of its successive generations of management. Like an organisation psychiatrist,McGregor cherished the conviction that some of the most important problems ofmanagement lie outside the realm of improving the selection ofmanagerswith technicalpotential. The top executives,with talent and capacities, contribute very little to industry,especiallybecausetheyhavenotlearnedenoughabouttheutilisationoftalentandaboutthecreation of an organisational climate conducive to human growth. To McGregor the keyquestionintheworldoftopmanagementis6“Whatareyourassumptions(implicitaswellasexplicit)aboutthemosteffectivewaytomanagepeople?”Fromtheanswertothisbasicquestion flows the series of meaningful answers to allied questions about the making ofmanagers, theproductivityof theenterpriseand theother techno-humanobjectivesof themanagement.

TheoreticalAssumptionsMcGregor’s most creative and lasting contribution has been in the area of theoreticalassumptions of management, which he very ably links up with the development ofmanagerialtalentandmanagerialteamworkinanindustrialenterprise.Hisbasichypothesis

hasbeenthat,‘everymanagerialactrestsontheory’,7andthefrequentinvidiouscomparisonofthepracticalandthetheoreticalwithrespecttothemanagementofhumanresourceshasbeenaserioushandicaptoprogressinthefield.Heisnotobsessedwiththepuerilequestionwhethermanagement isanartorascience.Hebelievedthat insistenceon thepropositionthat management is an art ‘is a common way of denying the importance of theory to“managerial behaviour”. But then, he knew for sure that management was not a sciencebecauseitservedadifferentpurpose.Theissueiswhethermanagementcanutilisescientificknowledgeintheachievementofpracticalobjectiveswithwhichitisconcerned’.8

McGregor, as a student of social sciences, is concerned about the use of current socialscienceknowledgeforthedisposalofmisconceptionspertainingtothenatureofcontrolinthe fieldof humanbehaviour.He aptly advances ahypothesis that ‘all control is selectiveadaptation. Inengineering, control consists inadjustment tonatural law. Itdoesnotmeanmakingnaturetodoourbidding.Inthehumanfield,thesituationisthesame,butmanyofourattemptstocontrolhumanbehaviour,farfromrepresentingselectiveadaptationsareindirectviolationofhumannature.Asmanagerswestrivetomakepeoplebehaveaswewishwithoutconcernfornaturallaw.Butweshouldnotexpecttoachievedesiredresultsthroughinappropriatemanagerial action in the field thanwe can or should expect in the field ofengineering.’9 This brings McGregor to the area of methods of influence or control inorganisations. He rigorously examines the classical ways of coercion and challenges thevalidityof theassumptions thatunderliebehindtheauthorityof theoffice.Examiningtheframeworkoflimitationsofauthorityandthepsychologyofdependenceinindividualandorganisationalbehaviours,McGregorconcludes:

‘Humanbehaviour ispredictablebutas inphysical scienceaccuratepredictionhingeson thecorrectnessofunderlyingtheoretical assumptions….We can improve our ability to control only ifwe recognise that control consists in selectiveadaptationtohumannatureratherthaninattemptingtomakehumannatureconformtoourwishes.Ifourattemptstocontrolareunsuccessful,thecausegenerallyliesinourchoiceofinappropriatemeans.Wewillbeunlikelytoimproveourmanagerialcompetencebyblamingpeopleforfailingtobehaveaccordingtoourpredictions.’10

TheoryX:TheCoerciveCompulsionsMcGregorwasanastutestudentofhumanpsychologyandsocialbehaviour.Hisempiricalresearches in organisational conflict and maladjustment in human relations led him tobelieve that control inhumanaffairs canbeviewedasan integrationofhumanbehavioureither through coercive compulsion or through motivational self-control. He developedthesetwoassumptionsintovarioushypothesesandquitescientificallytestedtheirvaliditytopropoundhistheoriesofmanagerialcontrolpopularlyknownas‘TheoryX’and‘TheoryY’.Any neat dichotomy between the traditional and the modern schools of managementthoughtdoesnotfitintheMcGregor’sframeworkofanalysis.Rather,ittendstodramatisethe fundamental differences of approach to management in terms of emphasis and basicassumptions.McGregorcallshisTheoryXasthetraditionalviewofdirectionandcontrol,11which is based on some of the assumptions implicit in the literature of organisation andmanagerialpolicyandpractice.AccordingtoMcGregor,theremarkablypervasivetraditionalassumptionsofTheoryXare:12

1. Theaveragehumanbeinghasaninherentdislikeofworkandwillavoidit,ifhecan;2. Hence, most people must be corrected, controlled, directed and threatened with

punishment to get them to put forth adequate effort towards the achievement oforganisationalobjectives;and

3. The average human being prefers to be directed,wishes to avoid responsibility, has

relativelylittleambition,wantssecurityaboveall.These assumptions, which embody the mediocrity of the masses, have been put

somewhat bluntly. They smack paternalism and McGregor by arranging this set ofassumptions into a theory has not created any strawman for purposes of demolition, buttried to offer an explanation about the interplay of behavioural factors, whichmateriallyinfluencemanagerialstrategy.

Traditionally known as ‘carrot and stick theory’, Theory X of McGregor explains theconsequences of a particular managerial strategy. It does not describe human nature,althoughitpurportsto.Theassumptionsbehindthetheorytreatmannotonlyasaninsecurebeast, responding to the languageof fear,butasadislikeroravoiderofallworkunderallcircumstances. Like axiomatic proverbs about human behaviour, the basic assumptions ofmanagerial philosophy and strategy which have been in vogue, without being tested orverified by any empirical tools of enquiry. McGregor finds these assumptions sounnecessarily limiting that in his judgement they prevent one seeing the possibilitiesinherent in other managerial strategies. Actually some of the new strategies likedecentralisation,managementbyobjectives,consultativesupervision,democraticleadership,ultimately prove to be ‘new wine in old bottles’, especially because the proceduresdeveloped to implement these new strategies are in main derived from the same oldinadequateassumptionsofTheoryXabouthumannatureandsocialbehaviour.Asaseriousresearcher on the problems of the human side of enterprise, McGregor felt increasinglydisillusionedwithwidelytoutedandnewfangedtheoriesandapproachesbecausemostofthemintheiressencemerelyreflectedonlydifferenttacticsinprogrammes,proceduresandgadgetswithinanunchangedstrategybasedonTheoryX.Hisconclusionisthat‘solongasthe assumptions of Theory X continue to influence managerial strategy, we will fail todiscover,letaloneutilisethepotentialitiesoftheaveragehumanbeing’.13

McGregorfeltthatacommandandcontrolenvironmentisnoteffectivebecauseitrelieson lowerneeds formotivation.But inmodernsociety theseneedsaremostlysatisfiedandthereforenolongermotivate.Inthissituation,onewouldexpectemployeestodisliketheirwork,avoidresponsibility,haveno interest inorganisationalgoals, resistchange,etc., thuscreatingaself-fulfillingprophecy.ToMcGregor,motivationseemedmorelikelywithTheoryYmodel.14

TheoryY:TheAlternateAssumptionsofIntegrationandSelf-ControlMcGregordiscoveredtheroleofemotionalcommitmentsofdependenceandindependence,whichstemfromaseriesofuniversalhumanexperiences.Talkingabout thepsychologyofdependence and the limitations of authority in an organisation situation, he finds theclassical theory of organisation. Its principles are derived primarily from the study of themilitary and the Catholic Church and it suffers from ethnocentrism and its underlyingassumptionsabouthumanbehaviourareatbestonlypartiallytrue.Lookingpositivelyinthearea of human needs and man’s psychological quest for their satisfaction, McGregorformulatesTheoryYwhichoffersanumberofalternateassumptionsfor the integrationofthe individual and organisational goals. According to him creation of conditions is notcontrolintheusualsenseanditdoesnotseemtobeaparticularlygooddevicefordirectivebehaviour.McGregoremphasisesontheneedforselectiveadaptationinmanagerialstrategy,because his studies prove that changes in the population at large, in educational levels,attitudesandvalues,motivation,degreeofdependenceandthenatureofurbanisationhavecreated both the opportunities and the need for other forms of selective adaptation. He

arranged his new set of assumptions aboutmotivation andmorale in a theory, which hecalledTheoryY,perhapstodramatisethecontrastwiththemajorassumptionsofTheoryX.TheassumptionsofTheoryYare:15

1. Theexpenditureofphysicalandmentaleffortinworkisasnaturalasplayorrest;2. Massexercises,self-directionandself-controlintheservicesoftheobjectivestowhich

heiscommitted;3. Commitment to objectives is a function of the rewards associated with their

achievement;4. Theaveragehumanbeinglearnsunderproperconditionsnotonlytoacceptbutalsoto

seekresponsibility;5. The capacity to exercise a relatively high degree of creativity, imagination and

ingenuityinthesolutionoforganisationalproblemsiswidely,notnarrowlydistributedinthepopulation;and

6. Under the conditions of modern industrial life, the intellectual potentialities of theaveragehumanbeingareonlypartiallyutilised.

These assumptions point to the fact that the limits on human collaboration in theorganisational setting are not limits of human nature, but of management ingenuity indiscoveringhowtorealise thepotentialofhumanresources.Thetheoryimplies that if theemployees are lazy, indifferent, unwilling to take responsibility, intransigent, uncreative,uncooperative,thecauseliesinthemanagement’smethodoforganisationandcontrol.Thecentralprincipleimplicit intheassumptionsofTheoryYisthat integrationofbehaviouristhekeyprocessinmanagement,becauseitresultsinthecreationofconditionsconduciveforthememberstoachievetheirowngoalsbestbydirectingtheireffortstowardsthesuccessofthe enterprise.16 It is not easy for any management to perceive the implications of thisintegration principle, especially because the principle of direction and control implicit inTheory X is firmly built into managerial attitudes with respect to the task of managinghumanresources.Theconceptofintegrationandself-controldemandsthattheneedsoftheindividualandthatoftheorganisationshouldberecognised.Managementbythedirectionand control cannot create commitment,which alonemakes available the full resources ofthoseaffectedbycontrolprocess.Lessermotivationandlesserdegreeofself-directionresultin costs which when added over a period of time offset the gains obtained by unilateraldecisionallegedlytakenforthegoodoftheorganisation.

McGregor calls Theory Y an open invitation to innovation.17 He does not deny theappropriateness of authority under certain circumstances, but he does deny itsappropriateness for all purposes and under all circumstances. His thesis is that genuineinnovation in managerial theory and practice requires the acceptance of less limitingassumptionsaboutthenatureofhumanresourceswhichthemanagementseekstocontrol.More so, themanagement shouldexhibit readiness toadapt selectively to the implicationscontained in new assumptions,which the knowledge of individual psychology and groupsociologyclaimstooffertomodernmanagement.

TheoryYinPractice

McGregor attempts a critique of prevailing managerial strategies vis-à-vis personneltechniques of themanagerswhile discussing the application of Theory Y. His research inindustry indicates a high correlation between the acceptance of responsibility andcommitment to objectives. He discovered greater long run advantages in permitting the

subordinates to learn by experience than in simply telling themwhere their planninghasbeenunrealisticorinadequate.Itisbecausethetoolsforbuildingmanagerialphilosophyarehumanattitudesandbeliefsaboutpeopleandaboutthemanagerialrole,notjustformsandmanualsthatprescribethemintermsofexpectations.18Managementbyintegrationandself-controldoesnottackanynewsetofdutiesontopoftheexistingmanagerialload.Ratheritisdifferent, if not a difficult way of fulfilling existing responsibilities. The administrative,informational and motivational purposes of performance appraisal of employees are alsoservedbetterbecauseintelligentadultstaketogrowth,learningandimprovedperformanceonlythroughthelanguageofself-controlandintegrativebehaviour.WhiletestinghisTheoryYonpracticingmanagers,McGregordiscovered that unilateral direction and controlwithrespect to the administration of salaries and promotions by giving individuals greateropportunitiestoplayanactivepartindecisionsaffectingtheircareers.19

TheScanlonPlanMcGregor worked closely with Frederick Lesiaur, who was carrying research on unionmanagementcooperation,popularlyknownasScanlonPlanatMIT.TheScanlonPlanwasnot a formula or a set of procedures, but it was a philosophy of management based ontheoretical assumptions entirely consistentwith TheoryY. The two central features of theScanlonPlanare20 lossreductionsharingandeffectiveparticipation.McGregorfoundthatthe proverbial task of ‘selling refrigerators to Eskimos’ had been also easier in Scanloncompaniesratherthaninothercompaniessellingtraditionalincentiveplansormeritratingprogrammes. Participation which grows out of the assumptions of Theory Y offerssubstantial opportunities for ego-satisfaction of the workers or subordinates and therebyeffectsmotivationtowardorganisationalobjectives.TheScanlonPlanresearchaffordsavalidtestimony to theproposition that ‘usedwisely’ andwithunderstanding, participation is anaturalcommitmentofmanagementbyintegrationandself-control.21

ClintonGoldenonceremarkedthat,“byand largeandover the longrun,managementgetsthekindoflabourrelationsitdeserves”.22Theunderlyingassumptionsandtheoreticalconsiderations not only influence managerial behaviour, but also the subtle aspects ofeveryday behaviour which determine the climate of human relationships. These dailymanifestations of theory and attitude in turn affect the expectation of subordinates.Organisationresearchdemonstrates thatMcGregorwasrightwhenhestated that,“formalpolicies, programmes and procedures to be administered and in turn perceived bymanagementreflectthismanagerialclimateofhumanrelationships”.23

RelevanceofTheoryYinLine-StaffRelationshipThebig industrial organisations (of today) areoperatedby the staff.Theirknowledgeandtechniques have profound influence onmajor decisions they design, and procedures theyadminister. The line,which represents the central and fundamental authoritative chain ofcommand, is becoming increasinglydependentupona considerablenumberof specialisedstaffgroups.ThestrategiessuggestedbyMcGregorinhisTheoryYarequiterelevanttoline-staffconflictsof complexnature,whichoften result inwasteofhuman resources, friction,costlyprotectivemechanismandloweredcommitmenttoorganisationalobjective.Thelinemanagerswhoseekcooperationwithin thecontextofTheoryYcanestablish relationshipswith their subordinates, their superiors and their colleagues, which are like those ofprofessionals’vis-à-vishisclients.24Allmanagerswhetherlineorstaffhaveboththelineand

staffresponsibilities.TheTheoryYapproach,accordingtoMcGregor,stressesonteamworkateachleveloforganisation.Itfurtherhelpsinimprovingstaff-linecollaborationofalltheavailable human resources in reaching the best decisions or problem solutions or actionstrategies.

McGregorbelievesthatoneofmanagement’smajortasks is toprovideaheterogeneoussupplyofhumanresourcesfromwhichindividualscanbeselectedtofillavarietyofspecificbut unpredictable needs. Scientific research in managerial leadership25 indicates thatmanagement should pay more than casual attention to its recruitment practices andpromotion policies should be so administered that heterogeneous resources are actuallyconsideredwhenopeningsoccur.Moreover,managementdevelopmentprogrammesshouldinvolvemanypeoplewithin the organisation rather than a select few. Similarly, to groommanagerialleadersitisappropriatethatmanagementshoulddevelopuniquecapacitiesandpotentialities of each individual rather than common objective for all participants.Operations in the frameworkofTheoryYcan takecareof these leadership implicationsofmanagement theory and practice. It can contribute to the fullest development ofpotentialities of the employees in their respective roles, which they can fill the best.McGregorrecognisedthatsomepeoplemaynothavereachedthelevelofmaturityassumedbyTheoryY.Theymayneed,therefore,tightercontrolsthatcanberelaxedastheemployeedevelops.26

TheProfessionalManager:FromCosmologytoReality

IfTheHumanSideoftheEnterpriserepresentsMcGregor’sconcerntoeducatefuturemanagers,The Professional Manager,27 posthumously published, reflects his commitment towardsdevelopingtheprofessionofmanagementthroughbridgingitsgoals,withtheaims,valuesandmethodologyofbehaviouralscience.Fourmajorthemesrecurthroughoutthisvolume,which McGregor left unfinished before his death. He had a great fascination for theorybuildingandcosmology.28Fromthisstemsthepredictionofsocialeventswhichinturnisamatter of perception and world view of the individual. McGregor believed that themanager’sviewoforganisationalrealityexertsprofoundeffectuponmanagerialacts.Theyaffect achievement of his goals and that of his organisation. In McGregor’s view themanagerial cosmology should meaningfully address itself to the understanding of themanager’sbehaviour,his identityandhis roleperceptionsof the industrialorganisation.29As a researcherMcGregormakes a plea thatmanagement styles and strategies should beevolved and continuously adjusted in the light of the empirical experience of reality,consistent with the findings of behavioural knowledge. This will make sense and maketheoryrelevanttopractice.

TheRehabilitationofRationalEmotiveManagerMcGregor realised that emotional reactions, to which most managers are vulnerable,interferewith themanagerialperceptionof reality.Tohimthecultureofmanagementhasbeen generally inhospitable to the expression of natural human responses. This has led todissonantfeelingsofguiltoftensubvertingdecisions.InTheProfessionalManager,McGregorrehabilitatestherationalemotivemanagerandgoingbeyondtheframeworkofhisTheoryY,he places the idea of integrationwithin themould of transactional concept of power andinfluence.HearguedthatTheoryXandTheoryYdonotlieatextremesofthescale.Inplaceofrepresentingpolaroppositestheyshouldbeviewedastwodifferentcosmologies.30Here

McGregornotonlyre-explainedhisownepistemologicalposition,buthasprovidedamoreconcretedescriptionoftheimplicationsofvarioussetsofassumptionsaboutman,implicitlycontainedinTheoryY.

TheConceptofTransactionalInfluenceOne of the major contributions of McGregor to management science is his concept oftransactional influence.31Themanagementofdifferencesorbuildingamanagerial team isnotasimplematterofmanagerialpowerorcontrols.Toaprofessionalmanageritisactuallya challenge of organisation of managerial work. McGregor finds influence as a socialphenomenonifmutuallyoriented.“Itcannotbeawin-loseaffairinwhichifAgets100units,BmustgetzeroorifAgets90units,Bwillhavetosatisfywith10only”.32McGregortookpains to demonstrate that when certain social elements as trust and mutual support arepresent,thereisnoneedforconcernabout‘powerequalisation’orthelossofresponsibilityandstatusinmanagerialhierarchy.ThroughouthislifeMcGregorkeptonrespondingtothisdilemmaofhis friends and critics,whohavebeen repeatedly tellinghim thathis theorieswerefine,buttheydonotworkandthattheyagreewithhisTheoryYvisionofmanbutthattheydonotknowhowtoputitintopractice.McGregor’sanswerwasthateachpersonmustfindhisownanswer.Butasaresearcher,hecertainlydevelopedaconvictionthatanswertothis key issue can provide more bases for human choice. In The Professional Manager hediscusses in greater detail his views on how management can think about to deal withhimself,his roleandstyle,hisownpower, the issueofcontroloverothers, theproblemofteamworkandaboveallhowtomanageconflictscreatively.33

WorkingthroughDifferencesMcGregordiscussesthreestrategiestodealwiththeproblemsofteamworkandtensioninthe management of difference in organisations namely (i) divide and rule, (ii) thesuppression of differences, and (iii) working through differences. The first two strategiesbasedontheassumptionsTheoryXhaverenderedmanagerialteamsasperpetualliabilities.Theprofessionalmanagershouldnotonlyguardhimselfagainstmutualantagonism,secrecy,playing politics, currying favourwith seniors, but should steer through the differences sothattheinterplaybetweenmembersmayyieldtoinnovation,commitmenttodecisionsandstrengtheningofrelationshipswithinthegroup.

AnEvaluationGrahamCleaverlyarguesthatMcGregorcoinedthetwotermsTheoryXandTheoryYandused them to label two sets of beliefs amanagermight hold about the origins of humanbehaviour.Hepointedoutthatthemanager’sownbehaviourwouldbelargelydeterminedby particular beliefs that he subscribes to.McGregor hoped that his bookwould lead themanagers to investigate the two sets of beliefs, invent others, test out the assumptionsunderlyingthemanddevelopmanagerialstrategiesthatmadesenseintermsofthosetestedviewsofreality.ButMcGregorwasinterpretedasadvocatingTheoryYasanewandsuperiorethic – a set of moral values that ought to replace the values managers usually accept.34McGregortriedinvaintodispelthesimplifiedparadigmofTheoryX=BadandTheoryY=Goodthatothershadimposedonhisanalysis.35SimilarobservationsweremadebyEdgarScheinwhenhesaid:‘InmyowncontactswithDoug,IoftenfoundhimdiscouragedbythedegreetowhichTheoryYhadbecomeamonolithicsetofprinciplesasthoseofTheoryX,theover-generalisation which Doug was fighting …. Yet few readers were willing to

acknowledge that the content of Doug’s book made a neutral point or that Doug’s ownpresentation of his point of viewwas that coldly scientific’.36 Some criticisedMcGregor’sideasasbeingtoughontheweakermembersofsociety,thosewhoneedguidanceandwhoarenotnecessarily self-starters.Thereare conspicuousexamplesof companies (likeDigitalEquipmentcorporationssteeredbyitscharismaticfounder,KenOslen)thatfollowedTheoryYpreceptsbutyetfoundered.

The professional and human side of McGregor reveals a very colourful personality ofwide vision and scientific temperament. His lifetime mission was to search a model forindustry, governments and nations, which would enable the critical decision-makers offuture to realise the potential for collaboration, inherent in human nature and humanresources, assigned to human groups. His Theories X and Y do not represent any neatcategoriesofhumanbehaviourorhumanrelationships.Rather, theyareanalytical toolsofreferencethroughwhichmanagerialbehaviourcanbeanalysed,studied,predicted,andstillmore, corrected in terms of changing social values and organisational goals. The currentresearchinmanagementbehaviourhasgonealongway“BeyondtheTheoryY”butdoesnotin anyway belittle the importance of the researchwork, whichMcGregor could initiate,pioneerandaccomplishinthismaidenfieldofmanagementresearch.Fromhumansidetotheprofessionalside, thewritingsofMcGregor indicateasystematicevolutionofhis ideasand thought,which hewas all the time testing and experimentingupon as a behaviouralstudent of management.Most of his ideas in his books and other papers obviously seeminfluencedbythedawnofindustrialsocietyintheUnitedStates,butstillmoretheyreflectthe impact of post war research in the areas of industrial sociology and managementpsychology. Like a true researcher,McGregor does not seem to have final answers to theperennial questions, but as an honest student and an erudite scholar in the field ofmanagement, his writings represents a mine of ideas from which the theorists ofmanagementandpracticingmanagerscandigagreatdealtosharpentheirtoolsandreadjusttheirstrategiesofmanagementfortomorrow.McGregorunderstood,anticipatedandhelpedpointthewaytotheworldwhatmaywellemergeasafuturemodelofwork,organisationsand society that is rooted in core assumptions driving participative, interdependent,authentic,inventiveandproductionrelationships.37

InBriefThecontributionsofMcGregorcanbesummarisedas:• Douglas McGregor (1906-1964), a distinguished social psychologist and management

consultant, popularly known for his Theory “X” and Theory “Y”, made a significantcontributiontotheunderstandingofhumannatureandbehaviourinorganisations.Hisclassic “The Human Side of the Enterprise” is hailed as the seminal work on industrialpsychology.

• McGregor raised questions about the theoretical assumptions of management with afirm belief that ‘everymanagerial act rests on theory’. To him the key question in theworld of topmanagement is “what are your assumptions (implicit aswell as explicit)aboutthemosteffectivewaytomanagepeople?”

• Discussingthenatureofcontrolinthefieldofhumanbehaviour,McGregoradvancesthehypothesisthat“allcontrolisselectiveadaptation’.Heobservesthatwecanimproveourability to control only if we recognise that control consists in selective adaptation tohumannatureratherthaninattemptingtomakehumannatureconformtoourwishes.If

our attempts to control are unsuccessful, the cause generally lies in one choice ofinappropriatemeans.

• Based on his researches in organisational behaviour, McGregor developed twoassumptionsofhumanbehaviourpopularlyknownasTheory“X”andTheory“Y”.TheTheory “X” is a traditional way of integration of behaviour in organisations throughcoercionandcompulsionandTheory“Y” isbasedonself-controlandself-regulationofhumanbehaviour.McGregortriedtoexplainthedifferencesinapproachtomanagementintermsoftheseassumptions.

• McGregor critically examined theprevailingmanagerial strategies andpracticeswhilediscussing the application of Theory “Y”. His research indicates the effectiveness ofTheory“Y”approach.

• Education of future managers was stressed by McGregor and considered thatorganisationrealityisamatterofperceptionandworldviewoftheindividual.Fromthisperceptive he describes the professional manager’s education as a journey fromcosmologytoreality.‘TheoryX’and‘TheoryY’aretreatedasdifferentcosmologies.

• McGregoremphasisedtheconceptoftransactionalpowerandinfluenceinmanagementofdifferences and inbuildingamanagement teams.He recognised the roleof rationalemotive manager in positively directing human responses. But his formulations andtheoriesarecriticisedforimpracticalityandover-generalisation.

• McGregor’s‘TheoryX’and‘TheoryY’maynotrepresentanyneatcategoriesofhumanbehaviourandhumanrelationships.Theyaremoreanalyticaltoolstoanalyseandpredicthuman behaviour in organisations. Drawing inspiration from the works of McGregor,manynewtheorieslike‘TheoryZ’havebeendeveloped.

References1 http://www.managers?/net.co.uk/Biography/mcgregor.html?;

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Douglas?McGregor?2 McGregor,Douglas,TheHumanSideoftheEnterprise,NewYork,McGraw-HillBookCompany,1960.3 http://www.economist.com/businessfinance/mgt/displaystory.cfm?story_id=123664 McGregor,Douglas,TheHumanSideoftheEnterprise,op.cit.,p.iv.5 Ibid.,p.vii.6 Ibid.7 Ibid.,p.6.8 Ibid.,p.8.9 Ibid.,p.9.10 Ibid.,p.11.11 Foranelaborationofthetraditionalview,seeWright,BakkeE.,BondsofOrganisation,NewYork,Harper&Brothers,1950;

andWalker,Charles,TowardstheAutomaticFactory,NewHaven,Con,YaleUniversityPress,1957.12 Mayo,Elton,TheHumanSideoftheEnterprise,op.cit.,pp.33-34.13 Ibid.,p.43.14 http//www.envisionsoftware.com/articles/Theory?htm?15 McGregor,Douglas,TheHumanSideoftheEnterprise,op.cit.,pp.47-48.16 For confirmationof thepointofviewalso see,Leavitt,Harold J.,ManagerialPsychology,NewYork,McGraw-Hill, 1948;

andHertzberg,Frederick,Mausner,Bernard,andSnyderman,Barbara,TheMotivationtoWork,NewYork,JohnWiley&Sons,1959.

17 McGregor,Douglas,TheHumanSideoftheEnterprise,op.cit.,p.57.18 Ibid.,p.75.19 Ibid.,pp.90-109.

20 Ibid.,pp.111-114.21 Ibid.,p.131.22 Ibid.,p.13123 Ibid.,p.144.24 Ibid.,pp.157-175.25 SeeBennis,W., ‘LeadershipTheoryandAdministrativeBehaviour’,AdministrativeScienceQuarterly,Vol. 4,No.3, 1959;

Knickerbocker,Irving,‘Leadership:AConceptionandSomeImplications’,JournalofSocialIssues,Vol.4,No.3,1948.26 http://www.envisionsoftware.com/articles/Theory?htm?27 McGregor,Douglas,TheProfessionalManager, editedbyCarolineMcGregorandWarrenG.Bennis,NewYork,McGraw-

HillBookCompany,1967.28 Ibid.,pp.30-31.29 Ibid.,pp.32-42.30 Ibid.,p.80.31 Ibid.,especiallyCh.9,pp.136-15532 Ibid.,p.vi.33 Ibid.pp.183-186.34 Cleverly,Graham,Managers&Magic,Longman’s,1971quotedinhttp://www.wikipedia.org/with/Douglas?McGregor?35 http://www.managers?net.co.uk?Biography/mcgregor.html?36 SeeEdgarSchein’sintroductioninMcGregor,Douglas,TheProfessionalManager,op.cit.37 Cutcher-Gershenfeld, Joel,“Introduction to theAnnotatedEdition” inMcGregor,Douglas,TheHumanSideofEnterprise:

AnnotatedEdition,Tata-McGrawHill,2006.

L

14CHRISARGYRIS

C.V.Raghavulu

Introductionongbeforetheideaofparticipativemanagementbecamearespectableresearchconcern,thewriters of thenew lefthaddrawnour attention to thephenomenonofwidespread

discontent and alienation and the increasing irrelevance of mechanistic and technocraticprinciplesasguidestoorganizationallife.Theystressedtheneedforpersonalfreedomandinitiative and the dignity of the individual at the work place. The credit for revivingscholarlyinterestontheseaspects,however,goestoChrisArgyris.Thereflectionsofthenewleft writers and the hypotheses of Argyris – concerning the incompatibility between theprevailing organizational strategies and individual need fulfillment – were based on thesame set of objective factors: the continuously rising level of education in the Westerncountries, the demands and effects of automation – the former requiring greatercommitment to work and the latter resulting in a progressive non-involvement of theemployee– restlessness in tradeunionsand the increasingly tenuousrelationshipbetweenwork and satisfaction ofmaterial needs. The situation in theWest at the turn ofmid-20thcentury required new forms of organizational adaptation. To promote adaptability, newconceptions of the individual’s role in the organization and the patterning of newrelationshipswere called for. The theories and hypotheses ofArgyris,Maslow,McGregor,Likert and of otherwriters belonging to the newmanagement schoolwere a response tosuchaneed.

(July16,1923)

LifeandWorksChrisArgyris(1923–2013),borninNewark,NewJersey,afterastintinU.SArmyduringtheSecondWorldWar,wenttotheUniversityatClarkfromwherehegraduatedwithadegreein psychology (1947), obtainedMA in psychology and economics fromKansas University(1949)andPh.DinorganizationalbehaviorfromCornellUniversity(1951).Inadistinguishedcareer, Chris Argyris worked as the Beach Professor of Administrative Science andChairpersonof theDepartmentatYaleUniversity (1951–1971)andthenmovedtoHarvard

UniversityasJamesBryantConantProfessorofEducationandOrganizationalBehaviorwithappointments at both Harvard Graduate School of Education and the Harvard BusinessSchool. He was Director of the Monitor Group in Cambridge, Massachusetts and wasinstrumental in the establishment of the Yale School of Management and starting theprestigious Administrative Science Quarterly. He was a highly influential managementtheoristandregardedasthefatheroforganizationallearningandasaproponentof`learningorganization’,hecrossedthedisciplinaryboundaries.Hewasconsideredasatransformativethought leader in the field of organisational development and trained and mentoredgenerationsofteachers,practitionersandconsultantswhocarriedthebasicideasofArgyrisfar andwide.Asa consultant andpioneer in the applicationof theT-group techniquehisinfluenceonreformsoforganisationalstructuresandmanagerialpracticesisequallystriking.asamentorofgenerationsofprofessorsandpractitioners.Hewasdrivenbyafundamentalfaithinhumannatureandisaformidablethinker.HeisoneofthefirstthinkersinstalledintheThinkers50HallofFame.1

Argyris’ researches relate to four areasviz., impact of formal organizational structures,control systems and management on individuals; organizational change particularlyexecutive behavior; role of social scientist as a researcher and actor and individual andorganizational learning. His writings on management and organizational behavior arevoluminous.Heauthoredover30booksandover150articles.Someofhisimportantworksinclude Organizational Traps: Leadership, Culture, Organizational Design (2012); Reasons andRationalizations (2006);FlawedAdvise and theManagementTrap (1999);Knowledge forAction:AGuide to Overcoming Barriers to Organizational Change (1993), The Applicability ofOrganizational Sociology (1972); Management and Organizational Development (1971);Intervention Theory andMethod: A Behavioral Science View (1970);Organization and Innovation(1965); Integrating the Individual and theOrganization (1964); andPersonality and Organization(1957).2Readinghisworks,asAndrewMcAffeenoted,“willbeoneofthebestinvestments,onecanmakeinimprovingonesunderstandingofhowtheworldworksandalsoimprovingoneself”. A renowned organizational behavior theorist, Argyris received many awardsincluding honorary doctorates from universities in England, Greece, France, Canada,Belgium,Sweden,Canadaand theUnitedStatesandLifeTimeContributionsAward fromtheAmericanAcademyofManagement,AmericanPsychologicalAssociationandAmericanSocietyofTrainingDirectors.InhishonourYaleUniversityestablishedChrisArgyrisChairinSocialPsychologyofOrganizationsin1994.3

Argyris is considered as one of the first generation contributors to the field oforganizationaldevelopment.Hedefinedandvigorouslyadvancedtheoriesandstrategiesforboth individual and organisational development.4 He focused on the individual’srelationship to the organization and the conflict between the individual’s social andpsychological needs and the exigencies of the organisation. His writings suggest that thepersonaldevelopmentof the individual is affectedby theorganisational situation.Argyrishopesthatifthepotentialforself-actualisationpresentineachindividualisproperlytapped,it can benefit the individual employee aswell as the organisation. Unfortunately, currentorganisational approaches inhibit individual growth, hinder his psychological success andpreventtheorganisationfromreapingthebenefitsthataccruefromtheemployee’spersonaldevelopment. Argyris’ influence on the disciplines of management and publicadministrationiswidespread.

TheFormalOrganisationArgyrisarguesthatthereisabasicincongruencebetweentheneedsofamaturepersonalityandtherequirementsofaformalorganisation.Bringingtogethertheevidenceontheimpactof the formal organisational principles upon the individual,Argyris suggests that there issome basic incongruence between the growth trends of a healthy personality and therequirements of the formal organisation. The application of the principles of formalorganisationcreatesituationsinwhich:(1)theemployeesareprovidedminimalcontrolovertheirwork-dayworld; (2) theyare expected tobepassive,dependent and subordinate; (3)theyareexpectedtohaveashort-timeperspective;and(4)theyareinducedtoperfectandvaluethefrequentuseofafewshallowabilities.Allthesecharacteristicsareincongruenttotheneedsofadulthumanbeings.Theyaremuchmorecongruentwiththeneedsofinfant,atleastinthewesternculture.Ineffect,therefore,organisationsarewillingtopayhighwagesandprovide adequate seniority ifmature adults behave in a lessmaturemanner.Argyris’analysis suggests that this inevitable incongruency increases as (1) the employees are ofincreasingmaturity,(2)astheformalstructureismademoreclear-cutandlogicallytightformaximum formal organisational effectiveness, and (3) as one goes down the line ofcommand.

The emphasis on managerial controls make the employees feel dependent on theirsuperiors and fearful of the staff in charge of the various types of controls. For example,employeesandsuperiorstendtoperceivecontrolsasinstrumentsofpunishment.Similarly,evaluativetechniquesareperceivedasunfairinthattheycontinuallyaccentfailureswithoutshowing why such failures may be necessary.5 These conditions tend to increase theprobabilityofthepsychologyoffailureanddecreasetheprobabilityofpsychologyofsuccess.Inbrief,themanagerialcontrolsfocusonthefinancialcoststheorganisationincursanddonotconcernthemselveswiththe‘human’costs.

IndividualandGroupAdaptationIf the formal organisation is defined by the use of such ‘organisation’ principles as taskspecialisation, unity of direction, chain of command, and span of control, and if theseprinciples are used correctly, the employees would work in situations in which they aredependent,subordinateandpassivetowardstheleader.Theywouldtendtousefewoftheirabilities.Thedegreeofpassivity,dependence, and submissiveness tends to increase asonegoes down the line of command and as the work takes onmore of themass productioncharacteristics. As a result, Argyris hypothesises that the formal organisation creates in ahealthy individual feelings of failure and frustration, short-term time perspective andconflict.Atthesametime,itfailstosatisfythehigher-orderneedsoftheemployees.Apathy,lackofinterestandnon-involvementaredefensemechanismsthatmightbecomepartoftheorganisationalscenario.ToArgyris,thebasisofthesedefensesisthecontinuousfrustration,conflictandfailureanemployeeexperiences.

Theindividualadaptstotheimpactof theorganisationbyanyoneoracombinationofbehavioursviz., leaving theorganisation,climbing theorganisational ladder,usingdefensemechanisms,andbecomingapatheticanddisinterested.Thesearealladaptivemechanismsand,therefore,needfulfilling.Inordertoguaranteehisexistence,theindividualemployeealso seeks group sanctions. The informalwork groups are ‘organised’ to perpetuate theseadaptiveprocessestorewardthoseemployeeswhofollowtheinformalcodesandtopenalisethosewhodonot.Theindividualadaptiveactsnowbecomesanctionedbythegroup,and,therefore, provide feedback to reinforce the continuance of the individual need-fulfilling

adaptivebehaviour.

Management’sDominantAssumptionsArgyrisarguesthatthetopadministratorstendtodiagnosetheprobleminadifferentway.They observe their employees while at work and conclude that the employees are lazy,uninterested and apathetic, money-crazy and commit errors and cause wastage.Managementblamestheemployeesand“sees”thedisloyaltyanddisinterestbeingcausedbythe employees. It follows logically formanagement, that if any changes are to occur, theemployeesmust be changed.Thusmanagement initiatesprogrammes to “changepeoples’attitudes”and to“makeemployeesmore interested in theorganisation”.6Thebasicactionpolicythatmanagementtendstodefinetosolvethe‘problems’actuallystemsfromthelogicoftheformalorganisationandtheassumptionsabouttheroleofformalleadership.Pressure-oriented leadership style would be adopted by the management. Summarizing thecharacteristics found inmost of the research studies,Argyris concludes that the autocraticand directive leader places the employees in a situation where they tend to be passive,dependent,subordinate,andsubmissive;focustheiractivitiesontheorganisation’sandtheleader’sneedsratherthantheneedsofallthefollowers;andcompetewitheachotherfortheleader’sfavour.

Argyrisconcludesthattheimpactofdirectiveleadershipuponthesubordinatesissimilartothatwhichtheformalorganisationhasuponthesubordinate.Pressure-orienteddirectiveleadership “compound the felony” that the formal organisation commits. Authoritarianleadership, notes Argyris, reinforces and perpetuates the ‘damage’ created by theorganisationalstructure.

StrategiesforOrganisationalDevelopmentArgyris’approachandprescriptionfororganisationalchangeproceedfromthediagnosisofthe inadequacy and unimaginative character of the prevailing forms of organisation andmanagerialcontrols.7Hesuggestsaninterventionstrategyfororganisationdevelopmentinfourcoreareas.Firstly,theorganisationshouldprovideanenvironmentforthedevelopmentof the individual towards personal or psychological maturity. Secondly, a programme fororganisation change should aim at improving the interpersonal competence of theemployees.Thirdly,changesmustbeintroducedtotransformthetraditionalpyramidalformoforganisation.Fourthly, techniques forprogrammed learningaimedat individual changeshouldbeintroduced.Argyris’viewsabouttheassumptionsandprocedurestobefollowedforapplyingthesestrategiesfororganisationalchangearediscussedbelow.

(a)Maturity-ImmaturityTheoryArgyrisobservesthatthereisabasicconflictbetweenthestructureofformalorganisationsandpsychologicalneedsofmatureadults.Intheorganisationstheemployeesgetfrustratedas theyarenotallowedto functionasmatureadults.HisMaturity-ImmaturityContinuumtheoryproposesthatpeoplematureanddevelopastheygrow.TheprocessofmaturityfromtheinfantstagewascharacterisedbyArgyristoconsistofsevencomponents.Theseare:1. From infant passivity towards adult activity – If the organisations in which the

employeesworkrestrictsthemandforcesthemtopassivelyperformanarrowscopeofwork,theytendtobecomedisinterestedandfrustrated.

2. From dependence towards relative independence – If the organisation does not allow theemployeestoexercisetheirindependencethroughparticipationindecisionsthataffect

them,bothself-esteemandproductivitysuffer.3. From limited behaviours to much different behaviour – If the organisation denies the

employees the opportunity to play a variety of roles, theirmotivation decreases andtheylooseinterest.

4. From erratic, shallow, brief interests to more stable, deeper interests – If themanagersassume thatdecision-making is theirwork anddonot sharewith the employees, thedecisions will not be synergetic and the employees will feel isolated anddisenfranchised.

5. Fromshort-termperspectivetolong-termperspective–Iftheemployeesarenotallowedtoparticipate and contribute to long-term strategies, employee morale declines andproductivitysuffers.

6. Fromasubordinatesocialpositiontoanequalorsuperordinatesocialposition–Workersreact negatively if the organisation treats them as children and do not trust them tobehaveasadults.

7. Fromlackofself-awarenesstoself-awarenessandself-control–Organisationsthatfailtoprovide the necessary opportunities discussed earlier shoot themselves in the foot bynottakingadvantageofthetremendouspotentialoftheemployees.

Since the employees of organisations are adults, they should be treated as matureindividuals who are capable of accepting responsibility, pursuing long-term interests andconcernedaboutthefulfillmentof thehigherorderneeds.AccordingtoArgyris’ theoryofpersonality, mature individuals would be interested in the constructive release ofpsychologicalenergy.Inthiscontext,Argyrissuggestsananalyticalframeworkofindividualbehaviour, linking the concepts of psychological energy, personality needs and abilities.FollowingMaslow’s theoretical model, Argyris suggests that each individual has a set ofneeds.8ToquoteArgyris:

“Bordering theneeds, and inmost cases evolving from them, are the abilities.Abilities are the tools, so to speak,withwhich a person expresses and fulfills his needs. Abilities are the communication systems for the needs to expressthemselves.Oncetheenergybubblesoverfromtheneeds,itgoes‘through’theappropriateabilitydesignedtoexpresstheneed…”.

“Interests are usually a product of a fusion of several needs. This fusion usually comes about at an early age and isunconscious. Interests, therefore,are indicatorsof thekindsofneedspeoplehave.Forexample,apersonwithastrongneedtobeindependent,toachieve,andtoknowthings,mightmakeagoodscientist.”

“Theskillsthataregiventousbyinheritancearesuchskillsasfingerdexterityandothermanualandmanipulativeskills.Fewabilities are inherited. Themajority of themore important abilities are learned anddeveloped in interactionwithothers. This is especially true for such abilities as leadership. There are no born leaders. The personality of a leader isdeveloped,probablyduringearlyhomelifeandbythesituationsinwhichthispersonalityfindsappropriateexpression.Ability, in summary, is a function between needs and the environment, thus providing the line of communication forneed”.9

Thetypicalapproachtothemanagementoforganisations isnotgearedtothepotentialsatisfactionofindividualneeds.Nordoesitprovidechallengestostimulatetheemployees.Theaccentinorganisationalchangestrategiesshould,therefore,beuponmeetingtheneedsof mature individuals and providing opportunities to arouse and utilise their fullpsychologicalenergy.

(b)ImprovingInterpersonalCompetenceOrganisationshavebeenemphasisinguponimprovingthecompetenceinvolvingintellectualormechanicalskills.Inorganisations,rangingfromresearchestablishmentsandhospitalsto

businessfirmsandcivilservice,Argyrisfoundthatcompetenceinvolvinginterpersonalskillshasbeenwoefullyneglected.Organisationsarepresumedtobeable to functionbetter, themore interpersonallycompetent theirmembersare. Interpersonalcompetencerefers totheabilitytodealeffectivelywithanenvironmentpopulatedbyotherhumanbeings.Argyrisisdefinitely the most persuasive advocate of the pursuit of the goal of interpersonalcompetence. He postulates that there are three requirements for the development ofinterpersonalcompetence,viz.:(1) Self-acceptance: This refers to the degree to which the person values himself in a

positivefashion.(2) Confirmation: By ‘confirmation’,Argyrismeant the reality testing of one’s own self-

image.(3) Essentiality: This is defined by Argyris as one’s opportunity to ‘utilise the central

abilitiesandexpresshiscentralneeds’.In attempting to operationalise the concept of interpersonal competence, Argyris

specified several specific kinds of behaviour that he regards as concrete evidence ofinterpersonallycompetentbehaviour.Thesefourtypesofbehaviourarearrangedroughlyinorder of decreasing frequency of occurrence and increasing potency for contributing tocompetence.Theyare:(1) Owningupto,oracceptingresponsibilityforone’sideasandfeelings;(2) Beingopentoideasandfeelingsofothersandthosefromwithinone’sself;(3) Experimentingwithnewideasandfeelings;and(4) Helping others to own up, be open to, and to experiment with their ideas and

feelings.10

(c)TheOrganisationalStructuresoftheNewSystemOrganisations of the future will be a combination of both old and new forms oforganisations,accordingtoArgyris.Theoldpyramidalformswillbemoreeffectivefortheroutine, non-innovative activity that requires little, if any, internal commitment by theemployees. However, as the decisions become less routine, more innovative, and as theyrequiremore commitment, the newer forms such as thematrix organisationwill bemoreeffective.Argyris’ detailedprescriptions concerning organisational structures are based onthe requirements of the task and the nature of decision-making.Accordingly, he suggestsvariousmixesoftheorganisationwithdifferentpayoffs.11

StructureI:ThePyramidalStructureThepyramidalformshouldbeusedintheperformanceofroutineoperations,incaseswheredecisionsareprecededbywidespreadagreement,indecisionalsituationsthatdonotaffectseriouslythe‘rewardsandpenaltyactivities’oftheorganisationorinemergencyoperationswith time-constraints. Further, the pyramidal structure may be more effective if theindividualparticipantsdonotseekpsychologicalsuccessandprefertoremainapatheticandnon-involved.

StructureII:TheModifiedFormalOrganisationalStructureThisisclosetoLikert’s‘link-pin’conceptwhichenablesasubordinatetobeamemberofthesuperior’s decisional unit. This structure is more effective because it permits thesubordinate’sparticipationwiththeoptionforthesuperiortooverridethedecisionmadeby

thegrouportogoaheadandmakehisowndecisionwithoutwaitingforthegrouptodecide.

StructureIII:PowerAccordingtoFunctionalContributionUnder this structure, each employee has equal opportunity to be provided information,powerandcontrols,dependingonhispotential contribution to theproblem.This strategymay be applied in situations involving teamwork, group incentives, new productdevelopment,inter-departmentalactivitiesandlong-rangeplanning.

StructureIV:TheMatrixOrganisationUnder this structure, each individual has equal power and responsibility and hemay notrelinquishit.Hehasunlimitedopportunitiestoinfluencethenatureofthecoreactivities.Amatrix organisation12 is expected to eliminate superior-subordinate relationships andsubstitutes for them individual self-discipline.Each individualwouldhave the freedom toterminateaswell as to createnewactivity.Amatrixorganisationwouldbe ridof internalmonopolies,whichseemtobethebaneofmosttraditionalorganisations.Itisdesignedlessaroundpowerandmorearoundwhohastherelevantinformation.Projectteamsarecreatedto solve specific problems. Each project team is composed of people representing all therelevantmanagerialfunctionslikemanufacturing,engineering,marketingandfinance.Eachmemberof theproject team isgivenequal responsibility andpower to solve theproblem.The members are expected to work as a cohesive unit. The teams remain temporary orpermanent,dependinguponthenatureoftheassignment.13Amatrixorganisationmayhavemanyteams,asthefollowingchartindicates.

Executives in the matrix organisation need to learn many aspects. One importantrequirement is their awareness of the actual leadership styles to be consistent with theadministrative situation. The leader should be able to control ‘productive tension’, whichcomes fromacceptingnewchallenges, taking risks, for expandingone’s competencies, etc.He has to help the employees to understand the internal environment, stretch theiraspirations realistically and help them face interpersonal reality. He must also learn tomanage inter-groupconflictabout constructiveaspects. In sum,executiveeducation in thematrixorganisationwouldfocusonsystemeffectiveness.Thematrixstructureenablesjobstobeenlarged.Job‘enlargement’facilitatesnotmerelytheinclusionofmoreoperationsofthesame low level, but to expand the use of the individual’s intellectual and interpersonalabilities.Underthis,eachemployeecanhavemorecontrolwithinhissphereofactivitiesandgreaterparticipationindecisionsaboutthem.

(d)TechniquesofProgrammedLearningAprogrammeofeducationbecomesanintegralpartoforganisationaldevelopmentactivity.In this, learning focuses on individuals in teams and organisational and systemdiagnosis,renewal and effectiveness. The concern for effectiveness would be matched bycommensurateeducationaleffort.TheT-group(Tfortraining)orsensitivitytrainingisonesuchtechniquesuggestedbyArgyrisforimprovingthepersonaleffectivenessofemployees.

TheT-grouporSensitivityTrainingThe T-group technique consists of a laboratory programme designed to provideopportunitiesforindividualemployeestoexposetheirbehaviour,giveandreceivefeedback,experiment with new behaviour and develop awareness and acceptance of self andsensitivitytothepersonalitiesofothers.TheT-groupalsoprovidesthepossibilitiestolearnthenatureofeffectivegroupfunctioning.14Theapproachisdesignedtoprovideexperienceswhere psychological success, self-esteem, and interpersonal competence can be increasedanddependenceandcontrolreduced.

It is found that theT-groupsessionsenableparticipants to forgethierarchical identitiesand develop distributive leadership and consensual decision-making. Unlike in theconventional organisational setting, an employee under attack may experiment withaggressive forms of reactions. Among the several positive results Argyris notes from hisexperiments in laboratory education was the delegation of more responsibilities to lowerlevels,gettingmorevalidinformationfromtheranks,andmakingthedecisionsmorefreely.Importantly,therearenointermediaterelaypointsinthecommunicationsystem.Theywereabletoputanendtodefensivepolitickingatmeetingsandwindmillingatthelowerlevels.TheoriginalaimofT-grouptrainingwaspersonalgrowthorpromotionofself-insightandthe focuswas on changing the individuals, not necessarily to change the environment inwhich they work. Gradually, the same approach is being used extensively to promoteorganisation improvement.Argyrisnotes that ‘wearenotsuggesting thatorganisationsbeadministered like T-groups. However, we are hypothesizing but they should includestructureslikeT-groupsforcertainselecteddecisions’.15

T-groupandPublicAdministrationChris Argyris suggests thewidespread use of T-group technique or sensitivity training inPublicAdministration.HisassessmentoftheUnitedStatesDepartmentofStateisillustrativeof the pathologies in governmental organisations as well as the need for intervention inorganisational socio-emotional processes. According to Argyris, reforms in governmentalorganisation should aim at providing employeeswith higher order need satisfaction. Thisrequires a long-range change programme, which would focus on the behaviour andleadershipstyleoftheseniorparticipantsandtheintroductionoforganisationalchangesthatwould culminate in the enlarging of responsibilities and adopting innovative behaviour.Argyris also suggests radical revisions in the personnel practices in order to reduce thesystem’s defenses. It is observed that the characteristics of the US State Department arecommon to most publicly administered organisations in the West or non-West. WhileArgyris’recommendationsstemfromaspecificresearchstudy,Fredericksonconsidersthemrelevanttoallgovernmentalorganisations.16

OrganisationalLearningOneofArgyris’s seminal contributions is in the area of organisational learning.He, alongwith Donald Schon undertook studies and conceptualised the learning processes inorganisational setting. They argue that the organisations are not merely collection ofindividuals, but there is no organisation without such collections. On the same linesorganisational learning is not merely individual learning, but organisations also learnthrough the experience and actions of individuals.17 Organisational learning occurswhenmembersactas learningagents for theorganisation, responding tochanges in the internalandexternalenvironmentsbydetectingandcorrectingerrorsinorganisationaltheory-in-use

andembeddingtheresultsinprivateimagesandsharedmapsoforganisation.Theydevelopedsingleanddouble-looplearning.Intheformertheindividualsrespondto

errorsbymodifyingstrategiesandassumptionswithintheorganisationalnorms.Indouble-loop learningresponse todetectederror takes the formof joint inquiry intoorganisationalnormsper se and resolves the inconsistency andmakes new normswhich can be realisedeffectively. In both, organisational learning consists of restructuring the theory oforganisationalaction.18

Argyris and Schon identified several factors that inhibit both individual andorganisational learning. They include the disposition not to discuss interpersonal andintergroupconflicts, tabooonpublic analysisoforganisational failures, thedesire toavoiddirectinter-personalconfrontation,etc.19Theyalsodiscussseveralinterventionmodels.

WritersonOrganisations-ACritiqueArgyris is highly critical of the approaches andwork of both industrial psychologists andorganisational sociologists. While many psychological researchers tended to place theenvironment(socialstructure,norms,etc.),inablackbox,theorganisationalsociologistslikeBlau,Thompson,Perrow,Goldthrope,etc.,haveignoredmuchoftheresearchonpersonality,interpersonalrelationshipsandgroupdynamics.Thelatter,whilestudyingorganisationasawholeseemstoignoretheadmittedlycriticalpartsoftheorganisation.Individualbehaviour,smallgroupbehaviourandinter-groupbehaviourrepresent,accordingtoArgyris,importantparts that help to create the whole.20 Their predominant mode of analysis is the staticcoorelationalmode. The nature ofman implicit in their research is one of amechanistic,closed-system; man is a passive creature with little influence on the organisation. Theirconceptofmanisveryclosetotheonethatautocraticandconservativemanagementshavealways maintained, namely that people prefer to be market-oriented and economicallyoriented. They have tended to develop generalisations about the approximate fit betweenthe organisation and the environment that correlate with the management’s criteria ofsuccess.Finally,Argyrisstateshisownviewoforganisationalreality:

Iwouldpreferaviewofrealitywherethesociologicalandpsychologicallevelvariablesinteractandreinforceeachother.Thepurepsychologicalapproachtendstoleadtoviewsofmanthatignoretheconstraintscultureandsocialstructuresmakeandthusresultsinignoringthedeeppsychologicalissuesinvolvedinmakingacontinualchoicetogiveupaspectsofone’sindividualityandautonomyinordertomaintainone’suniquenessandfreedom.21

CritiqueofHerbertSimonHebertSimon’s“rationalmanorganisationtheory”hasbeencriticisedbyArgyrisonseveralgrounds.ArgyrisconsidersthatSimon’srelianceonthedescriptive-empiricalapproachandthe concept of ‘satisficingman’ would support status quo in organisational life.22 Simon’stheory, in Argyris’ view, excludes variables like interpersonal relations, need for self-actualisation,etc., thatarecentraltoorganisationbehaviour.23Further,Simon’srelianceonmechanisms of organisational influence as an important source of motivation wouldtantamounttotheviewthatmancanbemotivatedbytheauthoritysystem.Onthecontrary,Argyris asserts, man is basically proactive with potential for self-actualisation. Simon’stheory of organisation would have no place for self-actualising individuals. Argyriselaborates:

The consequences of intendedly rational man concept, in short, is to focus on theconsistent, programmable, organised, thinking activities of man; to give primacy tobehaviourthatisrelatedtogoals;toassumepurposewithoutaskinghowithasdeveloped.

Man, as a person who feels, experience chaos; manifests spontaneity; becomes turned-onwithoutplanningitorbeingabletoexplainitintermsofconsistencyofconsciouspurpose;thinks divergently…………is not the primary concern of the intendedly-rational-manorganisationtheorists.24

ArgyrisgoestotheextentofbracketingSimonalongwiththetraditionaladministrativetheorists for emphasising the importance of authority structures, for paying insufficientattention to the emotional side ofman and for ignoring the hostility, anger and negativefeelingsofatypicalemployeetowardstheorganisationanditsgoals.

ACritiqueofArgyrisCriticisms of Argyris’ theories fall into three broad categories. The first set of criticismsconcernArgyris’benignviewofmaninrelationtotheorganisation;hischaracterisationofthe concept of self-actualisation seem to border to utopia and is without any preciseoperational indicators. To Simon, self-actualisation is synonymous with anarchy.25 Simonalso takes objection to the view that organisations should be ‘be-all and end-all’ of self-actualisation; itwouldbemorerealistic fororganisations toplan forreducing theworkinghours and enhancing leisure to enable employees to seek self-actualisation. Secondly,Argyris’ antipathy to authority is considered to be without any parallel. The view that“structureisdevil”isinfluencedbyArgyris’obsessionwiththeneedforpower.26AsSimonpointsout“Argyris…tendedtochoosede-emphasisofauthorityelationsasthewayout,butatthepriceofneglectingtheconsequencesfororganisationaleffectiveness…whatcorruptsisnotpower,buttheneedforpoweranditcorruptsboththepowerfulandthepowerless”.27

Thirdly, objections are raised against some of the key propositions of Argyris onmethodological grounds. For instance, there is little empirical support in favour of thestatementthatpeopleinorganisationsaresingularlyopposedtoauthority.Onthecontrary,thereisconsiderablesupporttotheviewthatmanyemployeesseemtoacceptauthorityandorganisationgoalsbecausesuchacceptanceisincongruencewiththeirvaluesandinterests.If employeesderive toomuchnegative satisfaction, theywould ratherwithdraw from theorganisation. Argyris’ assumption that the pursuit of the goal of self-actualisation is auniversalistic goal has also been questioned. It appears that not all individuals, under allcircumstances, would like to self-actualise themselves and that there are many who feelhappierunderconditionsofdirectiveleadership.

ConclusionArgyrishasbeenabletosharpenthevariousfacetsofthehumanrelationsandparticipativeschoolsofthoughtonorganisations.Hisobjectiveis tobuildhealthierorganisationsandtoraise the quality of life in them. Argyris advocates a fundamental transformation oforganisationstoprovideasuitableenvironmentforself-actualisation.Hehasbeenpursuingthisobjectivewithamissionaryzeal,eventothepointoftranscendingtheboundariesoftheconventionalorganisationaltheorist.However,theideasofArgyrisaretoocontemporarytofindaproperplaceinadministrativetheory.Someofthepropositionsarenormativeandlackempirical validation. It is, therefore, difficult to place his work in a clear historicalperspective.

ThemostimportantcontributionofArgyrisisintherealmofinterpersonalcompetence.Muchof theresearchon the interpersonalbehaviourofexecutiveswouldstronglysupportthe idea that the abilities concept does have relevance for the study of personality andinterpersonalstyle toactually influenceorganisationaleffectivenessandhowinterpersonal

competencecanbethoughtofasaskillthatcanbelearned.Severalstudiesalsoindicatetheimportanceofinterpersonalcompetenceofupper-leveladministrators.Argyris’observationconcerning the frequent recourse to the use of defence mechanisms, group formation inparticular, when the higher-order needs of individuals go unattended, has considerableempirical support. Another lesson that we learn from Argyris is that research onorganisationscannotbeseparated,beyondapoint,fromaction.

InBriefArgyris’contributiontoorganisationtheoryandbehaviourcanbesummarisedas:• Chris Argyris (1923- ), belonging to the new management school, is one of the first

generation contributors to the field of organisational development. A renownedorganisational behaviour theorist andpioneer in the application of T-Group technique,hisinfluenceonreformoforganisationalstructuresandmanagerialpracticesisstriking.

• Argyriscriticallyexaminedtheworkingofformalorganisationsandadvancedtheoriesandstrategiesforbothindividualandorganisationaldevelopment.Hearguesthatthereisabasicincongruencebetweentheneedsofamaturepersonalityandtherequirementsof a formal organisation. Discussing the basic conflict between the structure of formalorganisations and the psychological needs of mature adults, he proposed Maturity-Immaturitytheoryandthesevencomponentsofthecontinuum.

• He suggests an analytical framework of individual behaviour, linking the concepts ofpsychologicalenergy,personalityneedsandabilities.Argyrishopesthat if thepotentialfor self-actualisation present in each individual is properly tapped, it can benefit theindividualemployeeaswellas theorganisation.Hesuggests interventionstrategies fororganisationdevelopment.

• Argyris emphasises the importance of interpersonal competence in organisationaldevelopment.Heelaboratestherequirementsandthetypeofbehaviourtoimprovetheinterpersonalcompetencies.

• Discussing about the appropriate organisational structures for realising the self-actualisationpotential,Argyrisprefersmaterialstructurestoparamedicalstructures.Hearguesthattheleadershipstylesneedtobeconsistentwithadministrativesituationsandstructures.

• Argyris advocated an ambitious programme of education as an integral part oforganisationaldevelopmentactivity.TheT-Group(Tfortraining)orsensitivitytrainingisone such technique suggested by Argyris for improving the personal effectiveness ofemployees.

• In the area of organisational learning, Argyris along with Donald Schon, developedsingleanddouble-looplearningtechniques.

• Argyris is highly critical of the approaches and work of writers on organisationsincludingHerbertSimonandforcefullypresentshisownviewoforganisationalreality.But his own theories are criticised for taking a benign view ofman in relation to theorganisation;theantipathytoauthority;andlackofempiricalevidence.

• Argyris advocatesa fundamental transformationoforganisations toprovidea suitableenvironment for self-actualisation. Along with his other ideas like interpersonalcompetenceandmatrixorganisations,thisadvocacyisofcontemporaryrelevance.

References

1 See, Chris Argyris (1923–2013): An Appreciation http://www.thinkers50.com/blog/chris-argyris-1923-2013-appreciation/; See also Smith, M.K. ‘Chris Argyris: Theories of Action, double-loop Learning and OrganisationalLearning’,TheEncyclopediaofEducation,http://infed.org/thinkers/argyris.htm.

2 http://www.actionscience.com/argbib.htm; For details of his works see Chris Argyris, Bibliography of Works:http://www.actionscience.com/argbib.htm,AccessedonAugust12,2015.

3 Radhika Warrier, Chris Argyris – A Profile, See http://74.125.153.132/search?q=cache:BpGX9xAG_QIJ:www.business.bgsu.edu/modcompass/articles/christheories.doc+radhika+warrier+on+chris+argyris&cd=1&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=inSee also Chris Argyris,Bibliography ofWorks See: http://www.actionscience.com/argbib.htm, Accessed on August 12,2015.

4 Ibid.5 SeeArgyris,Chris,PersonalityandOrganisation,NewYork,Harper,1957,pp.150-57.6 Ibid.7 SeeArgyris, Chris, Integrating the Individual and theOrganisation,NewYork,Wiley, 1964, pp. 3-19, andManagement and

OrganisationalDevelopment,NewYork,McGraw-HillBookCompany,1971,pp.1-27.8 For adetailed account of the theory of hierarchy of needs seeMaslow,Abraham,MotivationandPersonality,NewYork,

Harper,1954.9 Quoted in Hampton, D. R., Summer, C.E., and Webber, R.A.,Organisational Behaviour and the Practice of Management,

Glennview(III.)Scott,ForemanandCo.,1968,p.139.10 Argyris,Chris,InterventionTheoryandMethod:ABehaviouralScienceView,Reading(Mass),Addison-Wesley,1970,p.40.11 SeeArgyris,Chris,IntegratingtheIndividualandtheOrganisation,op.cit.,pp.197-214.12 The matrix structure was originally developed in the US aerospace industry. Along with several other organisation

theoristsArgyrisbecameastrongadvocateofthematrixstructure.SeeKnight,K.,“MatrixOrganisation:AReview”,TheJournalofManagementStudies,1976(13),2,pp.111-30.

13 Argyris,Chris,“HowTomorrow’sExecutivesWillMakeDecision”,Think,Nov.-Dec.1967,pp.18-22,publishedbyIBM.14 Themethodwasoriginallydeveloped in1947byBradford,L.P.,Benne,K.D., andLippitt,R., See theirbookT-Group

TheoryandLaboratoryMethod,NewYork,Wiley,1964;Summer,C.E.‘StrategiesforOrganisationDesign”,inKilmann,R.H.,Pondy,L.R.,Slevin,D.P.,(Eds.),TheManagementofOrganisationDesign,Vol.I,NewYork,NorthHolland,pp.103-39.Also seeArgyris, Chris,”A BriefDescription of Laboratory Education”,TheTrainingDirectors Journal, Vol. 17, No. 10,October,1963,pp.5-8.

15 Argyris,Chris,“ABriefDescriptionofLaboratoryEducation”,op.cit.,p.5.16 Frederickson,H.G.,“TowardaNewPublicAdministration”,inFrankMarini(Ed.),TowardaNewPublicAdministration:The

MinnowBrookPerspective,Scranton,Chandler,1972,p.328.17 Argyris, Chris, and Schon, Donald A.,Organisational Learning: A Theory of Action Perspective, Reading, Massachusetts,

Addision-WesleyPublishingCompany,1978,p.9.18 Ibid.Speciallychapter1,pp.8-29.19 Ibid.,p.43.20 SeeArgyris,Chris,TheApplicabilityofOrganisationalSociology,Cambridge,CambridgeUniversityPress,1972,pp.70-83.21 Ibid.,p.72.22 For details about the controversy between Argyris and Simon see Argyris, Chris, “Some Limits of Rational Man

Organisation Theory”, Public Administration Review, Vol. 33, No. 3, (May-June 1973), pp. 253-67; Simon, H.A.,“OrganisationalMan:RationalorSelf-Actualizing”,PublicAdministrationReview,vol. 33,No.4 (July-August1973),pp.346-53;andArgyris,Chris,“OrganisationalMan:RationalandSelf-Actualizing”,PublicAdministrationReview,op. cit.,pp.354-57.

23 Argyris,Chris,“SomeLimitsofRationalManOrganisationTheory”,op.cit.,p.253.24 Ibid.,p.261.25 Simon,H.A.,“OrganisationalMan:RationalorSelf-Actualizing”,op.cit.,p.352.26 Ibid.,p.348.27 Ibid.,p.349.

M

15FREDERICKHERZBERG

V.Lakshmipathy

Introductionotivation towork has been receiving increasing attention from both thosewho studyorganisation and also thosewhomanage them. The traditional simplistic prescriptive

guidelines concerning the ‘economic man’ are no longer considered adequate inunderstanding human behaviour. There are several factors that account for the growingimportanceofmotivationviz.,growingcomplexityofbehaviouralrequirementsinmoderncomplex organisations, ever tightening constraints placed on organisations by unions andgovernmental agencies, increasing competition, lobbying, changing nature of technology,corporateobjectivesoforganisationsand the increasingemphasisonhumanresourcesandtheirmanagement. It is in this context the conceptual contributionsofFrederickHerzberggainssignificanceintheliteratureofpublicadministration.

(1923-2000)

LifeandWorksFrederickIrvingHerzberg(1923-2000)wasborninLynn,Massachusetts.HejoinedtheCityCollege,NewYorkin1939buthisstudieswereinterruptedbytheSecondWorldWarwhenheenlistedasanon-commissionedofficerintheUSArmywherehewontheBronzeStarforvalour.Asapatrolsergeant,hewasafirsthandwitnessoftheDachauConcentrationCampandhebelievedthatthisexperience,aswellasthediscussionshehadwithotherGermanslivingintheareawaswhattriggeredhisinterestinmotivation.OnreturnfromthearmyhecompletedhisBSdegreein1946andwentontotakeMSandPh.DinpsychologyfromtheUniversity of Pittsburgh. He worked as a Research Director of Psychological Services atPittsburgh (1951-57), Professor of Psychology at Case Western Reserve University inCleveland (1957-72andProfessorofManagement at theCollegeofBusiness,UniversityofUtah (1972-95) until retirement. At Case Western Reserve University he established theDepartmentof IndustrialMentalHealth. 1Hispublications includeTheMotivation toWork(1959),WorkandtheNatureofMan(1966)bothalongwithB.MausnerandB.Snyderman,The

ManagerialChoice(1982)andHerzbergonMotivation(1983).2A renowned psychologist, pioneer of job enrichment concept and one of the most

influentialmanagementteachersandconsultantsinthepostworldwarperiod,Herzbergistheoriginatorofmotivation-hygienetheoryandwascalledthefatherofjob-enrichment.Hebecame an icon and a legend among post-war visionaries such asMaslow,McGregor andDrucker. His article “One More Time, How Do You Motivate Employees?” published inHarvardBusinessReviewin1968seemstohavesoldover1.2millionreprintsinlessthantwodecades.3In1995theInternationalPressannouncedthathisbookWorkandtheNatureofManwas listed as one of the ten most important books impacting management theory andpracticeinthetwentiethcentury.HerzbergwasaconsultantformanymultinationalsbothintheUnitedStatesandforeigngovernments.HewasamongthefirstAmericanconsultantstostudyworkersintheSovietUnionandworkedextensivelyinIsraelandJapan.

StudiesonMotivationInfluenced by the writings of Abraham Maslow, Douglas McGregor and Chris Argyris,Frederick Herzberg became interested in analysing the relationship between meaningfulexperience at work and mental health. He believed that all individuals have two sets ofneedsviz.,toavoidpainandtogrowpsychologically.TheMotivation-Hygienetheorygrewout of the studiesHerzberg conducted on about two hundred and three accountants andengineers,chosenbecauseoftheprofession’sgrowingimportanceinthebusinessworld,inand aroundPittsburgh, Pennsylvania.His study revolved basically around two issues, i.e.,identification of the events which resulted in marked improvement in individual’s jobsatisfaction;andconverselytheeventsthathaveledtomarkedreductioninjobsatisfaction.Heusedthecriticalincidentmethodtocollectdata.Theinterviewersaskedtherespondents“thinkofthetimewhenyoufeltexceptionallygoodorexceptionallybadaboutyourpresentjobor inother jobsyouhavehad”.The time framecouldbeeither the ‘longrange’or the‘short range’. Based on the responses, he probed further and developed his Motivation-Hygienetheory.

Herzberg’sstudywasbasedonopenquestioningandveryfewassumptionstocollectandanalyse the details of ‘critical incidents’ as recalled by the respondents. Thismethodologywas adopted by him first in his doctoral study at the University of Pittsburg. This openinterviewingmethodgave farmoremeaningful results than themostpopular, convenientand conventional closed or multiple-choice or extent-based questions, which assume orprompt a particular type of response. A significant aspect of his study is that Herzbergundertook extensive preparatory work prior to his study in 1959 by scrutinising andanalysingthemethodologiesandtheresultsofall155studiesundertakenpreviouslyonjobattitudes carried out between 1920 and 1954. The level of preparation and the criticalincidentmethodaswellasthedepthofcareandanalysisafterthestudyhelpedHerzbergtoproduce a powerful and sophisticated work.4 Herzberg expanded his motivation-hygienetheory in his subsequent books. Significantly, Herzberg commented 25 years after thepublicationofhis theory that the“original studyhasproducedmorereplications thananyotherresearchinthehistoryofindustrialandorganisationalpsychology”.5

BeforetheHerzberg’sstudies,managementsingeneralusedtoconcentrateonimprovingthehygienefactorsi.e.,whenevertherewasaproblemtheyattemptedto‘solve’itbyhikingpay, giving additional fringe benefits and by improving the working conditions. Butunfortunately, these simplistic solutions could not always succeed in motivating the

employees. Herzberg’s theory, apart from explaining the problems of motivation, alsoopenedtheeyesofmanagementstohaveacloserlookatallthemotivationalfactorsinsteadofonlyconcentratingonhygienefactors.

Two-FactorTheoryHerzberg’stwo-factortheoryidentifiedfivestrongdeterminantsofthe jobsatisfactionandfiveof jobdissatisfaction,whicharea totallydifferentsetof factors.Theyarepresented inchart1.

Chart1:Herzberg’sTwo-FactorTheory

HygieneFactors MotivationFactors

Companypolicyandadministration AchievementSupervision RecognitionSalary WorkitselfInterpersonalrelations ResponsibilityWorkingconditions Advancement

Herzberg founddualityofattitudesaboutworkexperience in theresponsesofworkersontheirjobs.Jobexperiencesleadingtofavourablereactionsmostoftenwererelatedtothecontext in which the job performed, that is, the surroundings and the factors on theperipheryoftaskcontent.Asagainstthis,factorscausingunfavorableresponseswerefoundtoberelatedtoavoidanceofdiscomfort.Againthefactorscausinggoodresponsesarerelatedto personal growth, or fulfillment of psychological needs. Herzberg labelled the factorsassociated with the growth and the task content of the job as ‘satisfiers’ and factorsassociated with pain avoidance and the “context/surroundings” of the job were labelleddissatisfiers.

SatisfiersThe factors identified as satisfiers, which perform the role of motivators in jobs, are asfollows:Achievement: The personal satisfaction of solving problems independently, completing task,andseeingtheresultsofone’sefforts.Recognition:Positiveacknowledgementofthetaskcompletedorotherpersonalachievement,ratherthangeneralised“humanrelations”expressionofrewards.Workitself:Thetaskcontentofthejobandrelativeinterest,variety,challenge,andfreedomfromboredom.Responsibility:Beingentrustedwithfullresponsibilityandaccountabilityforcertaintasks,ortheperformanceofothers,andhavingcontroloverdecidinghowandwhentasksaretobedone.Advancement and Growth: Advancement to a higher order of task to perform. A sense ofpossibility for growth and advancement as well as actual satisfaction from new learning;beingabletodonewthings.

DissatisfiersThepotentialdissatisfiers,or“hygienefactors”-usingananalogytothemedicaluseoftheterm, meaning preventive and environmental - are salary, company policy andadministration, supervision, working conditions, and interpersonal relations. Hygienefactors, such asworking conditions, company administration, salary, supervisory relations,

and benefits and services are envisioned as environmental elements that have little or norelationships to the motivation of specific job-related behaviour. The factors that canmotivate aman toworkharder according toHerzberg include elements suchas theworkitself, achievements, recognition, advancement and responsibility. These latter factorsdetermine how an employee feels about his job, whereas hygiene factors only determinehow a worker feels about his company or organisation in general. Expressed somewhatdifferently,motivationfactorsarerelatedtojobcontext.Inaddition,Herzbergarguedthatanemployee is either dissatisfied or not dissatisfied with hygiene factors, and he is eithersatisfied or not satisfiedwithmotivational factors. The implication being satisfaction anddissatisfactionareseparatecontinuumsandnottheoppositeofeachother.Instead,aneutralstateexistsascontrarytojobsatisfactionandjobdissatisfaction.Aworkeriseithersatisfiedor not satisfied (neutral) with motivational job factors. Similarly, an employee is eitherdissatisfiedornotdissatisfied(neutral)withhygienicfactors.

Herzberg’srationalehelpstoexplainwhyaworkermayhatehisjobandyetremainwiththeorganisationorlovehisjobandyetquittheorganisation.Thisisbecauseseparatetypesof factors influence these twoseparateanddistinct feelings.Theelements thatdeterminedhowanemployeefeelsabouthisjobarethemotivationalfactors;thevariablesthatinfluencehowaworkerfeelsabouthisorganisationaretheenvironmentalorhygienefactors.Hygienefactorsmustbeadequate,oremployeeswillnotbeattracted toanorganisation.Butwhenemployed,manipulatinghygienefactorscannotmotivateaworkertodoabetterjob.

Each set of factors are rarely involved in contributing to the other and each set isindependent of the other.What is important is that dissatisfiers only produce short-termchangesinhumanattitudesandsatisfiersproducelong-termattitudes.Dissatisfiersdescribeman’srelationswithcontextandenvironmentinwhichhedoesthejob.Theyonlyservetopreventjobdissatisfactionandhaveverylittleeffectincreatingpositivejobattitudes.Ontheother hand, satisfiers are related to what one does, i.e., job content, nature of task, andgrowth in task capability, etc. They are effective inmotivating the individual for superiorperformance.Herzbergcallshygienefactorsasdissatisfiersandmaintenancefactorswhereassatisfiersarecalledmotivatorsandgrowthfactors.

Themotivationandhygienicfactorsareseparateanddistinctandtheyarenotoppositeorobverseofeachother.Forexample,oppositeof jobsatisfactionisnot jobdissatisfactionbutonlyindicatesthereisnojobsatisfaction.Similarly,oppositeof jobdissatisfactionisnot jobsatisfaction,butonly indicates that there isno jobdissatisfaction.Therefore, these twoaremade up of two unipolar traits, each contributing very little to the other. The three keyprinciplesattheheartofthemotivation-hygienetheoryare:1. The factors involved in producing job satisfaction are separate anddistinct from the

factors that lead to job dissatisfaction. Growth occurs with achievement andachievementrequiresatasktoperform.Hygienefactorsareunrelatedtotasks.

2. The opposite of satisfaction on the job is not dissatisfaction; it is notmerely no jobsatisfaction.Satisfactionanddissatisfactionarediscretefeelings.Theyarenotoppositeendsofthesamecontinuum.Herzbergdescribedthemas“unipolartraits”.

3. The motivators have a much long-lasting effect on sustaining dissatisfaction thanhygienefactorshaveonpreventingdissatisfaction.Themotivatorsinaworkexperiencetend to be more self-sustaining and are not dependent upon constant supervisoryattention.Hygieneneeds,however,arerelatedtothingsforwhichourappetiteisneversatisfied completely. Applications of hygiene improvement must be constantlyreapplied, since the need for them always recurs, usually with increased intensity.

Hygiene must always be replenished. Most of the methods used in work-relatedorganisations to “purchase”motivated behaviour over the years have appeared to beineffective, since the traditionalmotivation problems still exist. This is the inevitableresultbecauseonlythingsthatsurroundtheworkitselfwerebeingimproved,andthesethingshavenolastingeffectsonthemotivationofworkers.

HygieneandMotivationSeekersAfter explaining the significance ofmotivation and hygiene factors,Herzberg divides thepeople working in organisations into two groups and calls them ‘hygiene seekers’ and‘motivation seekers’. Chart 2 explains the characteristics of both hygiene and motivationseekers.

Successfulhygieneseekerswillhavetwotypesofimpactontheorganisation.Firstly,theywill leadtheorganisationto‘asiswhereis’astheyaremoremotivatedtoexternalrewardthaninternal.Borrowingtheterminologyfromthearmy,Herzbergequatesthemas‘barracksoldiers’.Secondly,theyinstilltheirownmotivationalattitudesintheirsubordinatesandsetextrinsic reward atmosphere in the organisation. Often their influence can be out ofproportiontotheirlong-termeffectiveness.Thirdly,ahygieneseeker,evenafterfulfillmentofhygieneneeds,maynotgetmotivated.

Inadequatepay,nodoubt,contributestodissatisfactionbutmorepayisnoguaranteeformore productivity. As Paul and Robertson have noted, ‘no amount of environmentalimprovement can compensate for task impoverishment’. If our concern is to motivatepeople,wemustlookatthetaskweaskthemtodo.Emphasisonhygienefactorswouldleadto impede creativity, absenteeism, frequent occurrence of failures and restriction oreliminationofopportunityforinitiativeandachievement.

Chart2:CharacteristicsofHygieneandMotivationSeekers

HygieneSeeker MotivationSeeker1. Motivatedbynature 1. Bythenatureofthetask2. Chronicandheighteneddis-satisfaction

2. Highertoleranceforpoorhygienefactorswithaspectsofjobcontent.E.g.Salaryjobsecurity,fellowemployee

3. Overreactionwithsatisfactionto

3. Lessreactiontoimprovementinhygieneimprovementinhygienefactors-factors.

4. Shortdurationofsatisfaction

4. Similar

5. Overreactionwithdissatisfaction

5. MilderdiscontentwhenHFneedswhenHFarenotimprovedimprovement

6. Realiseslittlesatisfactionfrom

6. Realisesgreatersatisfactionaccomplishment

7. Showslittleinterestinthekindand

7. Showscapacitytoenjoythekindofworkqualityofworkhedoeshedoes

8. Cynicismregardingpositivevirtuesof

8. Havepositivefeelingstowardsworkandlifeworkandlifeingeneralingeneral

9. Doesnotprofitprofessionallyfromexperience

9. Profitsprofessionallyfromexperience

10. Pronetoculturalnoises: 10. Beliefsystems-sincereandconsidered

a) Ultraliberalb) Ultraconservative-Parrotsmostphilosophy

c) Actsmoreliketopmostthanthetopmostdoes

11. Maybesuccessfulonthejobbecauseoftalent

11. Maybeanoverachiever

To an organisation, it is easy tomotivate through fear of hygiene deprivation than tomotivateintermsofachievementandactualisingthegoals.Suchapolicywouldbeinjurioustothelong-terminterestsoftheorganisation.Therefore,itisdesirabletofocusemphasisonmotivatingthepeople.Forthis,Herzbergsuggests jobenrichmentandverticaloverloadingastheimportantmeans.

JobEnrichmentMotivation-hygiene theory holds thatmanagementmust provide hygiene factors to avoidemployeedissatisfactionbutalsofactorsintrinsictotheworkitselfsothattheemployeesaresatisfied with their jobs. Herzberg argued that job enrichment is required for intrinsicmotivationandthisisacontinuousmanagementprocess.AccordingtoHerzberg:• Thejobshouldhavesufficientchallengetoutilisethefullabilityoftheemployee;• Employees who demonstrate increasing levels of ability should be given increasing

levelsofresponsibility;and• If the job cannot bedesigned touse an employee’s full abilities then the organisation

shouldconsiderautomatingthetaskorreplacingtheemployeewithonewhohasalowerlevelofskill.Ifapersoncannotbefullyutilisedthentherewillbeamotivationproblem.6

The term ‘Job Enrichment’ designates a technique used by managers to maximise inindividual workers the internal motivation to work, which is the true source of jobsatisfaction.Basicallyaconceptofthe1960s,foundedontheworkofFrederickHerzberg,jobenrichment has been significantly augmented by work done at Yale University. The job-enrichmentconceptdesignatesaproductionandprofit-orientedwayofmanaging,aswellasameansofmakingworkexperiencemeaningfulforthepeople.Itisbaseduponthepremisethat people are not motivated by what is externally done to them by management withrewards,privilegesorpunishment,norbytheenvironmentorcontextinwhichtheyperformtheir work. People develop lasting motivation only through their experience with thecontentoftheirjobs-theworkitself.

Suchfactorsaspay,fringebenefits,theworkenvironment,workingconditions,andthequalityofsupervisioncannotbeignoredorgivenonlytokenattention.Dissatisfactionwiththefactorscanhaveaseverelydebilitatingeffectonaworkforce.Caringproperlyfortheseneeds can result in an absence of dissatisfaction. But generating motivation in workersrequiresdoingsomethingwithwhattheydointheirwork.

Managersinrecentyearshavebeenwitnessinghigh-velocitychangeandturmoil inthepatternsof employeebehaviour, andare forced to copewithahostofproblems includinghigh turnover or quit rates, absenteeism, tardiness, union grievances andwork stoppages,hightrainingcosts,poorproductionquality,andlowratesofproduction.Jobenrichmentwasdesigned to eliminate such problems, thereby benefiting both the employee and the

employer.

JobLoadingIn attempting to enrich an employee’s job, Herzberg contends that management oftenmerely succeeds in reducing the man’s personal contribution, rather than giving him anopportunityforgrowthinhisexistingjob.Hecallsthis“horizontaljobloading”,asopposedto“vertical loading”’whichprovidesmotivationfactors.Horizontal loading, inhisview, iswhathasmostlybeenwronginearlierprogrammescenteredonjobenlargement.Hegivessomeexamplesofthisapproach,7withsometartobservation:• Challengingtheemployeebyincreasingtheamountofproductionexpectedofhim.Ifhe

tightens10,000boltsaday,seeifhecantighten20,000aday.“Ifthejobisalreadyzeroinmotivation,multiplyingzerobyanythingstillequalszero.”

• Adding another meaningless task to the existing one, usually some routine electricalactivity.“Thearithmetichereisaddingzerotozero.”

• Rotatingtheassignmentsofanumberofjobsthatreallyshouldbeenriched.Thismeans,forexample,washingdishesforawhile,andthenwashingsilverware.“Thearithmeticissubstitutingonezeroforanotherzero”.

• Removing themostdifficult parts of the assignment to free theworker to accomplishmore of the less challenging assignments. “This traditional industrial engineeringapproachamountstosubtractioninthehopeofaccomplishingaddition.”Herzbergconcedesthatalltheprinciplesofmotivationthroughjobenrichmenthavenot

workedoutasyet,butheoffers theseven-pointchecklist shown inExhibit Iasapracticalguideforanyonewhowishestore-examinethemotivatorfactorsinthejobsoverwhichhehascontrol.

OpportunitiesinJobEnrichmentJob-enrichment has aptly been described as “the art of reshaping jobs”. Quantitativemeasures of production rates, quality, and job attitude have been carefullymade inmanyapplications. Improvementshaveamplydemonstratedthevalidityofchanging jobcontenttoeffect increasedmotivation.Space limitationspreclude recountingapplication results indetail.

TheProcessofEnrichingJobsHerzbergdescribes a ten-stepprocess that themanagersmay keep inmind inmotivatingtheiremployees.Theyinclude:1. Select the jobswhere attitudes are poor, hygiene is becoming costly andmotivation

willmakeadifferenceinperformance.2. Approachthejobswiththeconvictionthattheycanbechanged.3. Brainstorm a list of changes that may enrich the jobs, without concern for their

practicality.4. Screenthelisttoeliminatethesuggestionsthatinvolvehygienethanmotivation.5. Screen the list for generalities viz., ‘give them more responsibility’, that are rarely

followedinpractice.6. Screenthelisttoeliminatesuggestionsforhorizontalloading.7. Avoiddirectparticipationbyemployeeswhosejobsaretobeenriched.8. Intheinitialattemptsofjobenrichment,twoequivalentgroupsshouldbechosen-one

asaexperimentalgroupandotherasacontrolgroup.

9. Bepreparedforadropinperformanceintheexperimentalgroupinitiallyasachangeovertoanewjobmayleadtoatemporaryreductioninefficiency.

10. Expect the first line supervisors to experience anxiety andhostility over the changesthatarebeingmade.

These experimentswill enable the supervisory functionaries to identify functions theyhave neglected in the past and to devote time to review colleague’s performance andadministeringthroughtraining.8

TheModuleofWorkandVerticalLoadingoftheJobAmongthebestwaystosetupindividualresponsibilityistoseeknaturalmodulesofwork,whichcanbeindividuallyassigned.Aworkmodulecanappearinmanyforms.Ingeneral,amodule is a set of related tasks,which contribute in sequence to the completion of somefunctionorturningoutsomecompleteditem.Themoduleoftaskscanbemoremeaningfulif it is related to some natural unit of work for which an individual has continuingresponsibility.

Naturalunitsofworkmayhavegeographic,alphabetical,ornumericalgroupingorotheridentity.That identitymayalsoberelatedtoservingsomerecipientorgroupofrecipients.Whenanaturalworkmoduleisfirstidentifieditmaybeperformedbyseveralpeopledoingfragmentsof the fullmodulewithnoonesinglyresponsible for thewhole.To thegreatestdegreethatispractical,eachindividualisgiventhefullprocesstoperform.Ineffect,asenseof“proprietorship”canandshouldbedeveloped.

Theresponsibilityisfullandindividual.Inonekeypunchjob,forexample,theoperatorsweregivenamoduleofworkbyhaving themprepareall cards fromacertaingeographicareaorforcertainkindsofreportsratherthanwhatevercardshappenedtocomealongnext.

Theprincipleofverticalloadinginvolvesprocessloadingintoajob,additionaltasksandresponsibilitieswhichcandelivermoresatisfaction than the tasks in the job tobeginwith.This isverydifferentfromaddingmoretaskswhichmaybevariedbuthaveessentiallynogreaterinterestandresponsibilityandaremostoftenfoundaboveinthesupervisoryjoborajobatahigherlevelofcomplexity.

DirectFeedback: Theprocess of feedback ishighly important in the enrichingprocess. Itaffects the recognition motivator. The most effective feedback occurs in the transactionbetweenemployeeandthetaskratherthanintheusualtransactionbetweenemployeeandthesupervisor.Effectivefeedbackhasthesecharacteristics:• Itisrelatedtotaskperformance,notpersonalcharacteristics.• Itisgivenonanindividualratherthangroupbasis.• Itoccursatshortintervals.• Itisgivendirectfromthetasktotheemployee,notthroughthesupervisor.

This isnot intended to imply that supervisory feedback is ineffectiveorwasteof time.Mostpeopledesireit,andsuchinterpersonalfeedbackonperformancecanbeofgreatvaluewhen done well. Direct feedback is not fettered with interpersonal problems and is lesscomplicated.

Soonafter thecompletionofa task,aworkershouldbe learningthroughtaskfeedbackhowwell he is doing, where he stands, andwhat he is worth. Then he should have theopportunitytodosomethingaboutithimself.Thisisusuallyaccomplishedbymakinghimresponsibleforchangesandadjustmentsinhisprocessandforcorrectinghisownerrors.

Once anew responsibility is given, the supervisormust give consideration towhathis

responsewillbeiftheemployeefailswithit.Somefailuremustbeexpected.Thesupervisorshouldhelptheemployeecorrecttheerror,examinewhyitoccurred,andassistinplanningto prevent recurrence. This kind of individual coaching becomes a major supervisoryfunction,whichushersinanewwayoflifeformanysupervisors.

Referring to the model, the Exhibit 1 elaborates on the job-dimension andimplementationcomponents:

Task Combination: Combining tasks to a complete task module have a high degree ofpotential.Thiswillprovideadditionalinterests,challenge,andafeelingofresponsibilityforthewholepiece.

EXHIBIT:ITheWorkEffectivenessModel

DiagnosticTools

NaturalWorkUnits:Designingtheworkaccordingtoalogicalgroupthatisalignedwiththemissionallows for thepersonal feelingof responsibility.Workers start to identifywiththisgroupandbehaveaccordingly.

ClientRelationship:Wherenaturalworkunitsaregroupingsbycustomers - forexample,billingoraccounts receivable—theengenderedsenseof responsibility leads theworkers toforma“clientrelationship”withtheaccounts.Theystarttocallthem“mycustomers”andtakeonastrongattitudeofownership

Vertical Loading: This pushing of responsibilities down higher levels and giving theworkers more control make for increased responsibility. This should be done selectivelyaccordingtoindividualcompetence.

FeedbackChannels:Settingupconditionsforfeedbackfromthejobisveryimportantinthetransition froma100per cent checking job toapartialor full taskmodule.Eliminationofchecking without feedback might hurt quality. Workers and supervisors must know howtheyaredoing.

CriticalEvaluationIn spiteof thewide rangingapplicationand thepopularityof the two-factor theory, thereappearsa severe criticismonHerzberg’spropositions.LikeTaylor’s scientificmanagementtheory,Herzbergwasalsocriticisedforadoptinganindustrialengineeringapproachthoughfrom the oppositeway than that of Taylor.His ideas are applicablemore tomanagementthanthesupervisorsandmuchlesstoshopfloor.Itwasarguedthatpayisbothsatisfieranddissatisfier; particularly dissatisfier to low paid employees, at the same time higher payprovidesrecognitionandenhancesself-esteem.Therefore,itisasatisfier.HouseandWigdorcriticisesthetheoryonthefollowinggrounds:• thetheoryismethodologicallyegg-bound.Whenthingsareokay,theyputthemselvesin

thebestlight,butwhenthingsgowrongtheyblametheenvironmentalfactors,i.e.,thehygienefactors;

• raterbias;and• no overall measure of satisfaction was used in Pittsburgh’s study. For example, most

peoplemaydislikecertainfeaturesofthejob,butstilllikethejobitself.Theotherelementsofcriticismare:• a given factor can cause job satisfaction for one and job dissatisfaction for others and

vice-versa;• agivenfactorcancausebothjobsatisfactionforoneandjobdissatisfactioninthesame

people;and• intrinsicjobfactorsaremoreimportanttobothsatisfyinganddissatisfyingjobevents.

SomecriticisedtheHerzberg’stheorybasedonthemethodologyused.Theyarguedthatthemethodologydoesnotaddressthenotionthatwhenthingsaregoingwellpeopletendtolookat the things they enjoy about their job.When things aregoingbadly, however, theytend to blame external factors. Another criticism is that the theory assumes a strongcorrelation between job satisfaction and productivity. Herzberg’s methodology did notaddressthisrelationship.9OthersarguethatHerzbergcouldobservetheresultsbecauseitisnatural for people to take credit for satisfaction and to blame dissatisfaction on externalfactors.Inaddition jobsatisfactiondoesnotnecessarilyimplyahighlevelofmotivationorproductivity.10 King argued that satisfaction and dissatisfaction are generally no longerconsidered toexistonseparatescales.Theseparationofsatisfactionanddissatisfactionhasbeen shown as an artifact of the Critical Incident Technique used by Herzberg to recordevents.On the other hand,Hackman andOldham felt that the theory does not allow forindividualdifferences,suchasaparticularpersonalitytrait,whichwouldaffectindividuals’uniqueresponsestomotivationorhygienefactors.11Somebehaviouralscientistsalsopointout the inadequacies in the need hierarchy and motivation-hygiene theories viz., thesetheoriescontaintherelativelyexplicitassumptionthathappyandsatisfiedworkersproducemore; statistical theories are concerned with explaining ‘average’ behaviour and the

employeesintheirpursuitofstatusmighttakeabalancedviewandstrivetopursueseveralbehaviouralpathstoachieveacombinationofpersonalstatusobjectives.12

Itisarguedthatrespondentsdidnotliketoappeargreedyandtherefore,rankedpayverylow, whereas in studies of Lawler pay was ranked as satisfier. Studies by Shepard andHerrickconfirmedHerzberg’sconclusions.Similarly,itwasarguedthataftertheinitialyearsinemployment,jobsatisfactiondecreasesbuttheworkercontinuestoworkforaliving.

Themain criticismof themotivation-hygiene concept is that initially it interpreted jobandcompanyemploymentfactorstobetotallydistinctandaseparatesetofentities.Today,itisrecognisedthatthesefactorsattimescanbeboth“motivators”and“hygienic”innature.Moneyespeciallyseemstobeamotivatorinmanyworksituations,especiallythoseinwhichthe employee is earning a relatively small total annual income. Motivators and hygienicfactorsalsomayvaryonjobsatdifferentorganisationallevels.

Vroom argued that no one has investigated whether Herzberg, Mausner andSnyderman’sresultscouldbeanoutcomeofanattributionprocess.Somerelevantstudiesdoindicatethatthisprocessmayaccountfortheobserveddata.BarryM.Stawnotedthatwhenindividualsare led tobelieve theirperformancehasbeensuccessful, they tend toattributevarious pleasing characteristics to the work group. Others showed that regardless of thesupervisor’s behaviour,manipulated to be structuring or considerate,when awork groupdoeswell it tendstosee the leaderasconsiderate. Inshort,peopleselectcharacteristicsonthebasisoftheiroutcomes.

Methodologyadoptedinanystudyhasabearingontheconclusionsemanatingfromthestudy. One criticism against Herzberg’s theory is the methodology adopted. Schwab andothers have adopted same methodology as that of Herzberg but they obtained resultsdifferentfromwhatthetwo-factortheorywouldpredict.

Inspiteofthecriticismontwo-factortheory,manybaseduponempiricalresearches;itisunquestionable thatHerzberg’s contribution toworkmotivation is substantial.He focusedattention on the significance of job content in motivation, which was a neglected factorearlier. The concept of job enrichment is certainly one of his better-known contributions.Herzberg’s theory is largely responsible for the practice of allowing employees greaterresponsibility forplanningandcontrolling theirworkasameansof increasingmotivationandsatisfaction.

Herzberg’s ideas, it is argued, relates to modern ethical management and socialresponsibility. He understood well and attempted to teach the ethical managementprinciplesthatmanyleaderstoday-particularlyinbusinessorganisations-stillstruggletograsp. In this respect Herzberg’s concepts are just as relevant today as when he firstsuggested,except that the implicationsofresponsibility, fairness, justiceandcompassioninbusinessareglobal.ItisalsoarguedthatHerzbergwasessentiallyconcernedwithpeople’swell-beingatwork.Underpinninghistheoriesandteachingshewasbasicallyattemptingtobringmore humanity and caring into theworkplace than only to improve organisationalperformance.13Thesignificanceofthetheorycanbeunderstoodfromthefactthatby1968,accordingtoHerzberg,thetwo-factortheorywasreplicatedsixteentimesinawidevarietyofsituationsandcorroboratedwiththestudiesusingdifferentprocedureswhichagreedwithHerzberg’soriginalfindingsrelatingtointrinsicemployeemotivationmakingitoneofthemostwidelyreplicatedstudiesonjobattitudes.14NotwithstandingthecriticismsHerzberg’scontribution toworkmotivation issubstantial.Hedrewattention to the importanceof jobcontentandjobenrichmenttoworksatisfaction.

InBriefThecontributionofHerzbergcanbesummarisedas:• Frederick Herzberg (1923-2000), pioneer of job enrichment concept and motivation-

hygiene theory, is one of the most influential management consultants. Among hiswritings,thebookWorkandtheNatureofManwasratedasoneoftheinfluentialworksonmanagementinthe20thcentury.

• Herzbergconductedstudiesusing‘criticalincidents’methodanddevelopedtheoriesofmotivation-hygieneandjob-enrichment.

• Herzberg found in his studies duality of attitudes and called them dissatisfiers andsatisfiers. The dissatisfiers are called as ‘hygiene factors’ and satisfiers ‘motivationalfactors’.Expresseddifferently, thevariables that influencehowaworkerfeelsabouthisorganisationare theenvironmentalorhygiene factorsand theelements thatdeterminehowanemployeefeelsabouthisjobarethemotivationalfactors.

• Herzberginhistwo-factortheoryidentifiedjobsatisfactionsandjobdissatisfactionsandconsideredthemastotallydifferentsetoffactors.Theimplicationbeinganemployeeiseither dissatisfied or not satisfied with hygiene factors and is either satisfied or notsatisfiedwithmotivational factors. These two factors are on a separate continuumandnotoppositeofeachother.

• Herzberg divides people working in organisations into two groups and calls them‘hygiene seekers’ and ‘motivation seekers’ and also explains their characteristics. TheimpactofhygieneseekersandmotivationseekersonorganisationsisalsoelaboratedbyHerzberg.

• Herzbergarguesthat‘JobEnrichment’isatechniquetomaximiseinindividualworkersinternalmotivationtoworkandtoenhancejobsatisfaction.Realisationofemployees’fullpotentialisoneoftheobjectivesofjobenrichmentandtheprocessisdescribedas‘theartofreshapingjobs’.

• The process of enriching jobs has also been described in detail by Herzberg. Amongothers he considers module of work, vertical loading of the job and feedback as animportantmeansofjobenrichment.

• Herzberg’stwo-factortheoryiscriticisedbasedonmethodologyandconclusions.Manyconsidertheexistenceofseparatescalesofsatisfactionanddissatisfactionasnotvalid.Itisarguedthatsamefactorsmaybesatisfiersanddissatisfiersdependingonthelevelsofworkandcontextofwork.

• Herzberg’sworkresultedinmorefocusonsignificanceofjobcontentinmotivation.Hisconcept of job enrichment has played an important role in practices of allowingemployeesgreater responsibility forplanningandcontrolling theirworkasameansofincreasingmotivationandsatisfaction.

NotesBenedictS.GrigaliunasandHerzberg,Frederick,“Relevancy in theTestofMotivation-HygieneTheory”, JournalofApplied

Psychology,February1971,pp.73-79.Lindsay, C. A., Marks, E., and Gorlow, L., “The Herzberg Theory: A Critique and Reformulation”, Journal of Applied

Psychology,August1967,pp.330-339.Schwab,DonaldP.,WilliamDeVitt,H., andCummings,Larry l., “ATestof theAdequacyof theTwo-FactorTheoryasa

PredictorofSelf-reportPerformanceEffects”,PersonalPsychology,Summer1971,pp.293-303.Ford,RobertN.MotivationThroughtheWorkItself,NewYork,AmericanManagementAssociation,1969.Hackman,J.RichardandOldham,GregR.,WorkRedesign,Reading,Mass.,AddisonWesley,1980.Hackman, J. R. andOldham,G.R., “Motivation through theDesign ofWork; Test of a Theory” (Tech.Rep.No. 6),New

Haven,Conn.,YaleUniversity,DepartmentofAdministrationSciences,1974.Waters,L.K.,andWaters,CarrieWherry,“AnEmpiricalTestofFiveVersionsoftheTwo-FactorTheoryofJobSatisfaction”,

OrganisationalBehaviourandHumanPerformance,February1972,pp.18-24.Scott,Myers,M.,EveryEmployeeaManager,NewYork,McGraw-Hill,1970.NathanA.King, “AClarificationandEvaluationof theTwo-FactorTheoryof JobSatisfaction”,PsychologicalBulletin, July

1970,p.18.Paul,W.J.Jr.,Robertson,K.B.,andHerzberg,F.,“JobEnrichmentPaysOff”,HarvardBusinessReview,March-April,1969,pp.

61-78.Bockman,ValerieM.,“TheHerzbergControversy”,PersonnelPsychology,Summer1971,pp.155-189.Vroom,VictorH.,WorkMotivation,NewYork,JohnWileyandSons,Inc.,1964.Walters, Roy W., and Purdy, Kenneth L., “Job Enrichment Programs”, in Heyel, C., ed., Handbook of Modern Officer

ManagementandAdministrativeServices,NewYork,McGraw-Hill,1972.Walters,RoyW.,JobEnrichmentforResults,Reading,Mass.,AddisonWesley,1975.

References1 Seehttp://www.lib.uwo.ca/programs/generalbusiness/herzberg.html;

http://www.nytimes.com/2000/02/01/business/f-i-herzberg-76-professor-and-management-consultant.html; See alsoThe Encyclopedia of the History of American Management-MorganWitzel,http://www.siop.org/tip/backissues/TipApril00/31Obituaries/html,16April2001

2 Herzberg,Frederick,Mausner,Barnard,andSnydermanBarbaraBloch.,TheMotivationtoWork,NewYork,JohnWileyandSons,Inc.,1959;Herzberg,Frederick,WorkandtheNatureofMan,Cleveland,TheWorldPublishingCompany,1966.

3 Herzberg,Frederick,“OneMoreTime:HowDoYouMotivateEmployees?”HarvardBusinessReview,Vol.46,No.1,Sep.-Oct.,1987,pp.109-120.

4 http://www.businessballs.com/herzberg.htm(Retrievedon21stAugust,2009)5 Ibid.6 http://www.netmba.com/mgmt/ob/motivation/herzberg/(Retrievedon21stAugust,2009)7 Herzberg,Frederick,“OneMoreTime:HowDoYouMotivateEmployees?”,opp.cit.,p.114.8 Ibid.,pp.116-117.SeealsoMiner, JohnB.,OrganisationalBehavior:FromTheorytoPractice,Vol.4,NewYork,M.E.Sharpe.

Inc.,2007.Ch.5.9 Seehttp://www.mindtools.com/pages/article/newTMM_74.htm(Retrievedon21stAugust,2009)10 http://www.netmba.com/mgmt/ob/motivation/herzberg/op.cit.11 Ibid.SeealsoLuthans,Fred,OrgnisationalBehavior,NewYork,McGraw-HillBookCompany,1977,pp.411-41312 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Two-factor_theory(Retrievedon21stAugust,2009)13 Seehttp://www.businessballs.com/herzberg.htm,op.cit.14 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Two-factor_theory,op.cit.

T

16RENSISLIKERT

P.Seshachalam

Introductionhehumanrelationsschoolinadministrativetheorywasinitiallydevelopedtocountertheeffects of “efficiency engineering” through scientific management and the apparent

degradation of man as an appendage to the machine. In later years, its scope has beenwidened to emphasise the importance of people creating, operating and influencingorganisations and management processes. This school believes that organisationaleffectiveness depends upon the quality of relationships inter se among people in theorganisation and managerial ability lies in developing ‘interpersonal competence amongmembers to support collaborative effort at all levels of the organisation’. The scope ofbehavioural studies extends from individual personality and motivation dynamics toorganisationcultureandclimateandtheirimpactonworkperformance,jobsatisfactionandorganisationeffectivenessanddevelopment.Likert’s‘ManagementSystemsI-IV’representsa major breakthrough in the researches in this field. He is known for his studies onorganisationandanalysisofmanagementstyles.HedevelopedLikert’sScaleaspartofhisthesisworktomeasureattitudesandtheLinkingPinModel.

(1903-1981)

LifeandWorksRensis Likert (1903-1981), an American organisational psychologist, educator andmanagementtheorist,wasborninCheyenne,Wyoming.HereceivedB.A.insociologyfromtheUniversityofMichigan,AnnArbor(1926)andPh.D(1932)fromColumbiaUniversity.Hestarted his teaching career as an Instructor at New York University, became assistantprofessor in 1935 and spent a year (1935-36) on the faculty of Sarah Lawrence College inBronxville, New York. He worked as Head, Division of Program Surveys, Bureau ofAgriculturalEconomics in theU.S.Department ofAgriculture,Washington,D.C,ResearchDirector forLife InsuranceAgencyManagementAssociation (1935-39) andDirector of the

MoraleDivisionof theU.S.StrategicBombingSurvey(1944-1946)duringWorldWarII.HeworkedasProfessorofPsychologyandSociologyattheUniversityofMichiganduring1946-1970.AtMichigan,hefoundedtheSurveyResearchCentre in1946whichevolvedintotheInstituteforSocialResearchwithhimastheDirector.AfterretirementhebecameDirectorEmeritus. In 1971, he formed Rensis Likert Associates in Ann Arbor and continued hisstudies and consultancy relating to management systems and styles in numerouscorporations.1

ResearchonManagementPracticesLikert and his associates carried out extensive research on management practices inAmerican business and government. The comprehensive studies conducted by a team ofabout 40 researchers over a period of twenty-five years at a cost of $15millions comparefavorablywith the famousHawthorne studies. Theywere conducted in awide variety ofsituations like industrial and commercial firms, railways, hospitals, schools and voluntaryorganisations and covered unskilled workers in factories to top scientists in researchlaboratories.Hismajorworks includeNewPatterns ofManagement;TheHumanOrganisation;andNewWays ofManagingConflict.2His bookswere extremelypopular in Japan and theirimpactcanbeseenacrossmodernJapaneseorganisations.

Likert was actively associated with the National Academy of Public Administration,AmericanPsychologicalAssociation andAmerican StatisticalAssociation.He received thePaul D. Converse Award from the University of Illinois, James A. Hamilton Award andawardsfromtheOrganisationDevelopmentCouncil,McKinseyFoundation,SocietyfortheAdvancementofManagement,ProfessionalAchievementAwardfromtheAmericanBoardofExaminersofProfessionalPsychologistsandOutstandingAchievementAwardsfromtheAmerican Society for Training andDevelopment and theAmericanAssociation for PublicOpinionResearch.3

Likert,throughhiswide-rangingresearchidentifiedtheforcesacceleratingthepressureforhighperformanceinAmericanbusinessorganisations.Someoftheforces listedbyhiminclude4growingcompetitionfromtheindustriallydevelopedcountriesforworldmarkets;resistance topressureandclosesupervisionandrising trendtowardsgiving the individualmorefreedomandinitiative;significantincreaseintheeducationalleveloflabourforceandconsequentchangeinemployeeattitudesandexpectationsofparticipativestyles;increasingconcernforthementalhealthandfulfillmentofthepersonalityneedsofemotionallymaturepersons in business andgovernment organisations; and increasingneed formore complexsystemsoforganisinghumaneffortstomeetthedemandsofmorecomplextechnologiesandlargeranddiverseenterprises.Likertbelievedthatthebodyofknowledgeofsocialsciencescan pave the way to frame a generalised theory of organisation and management. Hepropounds threedistinctive concepts pertaining to supervision,management systems, anddynamicsofinterpersonalrelationships.

SupervisoryStylesRecognising the climate for better performance, Likert and his associates explored thecharacteristics of high performance units as contrasted to low performance units. Theyaddressedtoquestionssuchas,5whydosomemanagersgetbetterresultsthanothers?Whatdoeffectivemanagersdothatdissipativemanagersdonot?Howtomeasureeffectivenessofamanager?What criteria exist or canbedeveloped tomeasure results?Are objective and

factual measures reliable or are they misleading? Likert classifies supervisors into twocategories viz., job-centered and employee-centered. The primary concern of the firstcategory of supervisors is to ensure performance of assigned tasks and maintenance ofprescribedstandards.Thecharacteristicsofsuchsupervisorsarethatthey:6

• exertheavypressuretogetworkdone;• havelittleconfidenceinthesubordinates;• exercisecloseanddetailedsupervision;• allowlittlefreedomtosubordinates;and• arepunitiveandcriticalwhenmistakesoccur.

Ontheotherhand,thesupervisorsinthesecondcategoryareprimarilyconcernedwiththe human aspects of their subordinates and effective team building for high taskperformance.Thecharacteristicsofsupervisorsinthiscategory7arethatthey:• exertlittlepressureonsubordinates;• earnandgettheconfidenceandtrustoftheirsubordinates;• increasetheachievementmotivationofsubordinatesandencouragethemtoaccepthigh

performancegoalsthroughgroupdecisionprocesses;• exercise general rather than detailed supervision, and allow subordinates to schedule

theirownpaceofwork;and• helpsubordinateswhenmistakesandproblemsoccur.

Evenifthecharacteristicsofhighandlowperformingmanagerscanbeidentified,itwillstill be necessary to ascertainwhether such characteristics are the cause or effect of theirwork environment. It is argued that high performing managers are humane to theirsubordinates, and low performing managers are compelled to get tough with theirsubordinates to achieve better results. To resolve this dilemma, Likert and his colleaguesconducted a series of experiments in which high and low performing managers werechangedintoeachother’sjobs.Whilehighperformingmanagerssucceededinimprovingtheperformanceof lowproductionunits, lowperformingmanagersplacedinhighproductionunitsbroughtdowntheiroutputoveraspanoftime.

Likert underlines the time factor in managing change. Heavy pressure exerted bysupervisorsmayproducegoodresultsforashortwhile.Butgroupperformanceisboundtogodownwithincreasingresentmentagainstthesustainedexerciseofauthority.Ontheotherhand,mouldingemployeeattitudesforpositiveachievementoforganisationalgoalsthrougheffective team building will take some time before making any impact on groupperformance.Eitherprocessislikelytotakeabouttwoyears.

Likert recognises that effective supervision isanadaptiveand relativeprocess. Itneedsconstantadaptationtothebackgroundvalues,expectationsandinterpersonalskillsbetweensubordinates, peers and superiors. It is relative to the situation.His concept of leadershipcomesclosetothatofMaryParkerFollett.HequotesJenkinsapprovinglyinthisregard:8

“Leadershipisspecifictotheparticularsituationunderinvestigation.Whobecomestheleaderofagivengroupengagedinaparticular activityor leadership characteristics in agiven case are functionsof the specific situation including themeasuringinstrumentsemployed.Relatedtothisconclusionisthegeneralfindingofwidevariationsinthecharacteristicsofindividualswhobecomeleadersinsimilarsituationsandevengreaterdivergenceinleadershipbehaviourindifferentsituations”.

SupportiveRelationshipsBasedonhisassessmentofmanagersofhighperformance,Likertpostulatedhisprincipleof

supportive relationships as an organising concept. He states: 9 “The leadership and otherprocesses of the organisation must be such as to ensure a maximum probability in allinteractionsandallrelationshipswiththeorganisation.Eachmemberwill,inthelightofhisbackground, values and expectations, view the experience as supportive and one whichbuilds and maintains his sense of personal worth and importance”. He conceives of aninteraction-influence system tomaximise skills, resources andmotivation of individuals atdifferent levels of the organisation. Such a system would facilitate integration oforganisational and managerial processes such as coordination, communication, decision-making, direction etc. The effectiveness of these interdependent processes rests on theefficacy of the interaction-influence system and in turn determines the capacity of theorganisation to optimise the skills, abilities and resources of individuals andworkgroups.AccordingtoLikert,anorganisationoperatingonanidealinteraction-influencesystemwillrevealsomeofthefollowingcharacteristics:10

• Eachmemberwill find his personal values, needs and goals reflected in those of theworkgroupsandorganisationasawhole;

• Every member of the organisation would be identified with the objectives oforganisationandthegoalsofhisworkgroupandseetheaccomplishmentofthemasthebestwaytomeethisownneedsandpersonalgoals;

• Pressures for high performance goals, efficientmethods, and skill development comefrom the members themselves. The anxieties associated with hierarchical pressures intraditionalorganisationswillbeconspicuousbytheirabsence;

• Authentic and sensitive communication processes within and between workgroupswouldensurespontaneousandaccurateinformationflowstoprovidingrationalbasisforindividualandgroupdecisionsandactionsatallpointsintheorganisation;

• Everymemberof theorganisationwill be able to exerthis influenceondecisions andactions of the organisation. The amount of influence exerted by any individualwill beproportionate to the significance of his ideas and contributions and not necessarilyrelatedtohispositionintheformalorganisation;and

• Cooperative motivation, communication and decision processes will enable eachmemberinanypartoftheorganisationtoexerthisinfluence,contributehisideas,skills,resources and improve the total capacity of the organisation for problem-solving andgoal-fulfillment.It is important to recognise that the ideal interaction-influence system of the kind

envisagedbyLikertisafarcryinthetraditionalhierarchicalorganisations.Theconventionalone-to-one relationshipsbetween superiors and subordinates canhardlybe expected tobethe breedingground for thedevelopment of optimal interaction betweenmembers of theorganisation. Further, one-way top-down communication and exertion of influence fromabove and minimal opportunities for upward and horizontal communication precludesdevelopment ofwell-knitwork-groups and cross-fertilisation of ideas, skills and resourcesforeffectiveproblemsolvingintraditionalorganisations.

LinkingPinModelTheLinkingPinModelororganisationstructureconceivedbyLikertisexpectedtoremovethehurdlesfoundintraditionalhierarchiesandfacilitatethegrowthofinteraction-influencesystem.Thesalientfeatureofhismodelisthateachindividualintheorganisationhastwinroles in two overlapping groups.He is amember of a higher-level group and leader of a

lower-level group. Group functions and processes become far more important thanindividual roles in thismodel. They grow upwards from the organisational base in sharpcontrasttotop-downmanagementofclassicalorganisation.

LinkingPin

Source:RensisLikert,NewPatternsofManagement,p.105

In developing his model Likert reinforces the upward orientation with horizontallinkages. He illustrates with examples of (a) subordinates serving as linking pin forhorizontal coordination, (b) vertical overlapping group linkages of line and staffdepartments, (c) vertical overlapping linkages of product departments, and (d) multiple-overlapping group structures with horizontal as well as vertical linkages.11 Emphasis onprocesseswithin a functional group needs to be distinguished frommindless superfluousmultiplication of committees, as adjunct to the staff line organisation. No overlappingworkgroups should exist than are absolutely necessary to perform the linking process.Meaningfullyexploited,multiplelinkagesprovideadditionalchannelstoshareinformationandinfluence.Theybecomethelinkpinstoholdtheorganisationtogether.

ManagementSystems1-4ThemostimportantcontributionofLikertliesinhisconceptualisationofdifferentsystemsofmanagementalongacontinuum.Heidentifiesfourdistinctpointsalongthecontinuumforpurposeof illustrationof thecharacteristicsofeachof themanagementsystems.He labelsthese points as exploitative-authoritative, benevolent-authoritative, consultative, andparticipative.12However,hedidnotseethemasisolatedcategoriesbutasblendingintooneanother with many intermediate patterns along the continuum. The four managementsystemsarearrayedalongthetwoimportantdimensions.Thefirstisthetypeofauthorityorcontrol an organisation exercises over its members. The second relates to the operatingcharacteristicsoftheorganisationandthemotivationalforcesusedtocontrolandcoordinatetheactivityofthepeopleinthesystemandthekindsofattitudinalresponsesevokedfromthem. The operating characteristics include leadership, motivation, communication,interaction,influence,decision-making,goalsetting,goalperformanceandcontrolanalysed.Such operating characteristics are juxtaposed over the four types of the managementsystems.13

Likert brought a new dimension to organisational development theory. Likert’s foursystems of management describe the relationship, involvement and roles betweenmanagement and subordinates in industrial settings. The four systems are a result of thestudy undertakenwith the highly productive supervisors and their team of an AmericanInsurance Company. Later on, he and Jane G. Likert revised the systems to apply toeducational settings. Likert delineated the characteristics of high- and low-performingorganisationsand identified theproblemswith traditionalorganisational structures.Likertemphasised amanagement style inwhich people are likely to implement the decisions ifthey had a role in their making. This theory supports the idea that the key to positiveinteraction consists of maintaining an individual’s self worth and importance. Workingtowardsorganisationalobjectivescanhelpindividualsrealisetheirpersonalgoals.

Exploitive-authoritativeSystem-1Likert’s first system is characterised by goal setting and decision-making by the topmanagementandcommunicationsflowdownwards.Thesubordinateddonotparticipateinthedecision-makingprocess.Inthismanagementsystemthesubordinatesarenottrustedbythemanagementand theemployee’s job is toabideby thedecisionsof themanagers.Theorganisation is concerned only about completing the work. It uses fear and threats andsporadic rewards tomake employees complete thework assigned. There is no teamworkinvolved.

Benevolent-authoritativeSystem-2Asintheexploitive-authoritativesystem,decisionsaremadeatthetopoftheorganisationand management. Employees, however, are motivated through rewards for theircontributionsratherthanfearandthreats.Informationflowsfromsubordinatestomanagersbut it is restricted to what management wants. The system is based on master-servantrelationshipsbetweenmanagementandemployees.MorerewardsaregiventhaninSystem1, there is slightly better upward communication and employees are given marginalautonomy.

ConsultativeSystem-3In this management system, the employees are consulted by management before takingdecisions and their involvement in the decisional process exists. Though themanagementtakes the major decisions, there is a greater flow of information than in a benevolent-authoritativesystemfromsubordinatestomanagement.Thoughupwardcommunicationisencouraged, employees are cautious not to send unfavorable information. In this system,managers partly trust subordinates, use both rewards and involvement of employees toinspire motivation, foster a higher level of responsibility for meeting goals and inspire amoderateamountofteamwork.

ParticipativeSystem-4Participative management systems are characterised by complete confidence and trust intheiremployees,opencommunicationflowsandtheemployeesparticipationinthedecisionprocess. Subordinates freely express their views and teamwork exists. There is collectiveresponsibility formeeting organisational goals and objectives and collaborative teamworkexists.Employeesareofferedrewardsforachievingcollectivelydeterminedgoals.

System4isconsideredtobethemostproductiveandideal.Whencombinedwithgoodmanagement and achievable goals, this system is expected to result in better production,

higher motivation, and more profit than the other systems. Likert favoured System 4,becauseof itscommitmenttogivingthedecision-makingpowertotheemployeeswhoaretrustedbythemanagementanddonothesitatetosharefeedbackandopinions.Itistoeachemployee’s advantage to share expertise and information that could help others in theorganisation. The three basic concepts of Likert’s System4 are theprinciple of supportiverelationships, group decision-making and methods of supervision, and high performancegoalsfortheorganisation.

Likert points out that the component parts of the management system should beinternally consistentwith theoverallpatternandphilosophyof theorganisation.Thus,anexploitative-authoritativesystemdisplaysasteephierarchicalstructure,centraliseddecision-making, top-down communication, tight supervision, man to man rather than group togroup relations,performanceunderpressure, and lowdegreeof employeemotivation.Ontheotherhand,theparticipativemanagementsystemdisplaysoverlappingstructures,cross-functionallinkages,groupdecisionprocesses,openandauthenticthree-waycommunication(up,downandlateral),adaptivesupervision,individualandworkgroupswithahighdegreeofachievementmotivation(Systems1&4).

Theintermediateformofmanagementsystems2and3revealtransitorycharacteristicsofprogression from management System 1 and 4 over a period. In System-2, managementorientationisstillauthoritative,butbecomeslessexploitativeandmorebenevolenttowardsthemembers of the organisation. In System-3, exercise of authority is broader basedwithdelegationofpowertomiddlelevelsandconsultationofaffectedinterestsatlowerlevels.Totheextentmotivation,communicationandinvolvementofsubordinatesreplacerelianceonexercise of formal authority; consultative management systems will be well set to moveforwardtotheManagementSystems4.

Afterdescribingthesalientfeaturesofhisfoursystemsofmanagementdeducedfromtheempirical research, Likert is somewhat equivocal in stating that the operationalcharacteristics of one system cannot be grafted abruptly to another. Illustrating themanagementsystemsfurtherhestatesthatinanauthoritativesystemdecisionsaretakenatthetopandtheorganisationrequiresmorenumberofdependentsthanleaders.Ontheotherhand, in aparticipative system,decision-making is decentralised and requires emotionallystablepersonsandalargenumberofleaders.Eachformoforganisationtofunctionatitsbestrequires individuals and skills of interactionon thepart of leaders and follows to suit theparticular system. And again each system tends to produce and perpetuate people tofunction effectively within the system. In each system communication and motivationprocesses will be tailor-made to fit their unique decision-making style. Any attempt toswitchprocessesofone systemabruptly to theother isbound to impair the total system’seffectiveness.Nevertheless,LikertpleadsforagradualchangefromSystem1toSystem4.

Likert marshals empirical evidence to show the prevalence of Systems 1 and 2managementpracticesinlowperformanceunits,andSystems3and4managementpracticesinhighperformanceunits.Eveniftheformeroccasionallyproducehighperformance,suchhigh rate performance is short lived. On the other hand, the latter ensure high level ofperformance over fairly longer periods. Further, the high level performance achieved bySystem-1 management is generally under considerable stress and strain contributing todeterioration if not breakdown, in the morale of members of the organisation. On thecontrary, the high level performance realised by System-4 management is under moredurable conditions of achievement motivation of individuals leading to their self-actualisation.Why domost organisations fail to recognise the advantages ofmanagement

systems3and4andpersistinsystem1and2practices?ToLikert,itismainlybecauseofthewidelyprevalentnotionamongmanagersthatconsultativeandparticipativemethodscanbeused only after high performance has been achieved. Therefore, topmanagements have atendencytopersistinSystem1and2practicestoreducecostsandimproveperformance.

Likert finds fault with the prevailing accounting methods and measures of efficiencyrating purely in terms of financial costs, profits and turnovers. He feels that the costs ofrunning themost importantassetoforganisation - itsmanagersandworkers -areequallyimportant.Likertemphasisestheneedtorecognisethemonetaryvalueofhumanresourcesin organisations. Good managers and workers joining or leaving organisation should beconsidered as increasing or decreasing the assets of that organisation. Therefore, incalculating the value of human resources, Likert suggests that the variables like level ofintelligenceandaptitude,communicationsandcontrol,capacity touseexperience, levelofmotivation, capacity to achieve coordination, capacity to use experience to introduceinnovations, etc., should be taken into account.14 The cost of training is conventionallyregardedasavoidableanditsvalueinhumanassetbuildingisnotfullyappreciated.Likert,therefore, pleads for better methods of accounting total cost and total assets of anorganisation.

Science-basedManagementLikert suggests on the need to monitor the state of the organisation and its internalmanagement system at periodic intervals or stages of growth. He proposes a scheme ofevaluation for the causal, intervening and end-result variable, affecting organisationalclimate and performance. However, he claims that social sciences, using the methods ofmathematics and statistics, can develop methodologies for measurement of the state ofhumanresourceandpredict thecauseandeffectof interveningvariables.Butsocio-metricmeasurements of casual, intervening and end-result variable may not always establishreliablerelationshipstoprovidefirmbasisformanagementaction.

Explicatingtherelationshipsbetweencasual,interveningandend-resultvariables,Likertpostulates two hypotheses relating to the Management Systems 1, 2 and 4.15 The firsthypothesisisthatifamanagerhaswellorganisedplanofoperation,highperformancegoals,high technical competence and if the manager manages by System 1 or 2, using directhierarchical pressures, his organisationwill display less group loyalty, lower performancegoals,greaterconflict, lesscooperation,lesstechnicalassistancetopeers,greaterfeelingsofunreasonablepressure, less favourableattitudes towardsmanagerand lowermotivation toproduce. Such organisations will attain lower sales volume, higher sales costs, and lowerqualityofbusinesssoldandlowerearnings.

ThesecondhypothesisisthatifthemanagermanagesbySystem-4usingtheprinciplesofsupportiverelationships,groupmethodsofsupervisionandotherprinciplestheorganisationwill display greater group loyalty, higher performance goals, greater cooperation, moretechnicalassistancetopeers,lessfeelingofunreasonablepressure,morefavourableattitudestowardsmanager,andhighermotivation toproduce.Suchorganisationswillattainhigherbusinesssalesvolume,lowersalescosts,higherqualityofbusinesssold,andhigherearningsby salesman.Likert tested thesehypotheses through researchand confirmed the effectsofchangesincasualvariablesoninterveningvariablesandend-resultvariables.

Thescience-basedmanagementhasitsappealtosocialscientistsbutmanagerialactioninpractice is guidedmore by organisation, history, experience, perceptions andperspectives.Bulksofpracticingmanagershaveneither the timenor inclination toundertakeanalytical

exercises or at least document their experiences of critical phases in organisation life.Externalresearch,trainingandconsultingagenciescanaidthemanagementsinthistask.Buttheywill have their own problems of hindsight or foresight and the analytical tools theybring to their analysismaybe inadequate, if notunreliable.The importanceof the role ofscientific management theories, concepts and practices, lies in further research andperfectionofanalyticaltoolsandtrainingmethodologies.

ApplicationsofSystem-4Several research and experimental studies conducted in a variety of organisations haveconvincedLikertaboutthevalidityofSystem-4managementforrealisinghighperformancegoals.HevisualisesthepossibilityofallorganisationspracticingSystem1,2and3eventuallyshiftingtoSystem-4.LikertopinesthathisSystem-4modelprovidesausefulframeworktoguide all types of organisation development efforts.16 He feels that uncoordinated andpiecemeal efforts such as team building, job enrichment, sensitivity training, participativedecision-makingandmanagementbyobjectiveswillnotpayhighdividendsunlesstheyareintegratedintoanoverallstrategyofchangingthemanagementsystem.Toguidetheeffortsfor human resource development, the management system should possess the followingcharacteristics:17

• The system should have been discovered by rigorous, quantitative research. Thisresearch shouldhavedemonstrated that themodelmanagement systemyields thebestperformanceandotherdesirableresultsinmostworkingsituations;

• Itshouldbepossibletodefinethemanagementsystembymeansofalimitednumberofmeasurabledimensions;

• Such dimensions should have closer relationships to end-result variables such asproductivityandemployeesatisfactionthanotherorganisationaldimensions;

• Efficient procedures and instruments tomeasure these key organisational dimensionsshouldbeavailable;and

• Thereshouldbeampleresearchfindingstoshowthatasorganisationsshifttowardsthemanagement system, there is a corresponding improvement in performance and otherdesiredoutcomes.Theresearchshoulddemonstrate that theseresultsoccur indifferentkindsofindustriesandworksituations.Likert claims that his System-4 model fulfills all the above specifications. It has been

defined by a limited number of key human organisational dimensions. These dimensionshave been identified after extensive research and were found to be correlated withperformanceacrossawidevarietyofdifferentkindsoforganisations.Efficient instrumentsareavailabletomeasurethekeydimensionsofanyhumanorganisations.AsizablenumberofstudiesindifferentkindsofworksituationshavefoundthatasorganisationsshiftclosertoSystem-4, there is a corresponding improvement in performance and increase in otherdesired results. To Likert, another useful aspect of the System 1-4 models for humanresources development purposes is the recognition that certain human organisationaldimensions are casual in character. Causal variables are thosewhich are capable of beinginfluenced or altered by the organisations leadership and which, when altered, producecorresponding changes in the symptomatic, (intervening variables) and, in turn, in theresultsthattheorganisationachieves.

Using survey feedback method, Likert proposes an organisational improvement cyclecomprisingoffivesteps.18Theyare:

• Establishinganidealmodel(System4);• Measuringtheorganisation’sscoresonkeydimensionsofidealmodel;• Analysing and interpreting scores based on their relationship to the idealmodel and

preparingdiagnosisoforganisationalstrengthsandweaknesses;• Based on this diagnosis, preparing an action plan to build on strengths and correct

weaknesses concerning structure, leader behaviour, organisational climate, subordinatebehaviour:and

• Implementationoftheactionplan.Likert lays down guidelines for using the proposed organisational improvement cycle.

Theyare:19

• Focus the action efforts on the casual variables, such as leadership behaviour andstructure. Do not try to change by direct action the intervening variables such asmotivation and control. If the casual variables are improved, therewill be subsequentimprovementsintheinterveningvariables;

• MovefromSystem1to4graduallyanddonotattemptonebigjumpasbothleadersandmembersoftheorganisationlacktheskillsforinteractionandadaptationandmanyfinditdifficulttomakeasudden,sizableshiftfromSystem1to4.

• Involvethosewhosebehaviourhastobechangedtobringthedesiredimprovement,inplanning the action to be taken. Involve all the persons affected in all the steps of theimprovementcycle;

• Useobjective,impersonalevidenceasmuchaspossibleintheactionplanningprocess;• As far as possible, ensure the initiative and active participation of those in the most

powerfulandinfluentialpositionsintheimprovementprogramme;and• Conducttheactionplanninginasupportive,helpfulatmosphere.

TheguidelineshavetheirutilityfortheapplicationofSystem-4conceptoforganisationimprovements.However,LikertwasconsciousoftheproblemsinvolvedinadaptingSystem-4toallorganisations.Thisisclearwhenhesaysthatdifferencesinthekindofwork,inthetraditions of the industry and in the skills and values of the employees of a particularcompany require quite different procedures and ways to apply appropriately the basicprinciples of System-4 management.20 Actual realisation of System-4 conditions ofmanagement, therefore,dependsonthecomplex interplayof factorsandforcesatwork inrealorganisationlife.

ManagingConflictsInhis search to evolvenewpatternsofmanagementbasedon cooperativeand supportiverelationships, Likert focused attention on new ways of managing conflict. For, in thecapitalist mode of production conflict is inherent in management-worker relations. Itmanifestsitselfinseveralforms.Likerthimselfreferstothenatureofthisconflictwhenhestatesthat“Thereisampleevidenceinthemassmediaandelsewherethatbitter,unresolvedconflict iswidespreadand increasing in frequency. Itoccursat all levelsof society; amongnationsandwithinnations,amongorganisationsandwithinthem”.Likertdefinesconflict,‘as the active striving for one’s own preferred outcome, which if attained, precludes theattainment by other of their own preferred outcome, thereby producing hostility’.21 Hedifferentiatestwokindsofconflicts-substantiveandaffective.Substantiveconflictisrootedin the substance of the task and affective conflict is derived from the emotional, affectiveaspects of interpersonal relations. Likert considersmethods to handle substantive conflict

eveninsituationwherethepresenceofaffectiveconflictmakesthistaskmoredifficult.Thewidelyprevalentwin-losestrategiesofconflictresolutioninorganisationsdistortthe

perceptionsofindividualandgroups,maintainapolarisedadversaryorientationatalltimesandescalatethecostsofchronicallydefeatedgroupstoorganisations.Inconflictsituations,leadership migrates to the aggressive, relegating the emotionally mature to thebackground.22

AnEvaluationThecentral featuresofSystem-4viz., supportive relationships,groupmethodsofdecision-makingandsupervision,highperformancegoalsandachievementmotivationcontributetobetter forms of human organisation. It is only to be hoped that human organisationswillmoveincreasinglytowardsthisideal-rationalsystemofmanagement.Thelinkingpinmodelis often accused of doing nothing more than drawing triangles around the traditionalhierarchicalstructures.Itisalsocriticisedasslowingdowntheprocessofdecision-making.23Notwithstandingthesecriticisms,thelinkingpinmodelhasitsownadvantages.Itfosterstheupward and horizontal linkage in contrast to the only downward orientation of classicalstructureandstrengthensthecross-functionallinkagesincomplexorganisations.

Butthequestionsare:HowdowepushtheManagementSystems1and2towards3to4?What holds up the transformation of the Management Systems -2? Why does topmanagementreverttomanagementpracticesofSystem1and2inthefaceofacrisis?Iscrisismanagement by itself a reflection of the breakdown in supportive relationships, groupdecisionprocesses andperformance goals? If that be so, is System-4management fallible?How can one ensure the evolution and enduring success of System-4 management? Canorganisationsystemsandmanagementpracticesbeisolatedfromtheculturalconstraintsandsocialvalues?Ifsocialorganisationishierarchicalanditsorientationisauthoritarian,willitnotalsopermeateorganisationstructuresandmanagementprocesses?Solongasthepowerdominates modern organisations, participative management remains in the realm of theutopia. Again if conflict is inherent in the competing values, needs and expectations ofindividualsandgroups inorganisations,howdoesone realise the supportive relationshipsandotherdesirablefeaturesofSystem-4management?

Despitecriticisms,Likertpinshis faith inSystem-4 leadershipand interaction-influencenetworks todiffuseconflict situationsandreplacewin-lose strategiesof conflict resolutionbywin-winstrategies,whereinallpartiestoconflictstandtogainleavingnoonefrustratedand embittered. System-4 structures and processes help to de-emphasise status,depersonalise problem-solving and use power to resolve conflict constructively instead ofsuppressingthem.24

TheSystem-4conceptsofmanagementdevelopedbyRensisLikertholdoutprospectsofdevelopment of advanced forms of human organisation. Some critics may underplay theimportance of ‘new patterns of management’ as little more than summary of goodmanagement practices. But Likert’s most important contribution to management thoughtand practice is his systematic analysis of goodmanagement practices and extending theirfrontiers of knowledge and application.He earnedhisplace amongmanagement thinkersand researches for laying the empirical foundations for the development of managementscience.

InBriefLikert’scontributionmaybesummarisedas:

• Rensis Likert (1903-1981), an American organisational psychologist, educator andmanagementtheoristisknownforhisstudiesonorganisationandmanagementstyles.

• Making detailed study of supervisory styles, Likert classified supervisors into twocategoriesviz., job-centeredandemployee-centered.Thejob-centeredsupervisor’sfocusistoensuretheperformanceofassignedtasksandmaintenanceofprescribedstandardsand employee-centered supervisor is more concerned with human aspects of theirsubordinatesandeffective teambuilding forhigh taskperformance.Herecognises thattheeffectivesupervisionisanadaptiveandarelativeprocess.

• Likertpostulatessupportiverelationshipsasacontributingfactorofhighperformanceofmanagement. He conceives of an interaction-influence system to maximise skills,resourcesandmotivationofindividualsatdifferentlevelsoforganisationandelaboratesthecharacteristicsofthesystem.

• To overcome the difficulties of traditional system and to facilitate the growth ofinteraction-influencesystem,LikertsuggestedLinkingPinModel.Thesalientfeatureofthismodelisthateachindividualintheorganisationhastwinrolesintwooverlappinggroups.

• Themost importantcontributionofLikert is theconceptualisationofdifferentsystemsof management along a continuum as “Management Systems 1-4”. He labels them asexploitative-authoritative,benevolent-authoritative,consultativeandparticipative.Thesesystemsarearrangedalongtwoimportantdimensionsoftypeofauthorityandoperatingcharacteristics.

• Likert considersSystem4asan idealmodelofmanagementand suggests applicationsfortransferofsystemsfromSystem1toSystem4.Heproposesimprovementcyclewithelaborateguidelinesfortheapplicationoforganisationalimprovement.Likertsuggestedinternal management and monitoring systems of organisations based on causal,interveningandendresultvariables.

• In his search to evolve new patterns of management based on cooperative andsupportiverelationships,Likertfocusedattentiononnewwaysofmanagingconflict.

• ManagementsystemsmodelofLikert iscriticisedfor lackofcontextualsensitivity.Hislinkingpinmodelisoftenaccusedofdoingnothingmorethandrawingtrianglesaroundthetraditionalhierarchicalstructuresandslowingdowntheprocess.

• Likert’s most important contribution to management thought and practice is hissystematicanalysisofgoodmanagementandextendingtheirfrontiersofknowledgeandapplication.

References1 Seehttp://www.bookrags.com/biography/rensis-likert-soc/and

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rensis_Likert2 Likert,Rensis,Likert,JaneGibson,NewWaysofManagingConflicts,NewYork,McGraw-HillBookCo.,1976.3 Seehttp://www.bookrags.com/biography/rensis-likert-soc/4 SeeLikert,Rensis,NewPatternsofManagement,NewYork,McGraw-HillBookCo;1961,pp.1-3.5 SeePollard,Harold.R.,DevelopmentsinManagementThought,London,Heinemann,1974,p.236.6 Ibid.,p.239.7 Ibid.,pp.239-240.8 Jenkins,W.O.,“AReviewofLeadershipStudieswithParticularReferencetoMilitaryProblems”,PsychologyBulletin,44(1),

pp.54-79;QuotedinLikert,Rensis,NewPatternsofManagement,op.cit.,p.90.9 Ibid.,p.103.

10 Ibid.,pp.181-183.11 SeeLikert,Rensis,TheHumanOrganisation:ItsManagementandValue,NewYork,McGraw-HillBookCo.,1967,pp.164-69.12 SeeLikert,Rensis,NewPatternsofManagement,op.cit.,pp.222-236.13 Likert has constantly refined the operating characteristics of the four management systems. This is reflected in the

developmentofquestionnairesincorporatedinhissuccessivepublications.14 Likert,Rensis,TheHumanOrganisation:ItsManagementandValue,op.cit.,p.148.15 SeePollard,Harold.R.,FurtherDevelopmentsinManagementThought,London,Heinemann,1978,p.168.16 See Likert, Rensis, “An ImprovementCycle forHumanResourceDevelopment”,Training andDevelopment Journal, July,

1978,Vol.32.No.7.pp.16-18.17 Ibid.,pp.16-17.18 Ibid.,p.17.19 Ibid.,pp.17-18.20 Likert,Rensis,TheHumanOrganisation:ItsManagementandValue,op.cit.,p.192.21 Likert,Rensis,Likert,J.C.,NewWaysofManagingConflicts,op.cit.,pp.7-8.22 Ibid.,pp.56-69.23 Luthans,Fred,OrganisationalBehaviour,NewYork,McGraw-HillCompany,1973,pp.155-156.24 Likert,Rensis,Likert,JaneGibson,NewWaysofManagingConflicts,op.cit.,pp.107-57,269-86.

T

17FREDW.RIGGS

V.S.PrasadK.MuraliManohar

Introductionhedynamicsofpostwarmodernisationanddevelopmentbecamemorecomplexwiththeemergenceof theconceptofwelfare stateandconsequentialexpansion in the functions

and responsibilities of the state. Thiswas compoundedby the changingnature of science,communicationsandtechnology. In thiscontext,publicadministrationhasacrucialrole toplay.Developmentandmodernisationofsociety,andtheefficiencyofthegovernment,toalargeextent,dependsonthecapacityoftheadministrativesystemanditsabilitytomakeandimplementpoliciesandplans.Theadministrativetheoriesandmodelsacquiresignificanceinthiscontext. Itwasassumedthat transferofadministrativemodelsofdevelopedcountries,with few modifications, would meet the demand. But soon it was realised that suchapproach was defective and needed more appropriate models to meet the emergingdevelopment challenges of thenewnations. FredRiggs,whodeveloped analyticalmodelsandapproachestostudypublicadministrationinacomparativeperspective,isapioneerinthisfieldandoccupiesaveryprominentplaceinadministrativemodelbuilding.

(1917-2008)

LifeandWorksFredWarren Riggs (1917-2008), born in Kuling, China, initially went to the University ofNanking,China (1934-35).Hewent to theUnited States to study journalism and politicalscience to become a foreign correspondence which was thwarted due to economicdepression.HeobtainedBAfromtheUniversityofIllinois(l938),MAfromFletcherSchoolofLawandDiplomacy(1941)andPh.DinPoliticalSciencefromColumbiaUniversity(1948).RiggsstartedhisacademiccareerasalecturerintheCityUniversityofNewYork(1947-48)and moved on to hold important positions at several leading institutions. He worked asResearch Associate, Foreign Policy Association (1948-1951), Assistant to Director, PublicAdministration Clearing House, New York (1951-55), Arthur F. Bentley Professor of

Government, Indiana University (1956-1967), Director, Social Science Research Institute,University ofHawaii (1970-73), Professor of Political Science, University ofHawaii (1967-1987) and after retirement as Professor Emeritus, University of Hawaii until his death in2008. Riggs worked as Visiting Professor at the City University of New York (1974-75),Institute forSocialStudies,TheHague(1972),Massachusetts InstituteofTechnology(1965-66), University of the Philippines (1958-59), Visiting Lecturer, National Officials TrainingInstitute,Korea(1956),andYaleUniversity(1955-56).

RiggsreceivedseveralhonoursandawardsincludingDwightWaldoAwardforLifetimeAchievementsinPublicAdministration,AmericanSocietyforPublicAdministration(1991),Order of theWhite Elephant by theKing of Thailand, Bangkok (1983), Fellow,Center forAdvancedStudyintheBehaviouralSciences,Stanford(1966-67)andSeniorSpecialist,East-West Center, University of Hawaii (1962-1963). Riggs was associated with severalprofessional organisations includingAmerican Society forPublicAdministration,NationalAcademyofPublicAdministration,InternationalPoliticalScienceAssociation,InternationalSociological Association, American Political Science Association, Association for AsianStudies,InternationalInstituteforTerminologyResearch,SocietyforComparativeResearch,and various other professional associations and societies in one or the other capacity. Hechaired several committees and working groups relating to social sciences includingComparativeAdministrationGroup,AmericanSocietyforPublicAdministration(1960-1971)and was member of editorial boards of Public Administration Review and various otherjournalsatdifferentpointsoftimes.1Riggspublishedanumberofbooksandpapers2andhiswritingsweretranslatedintomanylanguagesincludingItalian,French,Korean,Portuguese,Russian, and Spanish. He lectured on every continent. As Heady has observed ‘mereacquaintancewith all hiswritings (on comparative theory) is in itself not an insignificantaccomplishment’.3 Riggs’ creative scholarship in the field of comparative publicadministrationbroughthimworldwiderecognitionandhecontributedtothedevelopmentofpublicadministrationinIndia,Indonesia,Korea,thePhilippines,Taiwan,andThailand.

ModelBuildingAdministrativetheoriesandmodels,mostlydevelopedbeforetheSecondWorldWar,weregenerally the offshoot of industrial revolution. These theories originated in the westerncountries,mainlyintheUnitedStatesofAmerica.ThedevelopingcountriesofAsia,Africaand Latin America, which adopted western administrative models, found the modelsdevelopedinparticularenvironmentstosuitparticularsystemswerenotusefulandvalidforallsystems.Themodelswerefoundtobemoresuitabletomaintaintheexistingsystemsthanforchangingthesystems,whichistheprioritytaskofalldevelopingnations.Thesemodelsand theories also failed to help in understanding the administrative systems in thedevelopingcountries. It is in thiscontext that theneed fordevelopingnewconceptsaroseandtheresultistheemergenceoftheconceptofcomparativepublicadministration,whichemphasised on cross-cultural and cross-national administrative studies. In the study ofcomparative public administration Riggs identified three broad trends, viz., normative toempirical,ideographictonomathetic,andnon-ecologicaltoecological.Themajorfocusofanempirical study is to arrive at inferences on the basis of extensive field study instead ofnormative descriptions. Ideographic approach concentrates on the ‘unique cases or casestudy’ of a single agency or country. On the other hand, the nomathetic approach seeksgeneralisation, laws, hypotheses that assert regularity of behaviour and correlations withvariables.4 Further, Riggs emphasised the need to study administrative systems in an

ecologicalperspectivesoas togainacomprehensiveanda in-depthunderstandingof theadministrativedynamics.

Riggs depended on the concepts developed in other subjects to explain the ecology ofpublicadministration.Heborrowedconceptsfromsociology,physics,andbiologytoproposenewtheoriesandmodelsinpublicadministration.Healsoextensivelyborrowedanumberofnewwordsfromothersubjects,apartfromcoiningafewtoconveyhisideas.Thatiswhyit is aptly said that the termsusedbyRiggs to explainhismodels arepeculiarlyRiggsian.Riggs used three important analytical tools to explain his administrative theories, viz.,ecologicalapproach,structural-functionalapproachandidealmodels.

EcologicalApproachAdministration and its environment influence each other and an understanding of thedynamicsofthisprocessisnecessarytounderstandadministration.Thisapproachistermedecological, a term borrowed from biology. It deals with the science concerned with theinterrelationshipoforganismsandtheirenvironment.5Itisconcernedwiththeinterplayofliving organisms and their physical and social environment and how organisms andenvironmentarekeptinbalanceforsurvivalandotherimportantobjectives.Theecologyofpublicadministration,beingtheinteractionofadministrationanditsenvironment,requiresadeeperunderstandingofthesocietyandthevariousfactorsaffectingitsfunctioning.TheecologicalapproachinthestudyofpublicadministrationwasinitiatedbyGaus,6RobertA.Dhal7 andRobertA.Merton8 long before Riggs. But itwas Riggswhomade a distinctivecontribution to thisapproach.9 ‘Ecologyofpublicadministration’, according to J.M.Gaus,includesthestudyof‘people,areaorproperty,physicalandsocialtechnologywantsofthepeople, thoughts, individuality and emergency conditions’.10 Developing the conceptfurther, Riggs analysed the relationship between the administration and economic, social,technological, political and communication factors in a larger perspective. He explainedillustrativelyhowenvironmentalconditionsinfluenceadministrativesystem,onthebasisofhisstudiesinThailandandPhilippines.11

Structural-FunctionalApproachInanalysingtheadministrativesystemsfromtheecologicalpointofview,Riggsmainlyusedstructural-functionalapproach.TalcottParsons,RobertMerton,Almond,etc., are theotherthinkerswhoadoptedthisapproachintheirworks.12Thisapproachenvisagesthatineverysocietycertainimportantfunctionshavetobecarriedoutbyanumberofstructureswiththeapplicationof certain specifiedmethods. Structuresmaymean the administrativeorothermechanismsbywhichthefunctionsaredischarged.Thus,thestructural-functionalapproachisamethodofanalysingthefunctionsthatarecarriedoutinasociety,thestructuresthatareresponsibletodischargethefunctionsandthemethodsthatareadoptedinundertakingthefunctions. According to Riggs, in every society five important types of functions aredischargedviz.,economic,social,communication,symbolicandpolitical.13Thesamesetoffunctional requisites applies to an administrative sub-system in which various structurescarryoutanumberoffunctionsinaspecifiedmanner.Astudyofthesestructures,functionsandmethodstounderstandthephenomenaisthestructural-functionalapproach.

IdealModelsRiggsdevelopedidealmodelstoanalysetheadministrativesystemsofdevelopingcountries.

Models are useful in the development of public administration as a subject from thenormative to an empirical study. Riggs first used his much-publishedmodels in 1956, byclassifyingthesocietiesintoAgrariaandIndustria, i.e.,agriculturalandindustrialsocieties.These models were developed keeping in view the societies of Imperial China and theUnitedStatesofAmerica.AccordingtohimallsocietiestransformfromAgrariatoIndustriaatagivenpoint.RiggsidentifiedthestructuralfeaturesofAgrariaandIndustria.14Theyare:

Agraria Industria

1. Ascriptivevalues Achievementnorms2. Particularistic Universal3. Diffusepattern Specificity4. Limitedsocialandspatialmobility Highersocialandspatialmobility5. Simpleandstableoccupationaldifferences Welldevelopedoccupationalpatterns6. Existenceofdifferentialstratificationsystem Existenceofegalitarianclasssystem

Riggsdevelopedan equilibriummodelnamed ‘transitia’ representing the transformingsocieties in 1957. The ‘transitia’ represents the transitional stage between Agraria andIndustria and possesses the characteristics of both Agraria and Industria. But Agraria-Industriawascriticisedashavingmanylimitations.Theselimitationsarebrieflysummarisedasfollows:15

• ‘Agraria-Industria’ typology is not helpful in studying the transitional societies, i.e.,thosesocietieswhicharemovingfromtheagrariantotheindustrialstage;

• The system does not provide sufficient mechanism to analyse mixed societies, sincemodernsocietiesalwayshavesomeagrarianfeatures;

• Thetypologyassumesaunidirectionalmovementfromagrariatoindustria;and• The models give very little emphasis to the analysis of the environment of the

administrativesystem.Responding to these limitations and criticisms,Riggsdeveloped another set ofmodels,

discarding old ones, to analyse the administrative systems in developing countries. Thefused-prismatic-diffractedmodelistheresultofthiseffort.TheidealmodelsofRiggssuchasfused, prismatic and diffracted are hypothetical assumptions aimed at analysing the pre-historic, developing and developed societies. The process of transition of a ray through aprismistakensymbolicallytoexplaintheprocessoftransformationofasociety.Thestartingpoint of the ray is termedas fused, theprocessof internalvibrationof the raywithin theprismiscalledprismaticandfinallywhentherayscomeoutoftheprismitgetsdiffractedtoprojectarainbowandthisprocessiscalleddiffraction.Onthesameanalogy,varioussocialsystemsintheearlystagesoftheprocessofdevelopmentwouldbefused,inthetransitionalstage prismatic, and finally, at the end they would be in a complete diffracted stage asexplainedbyRiggs.

Riggscreatedmodelsonthebasisofstructuralandfunctionalapproach.Accordingly,inafusedsocietyasinglestructurecarriesoutvariousfunctions.Contrarytothis,inadiffractedsocietyseparatestructuresarecreatedtocarryoutspecificfunctions.Butbetweenthesetwothere exist a number of societies, inwhich the characteristics of both fused anddiffractedsocietiesexistsidebyside.Thesearecalledprismaticsocieties.However,Riggsemphasisesthat no society can be exclusively called fused or diffracted; all societies are generallyprismaticinnature.Thecharacterofeverysocietyandtheirrelativityeithertothefusedor

the diffracted society depends on the nature of its various structures and the functionscarriedoutbythem.RiggsexplainsthisbyusingascalegiveninFig.1.

Fig.1.

In fig. 1, the letterX isplacedat threepositionson the scale to suggestwherepureoridealtypesofthefused,prismaticanddiffractedmodelsmightbelocated.Riggssays:“ifwecould average the characteristics of real societies,wemight be able to place them on thesamescale,andIwouldsuggestthattraditionalSiammightbeputwhereIhaveplacedtheletter S,modern Thailand near T. Pwould represent the Philippines andA, America. Ofcourse, these are speculative guesses and not the result of any exact measurement, but Ibelieve that thismethod lands itself toquantification”.16 The following table indicates thebroadcharacteristicsoffused,prismaticanddiffractedsocieties.17

Table1

Fused Prismatic Diffracted

Particularism Selectivism UniversalismAscriptivevalues Attainment AchievementFunctionallydiffuse Poly-functionalism Functionalspecificity

Riggsattemptedtoexplainvarioussocietiesbyusingtheconceptof‘multi-functionality’of social structures. He termed ‘functionally diffuse’ societies ‘fused’ and ‘functionallyspecific’sdiffracted’.Hefurtherpointedoutthatanintermediatesocietybetweenthesetwoextremesis‘prismatic’-hismostpopularmodel.These‘fused-prismatic-diffracted’models,Riggsveryemphaticallysaid,aredesignedtobe‘ideal’typesnottobefoundinanyactualsociety,butperhapsapproximatetosome,andusefulforheuristicpurposesandasanaidintheorganisationofdata.

Riggs further explained his model societies by making use of Parsonian pattern ofvariables and formedhis hypothesis to test andunderstandvarious societies.He said thatdiffractedsocietieswouldrankhighintermsofuniversalismandachievementorientation,afusedsocietyhighinparticularismandascription,andtheprismaticsocietyischaracterisedas an intermediary between these two by ‘selectivism’ (scales between universalism andparticularism), ‘attainment’ (stands between achievement and ascription), and poly-functionalism(standsbetweenfunctionalspecificityandfunctionaldiffuseness).Riggsinhiswide-ranging analysis touched on various social, cultural and political sub-systemswith adetailedexaminationofvariousconnected issuesandproblemsusinganumberofmodels.But his primary interest has been to illuminate administrative problems in transitional ordevelopingsocieties.18Inhisentireanalysis,hemadeuseofthefusedanddiffractedmodelsastoolstoexplaintheprismaticphenomenonofdevelopingcountries.

FusedModelRiggs selected ImperialChina and the pre-revolutionary Siamese Thailand as examples torepresenthisconceptoffusedsociety.Thesesocietieshavenoclassificationoffunctionsanda single structure carries out a number of functions. These societies heavily depend uponagriculturewithnoindustrialisationandmodernisation.Theireconomicsystemisbasedonlawof exchange and barter system,whichRiggs calls as ‘redistributivemodel’. TheRoyalFamilyplays avery important role in the administrationof the country.Thekingand the

officialsnominatedbyhimcarryoutalltheadministrative,economicandotheractivitiesbythemselves.Noseparatestructuresexisttomanagetheeconomicandadministrativeaffairs.Therelationsbetweenthegovernmentandthepeoplearegenerallyatlowebb.Peoplepayrespect to theKing throughserviceandpresentationofmaterialgoods,withoutexpectinganythinginreturn.Thegovernmentisnotresponsibleandaccountabletothepeoplethoughpublichasanobligationtorespectthegovernment.

ThefamilyplayedaprominentroleintheSiamesekingdom.Itusedtocarryoutavarietyof economic, political and social functions. The family apart from providing base on thesocial structure also stands at the apex of the administration. Influenced by this, theadministration in these societies strives to protect the special interests of the family andcertain sects rather than aim at universal happiness and development. The administrativesystem is based on structure of the family and special sects and it continues to help topreserve the system. Generally these societies tend to be static with no developedcommunicationsystems.Thepeoplewouldhavenodemandsandneverhope to raiseanyissue with the government. The king and his nominees enjoy the coercive and absolutepowers and they generally use their powers to protect their own personal interest. Thesesocietiesdonotdifferentiatebetweenjusticeandinjustice,formalandinformalset-upsandgovernmentalandnon-governmentalactivities.Ascriptivevaluesplayapredominantroleinthesociety,andthebehaviourof thepeoplewouldbehighly traditional.Age-oldcustoms,beliefs, faith and traditionalways of living enable the people to live together and controltheirbehaviour.

DiffractedModelThese societies are based on universalistic principleswith no differentiation in treatment.Thereisahighdegreeofspecialisationandeachstructurecarriesoutaspecialisedfunction.Ascriptive values cease to exist, giving way to the attainment values in the society. Thesocietywouldbehighlydynamicanddiffracted.Hereexistopenclassstructuresrepresentedby various associations, which play a prominent role in achieving rational results in thesociety. All organisations and structures in the society are created and based on scientificrationale.

Theeconomicsystemisbasedonmarketmechanism.The influenceofmarkethasbothdirect and indirect effects on the other facets of the society. Riggs called it ‘marketisedsociety’.Variousassociationsdischargedifferentfunctions.Communicationsandtechnologyarehighlydevelopedandgovernmentsgivetopprioritytomaintaincordialpublicrelations.Governmentswouldberesponsivetotheneedsof thepeopleandprotectedhumanrights.People would bring pressure on the government to get their things done and control itsbehaviour to a great extent. Government officers have no coercive and absolute powers.Publicpayattentionandgiverespecttothelawsofthenationontheirown.Thisfacilitatesthe government to implement the laws and discharge its responsibilities without anydifficulty.Therewouldbeageneralconsensusamongthepeopleonallbasicaspectsofsociallife.

PrismaticModelRiggsconcentratedallhiseffortstoexplainindetailtheprismaticmodel-thefocalpointofhismodels.According toRiggs, theprismatic society is one,whichhas achieved a certainlevel of differentiation; specialisation of roles that is necessary for dealing with moderntechnology, but has failed to integrate these roles. The prismatic society shares the value-patterns of both fused and diffracted societies. Riggs identified three important

characteristicsinprismaticsocietyviz.,heterogeneity,formalism,andoverlapping.

HeterogeneityThe existence of a high degree of heterogeneity is the main characteristic of a prismaticsociety.Heterogeneity refers to ‘the simultaneouspresence, sideby side, ofquitedifferentkinds of systems, practices and viewpoints’.19 Due to the parallel coexistence of adiametrically opposite viewpoints and practices, the social change in a prismatic societywould be inconsistence, incomplete and irresponsive. The heterogeneity also extends itsDamocle’sswordstraightontheadministrativesystem.

There are, in a prismatic society, urban areas with ‘sophisticated’ intellectual class,western style offices and the modern gadgets of administration. There also exist a well-developedcommunicationsystem,skyscrapers,andspecialisedagenciestodischargevarioussocial,political, economicand technical services.On theotherhand, in rural areas,peoplelead a highly traditional life with no facilities of modern living like use of telephones,refrigerators, etc. The village ‘elders’ combine various political, administrative, social,economicandreligiousroles.20Heterogeneityexistsinaprismaticsocietyinallwalksoflifepresentingaparadoxicalpicture.Inthefieldofeducation,societypayshighpremiumonthewesterntypeofeducationbutequallyprovessusceptibletotraditionalgurukulas.Hospitalswith all modern facilities giving allopathic treatment coexist with ayurvedic, unani,homoeopathic andnaturopathic centres. Such a coexistence of contrasting systemspullingthesocietyindifferentdirectionsmakesitdifficulttodrawgeneralisations.

In prismatic societies, political and administrative offices enjoy enormous influence,powerandprestigeandhelp inmakingmoney.Althoughequalopportunitiesexist forall,onlysomepeopleareprivilegedenoughandhopetogetthejobsinhigherechelons.Thosewho fail to get jobs would waste no time in forming ‘pressure groups’ against thegovernment and start agitation on some pretext or the other. Despite the existence of agovernment duly elected through democratic processes, it would not be in a position tocontrolthepeople.Thepeopleinpowerwouldmakealleffortstoprotecttheirinterestsandstick to power. Thus, there is always a misunderstanding and misrepresentation of factsgivingrisetotensionsandinstabilityinthesociety.

The problem becomes complicated in a poly-communal society where differentcommunities try to pull the society in different directions in furtherance of their ownsectionalinterests.ThisisevidentinalmostallthedevelopingcountriesofAsia,AfricaandLatinAmerica. Lack of integration thus forms the basic feature of a prismatic society.Allthesedisparities,differentiationsinalmostallaspectsoflifenotonlyinfluencetheworkingoftheadministrativesystemandconditionitsbehaviourbutwouldalsocreateanumberofproblemstotheadministration.Therulingclasswouldnormallytrytoprotecttheinterestsof‘haves’andignoretheinterestsof‘havenots’,which,accordingtoRiggs,wouldcreatearevolutionaryatmosphereinsociety.

FormalismFormalismrefers to ‘theextent towhichadiscrepancyexistsbetweentheprescriptiveanddescriptive, between formal and effective power, between the impression given by theConstitution,lawsandregulations,organisationchartsandstatisticsandactualpracticesandfacts of government and society’.21 In otherwords, itmeans the degree of discrepancy orincongruencebetweentheformallyprescribedandeffectivelypracticednormsandrealitiesand the existence of discrepancy or gap between the ‘stated objectives’ and ‘real

performance’. Greater the discrepancy between the formal and the actual, more theformalism in a system. The fused anddiffracted societies have a relatively highdegree ofrealismincomparisontoaprismaticsocietywherethereisahighdegreeofformalism.

Though the laws, rules and regulations prescribe the style of functioning of thegovernment officials, there are wide deviations in their actual behaviour. The officerssometimessticktotherulesandsometimesoverlookandevenviolatethem.Thisformalisticbehaviour is caused by the lack of pressure on the government towards the programmeobjectives,theweaknessofthesocialpowertoinfluencethebureaucraticperformanceandagreatpermissivenessforarbitraryadministration.22Thus, thebehaviourof thegovernmentofficials and bureaucratswould be highly unpredictable, inconsistent and depends on thesituationalvariables.Thereasonsforsuchatypeofbehaviourmaybeascribedeithertothenatural inclination of the employees towards collecting easymoney or to the existence ofchances formaladministration.Thus,generally formalism inadministrationpaves thewayforcorruptioninsociety.

Formalism exists in all aspects of social life. Generally the laws relating to social andculturalaspectsoflifearenotrespectedandadheredto.Theyexistonlyintherecordroomsof thegovernment,and thegovernmentalso isnotseriousabout their implementation.Toquote a few instances in India, prohibition laws are respected more in violation than inobservance.Thetownplanningregulationsaremoreviolatedthanobserved.Suchhypocrisyinsociallifeisgenerallyfoundtobearuleratherthanexceptioninalmostallthedevelopingcountries.

While explaining the dimensions of formalism, Riggs also mentions about theconstitutional formalism. Constitutional formalism refers to the gap between theconstitutional principles and their actual implementation. This can be found in India. Forinstance,accordingtotheconstitutionalpractice,theChiefMinistersaretobeelectedbythemembers of the majority party in the State Assembly. The Council of Ministers is to bechosenbytheChiefMinister.Butinpractice,inmostcasesthecentralpartyleadershipplaysadecisiveroleinthesematters.23TheConstitutionlegallyveststhegovernanceinthehandsof elected representatives of the people but in practice the real governmental power andinfluencearewieldedbysomeindividualsorgroupsofpeopleoutsidetheParliament.

The Constitution entrusts law-making responsibility to legislators but in reality theyspendonlya little time in lawmaking.Theyconcentratemore inpowerpolitics, ignoringtheir legislative responsibility.This facilitates thebureaucracy, in theprismatic societies, toplayamajorroleinlawmaking.Thebureaucratsevenformgroupsoralignthemselveswithvariouspoliticalleaders,duetothefactionswithintherulingpartyorwithintheCouncilofMinisters.Thusformalismexistsinallaspectsofsociallifeinaprismaticsociety.

OverlappingOverlappingrefersto‘theextenttowhichformallydifferentiatedstructuresofadiffractedsocietycoexistwithundifferentiatedstructuresofafusedtype”.24 Inadministrativesystemwhatisdescribedasadministrativebehaviourisactuallydeterminedbynon-administrativecriteria i.e., by political, social, religious or other factors.25 In a fused society, traditionalstructures perform almost all kinds of functions and the problemof overlappingdoes notarise,becauseinsuchasocietywhateverisformalisalsoeffective.However,inaprismaticsociety, although ‘new or modern’ social structures are created, in essence the old orundifferentiated structures continue to dominate the social system.26 Though formal

recognitionisgiventonewnormsandvalueswhicharegenerallyassociatedwithdiffractedstructure,inrealitytheyarepaidonlylip-sympathyandareoverlookedwidelyinfavouroftraditional values associated with undiffracted societies. Thus, in a prismatic society, theParliament, the government, offices,market, schools, etc., perform various administrative,political,andeconomicfunctions. Inreality, theirbehaviour isgovernedandinfluencedbycertain traditional organisations like family, religion, caste, etc.Overlapping in aprismaticsociety manifests in several noticeable dimensions in various fields and these areconceptualisedasnepotism,‘poly-communalism’,theexistenceof‘clects’,poly-normativism,andlackofconsensusandseparationof‘authority’from‘control’.27

SalaModel:AdministrativeSub-SystemofaPrismaticSocietyPrismatic society is characterised by various economic, social, political and administrativesub-systems.Riggstermedtheadministrativesub-systemas‘SalaModel’.Inadifferentiatedsociety itscounterpart is ‘Bureau’or ‘Office’andinafusedsociety it is termed‘Chamber’.These threehavedifferent featuresof their own.TheSpanishword ‘Sala’has avarietyofmeanings,suchasgovernmentoffices,religiousconference,aroom,apavilion,etc.Theword‘sala’ isalsogenerallyused inEastAsiancountriesmoreor lesswith thesamemeaning.28Salahascertainfeaturesofdiffracted‘bureau’andfused‘chamber’.However, the ‘bureau’featuresofsaladonotstandwell torepresent itsbasiccharacter.Theheterogeneousvaluesystem and the traditional and modern methods of the prismatic society reflect in itsadministrative dealings and functional management. The administrative rationality andefficiencyfoundinbureauareabsentinsala.

In a prismatic society, nepotism and favouritism play a very important role in theappointments to various administrative positions and in performing administrativefunctions. In a diffracted society, the considerations of kinship are kept away from theadministrative behaviour and the exercise of governmental power. In a fused society thepolitico-administrativesystemhasapatrimonialcharacter,andtherefore,providesdominantimportancetokinshiporfamily.Inaprismaticsociety,ontheotherhand,besidesthesuper-impositionof new formal structures on family andkinship, theuniversalisationof laws isdisregarded.Though,patrimonialismisofficiallyproscribed,inrealityitiswidelypracticedanditreflectsinalladministrativepractices.

The ‘Sala’ officer gives priority to personal aggrandisement than to welfare. Hisbehaviour and performance are influenced and governed by parochialism as a result ofwhichtherulesandregulationsarenotapplieduniversally.Afewgetmorebenefitsfromthegovernmentprogrammesignoringtheinterestsofalargenumberofothers.

Poly-communalismalsocreatescertainadministrativeproblems.Theoreticallyspeaking,the government officers have to implement the laws without any favouritism anddiscrimination.Butagovernmentofficialwoulddevelopagreatersenseofloyaltytowardsthe members of his own community than towards the government. In this process, adominant minority community gains a high proportion of representation in matters ofrecruitment,whilecreatingdissatisfactionamongthelargernumberofpeople.Todiffusethesituationandprotecttheinterestsofotherminorities‘quota’or‘reservation’systemmaybeadopted to provide some sort of proportional representation to all communities in theadministration.However, such an arrangementwould again lead to compartmentalisationand mutual hostility among various communities, which may further generate non-cooperation and increase tensions among the rival communities working in variousgovernmentagencies.Thissituation,however,isnotpeculiartodevelopingcountriesalone.

‘TheWhiteman-Negro’relationsinSouthernAmericaalsorelatestothesameproblem.Family, community and caste play a decisive role in society and there is simultaneous

growth of new groups in the society. Riggs called them as ‘Clects’, which are typicalprismatic groupsmaking use ofmodern, associationalmethods of organisation, but retaindiffuseandparticularisticgoalsofatransitionaltype.29Thus,clectcombinesthefeaturesof‘club’of thediffracted societyand the ‘sect’of the fused ‘Clects’ represent exclusively thepeople of a particular community or group, and government officials belonging to thatcategory serve only the members of their respective ‘clects’ more effectively by ignoringothers. Sometimes the sala or one of its agencies develop close relations with particularclects, or start functioning likea clect in itself.Asa result, the clects continue tomaintaincloselinkswithaparticulargroupandfunctionprimarilyintheirinterestandpaylipservicetoachievementanduniversalisticnorms.30

Inaprismaticsocietythetraditionalbehaviourpatterncoexistswith‘new’setsofnorms.Asaresultofoverlappingofthe‘formal’andthe‘effective’standardofconduct,prismaticsociety’s social interactions are characterised by a lack of consensus on the norms ofbehaviour.31 Sala officials may have entered service through higher educationalqualificationsandcompetitiveexaminations,butinregardtothemattersofpromotionandcareerdevelopment,theydependlargelyonascriptiveties,asalsothesupportofseniority,oron the influence of senior officers. These officers claim to apply modern norms in theirbehaviour, but are indifferent and reject all inconvenient norms in their day-to-dayfunctioning.Thepublicalso takes theexampleof salaofficials in theirbehaviouralpatternand in general, plead for the strict observance of rules and regulations. But when theirpersonalissuesareinvolvedtheywouldeithertrytobreaktherulesorpleadforexemptionintheirfavour.

While referring to overlapping in the power structure of a prismatic society, Riggsobserves that it consists of a ‘highly centralised and concentrated authority structureoverlapping a control system that is highly localised and dispersed’.32 There exists aseparation of ‘authority’ (officially sanctioned or legitimate power) and ‘control’ (real butunofficiallypermittedofillegitimatepower).Inpractice,thedejure ‘authority’succumbstothedefacto‘control’.33Theauthorityofthesalaoverlapswiththesociety’scontrolstructureswhich are based on poly-communalism, clects and poly-normativism.34 A number ofstructuresbehaveinapeculiar fashionandmanyatimeevenactagainst theverypurposefor which they were created. Sometimes structures lacking primary orientation towardsadministration carry administrative functions along with other concrete structuresresponsible for it. Suchanoverlapping influences the relationshipbetweenpoliticiansandadministration.

Riggstermedtheprismaticsocietyas‘unbalancedpolity’inwhichbureaucratsdominatethepolitico-administrative system,despite thepolitical leaders constitutionalpowers.Asaresult, the sala officials play a more dominant role in decision-making processes in aprismatic society than the officials in a diffracted society. Due to such a concentration ofpowers in thehandsofbureaucrats, therewouldbe lackof response to thepeople’sneedsandwishes.Insuchasituationstrengtheningofpublicadministrationindevelopingsocietiesislikelytoimpedepoliticaldevelopment.Hefurtherpointedout,thatsuchaweakpoliticalsystem and leadership fail to control the bureaucracy and consequently the legislature,politicalparties,voluntaryassociationsandpublicopinionalsobecomeineffective.

The strength and weakness of any political leader in power varies with his ability to

reward and punish the administrators. A weak political leader may fail to recognise theservicesofanyofficialandrewardhimsuitablyforachievingtheorganisationalgoals,andatthe same time an inefficient officialmay escapepunishment for his failures.As a result atalented sala official tends to spendmost of his time for self-aggrandisement and for thepromotionofpersonalinterestsandintheprocessinefficientofficialsmaygoscot-free.Sincetheperformanceofthegovernmentdependsonthelevelofoutputofthesalaofficial,Riggssays, there is a close link between bureaucratic behaviour and administrative output; themostpowerfulabureaucratis,thelesseffectiveheisasadministrator.Asaresult,thesalaischaracterisedbynepotisminrecruitment,institutionalisedcorruptionandinefficiencyintheadministrationoflawsandbythemotivesofgainingpowerforprotectingitsowninterest.35

TheBazar-Canteen-PrismaticEconomyRiggstermedtheeconomicsub-systemofaprismaticsociety‘bazar-canteen’.Inadiffractedsociety the economic system operates depending on the market factors of supply anddemand and economic considerations alone govern the market. In contrast, in a fusedsociety,‘arenafactors’-religious,social,orfamilialconsiderations-determinetheeconomictransactionsandthequestionofpricescarcelyarises.Inaprismaticsociety,boththe‘marketfactors’ and ‘arena factors’ play side by side. Both economic and non-economic factorsinteract and influence the economic structures.Under such conditions it is notpossible todetermine common price for a commodity or service. Besides, the ‘price indeterminacy’,foreigndominationontheeconomicsystem,asmallsectionofpeopleenjoyingallbenefitswithcontrolovereconomicinstitutionsandexploitinglargenumberofpeople,aresomeoftheother featuresof ‘bazar-canteen’model.Thisgivesplace tobargaining inregard to feeand tax-payments, rebates and bribes. This further influences the financial administrationandultimatelydestroystheeconomicsystem.

Inadiffracted society everyonegets the serviceson equalbasiswithoutdiscriminationandfavouritism.Inthesamemanneremployeesgettheiremolumentsandremunerationinproportiontotheirworkturnout,service,anditsmarketvalue.Butinaprismaticsociety,therelationshipbetweenthepublicofficialandtheirclientelewouldbeintermsofbuyer-sellerrelationship.Theprice for theservice isdeterminedby thenatureof relationshipbetweenthepublicservantsandtheirclientele.Thepricevariesfromplacetoplace,timetotimeandperson to person. The price of any commodity or service depends on the family contacts,kinship,individualrelationship,bargainingpowerandpolitics.Servicesareguaranteedandsold to the members of the ‘clects’ and dominant communities at reduced prices andmembers ‘outside’ theclectsandminoritycommunityarechargedhigherprices.Thus, theeconomicstructuresinaprismaticsocietybehavelikea‘subsidised’canteentothemembersof the privileged groups and politically ‘influential’ persons having access to the canteen.Conversely it behaves like a ‘tributary’ canteen, where they charge higher prices to themembersoflessprivileged,politicallynon-influentialormembersofthe‘outside’groups.

Thestateofprice-indeterminacyinaprismaticsocietyfurtherdeterioratestheeconomicconditions,encouragesblack-marketing,hoarding,adulteration,etc.,andultimatelyleadstoa high level of inflation. In such a situation the sala official would try to encash it bydeveloping contacts with foreign businessmen and misuse foreign exchange for privatepurposes. This would generally lead to exploitation, poverty, and social injustice in aprismaticsociety.Thewagerelationsinaprismaticsocietyalsodependsonfamilyrelations.Agoodnumberofpublicofficialsreceivehigherpayandsalarieswithoutdoinganywork.Generally,thegapbetweenthelowestandthehigherwageswouldbeverywideandthose

peoplewhodrawlesspaywillhavetodomorework.Insuchasituation,lowwageearnerswouldbeinclinedandfeelmotivatedtoincreasetheirincomesthroughillegitimatemeans.Thus, thenormsof officials conduct are affected,which in turn, affects the economic sub-systemofaprismaticsociety.

Inaprismaticsocietythe‘marketfactors’aredevelopedwithoutproportionateincreasein thecapital.Productiondoesnot increaseandsocietywouldgive lessvalue to tradeandcommerce. Native businessmen lose interest and foreigners and the migrant minoritiesprovide the capital and conduct business. They slowly try to extend their influence topoliticalandadministrativespheresandcorruptthemtoachievetheirpersonalends.Thus,theeconomicsub-systeminaprismaticsocietyultimatelyinfluencesthepublicofficialsandisinfluencedbyitsgoverningfactors.

ChangeinaPrismaticSocietyThe pace of development in any society dependsmainly on the availability of favourableconditionsforchangeinthesystem.Thewesternsocietieswitnessedrelativelylongertime-spanfortheirdevelopmentandwereabletoadjusttheirbehaviourgraduallytothedesiredpatterns.Intheprocessofdevelopmenttheyexperiencedlessformalism,heterogeneityandoverlapping, than the contemporary transitional or developing societies. Generally, in aprismaticsocietythepressureforchangecomesfrombothinternalandexternalsources. Ifpressure is primarily external (foreign technical assistance programmes), it may be called‘exogeneous’changeandifthepressuresareprimarilyinternal(normallybyadministrativereforms) it may be called ‘endogenous’ change. And if the change is the result of bothexternalandinternalpressures,itistermedas‘equi-genetic’.Riggsexplainedthedilemmaofchange in the manner that the more exogenetic the process of diffraction, the moreformalisticandheterogeneousitsprismaticphase;themoreendogenetic,thelessformalisticandheterogeneous.Thus,greatertheformalism,heterogeneityandoverlapping,greaterthestate of ‘exo-prismatic’ and the lesser the ‘endo-prismatic’ character of change. Such adifference occurs because, with endogenetic change, ‘effective’ behaviour precedes thecreation of new formal institutions, but in an exo-genetic transformation the sequence isreversed.Paradoxically, intheirbidtoabsorbtheexternallyinducedchangeintheshortestpossibletime,prismaticsocietiesfacethepossibilitiesofhigherformalism,heterogeneityand‘theseverityofevolutionarytensions’.

ConceptofDevelopmentRiggs defined development as ‘a process of increasing autonomy (discretion) of socialsystems,madepossible,byrisinglevelofdiffraction’.‘Discretion’,heobserves,isthe‘abilityto choose among alternatives’while diffraction refers to the degree of differentiation andintegrationinasocialsystem.36Ecologically,development is increasing theability tomakeandcarryoutcollectivedecisionsaffectingtheenvironment.37

Riggsconsidereddifferentiationandintegrationasthetwokeyelementsintheprocessofdevelopment.Differentiationmeans existenceof a situation inwhich every functionhas acorrespondingspecialisedstructure for itsperformance. Integrationmeansamechanismtotie together, to link-up, tomeshand to coordinate thevariouskindsof specialised roles.38Thelevelsofdifferentiationandintegrationrepresentdiffractedandprismaticconditionsofdevelopment. If the society is highly differentiated and poorly integrated, it is prismatic.Diffractionleadstodevelopmentandthehigherthelevelofdifferentiationandintegration,thegreater the levelofdevelopment,and the lower their level, lesser thedevelopment. In

thesamewaythelevelofmalarrangementbetweendifferentiationandintegrationresultsinthe different levels of prismatic conditions. Riggs explained the differentiation andintegrationcorrelationsandresultantdiffractedandprismaticconditionsasshowninFig.2.

Fig2:DifferentiationandIntegration

Source:AdministrativeChange,Vol.2,No.2,Jan-June,1975.

Riggs drew two lines of coordination and each between the changing levels ofdifferentiation and integration. He pointed out a diagonal between representing the idealevel of integration required to handle the complexities involved in coordinatingdifferentiated roles while providing sufficient autonomy for each role to be carriedsuccessfullyanditsdistinctivefunctions.Thus,thelinem,n..…trepresentaconditionthatismorediffractedthansituationssymbolisedbelowthelinea,b…g.Onthisscaletheextremesrepresent mere hypothetical constructs, but the intermediate points come closer tocharacteriseempiricalrealities.

Riggs alsohypotheticallypresented imaginary societies,which are becomingmore andmore differentiated without successfully mastering the problems posed by these changesthrough its integrative mechanisms. The shift from ‘n’ to ‘b’ or ‘p’ to ‘d’ in the graphrepresents this condition. The fact of having a variety of differentiated roles can lead togreaterconfusionandchaos-unlessthespecialisedrolesarecarefullycoordinatedwitheachother. There must be a mechanism to tie together different kinds of specialised roles.Integration, thus, becomes a highly essential part of the whole scheme. “Surely”, Riggsobserves, “it is much easier to train people to perform the specialised roles of moderngovernment than it is to integrate these roles, to link them up together”. Developmentwouldbepossibleonlywhentherolesarecarefullyintegrated.

Riggs further explained his concept of development by analysing the factors affectingdifferentiation and integration. Table 2 facilitates a better understanding of his concept ofdevelopment.

Table2

Riggs’ConceptofDevelopment

The level of differentiation in any country depends upon the technological and non-technological factors. The more the development of technology, the higher the level ofdifferentiation. The integration depends on two important factors viz., penetration andparticipation. Penetration is the ability of a government tomake and carry out decisionsthroughout the country. Participation is the receptivity to lawand thewillingness tohelpcarry out the laws and the policies which the government has formulated. Participation,thus,hastwoimportantelementsviz.,willingnessofthepeopletoparticipate,andabilityofthepeopletoparticipate.Themorethewillingnessandabilitytoparticipateonthepartofthe people, the higher the level of participation in governmental affairs. Thus thepenetrationandparticipationfacilitate the integrationofdifferentiatedstructuresresultingindevelopment.

ACriticalAppraisalExtensive referencesmade to theviewsofRiggs in the literatureofPublicAdministrationitself arean indicationofhis tremendous influenceon thediscipline.There cannotbeanystudy of comparative public administration and development administration without areference to Riggs. But Riggs, like many other administrative theorists, was subjected tosevere criticism.Riggs liberally coined newwords to explain his concepts. In addition, healso gave different meanings to a number of words already in use. There is no harm incoiningnewwordswhentheexistingvocabularyfailstoconveythemeaningandclarifytheconcepts. There is also nothing wrong if one gives his own meaning for the effectiveexpressionofhisviews.Butfreeuseofnewwords,andwordsusedwithdifferentmeaningsmaycreateconfusioninsteadofclarifyingtheconcepts.39Riggsinhisenthusiasmtogiveascientific temper to hismodels, borrowedmost of his terminology fromphysical sciences.But by mere use of new words borrowed from physical sciences, administration cannotbecomeascience.40

Sometimestheusageofnewwordsmayevenmisleadreaders.Sisson,whoisverycriticalofRiggs’modelsandhisterminology,saysthattounderstandthewritingsofRiggsonehastoreadthemthreetimes.Firsttimetounderstandhislanguage,secondtimetounderstandhisconceptsandthirdtimetoknowwhetherthereisanythingreallytolearn.41Chapman,commenting on this aspect,writes thatRiggs shouldhavepreparedhis owndictionary toexplainhisterminology.42

Hahn-Been Lee doubts the utility of the prismatic and sala models, in view of thedevelopmentoftheadministration’sfocusonsocialchange.LeefeelsthatRiggs’modelsarenothelpfultoknowtheprocessofsocialchangeindevelopment.HeconsidersRiggs’model

as equilibriummodels. Equilibriummodelswould only facilitate in preserving the systembutnotintroducinganychangeinthesystem.LeeconcludesthatthemodelsofRiggsarenotvery useful when the objective of administration is to change the system, rather than itsmaintenance.43

RichardA.Chapman emphasises that one should have an openmind in analysing theRiggsianmodelsandseehowfartheywouldbeusefultounderstandPublicAdministration.AlthoughRiggsadoptedaninterdisciplinaryapproachtoanalysesocialsystems,hehasnotfully worked out the implications of his theory for Public Administration. Models areintendedtobeheuristicdevices,valuableasaidstounderstandcomplexsocialphenomena.InapplyingRiggs’modelstoparticularsocieties,theproblemofmeasurementcomes.Intheabsenceofameasuringscale, the identificationofprismaticordiffractedsocietiesbecomesverydifficult.As the reader carefully followsRiggs’ analysis, theremaybea tendency forhimtoassociateprismaticconditionswitheverysituationheknows.Similarly,DayaKrishnasays, when the fused and diffracted societies are imaginary, all the societies are to beclassifiedasprismaticatvariouslevelsoflow,middleandhigh.Butwhenscalestomeasurethelevelsof‘prismatism’arelacking,the‘low’,‘middle’and‘high’wordshavenorelevance.Riggs’modelsaremostlybasedoncertainassumptions.Butintheabsenceofanyempiricalevidencethevalidityofsuchassumptionsarehighlyquestionable.

Daya Krishna44 mainly directs his attack with a view to examine how far the Riggs’models are useful to analyse the development processes and points out that his prismaticmodelservesnopurposetofindoutthestagesintheprocessofdevelopment.Whenchangeis inevitable in any society, according to Daya Krishna, Riggs’ diffracted model isimpracticable.Diffractedsocietyrepresentstheequilibriumstateandstandsforthestabilityandpreservationofthesystem.ToDayaKrishnadiffractedsocietyisnotadesirablesociety.

WhenRiggsassumesthatAmericaalsoissettobecomeaprismaticsociety,DayaKrishnafindsnologicinthethree-foldclassificationofthesocietiesinthebackgroundoftheconceptof ‘development’. If America is a prismatic society and economically backward Egypt adiffractedsociety,DayaKrishnafeelsthatalldevelopingcountriesintheworldwouldliketocontinue to be prismatic societies. Riggs considered differentiation and integration as twoimportantingredientsofdevelopment.Butitisadifficulttasktoidentifythedesirablelevelofdifferentiationand integration required fordevelopment.Riggs’preference for societieswith lowbut equitable level of differentiation and integration to thosewith high level ofdifferentiationandlowlevelofintegration,accordingtoDayaKrishna,standsasanobstacletodevelopment.

LackofinternationalperspectiveinhisapproachtodevelopmentisanotherlimitationofRiggs’ concept. In a competitiveworld, the higher-level prismatic societymay exploit thelower-leveldiffracted society. InDayaKrishna’sview,Riggs failed to recognise the roleofoutside or external forces in the process of development.DayaKrishna also feels that theRiggs’viewofintegrationastheresultofapenetrationandparticipationcannotberelevantto all situations. He says that people’s participation is also possible even in dictatorialcountries and hence, more participation cannot be considered an important variable ofintegration.Riggs also failed to take into consideration the social aspects besides scientificandtechnologicalreasonsfordifferentiation.Thefeelingthatthesocialequilibriumwillbedisturbedonlybecauseofscientificandtechnologicalreasonsisfarfromconvincing.

TheadoptionofawronganalyticaltoolborrowedfromphysicalscienceinexplainingthesocialsystemswascriticisedbyTilman.Wheninterdisciplinaryapproachisadopted,itisthe

primary responsibility of the researcher to select a most suitable analytical approach.Ecologicalmodelsgenerallyexplain themotivesofadministrativebehaviour. In thewholeprocess, administration also plays an important role to influence its environment.Administrationisalsoatoolforsocialchangeanditinfluencesthesocietyindifferentwaysatdifferenttimes.ButRiggshascompletelyneglectedthisaspect.

Prismaticmodelmainly describes developing societies but fails to explain the place ofadministrationinthesociety.ThemainreasonforitwasthefailureonthepartofRiggstoanalyse the ‘internal dynamics of the society’. In prismatic society, the character of eachsocialstructureisadistinctiveonebutalsoanindependentvariablebyitself.Thereiswidedisparity and distinction in the relation of social, economic, political and administrativesystemofasociety.Riggshasfailedtocarefullyrecognisethesedistinctions.Notmuchworkhasbeendoneintherelationshipbetweenthediffractedcharactersandfusedcharactersinaprismaticsociety.Duetothisgap,theconclusionthatformalismleadstotheconcentrationofpower in thehandsofbureaucracy,which in turn leadsto inefficiency inadministration isarrivedinhasteandwithoutanyproperempiricalevidence.

Arora opines that overlapping exists equally in diffracted societies as in prismaticsocieties,butthereasonsmaybedifferent.Anexaminationofreasonswouldbeveryusefuland provide guidance to administrative actions. Riggs has only highlighted the negativeimpactofoverlappingbutdidnotexaminethepositiveaspects,whichmayprovidehealthycompetition among various administrative sub-systems and increase efficiency in theadministration.

The very concept of prismatic model has a negative character. It looks as though, theconditionsofdevelopingcountrieswereanalysedthroughthewesternvaluesandconcepts.Commentingonthisaspect,MichaelMonroeobservedthatRiggsexaminedtheconditionsindeveloping countries while taking America as a standard society. Riggs did not give anyimportancetothepositivecharacterofprismaticsocietyasmuchashedidtothenegativecharacters.Heprojected formalism,asanegativeaspectandhighlightedall itsbadeffects.Butitisalsotruethatsometimestherewouldbemorebenefitstothepeopleiftherulesandregulationsarenotstrictly followed.Administrationmaymovefast ifcertainrulesarenotstrictlyobserved.IncountrieslikeIndia,ifthereisproperleadership,formalismmayplayavery positive role in carrying out theworks in time.45 In a sense, Riggs’ implication thatformalism is dysfunctional in most or all circumstances represents a ‘non-ecological’viewpoint. To counterbalance the Riggsian concept of negative formalism, Valson haspresentedtheconceptofpositiveformalism.46Riggsalsofailedtogiveenoughattentiontotheoperationofinternalforces,whichareimportantinthefunctioningofanysystem.

ConclusionClassical organisational theories mainly emphasise on organisational principles andbehavioural theories concentrated onhumanbehaviour in the organisation. But ecologicaltheories emphasise the interaction of administration and its environment. Both in contentand analysis, Riggs’ ecological approach touches awider horizon, and takes an integratedapproachofadministrativesystem.Hisapproachandmodelshelpusinunderstandingtheadministrative process in developing countries. Although his administrative models aredifficult to find out in practice, they help us in understanding the realities. Sala modelprovidesanopportunitytoanalyseandunderstandtheadministrativesystemindevelopingcountries. It also facilitates to conduct further studies based on empirical and ecologicalapproaches.

AsChapmanhascorrectlyobservedthatinspiteofmanylimitations,Riggsmodelsmaydeepen our insight into some of the underlying problems of public administration intransitional societies. In someways theprismaticmodelmaybeanalogous toprinciples inadministration.Theprinciplesmaynotbeuniversaltruthsandtheymayhavethedefectofproverbs, that theyoccur incontradictorypairs,but thisdoesnotmean thatprinciplesareworthless; indeed theymaybeparticularlyusefulascriteria fordescribinganddiagnosingadministrativesituations.InasimilarwayRiggs’approachandmodelsmaybeconsideredassophisticatedtoolsfordescribinganddiagnosingadministrativesituations.47

InBriefFredRiggs’widerangingcontributionstoadministrativetheorycanbesummarisedas:• FredW.Riggs(1917-2008),apioneerinadministrativemodelbuildingandcomparative

administrationstudies, isknownforhisstudiesofadministrativesystemsindevelopingsocieties in a broader ecological and developmental perspective. In his book, TheAdministration in Developing Countries Riggs presented his popular model theory ofprismaticsociety.

• Riggs considered comparative public administration, which emphasises cross-culturaland cross-national administrative studies, ismore appropriate to the understanding ofadministrative systems in developing countries. He identified three broad trends, viz.,normativetoempirical,ideographictonomatheticandnon-ecologicaltoecologicalinthestudyofcomparativepublicadministration.

• Riggsused three important analytical tools to explainhis administrative theories, viz.,ecologicalapproach,structural-functionalapproach,andidealmodels.

• Riggs developed certain ideal models to analyse the administrative systems ofdeveloping countries. Initially, Riggs developed Agraria-Industria model to describeagriculturalandindustrialsocieties.Respondingtocriticismsofthemodel,hedevelopedanother set ofmodels to describe pre-historic, developing and developed societies andcalledthemfused,prismaticanddiffractedmodelsrespectively.Thesemodelsarebasedon the basis of structural and functional approach. He termed ‘functionally diffuse’societiesas‘fused’and‘functionallyspecific’as‘diffracted’andtheintermediatesocietiesbetween these two extremes as ‘prismatic’. The prismatic is his most popular modelcharacterisedbyheterogeneity,formalismandoverlapping.

• The administrative sub-systemof prismatic society is called a ‘Sala’ and the economicsub-systemiscalleda‘BazaarCanteen’.

• Riggs in discussing reforms and changes in prismatic societies identified ‘exogenous’,‘endogenous’and‘equi-genetic’factorsresponsibleforchanges.

• Riggsexaminedtheconditionsofprismaticsocietyfromadevelopmentperspective.Hedefineddevelopmentasaprocessofincreasingautonomyofsocialsystemsmadepossiblebyraisingthelevelofdiffraction.Tohimdifferentiationandintegrationarethetwokeyelementsintheprocessofdevelopment.

• ThecriticismofRiggsmodels includeconfusion fromtheuseofnew termsandgivingnew meaning to the terms used; focus of models is on equilibrium than on change;problems of measurement in the identification of prismatic societies; difficulties inidentifying the desirable levels of differentiation and integration required fordevelopment;examinationofdevelopingsocietieswithAmericansocietyasastandard.

• Inspiteofmanylimitationsandcriticisms,Riggs’modelsdeepenourinsightintosome

oftheunderlyingproblemsofpublicadministrationindevelopingsocieties.Evenifidealtypesarenottobefoundinreality,theyareconsideredusefulforheuristicpurposes.

References1 See http://www2.hawaii.edu/~fredr/6-vita6a.htm. See also Tummala, Krishna K., “An Ode to Fred,” Public

AdministrationReview,Nov.-Dec.,2008,Vol.68,No.6,2008,pp.973-976.2 ForalistofRiggs’spublicationsseehttp://www2.hawaii.edu/~fredr/checka.htm3 Heady,Ferrel,“ComparativePublicAdministration:ConcernsandPriorities”,inHeady,Ferrel,andStokes,SybilL.,(Eds.),

Papers onComparativePublicAdministration,AnnArbor: Institute of PublicAdministration, theUniversity ofMichigan,1962,p.4.

4 See Riggs, FredW., “Trends in the Comparative Study of Public Administration”, International Review of AdministrativeSciences,Vol.XXVIII,No.1,1962,pp.9-15.

5 Bews,J.W.,HumanEcology,London,OxfordUniversityPress,1935,p.232.6 Gaus,JohnM.,ReflectionsonPublicAdministration,Alabama,UniversityofAlabamaPress,1958,pp.1-19.7 Dahl, RobertA., “The Science of PublicAdministration: Three Problems”,PublicAdministrationReview, Vol. VII, No. 1,

1947,pp.1-11.8 Dahl,RobertA., “TechnicalAssistance:TheProblemof Implementation”,PublicAdministrationReview,Vol.XII, 1952,p.

266.9 SeeRiggs,FredW.,TheEcologyofPublicAdministration,Bombay,AsiaPublishingHouse,1961.10 Gaus,JohnM.,op.cit.p.9.11 SeeRiggs,FredW.,TheEcologyofPublicAdministration,op.cit.12 Seeamongothers,Parsons,Talcott,TheSocialSystem,Glencoe, Illinois,FreePress,1957,Merton,RobertK.,SocialTheory

andSocialStructure,Glencoe, Illinois,FreePress,1951:Almond,GabrielA.,andColeman,JamesS., (Eds.),ThePoliticsofDevelopingAreas,Princeton,PrincetonUniversityPress,1961.

13 Riggs,FredW.,AdministrationinDevelopingCountries:TheTheoryofPrismaticSocieties,Boston,HoughtonMifflinCo.1964,p.99.

14 Riggs,FredW.,“AgrariaandIndustria:TowardsaTypologyofComparativePublicAdministration”,inSiffin,WilliamJ.,(Ed.),TowardaComparativeStudyofPublicAdministration,Bloomington,IndianaUniversityPress,1957,pp.23-116.

15 Ticknet,F.J.,“ASurveyandEvaluationofComparativeResearch”,PublicAdministrationReview,Vol.XIX,No.1,1959,pp.19-25;Milne,R.S.,“ComparisonsandModelsinPublicAdministration”,PoliticalStudies,Vol.X,No.1,1962,pp.1-14.

16 Riggs,FredW.,TheEcologyofPublicAdministration,op.cit.p.95.17 See Arora, Ramesh K., Comparative Public Administration: An Ecological Perspective, New Delhi, Associated Publishing

House,p.110.18 Ibid.19 Riggs,FredW.,TheEcologyofPublicAdministration,op.cit.,p.91.20 Arora,RameshK.,op.cit.,pp.110-111.21 Riggs, Fred W., The Ecology of Public Administration, op. cit., pp. 91-92; See also B.S. Bhargava,”Riggs’s Concept of

Formalism,”Prashasnika,Vol.VI.No.4.,Oct.-Dec.,1977,pp.4-11.22 Riggs, Fred W., “The ‘Sala’ Model: An Ecological Approach to the Study of Comparative Public Administration”,

PhilippineJournalofPublicAdministration,Vol.VI,1962,p.5.23 RamReddy,G.,andRavindraPrasad,D.,“PersonneloftheCouncilofMinisters”,inRamReddy,G.,andSharma,B.A.

V.,(Ed.),StateGovernmentandPolitics:AndhraPradesh,NewDelhi,SterlingPublishers,1979.24 Riggs,FredW.,“The‘Sala’Model:AnEcologicalApproachtotheStudyofComparativePublicAdministration”,op.cit.,

p.6.25 Riggs,FredW.,TheEcologyofPublicAdministration,op.cit.,p.92.26 Arora,RameshK.,op.cit.,pp.112.27 Someoftheseconceptsarediscussedlaterinthischapter.28 Sanskrit word ‘Shala’ also denotes the same meaning and is used for ‘Patashala’ (School), ‘Kalashala’ (College),

‘Vaidyashala’(Hospital),‘Dharmashala’(Guest-house),etc.29 Riggs,FredW.,TheEcologyofPublicAdministration,op.cit.,p.126.30 Arora,RameshK.,op.cit.,p.113.

31 Ibid.,p.115.32 Riggs,FredW.,“The‘Sala’Model:AnEcologicalApproachtotheStudyofComparativePublicAdministration”,op.cit.,

p.14.33 dejureauthorityheremeanstheofficiallysanctionedlegitimatepoweranddefactocontrolmeansthe‘real’butunofficially

permittedorillegitimatepower.34 Arora,RameshK.,op.cit.,p.116.35 Ibid.36 Riggs,FredW.,“TheIdeaofDevelopmentAdministration”, inEdwardW.Weidner, (Ed.),DevelopmentAdministration in

Asia,Durham,N.C.,DukeUniversityPress,1970,pp.25-72.37 Riggs,FredW.,“FurtherConsiderationsonDevelopment”,AdministrativeChange,Vol.4,No.1,July-December1976,p.2.38 Ibid.,p.3.39 Chapman, Richard A., “Prismatic Theory in Public Administration: A Review of Theories of F. W. Riggs”, Public

Administration,Vol.44,Winter,1966,p.418.40 Kishan Khanna, “Contemporary Models of Public Administration: An Assessment of their Utility and Exposition of

InherentFallacies”,“PhilippineJournalofPublicAdministration,Vol.XVIII,No.2,April1974,p.103.41 QuotedinIbid.,p.105.42 Chapman,RichardA.,op.cit.43 Lee,Hahn-Been,“FromEcologytoTime”,InternationalReviewofAdministrativeSciences,Vol.XXXIII,No.2,1967,pp.1-13.44 For details of DayaKrishna’s criticism see his “Shallwe beDiffracted?ACritical Comment on F.W. Riggs’ Prismatic

Societies andPublicAdministration”,AdministrativeChange,Vol. 2,No. 1, June 1974, pp. 48-55 and “Towards a SanerViewof‘Development’:ACommentonF.W.Riggs’Comment”,AdministrativeChange,Vol.3,No.2,Jan-June,1976,p.19-26.

45 SeeArora,RameshK.,op.cit.,p.119.46 Valson,E.W.,“PositiveFormalism:ADesiderationforDevelopment”,PhilippineJournalofPublicAdministration,Vol.XII,

1968,pp.3-647 Chapman,RichardA.,op.cit.,p.427.

Y

18YEHEZKELDROR

G.Haragopal

Introductionehezkel Dror’s inclusion in a volume of administrative thinkers is not onlyunconventional but a bit adventurous too. This attempt completes the circle started by

WoodrowWilsonwhovehementlypleadedforthedichotomyofadministrationandpolicy.Although the dichotomy appeared to be real and caught the imagination of some of theadministrative thinkers, it did not last long. The administrative system cannot be isolatedfromthelargerpoliticalsystem,asthelatterinfluencesthetoneandtenorofadministration.Publicadministration,therefore,bothasaprofessionandasadiscipline,cannotandshouldnotbe treatedas independentof itspolitical context. It is in this light that the studentsofpublicadministrationneedtobeintroducedtotheconceptofpolicyscience,whichnotonlywidens their intellectual horizons but also enables them to integrate the fragmentedknowledge. Dror is widely regarded as the world’s foremost pioneers of modern publicpolicystudies.

An accelerated thrust of knowledge in all branches has resulted in increasingspecialisation.Theneed for specialisationarosenotbecauseeachareahad itsowndistinctboundariesbutthetimeatthecommandofasinglehumanbeingwasawfullyinadequatetocope up with the fast growing information. Specialisation, bordering narrow isolation, isdangerousas it rendersboth theknowledgeand itspossessor ineffective.Dror throughhisconceptofpolicyscienceattemptedtoavoidthisperilpresentamongthesocialsciencesinmoderntimes.Thisremarkableattemptisnotverytimelybutisalsocapableofrestoringtheperspective.

(Bornin1928)

LifeandWorksYehezkelDror(1928)borninVienna,AustriamigratedtoIsraelin1938andwaseducatedinJerusalematHebrewandHowarduniversities.HeobtainedB.A (1953) andMagister Juris(1954) from the Hebrew University and LLM (1955) and S.J.D., (1957) from the HarvardUniversity (1957). He joined the Political Science Department of Hebrew University of

Jerusalem, Israel in 1957where he is at present Professor of Political Science andWolfsonChair Professor of Public Administration, Emeritus.1 In his long career, Dror worked insenior positions in IsraeliGovernment including as Senior Policy PlanningAdvisor in theoffice of theDefenseMinister, and the PrimeMinister’sOffice, chairman andmember ofpublic service commissions dealing with various policy issues, founder-president of theJewishPeoplePolicyPlanningInstitute(2002-2008),etc.

Dror’sprofessionalexperienceincludesvisitingprofessorshipsandpolicyconsultanciesatuniversitiesandgovernmentinstitutesinseveralcountriesincludingAdvancedStudyintheBehavioural Sciences, Palo Alto (1962-1963); Woodrow Wilson Center, Washington, D.C.,(1981); Center for Advanced Study, Berlin (1981-1982); European Institute of PublicAdministration,Maastricht(1989-1991),etc.AsaninternationalconsultantonbehalfoftheUnitedNations,Drorworkedinseveralcountriesonpolicyplanning,capacitytogovernandstatecraft,Organisation for EconomicCooperation andDevelopment, theEuropeanUnionandattheinvitationofgovernments.HewasFellow,WorldAcademyofArtandScienceandEuropeanAcademyofSciencesandArts, etc.Hewasamemberof theClubofRomeandInternationalInstituteofStrategicStudies,Londonandworkedasaseniorprofessionalstaffmember at the Rand Corporation in California and New York (1968-70).2 For seniorpoliticians and policy-makers he organised workshops on policy planning and has thecapacitytogoverninoverfortycountries.

Dror’s publications include3 Public Policymaking Reexamined (1968); Design for PolicySciences (1971);Ventures inPolicySciences (1971);Crazy States:ACounterconventional StrategicIssue(1971):PolicymakingUnderAdversity(1986);TheCapacitytoGovern:AReporttotheClubofRome (2000). He is currently working on The Superior Ruler: Mirrors for Future-WeavingGovernor,amentoringbookfortoplevelpoliticiansandchiefexecutives;GlobalLeviathanonaglobal regime confronting evil equipped with weapons of mass killing; Grand StrategyCrafting a text forhigh-level strategicplanningprofessionals.Hisbookswerepublished inseverallanguages.

Dror is a recipientof several awards includingFirstAnnualHaroldLasswellAwardofPolicy Studies (1983); ThomasR.DyeAward for outstanding service to the Policy StudiesOrganisation (1997); Landau Prize for outstanding contributions to social sciences (2002),IsraelPrizeinAdministrativeSciencesforoutstandingoriginalscientificandappliedworkinpolicy-making,capacitiestogovernandstrategicplanning(2005)andRosolioAwardforhiscontributionstotheadvancementofthestudyandpracticeofPublicAdministrationinIsrael(1965).

KnowledgeSystemsandPublicPolicyDrorstrovetointegrateadministrationandpolicyforbetterpolicy-making.Takingacurativeapproachtofragmentationandspecialisation,Dror’s‘policyscience’developedmodelsthatchallengedthemoderndispersionof thesocialsciences.Hebelievedthatbynurturing the‘organised dreaming’ of its members, organisations could develop new research designs,couldbroadlyconceptualisediscretepolicyissuesandtherebysolvecurrentandfuturesocialproblems.Dror’sversionofpolicysciencescapitalisesontheepistemologicaldevelopmentofpoliticians; changes in political, cultural and educational spheres and inter-governmentalparticipation of the public in public policy-making. Advanced studies in publicadministrationwillmakecontributionsinalltheseareas.

Drormade amark in public administration through his outstanding publicationPublicPolicyRe-examined(1968).Thisbooklaunchesacallforrationalpublicpolicyformulationbuthas become a statement of Dror’s refusal to acknowledge that incrementalism is justifiedwhen knowledge is scanty. Dror includes an ideal model for policy-making in his study,suggestingitsreplacementofnormativemodelsthathelpevaluatepolicy-makingforflawsbut fail to meet the required challenges. The study includes three central elements:identifyingproblemsandresources,evaluatingandrevisingpolicyproductionsystemsanddeterminingpolicy-makingstrategies.Overall,Drorforegroundsthe“gapbetweenthewaysindividuals and institutionsmakepolicy and the available knowledge of howpolicies canbestbemade”inhistheoreticallyconstructedproject,therevisedversionofwhichappearsasPolicy-makingUnderAdversity,1986.4Dror,whiletakingstockoftheexistingknowledgeforhumanaction,dividedtheknowledgeintothreelevels:knowledgerelevanttothecontrolofthe environment, knowledge relevant to control society and individuals and knowledgeconcerningthecontrolofthecontrolsthemselvesthatismeta-control.5Ofthesethreelevels,knowledge about control over environment relatively is themost advanced area owing toscientific and technological advancement. Knowledge about control of society andindividuals has not developed highly although it registered some progress. But theknowledgeaboutcontrolovercontrolsistheleastdevelopedofallandisscarcelyrecognisedas adistinct focus for research. Thenecessity to be acquaintedwith the knowledge of thedesignandoperationofthecontrolmechanismitselfisofseriousconsequencestothefutureofmankind.

The deep urge and increasing capacity of human beings in the twentieth century tomouldtheirdestinybychoiceistooevident.Therehasbeenascarcityofknowledgeaboutvarious dimensions of society since the beginning of human history. The design andoperation of the social overall control system, which Dror describes as societal directionsystem, is one such area.Dror lamented that this blind area in human knowledge alwayscausedsufferingandtragedyintermsofhumanvalues.Butthegravityofthetragedyisallthemore severe inmodern timeswhen the society is subjected to innumerable stringentcontrols. The available knowledge such as nuclear bomb, ecology, poisoning techniques,predicting the gender of the children, genetic engineering, stimulating altered states ofconsciousness, emotional controls, etc., place immense power in the hands of controllingauthority. It is this dangerous development that makes the societal direction systemextremelycrucial.

Thechangesrequiredinsocietaldirectionsystemaremultidimensionalincharacter.Itisnot only that the existing gaps in the body of knowledge are to be filled up, butwhat isurgentlyneeded isanewvalueandbelief system inviewof theglobal roleof controllingman.Unfortunately, the scientific knowledge is triggering changewithout supplying newvaluesandbeliefsystems.Therefore,thisknowledgeshouldenablethesocietiestoraisethelevelofrationalityasanimportantcomponentofthesocietaldirectionsystem.This,inturn,wouldhelpinimprovingthepublicpolicy-makingsystem,whichconstitutesthedominantofthesocietaldirectionsystemasawhole.ThisanalysisledDrortopropoundthefollowinglaw: “While human capacities to shape the environment, society and human beings arerapidlyincreasing,policy-makingcapabilitiestousethosecapacitiesremainedthesame.”6Itisnotthatnoefforttoimprovepublicpolicy-makingismade.Theinter-disciplinessuchasoperations research, systems analysis, organisational theory, strategic analysis, and generalsystem theory are a testimony to the growing realisation in the right direction. It is also

evidentthateventraditionaldisciplineslikeeconomics,psychologyandpoliticalsciencearemoving in this direction. The endeavours to develop scientific knowledge in the area ofpolicy-making,accordingtoDrorsufferfromthefollowingweaknesses:7

• Thepresentresearchisadoptingmicroapproachwhichhasverylimitedrelevancetothepolicy-makingsystem;

• Knowledgeisdisjointedcausingfragmentationandignoringsystemanalysisapproach;• Itfocusedmoreattentiononthecomponentofrationality,remainingoblivioustoextra-

rationality;• In the policy-making improvement measures, there has been too much of

incrementalismwithoutanyeffortforthenewdesigns(NovaDesign).• Theconcernforimprovingthepolicy-makinghasbeensonarrowthatithasneglected

criticalelementssuchaspoliticians;• Thedichotomybetweenthebehaviouralapproachandnormativeapproachpreventeda

comprehensiveapproachinunderstandingandimprovingthepolicy-makingsystemasawhole;

• Inthenormativeapproachnonewdevicesaredevelopedtohandlequalitativevariables;• In the behavioural approach, there has been indifference to prescriptivemethodology

wherebytheknowledgecanbeappliedtopracticalproblemsofthesociety;• Policy-making study has not been able to utilise knowledge from different sources

becauseofconventionalnatureofresearch.All these weaknesses, with many others, have generated knowledge, which is too

inadequateforeffectivepublicpolicy-making.Therefore,thereisaneedtobuildupanewbodyofknowledgewithgreater integrationofdifferentconcepts. It is thisendeavour thatgave birth to policy-sciences - a new area of enquiry. Policy science as a separate field isnecessaryandessentialtoacceleratethedevelopmentofpolicyknowledgeandtouseitforbetterpolicy-making.Itisalsousefulforadvancedresearchandtrainingandtorecruitandtrainprofessionalpolicyscientistsandpolicy-makers.8

EmergenceofPolicySciencesThe policy sciences are emerging from a number of efforts. First, pressure of problems -environmental,urban,publicorder,demandsfornewformsofparticipation,newpatternsofinternational cooperation, etc., - encouraging and even pushing a policy approach. TheAmericanexperience-whichestablishedanumberofpolicyresearchorganisationsliketheHudson Institute, the Woodrow Wilson Foundation, etc., is providing an impetus and isencouragingpolicystudiesinmanyothercountries.Sciencepolicyhasreceivedconsiderableattention in the recent past. Now, in many countries, there is a tendency to move fromsciencepolicytopolicyresearchusingscienceandscientificmethods.Thusthesciencepolicyisleadingthewaytowardspolicyresearch.Theimperativesofadministrativereformshavealso led the way for increased policy studies.9 The interest shown by a number ofoutstanding social scientists in policy studies and offering of courses on the subject in anumberofuniversitieshavealsocontributedto thegrowthofpolicysciencesasaseparatefieldofstudy.10

Althoughthesedevelopmentsdoindicatetheemergenceofanewscience,Drorfearsthatit may not be allowed to come up at all because of the existing “academic and politicalculture”. Further, it is doubtfulwhether the intellectual capacities ofman are adequate tomeet thenewchallenge.However, inordertogiveafair trial to theeffortsalreadystated,

Drorsuggestssomenewparadigmsofthepolicyscienceswhichareasfollows:11

1. Themainconcernofpolicysciencesistheunderstandingandimprovementofmacro-controlsystemsandespeciallythepublicpolicysystems.This includespolicyanalysis,alternative innovations, master policies (mega policies) evaluation and feedback,improvementofmetapolicy(policyaboutpolicy-making),etc.

2. Policy scienceswould break the barriers and traditional boundaries between varioussocial science disciplines including behavioural sciences and decision disciplines.Further,theywouldintegrateknowledgeandbuild-upasupra-disciplinefocussingonpublicpolicy-making.Inthisattempteventheknowledgerelevantinphysicalandlifescienceswouldbedrawn.

3. Policyscienceswouldalsobridgethegulfbetweenpureandappliedresearch.Therealworldwouldbe themain laboratoryofpolicy sciencesand it is in this laboratory therelevanceandpracticabilityofthemostabstracttheorieswouldbetested.

4. Policyscienceswouldaccepttacitknowledgeandpersonalexperienceasanimportantsource of knowledge. Efforts would bemade to distill the tacit knowledge of policypractitioners in the building up of policy sciences. It is this approach, which woulddistinguishpolicysciencesfromcontemporarynormalsciences.

5. Policy sciences, unlike the normal sciences, would be sensitive to the difficulty ofachieving “Value Free Sciences”. As a result they would attempt to explore valueimplications, value consistencies, value costs and behavioural foundations of valuecommitments.Policyscienceswouldalsopresentalternative featureswith theirvaluecontents.Forthispurposetheywouldencourage“Organisedcreativity”.Inthewholeprocesstheywouldbreachthesolidwallseparatingcontemporarysciencesfromethicsandphilosophyofvaluesandbuild-upanoperationaltheoryofvalues.

6. Policy sciences reject the “a-historic approach” as it is very time sensitive. Theyemphasise historic developments on the one hand and the future dimensions on theotherhand,asacentralcontextforimprovedpolicy-making.

7. Policysciencesdiscardthetake-it-or-leave-itattitudeofbehaviouralsciences.Theyarecommitted for increased utilisation of knowledge in actual policy-making and inpreparingprofessionalstoserveinv-makingpositionsthroughoutthesocietaldirectionsystem.

8. Policysciencesrecognisethecrucialroleofextra-rationalprocessessuchas“creativity,intuition, charisma and value judgement” and of irrational processes such a “depthmotivation”. They would make an attempt to build up systematic knowledge andstructured rationality to be applied to the design and operation of societal directionsystem.

SomeImplicationsofPolicySciencesTheemergenceofpolicyscienceswillhavefar-reachingimplicationssuchastransferofsomemajor research and teaching functions from universities to research organisations; theparticipationoftheexperiencedpoliticiansandexecutivesinscientificactivities;interactionbetweenuniversities andpolicy researchorganisation;novel teachingdesigns, etc. Furtherfrom the social point of view, it brings about a basic change in the age-old dilemma ofknowledgeandpower,whichinturnaffectssocialandpoliticalpower.

Policy sciences are unique as it dealswith the internal processes of policy-making andpresumes that it would enable the policy-maker to arrive at the right decision. In

contemporary normal sciences, unlike policy sciences, inputs are taken into account inpolicy-makingbutdonotopenuptheblackboxofhowpolicydecisionsaremade.Therefore,the quality of policy-making system is directly proportionate to the increase in the policyscienceknowledge. Itdoesnotmean that itwould tamperwith thepoliticalprocessesbuthelp it by offering clear-cut alternatives from which political system can pick up analternative of its choice. Dror anticipates the following far-reaching implications in thegrowthofpolicysciences:12

1. The knowledge of policy sciences will be utilised for consideration of issues,explorationofalternativeandclarificationofgoals.

2. Itwouldencourageexplicitmegapolicydecisions,whichwouldincludefactorssuchasdegree of acceptable innovations in policies, extent of risk accepted in policies, apreferable mix between comprehensive policies (which aim at breakthroughaccompaniedbytemporarydisequilibration).

3. Comprehensive mega policies are encouraged so that discrete policy issues areconsideredwithinabroadercontextofbasicgoals,posturesanddirectives.

4. Policyscienceswouldbetoowillingtolearnbysystematicevaluationofpastpolicies.5. Policy scienceswould devote greater attention to better consideration of the future.

This would include organisations, units and staff who would be examining thealternativeimagesofthefutureinallpolicyconsiderations.

6. Policy sciences in order to encourage creativity would support individuals andorganisationsengaged inadventurous thinkingand ‘organiseddreaming’.Thiswouldbe achieved by seeing to it that the creative minds do not get locked up in thecontemporarypolicy-makingprocessandprotectsthemfromorganisationalconformitypressures. It would also examine the utility of creativity, amplifying devices andchemicalsinstimulativeinnovatingthinking.

7. The policy sciences envisage the establishment of multiplicity of policy researchorganisationstoworknotonlyonmainpolicyissuesbutalsotohelpthegovernment,legislatureandthepublicatlarge.

8. Policyscienceswouldbelieveinextensivesocialexperimentationforfindingsolutionstopresentandemergingsocialissues.Forthispurposenewresearchdesignsaretobeinvented. For that, the necessarypolitical and social climate for experimentationwillhavetobecreated.

9. Institutional arrangements would be made to encourage possibilities of long-rangeadvancement of humanity throughgeneticpolicies. Itwould also attempt changes inbasicsocialinstitutionssuchasthefamily.

10. Policy sciences expect that the individual decision-makers in the times to comewillhave to bear the major brunt of work. Therefore, it is necessary to encourage one-person-centredhigh-leveldecision-making.Contemporary researchhasneglected thisarea completely. In this research, the personal characteristics, tastes and needs ofindividualadministratorswillbeadequatelytakencareof.

11. Policyscienceswouldalsodevoteconsiderableattentiontoimprovethepolitician,asitbelieves in new symbiosis between power and knowledge. Unless politicians areadequately equipped with knowledge, improvement in policy-making cannot beexpected.

12. Policyscienceswouldalsoendeavourtoadvancecitizenparticipationinpublicpolicy-making.All themodern tools providedby science and technology such as television,

computerswouldbeusedtoenablepublicparticipationindecision-making.13. Public participation in decision-making depends largely on the quantum of their

enlightenment. To meet this challenge, radical Nova design of adult education isrequired. These designs will involve developing new techniques for presenting andanalysingpublicissuesinthemassmediaandfacilitategreatercommunicationbetweenpublic opinion and public policy-making process. Training tools would include casestudies, policy games and individual policy exploration programmes. Through theseprogrammesadulteducationforpolicy-makingwouldbestrengthened. Incentives forparticipationinpolicy-orientededucationalactivitieswillbeprovidedfor.Itisintheseareasalarge-scaleresearchactivitywillhavetobeinitiated.

14. Policyscienceswouldalsogototheextentofmoldingthechildren-thefuturecitizensforpolicy-makingroles.Forthispurpose,theschooleducationwillhavetoberecastinsuchaway that itwouldexpose thechildren toall the socialdynamicswhichwouldincrease theircapacity towithstandandhandle thesocialchange.Thiswould involvechanges in the school curriculum and teaching methods. For instance, a subject likeHistoryshouldilluminatethepolicyissuesinvolvedinthehistoricevolutionofman.Asubject likeMathematics shouldbe taughtwithproblem-solvingapproachwithmoreemphasis on the probability theory. New subjects should be included which wouldhighlightexplicitlythepolicyproblemsandpolicyanalysis.

15. Policyscienceswouldexpectchangesfrompolitics,thepublicandeducation.Itwouldinvolveamajorchangeinthecontributionofscientistsinpolicy-making.Thescientistsshouldnotonlyconcentrateontheirareasofspecialisationbutalsobeconcernedwithmatterssuchasjudgementonvaluestobepursued,valuepriorities,judgementonriskstobetakenandjudgementontimepreferences,etc.Thescientists,tobemoreusefultothepolicysciencesshouldbasetheirknowledgenotonlyonthebasisoffactsbutalsoonsocialrelevanceandfar-reachingeffectsonman’sfuture.

Policysciences,thushopetoimprovepolicy-makinganddecision-making,whichremainlargelyunderdeveloped.Thiswouldhelpman,intheultimateanalysis, toshapehisfuturebychoiceandnotbychange.This couldbeachievedbygreater integrationofknowledge.Butthewholeprocesswillencountermanydifficultchallengesasitplanstorevolutionisealltheassumptionsonwhichknowledgeisbased.Therefore,itinvolvesthelarge-scaleeffortonthepartofthescientificcommunityandpolicypractitioners.

ModelsofPublicPolicy-makingInDror’sanalysisofpublicpolicy-making,modelsoccupyanimportantplace.Drorconsidersthenormativemodelasa tool forsystematicallyanalysingpublicpolicy-making,asabasisfor the criteria and standards needed to evaluate policy-making, and as a guide forformulatingeffectiveproposalsforanyimprovementsthatarefoundtobedesirable.13Drorexamines existing normative models critically and suggests that they fall short of therequirements.He identifiedsixnormativemodelsofpolicy-making:1) thepure-rationalitymodel; (2) the ‘economically rational’ model; (3) the sequential decision model; (4) theincrementalchangemodel;(5)thesatisfyingmodel;and(6)theextra-rationalprocessmodel.Dror’s critical survey of the six models is beautifully summarised by V. Subramaniam asfollows:14

The pure-rationality model comes in for most detailed criticism. Its first step, namely, establishing a complete set ofoperationalgoalsis‘politically’moredifficultthangeneralgoalsandthenlettingoperationalgoalsevolvethemselves.Asaresultpoliticiansabdicatethistoadministratorswhoaretimidandconservative.Thenexttwosteps,namely,makinga

complete inventoryofvaluesandresourcesandpreparingacomplete setofalternativepoliciesareevenmoredifficultwiththepresentmanpowerallocatedtopolicy-making.Thenextthreesteps,newlypreparingavalidsetofpredictionsofcostandbenefitforeachalternative,calculatingthenetdifferentialexpectationforeachandthenchoosingthebestareindeed extremely difficult. The steps from four to six are at all attemptable only for certain quantifiable problems intransportationofbusinesspolicy.Theeconomicallyrationalmodelmaybedubbedas thepure-rationalitymodelwithatack on it “as far economically possible”. The sequential decision model with a tack on it involves trying out twoalternativestilloneprovesobviouslybetterthantheotherlessthanhalfwaythroughthetrial.Thetotalcostofcarryingoutthealternativefinallychosenandapartoftheotherontrial isquiteoftenlessthantheriskofchoosingthesecondoneonly.The incrementalmodelofstep-by-stepdecision-makingusingpast-experience—advocatedbyLindblomcomesinagainforverysharpcriticism.Itcanpossiblysucceedonlywhenthefutureisridiculousinthepresentworldsituation.Itconforms,however,toactualbehaviourinsofarastheaveragepolicy-makerdependsonthepasttostudythefutureaswellastoavoiddiscordarisingfromanyradicalchange.ThesatisfyingmodelisessentiallySimon’ssatisficingmodelofthenormalhumanbeingchoosingthefirstsatisfactoryalternativewithoutgoingfurther.Theextra-rationalmodelisnomodelassuchbutisbroughtintoemphasisetheneedtouseextra-rationalabilities.

Asnormativemodelshavemanylimitations,Drorsuggeststheoptimalmodelintegratingand supplementing the strength of various models, at the same time avoiding theirweaknesses.15Heclaimshisoptimalmodeltobeafusionoftheeconomicallyrationalmodelwith the extra-rational model. The optimal model according to Dror has five majorcharacteristics. They are: (1) it is qualitative not quantitative; (2) it has both rational andextra-rationalcomponents;(3)itisbasicrationaletoeconomicallyrational;(4)itdealswithmetapolicy-making and (5) it hasmuch built-in feedback.16 The optimalmodel has threemajor stages viz., metapolicy-making, policy-making and post-policy-making. Each of thestages is closely interconnected by channels of communication and feedback. Each of thestages,inturn,hasanumberofphases.17Themetapolicy-makinghassevensuchphasesviz.,(a) processing values; (b) processing reality; (c) processing problems; (d) surveying,processinganddeveloping resources; (e)designing, evaluatingandredesigning thepolicy-making system; (f) allocating problems, values and resources and (g) determining policy-making strategy. The policy making stage also has seven phases, viz., (a) sub-allocatingresources; (b) establishing operational goals with some order of priority for them; (c)establishingasetofothersignificantvalues;(d)preparingasetofmajoralternativepolicies;(e)preparingreliablepredictionsofbenefitsandcostsofthealternatives;(f)comparingthepredicted benefits and best ones, and (g) evaluating the benefits and costs of the bestalternativesanddecidingwhethertheyaregoodornot.Finallythepost-policy-makingstagehasthreephases,viz.,(a)motivatingtheexecutionofthepolicy,(b)executingthepolicy,and(c) evaluating the policy-making after execution. All these seventeen phases areinterconnectedwith a complex network of communication and feedback channels, whichDror considers a separate phase of his optimal model. Dror also considers the structuralframework of public policy-making and identifies a number of essential structuralrequirementsforhismodeltobeeffective.18

BarrierstoPolicySciencesPolicy science, which is emerging as a separate field, is encountering many problemshinderingitsgrowth.19Acarefulstudyofbarrierstopolicyscienceisnotonlyinterestingbutessentialforovercomingthem.Inparticular,Droridentifiesfivespecificbarriersviz.,:20

1. Lackofbeliefintheabilityofsciencetobeofhelpinthepolicy-makingprocess,whichis regarded quasi-mystically as an art andwhich ismonopolised by the ‘experiencedpoliticiananddecision-maker;’

2. Strongtaboosandritualisticattachmentstoinstitutionsandbeliefswhichareexpectedtobeunderminedorwhenpolicysciencesdevelop;

3. Socio-culturaldistancebetweenscientistsandpolicy-makers;4. Bewilderment at the contradictory conclusions arrived at by equally reputable

scientistsandtherefore,atendencytoignorescientificcontributionasawhole;and5. Badexperiencewithscientistsandwithsciencecontributionstopolicy-making.In addition to the above, the two main interrelated socio-cultural barriers to policy

sciences in theUnitedStatesand inmostotherwesterncountriesappear tobe fearof thepolicy-making roles of science and the beginning of an anti-intellectual and anti-rationalmovement.The fear thatscientistsmaytakeoverandbecomeanewcompactrulingclass-apprehensive of scientocracy, is expressed in the form of ‘Managerial Revolution’,‘technocracy’,‘meritocracy’and‘technopolis’.21Anotherimportantbarriertopolicystudiesin many countries is university conservatism. Universities are dominated by juridicalapproach and absence of advanced social sciences. This hinders the development of theacademic and professional infrastructure essential for policy sciences.22 The highlyideologiseduniversitywheretheacademicpluralismisusedtodemandacademicstatusforrepresentativesof radical ideologies isanotherbarrier.Mostradical ideologiesrejectpolicystudies and research, as a servant of the corrupt establishment delaying the neededrevolutionbyconstitutingapalliative.23Scarcityofpersonswhoarequalifiedtoengageinpolicyresearchisanothervariablehinderingthedevelopmentofpolicysciences.24

OnBecomingaPolicyScientistDror, based on his long years of intense interest and work in policy-making and itsimprovement,suggestsninedesideratatothestrivingpolicyscientists.Theyare:1. Gainhistoricandcomparativeperspectives;2. Knowpolicy-makingrealities;3. Studyyoursocietyin-depth;4. Takeupgrandpolicyissues;5. Moveintometapolicy-making;6. Buildupanappropriatephilosophyofknowledgeandaction;7. Broadenmethodologies;8. Multiplydisciplinarybase;and9. Becarefulaboutyourprofessionalethics.25

Thedesideratapresentedabove,isnodoubt,formidable,ifnotprohibitive.Therearenoeasywaysofbecomingafull-fledgedpolicyscientistfromthepresentstate-of-the-artpolicysciences. Dror offers, therefore, five operational recommendations to aid and guide thosewho intend tobecomepolicy scientists.Theyare: reada lot andbroadly;workondiverseissues;experiencedifferentworklocations;spendsomeyearsinanotherculture;andstudyamajorlanguage.26

Dror was clear that to become a policy scientist one’s skills and qualifications areimportanttoadviceoncriticaldecisions.“Tobesatisfied”,Droropines,“isirresponsible;toappeartobemore,tooneselforothers;isreckless”.Aftermastering,atleastpartly,thestepslistedabove,thepolicyscientistmustfacemoredifficultrequirementssuchasbuildinguponappropriatepersonalweltanschauung,inadditiontofurtherforgingone’smind.27

CapacitytoGovernTheinadequaciesofthepresentdayformsofgovernancearebeingincreasinglyrecognised

duetodistrustofgovernments,moneydominatedelections,failureofgovernmentstofindpolicy options on major issues, etc. The civil society, private sector and non-governmentorganisations,however important,arenotable tocompensate thegovernment’s incapacityto shape the future. Dror argues that the contemporary governments are obsolete andproposeschangesinvalues,structures,staffing,publicunderstandingandpoliticalculturetoequip the governments to meet the challenges of the 21st century. He identifies tencharacteristicsofglobalchangeviz.28:1. Rapidnon-linearchange;2. Increasinguncertaintyandcomplexity;3. Golbalisation;4. Multiplyingcomplexity;5. Powerfulglobalactors;6. Co-existenceofgrowingprosperityandincreasinginequality;7. Intensefrustrations,trauma,dependencyandunrest;8. Likelihoodofharmandevil;9. Conflictandviolence;and10. Allthechangesleadingtomutations.Dror further says that the “Humanity is undergoing transformations and approaching

phasetransitionswitha largepotential forbothgoodandbad–evenevil–outcomes.Theactualtrajectoryintothefuturewillbesignificantlyinfluencedbybothactionandinactionon thepart of governance, including critical choices thatnoother social institution canorshould make. However, present governance is not equipped for weaving the future forbetter.Therefore,radicalgovernanceredesignsareessentialinordertoupgradecapacitiestogovern and, in particular, to influence the future for better.”29 Upgrading capacities togoverndependsa lotonchanges inunderlyingpoliticalcultures thatareunlikely tocomeabout on their own. Therefore, the governments must engage in political culturearchitecture,includingmoraleducation.30

Drordistinguishesbetween‘ordinarytasksofgovernance’and‘higherordertasks’.Theformerincludeservicedelivery,maintainingpublicorder,etc.,thatarereceivingattentionin‘new public management’ and ‘re-inventing government’. Any failure in fulfilling thesetasksseriouslyunderminestheveryfabricofsocietyandgovernanceandthereforetheyareveryimportant.Higherordertasksofgovernanceshouldreceivemoreattentionandpriority.Even the well performing governance systems need to be redesigned in the context oftransformationsthatistakingplaceacrosstheglobetomeetthefutureneeds.Theredesignofgovernancesystemsdependsonthespecificsituationofeachcountry.

CriticismDror’s proposition for the development of a new discipline of ‘Policy Sciences’ is a boldattempt at integration of knowledge. But the total approach tends to be academic inperspectivewithpooroperationalutility.ItisparadoxicalthatDrorontheonehandattackedpureacademicapproachbutmadehisargument foranewscienceequallyacademic.Drorstarted with an observation that control systems developed so far are feeble which isconsideredtobedisastroustothefutureofman.Althoughthisisthestartingpointthereisunpardonabledepartureresultinginmoreofpolicyanalysisthanaconcentrateddiscussionon improving societal direction systems. Dror failed to establish any valid correlationbetweenimprovementinpublicpolicy-makingandsocietaldirectionsystems.

Dror’scallfortheuseofextra-rationalabilitiesinhisoptimalmodeliscriticisedfromthestandpoint of the present state administrative studies. Dror did not pay attention to theproblem of controlling the extra-rationally able person from controlling and destroyingothers.Hedealswith theproblemsomewhatcasually thusgivingahandle to thecounter-reformists,whoarereadytocredittheadministrator‘withafeelforthings’and‘theart’ofadministration.31

Dror’smajorcontribution ismetapolicy-making.Fromthishegoesover todescribe theexisting structure but fails to underpin the problem of special research into deliberatestructural change and their impact onpolicy.Research in this area is very essential as theexistingliteratureonlyconcentratesonresistancetochangeandnothowtobringchangesinthestructures.32

Dror’sdiscussiononpolicysciences isconditionedmostlyby theexperienceofwesternsocieties and Israel. But an analysis of such a comprehensive subject cannot be completewithoutadequateexaminationofexperiencesofthethirdworldcountries.Dror’sdiscussionsuffers from vagueness and repetition. This could be partly because of his hastiness todevelopanewscienceandpartlydueto‘overcommitment’totheconcept.

ConclusionDrorviewspolicysciencesasaresponsetofacethechallengeofshapingthefuturethroughimproved knowledge, structural rationality and organised creativity. As the purpose ofpolicysciencesistocontributetotheimprovementofpublic-policy-making,policysciencesas supradisciplinary effort based on behavioural sciences andmanagement studies, has animmense contemporary relevance. Although the analysis of Dror suffers from certainshortcomingsthewholeapproachhasimmenseacademicrelevancetothestudentsofsocialsciences.Itisaboldattempttobreaktheartificialbarrierscreatedtoknowledge.Astagehasreachedwheresocialphenomenonmustbeexaminedbysocialscientistsinitstotality.Policysciencesareasignificantandrightstepinthisdirection.

InBriefYehezkelDror’swiderangingcontributionstopolicystudiesinthewidercontextofpublicadministrationcanbesummarisedas:• YehezkelDror(1928),adistinguishedscholarandapolicyconsultant,iswidelyregarded

as the world’s foremost pioneer of modern public policy studies. Hemade a mark inpublicadministrationthroughhisoutstandingcontributionstopolicystudies.

• Elaboratingonthenatureofknowledgeforhumanaction,Drordividedknowledgeintothree levels: knowledge relevant to control over environment; knowledge relevant tocontrolsocietyandindividualsandknowledgeconcerningthecontrolovercontrols.Drorcallstheknowledgeofcontrolovercontrolsassocietaldirectionsystemandconsidersittheleastdevelopedofallknowledgesystems.

• Drorconsideredpublicpolicy-makingasadominantcomponentofthesocietaldirectionsystem and identified the weaknesses of scientific knowledge in the area of policy-making.Theseweaknessesresultedininadequateknowledgeforeffectivepolicy-making.Dror identified various sources for the emergence of policy sciences and suggestedelementsofnewparadigmofpolicysciences.

• Dror anticipated far-reaching implications with the growth of policy sciences. Hebelievedthatbynurturingthe‘organiseddreaming’,policysciencescouldsolvecurrentandfuturesocialproblems.

• In Dror’s analysis, public policy-making occupies an important place. He examinesexisting normative models critically and considers that they fall short of therequirements. He suggested ‘optimal model’ integrating and supplementing thestrengthsofvariousmodels.Drorelaboratedthecharacteristics,majorstagesandphasesofhisoptimalmodel.

• Droridentifiedbarrierstopolicysciences.Amongothers,heparticularlymentionsanti-intellectual, anti-rational movements and university conservatism as barriers to thegrowth of policy sciences. He suggests a number of desiderata to the striving policyscientistsinthecontextofwiderangingglobalchanges.

• Dror’s views on policy sciences are criticised for their vagueness, repetition andacademic orientationwith limited operational utility.His failure to establish any validcorrelationbetween improvement inpublicpolicy-makingandsocietaldirection isalsocriticised.

• Dror has made a bold attempt to integrate knowledge systems for societal directionthrough public policies. Dror’s public policy studies approach has widened theintellectualhorizonandsocialrelevanceofpublicadministrationstudies.

References1 Seehttp://www.amazon.com/YehezkelDror/e/BOOIHPE3GE;Seealso,http://public-policy.huji.ac.il/eng/staff-in2.asp?

id=119&pageid=112; andWigfall, Patrice Moss, and Kalatari, Behrooz, Biographical Dictionary of Public Administration,GreenwoodPress,2000,pp.28-29.

2 Ibid.3 Dror, Yehezkel, Public Policymaking Re-examined, Scranton, Pennsylvania, Chandler Publishing Company, 1968; Dror,

Yehezkel,DesignforPolicySciences,NewYork,AmericanElsevierPublishingCompany,Inc.,1971;Dror,Yehezkel,VenturesinPolicySciences:ConceptsandApplications,NewYork,AmericanElsevierPublishingCompany,Inc.,1971;Dror,Yehezkel,PolicymakingUnderAdversity,NewBrunswick,TransactionBooks,1986;Dror,Yehezkel,TheCapacitytoGovern:AReporttothe Club of Rome, London, Frank Cass, 2000. For a list of his recent publications see http://public-policy.huji.ac.il/eng/staff-in2.asp?id=119&pageid=113.

4 Dror,Yehezkel,PolicymakingunderAdversity,op.cit.5 Dror,Yehezkel,VenturesinPolicySciences:ConceptsandApplications,op.cit.,p.9.6 Ibid.,p.11.7 Ibid.,p.11-128 Dror,Yehezkel,PublicPolicymakingRe-examined,op.cit.,p.241.9 Dror,Yehezkel,“PolicySciences:SomeGlobalPerspectives”,PolicySciences,Vol.5,No.1,March1974,pp.83-85.10 Dror,Yehezkel,VenturesinPolicySciences,op.cit.,pp.12-13.11 Ibid.,pp.14-16.SeealsoYehezkelDror,DesignforPolicySciences,op.cit.,pp.49-54.12 Dror, Yehezkel,Ventures inPolicySciences, op. cit., pp. 16-24. See alsoDror, Yehezkel, Dror, Yehezkel,Design forPolicy

Sciences,pp.123-135.13 Dror,Yehezkel,PublicPolicymakingRe-examined,op.cit.,p.130.14 Subramaniam,V.,“DroronPolicyMaking”,TheIndianJournalofPublicAdministration,Vol.16,No.1,Jan-March,1970,pp.

86-87.SeealsoDror,Yehezkel,PublicPolicymakingRe-examined,op.cit.,pp.129-153.15 Dror,Yehezkel,PublicPolicymakingRe-examined,op.cit.,pp.131-132.16 Ibid.,pp.154-162.17 Ibid.,pp.163-196.18 Ibid.,pp.197-213.19 For a detailed discussion of barriers hindering the development of policy sciences see also Dror, Yehezkel, Public

PolicymakingRe-examined,op.cit.,pp.225-240;andDesignforPolicySciences,op.cit.,pp.33-50.20 Dror,Yehezkel,DesignforPolicySciences,op.cit.,pp37-38.21 Ibid.,p.39.

22 Dror,Yehezkel,“PolicySciences:SomeGlobalPerspectives”,op.cit.,pp.85-86.23 Ibid.,p.86.24 Ibid.,p.87.25 SeeDror,Yehezkel,“OnbecomingMoreofaPolicyScientist”,PolicyStudiesReview,Vol.4,No.1,August,1984,pp.13-18.26 Ibid.,pp.18-19.27 Ibid.,p.19.28 Dror,Yehezkel,TheCapacitytoGovern,op.cit.,p.39.29 Ibid.,p.63.30 Ibid.,p.60.31 Subramaniam,V.,op.cit.,p.96.32 Ibid.

D

19DWIGHTWALDO

Y.Pardhasaradhi

Introductionwight Waldo is very closely associated with the history and theory of publicadministration than any other thinker.A ‘chronicler’, a leading ‘philosopher-historian-

theoretician’,a‘definingfigure’ofpublicadministration,hiscontributiontothedisciplineofpublic administrationhas been outstanding.Hewas interestednot only in virtually everyfacet of administrative studies and learning, but also in the larger aspects of socialworldwhichshapeandare themselvesshapedby theadministrativecentresof thegovernments.Waldo had very significant influence on the teaching and theory of public administrationduring the second half of the twentieth century. This is evident from the observations ofCarroll and Fredericksonwhen they said that “To study public administration today is tohavebeentaughtbyDwightWaldo.TodoresearchinpublicadministrationistohavebeentaughtbyDwightWaldo.TopracticepublicadministrationtodayistohavebeentaughtbyDwightWaldo.”1Heinfluencedcurriculumandpedagogy,andheinfluencedhowthosewhoteach public administration see and understand the field. He set the standards forcontemporaryconsiderationissuesofbureaucracyinademocraticgovernment.Healsosetstandards for the quality of writing, for clarity of elaboration, and for moving academicpublicadministrationfromjustknowledgetounderstanding.2

(1913-2000)

LifeandWorks

CliffordDwightWaldo(1913-2000)wasborninDeWitt,Nebraska.3Afterhighschool,WaldojoinedWesleyanCollege in Peru,Nebraska fromwhere he received his B.A in (1935).Helooked for a job as a teacher, but unable to get in the throes of theGreat Depression, heaccepted the jobof readingpapersat theUniversityofNebraska -Lincolnandenrolled inthemaster’s programme in political science.After receiving amaster’s degree in politicalscience (1937) from the University of Nebraska, he joined as a Cowles Fellow at Yale

University.HeworkedasaninstructorinthePoliticalSciencedepartmentin(1941-42)andwhileonthejobworkedforhisPh.Dandobtainedthedegreein1942.Theinitialfocusofhisdissertationwason“TheoriesofExpertiseintheDemocraticTradition”intendedtoaddressthe question of howmuchdemocracy should be yielded to experts.4 But the scope of thethesis changedover time and finally itwas titled as ‘TheoreticalAspects of theAmericanLiteratureinPublicAdministration’.

Waldo, an unintended bureaucrat, worked as a Price Analyst for the Office of PriceAdministration(1942-44)andlaterasAdministrativeAnalyst(1944-46)intheBureauoftheBudget at Washington, DC. During these four years he gained insights into publicadministration and its working which probably laid the foundations to his latercontributions. After the Second World War, Waldo joined the University of California atBerkeley as an assistant professor.Waldo helped to establish a Graduate School of PublicAffairsandcontributedtochangingtheUniversityBureauofPublicAdministrationtothatoftheInstituteofGovernmentalStudies,andservedasitsDirectorfrom1958-1967.Later,hewent to Italyonaproject to improve Italianadministration, anexperience thatmadehimaware of the limitations of ‘principles’ of administration.5 In 1967, hemoved to SyracuseUniversity to become Professor of Political Science and Albert Schweitzer Professor ofHumanities in theMaxwellSchoolofCitizenshipandPublicAffairs.This isoneof the ten“Super professorships” created by the New York State that year. In 1979, he retired asprofessor emeritus from Syracuse and spent the next two years at the Woodrow WilsonInternationalCentre for Scholarsof theSmithsonian Institute.He remainedprofessionallyactivesincethattimeandwasamemberofmanyprestigiousassociations,bothnationalandinternational,untilhisdeathon27thOctober,2000attheageof87.

Waldo wrote extensively – books, monographs and articles. The publication of TheAdministrativeState,arevisedversionofhisdoctoraldissertation,madehima‘pariah’ in thepublicadministrationdiscipline.HisothersignificantpublicationsincludeTheStudyofPublicAdministration (1955), The Novelist on Organisation and Administration (1968), PublicAdministrationinaTimeofTurbulence(1971),Democracy,BureaucracyandHypocrisy (1977),TheEnterprise of Public Administration (1980), Bureaucracy and Democracy-A Strained Relationship(unpublishedmanuscriptwithFrankMarini,1999).AgleaningthroughWaldo’svoluminouswritingsprovideuswithanoverviewofthediscipline,offersaseriesofpenetratinginsightsand criticisms, comments on more recent developments and his speculations about thefutureofthe ‘enterpriseofpublicadministration’.Herevealstheimplicitassumptionsandthehiddenpremisesthatunderliethevariousapproachestopublicadministration.AlthoughWaldo may not provide definitive answers, he raises right questions and provides someinsightsthatbetterequipustomakemoreinformedchoicesbetweendifficultalternatives.

WaldowasactivelyassociatedwiththeAmericanSocietyforPublicAdministrationanditsComparativeAdministrationGroupandservedontheSociety’sCouncil(1963-1966).HeservedontheCouncilandthentheExecutiveCommitteeoftheAmericanPoliticalScienceAssociation(1957-60)andbecameitsvice-presidentin1961.WaldoservedaspresidentoftheNationalAssociationofSchoolsofPublicAffairsandAdministration(1977-78).Heservedonthe editorial boards of the American Political Science Review (1959-1963) and PublicAdministration Review (1958-66) and as its Editor-in-Chief (1966-77). During his longassociation as editorWaldo ‘redefined public administration as an autonomous field thatmerged academics and practice.’ Several of the symposium issues published during his

tenure‘retaintheirvalueasclassiccontributionstothefield’.Hewasalsoamemberoftheeditorial board of the International Review of Administrative Sciences. In recognition of hislifetimeachievementsandcontributions topublicadministration theAmericanSociety forPublic Administration in 1979 named its highest award as Dwight Waldo Award in hishonour.In1987,hereceivedJohnGausLectureAward.

TheAdministrativeStateWaldo represents a perspective on public administration - the administration as politicsapproach-thatemergedinthe1940s.Hispositionwasinitiallybasedonhisresponsetotheclassicalapproach,buthislaterwritingsextendelementsofthatcritiquetothebehaviouralapproach.Waldo denies that politics and policy considerations can be excluded from theadministration. Moreover, facts cannot be separated from values. Consequently,administrationis inevitablybothanartandascienceandperhapsmoreart thanascience.Since administration cannot be separated from politics, Waldo argues that publicadministration is different from private administration; distinguished by the politicalenvironmentinwhichthepublicadministratoroperates.Tohimtheobjectiveshouldnotbeto keep administrators out of policy and political matters, but to encourage cooperationbetween the political and administrative domains and to discoverways inwhichwe canbenefit from the creative potential as well as substantive contributions of administrativeofficials.

Waldo viewed public administration as a ‘lower’ field of endeavour preoccupiedwithsuch relativelymundane things as counting thenumber ofmanhole covers.6Although hethoughtpublicadministrationandpolitical theory tobeatodds,hisobjectivewas to treatpublic administration as yet another aspect of political theory and thereby prove theusefulnessandrelevanceofpoliticaltheoryitself.Waldo’sdissertationwaslaterpublishedasTheAdministrativeState.7Intheeightyearsbetweenthecompletionofthedissertationanditspublication, his ideas and attitudes about public administration changed substantially. Heincorporated the lessonsof his bureaucratic experience and revised thedissertationbeforepublication.ThoughWaldoconsideredhimselfa failureasabureaucrat,hisadministrativeexperience started a process of re-socialisation that resulted in identification with publicadministration rather than political theory. He emerged from government service withrespect for the difficulties of administration, empathy for administrators and a convictionthat no one should be allowed to teach political science without experience in publicadministration.8

Waldo advanced four central ideas. Firstly, there is an intrinsic tension betweendemocracy and bureaucracy that obliges career public servants to protect democraticprinciples. Secondly, the politics/administration dichotomy is false. Public servants holdpoliticalpositionsthatrequiremorethanmerelyimplementingpolicysetbyelectedofficials.Thirdly,publicservantsmustnegotiateefficienciesdemandedbythescientificmanagementmovementwithdueprocessandpublicaccesstogovernment.Finally,governmentcannotberun like a business. Honouring the Constitution and other democratic imperatives makemanagingaunitof thegovernment farmorechallengingthanacomparableprivatesectororganisation.9Waldodeniedthepossibilityofconstructingascienceofpublicadministration,doubted the existence of ‘principles’ of administration, questioned the plausibility of aunified theory of organisation, skeptical of thosewhowould indiscriminately interminglepoliticsandadministrationanddespairsofreachingacommonagreementonadefinitionof

thefieldofpublicadministration.Nonetheless,hebelievedthatthefateofcivilisationwellrest on our ability to master the functions of administration.10 His interests run throughsociology, business administration and organisation theory. He found these subjects moregermane to the agendaofpublic administration thanpolitical science.Hewas avisionaryandagreatthinkerdeterminedtoinfusepublicadministrationwithdemocraticvalues.11

PublicAdministration-History

Public Administration, according toWaldo, 12 as a field and practice has its origin in theearliesttimesofhumancivilisation.Administrationandcivilisationhavecoexistedandeachnourished the other. Both were internal parts of human progress. Civilisation promotedadministration and administration made civilisational achievements possible. Both havecontributedtothedevelopmentofeachother.IfthereisasingledominantthemeinWaldo’swork,itisprobablytheimportanceheattachestohistoryorasheputsit,astrongsensethat“whatispastinprologue.”Waldobelievesthatthereismuchtobelearnedfromhistoryandhedeploresthefactthatmuchofthepublicadministrationliteraturehasbeenanti-historicalinnature.Waldoassertsthathistorydoesindeedrepeatitself,thoughindifferentkeysandwithendlessvariationsofitsthemes,andthatignoringthepastdeniesanimportantsourceofinsights,hypothesesandscientificconclusions.Animportantlessonofhistory,heargues,isthatthetechniquesofadministrationareatthecentreofpolitical-governmentalevolution.Indeed, hemaintains that government and administration are substantially equivalent. InWaldo’sphrase,administration‘framescivilization’bygivingitafoundationorstageandbyproviding a base for growth. In effect, government, administration and civilisation areintimatelyjoined.13

Waldoconsidersgovernmentanditsadministrationtobemorethanmerelyanartificiallycreated intruder in a state of nature that would otherwise be serene and prosperous.Government is nomore a creation thanmarkets or private enterprise and the sustaining,nurturing and creative role of government has largely been ignored.Waldo acknowledgesthatgovernmentisalwaysmarginallyoppressiveandsometimesmassivelysothattherearethingsthatgovernmentcannotdoorcandoonlyclumsily.However,thegovernmentanditsadministrative apparatus have performed their functions with at least moderate successdespiteincreasesinthescaleandcomplexityoftheiractivities.

With the 1940s came a series of challenges to the classical approach to publicadministration.InWaldo’swords“heterodoxyreplacedorthodoxy”14.Waldosaysthefieldofpublic administration is characterised by a diversity of perspectives inwhich the classicalapproachhasnotbeensomuchrepudiatedasabsorbed,amended,extendedand joinedbynewperspectives.Intheprocess,someoftheideologicalandphilosophicalunderpinningsofthe classical approachhavebeen rejected, andothershave simplygoneunderground.Theinfluence of the business mentality has diminished, the idea of “fundamental law” as ahighermoralorderhasbeenlargelyabandoned,andthereisincreasingskepticismaboutthenotion of “progress.” Though pragmatism has declined a fashionable philosophy, Waldomaintains that it continues to be the unarticulated working philosophy of publicadministrationandismanifestedintheefforttoconstructanewscienceofadministrationinamannerconsistentwiththetenetsofbehaviouralism15.

AClassicalApproachWaldoemphasisedthatpublicadministrationdidnotbegininthe20thcentury.Astreamof

administrativetechnologyhasdevelopedoverthecenturiestowhich,untilrecenttimes,thepublicsectorhasmadethemostimportantcontributions.Waldodoescreditthelate19thandearly 20th centuries with the development of the self-conscious study of publicadministrationonascalenewinhumanhistoryandidentifiestheUnitedStatesasamajorfocal point of administrative studies. Although a number of forces were important inshapingtheoverallcontoursof the field,Waldoasserts that theproximatedeterminantsofthespecificcontentofpublicadministrationwerethereformmovementandtheprogressiveera.Theyemphasisedexecutiveleadership,civilservicereformandeducationforcitizenshipandsoughttoexposeinefficiencythroughscientificinvestigations.16Allthesecharacteristicswere incorporated in what came to be known as the classical approach to publicadministration.

Waldo identified five basic characteristics of the classical approach to publicadministration,whichdominatedthefielduntilroughly1940.Theywere:acceptanceofthepolitics-administration dichotomy, a generic management orientation, the search forprinciples of administration through scientific analysis, an emphasis on centralisation ofexecutivebureaucracy,andacommitmenttodemocracy17.Afirstandfundamentalpremiseof politics-administration dichotomy was that politics should be separated fromadministration and that administration falls in the realm of expertise fromwhich politicsshouldbeexcluded.Itcallsforastrengthenedchiefexecutivetocurbthecentrifugalforcesofthe administrative branch.18 A second characteristic - generic management orientation -assumed that the techniques of privatemanagementwere applicable in the public sector.Waldoargues thatpublicadministrationacceptedbothbusinessproceduresandabusinessideologyasthebusinessmodelwasusedtodeprecatethebalanceofpowersandaggrandisethe role of the chief executive aswell as to justify hierarchical controlmechanisms,meritappointmentandtheadoptionofbusiness-likebudgetaryprocedures.

Athirdcharacteristicwasthesearchforascienceofadministration.Itwasbelievedthatthe scientific studyof administration could lead to thediscoveryof general ‘principles’ ofadministrationonwhichefficientgovernmentcouldbebased.19Thefourthistheemphasison centralisation of executive activities. The general prescription was centralisation,simplification, and unification. The objective was to centralise responsibility, to build thepower of the chief executive by establishing stronger hierarchical controls within theexecutivebranch,andtoabolishthesuperfluousofficesinthenameofefficiency.20Finally,the classical approach contained a basic commitment to democracy. However, democracywas defined substantively rather than procedurally. Democracy was to be achieved byestablishing a strong, responsive and responsible governmentdesigned to serve efficientlytheneedsofthepeopleinanemergent‘GreatSociety’.21

Waldowascriticaloftheorganisationalparadigmoftheclassicalapproach.Hecriticisesboth the emphasis on supposed principles or commonalities among organisations and therationalist bias of classical organisation theory. The search for commonalities, Waldo says“that classical organisation theory ignored the specificity that is the stuff ofadministration.”22Hemaintainsthatorganisationsshouldbedefinedandstructuredtomeetpurposes, not general principles, and the organisation form and process actually adoptedshouldbe suited to the specific situationconfronting theorganisation.Healsoargues thatclassical organisation theoryprescribedgeneral operational forms andprocesses thatwerenotreadilyadaptabletospecificsituationsorchangingcircumstances.23Waldoclaimsthat

theclassicalapproachignorestheirrationalandinformalaspectsoforganisations.AcaseinpointisWeber’sconceptofbureaucracy.WaldoarguesthatWeberplacedundueemphasisonthe functional side of bureaucracy, ignored the informal and socio-emotional aspects oforganisations,andelevatedpositionoverknowledgeasthebasisforhierarchicalauthority.24Waldoalsochidestheclassicalauthorsabouttheir“scientific”pretensions.Hesaysthattheclassical“science”ofpublicadministrationreliedprimarilyonaheapingupoffactsanditsprincipleswerelittlemorethananextensionofcommonsense.

Waldo argues that public administration must deal with thinking and valuing humanbeingsandthatthetechniquesofscienceareinappropriatetosuchsubjects.Valuescannotbetreatedscientifically,andhumanfreewillmeansthattheprinciplesofmechanicalcauseandeffectareinapplicable.25Thoughadministrativescienceisnotpossible,Waldobelievesthatascientificmindwould at leastmake common sensemore sensible and that some parts ofadministrationmaywellbeamenabletoscientificinvestigation.Nevertheless,Waldowarnsthatweshouldnottrytoforceonasubjectmatteramethodthatisnotsuitabletoit.26

Finally, Waldo challenges the classicist’s emphasis on efficiency intended to replace amoralistic approach to public administration.Waldomaintains that the idea of efficiencyitself became imbued with a moral significance, however, as a pursuit of “technicalefficiency”wastransformedintoapursuitof“socialefficiency.”Althoughefficiencyitselfisnotavalue,itisausefulconceptonlywithinaframeworkofconsciouslyheldvalues.Thatis,one must consider the object of efficiency, since it is not reasonable to assume that it isdesirabletoaccomplishanyendefficiently.

PoliticsandAdministrationWaldo unequivocally abandoned politics-administration dichotomy. He explains thatpolitics/administration relate to democracy/bureaucracy.27 Hewas known as a heterodoxcriticofthepolitics-administrationdichotomy.Thisreputationseemtobebasedonhisearlypublication Administrative State in which he conceptualised politics / administrationnarrowly as deciding and executing. But his later publications offer ‘much broaderconceptualisation and a more ambivalent and even a more positive appraisal of thedichotomy’.28Waldocontends that the separation is inadequate, eitherasadescriptionofreality or as a prescription for administrative behaviour.29 To him the dichotomy wasintended to resolve the conflict between bureaucracy and democracy by making electedofficialsresponsibleforframingpolicyandrestrictingadministratorstotheexecutionofthatpolicy. In actuality, public administration in the classical period was false to the ideal ofdemocracy. Democracy was seen as desirable, but peripheral to the concerns ofadministration andhostile to the centralprinciple of efficiency. 30 The classicalmovementindicted centrifugal democracy and sought to implement its own version of centripetaldemocracy by proposing a separation between politics and administration and relying onwhat Waldo calls the “dogmas of centralization” and the “canons of integration” as asolution to the problem of efficiency. The politics-administration dichotomy was alsointendedtosolvethevalueproblem.Itwasassertedthatthepoliticalsystemwouldestablishvaluesandsetgoals foradministration.Waldoregardsthisasdisingenuoussince it ignoresthedesiretoextendthecompassofthescienceofadministrationtoanever-largercomplexofphenomena.Asaresult,publicadministrationthreatenedtooverruntherealmofpolicy–astheBritishconqueredIndia–notbyintentbutbyacontinuousprocessoftidyinguptheborder.Waldocontendsthattherealquestionraisedbytheclassicalauthorswasnotwhether

politicsandpolicyshouldbeseparatedfromadministration,buthowfartheadministrativefunctionshouldextendindeterminingvaluesandpolicies,questionforwhichtheyfailedtoprovideasuitableanswer.Waldo’sviewisthatweshouldmovetowardsaphilosophythatencouragescooperationamongpowers,betheyadministrativeorpolitical,notcompetitionamongseparatedpowers.

OrganisationTheory

Waldodividesthedevelopmentoftheorganisationtheoryintothreestages.31Thefirststagewastheclassicalperiod,epitomisedbytheworksofauthorssuchasTaylor,Gulick,FayolandMooney.Theclassicalstageoforganisationtheorywasbasedonthemachinemodelof theorganisationandemphasisedtherationalaspectsofhumanbehaviour.Thisstagereacheditszenith in the 1930s and culminated in the publication of the Papers on the Science ofAdministration.32Waldolabelsthesecondstagetothedevelopmentoforganisationtheory–the neoclassical approach. This stage beganwith theHawthorne studies in the 1920s andretained major importance through the mid-century. In contrast to the classical, theneoclassicalapproachemphasisedtheemotiveandsocio-psychologicaldimensionsofhumanbehaviourinorganisations.Thefinalstageinthedevelopmentoforganisationtheoryisthemodern organisation theory, which, according to Waldo, began with the publication ofMarch and Simon’sOrganisations in 1958.33 This theory is based on an organic or naturalsystem model of the organisation and stresses organisational growth and survival. Itendorses organisations that have less reliance on hierarchical controls, more recognisedsources of authority, greater opportunity for personal mobility, and greater receptivity toorganisationalchange.Modernorganisationtheory isdecidedlybehavioural inorientation,adopting the methods of the physical and biological sciences and seeking a value-freegeneraltheoryoforganisationstrueforalltimesandplaces.

ComparativePublicAdministrationThe second major focus of the contemporary period has been comparative publicadministration. According to Waldo, comparative public administration (CPA) bothresembles and differs from modern organisation theory. It shares with modern theory aconcernformethodologicalproblems;arelianceonmodelssuchasthesystemsframeworkandstructuralfunctionalism;aninterdisciplinaryorientation;asearchforuniversalconcepts,formulasandtheories;andanemphasisonempiricaldescription.However,CPAdiffersfrommoderntheoryinitsexplicitcomparativeperspective,itsfocusonculturaldiversityanditsfascinationwithWeberianbureaucracies.

ThoughitwasatonetimewidelybelievedthatCPAwastheareaofgreatestpromiseincontemporary public administration,Waldo feels that that promise has yet to be fulfilled.CPA tells us about the relationship between administration and social ends, the criticaldependenceof civilisationoneffectivegovernmental administrationand thedifficulties intransferringtheWesternmodelofadministrationtoothercultures.Butthebasicproblemofthe CPA movement was the distance between the theoretical models employed and theevidenceoffieldresearch.34Andevenwithitsstrongtheoreticalbent,Waldoassertsthatthemovementfailedtoproduceanythinginthewayofrigoroustheory.35

The pressure for practical results led to a switch from CPA to developmentaladministration, though such a switch did not produce encouraging results.Waldo chargesthatthedevelopmentalperspectivehasassumedthattobedevelopedistobe“Western.”The

result, he asserts, is that developmental administration has become a powerful and subtleideology with the characteristics of a “world-girdling religion,” and the effort to achievedevelopmenthasamountedtolittlemorethananefforttoreproducetheWeberianmodelofbureaucracy.

NewPublicAdministrationA major development in contemporary public administration is the New PublicAdministrationmovement.Thismovement,spawnedbythesocialandpoliticalfermentofthelate1960sandearly1970s,was,accordingtoWaldo,partoftherebellionofyouthandthecounter culture of the non-Marxian left.36 The conference was hosted byWaldo bringingtogetheryoungandprogressivescholarsandpractitionerswhowereunder35andhell-bentin revolutionising the fieldofpublic administration.Minnowbrook - SyracuseUniversity’sConferenceCentre - isconsideredasshorthandforanentirelynewschoolof thought.Theconferencesignaledtheriseofthe‘Waldovianperspective’keepingthefutureinmind.37Itsgoalwastoestablishnewdirectionsforthefieldandtoreconcilepublicadministrations’rolein the contextof socialupheaval.TheNewPublicAdministration criticised theoldpublicadministrationforitslackofanexplicitideological-philosophicalframeworkandsupportedan activist role for the administrator in the pursuit of social equality.Waldo refers to themovement as a “New Romanticism,” as it shares with the philosophical movement theassumptionthatmanisinherentlygoodbutiscorruptedbybadinstitutions,anditreactstorationalism by emphasising the role of feeling over reason, senses over the mind, andspontaneity,creativityandself-fulfillmentoverconventionandrules.38

ThebasicthemesoftheNewPublicAdministrationwereparticipation,decentralisationandrepresentativebureaucracy.Participationwassupportedbothasapoliticalprocessandasanorganisationalprocess.Politicalparticipationwasseenasameansofdispersingpowerand increasing citizen involvement in government. The movement rejected both simplemajoritarianismandpluralisminfavourofalternativesdescribedbyWaldoasrangingfromorganic communitarianism to moral and political elitism. 39 Support for organisationalparticipationwaspartofwhatWaldoseesasthemovement’smassivehostilitytoanythingperceivedasbureaucratic.Itwastobeameansforpromotingchangeanddispersingpowerwithintheorganisation.Decentralisation,likeparticipation,wasintendedtodispersepowerand increase citizen involvement in governmental and organisational processes.Representative democracy was meant to promote client-centered administration andrepresentationofclienteleinterestsbyadministrators.

However,Waldohadcertainmisgivingson theconceptsofNewPublicAdministrationmovement.40Onparticipationandrepresentativebureaucracy,heassertsthattheargumentsareoftenadhocandinconsistent,ifnotdishonest.Supportersofparticipation,Waldoargues,seem to assume that some invisible handwill resolve theproblems of coordination, orderand survival in the new system of highly dispersed power.He finds themovement to beinconsistent in itsdesire tohavedemocracywhilerejectingmajoritarianismandpluralism,andineffect,supportingrulebytheminority.Ondecentralisation,Waldopointsoutthatacogentcasecanalsobemadeforcentralisationandthatneithercase isuniversallyrightorwrong.41

Waldo finds some validity in the anti-organisational stance of the New PublicAdministration,butheconsidersmuchoftheindictmenttobeunfair,spuriousandaboveall,unrealistic.Henotesthatmostinnovativetechniquesandtechnologieshavebeencreatedin

bureaucraticorganisationsandthattheeraofbureaucracyhasbeenaneraofrapidchange.Evenifthebureaucracyservesthestatusquo,thestatusquoitselfisnotamonolithicinterest,but a diversity of interests, all of which must be served. In addressing the question ofefficiency,Waldo charges that the critics attackanarrowconceptionof efficiency thathadlongbeendiscarded.Hesaysthatthereisnosuchthingcalled“publicphilosophy”andthattheproblemnowistofindtheboundariesofpublicadministration.42

PublicAdministrationasaProfessionWaldowasmore sympathetic to a “professional” orientation in public administration.Heacknowledgesthatpublicadministrationisnotaprofessioninastrictsense,isnottobecomeone,andperhapsshouldnotevenbedone.However,heconsidersprofessionalism tobeagood attitude or strategy and asserts that public administration should move from adisciplinary to a professional perspectivewith a separate professional school status in theuniversity.43Waldo’s favourite analogy in this regard ismedicine,which, he says, is bothscience and art, both theory and practice, has amultidisciplinary focus rather than singletheory,andisgivendirectionbyabroadsocialpurpose.Thinkingofpublicadministrationasa profession, Waldo maintains, frees public administration from its second-class status incollegesofliberalarts,freesitfromasenseofguiltaboutnothavingadistinctiveparadigm,andgivesitlicensetoseekwhateverisneeded,whereveritislocated.Thus,Waldosuggeststhatpublic administrationmight act as aprofessionwithoutbeingone, or evenhoping tobecomeone.44

PublicAdministrationandtheFutureWaldo,aself-describedamateurfuturist,seesthefutureasaworldofturbulenceandchange.A major force for change is the current transition from an industrial to a postindustrialsociety.AlthoughWaldonotes thatmanyof theprophesies for the1970s failed tocome topass,thereisstillvaliditytothenotionthatthepostindustrialsocietywillseetheemergenceof knowledge as a crucial factor in productivity, the creation of new technologies forprocessinginformation,thedeclineofthefactor,theestablishmentofnewpowerelitesandpower centres based on scientific-technological knowledge, and a shift in emphasis fromproductiontodistributionandserviceoccupations.45Allofthiswillresultinanacceleratedpace of economic-social-political change thatwill generate institutional and psychologicalsocialcrises.

Theseforcesraiseanarrayofproblemsthatmustatleastinpartbeaddressedbypublicadministration. A particular problem for public administration will be dealing with newformsoforganisationandmanagementandcallsfortheassumptionofnewresponsibilities.Waldo predicts that organisations of the futurewill be less bureaucratic, increasingly of amixed public-private nature, more chains, complexes or systems of organisations thanunitaryorganisations,andmoreinternationalandmultinationalintheiroperations.46Thesenew organisational styles raise questions about how to develop less bureaucraticorganisationswithout encouraging chaos, how to dealwith increasing ethical complexity,and how to cope with the increasing likelihood of conflict and crisis. Moreover, publicadministrationisapttobecalledontoperformevenmorefunctions.Thisraisesthedangerofoverloadinasystemthatalreadyhasresponsibilitybeyondtheauthorityitcancommandorthevirtueitcansummon.

The implications of this future for public administration are manifold. Publicadministration is the government’s primarymechanism for dealingwith the forces noted

above. It will thus be centrally involved in change and transformation. The decisions ofpublic administratorswill necessarily be a combination of policy judgments, instrumentaljudgments, legal judgments andmoral judgments. The enterprise of public administrationwillbemarkedbyphilosophical,disciplinaryandmethodologicalpluralismasweattempttosurvive,adaptandcontrolchange.

In looking to the future, Waldo observes that there are two major scenarios: thetotalitarian and the anarchist.47 The totalitarian scenario reconciles public and privatemortalitybydefinitionasgovernmenttotallyintegratesandcontrols.Theanarchistscenario,whichWaldoseesaspreferable,oratleastlessundesirable,seesthefutureascharacterisedby a multiplicity of diffuse and complex socio-economic-political institutions withconsiderable ambiguity in the concept of public morality. In reaction to the anarchistscenario,Waldofeelsthatitisakintowatchingamovieinareversemodeasthesovereignstate is dissolved and its clear vertical structure of authority is replaced by complicated,contractualandinformalhorizontalrelationships.Thisdoesnotmeanthathethinkshistorywillrepeatitself.Waldobelievesthatthefuturemustbecreated,itcannotbecopied,andheexpressesthehopethatreciprocallearning,mutualadjustmentandinstitutionalinterventionmay now be speeded; that a world unified, but not unitary, harmonious, but nothomogenised,maydevelop.

ConclusionAsisclearfromtheaboveproceedings,Waldohasbeenmoreofacriticandacommentatoron the field of public administration than a creator. It is possible to quibble with theparticulars of Waldo’s approach to the history of public administration, but the largerproblem with Waldo’s work is his essential ambivalence. Waldo insists that publicadministration isnecessarily involved inpolitics,buthesees somecontinuingvalue in thepolitics-administration dichotomy. He states that public administration is both art andscience,butfailstospecifyanareainwhicheachmightbeapplicable.

He argues that public administration is both different from, and the same as, privateadministration without specifying in details the similarities and differences, or theirconsequences.Hethinksweshouldhavebothdemocracyandbureaucracy,buthedoesnottell us either how the conflicts between those forces can be resolved orwhat the optimalbalancebetweenthemis.Hesaysthatpublicadministrationisnot,andperhapsshouldnotbe, a profession, but he urges that it act like one.Waldo believes that administration andcivilisation are intimately linked and that administration is the government’s centralmechanismfordealingwithchange.

InBriefWaldo’scontributionstothedisciplineofpublicadministrationinclude:• Dwight Waldo (1913 - 2000), public administrations’ leading philosopher, historian-

theoretician,isa‘definingfigure’intheteachingandstudyofpublicadministration.ThepublicationofTheAdministrativeState,arevisedversionofhisdoctoraldissertation,madehima‘pariah’inthepublicadministrationdiscipline.

• Waldounequivocally abandonedpolitical-administrationdichotomyand contends thatthe separation is inadequate, either as a description of reality or as a prescription foradministrative behaviour.Waldo represents ‘the administration as politics’ approach inpublicadministration.

• Waldobelievesthat there ismuchto learnfromhistoryandiscriticalofanti-historical

nature ofpublic administration literature.An important lessonof history, he argues, isthat the techniques of administration are at the centre of political-governmentalevolution.

• He was critical of organisational paradigm of classical theory and identified threedifferentstagesofdevelopmentoforganisationtheoryviz.,classicalperiod,neoclassicalapproachandmodernorganisationtheory.Discussingthetrendsinmodernorganisationtheories, Waldo examined critically the nature of comparative and developmentadministration.

• WaldoplayedanimportantroleinNewPublicAdministrationMovement,alsoknownas‘Minnowbrookperspective”and‘Waldovianperspective’.Itsgoalwastoestablishnewdirections for the field and to reconcile public administrations’ role in the context ofsocial and political ferment of the late 1960’s and early 1970’s. Waldo referred themovementas‘NewRomanticism’.

• Waldo was more sympathetic to a ‘professional’ orientation in public administration.Awareofthelimitationsofpublicadministrationbecomingaprofession,Waldoprefersitasadesirablestrategyandsuggeststhatpublicadministrationmightactasaprofessionwithoutbeingoneorhopingtobecomeone.Waldo’sfavouriteanalogyinthisregardismedicine.

• Foreseeingthefutureworldas turbulentandcharacterisedbychange,heexamines therole ofpublic administration in such turbulent times.Hepredicts that organisations offuture will be less bureaucratic and more complex. The enterprise of publicadministration, according to him, will be marked by philosophical, disciplinary andmethodologicalpluralismasweattempttosurvive,adoptandcontrolchange.

• Waldo’sworksarecriticised for itsessentialambivalence.Someof theareaswherehisambivalenceisreflectedare:viewsonpolitics-administrationrelations,publicandprivateadministrationdifferencesandprofessionalnatureofpublicadministration.

• Waldomaynothaveprovideddefinitiveanswerstoproblemsinpublicadministration,but raised rightquestionsandprovided insights thatbetter equipus tomore informedchoicesbetweendifferentalternatives.

References1 Carroll, JamesD.andFrederickson,H.George,“DwightWaldo1913-2000”,PublicAdministrationReview,Vol,61,No.1,

January-February,2001,p.8.2 See,Ibid.,p.7.3 InformationonWaldo’searlylifeistakenfrominformationprovidedbyProfessorWaldoandfromWho’sWhoinAmerica,

42nded.,vol.2,1982;SeealsoCarroll,JamesD.andFrederickson,H.George,op.cit.,pp.2-8.4 Introductiontothe2ndeditionofTheAdministrativeState:AStudyofthePoliticalTheoryofAmericanPublicAdministration,

NewYork,RonaldPress,1984,p.1.5 Waldo,Dwight,TheEnterpriseofPublicAdministration,Novato,California:ChandlerandSharp,1980,p.119.6 Waldo,Dwight,“TheAdministrativeStateRevisited,”PublicAdministrationReview,Vol.25,No.1(March1965),p.6.7 Stivers, Camilla, “The Significance of The Administrative State”, Public Administrative Review, Vol.68, No. 1. January-

February,2008,pp.53-56.8 Waldo,Dwight,“TheAdministrativeStateRevisited,”op.cit.6-7.9 Ibid.10 Fry,BrainR.,MasteringPublicAdministration:FromMaxWebertoDwightWaldo,Chatham,NJ,ChathamHousePublishers,

1989.p.218.11 GeorgeLowery,http://www1.maxwell.syr.edu/news.aspx.ForadetailedaccountofWaldo’sviewsonpolicy, research,

training,agendaforfuture,etc.,seeBrown,Brack,andStillmanII,RichardJ.,“AConversationwithDwightWaldo:An

AgendaforFutureReflections”,PublicAdministrationReview,Vol.45.No.4.,1985,pp.459-467.12 Waldo,Dwight,TheEnterpriseofPublicAdministration,op.cit.p.1.13 Ibid.,p.18.14 Fry,BrainR.,op.cit.p.228.15 Waldo,Dwight,TheAdministrativeStateRevisited,op.cit.,p.11.16 Waldo,Dwight,“PublicAdministration,”JournalofPolitics,Vol.30,No.2,May1968,pp.447-48.17 Fry,BrainR.,op.cit.p.223.18 Waldo,Dwight,TheAdministrativeState:AStudyofthePoliticalTheoryofAmericanPublicAdministration,op.cit.19 Waldo,Dwight,TheStudyofPublicAdministration,NewYork,RandomHouse,1955;and“PublicAdministration,”inSills,

David,(Ed.),InternationalEncyclopediaoftheSocialSciences,NewYork,MacmillanandFreePress,1968,p.148.20 Waldo,Dwight,TheAdministrativeState,op.cit.,pp.133-34.21 Waldo, Dwight, “Public Administration,” in Uveges, Jr. Joseph A., (Ed), The Dimensions of Public Administration:

IntroductoryReadings,Boston,HolbrookPress,1971,p.26.22 Waldo,Dwight,TheAdministrativeState,op.cit.p.175.23 Waldo,Dwight,“TheFutureofManagement”,TheBureaucrat,Fall1977,pp.106-109.24 Waldo,Dwight,TheNovelistonOrganizationandAdministration:AnInquiryintotheRelationshipbetweenTwoWorlds,Berkeley,

InstituteofGovernmentStudies,1968.25 Waldo,Dwight,AdministrativeState,op.cit.pp.181-82.26 Ibid.27 Overeem,Patrick,”BeyondHeterodoxy:DwightWaldoandthePolitics-AdministrationDichotomy”,PublicAdministration

Review,Vol.68.No.1,January-February,2008,p.40.28 Ibid.,pp.36-4529 Waldo,Dwight,Democracy,BureaucracyandHypocrisy,Berkeley,InstituteofGovernmentalStudies,1977.30 Waldo,Dwight, “Development of the Theory ofDemocraticAdministration,”AmericanPolitical ScienceReview, Vol. 46,

March1952,p.87.31 Waldo,Dwight,“OrganizationTheory:RevisitingtheElephant,”PublicAdministrationReview,Vol.38,No.6,November-

December,1978,pp.589-90.32 Gulick, Luther, and Urwick, Lyndall, (Eds.), ThePapers on the Science of Administration, New York, Institute of Public

Administration,1937.33 March,JamesG.,andSimon,HerbertA.Organizations,NewYork,WileyPublications,1958.34 Waldo,Dwight,ComparativePublicAdministration:Prologue,PerformanceandProblemsinPrestonLeBreton(Ed.)Comparative

AdministrativeTheory,Seattle,UniversityofWashingtonPress,1968,p.7.35 Waldo,Dwight,EnterpriseofPublicAdministration,op.cit.,p.127.36 Waldo, Dwight, “Developments in Public Administration,” inCurrent Issues in Public Administration, (Ed.), New York,

FrederickS.Lane,St.Martin’sPress,1978,p554.37 See Frank Marini (Ed.), Toward A New Public Administration: The Minnowbrook Perspective, Scranton, Pa., Chandler

PublishingCompany,1971.SeealsoGeorgeLowery,op.cit.38 Waldo,Dwight,SomeIssuesinPreparingScienceAdministrationLeadershipforTomorrow,ProgramofPolicyStudiesinScience

andTechnology,OccasionalPaperNo.6,WashingtonD.C.,GeorgeWashingtonUniversity,1969,pp.6-7.39 Waldo,Dwight,“SomeThoughtsonAlternatives,Dilemmas,andParadoxesinaTimeofTurbulence,”inWaldo,Dwight,

(Ed.),PublicAdministrationinaTimeofTurbulence,Scranton,ChandlerPress,1971,p.271.40 Ibid.,p.263.41 Ibid.,p.259-60.42 Ibid.,p.280-81.43 Waldo,Dwight,“AdministrativeStateRevisited,”op.cit.,p.28.44 Waldo, Dwight,, “Foreword”, In Frank Marini (ed.) Toward a New Public Administration, Scranton, PA, Chandler

PublishingCompany,1971,pp.xiii-xv.45 Waldo,Dwight,EnterpriseofPublicAdministration,op.cit.,pp.158-60.46 Waldo, Dwight, “Developments in Public Administration”, op.cit., pp 538-42; Waldo, Dwight, Enterprise of Public

Administration,op.cit.,pp.167-68.47 Waldo,Dwight,“ReflectionsonPublicMorality,”Administration&Society,1974;Vol.6:p.277.

P

20PETERDRUCKER

D.RavindraPrasad

Introductioneter Drucker, management guru, consultant, professor, economist, writer and ‘socialecologist’1throughhiswritingsoversevendecadesexplainedhowhumansareorganised

across business, government and non-profit sectors of society. He created foundations ofmodernmanagementand isconsideredasoneof thegreatestmanagement thinkersof thelast century.He took ahumanistic approach tomanagement, emphasised that it is peoplewhocreateorganisationsand theyhavea crucial role inmodern society.He is awriterofuncommonverve,practicality and incisivenessanddealtwithmanagementmatters in thecontextof largersociety.Heconsideredmanagersasa leadershipgroupandfelt that if themanagersofmajorinstitutionsdonottakeresponsibilityforthecommongood;nooneelsecanorwill.2Hisvisioncanbeuncoveredfromhisvoluminouswritingsoverthelastseveraldecadesandextrapolatedtogovernmentaladministration.Druckerconcentratedmostlyonbusinesssectorandasaresulthisviewsonpublicsectorwerepassedoverandunpublicised.3Drucker, as a management theorist, wrote on non-profit organisations and federalgovernmentreformsintheUS.Butpublicadministrationscholarshavenotyetexploredtheimplications of his thought for government and public administration - particularly thefutureofpublicmanagement.4

(1909-2005)

LifeandWorks

PeterFerdinandDrucker(1909-2005)5wasborninVienna,AustriaandhadschoolingattheDoubling Gymnasium. In 1927, he went to Hamburg, Germany to undergo a one-yearapprenticeship in a trading company. Alongside he enrolled inHamburg University LawSchoolandobtainedthelawdegree.In1929,hemovedtoFrankfurtwhereheworkedasafinancial journalist with a local newspaper as well as worked for an American bank. HeobtainedPh.DinInternationalLawandPublicLawin1931fromtheUniversityofFrankfurt.

For some time he taught in theUniversity of Frankfurt, history and international law. In1933, during the Nazi regime, he migrated to London where he worked as a securitiesanalyst for an insurance company and as an economist for a bank.He alsoworked as anAmericancorrespondenttotheBritishnewspapers.AfterfouryearsinLondon,hemigratedto theUnited States in 1937.Hewas influenced by economists like Joseph Schumpeter ofAustriaandJohnKeynesofBritain.

IntheUnitedStatesDruckerstartedhiscareerasafreelancejournalistchieflytoHarper’sandWashingtonPost.He taughteconomicsatSarahLawrenceCollege inBronxville,NewYorkandlateratBenningtonCollegeinVermont(1942-49).HewasProfessorofManagementat the New York University (1950-71), and Clark Professor of Social Sciences andManagementattheClaremontGraduateSchoolatCaliforniaUniversityfrom1971untilhisdeath. At the School he developed the country’s first ExecutiveMBA Programme. In hishonour,theUniversityManagementSchoolwasnamedasPeterF.DruckerGraduateSchoolofManagementin1987(andlaterrenamedasPeterF.DruckerandMasatoshaiItoGraduateSchoolofManagement).HetookhislastclassattheSchoolin2002attheageof92.

Drucker,consideredasthedoyenofbusinessconsultants,hadalongconsultancycareerbeginningfrom1943withmajorcorporationslikeGeneralMotors,GeneralElectric,Citicorp,Coca-Cola, IntelandIBMandmanygovernmentandnon-governmentorganisations intheUS,Canada,Japanandothercountries.HewasconsultanttoAlfredSloan(GeneralMotors),Jack Welch (General Electric), Andrew Grove (Intel) AgLafley (Proctor and Gamble),ShoichiroToyoda(ToyotaMotors),etc.Heworkedwithseveralnon-profitoriginationsandsocialsectorgroupsincludinguniversitiesandhospitals.DespitetheunhappinessofGeneralMotors about his findings, his book ‘Concept of the Corporation’ (1946) was a phenomenalsuccess.

A polymath and prolific writer, Drucker published 39 influential books over sevendecades.HecontributedseveralarticlesinreputedprofessionaljournalslikeHarvardBusinessReview,TheEconomist,Harpers,andTheAtlanticMonthly.HewrotearegularcolumninWallStreet Journal for two decades. His books includeThe Concept of the Corporation (1946), ThePracticeofManagement(1954),TheEffectiveExecutive(1966),Management-Tasks,Responsibilities,Practices(1974),TheDisciplineofInnovation(1985),ManagingfortheFuture(1992),ManagementChallengeforthe21stCentury(1999).6Inhiswritingshetreatedeconomicsandmanagementina broad context of humanities. Some of his books were translated into more than 30languages.Interdisciplinarythinking,avoidanceofacademicjargonandconspicuousabsenceof footnotes characterise his authorship. He also wrote novels, co-authored a book onpainting,madeeducationalfilmsonmanagement,developedprofessionalprogrammesandon-linecoursesonmanagementapartfromapersonalmemoirAdventuresofaBystander.Hisbooksarebestsellersandsomehavegotdozensofeditionssellingmillionsofcopies.Healsodedicated time to the service sector and founded the New York-based Peter F. DruckerFoundationforNon-profitManagement,whichsince2003isknownastheLeadertoLeaderInstitute.

Drucker was awarded the Presidential Medal of Freedom (2002), the U.S.’s highestcivilianhonour,OrdersfromthegovernmentsofJapanandAustria,NewYorkUniversity’sPresidentialCitation (1969), SeventhMcKinseyAward (2005) forhis article inHBR“WhatMakesanEffectiveExecutive?”, JuniorAchievementUSBusinessHallofFame (1996), etc.Hewasawarded25honorarydoctoratesfromAmerican,Belgium,Czechs,English,Spanish,

andSwissuniversities.He receivedcountlessawards in recognitionofhis contributions tothestudyofmanagement.

Drucker anticipated privatisation, decentralisation, emergence of information societywithnecessityforlife-longlearning,roleofknowledgeworkers,etc.Foroversevendecadeshis writings on management focused on relationships among human beings and theyprovidelessonsonhoworganisationscanbringoutthebestinpeopleandhowworkerscanfindasensecommunityanddignityinmodernsocietyorganisedaroundlargeinstitutions.7As a consultant he specialised in strategy and policy for governments, business and non-profitorganisations.Hisfocuswasontheorganisationandworkofthetopmanagement.Heconsidered management as a liberal art and infused his management advice with inter-disciplinary lessons fromhistory, sociology,psychology, cultureandreligion.Asapracticalmanofmanagement,hisinfluencewasworldwideandhisideasandpracticesarevaluedbypoliticiansaswellasmangersinmanycountriesacrosstheglobe.HeevincedkeeninterestinJapanesemanagement, and based on his writings on Japanese system, new insightswerebrought into organisational analysis.He is considered to be a ‘bridge’ between academicsandthebusinesstothebenefitofboth.

GenericManagementDruckerbelievedthattheterm‘management’ isgenericandnotrelatedtobusinessoranyotherprofession.Itpertainstoeveryhumaneffort thatbringstogether inoneorganisationpeopleofdiverseknowledgeandskills.Managementispartof theorganisation-publicorprivate-andthereisnodifferencebetweenprivateenterprise,thenationalisedindustriesoftheUK,orgovernmentmonopoliesandministriesofRussia.8ToDrucker,managementisthespecific and distinguishing organ of any and all organisations and concern with themanagement and its study began with the emergence of large organisations - business,governmental,civilservices,army,etc.9Tohim,linkingmanagementwiththebusinessisofrecent origin.10 Thinkers like F.W. Taylor and Chester Barnard assumed that businessmanagement is just a sub-species of generalmanagement and basically nomore differentfrom management of any other organisation.11 He felt that the term ‘manager’ did notoriginate inbusinessbutoriginatedincityadministrationfromthecitymanagersystemofcity administration. He says that the first conscious and systematic application ofmanagement principles was not in business but in the US Army in 1901 by Elihu Root,Theodore Roosevelt’s Secretary ofWar; the firstManagement Congress held at Prague in1922 was not organised by business people but by Herbert Hoover, US Secretary ofCommerce and Thomas Masaryk, founding President of the Czechoslovak Republic, andMary Parker Follett never differentiated between business and non-businessmanagementandwhen she talked of themanagement of organisations, the same principles applied toall.12

TheGreatDepression,withitshostilitytobusinessandcontemptforbusinessexecutives,led to the identification ofmanagementwith businessmanagement.Drucker says that ‘inorder not to be tarred with business brush, management in the public sector was re-christened as Public Administration and proclaimed as a separate discipline with its ownuniversitydepartments,terminologyanditsowncareerladder’.13Inthesamevein,studyofmanagementofhospitalswaschristenedasHospitalAdministrationandsoon.Atthesametime,many‘businessschools’intheUnitedStateswerere-namedas‘managementschools’and they began to offer programmes to non-profit organisations and government. He

lamentsthatdespitethesedevelopmentsafeelingthatmanagementisbusinessmanagementstill persists and asserts thatmanagement isNOT businessmanagement - anymore thanMedicineisObstetrics.14

Druckersawdifferencesinmanagement-mission,strategyandstructures-ofdifferentorganisations; thoughdifferencesaremainly inapplicationratherthaninprinciples.Therearenomajordifferencesintasksandchallenges.Ninetypercentofwhateachorganisationisconcernedwith isgeneric.Thedifferences in respect to the remaining tenper cent arenogreater between business and non-business than they are between different industries. Inevery organisation - business and non-business alike - only the last ten per cent ofmanagementhastobefittedtotheorganisation’sspecificmission, ‘it’sspecificculture, it’sspecifichistoryandit’sspecificvocabulary’.15ItisinthiscontextDrucker’scontributionsareapplicable to public administration. According to Drucker, management is spreading togovernment for two reasons. Firstly, thegovernmentsneed to regulate economyandnon-profitorganisationstoexpandsocialserviceresponsibilities.Secondly,seepingofknowledgeand skills to non-corporate organisations and corporate executives joining public service.This is in tune with Woodrow Wilson’s assertion that administration should be run onbusiness lines.16Theother considerations forDrucker’sbelief thatmanagement isgenericincludeenhancingqualityoflife;pressureforthedisseminationofmanagementexperienceand knowledge to government and non-profit organisations; spread ofmanagement afterWorld War II to the newly independent countries to build their economies.17 Druckerpredicted the growth of non-profit social sector in the 21st century in the developedcountries, and that is also the sector where management is most needed and wheresystematic, principled, and theory-based management can yield the greatest results thefastest.

Druckerobservedthattheemergenceofgenericmanagementasafieldofknowledgeisbased on the premise that there are valid tenets of administration, regardless of theorganisational setting. He believed that the application of such knowledge to thegovernment, among other institutions, would increase its effectiveness, butwould not bepivotal. The decisive force, in his view,would be recognition of the limits of governmentresponsibilityandtheneedforadiminishedrole.18

Drucker was the first to see management as a profession – a body of theoretical andpractical knowledge about organisations, tasks and people. To him management is afunction, adiscipline, a task to bedone, andmanagers areprofessionalswhopractice thisdiscipline, carry out functions anddischarge these tasks.ToDruckermanagement - publicandcorporate- isarepositoryoftheories,practices,andskillstransferablethroughgenericapproaches through education and training - that is, adoption of business administrationinstructions topublic sector.19Druckeraptlynoted that the schoolsofbusinessare rapidlychangingtheirnamestoschoolsofmanagementtoemphasisethatthebusinessconceptsandskillsareapplicabletoanyorganisedactivity.20

Druckeremphasisedon theneedforrightorganisationand itsprinciples likehierarchyand unity of command. He brushes aside the talk of the ‘end of hierarchy’ as ‘blatantnonsense’. The otherprinciples of organisation,Drucker talks about, include transparency,authority be commensuratewith responsibility, onemaster, etc.WhatDrucker says is thattheseprinciplesshouldnottelluswhattodo,butonlytelluswhatnottodo.Theydonottellus what will work. They tell us what is unlikely to work. These principles are not toodifferentfromtheonesthatinformanarchitect’swork;theydonottellhimwhatkindofa

building tobuild.They tellhimwhat the restraints are.And this isprettymuchwhat thevariousprinciplesoforganisationsdo.21

ManagementinGovernment–ACritiqueDruckermostlywrote on corporate administration and very little directly on governmentandpublic administration.Hewas a serious critic of administration in government.22 Hisobservations on government and administration aremainly focused on theUnited States;thoughtheyhaveageneralapplication.Druckercharacterisedgovernmentadministrationas‘fat, flabby, expensive, andunproductive. It is entangled in aweb of vested interests, andpressure groups. It is fragmented, uninspiring, and ungovernable…It cannot abandon anyactivities, even if they are disasters. It is very sick and in desperate need of treatment.Impotence rather than omnipotence may well appear the most remarkable feature ofgovernment in the closingdecades of the twentieth century.’23He felt thatmanybureausand agencies of the federal government in theUSundertake functions that are no longerrequiredandregulatethatnolongerneedregulation.Helamentsthatthebureaucracyisoutofcontrolandtheagencieshavebecomeendsinthemselves,drivenbytheirowndesireforpower,theirownrationale,theirownnarrowvision,ratherthanbynationalpolicyandbythenationalgovernment.24Policyisfragmented,policydirectionisdivorcedfromexecutionand the entire process is governed by bureaucratic inertia. As politicians cannot payadequate attention toprogrammes, bureaucrats are left to their owndevices. But they areprotected from political processes and also demands of performance.25 He felt thatbenchmarking and continuous improvement would be resisted by bureaucracy, interestgroups, and even the Congress. He suggests that every Act, every agency, and everyprogramme of government should be conceived for a fixed time period and shouldautomaticallybeabandonedbasedonastudyofitsneed.26

Amajorelementineffectivemanagementistheabilityoftheorganisationtoriditselfofyesterday’sfunctionsandfreetheresourcesfornewandmoreproductiveonesandforthefuture.ButDruckersaysthatgovernmentistheworstoffenderbecauseofitsinabilitytostopdoing anything that it should not do and calls this a central degenerative disease. Hisgreatest disenchantment ‘is that government has not performed’.27 He argued that thegovernmentisapoormanagerandisconcernedwithproceduresandintheprocessbecomesbureaucratic.28Hesaysthatthegovernmentisnotadoerbutadecision-makerandfocusesitsenergiesofsocietyondramatisingissues.

Non-performanceofPublicAgenciesDruckerwas critical about non-performance of public agencies. He identified six featureswhichhecalledas‘sins’whichcontributetonon-performance.Theyare:29

Firstly, having lofty objectives like ‘bestmedical care for the sick’. Such objectives arevague,andnotoperationable.Hesuggeststhatobjectivesshouldbespecific,measurableandattainable and can be converted into work and performance. It requires clear targets forappraisalandjudgments;

Secondly,attemptingtodoseveralthingsatthesametimewithoutprioritisingthem;Thirdly,beliefin‘fatisbeautiful’.ButDruckerbelievedthatover-staffingisasurewayfor

non-performanceandfocuseson‘administration’thanon‘results’;Fourthly, ‘dogmatism’ on work being undertaken and reluctance to experiment and

innovate;

Fifthly,failuretolearnfrom‘experience’;andFinally, belief in immortality and inability to abandon and continue the policies,

programmesandinstitutionslongaftertheyareunnecessaryandtheirneeddisappeared.Drucker was clear that these factors, if avoided, may not guarantee best results and

contributetoperformance,butavoidingthemisaprerequisiteforperformanceandresults.But“mostadministrators”,Druckerbelieved,“commitmostof these ‘sins’all thetimeandindeed all of themmost of the time. Administrators feel it ‘risky’ to spell out attainable,concreteandmeasurablegoals”.30

Drucker,influencedbynazismandfascism,becameskepticalanddoubtedtheabilityandeffectivenessofgovernments.31Hewasacritiqueofwesternbureaucraticsociety,believedin‘debureaucratisation’ of government and has strong attachment to managerialism. Hestronglybelievedthatthecorporateexecutivesarebestqualifiedandaremostcompetenttoadministereventhegovernment,andtoovercomeitsdeficienciesbysettingorrecastingitsfunctions.Similarly,hebelievedthatbusinessmanagementisapplicabletoothersincludinggovernment.

DeficienciesofGovernmentDruckerarguedthatthegovernmentneedstobedecentralisedanddebureaucratised.Thisismainly because that no individual or group knows enough to manage effectively andhumanely the complexgovernmental functions and economy.Hebelieved that ineffectivegovernment would result in totalitarianism. Unfortunately despite limited ability, thegovernmentsalwaysassumefarmoreresponsibilitiesthantheycaneffectivelyhandle.Suchexcessive responsibilities deprive the governments the ability to set priorities, strategies,targets, timetables, measurement standards, etc.32 He was also critical that the nationalgovernments are reluctant to abandon any structure and activity as they develop strongconstituenciesaroundagenciesandprogrammes.33

Theprincipaldeficienciesofthenationalgovernment,accordingtoDruckerare:inabilitytomanagemacro-economies effectively, tendency to assume an excessive number of tasksandtoeschewprioritiesandreluctancetoabandondysfunctionalstructuresandregulation.Theotherdeficienciesheidentifies includechroniccostoverruns,proliferationofagencies,programmes and paper work, inter-agency rivalry, fragmentation in policy formulation,separation of policy direction from execution, bureaucratic inertia, focus on rules overresults, poor management, premium on status quo over initiative and innovation andinabilitytofulfillpromises.34

Drucker felt that the national governments should undertake defense, justice, internalorder,etc.Hedesiredthatnationalgovernmentshouldundertakelimitedtasksbutregulatemostlyothers.Hestronglybelievedthatfunctionsliketransportation,garbagecollectionandfire protection should be in private hands and should be contracted out. 35 Druckerexpounded a vision involving extensive decentralisation and debureaucratisation tomakethe administration effective.AsGazell has noted that ‘One implication of his outlook forpublicadministration is itsreducedsalienceat the federal level…..growingprominenceatthe state and local levels and by its extension to the third and fourth sectors’ 36 Federalgovernment should formulatebroadgoals andpolicieswhile entrusting their execution tonon-governmental and non-profit organisations. To Drucker improved effectiveness ofgovernmentsisimperativetoavoidtotalitarianism.37

Druckerbelievedthatmanagersaremadeandnotborn.Thisunderlinesthesignificance

heattached to educationand trainingof the executives.Hedevelopedand influenced thecurriculumoftheexecutiveprogrammesattheClaremontGraduateSchoolandthecoursesoffered include ‘Managing Public Service Institutions’, ‘Management of Change’, etc. Hisclass ‘Management inSociety’explores ‘the issuesofpoliticsandpublicpolicy,managerialroles and conduct, economics, morality and ethics, which result from modern society’sevolutionintoasocietyoforganisations’.38Thiscourse,asGazellnotes,appliestothefieldofpublic administration readily, thereby reflecting the growing convergence betweenmanagementandpublicadministrationinstructionandtheimplicitneedforincorporatingitin all education and training programmes for public managers.39 This also facilitatesexchangeofexecutivesbetweenbusiness,governmentandnon-profitsectors.Talkingaboutethics,Druckersays that thereshouldbenobusinessethics,nopublic rulesofconduct,nomoralcode,etc.,anddesiredthatthereshouldbeonlyuniversalethics.40

RestructuringGovernmentThegovernmentischaracterisedby‘non-results’andthereasonforthisisresistancebythebureaucracywith its redtape and inane rules thatpreventperformance.Drucker finds thebasic approach of even ‘dedicated’ people in government is wrong and hence non-performanceorpoorresults.Henotesthatanyattemptto‘patch-and-spotweld’,here,thereandyonder canneveryield resultsand it requires ‘radical change’ ingovernmentand thewaytheyaremanaged.Druckersuggeststhatconceptofcontinuousimprovementshouldbebuilt into the functioning of government and that only contributes to sustainability. Thesecond aspect is ‘benchmarking’ - a conceptwhich compares performancewith all othersand making the best the standard.41 Drucker favours continuous improvement andbenchmarkingwhichareabsentingovernment.Theyrequireradicalchangesin‘policiesandpractices’ which the bureaucracy and unions fiercely resist. This also requires that publicorganisations todefineobjectivesofperformance,qualityandcosts.Druckeralsoproposesnegativeincentivesorpenaltieslikebudgetarycutsfornon-performance.Individualofficialswhoperformbelowbenchmarksneedtobepenalised-maybeintermsofsalaryandwages,promotions and demotions or retirement. Organisations need to change their structure iftherearechangesintheir‘size’.Allorganisations,governmentorotherswhichareoldandgrowingneedtoberestructuredastheyoutlivethepoliciesandrulesofbehaviour.Unlesstheyare restructured, theybecomeungovernable,unmanageable anduncontrollable.42HegivestheexamplesofAmericanpublicadministrationinsupportofhispropositions.Hesaysthat the American government has outgrown the structures, the policies and the rulesdesignedforitarestillinuse.

Managementexiststoachieveinstitutionalresults;ithastostartwiththeintendedresultsandhastoorganisetheresourcesoftheinstitutiontoattaintheseresults.It istheorgantomake the institution,whetherbusiness, church,university,hospital or abatteredwomen’sshelter, capable of producing results outside of it.43 The management’s concern andmanagement’s responsibility are everything that affects theperformanceof the institutionanditsresults-whetherinsideoroutside,whetherundertheinstitution’scontrolortotallybeyondit.44Druckersuggeststhatprogrammesandactivitiesinitiatedataparticularpointoftimeareunlikelytobeproductivelater.Theymaybecomeunproductiveandevencounter-productive. Drucker suggests that the organisations thatmalfunction should be abolishedratherthanreformingthem.

RethinkingandAbandonmentThegovernmentsresorttopatchinganddown-sizingwhenevertheyfaceproblemsasmostbusinessorganisationsdo.AccordingtoDrucker, inthepastfifteenyears(before1995)onebigAmericancompanyafteranotherlaidoffalargenumberofemployeesinanticipationofturnaround,butwithoutanyresultsinmany,ifnotmostcases.Hesaysthatdownsizinghasturned out to be something the surgeons for centuries have warned against ‘amputationbefore diagnoses’ and the result is always a ‘casualty’.A better approach toDrucker is to‘rethink’,45 which organisations like GE and several hospitals have adopted and achievedturn around. To ‘rethink’ is to identify activities that are productive and need to bestrengthened, promoted and expanded; not downsizing and expenditure reduction.Agenciesshouldreviewthepolicies,programmes,activitiesand‘rethink’aboutthemissionandquestionwas it the rightmission? Is it stillworth continuing?Whether themission isviableanylonger?etc.Suchexercisesareundertakenbothbygovernment,businessandevenreligious organisations. Drucker explains that we would not establish the Department ofAgriculturenowasfarmersarejustthreepercentandproductivefarmersarelessthanhalfofthatasaBureauofCommerceorLabourcanundertaketheselimitedfunctions.46

Drucker also suggests that there is a need for a ‘rethink’ on the organisational set-upbasedonactivitiesandquestionstheneedforascientificagencylikeGeographicalSurveytorun a retail business of sellingmaps. He proposes that they should be entrusted to bookstores.Tohimcontinuingsuchactivitiesis‘wasteful’andshouldbe‘abandoned’.Accordingto him two-fifths of the activities of civilian agencies and programmes in the USAdministration are unproductive, counter-productive, and unviable and should be‘abandoned’ and their functions entrusted to other appropriate agencies. Drucker wasconscious that ‘rethinking’ isnoteasy,often impossible,and therewillbeopposition fromthebureaucracy,andspecialinterests.But‘rethink’isinevitableandneedstobecarriedouttoperformeffectively.Hesuggeststhatthereisaneedfor“atheoryofwhatgovernmentcando”. But he laments that the political and administrative theory has not addressed thisaspect. Drucker was conscious that rethinking about government, its programmes, itsagencies,itsactivitieswouldnotbyitselfgiveanewtheoryoranswers.Butitgivesfactualinformationtohelptoraiserightquestionsonperformanceandrestructuring.Basedonhisexperience he says that where ‘rethinking’ was undertaken, it gave substantialimprovements.

Anotherquestionisthatorganisationsthatworkedwellatapointoftimemaynotworklater andneeds tobe reviewedperiodicallywith the samequestionsdiscussed earlier andabolishedbasedon‘functionality’.Drucker,givingexamplesfromAmericanexperience,saysthatinallsuchcasesthegeneralprescriptionisto‘reform’.Buttohim,“reformsomethingthatmalfunctions-letalonesomethingthatdoesharm-withoutknowingwhyitdoesnotworkcanonlymakethingsworse.Thebestthingtodowithsuchprogrammesistoabolishthem”. Drucker suggests that there is a need to undertake controlled experiments on‘differentapproaches’before ‘abolishing’, ‘down-sizing’andchoosingalternatives.Hesaysthat ‘rethinking’ helps to understand as to the activities that need to be strengthened,abolished or refocused. Rethinking, to him, is not about cutting costs. It contributes toincrease in performance, quality, service and helps to change in work approaches andrethinkingrankactivities,policies,andprogrammesaccordingtoresults thanconventional‘intentions’approach.47

ManagementbyObjectives

TheconceptofManagementbyObjectives(MBO)wasfirstconceptualisedasitisunderstoodtodaybyDruckerinhisbookThePracticeofManagement.ThoughthereweremanyprecursorslikeJamesO.McKinsey,Barnard,Fayol,Follett,etc.,whowroteonthesubject,theydidnotuse the termMBObut each underpinned its philosophy in theirwritings. ItwasDruckerwhocoinedthetermduring1948-51andmadenumerouscontributionstoitsphilosophy.48Theideageneratedconsiderable interestbothinbusinessorganisationsaswellas inpublicadministration. MBO refers to collective setting of organisational goals, targets, andmeasurements.

PeterDruckerconceptualisedHaroldSmiddy’sManager’sLetter, introducedinGeneralElectrics incorporating goals, activities and standards for each month and reported theresultsagainstpreviousmonthobjectivesasMBO.49Heargued thatmanagementbydrivecharacterised by ineffectiveness andmis-direction should be replaced byMBO. Hewrotethat‘aneffectivemanagementmustdirectthevisionandeffortsofallthemanagerstowardsa common goal. Itmust ensure that the individualmanager understandswhat results aredemandedofhim.Itmustensurethatthesuperiorunderstandswhattoexpectofeachofitssubordinate managers. It must motivate each manager to maximum efforts in the rightdirection.Andwhileencouraginghighstandardsofworkmanship, itmustmake them themeanstotheendofbusinessperformance,ratherthanendsinthemselves.’50Headdsthateach manager from senior executive to production foremen needs clearly to spell outobjectives, layoutwhatperformanceeachmanager’sunit issupposedtoproduceandwhatcontributions the unit is expected to make to other units to obtain their objectives andemphasis is on teamwork and team results. For theMBO towork eachmanager shouldmeasure performance against a goal. He suggested that the objectives should reflect thefunctionsoftheorganisationandshouldbederivedfromthegoalsoftheorganisation.51TheMBOsubstitutesmanagementbydominationwithmanagementbyself-control.

Druckersaysthateachmanagershoulddevelopandsettheobjectivesoftheunitandforhimself though the higher management has powers to approve or disapprove them. Butdevelopment of objectives is a part of the manager’s responsibility; indeed his firstresponsibility.52 Every manager should responsibly participate in the development ofobjectivesinthehigherunitofwhichheisapart.ThegreatestadvantageofMBOisthatitmakespossible foramanager tocontrolhisownperformance.Self-controlmeansstrongermotivation,desiretodobest,higherperformancegoalsandbroadervision.ToDrucker,MBOgivesindividualstrengthandresponsibilityandatthesametime,givescommondirectionofvision and effort, establish teamwork andharmonise thegoals of the individualwith thecommonweal.53

Knowledge-basedOrganisationsDruckerpredictedthatinformationwouldbringmajorchangesinthesocietyandknowledgeworkers, hisname for thenewprofessionalmanagers and specialistswould constitute thelargestgroupinorganisations.Heintroducedtheconceptofknowledgeworkerearlyin1959andhislaterwritingsreflectonknowledgework,knowledgeworkerandtheirproductivity.Hebelieved that 21st centuryorganisations andmanagement - business ornon-business –would be characterised by knowledgeworkers and their productivity. 54 The newworkerwouldbebasedonknowledge,notphysical labourormanagement.Druckerbelieved thatbusiness succeeds because of their ability to generate and use knowledge. He, therefore,suggests that knowledgeworker productivity is themost important challenge of the 21st

century. He says that if we apply knowledge to tasks we already know how to do, it is‘productivity’ and if we apply knowledge to tasks that are new and different it is‘innovation’.55 Every executive in modern organisations is a knowledge worker and isresponsible for contributions that materially affect the capacity of the organisation toperformandtoachieveresults.ToDruckerinformationisdataendowedwithrelevanceandpurpose. Converting the data into information requires knowledge and knowledge bydefinition is specialised.Tohim thedefiningcharacteristicof theknowledgeworker is thelevel of his education and training to some degree will be the central concerns of theknowledge society. Drucker identifies six factors that determine the knowledge worker’sproductivity.56 They include the tasks to be performed responsibility and autonomy,continuous innovation, continuous learning and quality of output. He adds that theknowledgeworkershouldbeseenasanassetthanasacost.

Druckerexplains that theknowledgeworkershave toattendtomanyactivitiesbeyondtheircoretaskswhichdemandtheirtimeandattentionwhichimpacttheirproductivity.Herecommendsthattheknowledgeworkers’othertasksandactivitiesshouldbeminimisedordelegatedtoothers toenablethemtoconcentratetheireffortsonthecoretasks.Heinsiststhat the knowledgeworkers should learn tomanage themselves. This enables them to becreativeandbecontinuouslearners.Theyneedtokeeptheknowledgeuptodateanduseitasrequired.Thisshouldbeindependentoftheiremployers.Druckerarguesthatmakingtheknowledgeworkers productive requires changes in the attitudes of individualworkers aswellastheentireorganisation.57Despiteorganisationspronouncingandacknowledgingthattheemployeesaretheirgreatestasset,fewpracticewhattheypreach,58Druckerlaments.

AnEvaluationThere are several criticisms on Drucker’s contributions to the field of management ingovernment.59 Themost serious criticism came from JosephCoateswho says that ‘I don’tthinkofDruckerintermsofintellectualleadership’.Hefurthersaysthat“whathe’salwaysdoneistolistentoideasalreadybeingdiscussedwithinbusinessandbeenthefirsttowriteaboutandanointthealreadycleartrends.It’skeyfunction,thejournalistkindofwork.Buthe’snotaseminalthinker”.WarrenBennis,astudentofDrucker,agreeswithJosephCoatesandsaysthat‘Peter’sgiftisthatofajournalist’.60

The Wall Street Journal researched several of his lectures in 1987 and reported thatDruckerwassometimeslooseonfacts,andwasnotalwayscorrectinhisforecasts.61Druckeroften ‘used government and bureaucracy as negative examples of what happens when abusiness fails to act like a business’. But as Guy andHitchock have noted that excellenceexists-hasalwaysexisted-ingovernment,althoughitdoesnotalwaystakethesameformasinbusiness.Accordingtothem,Druckerattemptedtocomparegovernment(apples)frombusiness (oranges)perspectiveanditdoesnotmakesensebecause thedifferencesoverridethe similarities. Public administration is set for failure, they argue, on a test designed andnormed for business. Drucker’s thought lacks comprehensive applicability to publicmanagement that it offers tobusiness.62 To rely tooheavily onDrucker’s formulations forgoodmanagement,however,willblindadministratorstotheuniquecontextandconstraintsthat publicness involves. They agree, however, that the public administrators should heedDrucker’s advice on the importance of objectives, mission-focused management and theknowledgeworker,etc.63

The concept of MBO, articulated by Drucker was criticised by several on different

grounds. Firstly, despite Drucker’s claim that the essence of the MBO is employeecollaborationandinputsintosettingtheworkobjectives,HalpernandOsofskyarguethathecritically failed to give specific protection to the subordinate in theMBO process againstsuperiormanipulation or arbitrariness nor recourse to any appeals procedure.64 Secondly,Jackson and Mathis argued that the MBO practice has failed to link performance to theevaluationandrewardprocessbasedonstudies.65Thirdly,theMBOis justatechniqueandhas no theoretical foundations. 66 Finally, the MBO has never proved its effectiveness,difficulttoimplementandoftencompanieswindupover-emphasisngcontrolasopposedtofosteringcreativity,tomeettheirgoals67.

Drucker’spositionongovernment‘ishighlycriticalbutunsubstantiatedoranecdotal, itmightbeconsideredmerelyanti-statistbureaucratbashing’.His‘diagnosisofgovernmentastoo large and intrusive, ineffective, inefficient, and unresponsive, captured by numerousconstituencies or vested interests, for example represents the simplistic and superficialcriticismwhich, too often, passes for analysis andunderstanding.His prescription - applymarketapproachestoallmannerofproblems,privatise,andevenignoresomeproblems-isequallyinadequate,onbothatheoreticalandpracticallevel.’68

Drucker’s position on privatisation was criticised as ‘unsatisfying’. His argument thatprivatisationor,moreprecisely,contractingoutofpublicserviceswillyieldacompetentandfunctioning government overlooks the myriad issues identified by many privatisationanalysts.69

CriticsarguethatDruckerwasunable‘todiscern’theactualtenorandtextureofpublicmanagement, its variety and subtleties and resorts to gross generalisations and therefore,‘Drucker’s work as a benchmark for the evaluation of publicmanagement is marginal atbest’. Drucker’s treatment of public management falls short, failing to appreciate thedynamics of cultural and constitutionally imposed restraints. Though it provides usefulinsights, it lacks comprehensive applicability to public management.70 Though Drucker’swritings helped public administrators, to rely heavily on Drucker’s formulation for goodmanagement,‘willblindadministratorstotheuniquecontextandconstraintsthatpublicnessbringstothetable.’71

Public administration scholars may deemphasise Drucker’s criticism of governmentadministrationand,hisover-simplificationofobstaclestoeffectivepublicmanagement.Butit is difficult to summarily reject his criticism of the working of the government and itsperformance. His contribution to the discipline of public administration lies in thepromotionoftheconceptslikemissionorientation,MBO,privatisation,decentralisation,etc.,andtheyhaveaprofoundinfluenceinpublicadministrationtheoryandpracticeacrosstheglobe.72

Notwithstandingthecriticisms,thecontributionsofDruckertothestudyandpracticeofpublic administration and management are substantial. He delineated the facets ofleadership, emphasised the need for mission orientation in organisations, analysed thenature of decision-making, conceptualised MBO, forecasted the advent of knowledgeworker,sawmanagementasaprofession,recognisedtheemergenceofnon-profitsector,andexpanded the non-governmental and non-business realm, all of which have substantialbearingsonpublicadministration.Druckerescortedtheorganisationaltheoryandthinkingfromitsivorytowerandputittoworkonline.

InBrief

Peter Drucker’s contributions to the art and science of public management andadministrationcanbesummarisedas:• PeterFerdinandDrucker(1909-2005), themanagementguruandconsultant, isawriter

ofuncommonverveandpracticalityanddealtwithmanagementmattersinthecontextoflargersociety.Hisvisioncanbeuncoveredfromhisvoluminouswritingsoverthelastseveraldecadesandextrapolatedtogovernmentaladministration.

• Druckerbelievedthat the term‘management’ isgenericandnotrelatedtobusinessoranyotherprofession.Helamentsthatmanagementisbusinessmanagement,stillpersists.Tohimmanagementisthespecifictool,specificfunctionandspecificinstrumenttomakeinstitutionscapableofproducingresultsandninetypercentofitisgenerictoalltypesoforganisations.

• Drucker described management as liberal art. It is liberal because it deals withfundamentalsofknowledge,self-knowledge,wisdomandleadership.Itisartbecauseitispractice and application. Druckerwas the first to seemanagement as a profession – abody of theoretical and practical knowledge about organisations, tasks and people.Hebelieved that managers are made and not born and emphasised the importance ofmanagementeducationandtraining.

• Hewasverycriticalaboutthenon-performanceofpublicagenciesandidentifiedseveral‘sins’which contributed tonon-performance.He argues that thegovernment is apoormanagerandisconcernedwithproceduresandintheprocessbecomesbureaucratic.

• Drucker advocated restructuring of government based on ‘rethinking’ and suggestedcontinuousimprovementbasedonbenchmarking.Awareofdifficultiesin‘rethinking’ingovernmentsystem,hepleadsfor‘atheoryofwhatgovernmentcando’.

• The concept of Management by Objectives was first conceptualised as is understoodtoday by Drucker. It refers to collective setting of organisation goals, targets andmeasurement.MBOisanimportanttoolforperformanceassessmentandmanagementbyself-control.

• Drucker developed the concept of knowledge worker in organisations. He identifiedseveralfactorsthatdetermineknowledgeworker’sproductivityandarguesthatmakingthemproductive requires changes in the attitudes of individualworkers aswell as theentireorganisation.

• ThecriticismsofDrucker’scontributionsincludesthejournalisticnatureofwork,failureto appreciate the different contexts of public administration, failure to recognise thelimitationsinapplicationofmarketapproachesingovernment,andfailuretodiscerntheactualtenorandtextureofpublicmanagement.

• Drucker throughhiswritingsonmanagement focusedon relationships amonghumanbeingsand theyprovide lessonsonhoworganisations canbringout thebest inpeopleandhowworkerscanfindasenseofcommunityanddignityinmodernsociety.ManyofhisideasformedthebasisforNewPublicManagement.

References1 Drucker, Peter F., “Reflections of a Social Ecologist”, Society, May-June, 1992. See

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peter_Drucker2 Drucker,PeterF.,Management–Tasks,Responsibilities,Practices,NewYork,Harper&Row,1973,p.3253 Gazell, James A., “Drucker on Effective Public Management” in Wood, John D. and Wood, Michael D., (Eds.), Peter

Drucker:CriticalEvaluationsinBusinessandManagement,NewYork,Rutledge,2005,p.325.

4 Gazell, James A., “Peter F. Drucker’s Vision in PublicManagement, 2000", International Journal of Public Administration,Vol.17,Nos.3&4,1994,p.675.

5 For details of Drucker’s life and career See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peter_Drucker;http://www.woopidoo.com/biography/peter-drucker/index.htm; http://www.peterdrucker.at/en/bio/bio_start.html;http://www.businessweek.com/magazine/content/05_48/b3961001.htm.

6 FordetailsofDrucker’swritingsandpublicationsseeCowan,RobertaA.,“AnAbbreviatedAnnotatedBibliography:PeterF(erdinand)Drucker1909-”, inWood,JohnD.andWood,MichaelD., (Eds.),op.cit.,pp.11-71.Thearticles includedinthe volume discuss various aspects of Drucker’s philosophy, ideas and influence in the realms of management andgovernment.SeealsoEdershien,ElizabethHaas,TheDefinitiveDrucker,NewYork,McGraw-Hill,2007,pp.271-73.OneofhisbooksTheEffectiveExecutive(1966)wasmadearequiredreadingbythethenSpeakeroftheHouseNewtGingrichforeverynewlysworn-inRepresentatives.

7 DruckerInstitute-TheDruckerLegacy,Quotedinhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peter_Drucker8 In 1954,however,Druckermaintained that though theother institutions suchas thegovernment and themilitaryhave

management,‘managementassuchisthemanagementofabusinessenterprise’anditsessenceiseconomicperformancewhich distinguishes management from business and other institutions. He also argued that the business skills andexperiencescannotbetransferredandappliedtootherinstitutions.Successinbusinessmanagementisnotapromiseoraguaranteeforsuccessingovernment.Acareerinmanagementisbyitselfnotapreparationforapoliticaloffice.Whataretransferable are administrative and analytical skills. Quoted in Garofalo, Charles, “Can Elephants Fly? Drucker andGovernmentalReform”,inWood,JohnD.andWood,MichaelD.,(Eds.),op.cit.,p.294

9 Drucker,PeterF.,ManagementChallengesforthe21stCentury,NewYork,HarperBusiness,2001,p.9.10 Ibid.,p.611 Ibid.12 Ibid.,pp.6-7.13 Ibid.p.714 Ibid.,p.815 Ibid.16 Woodrow Wilson, “The Study of Administration”, Political Science Quarterly, 1887, pp.216-219. For details see the

companionarticleonWoodrowWilsoninthisvolume.17 Gazell,JamesA.,“PeterF.Drucker’sVisioninPublicManagement,2000",op.cit.,pp.682-683.18 Gazell, James A., “Peter F. Drucker and Decentralised Administration of the Federal Government”, Administration &

Society,Vol.24.No.2,August,1992,p.203.19 Gazell,JamesA.,“PeterF.Drucker’sVisioninPublicManagement,2000",op.cit.,p.687.20 Drucker,PeterF.,TheNewRealities,Oxford,Butterworth-Heinemann,ClassicEdition,2000,p.170.21 PeterF.Drucker.,ManagementChallengesforthe21stCentury,op.cit.,pp.11-13.22 SeePeterF.Drucker,TheAgeofDiscontinuity:GuidelinestoOurChangingSociety,London,Heinemann,1969,pp.198-226.23 SeeGarofalo,Charles,op.cit.,p.295.24 Drucker,PeterF.,TheAgeofDiscontinuity:GuidelinestoOurChangingSociety,op.cit.,205.25 Garofalo,Charles,op.cit.,29626 Ibid.,294,27 SeeIbid.29628 Ibid.29 PeterF.Drucker,“TheDeadlySins inPublicAdministration”,PublicAdministrationReview,Vol. 40.No.2,March-April,

1980,pp.103-106.30 Ibid.,p.105.31 Gazell,JamesA.,“PeterF.DruckerandDecentralisedAdministrationoftheFederalGovernment”,op.cit.,p.185.32 Drucker,Peter,F.,“WhatResultsshouldyouExpect?AUser’sGuidetoMBO,”PublicAdministrationReview,Vol.36,No.1.

p.16.33 Drucker,PeterF.,TheFrontiersofManagement,NewYork,TrumanTalley,1986,p.335.34 SeeJamesA.Gazell,“PeterF.DruckerandDecentralisedAdministrationoftheFederalGovernment”,op.cit.,pp.187-192.35 Ibid.,pp.193-200.36 Ibid.,p.20137 Ibid.38 Gazell,JamesA.,“PeterF.Drucker’sVisioninPublicManagement,2000",op.cit.,p.689.

39 Drucker,Peter,F.,ManagingtheNon-ProfitOrganisation,Oxford,Butterworth-Heinemann,1990,p.xv.40 Gazell,JamesA.,“PeterF.Drucker’sVisioninPublicManagement,2000",op.cit.,pp.690-91.41 Peter F. Drucker, “Really Reinventing Government”, The Atlantic Online, See

http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/polibig/reallyre.htmRetrievedon20thOctober,200942 Ibid.43 Drucker,Peter,F.,ManagementChallengesforthe21stCentury,op.cit.,p.39.44 Ibid.,p.40.45 Drucker,Peter,F.,“ReallyReinventingGovernment”,op.cit.46 Ibid.47 Ibid.48 FordetailsseeGreenwood,RonaldG.,“ManagementbyObjectives:AsDevelopedbyPeterDrucker,AssistedbyHarold

Smiddy”,inWood,JohnD.andWood,MichaelD.,(Eds.),op.cit.,pp.153-174.49 Ibid.50 Drucker,Peter,F.,ThePracticeofManagement,London,Heinemann,1955,p.108.51 Ibid.,pp.108-109.52 Ibid.,111.53 Ibid.,117.54 Drucker,Peter,F.,ManagementChallengesforthe21stCentury,op.cit.,p.135.55 Drucker,Peter,F.,ManagingfortheFuture,Oxford,Butterworth-Heinemann,ClassicEdition,2000,p.23.56 Drucker,Peter,F.,ManagementChallengesforthe21stCentury,op.cit.,p.142.57 Ibid.,p.15658 Drucker,Peter,F.,ManaginginaTimeofGreatChange,Oxford,Butterworth-Heinemann,1995,p.77.59 ForadetailedcritiqueseeGarofalo,Charles,op.cit.;Guy,MaryE,.andHitchcock,JaniceR.,op.cit.60 QuotedinStuller,Jay,“TheGuruGame”,inWood,JohnD.andWood,MichaelD.,(Eds.),op.cit.p.188.61 Drucker, Peter F., Leading Management Guru, Dies at 95, Bloomberg, Nov 11, 2005, Quoted in

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peter_Drucker62 Guy,MaryE.,andHitchock,TaniceR.,“IfApplesareOranges:ThePublic/Non-profit/BusinessNexusinPeterDrucker’s

Work”inWood,JohnD.andWood,MichaelD.,(Eds.),op.cit.,pp.328and344.63 Ibid.,p.344.64 Halpern,David,andOsofsky,Stephen,“ADissentingViewofDrucker’sClassicalFormulationofMBO”,inWood,John

D.andWood,MichaelD.,(Eds.),op.cit.,p.175.65 QuotedinIbid.,p.18266 Ibid.,p.180.67 Krueger,Dale,“StrategicManagementandManagementbyObjectives”,SmallBusinessAdvancementNationalCenter,

1994,Quotedinhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peter_Drucker68 Garofalo,Charles,op.cit.,pp.300-301.69 Ibid.,p.30270 Ibid.,p.30471 Guy,MaryE.,andHitchock,JaniceR.,op.cit.,p.72 Hays, StevenW.,Russ-Sellers,Rebecca, “On theMarginsofPublicAdministration?:Aquasi-empirical analysis ofPeter

Drucker’sImpact”,JournalofManagementHistory,Vol.6,No.2,2000,pp.65-76.

M

21KARLMARXPrabhatKumarDatta

Introductionarxism, based on the writings of Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels, has a profoundinfluence on all social science disciplines. Marx is considered, along with Emile

DurkheimandMaxWeber,as the threeprincipalarchitectsofmodernsocial sciences.KarlMarx, a philosopher, economist, historian, political theorist, sociologist, communist, andrevolutionary unravelled the working of economic and political system within whichmodern organisations function. His ideas are the foundation of modern communism. NootherthinkerhasasmuchinfluenceasKarlMarxonthetwentiethcenturymind.Hisworksinspired the foundations of many regimes of the world. No debate on state, society andadministrationinsocialsciences,therefore,iscompletewithoutadiscussiononMarxandhisimpact.Outsidehis economic theories,Marx’smain contribution to the social scienceshasbeenhistheoryofhistoricalmaterialism.Hisconceptofhistoricalmaterialismisconsideredan attempt at unifying all social sciences into a single science of society. Human beingscannot survive without social organisation.1 In each mode of production, a given set ofrelationsofproductionconstitutes thebasis (infrastructure)onwhich iserectedacomplexsuperstructure,encompassingthestateandthelaw,ideology,religion,philosophy,thearts,morality, etc. His philosophy provides deeper insights into the working of modernorganisations.

Administrative organisation, of which bureaucracy is a part, is not just a twentiethcenturyphenomenon.ItexistedinelaborateformseventhousandsofyearsagoinEgyptandRome, and, in rather sophisticated forms, in China and India in ancient times. Incontemporarysociety,theinstitutionhasassumedaspecialdimension.Forsomewritersitisthisinstitutionthatepitomisesmodernera.

(1818-1883)

LifeandWorks

KarlHeinrichMarxwasbornonMay5,1818inthecityofTrierinWestGermany.Hestudiedat the University of Berlin where he was introduced to Hegelian philosophy. He waspoliticallyarebelliousstudent.InApril1841,hereceivedhisdoctoratefromtheUniversityofJena.HisthesisanalysedthedifferencebetweennaturalphilosophiesofDemocritusandEpicurus. In1848,hewent toPariswhereheparticipated in therevolutionand in1849hewasexpelledfromParis.HewenttoLondoninAugust1849,wherehestayedtillhisdeathonMarch 14, 1883.Marx authored several books includingCritique of Hegel’s Philosophy ofRight (1844), The Holy Family (1844) (with Fredrick Engels), Theses of Feuerbach (1845), TheGermanIdeology(withEngels),ThePovertyofPhilosophy(1847),TheCommunistManifesto(1848),Wage,LabourandCapital(1849),TheClassStrugglesinFrance (1850),TheEighteenthBrunaireofLouis Bonaparte (1850), A Contribution to the Critique of Political Economy (1859). The firstVolumeofCapital, hismost importantwork,which remained incompletedue to illhealth,waspublishedin1867.ThesecondandthirdvolumesofCapitalwererevisedandpublishedbyEngelsin1885and1894.

OriginsofBureaucracyInKarlMarx’sandFriedrichEngel’stheoryofhistoricalmaterialism,thehistoricaloriginofbureaucracyistobefoundinfoursources:religion,theformationofthestate,commerce,andtechnology.2 Thus, the earliest bureaucracies consisted of castes of religious clergy, officialsandscribesoperatingvariousrituals,andarmedfunctionariesspecificallydelegatedtokeeporder. In the historical transition fromprimitive egalitarian communities to a civil societydivided into social classes and estates, beginning fromabout 10,000years ago, authority isincreasinglycentralised,andenforcedbyastateapparatusexistingseparatelyfromsociety.The state formulates, imposes and enforces laws, and levies taxes, giving rise to anofficialdomenactingthesefunctions.Thus,thestatemediatesinconflictsamongthepeopleandkeepsthoseconflictswithinacceptablebounds;italsoorganisesthedefenseofterritory.Most importantly, the rightofordinarypeople tocarryanduseweaponsof forcebecomesincreasinglyrestricted;incivilsociety,forcingotherpeopletodothingsbecomesincreasinglythelegalrightofthestateauthoritiesonly.

But,thegrowthoftradeandcommerceaddsanewdimensiontobureaucracy,insofarasitrequiresthekeepingofaccountsandtheprocessing/recordingoftransactions,aswellastheenforcementof legal rulesgoverning trade. If resourcesare increasinglydistributedbyprices in markets, this requires extensive and complex systems of record-keeping,managementandcalculation,conformingtolegalstandards.Eventually,thismeansthatthetotalamountofworkinvolvedincommercialadministrationoutgrowsthetotalamountofwork involved in government administration. In modern capitalist society, private sectorbureaucracy is larger than government bureaucracy, if measured by the number ofadministrativeworkers in thedivision of labour as awhole. Some corporations nowadayshave a turnover larger than the national income of whole countries, with largeadministrationsupervisingoperations.

A fourth source of bureaucracy the Marxists have commented on inheres in thetechnologiesofmassproduction,whichrequiremanystandardisedroutinesandprocedures.Even if people are replaced by machines, people are still necessary to design, control,superviseandoperatethemachinery.Thetechnologieschosenmaynotbetheonesthatarebestforeverybody,butwhichcreateincomesforaparticularclassofpeopleormaintaintheir

power.Thistypeofbureaucracy,oftencalledatechnocracy,owesitspowertocontroloverspecialisedtechnicalknowledgeorcontrolovercriticalinformation.

BureaucracyasanExploitativeInstrumentKarlMarx looksuponbureaucracyasan integralpartof theexploitativesocial system.Heformed his theory of bureaucracy on the basis of his personal experience of themalfunctioningofstateadministrationatthetimeoftheMoselledistrictfamine.Hededucesthe notion of bureaucracy from the relationships existing between the power-holdinginstitutions and social groups subordinated to them. In an exploitative society like thecapitalist one, bureaucracy gets ingrained in the society and acts as a mechanism forperpetuationofexploitation.ForMarx,abolitionofthestatewillbeachievedinstitutionallybythedestructionofthebureaucraticapparatusandthebureaucraticdimensionofpoliticalreality provides a yardstick for the assessment of different political structures. Marxemphasisestheimportanceofunderstandingbureaucracybothfunctionallyandhistorically.Forhim,bureaucracyiscentraltotheunderstandingofthemodernstate.ItisgenerallyheldthatbureaucracyissubsumedinMarx’smacrotheorisationofthecapitaliststate.Sinceitisthepoliticalexpressionofthedivisionoflabourithastobeexplainednotonlyinfunctionalbutalsoinstructuralterms.HeusesallusionstoFeuerbach’stransformativecriticismstatingthat under bureaucracy the human subject becomes amere object ofmanipulation.What‘fetishismofcommodities’istoeconomics,bureaucracyistopolitics.

Marx never wrote on bureaucracy, as did Weber, although he did not overlook thesignificanceofbureaucracyinmodernsociety.Incidentally,aftertakingoverasChiefEditorofDieRheinischeZeitungMarxwrotearticles in thenewspaperson the freepressandstatecensorshipandonthelawofthetheftsofwoods.Hespokeoftherepressivecharacterofthebureaucracy’scensorshipofthepress.Heregardedcensorshipasabureaucraticinstrumentfor maintaining politics as a reserved domain of a particular class. Marx’s reflections onbureaucracywerefirstfoundinhisCritiqueofHegel’sPhilosophyofRightinwhichheviewedbureaucracy as the institutional incarnationofpolitical alienation. Since it institutionalisesthe inverted nature of the modern state, where everything, according to Marx, looksdifferentfromitstruecharacter,bureaucracycanbeabolishedonlywhenthestatebecomesthe real representative of general interest.AsMarx developed his concept of bureaucracythrough hisCritique of Hegel’s Philosophy of Right, it seems useful to briefly recall Hegel’sviewsonbureaucracyasabackdropforthestudyofKarlMarx’sapproachtobureaucracytogatherthethreadofMarx’sthoughtonbureaucracy.

Hegel’sUniversalisticEmphasisHegel,likeMarx,doesnotdealwithbureaucracyassuch.Theirinterestinbureaucracygrewout of their larger interest in the nature of the state. The state, for Hegel, is the lastdevelopmentinaseriesofrationalsocialorders,theothertwobeingthefamilyandthecivilsociety. Once the state is produced it is supposed to provide the grounds where theunconsciousandparticularlyorientedactivitiesbecomegraduallyself-consciousandpublicspirited.3ForHegel,theprince,thebureaucratsandthedeputiesoftheestatesarepoliticalactors’parexcellence.

Hegel finds in the society the existence of three classes viz., the agricultural class, thebusinessclass,andtheuniversalclass,eachofwhichreflectsthreemodesofconsciousness,conservatism, individualism and universalism respectively. He distinguishes between civilsocietyandthestateonthegroundthattheformerrepresentsthegeneral interestandthe

latter, theparticular interest.Bureaucracyplays the roleofa linkbetween thecivil societyandthestate.ItiswhatAvineri,whileexplainingHegel’sviews,hascalled“theparadigmofmeditation”4betweentheparticularandthegeneral,andbetweenthecivilsocietyandthestate.Hegelsaysthat“theuniversalclass(bureaucracy)has,foritstask,theuniversalinterestof thecommunity”.5Bureaucracy is a ‘universal estate’which sees to “themaintenanceofthegeneralstateinterestandoflegality”.Itistobementionedthatbureaucracyrepresentstheuniversalinterestnotbecauseofthenegativeuniversalityoftheirwants,butbecauseofthe positive universality of what they already have, the state itself. Hegel says that theuniversalclassshouldnotbemisunderstoodasthe‘unhappyconsciousness’sufferingfromasense of estrangement from its own product. They are, on the contrary, a ‘self-satisfiedconsciousness’whichunderstandsandacceptstheworldasworld.

RegulatoryMechanismHegelbelievesthattheuniversalinsightandwillarenotthepropertyofthebureaucratsasindividuals but of bureaucracy which is a system of relations defined by hierarchy andspecialisationplus a certain position in a large ensemble. The self-seeking orientation andinstabilityofthemiddleclassfromwhichthebureaucratsarerecruited,donotstandintheway of bureaucracy because on their recruitment they become a part of the bureaucraticsystem. They also submit themselves to a series of internal and external pressures whicheducatethemtothewillandknowledgeoftheuniversalinterest.Theinternalcontrolreferstothebureaucraticethoswhichistheresultofbureaucratichabitsplusthemotivationthataccompany the fulfillmentof thebureaucraticduties.6Theexternalmechanismsof controlincludecontrol fromaboveby theprinceaswellas frombelow in the formofgrievances,and petitions by corporations, free press and public opinion. ThusHegel has given us anoutlineofregulatorymechanismwhichhasagoodeffectonthebureaucrats.

Hegel was looking for a sphere which transcends private interests. Avineri says theHegel’s attempt is “similar to the Platonic Endeavour but while Plato tried to neutraliseGuardians totally from civil society by depriving them of family and private property,Hegel’ssolutionislessradical….”7ItisnecessarytomentionthatHegel’sattempttoprovideforchecksandbalancesindicatehisawarenessthatbureaucracymayviewitselfasowningthe state and encroach upon the rights of the people. He regards bureaucracy as “theembodiment of the ideas” and by virtue of its autonomy and independence,will act as abrakeonthecivilsocietyitselfandensurethatpublicpolicydoesnotbecomeareflectionofthe social society. Evidently, Hegel does not regard bureaucracy as a social categorywithdistinctivecharacteristics.HagedussaysthatHegelrefersto“theofficialsandfunctionariesasthosewhoactedonbehalfoftheenlightenedruler,or,later,onbehalfoftheconstitutionalmonarchy, the stateof reasons”.8 It seemsalso clear thatHegel explainsbureaucracy fromwhatmaybecalledtheWeberianperspectivebecausehe,likeWeber,associatessuchqualitiesasdispassionateness,uprightnessandpolitenesswithbureaucracy.

Hegel’sImpactonMarxTheHegelianconceptofbureaucracyrepresentingthegeneralinterestofthecommunityhasnot been accepted byMarx although he agrees with Hegel that the rational state shouldrepresentthegeneralinterestsofthecommunity.Buthefeelsthattheexistingstatedoesnotrepresent the general interest and for Marx, the prominence of bureaucracy may beattributedtoit.ItissignificanttonotethatHegel’snotionoftheuniversalclassinfluencedmanyearlywritingsofMarxinwhichheusestheterm‘proletariat’possessingthequalities

oftheuniversalclass.

EarlyFormulationsWhenMarxwasmaking a critical appraisal ofHegel’s theory of bureaucracy in 1843, thetermitselfdidnot figureprominently inseriouspoliticalwritings. It isMarxwhomustbecreditedwithattemptingananalysisofbureaucracy insubstantive terms, in thesenseofasocialcategory.Bureaucracy,inthesenseofarulingformationofsomekind,firstappearedinaGermanybookbyC.J.Krans(1808).Bytheterm‘bureaucratic’hemeantastratumwhichruledPrussia.IthadearlierbeenputtouseinaGermanperiodicalwithregardtotheFrenchRevolutionaryDevelopmentafter1879.TheBrochansEncyclopediaof1819recognisedit,andthe German publicist, J. J. Corres popularised the term in the 1820s. Young Marx wasreportedtohavebeenacquaintedwiththesewritings.

Marxcameoutwithhisfirstexplicitattackonbureaucracyin1843.Hecomplainedofthe‘presumptiousofficiousness’ofgovernmentofficialsand‘thecontradiction’betweentherealnatureoftheworldandthatascribedtoitinBiuros.Marxwasinterestedinexplaininghowbureaucracy emerged and drew its sustenance from the society and how it reflected theproductionrelationsatatimewhenitworked.Itwasnotthestructureofbureaucracybutitscontent that merited his attention. For Marx, bureaucracy is “a particular closed societywithinthestate”.TherearethreebasicelementsinMarx’sperceptionofstate.Firstly,stateisan organ of class domination. Secondly, its aim is to create an order which legalises andperpetuatestheoppressionofoneclassbymoderatingconflicts.Thirdly,stateisatemporaryphenomenon;itwillwitherawaywiththeabolitionofclasses.Bureaucracyreferstoalltheelements in the hierarchical system as outlined byHegel including the collegial advisoryboards.InMarx’susageitembracesboththesystemofadministrationandthepersonswhoarechargedwiththeimplementationofthatsystem.

ParasiticRoleofBureaucracyMarxconsiderstheobjectivepoliticalsystemastheproductoftheproducingactivitiesofthetotalityofmeninsociety.ItmayberecalledherethatinthePrefacetoAContributiontotheCritiqueofPoliticalEconomy(1859),MarxwrotethathewasconvincedfromhisearlyworkonthecritiqueofHegelthatlawandstatewereneitherautonomousnorweretheytheproductsofhumanmind.Itis“thematerialconditionsoflife”fromwhichlawandstateoriginate.Itisapplicabletotheprincewhosepositionistobeseenasaproduct,notofnature,butofsocialconsent,andtothebureaucracyandthestate.Itistheproductiveactivitywhichisofpivotalsignificance for human affairs.According toMarx, themode of production should not beviewed“simplyasreproductionofthephysicalexistenceofindividuals”.Toquotehim:

‘Ratheritisadefiniteformoftheiractivity,adefinitewayofexpressingtheirlife.Asindividualsexpresstheirlife,sotheyare.Whattheyare,therefore,coincideswithwhattheyproduceandhowtheyproduce.Thenatureofindividualsthusdependsonthematerialconditionswhichdeterminetheirproduction’.9

Marxbelieves that “the social structure and the state continually evolve out of the lifeprocess of definite individuals, but individuals not as they appear in their own or otherpeople’s imagination, but rather, as they really are….”10 The bearers of the relations ofproductionare social classes.Withineachmodeofproduction thereare two social classes,onewhich owns themeans of production, and the otherwhich does not. In class-society,Marxdeniesbureaucracy anorganicpositionbecause it is notdirectly connectedwith theproductionprocesses.He calls bureaucracy ‘parasites’ designed tomaintain status quo and

theprivilegesofthedominantsectionofthesociety.

Bureaucrat’sPrivateEndsState power plays the same role for the bureaucracy as the private property does forproperty-owning class. To quoteMarx, “bureaucracy holds in its essence of the state, thespiritual essence of the society, it is its private property.”11 It, to borrowMarx’s phrases,“constitutes the imaginarystatebesides the real state,and is the spiritualismof thestate”.Further, “In the case of individual bureaucrat, the state objective turns into his privateobjective,intochasingafterhigherposts,themakingofacareer”.12 ItmayberememberedhereforMarx,thestateisnot,aswithHegel,logicallypriorto,andethicallysuperiortoitsconstituentelements,thefamilyandcivilsociety.Itisanillusiontosupposethatthestatehasa universal character capable of harmonising the discordant elements of civil society andunitingthemonahigherlevel.InhisTheGermanIdeology,Marxtracestheoriginofthestatetogether with social institutions to the division of labour. In the course of history eachmethodofproductiongivesrisetoatypicalpoliticalorganisationfurtheringtheinterestsofthedominantclass.Thusthestate,asMarxwrites,“Istheforminwhichtheindividualsofarulingclassasserttheircommoninterests”.Marxconsidersbureaucracy,asaninstrumentofexploitation in thestate, tobe themain functionwhichconsists inexploiting theaffairsofthecommunityinsuchamannerastopromoteandsustainitsprivateends.Itdoesnotinstillpublicspiritinthesocialbodythroughitsinfluenceonanddialoguewiththecorporations.Itattemptsto‘privatise’thecivilsocietyasawhole.

TheDeliberateMysteriousnessInorder to achieve its objectiveof “privatising” the civil society, bureaucracypresents theaffairsofthestatetotheoutsidersinthegarbofsecrecy.AsMarxsays,“Thegeneralspiritofthebureaucracy is thesecret, themystery….”13 It is afraidof conducting theaffairsof thestate in public, and considers political consciousness “as treason against its mystery”.“Authority is the principle of its knowledge, and the deification of authoritarianism is itscredo,”14Marxadds.Themajorityofpeople lookatbureaucracywithaweandvenerationandasamysteriousanddistantentity.Thespiritofmysteryissafeguardedwithinitselfbyhierarchyandoutsideby itsnatureasa closedcorporation.Thus themassesgetalienated.Thebureaucratsalsodevelop in themasenseofalienationbecause theyfail tounderstandtheparasiticandoppressivenatureofthejob.

CharacteristicsofBureaucracyMarxhasputforwardsomeofthebasicfeaturesthatcharacterisethebureaucracyasdivisionoflabour,hierarchy,training,rules,etc.,whicharediscussed.

DivisionofLabourMarx agrees that thedivision of labourmakes the organisation of capitalist society highlyproductive. However, he points out that the basic division of labourwhichwe intend tooverlook is between ‘intellectual and material activity’. While the workers perform theproductive activity, the capitalists and bureaucrats perform only the intellectual activity.Hence,allthehardworkfallsontheworkersinthenameofdivisionoflabour.Further,thegainsofhigherproductivitygomostlytothecapitalistswhosharethesetosomeextentwiththebureaucracy,asindicatedbythebureaucracy’shighersalaries.Sofarastheworkersareconcerned, higher productivity tends to lead to higher unemployment among them, as it

happens when high technology is introduced. Increased unemployment tends to lowerwagesalso.Hence,increasedproductivityduetoheighteneddivisionoflabourmayleadtolittlegainfortheworkers.

HierarchyThe safeguards referred to by Hegel in the form of external and internal control do not,according to Marx, prevent bureaucracy from furthering private ambitions of individualcareerism.Thehierarchyofbureaucracyisahierarchyofknowledge.Theapexentruststhelowercircleswithinsightsintotheindividualwhilethelowercircleshaveinsightsintotheuniversaltotheapex.ToquoteMarx:

‘Thebureaucracyisacirclefromwhichnoonecanescape.Itshierarchyisahierarchyofknowledge-thetopentruststheunderstandingof the lower levels,whilst the lower levels credit the topwithunderstandingof thegeneral, and so, allareamutuallydeceived’.15

The hierarchical structure of bureaucracy is no safeguard because “the oppositionist isitself tiedhandandfeet….where is theprotectionagainst thebureaucracy?”Further, tobesure that lesser evil (bureaucratic abuse) is abolished by greater (hierarchy) in so far as itdisappears tomakeway for it,16Marx rejects theview that any safeguard canbemade todependonthehumanqualitiesoftheofficialsthemselves.Heobserves:“Thehumanbeingastheofficialwillprotecttheofficialagainsthimself:Whataunitythatis!”17

TrainingHegelarguesthatliberaleducationhumanisescivilservants.However,Marxmaintainsthatthemechanicalcharacterofacivilservant’sworkandthecompulsionsofofficeleadtohisdehumanisation. Marx is also critical of the recruitment of members of the bureaucracythrough competitive examinations. He says that members of a bureaucracy needstatesmanshipwhichcannotbetestedthroughanexamination:“OnedoesnothearthattheGreekorRomanstatesmenpassedexaminations.”

Marx’sclassanalysiswouldindicatethatthemainfunctionofexaminationsistoensurethatonlypersonsoftheupperclasswhocanaffordthecostlyhighereducationareabletoenter the bureaucracy. Apart from being costly, higher education inculcates values andattitudeswhicharesupportiveofcapitalism.Highereducationtendstocreatesocialdistancebetweentherichandthepoor;highlyeducatedpeoplegenerallythinktheyareaclassapart.Hence, if ahighlyeducatedperson isappointedasamanager, theexploitationofworkersdoesnothurthim.

RulesMarxpoints out those bureaucraticminds that are so bound in subordination andpassiveobediencethattheycometothinkthatadherencetorulesisanendinitself,andnotmerelyameans to an end. They come to attach more importance to rules than to human beings.“Actualknowledgeseemsdevoidofcontent,justassociallifeseemsdead.”

TheoryofAlienation

Marx’s,TheoryofAlienation18isthecontentionthatinmodernindustrialproductionundercapitalistconditionsworkerswillinevitablylosecontroloftheirlivesbylosingcontrolovertheirwork.Workersthusceasetobeautonomousbeingsinanysignificantsense.Underpre-capitalistconditionsablacksmith,e.g.,orashoemakerwouldownhisownshop,sethisownhours,determinehisownworkingconditions,shapehisownproduct,andhavesomesayin

howhisproductisbarteredorsold.Hisrelationshipswiththepeoplewithwhomheworkedand dealt had amore or less personal character. Under the conditions ofmodern factoryproduction,by contrast, the averageworker isnotmuchmore thana replaceable cog in agigantic and impersonal production apparatus.Where armies of hired operatives performmonotonous and closely supervised tasks, workers have essentially lost control over theprocessofproduction,overtheproductswhichtheyproduce,andovertherelationshipstheyhavewitheachother.Asaconsequencetheyhavebecomeestrangedfromtheirveryhumannature,whichMarxunderstoodtobefreeandproductiveactivity.Humanbeingscannotbehumanunder these conditions, and for this reason the implicationwas obvious forMarx:capitalismhastobeabolishedasmuchasanypoliticaloppressionifasociety’semancipationis to be complete. Capitalism is just as incompatible with self-determination as absolutemonarchyor anyother autocratic system.Butwhile an absolutemonarchy limitspeople’sautonomy by controlling them in the sphere of politics, capitalism does so by controllingtheirworkplacesandtheireconomiclife.Asocietyoftrulyfreecitizens,accordingtoMarx,must,therefore,notonlybeapolitical,butalsoaneconomicandsocialdemocracy.

Themostbasicformofworkers’alienationistheirestrangementfromtheprocessoftheirwork.Anartist,unlikeanindustrialworker,typicallyworksunderhisorherowndirection;artistsareintotalcontroloftheirwork.Thatiswhyartistsusuallydonotmindworkinglonghours and even under adverse conditions, because their creative work is inherentlymeaningful,andanexpressionoftheirmostpersonaldesiresandintuitions.Eventhetypicalmedievalartisan,althoughmorecloselymotivatedbyeconomicneeds,usuallyworkedasarelativelyindependentperson—controllinghisownshopanduptoapointchoosinghisownprojects.

Themarxistconceptofalienationappliesequallytotheproletariatandthebureaucracy.AccordingtoMarx,alienationhasfourmainaspectswhenitcomestoadministrativetheory:lossoffreedom,lossofcreativity,lossofhumanityandlossofmorality.

LossofFreedomWhereverthereisexploitation,theexploitersaswellastheexploitedsufferfromalienation.Therefore, all the members of the organisation suffer from alienation. Thus workers areundercompulsiontotakeupjobs;theycannolongerfunctionasindependentartisans.Oncetheyhaveacceptedthejobs,theyareundertheauthoritariancommandofthemanagement.They are coerced, controlled and threatened with punishment. The managers also sufferfromalienationsince theyare themselvesemployees.Thecapitalistalso loseshis freedom.Marxsaysthatthecapitalistisnotfreetoeat,drink,buybooksorgotothetheatre,oreventothink, love, theorise, sing, paint, etc., as hewishes.He is constrained by the nature of hisbusiness.

LossofCreativityThenatureofbureaucracyinterfereswiththecreativityofitsmembers.Suchinterferenceissometimes called a dysfunction. Thus division of labour interferes with creativity and noworkerproducesthewholeproduct.Hewillhavenojobsatisfaction.Hierarchyalsohastheresultthatnoworkercansaythatheindependentlyproducedanything.Theworkerhimselfbecomesameretool.Rulesensurethatworkersareallthetimeunderdetailedcontrol.Theadministrator also loses his creativity. For this reason alone, the administration in publicadministration is anonymous. Even policy-making has to be done jointly. Even if anadministratorisresponsiblefordrawingupacertainpolicy,hecannottakecreditforit.

LossofHumanityInmodernlarge-scaleorganisations,workerstendtofunctionlikemachines,therebylosingtheir humanity. Due to division of labour most of them have no part in deciding theobjectives of the organisation. The office is also structured like a bigmachine and suffersfrom lackofhumanity.Themanagersare ina similar situation, for, theyarealsopartofamachine-like structure. Human values do not play any role in the functioning ofbureaucracy.

LossofMoralityAccordingtoMarx,lossoffreedomandhumanitynecessarilyleadstolossofmorality.Thus,itisimmoraltotakeawaythefreedomofworkersandconvertthemintonearanimals.Lossofcreativityalsoleadstoimmorality.Ifengineersordoctorsaremoreinterestedinmakingmoney than in building safe bridges or in curing patients they become immoral. Loss ofhumanity,inthesenseofbeinginsensitivetothesufferingofothers,iscertainlyunethical.

Proletariat’sAlienationfromBureaucracyToMarx, bureaucracy symbolises alienation for the toilingmasses.This alienationhas twoimplications. In the first place, it implies that the abolition of the state precedes thedestruction of the bureaucratic apparatus. In The Eighteenth Brumaire, Marx suggests thatunlike the previous revolutions that had wrestled against the control of bureaucracy, theproletariatmustsmashtheinstitutionitself.IntheManifesto,MarxandEngelsobservethatitistheteachingofthecommunethat“theworkingclasscannotsimplylayholdoftheready–madestatemachineryandwielditforitsownpurposes”.19Secondly,itimpliesthatitistheextentofbureaucratisationwhichdeterminestheamountofviolencerequiredtooverthrowthepoliticalsystemofagivensociety.InthebureaucraticcountriesofEurope,Marxwrites,“the task of the proletarian revolution will be, no longer, as before, to transfer thebureaucraticmachinefromonehandtoanother,buttosmashit”.20

MarxdoesnotagreewithHegelthatbureaucracyhasthewilloftheuniversalthatothergroups lack.Perez-Diaj sumsupMarx’sviews:“Hierarchicaland functionaldifferentiationresults in amere juxtaposition andmutual enforcement of incompetence, of the superiorwhodoesnotknowthespecificsofthecase,oftheinferiorwhodoesnotknowthegeneralprinciples of everyone, who does not get a lack of the ensemble of the situation”.21 Theexternal relations of bureaucracy are often intrinsic and conflictual in nature. It has acorporate particular interest to defend against other particular corporations and classes ofsociety and other political forces of similar character. In order to prove his thesis thatbureaucracy lacks both the spirit and will of the universal, Marx argued that insidebureaucracythemanipulationofinformationandotherresourcesaredoneinsuchamannerthat they can be used for the realisation of private ambitions and promote individualcareerism.

DispersedPeasantryasaBaseforBureaucracy’sGrowthThedispersed peasantry, forMarx, forms the ideal soil for the growth of bureaucracy.Hesays:

‘Byitsnature,smallholdingpropertyformsastablebasisforanall-powerfulandinnumerablebureaucracy.Itcreatesauniform level of relationships andpersonsover thewhole surface of the land.Hence, it alsopermits auniformactionfromasupremecentreonallpointsofthisuniformmass.Itannihilatesthearistocraticintermediategradesbetweenthemassofthepeopleandthestatepower.Onallsides,therefore,itcallsforthedirectinterferenceofthisstatepowerandtheinterpositionofitsintermediateorgans.Finally,itproducesanunemployedsurpluspopulationforwhichthereisno

placeeitheronthelandorinthetowns,andwhichaccordinglyreachesoutforstateofficesasasortofrespectablealms,andprovokesthecreationofstateposts’.22

InThe Eighteenth Brumaire of Louis Bonaparte (1852), Marx explained that in France thesuitablebase forbureaucracywasprovidedby themassofsmallpeasantholders.As therewere no intermediate grades between it and the government, direct interference of statepowerwas called forth.Hewrote that Louis Bonapartewas “forced to create an artificialcasteforwhichthemaintenanceofhisregimebecomesabread-and-butterquestion.”23HefurtheraddedthatBonapartismwas“theonlyformofgovernmentpossibleatatimewhenthebourgeoisiehadalready lost,andtheworkingclasshadnotyetacquiredthefacultyofruling the nation.”24 Under Louis Napoleon, owing to the weakness of the bourgeoisie,bureaucracywasabletocontrolthestatebeingmorethanamatchfortheisolatedpeasantrythat formed the basis of Bonaparte’s power. Bonaparte represents a class - the mostnumerousclassofFrenchsmallholdingproperty.

EventualWitheringAwayofBureaucracyMarxisoftheopinionthatthesocietybornoutoftheproletarianrevolutionwilldowithoutbureaucracy.Forhim,“theabolitionofbureaucracy isonlypossibleby thegeneral interestactually-andnot,aswithHegel,merelyinthought,inabstraction–becomingtheparticularinterestwhich, in turn, is onlypossible as a result of theparticular actually becoming thegeneral interest.”25With theendof thestate thenatureof thestate functionsundergoesacomplete change. Marx wrote: “As soon as the goal of the proletarian movement, theabolitionofclasses,shallhavereached,thepowerofthestate,whosefunctionsistokeepthegreat majority of producers beneath the yoke of a small minority of exploiters, willdisappear, and governmental functions will be transformed into simple administrativefunctions.”26

Itshouldbemadeclear that thedemolitionofstatedoesnotconflictwith theneedforcentralisation in a proletarian state. Centralisation is the chief feature of the new state.Elaboratingtheidea,Marxwrote:“Theproletariatwilluseitspoliticalsupremacytowrest,bydegrees,allcapitalfromthebourgeoisie,tocentraliseallinstrumentsofproductioninthehands of the state….”27 That there is no contradiction between centralisation and statedestructionhasbeenmadeclearbyMarxinTheEighteenthBrumairewhenheobservedthat‘Thedemolitionof the statemachinewillnotendanger centralisation.Bureaucracy isonlythe low and brutal form of a centralisation that is still afflicted with its opposite, withfeudalism’.28

BureaucracyinaTransitionalStateInatransitionalstatethecharacterandroleofthepublicfunctionarieswillundergoaradicalchange.Theywouldfirstbebroughtunderthecontroloftheproletariat,andthereafter,ofthewholepeople. InhisTheCivilWar inFrance,whichMarxwrote immediately followingthebloodysupersessionoftherisinginParisagainsttheprovisionalGovernmentknownastheParisCommune,hetriedtopaintthepictureofthetransitionalstate.TheCommunewastobetheformofalocalgovernmentfromthegreatindustrialcentre’sdowntothesmallestvillagehamlet.Marxsays,“Thefewandthe important functionswhichwouldstill remainfor a central government were not to be suppressed…but were to be discharged bycommunaland,therefore,strictlyresponsibleagents.”29Theofficialsinthetransitionalstate

would consist of workers and their representatives who would be elected by universalsuffrage andwho couldbe removedat any time.Marxopined that thesemeasureswouldgive a death blow to “the delusion as if administration and political governing weremysteries, transcendent functions only to be entrusted to the hands of a trained caste ofparasites, richly paid sycophants and sinecurists…doing away with the state hierarchyaltogether,andreplacingthehaughteousmastersofthepeoplealwaysremovableservants,amock responsibility by a real responsibility as they act continuously under publicsupervisions.”30Theadministrativefunctionarieswillsurvivethetransitiontosocialism.But“from the member of the Commune downwards the public service had to be done atworkman’s wages. The vested interests and the representation allowances of the highdignitariesofstatedisappearedalongwithhighdignitariesthemselves.”31

MaterialisticInterpretationofHistoryFromtheforegoinganalysisitisclearthatMarx’sanalysisofbureaucracyrestsonhistheoryof materialist interpretation of history. In his search for finding out the content ofbureaucracy,henoticedthat“inbureaucracytheidentityoftheinterestsofthestateandoftheparticularprivatepurpose is toestablish that the interestsof statebecomeaparticularprivate purpose confronting other private purposes.”32 Andrus Hagedus finds in Marx’stheory an excellent demonstration of the dialectical relationship between ownership andproperty.Hepointsout:

‘Propertyownershipasahistoricallyevolved,definedandsubstantivesystemofrelationsofproductioncreatesautomaticorpersonalrelationshiptotheenforcementof thepropertyrightsof the individuals. Institutionsofstateadministrationdevelop historically in a wide variety of social and economic forms within which power relationships not directlyconnectedtotheprivatepropertyofindividualstakeontheappearanceofrealpower’.33

It is of interest to note here that the miseryMarx experienced during his visit to theMoselle district as a newspaper reporter had opened youngMarx’s eyes to the reality ofbureaucraticworking.Marxobserved:

‘Due to bureaucratic essence the administration was unable to grasp the reasons for the misery in the spheres ofadministration, and could only see the reasons in the spheres of nature and private citizens outside the sphere ofadministration. Even with the best of intentions, devout humanism, and the utmost intelligence, the administrativeauthorities were unable to do more than solve the instantaneous and transitory conflicts, and were incapable ofeliminating the permanent conflicts between reality and principles of administration partly because even the bestintentions were bound to fail in breaking through a substantive relation, or in other words, destiny. The substantiverelationshipwas, in otherwords, bureaucratic relations bothwithin the body of administration, and in respect of thebodymanaged.’34

Weber’sRationalandMarx’sClassApproachestoBureaucracyWeberconcludedthatallnewlarge-scaleorganisationsweresimilar.Eachwasabureaucracy.Weber’s purposewas todefine the essential features of neworganisations and to indicatewhy these organisationsworked somuch better than traditional ones.Weber emphasisedthat bureaucratic organisations were an attempt to subdue human affairs to the rule ofreason to make it possible to conduct the business of the organisation “according tocalculablerules”.Forpeoplewhodevelopedmodernorganisations,thepurposewastofindrational solutions to the new problems of size. Weber saw bureaucracy as the rationalproduct of social engineering, just as themachines of the Industrial Revolutionwere therationalproductsofmechanicalengineering.Hewrote:

“Thedecisivereasonfor theadvanceofbureaucraticorganisationhasalwaysbeen itspurely technicalsuperiorityoveranyformerorganisation.Thefullydevelopedbureaucraticmechanismcompareswithotherorganisationsexactlyasdoes

themachinewithnon-mechanicalmodesofproduction.”35

ForWeberthetermbureaucracywasinseparablefromthetermrationalityandcalleditthe“rational bureaucracy.” The features developed to make bureaucracies rational includefunctional specialisation, clear lines of hierarchical authority, expert training ofmanagers,and decision-making based on rules and tactics developed to guarantee consistent andeffective pursuit of organisational goals. Weber noted additional features of rationalbureaucraciesareextensionsofthesefour.Toensureexpertmanagement,appointmentandpromotions are based on merit rather than favoritism, and those appointed treat theirpositions as full-time, primary careers. To ensure order in decision-making, business isconducted primarily through written rules records, and communications. Hierarchicalauthorityisrequiredinbureaucraciessothathighlytrainedexpertscanbeproperlyusedasmanagers.Itdoeslittlegoodtotrainsomeonetooperateastockyard,forexample,andthenhave thatmanager receiveorders fromsomeonewhose training is inadvertising.Rationalbureaucraciescanbeoperated,Weberargued,onlybydeployingmanagersatalllevelsthathavebeenselectedandtrainedfortheirspecificjobs.Thepersonsselectedfortoppositionsin bureaucracies are often rotated through many divisions of the organisation to gainfirsthandexperienceofthemanyproblemsthattheirfuturesubordinatesmustface.

Incontrast,KarlMarxadoptedthe“class”approachtowardsbureaucracyandfounditsoriginsinthesocialdivisionsofthesociety.Hesaid:“Thebureaucracyisacirclefromwhichone cannot escape. Its hierarchy is a hierarchy of knowledge. The top entrusts theunderstanding of detail to the lower levels, whilst the lower levels credit the top withunderstandingofthegeneral,andsoallaremutuallydeceived.”

ToMarx, bureaucracy is not an independent social category. It dependsdirectly on theseparationbetweencivilsocietyandthestateanditrestsontheexistenceofdivisionwithincivilsociety,ofcorporations,eachconcernedwithitsparticularinterest.Theexaminationbywhichthebureaucratsarerecruiteddoesnotrepresent‘mediation’betweencivilsocietyandstate,buttheseparationfromcivilsocietyofmenandtheiractivitiesforthecommongoodandtheir transfer toanothersphere, thatof thestate.36Marxsaysthat“theexaminationisnothing but the bureaucratic baptism of knowledge”. This second relationship is acomplicatedone.Marxhas adduced twogrounds in order to explain the complicated andintricate nature of the second relationship. In the first place, bureaucracy looks upon theothercorporationsasrivalsandfightsagainstthem.Secondly,itpresupposestheexistenceofcorporations,oratleast,“thespiritofcorporations”,37forlikethemitseekssimplytoserveitsparticularinterests.

ConclusionMarx’s theory of bureaucracy has tremendous sociological, political and economicsignificance.Avineripointsoutthat“thebureaucraticstructuresdonotautomaticallyreflectprevailing social power but pervert and disfigure them. Bureaucracy is the image of theprevailing social power distorted by its claim to universality.”38Marx does not look uponbureaucracy as an apparatus of themodern state detached from, and independent of, thestate.ForMarx,asHalDraperexplains,bureaucracy“isnotamereaccretion…notsimplyanunfortunate tumor on the otherwise sound body of the state, but rather inherent in andinseparable from the very existence of the state.”39 The political significance of Marx’sconcept of bureaucracy lies in itsmessage for the proletariat.Marxwas not interested ininterpretingtheworldbutinchangingit.And,hebelievesinviolentoverthrowofthestate

machinery. The amount of violence required to bring about a revolution should bedeterminedbythestrengthofthemilitaryandbureaucraticapparatusofthestate.Thusitisaprimetaskonthepartoftheproletariattoundertakeaseriousappraisalofthenatureandstrengthofbureaucracyinanoppressivestate.

InBrief• KarlMarx(1818-1883),aradicalphilosopher,hashadandcontinuestohavetremendous

influenceonrevolutionarymovementsacrosstheworld.Thebodyofthoughtandbeliefs,knownasMarxism,arebasedonthewritingsofMarxandEngels.Marx’sclassanalysisofstateandbureaucracyprovidesanalternativeviewofnatureandtheroleofbureaucracy.

• Marxexaminedbureaucracyintheoverallanalysisofthenatureofstateandconsideredbureaucracy as ‘a particular closed society within the state’. There are three basicelements in Marx’s perception of state. Firstly, state is an organ of class domination.Secondly,itsaimistocreateanorderwhichlegalisesandperpetuatestheoppressionofone class by moderating conflicts. Thirdly, state is a temporary phenomenon; it willwitherawaywiththeabolitionofclasses.Theroleofbureaucracyhastobeunderstoodinthecontextoftheseformulationsonstateandhismaterialisticinterpretationofhistory.

• Marxwas critical ofHegels’ characterisation of bureaucracy as a ‘universal class’ andlookedatitasanintegralpartoftheexploitativesocialsystem.HetracedtheoriginsofbureaucracytosocialdivisionsunlikeHegelwhoconsideredbureaucracyasafunctionalimperative.

• Marxelaboratedthepartisanroleofbureaucracyinaclasssociety.Hecallsbureaucrats‘parasites’designedtomaintainstatusquoandtheprivilegesofthedominantsectionsofthe society.ToMarx statepowerplays the samerole for thebureaucracyas theprivatepropertydoesforthepropertyowningclass.

• To Marx, bureaucracy symbolises the alienation of the masses and says that whatfetishism of commodities is to masses, bureaucracy is to politics. Marx is critical ofhierarchyandsecrecyinadministrationandconsidersthemastoolsofincompetenceandmassexploitation.

• In The Eighteenth Brumaire of Louis Bonaparte, Marx explained the social base ofbureaucracy in France. He considered that the small holding property owners haveprovidedthestablebasisofallpowerfulandinnumerablebureaucracyunderNapoleon.

• Marx discussed the nature of bureaucracy in a transitional state, particularly in thecontextofParisCommune.Recognisingtheneedforadministrativefunctionariesinthetransition to socialism,Marx visualised that theywill function underworkers’ controlwithworkers’wages.

• Marx’sviewsonbureaucracyarecriticisedforfailuretorecognisetherelativeautonomyofbureaucracyindemocraticsocieties.Hisviewsonmaterialisticinterpretationofhistoryand nature of state,which are the basis for his propositions on bureaucracy,were alsocriticised.

• Marx’s viewsprovidedeeper insights into thedysfunctions of bureaucracy.Hismacroanalysis of social formations and transformations is of immense help in the study ofadministrativesystemsinabroadercanvas.

References1 Mandel,Ernest,AnIntroductiontoMarxistEconomicTheory,(2ndedition),NewYork,PathfinderPress,1974,p.9.

2 Draper,Hal,KarlMarx’sTheoryofRevolution,Vol.1:StateandBureaucracy,NewYork,MonthlyReviewPress,1979.3 Fordetailssee,Hegel,G.W.F.,PhilosophyofRight,tr.Knox,London:OxfordUniversityPress,1967,paras256and159.4 Avineri,S.,TheSocialandPoliticalThoughtofKarlMarx,London:CambridgeUniversityPress,1968,p.23.5 Fordetailssee,Hegel,G.W.F.,op.cit.,Para205.6 Ibid.,p.301.7 Avineri,S.,Hegel’sTheoryofModernState,Oxford:OxfordUniversityPress,1972,p.161.8 Hagedus,A.,SocialismandBureaucracy,London:AllisonandBusby,1976,p.11.9 McLellan,D.,KarlMarx:SelectedWritings(hereinaftercitedasKMSW),Oxford:OxfordUniversityPress,1967,p.160.10 Marx,Karl&Engels,Frederich,GermanIdeology,ElectricBookCompany,2001,p.11111 McLellan,D.,KarlMarx:SelectedWritings,op.cit.,p.31.12 Sayer,Derek,Capitalism&Modernity:AnExcursusonMarxandWeber,Routledge,NewYork,1991,p.87-10113 Ibid.,p.46.14 QuotedbyAvineri,S.,op.cit.,p.24.15 McLellan,D.,KarlMarx:SelectedWritings,op.cit.,,p.31.16 Marx,Karl,CritiqueofHegel’sPhilosophyofRight,1843, (Source:www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1843/critique-

hpr/ch03.html)17 Ibid.18 Itwas not until the 20th century that scholars found an unpublished study byMarx calledEconomic and Philosophical

Manuscripts of 1844. This study consists of somewhat unorganised, difficult to read, but highly insightful notes whichMarx jotteddownwhilegiving a first reading to the classical economists as ayoungman.The studyhas sincegainedprominencebecause in itMarxformulatedmoreor lessexplicitlyhisTheoryofAlienation—hisanalysisofhowpeopleareboundtobecomeestrangedfromthemselvesandeachotherundertheconditionsofcapitalistindustrialproduction.This Theory of Alienation is often considered the philosophical underpinning for his later more technical critique ofcapitalismasaneconomicsystem.

19 Marx,Karl&Engels,Frederich,SelectedWorks,Moscow:ProgressPublishers,1970,p.30.20 Marx,Karl&Engels,Frederich,SelectedCorrespondence,Moscow:ProgressPublishers,1955,p.262.21 Perez-Diaj, V., State Bureaucracy and Civil Society: A Critical Discussion of the Political Theory of Karl Marx, London:

Macmillan,1978,p.30.22 Marx,Karl&Engels,Frederich,SelectedWorks,p.174.23 Feur, L. S., (Ed.),Marx and Engels, BasicWritings on Politics and Philosophy, p. 343, cited by Cited in Albrow, Martin,

Bureaucracy,London,Macmillan,1970,p.71.24 McLellan,D.,op.cit.p.539.25 Marx,Karl&Engels,Frederich,CollectedWorks,p.175.26 QuotedbyKrygier,M., inhis“SaintSimon,MarxandtheNon-governedSociety”, inE.Kamenka,ed.,Bureaucracy:The

CareerofaConcept(London:ArnoldHeinemann,1979),p.vi.27 McLellan,D.,op.cit.p.237.28 Marx, Karl, “The Eighteenth Brumaire of Louis Bonaparte,” Die Revolution, Vol.1. No.1, New York, 1852, source:

www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1852/18th-brumaire/notes.htm#n6429 Ibid.,p.228.30 www.marx.org/archive/marx/works/1871/civil-war-france/drafts/ch01.htm31 McLellan,D.,op.cit.p.541.32 CitedinAlbrow,Martin,Bureaucracy,London,Macmillan,1970,p.69.33 Marx, Karl, Economic and Philosophic Manuscripts, 1844, Source:

www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1844/manuscripts/comm.htm34 Ibid,pp.11-12.35 RodneyStark,“TheOrganizationalAge,”inSociology,3rdEdition,CengageLearning,1996.36 Marx,Karl,CritiqueofHegel’sPhilosophyofRight,Ed.J.O’Malley(London:CambridgeUniversityPress,1970),p.51.37 Marx,Karl&Engels,Frederich,CollectedWorks,Vol.3(Moscow:ProgressPublishers,1975),p.45.38 Avineri,S.,TheSocialandPoliticalThoughtofKarlMarx,p.51.39 Draper,Hal,op.cit.,p.184.

SelectBibliography

BooksAlbrow,Martin,Bureaucracy,London,Macmillan,1970.Argyris,Chris,TheApplicabilityofOrganizationalSociology,Cambridge,England,CambridgeUniversityPress,1972.......ManagementandOrganizationalDevelopment:ThePathfromXAtoYB,NewYork,McGraw-Hill,1971.......OrganizationandInnovation,Homeword,III:Irwin,1965.......IntegratingtheIndividualandtheOrganisation;NewYorkWiley,1964.IntegratingtheIndividualandtheOrganization,NewYork,Wiley,1964.......InterpersonalCompetenceandOrganizationalEffectiveness,Homewood,III,DorseyPressandRichardD.Irwin,Inc.,1962.......InterpersonalCompetenceandOrganizationBehaviour,London,TavistockPublication,DorseyPress,1962.......UnderstandingOrganisationalBehaviour,Homewood,III,Dorsey,1960.......PersonalityandOrganization,NewYork,HarperandRow,1957.......andDonald,A.Schon.,OrganizationalLearning:ATheoryofActionPerspectiveness,Reading,Mass:Addison-Wesley,1978.......TheoryinPractice:IncreasingProfessionalEffectiveness;London,JosseyBassPublishers,1974.Arora,RameshK.(Ed.),AdministrativeTheory,NewDelhi,IndianInstituteofPublicAdministration,1984.......(Ed.).PerspectivesinAdministrationTheoryNewDelhi,AssociatedPublishingHouse,1979.......ComparativePublicAdministration:AnEcologicalApproach,NewDelhi,AssociatedPublishingHouse,1972.Augier,MieandMarch,JamesG.,ModelsofMan:EssaysinMemoryofHerbertA.Simon,MITPress,2004Avineri,S.,TheSocialandPoliticalThoughtofKarlMarx,London:CambridgeUniversityPress,1968.......,Hegel’sTheoryofModernState,Oxford:OxfordUniversityPress,1972Baker,R.J.S.,AdministrativeTheoryandPublicAdministration,London,HutchinsonUniversityLibrary,1972.Barnard,ChesterI.,TheFunctionsoftheExecutive,Cambridge,Mass,HarvardUniversityPress,1938.......OrganisationandManagement,Cambridge,Massachusetts,HarvardUniversityPress,1948.Bedeian, Arthur G., The Administrative Writings of Henri Fayol: A Bibliographic Investigation, MonticeIllo, III: Vane

Bibliographies,1979.Bendix,Reinhard,MaxWeber-AnIntellectualPortrait,GardenCity,NewYork,Doubleday,1960.Bennis,WarrenG.,ChangingOrganizations: Essays on theDevelopment and Evolution of theHumanOrganizations,NewYork,

McGraw-HillBookCompany,1966.......OrganizationDevelopment:ItsNature,OriginsandProspects,Reading,Mass,Addison-WesleyPublishingCompany,1969....... Beyond Bureaucracy: Essays on the Development and Evolution of Human Organizations, New York, McGraw-Hill Book

Company,1973.Blau,Peter,M.,BureaucracyinModernSociety,NewYork,RandomHouse,1962.......TheDynamicsofBureaucracy,Chicago,UniversityofChicagoPress,1955.Bragden,HenryW.,WoodrowWilson:TheAcademicYears,Cambridge,Massachusetts,HarvardUniversityPress,1967.Brodie,M.B.,FayolonAdministration,London,Lyon,GrantandGreen,1967.Brown,Douglas,J.,TheHumanNatureofOrganization,NewYork,Amacom,135W.50thSt.,1973.Caiden,GeraldE.,TheDynamicsofPublicAdministration:GuidelinestoCurrentTransformationsinTheoryandPractice,NewYork,

Holt.RinehartandWinston,Inc.,1971.Charlesworth, James C., (Ed.), Theory and Practice of Public Administration : Scope, Objectives, and Methods, Philadelphia,

AmericanAcademyofPoliticalandSocialSciences,1968.Crainer,Stuart,KeyManagementIdeas:ThinkersthatChangedtheManagementWorld,,London,FinancialTimes,1998.Dale,Ermest,Management:TheoryandPractice,NewYork,McGraw-HlllBookCompany,1965.Downs,Anthony,InsideBureaucracy,Boston,LittleBrown,1967.Dror,Yehezkel,Policy-makingUnderAdversity,NewBrunswick,TransactionBooks,1985.......PublicPolicy-makingRe-examined,(NewEd.)NewBrunswick,NJ,TransactionsBooks,1983.......VenturesinPolicySciences:ConceptsandApplications,NewYork,AmericanElsevierPublishingCompanyInc.,1971.......DesignforPolicySciences,NewYork,AmericanElsevierPublishingCompany,Inc.,1971.Drucker,Peter,F.,ManagementChallengesforthe21stCentury,NewYork,HarperBusiness,2001.......Management:Tasks,Responsibilities,Practices,Bombay,AlliedPublishers,]975.......AgeofDiscontinuity,NewYork,HarperandBrothers,1968.

......ThePracticeofManagement,.London,MercuryBooks,1965.Dubin,Robert,HumanRelationsinAdministration,EnglewoodCliffsPrentice-Hall,1951.Etizioni,Amitai.,(Ed),ReadingsonModernOrganizations,EnglewoodCliffs,Prentice-Hall,1969.......ModernOrganizations,EnglewoodCliffs,Prentice-Hall,1964.......ComplexOrganizations,NewYork,Ho]t,RinehartandWinston,1962.Fayol,Henri.,GeneralandIndustrialManagement,London,IsaacPitman,1957.Follett,MaryP.,CreativeExperience,London,LongmansGreen,1924.......TheNewState,London:LangmansGreen,1918.Freund,Jolien,TheSociologyofMaxWeber,Hammondsworth:Penguin,1968.Fry, BrainR.,Mastering PublicAdministration: FromMaxWeber toDwightWaldo, Chatham,NJ, ChathamHouse Publishers,

1989.GeorgeJr.,ClaudeS.,TheHistoryofManagementThought,2nded.,Prentice-HallofIndiaPrivateLimited,1974.Gerth,H.H.,andMills,C.Wright,(Ed.),FromMaxWeber:EssaysinSociology,NewYork,OxfordUniversityPress,1946.Golembiewski,RobertT.,PublicAdministrationasaDevelopingDiscipline,2Parts,NewYork,MarcelDekker,Inc.,1977.Gross,BertramM.,OrganisationsandTheirManaging,NewYork,TheFreePress,1968......TheManagingofOrganisations:TheAdministrativeStruggle,2VoL,NewYork,TheFreePress,1964.Griffiths,DanielE.,AdministrativeTheory,Bombay,D.B.TaraporevalaSons&Co.Pvt.Ltd.,1978.Gvishiani,D.,OrganisationandManagement:ASociologicalAnalysisofWesternTheories,Moscow,ProgressPublishers,1972.Haire,Manson,(Ed.),ModernOrganizationTheory.NewYork:Wiley,1959.HalDraper,KarlMarx’sTheoryofRevolution,Vol.1:StateandBureaucracy,NewYork,MonthlyReviewPress,1979.Haynes,WarrenW.,andMassie, Joseph.L.Management:Analysis:ConceptsandCases, EnglewoodCliffs,N.J., Prentice-Hall,

Inc.,1961.Heady,Ferrel,PublicAdministration:AComparativePerspective,2ndEd.,NewYork,MarcelDekker,Inc.,1984.Henderson,KeithM.,EmergingSynthesisinAmericanPublicAdministration,Bombay,AsiaPublishingHouse,1970.Hersey, Pau and Blanchard, Kenneth, H.,Management of Organisational Behaviour: Utilising Human Resources, New Delhi,

Prentice-HallofIndiaPvt.Ltd.,1974.Henry,Nicholas,PublicAdministrationandPublicAffairs,EnglewoodCliffs,NewJersey;Prentice-Hall,Inc.,1975.HuczynskiA.,ManagementGurus-WhatmakesthemandHowtobecomeone,London,ThomsonBusinessPlace,1996.Huneryager,S.G.andHeckmann,L.L.(Eds.),HumanRelationsinManagement,Bombay,D.B.TaraporevalaSons&Co.,1972.Hunter,Crowther-Heyek,HerbertA.Simon:TheBoundsofReasoninModernAmerica,Baltimore,TheJohnsHopkinsUniversity

Press,2005.JongS.Jun(Ed.),RethinkingAdministrativeTheory-TheChallengeoftheNewCentury,PraegerPublishers,2001.KangleR.P.,TheKautilyaArthashastra,NewDelhi,MotilalBanarsidas,1972.Koontz,Harold(Eds.),TowardaUnifiedTheoryofManagement,NewYork,McGraw-HillBookCo.,1964.Likert,R.,ProfileofOrganisationalCharacteristics:Forms,AnnArbor,Michigan,RensisLikertAssociates,1977.......PastandFuturePerspectivesonSystem-4,AnnArbor,Michigan,RensisLikertAssociates,1977.......TheHumanOrganization,NewYork,McGraw-HillBookCo.,1967.......NewPatternsofManagement,NewYork,McGraw-HillBookCo1961.......andLikert,J.G.,NewWaysofManagingConflict,NewYork,McGraw-HillBookCo.,1976.Gulick, Luther, and Urwick, L., (Eds.), The Papers on the Science of Administration, New York, Institute of Public

Administration,1937.McGregor,Douglas.,TheHumansideofEnterprise:AnnotatedEdition,Tata-McGrawHill,2006.......TheProfessionalManager,McGregorCarolineandBennis,WarrenG.,(Eds.),NewYork,McGraw-HillBookCo.,1967.......LeadershipandMotivation.Boston,MITPress,1966.......TheHumansideofEnterprise,NewYork,McGraw-HillBookCo..1960.Malick, Sidney and Vanness, Edward H., (Eds.), Concepts and Issue in Administrative Behaviour, Englewood Cliffs, N.J.,

Prentice-Hall,Inc.,1962.Malterson,MichaelT.andIvaneenich,JohnM.,ManagementClassics,SantaMonica,GoodYearPublishingCo.,1977.March,JamesG.,andSimon,HerbertA.,Organisations,NewYork,Wiley,1958.Marini,Frank(Ed.),TowardaNewPublicAdministration:TheMinnowbrookPerspective,Scranton,Pa.ChandlerPublishingCo.,

1971.Maslow,A.,MotivationandPersonality,NewYork,Harper&Row,1954.Mayo,GeorgeElton,TheHumanProblemsofIndustrialCivilization,Boston,HarvardBusinessSchool,1946,2ndEd.......TheSocialProblemsofIndustrialCivilization,London,Routledge&KeganPaul,1945.Merril,HarwoodF.,(Ed.),ClassicsinManagement,NewYork,AmericanManagementAssociation,1960.

Merton,RobertK.,et.al.,(Ed.),ReaderinBureaucracy,Glencoe,FreePress,1952.Metcalf,HenryC., andUrwick, Lyndall F., (Eds.),DynamicAdministration:TheCollectedPapers ofMaryParker Follett,New

York,Harper&Row,1940.Miner,JohnB.,TheoriesofOrganisationalStructureandProcess,Chicago,TheDrydenPress,1982.Mooney,JamesD.andReiley,AlanC.ThePrinciplesofOrganization,NewYork,Harper&Brothers,1939.Mosher,FrederickC.,(Ed.),AmericanPublicAdministration:Past,Present,Future,Alabama,TheUniversityofAlabamaPress,

1975.Ostrom,Vincent,TheIntellectualCrisisinAmericanPublicAdministration,Alabama,TheUniversityofAlabamaPress,1973.PaulineGraham (Ed.)MaryParkerFollett:ProphetofManagement -ACelebrationofWritings fromthe1920s, Cambridge,MA:

HarvardBusinessSchoolPress,1995Pfiffner,JohnM.,andSherwood,FrankP.,AdministrativeOrganization,EnglewoodCliffs,N.J.,Prentice-Hall,1960.Presthus,Robert,BehaviourApproachestoPublicAdministration.Alabama,UniversityofAlabamaPress,1965.Pugh,D.S.,(Eds.),OrganisationTheory:SelectedReadings,London,PenguinBooks,1971.......andHickson,D.J.,andHinings,C.R.WritersonOrganisations,Ontario,Penguin,1976.Purcell,Ralph,WoodrowWilson:TheStudyofPublicAdministration,Washington,D.C.AnnalsofAmericanGovernment,1955.Rabin,Jack,andBowman,JamesS.,PoliticsandAdministration:WoodrowWilsonandAmericanPublicAdministration,NewYork,

MarcelDekkerInc.,1984Rangarajan,LN.,Kautilya:TheArthashastra,PenguinBooks,NewDelhi,1992.Riggs,Fred,W.,(Eds.),PrismaticSocietyRevisited,Morristown,N.J.,GeneralLearningPress,1973.......FrontiersofDevelopmentAdministration,Durham,N.C.,DukeUniversityPress,1971.......AdministrationinDevelopmentCountries:TheTheoryofPrismaticSociety,Boston,HoughtonMifflin,1964.......TheEcologyofPublicAdministration,NewDelhi,AsiaPublishingHouse,1961.......andDayaKrishna,DevelopmentDebate,Jaipur,PrintwellPublishers,1987.Rorthlesberger,J.andDickson,WilliamJ.,ManagementandWorker,Cambridge,Mass,HarvardUniversityPress,1939.Sapre,S.A,F.W.,Taylor:HisPhilosophyofScientificManagement,Bombay,GovernmentCentralPress,1970.......MaryParker,Follett:HerDynamicPhilosophyofManagement,Bombay,GovernmentCentralPress,1965.Self,Peter,AdministrativeTheoriesandPolitics,London,GeorgeAllen&UnwinLtd.,1972.Selznick,P.,LeadershipinAdministration,Evanston,III,Row,PeterburtCompany,1957.Shafritz,JayM.,andHyde.AlbertC.,(Eds.),ClassicsofPublicAdministration.OakPark,Illinois,MoorePublishingCompany,

1978.Shamasastry,R.,ArthashastraofKautilya,UniversityofMysore,OrientalLibraryPublications,1908.Sheldrake,John.,ManagementTheory,London,ThomsonLearning,2003.Simon,HerbertA.,TheScienceoftheArtificial.Mass.MitPress.1969.......TheShapeofAutomation.NewYork,HarperandRow.1965.......TheNewScienceofManagementDecision,NewYork.Harper.andRow.1960.......ModelsofMan.NewYork.Wiley,1957.......AdministrativeBehaviour:ASiudy ofDecision-MakingProcesses inAdministrativeOrganization,NewYork. The Free Press,

1957.......Smithsburg,DonaldW.andThompson.,VictorA.,PublicAdministration,NewYork.Knopf.1950.Singh.R.N,ManagementThoughtandThinkers,Delhi,SultanChand&Sons.1977.Taylor,FredrickW,PrinciplesofScientificManagement.NewYork,Harper,1947.Urwick,LyndallF.,TheLifeandWorkofEltonMayo,London,Urwick,1960.......TheGoldenBookofAdministration.London.NewsmanNeameLtd.1956.......TheElementsofAdministration.NewYork.Harper,1943.......andBrech.E.F.L.,TheMakingofScientificManagement,3Vols.,London.ManagementPublicationsTrust,1949.Waldo,Dwight,(Eds.),PublicAdministrationinaTimeofTurbulence.Scranton-,Chandler.1971.......TheStudyof·PublicAdministration.GardenCity,NewYork,Doubleday,1955.......TheAdministrativeState.NewYork.TheRonaldPressCompany.1948.Warner,M.(Ed.)ManagementThinking,London,ThomsonLearning,2001Weber,Marianne,MaxWeber:ABiography,TranslatedandeditedbyHarryZohn.NewYork:Wiley.1975.Weber, Max. Economy and Society, Vols., I-III, Translated and edited by Guenther Roth and Claus Wittich, New York:

BedminsterPress,1968.......The Theory of Social and Economic Organization, Trans., A.H. Henderson. and Ed. Talcott Parsons, New York. Oxford

UniversityPress,1946.Wolf,WilliamB.,TheBasicBarnard:AnIntroductiontoChester1.BarnardandhisTheoriesofOrganisationandManagement,Ithaca,

NewYork,CornellUniversityPress,1974.......ConversationswithChesterI.Barnard,SchoolofIndustrialLabourRelations:CornellUniversity,ILRPaperbackNumber12,

Ithaca,NY,1973......HowtoUnderstandManagement:AnIntroductiontoChesterl.Barnard,LosAngeles.LukasPublishers,1968.Wood, John D. and Wood, Michael D., (Eds.), Chris Argyris : Critical Evaluations in Business and Management, London,

Rutledge,2009.......HerbertSimon:CriticalEvaluationsinBusinessandManagement,3Vols.,London,Rutledge,2007.......,PeterDrucker:CriticalEvaluationsinBusinessandManagement,NewYork,Rutledge,2005......,GeorgeEltonMayo:CriticalEvaluationsinBusinessandManagement,London,Rutledge,2004.......,F.W.Taylor:CriticalEvaluationsinBusinessandManagement,NewYork,Rutledge,2002......HenriFayol:CriticalEvaluationsinBusinessandManagement,2Vols,London,Rutledge,2001.Wren,DanielA.,TheEvolutionofManagementThought,(4thEdition),Chichster,Wiley&Sons,1994.

ArticlesAiyar. S.P. andMarinaPinto, “Humanistic ethics in thewritings ofChester Barnard”,AdministrativeChange, Vol. 12, Jan.

1985,No.2.pp.182-93.Al-Koubaisy. Amer. “The Classical vs. Modern Organization Theories in Developing Countries,” Development Policy and

AdministrationReview,4(1)Jan.-June,78,pp.50-64.Argyris,Chris,“Making theUndiscussableand itsUndiscussabilityDiscussable,”PublicAdministrationReview.Vol.No. 40,

May-June,1980,pp.205.......“DoubleLoopLearninginOrganizations”,HarvardBusinessReview,Vol.55,No.5,1977,pp.115-25.......”Personalityvs.Organization”,OrganizationalDynamics,Vol.3,No.2,1974,pp.3-17.......“SomeLimitstoRationalMan‘OrganizationTheory”,PublicAdministrationReview,Vol.33,No.3,(May-June,1973),pp.

253--67.......“OrganizationalEffectivenessunderStress,”HarvardBusinessReview.Vol.38,No.3.1960,pp.137-46.......”TheOrganization:WhatMakesitHealthy”.HarvardBusinessReview.Vol.36,No.6.1958.pp.107-16.......”TheIndividualandOrganization:SomeProblemsofMutualAdjustment”,AdministrativeScienceQuarterly,Vol.2,No.I,

June,1957,pp.1-22.......”TheFusionofanIndividualwiththeOrganization”,AmericanSociologicalReview,Vol.19,No.3,June-July,1954,pp.267-

72.Bagozzi, Richard P., and Lynn W. PhilIips., “Representing and testing organizational theories: A holistic construal”,

AdministrativeScienceQuarterly,Vol.27,No.3,Sept.,1982,pp.459-89.Banfield,EdwardC.,“TheDecision-MakingScheme,”PublicAdministrativeReview,Vol.XVII,No.4,Autumn1957,pp.278-

285.Bendix,ReinhardandFisher,LloydH.,“ThePerspectivesofEltonMayo”,TheReviewofEconomicsandStatistics,Vol.31,No.4,

Nov.,1949,pp.312-19.Bennis,WarrenG., “Leadership Theory andAdministrative Behaviour: The Problem of Authority”,Administrative Science

Quarterly,Vol.IV,No.3,Dcc.,1959,pp.259-301.Bhargava,B.S.,“Riggs’ConceptofFormalism”,Prashasnika,Vol.VI,No.4,Oct.-Dec.,1977,pp.4-11.Blau,PeterM.,“CriticalRemarksonWeber’sTheoryofAuthority”,AmericanPoliticalScienceReview,Vol.LVII,No.2,1963,

pp.305-16.Boulding,KennethE.,“EvidencesforanAdministrativeScience”,AdministrativeScienceQuarterly,Vol.3,No. I, June,1958,

pp.1-22.Bourgeois, V.Warren andCraig C. Pinder, “Contrasting Philosophical Perspectives inAdministrative Science: A Reply to

Morgan”,AdministrativeScienceQuarterly,Vol.28.No.4,Dec.,1983,pp.608-13.Bowman, James S., “Managerial Theory and Practice: The transfer of knowledge in Public Administration”, Public

AdministrationReview,Vol.38,No.6,Nov.-Dec.,1978,pp.563-70.Breeze, John D., and Frederick C. Miner, “Henri Fayol: A New Definition of Administration”, Academy of Management

Proceedings,1980,pp.110-13.Brodie,M.B.,“HenriFayo1:AdministrationIndustrielleetGenerale:Are-interpretation”,PublicAdministration,40,Autumn,

1962,pp.311-317.Brooks, StepheIt, “TheWesternMarxistCritique ofOrganisationTheory: Towards aRebuttal”,The Indian Journal ofPublic

Administration,Vol.28(4),Oct.-Dec.,pp.767-82.Buchrig,EdwardH.,“WoodrowWilsonto1902:AReviewEssay”,TheAmericanPoliticalScienceReview,Vol.67,No.2,June,

1973,pp.589-591.Carey,Alex,“TheHawthorneStudies:ARadicalCriticism”,AmericanSociologicalReview,Vol.32,No.3,June,1967,pp.403-

416.

Carroll, James D. and Frederickson, George H. “DwightWaldo 1913-2000”, Public Administration Review, Vol, 61, No. 1,January-February,2001.

Chapman. Richard, A., “Prismatic Theory in Public Administration: A Review of Theories of Fred W. Riggs”, PublicAdministration,Vol,44,Winter,1966,pp.415-433.

Chi-YuenWu,“PublicAdministratorsandPublicPo1icy-Making”,InternationalReviewofAdministrativeSciences,Vol.44.No.4,1978,pp.333-46.

Chitlangi, B.M., “A Study of Administration 1987: Centenary of Woodrow Wilson’s Essay”, Indian Journal of PublicAdministration,Vol.33,No.4,Oct-DcC1987,pp.913-917.

Chowdhury,Mustafa,“Weber’sidealtypeofbureaucracy”,TheIndianJournalofPublicAdministration,30(1)Jan.-Mar.,1984,pp.177-83.

Cleveland,Harin,“TheFutureofPublicAdministration”,Bureaucrat,11(3),Fall,1982,pp.3-8.Dahl,Robert,A.,“TheScienceofPublicAdministration:ThreeProblems”,PublicAdministrationReview,Vol.VII,No.1,1947,

pp.3-11.Dallenbach,KarlM.,“ThePlaceofTheoryinScience”,PsychologicalReview,Vol.60,No.1,Jan.,1953,pp.38-39.DayaKrishna,“TowardsaSanerViewof‘Development’:ACommentonFredW.Riggs’Comment”,AdministrativeChange,

Vol.3,Jan.-June,1976,pp.19-26....... ”ShallWe BeDiffracted?ACritical Comment on Riggs’ Prismatic Society and PublicAdministration,”Administrative

Change,Vol.2,June,1974,pp.48-55.DeLeon,Peter,“PolicySciences:TheDisciplineandtheProfession,”PolicySciences,13(13),Feb.,1981,pp.1-7.Denhardt,RobbertB.andKathrynG.Denhardt,“PublicAdministrationandtheCritiqueofDomination,”Administrationand

Society,11(1),May,1979,pp.107-20.Dimock,MarshallE.,“TheStudyofAdministration,”AmericanPoliticalScienceReview,31,Feb.,1937,28-40.Doig, James W., “If I see a Murderous Fellow Sharpening a Knife Cleverly: The Wilsonian Dichotomy and the Public

AuthorityTradition;”PublicAdministrationReview;Vol.43(4),July-August1983,pp.292-304.Dror,Yehezkel,“OnbecomingmoreofaPolicyScientist,”PolicyStudiesReview,Vol.4,No.1,August,1984,pp.13-21.......”PolicySciences:SomeGlobalPerspectives”,PolicySciences,Vol.5,No.I,March,1974,pp.83-85.......”PolicyAnalysts:ANewProfessionalRoleinGovernmentService,”PublicAdministrationReview,Vol.XXVII,No.3,1967,

pp.197-203.......”MuddlingThrough-ScienceorInertia,”PublicAdministrationReview,Vol.24,1964,pp.153-163.Dwivedi, O.P. and J. Nef, “Crises and continuities in Development Theory and Administrative: First and third world

Perspectives,”PublicAdministrationandDevelopment,2(1)Jan.-Mar.,1982,pp.59-77.Fayol,Henri,“TheImportanceof theAdministrativeFactor.” InErnestDale (Eds.),Readings inManagement:Landmarksand

NewFrontiers,NewYork:McGraw-Hill,1970,pp.148-49.Finkle,ArthurL.,“ADisciplineinsearchofLegitimacy,”Bureaucrat,13(2)Summer1984,pp.58-60.Fox,Douglas,M.,“What’sPublicAdministration,”AdministrativeScienceQuarterly,Vol.21,June,1976,pp.346-352.Fox,ElliotM.,“MaryParkerFollett:TheEnduringContribution,”PublicAdministrationReview,Vol.XXVIII,No.6,Nov.-Dec.,

1968.Franke,RichardH.,andJamesD.Kaul,“TheHawthorneExperiments:FirstStatisticalInterpretation,”AmericanSociological

Review,Vol.43,1978,pp.623-43.Gaus,JohnMerriman,“TrendsintheTheoryofPublicAdministration,”PublicAdministrationReview,10,Summer,1950,pp.

163-68.Gazell,JamesA.,“PeterF.Drucker’sVisioninPublicManagement,2000",InternationalJournalofPublicAdministration,Vol.17,

Nos.3&4,1994.......”PeterF.DruckerandDecentralisedAdministrationoftheFederalGovernment”,Administration&Society,Vol.24.No.2,

August,1992.Gulick,Luther,“TimeandPublicAdministration”,PublicAdministrationReview,47(1),1987,pp.115-119.......”TheDynamicsofPublicAdministration todayasguidelines for the future,”PublicAdministrationReview, 43 (3)May-

June,1983,pp.193-8.......”DemocracyandAdministrationfacethefuture,”PublicAdministrationReview,Nov.-Dec.,1977,Vol.37,No.6,pp.706-

711.Habennan,John,“DisciplineWithoutPunishment,”HarvardBusinessReview,Vol.XXXVI,May,1967,pp.62-68.Hartwig,Richard,“RationalityandtheProblemsofAdministrativeTheory,”PublicAdministration,56Summer1978,pp.159-

79.Hindy, Lauer Schachter, “Frederick Winslow Taylor and the idea of Worker Participation: A Brief Against Easy

AdministrativeDichotomies”,AdministrationandSociety,Vol.21,NO.1,May,1989,pp.20-30.Jam,TejK.,“UtilityofMaxWeber’sConceptofIdeal-TypeBureaucracy,”Prashasnika.Vol.VI.No.4,Oct.-Dec.1977pp125-

130.‘’.Kaufman,Herbert,‘Fear.ofBureaucracy:ARangingPandemic”,PublicAdministrationReview,41(1),Jan.–Feb.,1981,pp.1-

9.’......“EmergingConflictsintheDoctrinesofPublicAdministration”AmericanPoliticalScienceReview,50,Dec.,1956,pp.1057-

73.Khanna,Kishan,“ContemporaryModelsofPublicAdministration:AnAssessmentoftheirUtilityandExpositionofInherent

Fallacies”PhilippineJournalofPublicAdministration,Vol.XVIII,No.2,April.1974,pp.103-126.Koubaisy, Amer A., “The Classical vs. Modem Organisation Theories in Developing Countries,” Development Policy and

AdministrativeReview,Vol.IV,No.I,Jan.-June,1978,pp.50-64.Kramer, FredA., “Using classics to expandPublicAdministrationThought”,TheAmericanReviewofPublicAdministration,

1992,(22(4).pp.301-306.Likert,Rensis.,“SystemA:AResourceforImprovingPublicAdministration,”PublicAdministrationReview,Vol.46,No.6,Nov.

-Dec.,1981,pp.674-678.......”MeasuringOrganizationalPerformance,”HarvardBusinessReview,Vol,36,No.2,1958,pp.41-52.Likert,Rensis,andWilliamF.Dowling,“ConversationwithRensisLikert,”OrganizationalDynamics,Vol.2,No: I,1973,pp.

33-49.......”MeasuringOrganizationalPerformance,”HarvardBusinessReview,XXXVI,No.2,1958,pp.41-50.Litchfield,EdwardH.,“NotesonaGeneralTheoryofAdministration,”AdministrativeScienceQuarterly,Vol. I,No. I, June,

1956,pp.3-29.Locke,EdwinA.“TheIdeasofFredrickW.Taylor:AnEvaluation”,AcademyofManagementReview,Vol.7,No.1,1982,pp14-

24.LyleC.Fitch,“LutherGulick”,PublicAdministrationReview,Vol.50.No.6,1990,pp.604-08.Mahoney, Joseph T., “The Relevance of Chester I. Barnard’s Teachings to Contemporary Management Education:

CommunicatingtheAestheticsofManagement”,InternationalJournalofOrganisationTheory&Behaviour,Vol.5,No.1&2,2002.

McDaniel,ThomasR.,“TheSearchfortheAdministrativeNovel,”PublicAdministrativeReview,38(6),Nov.-Dec.,1978,pp.55-9.

Michael,J.Wriston,“InDefenseofBureaucracy,”PublicAdministrationReview,Vol.40,No.2,March-April,1980.Millet, JohnD.,“ACriticalAppraisalof theStudyofPublicAdministration,”AdministrativeScienceQuarterly,Vol. I, Sept.,

1956,pp.177-188.Pearson,NormanM.,“FayolismasaNecessaryComplementtoTaylorism,”AmericanPoliticalScienceReview,Vol.39,No. I,

Feb.,1945,pp.68-85.Pinto,MarinaR.,“HumanNatureinAdministration-TheContributionofDouglasMcGregor,”AdministrativeChange,10(1-

2)July,1982-June,1983,pp.76-90.PurushottamNagar,“AdministrativeThoughtofChesterBarnard,”Prashasnika,Vol.VI,No.I,Jan.-March,1977,pp.79-84.Ramos,Alberto,Guerreiro,“MisplacementofConceptsandAdministrativeTheory,”PublicAdministrationReview,38(6)Nov.

-Dec.,1978,pp.550-7.Riggs,F.W.“TheEcologyandContextofPublicAdministration:AComparativePerspective,”PublicAdministrationReview,

March--April,1980,pp.107-115.......”Introduction:ShiftingmeaningofthetermBureaucracy,”InternationalSocialScienceJournal,21(4),1979,pp.563-84.......”FurtherConsiderationsonDevelopment:ACommentonDayaKrishna’sComment,”AdministrativeChange,Vol.4,July-

Dec.,1976,pp.1-20.......”ThePrismaticSocietyandDevelopment,”AdministrativeChange,Vol.2,Jan.-June,1975,pp.127-135.......”PrismaticSocietiesandPublicAdministration,”AdministrativeChange,Vol.1,Dec.,1973,pp.12-24.......”AdministrationandaChangingWorldEnvironment,”PublicAdministrationReview,Vol.XXVIII,No.4,July-Aug.,1968,

pp.348-61....... ”Administrative Development: An Elusive Concept,” in John D. Montgomery and William, J. Siffin, Approaches to

DevelopmentPoliticsAdministrationandChange,NewYork,McGraw-Hill1966,pp.225-255.......RelearninganOldLesson:ThePoliticalContextofDevelopmentAdministration,”PublicAdministrationReview,Vol.XXV,

No.1,March,1965,pp.70-79.......”TrendsintheComparativeStudyofPublicAdministration”,InternationalReviewofAdministrativeScience,1962,pp.9-15.......”PrismaticSocietyandFinancialAdministration,”AdministrativeScienceQuarterly,1960,pp.1-46.......”TheUseofModelsforAdministrativeAnalysis:ConfusionorClarity?”,TheIndianJournalofPublicAdministration,Vol.

VI,No.3,1960,pp.225-242....... ”Agraria and Industria: Toward a Typology of ComparativeAdministration,” in Siffin,William, J., (Eds.),Toward the

ComparativeStudyofPublicAdministration,Bloomington,IndianUniversityPress,1957,pp.23-116.......”PublicAdministration:ANeglectedFactor inEconomicDevelopment,”Annalsof theAmericanAcademyofPoliticaland

SocialScience,Vol.305,May,1956,pp.70-80....... ”Notes on Literature Available for the Study of Comparative Public Administration”, The American Political Science

Review,Vol.XLVIII,No.2,June,1954,pp.515-37Rosenbloom,DavidH., “PublicAdministrativeTheory and theSeparationofPowers,”PublicAdministrativeReview, 43 (3)

May--June,1983,pp.219-27.SatyaDeva,“StateandBureaucracyinKautilya’sArthashastra”TheEconomicandPoliticalWeekly,19(19)12,May,1984,pp.

811-15......”TheoryofAdministration,”EconomicandPoliticalWeekly,Vol.XVII,No.48,November27,1982,pp.M115-M122....... ”Western Conceptualisation of Administrative Development: A Critique and an Alternative,” International Review of

AdministrativeSciences,45(1)79,pp.59-63.......”TheContributionofKarlMarxtoAdministrativeTheory,”JournaloftheInstituteofPublicAdministration,Vol.1,No,2,

July-September1980,pp.31-41.Scott,William,G.,“BarnardonthenatureofElitist-Responsibility”,PublicAdministrationReview,Vol.42,May-June,1982....... ”OrganizationalMan: Rational or Self-Actualizing,”PublicAdministrationReview, Vol. 33,No.4 (July-Aug., 1973), pp.

346-353.......”ACommenton‘TheScienceofPublicAdministration,”,PublicAdministrationReview,7,Summer,1947,pp.200-203.......”TheProverbsofAdministration,”PublicAdministrationReview,Vol.VI,No.1,Winter,1946,pp.53-61.Stupak,Ronald,J.,“OrganizationalBehaviourinthe1970’s:TheMissingLinks,”TheBureaucrat,Vol.5,No.3,Oct.,1976,pp.

335-340.Subramaniam,V., “TheFact-ValueDistinctionasanAnalyticalTool,”TheIndianJournalofPublicAdministration, Vol. XVII,

No.1,Jan;-March,1971.......”DroronPolicy-making,”TheIndianJournalofPublicAdministration,Vol.16,No.1,Jan.-March,1970,pp.86-87.......”TheClassicalOrganisationTheoryanditsCritics”PublicAdministration,Vol.44,Winter,1966,pp.435-46.Thompson, James D., and Frederick L. Bates, “Technology, Organization, and Administration,” Administrative Science

Quarterly,2,Dec.,1957,pp.325-42Udy,StarnleyH..“BureaucracyandRationalityinWeber’sOrganizationTheory:AnEmpiricalStudy,”AmericanSociological

Review,Vol.24,1959,pp.791-95.Urwick,LyndallF.,“V.A.GraicunasandtheSpanofControl,”AcademyofManagementJournal,Vol.17,1974,pp.349-54.......,“TheManager’sSpanofControl,”HarvardBusinessReview,Vol.34,No.3,May-June,1956,pp.39-47.VanRiper,PaulP.,“TheLiteraryGulick:ABibliographicalAppreciation”,PublicAdministrationReview,Vol.50.No.6,1990,

pp.609-14.......”TheAmericanAdministrativeState:WilsonandtheFounders-AnUnorthodoxView,”PublicAdministrationReview,43

(6),Nov.-Dec.,1983,pp.477-90.Vohra, Neharika, Mukul, Kumar, “Relevance of Peter Drucker’s Work: Celebrating Drucker’s 100th Birthday,” Vikalpa,

Vol.34.No.4,Oct.-Dec.,2009,pp1-7.Waldo,Dwight,“AdministrativeTheoryintheUnitedStates:ASurveyandaProspect,”PoliticalStudies,Vol.2,No.1,Feb.,

1954,pp.70-86.......”DevelopmentofTheoryofDemocraticAdministration,”AmericanPoliticalScienceReview,46,March,1952,pp.81-103.White,WilliamF.,“HumanRelationsTheory-AProgressReport,”HarvardBusinessReview,Vol.XXXIV,No.5,1965,125-134.Wilson,Woodrow,“TheStudyofAdministration,”PoliticalScienceQuarterly,Vol.2,June,1887,pp.197-222.......”TheNewMeaningofGovernment,”PublicAdministrationReview,Vol.44,No.3,May-June,1984,pp.193--195.

Index

AdministrationinDevelopingCountries,Riggs(The),215AdministrationIndustrielleetGenerale,49AdministrativeBehaviour,22,130,139Administrativeefficiency,137Administrativemanagementtheory,83Administrativeorganisationtheory,113AdministrativeReflectionsfromWorldWarII,83AdministrativeScience,131–132Administrativetheory,1,3,6–7,17–24,51,92,103,131,137,139,170,186,215,250,263classification,18elements,18streams,20

Administrativetraining,54AdventuresofaBystander,244Afro-Asiancountries,9,79Agraria-Industriamodel,202,215Albrow,Martin,79AMTuringAward,130Amatya–Minister,29AmericanPoliticalScienceAssociation,41,83,200,232AmericanSocietyofMechanicalEngineers(ASME),61–63AmericanSocietyofPublicAdministration,21,83,130Andrews,Kenneth,125Anti-rationalmovement,226,229ApplicabilityofOrganisationalSociology,162Argyris,Chris,5,7–8,14,161–171,174individualandgroupadaptation,163lifeandwork,161–162organizationaldevelopment,164T-grouptraining,167–168

Aristotle,37Artofcommand,53ArtofCuttingMetals(The),62–63ArtofWar(The),20Arthashastra,1–2,20,26–38financialadministration,33–34governmentmachinery,32homedepartment,34justice,35recruitmentandtraining,35–36state’sofficers,33wagesandsalaries,35SeealsoKautilya

Artificialintelligence,129,134,139AtlanticMonthly(The),244Authoritativeofficialcommunications,122

Bagehot,Walter,41Bailey,Stephen,19Bankwiring,110,114Barnard,Chester,5–6,14,20,116–127,137,245executivefunctions,123–124formalandinformalorganizations,118–119leadership,125lifeandwork,116–117

socialtheory,20theoryofauthority,120

Bazar-canteen,209–210,215Behaviouralism,5,234Behaviouralistmovement,150BelongingnessandLove,143Benchmarking,11,61,247,249,253Bendix,Reinhard,77Blau,Peter,77Bonaparte,Louis,265Boundedrationality,129,134,139Brandies,Louis,61,68BrochansEncyclopedia,260Brownlow,Louis,46BureaucracyandDemocracy:AStrainedRelationship,232Bureaucracy,74,232,258–261,264–266,268characteristicsof,261–262dispersedpeasantry,264–265,264exploitativeinstrument,258modelof,75originsof,257parasiticroleof,260–261punishment-centered,77rational,74,77–80,267transitionalstate,265–266,265SeealsoWeber,Max,MarxKarl

Bureau-pathology,4Burke,Edmund,41

CapacitytoGovern:AReporttotheClubofRome(The),219Capitalism,21,262–263Carrotandsticktheory,153Cartesianphilosophy,50Centralisation,54,265ChandraguptaMaurya,27,37Chapman,RichardA.,213CivilWarinFrance(The),265ClassStrugglesinFrance(The),257Classicaladministrativetheory,56,90,92Classicalorganisationtheory,83,153,235Classicalorganisation,82Clects,208Cognitiverevolution,129Communicationmethods,119Communism,12,256CommunistManifesto(The),257Comparativepublicadministration(CPA),237Conceptofdevelopment,210–213ConceptoftheCorporation(The),244Conflict-freesociety,113Conflictresolution,20,103,196CongressionalGovernment,41Constructiveconflict,96–97Contribution-satisfactionequilibriumtheory,6,118,127ContributiontotheCritiqueofPoliticalEconomy(A),257,260CouncilofMinisters,29,33,206Cowsociologists,112CrazyStates:ACounterconventionalStrategicIssue,219CreativeExperience,96Criticalincidentsmethod,184CritiqueofHegelsPhilosophyofRight,12,257–258

Custodyandpreservationofrevenue,34

Danda–Army,30Dandaniti,1,28DeGourney,74Debureaucratisationofgovernment,248Decentralisation,20,84,89,92,153,238,245,248,253Decisiontheory,130Decision-making,123–124,132behaviour,modelsof,134–135dynamicsof,137theory,7,138–139rationalityin,133–134

DeficienciesofGovernment,248Democracy,BureaucracyandHypocrisy,232Departmentalisationtheory,86,92Departmentalisation,principlesof,90Depersonalisingorders,100Descriptive-empiricalapproach,169DesignforPolicySciences,219Developmentadministration,78Dharmashastra,35,37Dialecticalmaterialism,12Diamant,Alfred,91Diffractedmodel,204Diffractedsociety,213Diffraction,202,210,215DisciplineofInnovation(The),244Divisionoflabourandcoordination,principles,32Domination,leadershipandlegitimacytheories,72Double-looplearning,168,171Dror,Yehezkel,9–10,218–219,221,223,225,227–229lifeandwork,218–219knowledgesystems,219modelsofpublicpolicymaking,224

Drucker,Peter,9,11,15,21,55–57,67,95,103,112,243–255deficienciesofgovernment,248genericmanagement,245–246knowledgebasedorganization,251–252lifeandworks,243–244MBO,250–251restructuringgovernment,249

Durga–FortifiedCapital,29Durkheim,Emile,256DwightWaldoAward,200,233DynamicAdministration,83,96

Economicdepression,199Economicman,conceptof,6,118,126Economicallyrationalmodel,224–225EffectiveExecutive,244Efficiencydevices,65Efficiencyengineering,186EighteenthBrumaireofLouisBonaparte(The),12,257,264–265,268ElementsofAdministration(The),83Empiricism,56,129Employee-employerrelations,113Endogenouschange,210Engels,Friedrich,12,256–257Enrichingjobs,processof,179Ensor,Matthew,126EnterpriseofPublicAdministration,232

Equilibriummodels,213Ethnocentrism,153EupsychianManagement,142,147Executivefunctions,85–86,123–124Exo-prismaticstate,210Exploitativesociety,258

Fascism,248FatherofScientificManagement,seeTaylor,F.W.Favouritism,207,209Fayol,Henri,2–3,20,49–58,82–84,95,151administrativetheory,universal,51elementsofmanagement,52lifeandwork,49–50principlesofadministration,53–54

Fayolism,55Feudalism,265Fictionofauthority,121–122FirstWorldWar,83,97,105–106Follett,M.P.,5,14,20,67,85,95–104,117,188,245,250basesofintegration,97–98constructiveconflict,96leadership,102lifeandwork,96

Formalorganisation,118–119,162–163Formalism,55,79,205–206,210,214–215Frederickson,168,231FreedomandCoordination:LecturesinBusinessOrganisation,83,96Frenchrevolutionarydevelopment,260Freud,Sigmund,106,142Friedrich,Carl,79Functionalforemanship,3,65Functionalorganisation,56,65Functionalismtheory,57–58Functionalism,56–57,203,237conceptionof,50

Functionallydiffusesocieties,203,215FunctionsoftheExecutive(The),6,116–117,123,125–126,130Fusedmodel,203–204Fused-prismatic-diffractedmodel,202–203

Gangplank,55,58Gaus,J.M.,201Gemeinshaftsgefuhl,145GeneralandIndustrialManagement,49–50,52Generalincentives,typesof,118Generalsystemtheory,220Genericmanagement,245–246Geographicalsurvey,250GermanIdeology(The),257,261GlobalLeviathan,219Goal-fulfillment,189Goldstein,Kurt,144Gouldner,Alvin,77GrandStrategyCrafting,219Granthascript,27GreatDepression,231,245GreatIllumination,108–109,114Gross,Bertram,23,57,89,116,132Gulick,Luther,4,13,82–93humanfactorandtime,88lifeandwork,82–84

POSDCoRB,85,93principlesofadministration,84structureofadministration,84

HaroldLasswellAward,219HarvardBusinessReview,174,244HarvardClub,108Hawthorneexperiments,5,20,67,105–106,111–114,187,237Henry,Nicholas,44Herzberg,5,7–9,15,147–148,173–184lifeandwork,173–174jobenrichment,178two-factortheory,175

Heterogeneity,205Hierarchicalauthority,267Hierarchy,54,58,76,142,262–263Hierarchyofdecisions,133Hierarchytheory,141,seealsoMaslow,AbrahamHistoricalmaterialismtheory,256–257Historicalmaterialism,256HolyFamily(The),257Horizontaljobloading,178,seealsoJobloadingHoxie,Robert,66Humanattitudesandsentiments,110Humanfactorandtime,88–89Humanmotivationtheory,7HumanOrganisation(The),187HumanProblemSolving,131Humanrelationsmovement,5,90,105,109HumanSideoftheEnterprise(The),151,156,158Hygieneandmotivationseekers,177–178characteristicsof,177

Hygienefactors,174–178,182,184

Ideal-rationalsystem,196Illuminationtheory,108IndianMachiavelli,seeKautilyaIndividualincentivesystem,109Individualism,65,258Industrialpsychology,7,105,151,158Industrialrevolution,82,200,267Informalorganisations,6,114,118–120,125–127Informationsociety,emergenceof,245IntegratingtheIndividualandtheOrganisation,162Integrationbasesof,97–98obstaclesto,98

Interaction-influencesystem,189,197Inter-agencyrivalry,248InternationalCongressofAdministrativeSciences,50–51Interpersonalcompetence,164–166,168,170–171,186IvoryTowerThinking,19Iyengar,H.V.R.,1

JamesA.HamiltonAward,187Janapada,28–29,38Janet,Pierre,106Japanesemanagement,245Job‘enlargement’facilitates,167Jobdissatisfaction,8,175–176,182,184Jobenrichment,174,178–179,183–184,194opportunitiesin,179

Jobloading,178–179Jobsatisfaction,8,174–176,178,182–184,186,263

Kangle,R.P.,27Kautilya,1–2,13,20,27,26–38lifeandworks,27Machineryofgovernment,32–33SaptangaTheory,28

Kerlinger,17KnowledgeforAction:AGuidetoOvercomingBarrierstoOrganisationalChange,162Knowledge-basedorganisations,251–252Kosha–Treasury,29Krishna,Daya,213

Labourabsenteeism,112savingmachinery,86unionism,66

Landau,Martin,22Lawofsituation,5,100,103Leadership,102,125authorityof,122

Lee,Hahn-Been,213Legal-rationalbureaucracy,74–75Liberalism,declineof,72Likert,JaneG.,191Likert,Rensis,5,7–8,15,186–197lifeandworks,186–187,186researchonmanagementpractices,187supervisorystyles,187–188,187

Likert’sfoursystemsofmanagement,186,191benevolent-authoritativesystem,191consultativesystem,191exploitive-authoritativesystem,191participativesystem,191–193

Line-staffrelationship,155Linkingpinmodel,189–200Litchfield,18,23Logicalpositivism,methodologyof,131,139Long,NortonE.,138

Machiavelli,1,38Majoritarianism,238MakingofScientificManagement(The),83Management-Tasks,Responsibilities,Practices,244ManagementandOrganisationalDevelopment,162ManagementbyObjectives(MBO),11,250–254ManagementChallengeforthe21stCentury,244ManagementofTomorrow,83Managementprocessschool,49,58ManagementSystemsI-IV,186,190,197Managerialbehaviour,152,155,158Managerialcontrols,163–164Managerialleadership,156Managerialrevolution,226Managingconflicts,195ManagingfortheFuture,244Manusmriti,1Marini,Frank,232Marketisedsociety,204Marx,Karl,12,15,256–269bureaucracyintransitionalstate,265–266

characteristicsofbureaucarcy,261lifeandwork,257originsofbureaucracy,257parasiticroleofbureaucracy,260–261theoryofalienation,262–263

Marxism,12,256,268Maslow,Abraham,5,7,141,143,145,147–149,174lifeandwork,141,141needhierarchy,7theory,7,142,147–149

Massachusettsminimumwageboard,96Materialistinterpretationofhistorytheory,266Matrixorganisation,166–167,171Maturity-Immaturitytheory,171Mayo,Elton,14,5,67,105–114,117,130earlyexperiments,106–107,106lifeandwork,105–106,105Hawthornestudies,108socialorganization,110–111

Mayoism,112McGregor,Douglas,5,7–8,150–159,174lifeandwork,150–151professionalmanager,156TheoryX,152–153TheoryY,153–154

McKinseyAward,244Meditation,paradigmof,258Mehlberg,Henry,18Mentalrevolution,3,64–66,68Meritocracy,226Merton,Robert,76,201Metcalf,Henry,62Meyer,J.J.,27MichaelMonroe,214Mill,J.S.,74Modelbuilding,200–201,200Modelofadministrativeman,134,139ModernManagementfortheCityofNewYork,83Monarchy,27,37MotivationandPersonality,142Motivationseekers,177,184Motivationtheory,8,142,145,148MotivationtoWork(The),174Motivationalfactors,175–176,184Motivationalself-control,152Motivation-hygienetheory,174,176,178,183–184

Napoleon,Louis,265NationalResearchCouncil,108–109NationalScienceFoundation,117NationalWarFund,117Nazism,248Nepotism,207,209NewJerseyEmergencyReliefFund,117NewJerseyReformatory,117NewPatternsofManagement,187NewPublicAdministration,237–238NewPublicManagementmovement,12NewRomanticism,238,240NewScienceofManagementDecision(The),131NewState(The),96NewWaysofManagingConflict,187

NoblePrize,41,130NovelistonOrganisationandAdministration,232

One-waytop-downcommunication,189Optimalmodel,225,228–229Organisationandinnovation,162Organisationcommunication,maintenanceof,124–125OrganisationDevelopmentCouncil,187Organisationtheory,10,21,113,130,171,234–237,240developmentof,10,237,240

Organisationaldevelopmentstrategies,164–167interpersonalcompetence,165–166,165maturity-immaturitytheory,164,164organisationalstructuresofnewsystem,166–167,166techniquesofprogrammedlearning,167,167

Organisationalimprovementcycle,195Organisationalinfluence,136Organisationallearning,168–169Organisationalloyalties,136Organiseddreaming,219,223,229Overlapping,206–207Over-staffing,247Owen,Robert,109

Palombara,JosephLa,77–78ParisCommune,265,268Parochial,22–23Parochialism,207Parsonianpatternofvariables,203Parsons,Talcott,77,201Participativemanagementsystem,192Particularism,203,seealsoUniversalismPatch-and-spotweld,249Paternalism,153Patrimonialbureaucracy,74,77Patrimonialism,207Patriotism,6,118PatternsofManagementandLeadershipintheXXthCenturyOrganisations(The),83PaulD.ConverseAward,187Peakexperiences,146,149Personaldevelopment,162PersonalityandOrganisation,162Pessimisticreveries,110Physiologicalorganisationtheory,67,69

Piece-RateSystem(A),62Plato,37Pluralism,11,21,226,238–239,241Poincare,Henri,18Policysciencesbarriers225–226emergence,221–222implications,222–224seealsoDror,Yehezkel

Policyscientist,226PolicymakingUnderAdversity,219Politico-administrativesystem,207–208Politics-administrationdichotomy,10,43,138,235–236,240heterodoxcritic,236

Poly-communalsociety,205Poly-communalism,207Poly-normativism,207–208POSDCORB,4,85,92,131–132PovertyofPhilosophy(The),257

PracticeofManagement(The),244,250Premiumbonussystem,66Pressure-orientedleadership,163–164Presthus,Robert,77Price-indeterminacystate,209PrinciplesofAdministration,53–54Principlesoforganisation,4,20,84–85,89,93,101,246PrinciplesofPublicAdministration,30PrinciplesofScientificManagement(The),20,61–62Prismaticmodel,214,204–205Prismaticsociety,10,202–210,213–215Prismatism,213Privatisation,245,252–253Problem-solving,62,189,196,224ProfessionalManager(The),151,156–157Programmedandnon-programmeddecisions,135Proletarianmovement,265Proletarianrevolution,12,264–265Prophetofmanagement,seeFollett,MaryParkerPsychologyofScience(The),142Psychopathicpersonalities,146PublicAdministrationinaTimeofTurbulence,232PublicAdministrationTheory,19PublicAdministration,131Publicadministrationclassicalapproachto,234–235evolutionof,19

Publicagencies,non-performance,247–248Publicpolicyconcept,10,21PublicPolicymakingReexamined,219Publicpolicy-makingmodels,224–225Pure-rationalitymodel,224–225

Rabblehypothesis,107,114Radicalchange,10,225,249,265Rakshana–palana,28Ramos,Alberto,22Rationalmanorganisationtheory,169Rationalism,10,238Redistributivemodel,204Reformmovement,235Regulatorymechanism,259Religion,ValuesandPeakExperiences,142Rethinkingandabandonment,249–250Revenuecollection,33–34Rewardsandpenaltyactivities,166Ricardo,David,111Ridley,ClarenceE.,130Riggs,Fred,9–10,15,21,43,45,199–216conceptofdevelopment,210–212ecologicalapproach,201idealmodels,202–203lifeandwork,199–200,199salamodel,207–209structural-functionalapproach,201

Riper,Van,46RockefellerFoundation,117RomanAgrarianHistoryanditssignificanceforPublicandPrivateLaw,71RomanCatholicChurch,19Rule-of-thumbmethods,69

SalaModel,207–209,207

Saptangatheory,28Scanlonplan,155Schon,Donald,168,171Science-basedmanagement,193–194Scientificfact-findingmethods,63Scientificmanagement,5–6,49,55,60–69,83,95,113,182,194,233developmentof,62–63fourprinciplesof,3,68principlesof,63–64

Scientificmanagementtheory,182Scientism,3SecondWorldWar,9,21,83,111,117,161,173,187,200,232,246Selectivism,203Self-actualisation,7,68,142–149,162,169–171,193characterisationof,170conceptof,147environmentfor,170–171

Self-esteem,144Self-fulfillingprophecy,153Selznick,Philip,77–78Sensitivitytraining,seeT-grouptechniqueSequentialdecisionmodel,224–225Shamasastry,R.,27ShapeofAutomation,131Sheldon,Oliver,67,95,117ShopManagement,62Simon,Herbert,5–6,14,22,89,129–139,169,171administrativescience,131administrativeefficiency,137decisionmaking,132lifeandwork,129–131rationality,133

Societaldirectionsystem,220,222,228SocietyfortheAdvancementofManagement,187Socio-metricmeasurements,193Soldiering,61Spanofcontrol,principleof,88,90SpeakeroftheHouseofRepresentatives(The),96Spitzer,A.B.,78Staffprinciple,87Structural-functionalapproach,9,201,215StudyofAdministration,The…..StudyofPublicAdministration,232Subramaniam,V.,92,224Superprofessorships,232Supportiverelationship,189

Taylor,F.W.,2–3,20,56,58,60–69,82,245lifeandwork,60–61,60conceptofmanagement,63mentalrevolution,65–66principlesofscientificmanagement,63–64

Taylorism,66–67,69Technocracy,226,257Techno-humanobjectives,151Tenprinciplesofadministration,84T-grouptechnique,162,167–168,171Theorybuilding,22Theoryofalienation,262–264lossofcreativity,263–264lossoffreedom,263lossofhumanity,264lossofmorality,264

Theoryofbureaucracy,258,260,268TheoryofHumanMotivation,142Theoryoforganisation,6,117,169,187,233TheoryXandY,151–159ThesesofFeuerbach,257ThirdWorld,emergenciesof,21Totalitarianism,248TowardsPsychologyofBeing,142Towne,HenryR.,62Tradeunions,66,69,161TransactionalInfluence,Conceptof,157Transitia,202Two-factortheory,175,182–184Tzu,Sun,20

Unbalancedpolity,208Uniongrievances,178Unipolartraits,176UnitedAutoWorkers,112Unityofcommand,principleof,56,87,90Universalism,203,258Universityconservatism,226,229Upwardandhorizontalcommunication,189Urwick,Lyndall,4,13,50,82–95lifeandwork,82–84

Value-freegeneraltheory,237Value-freesciences,222VenturesinPolicySciences,219Verticalloading,180–182Vittashastra,1

Wagepaymentincentive,109Wage,LabourandCapital,257Waldo,Dwight,9–10,15,21–22,200,231–241administrativestate,233–234lifeandwork,231–232newpublicadministration,237–238organizationtheory,236–237publicadministrationandfuture,239–240

Waldovianperspective,238,240WallStreetJournal,244,252War-widows,90WayneStateUniversity,150Weber,Max,2–3,56–57,71–80,256charismaticauthority,73legalauthority,73–74lifeandwork,71–72traditionalauthority,73modelofbureaucracy,75

Weberianmodelofbureaucracy,3–4,71,74–75–80,237White,L.D.,89Whiteman-Negro,208Wilson,publicopinionandadministration,44Wilson,Woodrow,2,13,40–47,218–219,221,232,246administrativescience,42–43lifeandwork,40–41,40government,newmeaning,45–46politicsandadministration,43–44

Wilsoniandichotomy,2Win-losestrategies,196WirtschaftandGesellschaft,77WoodrowWilsonFoundation,221

Workandresponsibility,divisionof,64WorkandtheNatureofMan,174,184Workeffectivenessmodel,181

Zoneofacceptance,136,139Zoneofindifference,121,127

AbouttheContributors

1. A.AmrutaRao,Ph.DformerlyProfessorofPublicAdministration,KakatiyaUniversity,Warangal,AndhraPradesh.

2. V.BhaskaraRao,Ph.DformerlyProfessorofPublicAdministration,KakatiyaUniversity,Warangal, Andhra Pradesh. He also taught Public Administration at OsmaniaUniversity.

3. B.P.C. Bose, Ph.D Professor of Public Administration, Nagarjuna University, Guntur,AndhraPradesh.

4. G.Haragopal, Ph.D, Professor of Political Science,Hyderabad,University,Hyderabad.Earlierworkedat theCentre forEconomicandSocialStudies,Hyderabadand taughtPublicAdministrationatOsmaniaandKakatiyaUniversities.

5. N.R.Inamdar,Ph.D, formerlyProfessorofPoliticalScience,UniversityofPoona,Pune,Maharashtra.HeworkedasProfessorofPublicAdministration,IndiraGandhi,NationalOpenUniversity,NewDelhi.

6. PA. James, Ph.D formerly Professor of Public Administration, Kakatiya University,Warangal, Andhra Pradesh. He also taught Public Administration at OsmaniaUniversity.

7. M. Kistaiah, formerly Professor of Public Administration, Kakatiya University,Warangal, Andhra Pradesh. He also taught Public Administration at OsmaniaUniversity.

8. C. Lakshmanna, Ph.D, formerly Professor of Sociology, Osmania University. Hewas aMemberofParliament(RajyaSabha)andIndianAmbassadortoTrinidadandTobago.

9. V.Lakshmipathy,Ph.D.formerlyProfessorandDirector,RegionalCentreforUrbanandEnvironmental Studies, Osmania University. He also worked as Professor ofManagement,JawaharlalNehruTechnologicalUniversity,Hyderabad.

10. K. Murali Manohar, Ph.D formerly Professor of Public Administration, KakatiyaUniversity, Warangal, Andhra Pradesh. He also worked as Professor of PublicAdministration,Dr.B.RAmbedkarOpenUniversity.

11. Y. Pardhasaradhi, Ph.D Professor and Head, Department of Public Administration,Osmania University, Hyderabad. He was the founder Head, Department of PublicAdministration,UniversityofAsmara,Eritrea,Africa.

12. Prabhat Kumar Dutta, Ph.D Centenary Professor of Public Administration, CalcuttaUniversity,Kolkata,WestBengal.

13. V.S.Prasad,Ph.D,ProjectDirector,OpenUniversity,Mauritius.HeworkedasDirector,National Assessment and Accreditation Council, India; Vice-chancellor, Dr. B.R.Ambedkar Open University, Hyderabad and Pro-Vice-chancellor, Indira GandhiNational Open University, New Delhi. He worked as Professor of PublicAdministration,Dr.B.RAmbedkarOpenUniversityandtaughtPublicAdministrationatOsmaniaandKakatiyauniversities.

14. C.VRaghavulu,Ph.D.formerlyProfessorofPoliticalScienceandPublicAdministration,Nagarjuna University, Guntur, Andhra Pradesh. He worked as Vice-chancellor,NagarjunaUniversity.HealsotaughtPublicAdministrationatAndhraUniversity.

15. S.P.RangaRao,Ph.D,formerlyProfessorofPublicAdministration,OsmaniaUniversity,Hyderabad.

16. D.RavindraPrasad, Ph.D,Advisor,Administrative Staff College of India,Hyderabad.Hewas Professor of Public Administration, andDirector, Regional Centre for Urbanand Environmental Studies, Osmania University, Hyderabad. He also worked at theIndiraGandhiNationalOpenUniversity,NewDelhi.

17. A.V. Satyanarayana Rao, Ph.D former Professor of Business Management, OsmaniaUniversity,Hyderabad.HealsotaughtPublicAdministrationintheUniversity.

18. P.Satyanarayana,Ph.D,formerDirector,RegionalCentre,IndiraGandhiNationalOpenUniversity,NewDelhi.Heworked asDy.Director, SouthernRegionalCentre, IndianCouncil for Social Science Research and taught public administration at AV College,Hyderabad.

19. P. Seshachalam, Ph.D formerly Senior Faculty, Administrative Staff College of India,Hyderabad.

20. P.D. Sharma, Ph.D, formerly Professor of Political Science, University of Rajasthan,Jaipur,Rajasthan.

21. N.Umapathy, Ph.D, formerly Professor of PublicAdministration,OsmaniaUniversity,Hyderabad.Heworked as Professor of PublicAdministration,University ofAsmara,Eritrea.