Approaches To Public Administration
Approaches To Public Administration
Approaches To Public Administration
Introduction
Background
The latter part of the 19th century was the period of rapid industrialization and
there was competition for capturing world markets. The size of organizations increased
to a great extent but the method and process of management remained traditional. This
led to management inefficiency which threatened the existence of big organizations. The
slogan of the age was ―increase efficiency‖ but the working conditions were chaotic.
There was no planning, no standard tools, no optimum use of resources and method of
work left to workers, So, strong need was felt to give more attention on replacing the
traditional system of management. Several scholars like Henry Towne and Henry
Metcalf studied the problem of inefficiency and tried to develop a unified system of
management. However, the main contribution in this direction was that of Fredrick
Taylor, an American scholar, who insisted on scientific methods in management.
Initially, Taylor listed four principles as a guide for the best type of management.
These were:
i) Daily Defined: each man in the organization should have a clearly defined
task before him every day so that he may work with a set goal;
iii) Reward for Success: Worker should be given higher pay if he accomplishes
his task successfully and efficiently; and
iv) Penalty for Failure: if the worker fails to achieve the task entrusted to him,
penalty should be imposed on him.
The above principles were modified by Taylor as he felt that these are inadequate.
The revised principles were as under:
Taylor put too much emphasis on the use of science and scientific method in
every piece of work of worker. He wanted no place for traditional methods such as rule
of thumb, hit and trial, hunch, intuition etc. in the performance of work by the worker.
This could be achieved by scientifically investigating the working conditions and the
amount of work to be undertaken and then fixing daily task assignments so that the
worker may work in a planned manner. According to Taylor, ―Scientific Management
realize that there is a best way in doing everything, and that the best way can always be
formulated into certain rules; that you can get your knowledge away form the old chaotic
rule of thumb knowledge into scientific knowledge.‖
To Taylor, both management and workers are the important pillars of an industrial
organization. The coordinated efforts of both are essential for the efficient functioning
of an organization. Therefore, he motivated workers and management to shun conflict
and work in a cordial manner. He believed that the interests of workers and management
are not separate but one. The higher wages to the workers and more profits to
management are possible only though maximum production. So, joint efforts should be
undertaken to increase production.
The scientific approach also became target of attack by human relations theorists
and behaviorists led by Elton Mayo on the ground that it was impersonal and ignored the
human factor. The famous Hawthorne experiments conducted by Elton Mayo and others
proved that it is not the structural arrangements as conceived by scientific approach rather
it is the emotional attitude of the worker towards his work and fellowmen which are
responsible for increasing efficiency and productivity. Thus these experiments have
virtually rejected the scientific approach.
Critical Evaluation
The classical approach is also criticized for its neglect of the human element in an
organization. According to critics, it lays too much emphasis on the formal structure of
the organization, ignoring altogether the informal organizational process. However, it can
hardly be denied that human relations play vital role in an organization. The approach is
also criticized as being atomistic, which views individuals in isolation from the
fellowmen in the organization. Further, classicists analyze organization as a ‘machine‘
and individuals as ‗tools‘. But critics are of the opinion that organization consists of
individuals who can never be like tools which are non-living. Thus, they dubbed this
approach as mechanistic or static which fails to explain the dynamics of organizational
behavior. Moreover, this approach accords preference to rules, laws, procedures and
charts of the organization which, critics opine, is not fully acceptable.
Critics are of the view that classical approach describes organization as a ‗closed
system‘ unaffected by external environment while the reality is that organizations are
living organisms which influence the external environment and in turn are influenced by
them. Some critics point out that classical approach has a pro-management bias as it is
primarily concerned with the problems of management in the organization.
To sum up, it can be said that in spite of various criticism leveled against the
classical approach, it is regarded as one of the important approaches to the understanding
of organization. Though, it is the earliest formulation, yet its impact can be seen even
today as it is still dominant among many practicing administrators.
Bureaucratic Approach
Further, qualifications for each post or office are defined in order to ensure
efficiency in the administration. Candidates are selected on the basis of
technical qualifications which in the most rational case are tested by
examination. Thus, the appointment and job placement of each official
depends on his technical (administrative) qualification.
Critical Evaluation:
The bureaucratic approach, propounded by Max Weber, has been
criticized on various grounds by critics on various grounds which may be
discussed as under:
Critics are of the view that this approach is not suitable for development
administration mainly because of the adherence to the principle of ‗sphere of
competence‘. They are of the opinion that development administration throws
multifarious new challenges which have to be met by the administrator promptly
rather than to wait and seek clarification from superiors whether he is competent
or not. But strict adherence of this principle causes delays and thus inefficiency by
providing excuse to the officer to shirk responsibility. The approach has also been
victim of criticism due to negative effect of documents which Weber insisted as
significant in his rational bureaucracy particularly engaged in welfare activities.
Critics argue that this will make the experts just clerks drowned in files.