Administrative Thought - UPSC PDF Download

Introduction

• The systematic study and analysis of organizations can be traced back to the late 19th and early 20th centuries, with prominent figures such as Taylor, Henry Fayol, Max Weber, Mooney and Reiley, Gulick, and Urwick contributing to the scientific study of organizations. Taylor developed his "principles of scientific management" based on his experiments to enhance productivity and efficiency in organizations. In 1916, Henry Fayol, a successful French manager and industrialist, shared his ideas in his book "General and Industrial Management." German sociologist Max Weber focused on the concept of 'Bureaucracy.'
• James Mooney, an industrialist with extensive experience in business enterprises, published 'Onward Industry' in 1918, co-authored with Alan Reiley. Luther Gulick and Lyndall Urwick, drawing from their own experiences and studies as well as those of others, extensively contributed to the formulation of general principles of administration and organization. They focused on specific aspects of Public Administration, having served in public offices, military, and industrial organizations. Both were dedicated to promoting the principles of organizational efficiency.
• Gulick was a member of the "Presidents' Committee on Administrative Management." He and Urwick edited "Papers on the Science of Administration" (1937), a significant work in the development of the science of administration. The book summarized the principles of administration and declared that Public Administration, guided by efficiency, could become a science. Gulick's other works include Administrative Reflections from World War II, Metropolitan Problems and American Ideas, and Modern Management for the City of New York.

Importance of Structure

• Gulick and Urwick were scholars who focused on the study of administration and aimed to develop it into a science based on principles and experiences of administrators. They primarily dealt with the technical aspects of formal organization and formulated what is known as the 'classical theory' of organization, also referred to as 'administrative management' theory or 'mechanistic' theory. This theory is considered classical because it is one of the earliest systematic analyses of organizations, it dominates the field of administrative theory, and it is well-established and widely accepted in administrative literature.
• Urwick believed that organizations should be compared to living organisms, emphasizing the importance of structure and design in organizations. He argued that many societal issues and human suffering could be traced back to faulty structural arrangements within organizations. According to Urwick, the design of an organization should be approached with a logical and detached mindset, similar to an engineering design, without considering the specific individuals within the organization. He believed that people should be made to fit the structure, rather than the other way around.
• In summary, Gulick and Urwick were early pioneers in the field of organizational theory, focusing on the importance of structure and design in organizations. They believed that administration could be developed into a science based on principles and experiences, and they emphasized the need for a logical and detached approach to organizational design. However, their focus on structure sometimes overshadowed the importance of people within organizations.

From Fayol’s Elements To Posdcorb

Gulick and Urwick were highly influenced by Taylor and Fayol in their concepts of administration. Gulick utilized Fayol's five elements of administration, namely Planning, Organization, Command, Coordination, and Control, to form a framework for his neutral principles. He then summarized the responsibilities of an administrator into the well-known acronym POSDCORB, with each letter representing one of the seven administrator activities.
These activities include:

• Planning (P): Determining the tasks to be accomplished and the methods for achieving them to fulfill the organization's objectives.
• Organizing (O): Establishing a formal structure of authority to arrange, define, and coordinate work subdivisions to achieve the intended goal.
• Staffing (S): Managing the entire personnel process, including hiring, training, and maintaining favorable working conditions.
• Directing (D): The ongoing responsibility of making decisions, translating them into specific and general orders and instructions, and acting as the organization's leader.
• Coordinating (C): The crucial duty of connecting and aligning the various aspects of work.
• Reporting (R): Keeping the executive informed about ongoing activities, which also involves keeping oneself and one's subordinates informed through records, research, and inspection.
• Budgeting (B): Encompassing all aspects of budgeting, such as fiscal planning, accounting, and control.

This list of activities is an enhancement of Fayol's elements of administration. The term POSDCORB gained widespread recognition and use in administrative processes. Despite its advantages and disadvantages, it proved valuable to numerous writers in addressing various aspects of administration.

Principles of Organisation

Urwick identified eight principles of administration applicable to all organisations. The principles are:

• The "principle of Objective" —that all organisations should be an expression of a purpose;
• The'' principle of Correspondence”-—that authority and responsibility must be co-equal;
• The "principle of Responsibility”—that the responsibility of higher authorities for die - work of subordinates is absolute;
• The "Scalar Principle”—t'hat a pyramidical type cf structure is budt up in an organisation;
• The "principle of Span cf Control";
• The "principle of Specialisation”—limiting one's work to a single function;
• The "principle of Coordination"; and
• The "principle of Definition”—clear prescription of every duty.

POSDCORB

After stressing the significance of structure as a designing process and identifying die functions of die executive in terms of POSDCORB, Gulick and Urwick concentrated dieir efforts on die discovery of principles of organisation based on which die structure may1 be designed.

Similarly Gulick expounded ten principles of organisation'. In expressing these principles Gulick was very much influencedty Henry Fayol's 14 basic elements'of administration. The principles'of Gulick are:

• Division of work or Specialisation;
• Bases of departmental organisations;
• Coordination through Hierarchy;
• Deliberate Coordination;
• Coordination through Committees; '
• Decentralisation;
• Unity of Command;
• Staff and Line;
• Delegation; and
• Span of control.

You would now examine some of these Important principles briefly.

Work Division

• Gulick argues that work division is the foundation of organization and is essential for its functioning. Classical theorists also consider work division as the central principle of their theories. Work division is necessary because people have different abilities, capacities, and skills, and specialization leads to better efficiency.
• In assigning functions to groups, the first principle is homogeneity based on the identity or simplicity of four factors: purpose (function), process, persons or things they deal with (clientele), and the place where they work. These principles are known as Gulick's 4P bases of departmentalization. However, when subdividing work or establishing work units, a choice must be made as to which of these principles are relevant. Gulick acknowledges the limitations of work division, but emphasizes its importance in the development of civilization.

Coordination
Gulick asserts that if work division is necessary, coordination becomes mandatory. Coordination can be achieved in two primary ways:

• By organizing and inter-relating work subdivisions through a structured hierarchy of authority, so that work can be coordinated by orders from the top to the bottom of the organization.
• By the dominance of an idea, where workers develop a shared purpose and voluntarily integrate their tasks into the whole with skill and enthusiasm.

These two principles of coordination are not mutually exclusive, and both are effective when used together. Size and time are significant factors in the development of coordination, and different approaches may be required in small and large organizations or in simple and complex situations. Gulick emphasizes that coordination must be achieved through intelligent, vigorous, persistent, and organized effort.

Unity of Command
Gulick and Urwick argue that well-managed administrative units in the government are almost always headed by single administrators rather than boards or commissions. They support the idea of unity of command, asserting that a worker subjected to orders from more than one supervisor will become confused and inefficient. In contrast, a worker receiving orders from a single superior will be methodical, efficient, and responsible.

Line and Staff
Gulick and Urwick also emphasize the importance of staff assistance to executives and the relationship between "Line" and "Staff" officials. They draw these principles from their experience in military administration, though the exact meaning of Line and Staff in civilian organizations is still unclear. According to Gulick, staff experts should focus on knowledge, thinking, and planning functions without administrative authority or responsibility, relying on the "authority of ideas" to achieve results. This approach emphasizes the need for specialized staff to assist higher executives in command, control, and coordination tasks.

Span of Control

• Urwick believes that no supervisor can directly oversee the work of more than five or six subordinates whose work interlocks. The limit of control is determined by factors such as knowledge, time, energy, and the nature of the work and organization. The principle of span of control is influenced by the diversification of functions, time, and space. Gulick and Urwick were influenced by Graicunas, who provided mathematical support for the concept of a narrow span of control.
• Gulick suggests further research into the problem, but concludes that the chief executive of an organization can deal with only a few immediate subordinates. The number is determined not only by the nature of the work but also by the capacity of the executive and the number of immediate subordinates, as well as the stability and geographical proximity of the organization. Although he does not provide a specific number of subordinates, he remains confident in the general validity of the principle.

Practical Value of Classical Theory

Certain practical ideas of value have emerged from classical theory, as outlined by Baker. These ideas are listed below:

• The first significant idea is the recognition of organization or administration as a distinct function that should be studied and practiced. This practical accomplishment encouraged people to think about and focus on the challenges of management and organization.
• The second valuable concept is the introduction of clear thinking regarding authority, responsibility, and delegation. This clarity helped in understanding the roles and relationships within an organization.
• The third notable idea is the suggestion that administration is a separate activity that deserves intellectual investigation. This perspective led to the development of studies and research dedicated to understanding and improving administration.
• The fourth important contribution is the role classical theory played in rationalizing and stimulating production in industrial organizations, albeit to a limited extent. This helped improve efficiency and productivity in the industrial sector.
• Lastly, the limitations of classical theory themselves inspired further investigations in organizational behavior. Despite its shortcomings, classical theory significantly contributed to the development of organizational theories by paving the way for more advanced and comprehensive research.

Theories of Management

Criticism of Classical Theory

• Herbert Simon criticized several aspects of the classical organizational theory, including its principles of division of functions, unity of command, and span of control. He argued that the division of responsibility and specialization could be based on function, process, objective, or place, and that the classical theory did not provide guidance on which basis is preferable in specific situations. Simon also found the principle of unity of command to be unclear in terms of scope. As a result, he characterized the "Principles of Administration" as mere "Proverbs of Administration," each paired with a contradictory proverb—for example, that the span of control should be narrow, but chains of command should be short.
• Simon further criticized Gulick's line and staff functions in large and complex organizations as being disconnected from reality. The doctrine of span of control was deemed even more confusing and misleading, with the main issue being the assumption that top executives need to have some sort of relationship with everyone below them in the organization.
• The universal validity of the principles of administration by Gulick and Urwick was also a subject of Simon's critique, as he believed that these principles merely served as criteria for describing and diagnosing administrative situations. Instead, they should only be viewed as working rules of conduct that have been validated by extensive experience.
• A common criticism of classical theorists is their pro-management bias. They tend to focus on management problems instead of addressing other organizational issues that affect other levels of management and employees.
• The classical theory has been criticized for being atomistic, as it examines individuals in isolation from their colleagues within the organization. It is also regarded as mechanistic, as it fails to explain the dynamics of organizational behavior, and it tends to be static and rational. Additionally, the theory does not consider non-economic incentives.
• One major critique of the classical theory is its focus on work rather than the human beings who perform the work. It often underestimates the importance of human elements and human behavior.

Conclusion

In conclusion, the classical organization theory, primarily formulated by Gulick and Urwick, provided a foundation for the systematic study and analysis of organizations during the 19th and early 20th centuries. Despite its shortcomings and criticisms, such as its mechanistic approach and lack of focus on human behavior, the classical theory contributed significantly to the development of organization theories and management practices. Through principles such as work division, coordination, unity of command, line and staff, and span of control, the classical theory laid the groundwork for future research and improvements in organizational management, helping to shape the field as we know it today.

Frequently Asked Questions (FAQs) of Administrative Thought

Who are the prominent contributors to the classical theory of organization?

Some prominent contributors to the classical theory of organization include Taylor, Henry Fayol, Max Weber, Mooney and Reiley, and Gulick and Urwick. These theorists attempted the scientific study of organization and formulated principles of management to improve productivity and efficiency.

What is POSDCORB and what does it stand for?

POSDCORB is an acronym coined by Gulick and Urwick, which stands for the seven activities of an administrator: Planning, Organizing, Staffing, Directing, Coordinating, Reporting, and Budgeting. This list of activities serves as a framework for understanding and managing the administrative processes.

What are the key principles of organization identified by Gulick and Urwick?

Gulick and Urwick identified several principles of organization, including division of work or specialization, bases of departmental organization, coordination through hierarchy, deliberate coordination, coordination through committees, decentralization, unity of command, staff and line, delegation, and span of control.

What are the main criticisms of the classical theory of organization?

The classical theory of organization has been criticized for being too focused on structure and not taking into account the human element and behavior within organizations. It is also criticized for being atomistic, mechanistic, static, and rational, as well as for not providing clear guidance on which principles are preferable in specific circumstances. Moreover, some critics argue that the classical theory has a pro-management bias, focusing on management problems and not considering issues faced by other levels or workers within organizations.

What is the practical value of the classical theory of organization?

Despite its shortcomings, the classical theory has made significant contributions to the development of organizational theories. Some practical values include identifying organization and administration as distinct functions to be studied and practiced, introducing clear thinking about authority, responsibility, and delegation, emphasizing administration as a separate activity deserving intellectual investigation, and playing a role in rationalizing and stimulating production in industrial organizations. Additionally, the limitations of the classical theory have instigated further investigations into organizational behavior.