Explain and critically discuss the main tenets of the following Theoretical approaches in the field of public administration: (a) Classical/ Orthodox Public Administration approach, (b) Human Relations approach.
The study of public administration provides many paradigms on administration, yet the Classical Public Administration approach and Human Relations approach stand out due to their striking contrast. Understanding the tenets of approaches provide us with context for making decisions pertaining to the structure and management of the organizations. I will explain the tenants and their context followed by critically discuss their deficiencies.
Save your time!
We can take care of your essay
- Proper editing and formatting
- Free revision, title page, and bibliography
- Flexible prices and money-back guarantee
(a) Classical Public Administration stems from the “classical approaches of Weber and Taylor” (Rosenbloom, Kravchuk, & Clerkin, 2009, p. 178). Classical or often referred to as orthodoxy public administration holds maximizing efficiency, effectiveness, and economy, as its core tenants. Wilson is credited for identifying the need to study administration under the microscope of its own science and the departure from the study of politics. “The Study of Administration” (1887) When Wilson wrote, “Administration lies outside the proper sphere of politics. Administrative questions are not political questions. Although politics sets the tasks for administration it should not be suffered to manipulate its offices” advocating for a politics-administration dichotomy. The focus to maximize efficiency and effectiveness can also be seen in Max Weber’s “ideal type” of bureaucracy. Weber took look at administration with a big picture perspective on structure and organization. He theorized that the best form of organization is the “ideal type” of Bureaucracy and could be accomplished with Module 3 pg 3 Presentation specialization or division of labor and authority, hierarchy of authority to coordinate activities, Career structure based on merit and seniority, permanent and stable bureaucratic structures, and political neutrality. Notably, Weber also believed bureaucracy needed to be “impersonal and dehumanizing. This was considered by weber to be bureaucracy’s special virtue because it eliminated irrational emotional elements from the performance of the individual bureaucrats and the organization as a whole” (Rosenbloom, Kravchuk, & Clerkin, 2009, p. 152). Frederick Taylor built upon the “ideal type” to develop the theory of Scientific Management. Using a smaller perspective, he took a scientific approach to efficiency and tasks. Viewing people as cogs in a machine (initiated by Weber’s impersonal view) “Taylor embraced this transformation as a prerequisite for scientifically finding the most efficient way of accomplishing any given task” (Rosenbloom, Kravchuk, & Clerkin, 2009, p. 154). Taylor famously demonstrated Scientific Management in a study of bricklayers. He conducted time and motion studies on workers having to bend down to pick up bricks, restructured the task by adding a table to stage bricks at waist height resulting in a 300% increase in efficiency. Taylor suggested management should scientifically study and develop tasks to find the “one best way”, carefully select workers to appropriately perform tasks, motivate workers with pay for production, provide authority to management to redesign processes and workflow. If these four scientific principles were followed, he believed organizations would see an increase in productivity and efficiency. Luther Gulick is celebrated for codifying the principles of the classical approach and developing prescriptions for the accomplishment of the classical principles of economy, efficiency, and economy. Additionally identifying the work of executives “consisting of POSDCORB, an acronym that may well continue to describe the core curriculum of many public administration master’s degree programs: planning, organizing, staffing, directing, coordinating, reporting, and budgeting” (Rosenbloom, Kravchuk, & Clerkin, 2009, p. 178).
(b) Human Relations Approach is a response to the Classical approach and the dehumanizing consequences of its principles. “Proponents of the human relations approach work to develop ways of making organizations less socially and psychologically demeaning to employees. This approach accepts efficiency and productivity as legitimate values but seeks to maximize them by eliminating the dysfunctions” (Rosenbloom, Kravchuk, & Clerkin, 2009, p. 156). In Dr. Andrew’s presentation he lays out how proponents sought to accomplish this with three tenants to the Human relations approach. Module 5 Presentation Simon (1)Emphasizes to make organizations less socially and psychologically demeaning to employees, (2)Aims to eliminate organizational dysfunctions caused by over specialization, hierarchical, and dehumanization of employees, and (3)Suggests that good leadership will lead to greater motivation which subsequently will result in better productivity/ performance. Elton Mayo, Fritz Roethlisberger observed what is known as the Hawthorne Effect, from their studies at the Hawthorne Works of the Western Electric Company. Mayo and Roethlisberger conducted tests focused on understanding the environmental and physical impact on productivity. They discovered the increased productivity observed was caused by the attention given by means of the study. The study concluded that the workers were motivated by the increased attention. Essentially dealing a major blow to the Classical Approach, because it “was a radical departure from the Weberian and Taylorist traditions emphasizing dehumanization because it asserted that human factors are key contributors to organizational efficiency.” (Rosenbloom, Kravchuk, & Clerkin, 2009, p. 156). The Hawthorne Effect, supports the tenants of Human Relations Approach in that humane treatment and leadership can result in increased productivity and efficiency. As Herbert Simon wrote pg64“the individual is limited by his values and those conceptions of purpose which influence him in making his decisions.” Chester Barnard’s insight highlighted the argument for better leadership and human relations. “In Barnard’s view, there was a “zone of indifference” in which workers would follow the directives of management without question. But orders beyond this zone would be questioned and perhaps opposed, subverted, or circumvented. A key to effective management was to expand the zone of indifference” (Rosenbloom, Kravchuk, & Clerkin, 2009, p. 157).Barnard’s view recognized workers ability to refuse to participate in work and the Hawthorne studies observation that workers also influence each other and form “informal organizations”, reminding me of the proverb “one bad apple spoils the bunch!”
Criticisms
Simon pg63 content plays a greater role in the application of administrative principles than is allowed for in the formal administrative theory of the present time.
Simon pg64 A fundamental principle of administration, which follows almost immediately from the rational character of 'good' administration, is that among several alternatives involving the same expenditure that one should always be selected which leads to the greatest accomplishment of administrative objectives; and among several alternatives that lead to the same accomplishment that one should be selected which involves the least expendi- ture.
Simon pg 64 These limits include (a)limits on his ability to perform and (b) limits on his ability to make correct decisions.
Taylor’s scientific management has traditionally been vilified within public administration. Briefly discuss the major tenets of scientific management and its origins. Examine the criticisms against scientific management and explain how scientific management, if at all, is still relevant in public administration today.
Frederick Taylor’s scientific management has been a staple in our history and understanding of administration. Theorized during a time ripe for its conception, and complementary to other train of thoughts during the time. Counter theorists have greatly criticized scientific management, yet organizations around the world are still influenced by these principles. I will briefly discuss the origin scientific management and it’s tenants, followed by an examination of its criticisms and its relevance today.
In order to understand the origin of Taylor’s scientific management, we must acknowledge the historical context and paradigm created by Woodrow Wilson and Max Weber which would later be known as the classical or orthodox approach to public administration. Wilson and Weber set the stage for Taylor by initiating the acceptance for the scientific study of administration. Wilson stated “the science of administration is the latest fruit of that study of the science of politics.” Theorists of the time accepted the need for a politics-administration dichotomy, hierarchical organizational structures reliant on position classification, division of labor, and management legitimized by authority for the coordination and control of labor. Weber's idea of impersonal or dehumanizing treatment of workers was the key foundation for Taylor to build his theory upon. “Taylor embraced this transformation as a prerequisite for scientifically finding the most efficient way of accomplishing any given task” (Rosenbloom, Kravchuk, & Clerkin, 2009, p. 154). As Scientific management focused on maximizing efficiency by identifying the “one best way” to accomplish highly specialized tasks. “Frederick Taylor developed and advocated the premise that effective, efficient management, could be reduced to a set of scientific principles” (Rosenbloom, Kravchuk, & Clerkin, 2009, p. 16). The scientific principles included: Module 3 slide 6
Management should systematically study how tasks are performed using “time-and motion” studies –develop “one best way” of performing work.
Workers are carefully selected to perform specific task (physical, psychological).
Workers are motivated by money, i.e., piece-rate pay plan. Workers are paid based on how much is produced. Punishments (effective sanction) can also be used to increase productivity.
Work is re-divided (re-engineering) so that management can have more responsibility to design work processes and workflow (“science” of efficiency engineering).
Taylor’s scientific management gained traction, by demonstrating its principles in various time and motion studies. In these studies he would breakdown work into its most basic of tasks and study the movements and time requirements of each worker conducting these tasks. He then restructured or adjust the tasks further in order to increase productivity and efficiency.
Criticizers of Scientific management attacked scientific management’s legitimacy as scientific, prioritization of efficiency, and it’s dehumanizing nature. Herbert Simon in Proverbs of Administration (1946) explained how many of the propositions in scientific management were nothing more than proverbs. This meant that, because these propositions couldn’t be falsified and both sides could be argued as true, then they couldn’t be considered scientific. “Herbert Simon pg 53 proverbs of administration 1946 A scientific theory should tell what is true but also what is false.” After critical analysis of four administrative principles Simon writes: pg 62 “None of the four survived in very good shape, for in each case there was found, instead of an unequivocal principle, a set of two or more mutually incompatible principles apparently equally applicable to the administrative situation.” Dwight Waldo dealt a blow to scientific management's goal of maximizing efficiency. Explaining how public administration’s priorities do not align with the goal of efficiency like private businesses, instead it’s priority is providing service to the public. What I believe to be the largest upset to scientific management was the Hawthorne effect in which Elton Mayo, Fritz Roethlisberger’s study concluded that workers could be motivated by human relations and dehumanizing behavior isn’t necessary to increase productivity and effectiveness. The Hawthorne effect “was a radical departure from the Weberian and Taylorist traditions emphasizing dehumanization because it asserted that human factors are key contributors to organizational efficiency” (Rosenbloom, Kravchuk, & Clerkin, 2009, p. 156). The critical review of the scientific principles demonstrated the impact that human concerns have on administration and should also be studied more so than the narrow view of maximizing efficiency. As Simon also stated “pg65 the principles of administration must be concerned with the determinants of loyalty and morale, with leadership and initiative, and with the influences that determine where the individual's organizational loyalties will be attached.”
Today we still see the principles of scientific management utilized in practice in organizations across the world. Lessons have been learned about the dehumanization of the workforce, but the principles and “scientific approach” for evaluating and improving tasks has given way to the science of “process improvement.” The breaking down of work into its most basic tasks can also be seen in manufacturing and farming all over the world.
Some scholars have argued that leading public administration theorists have failed to provide an intellectual consensus about the field, which is necessary to move the field from a profession to a discipline. Briefly explain the arguments presented by Dwight Waldo and Herbert Simon about the field of Public Administration, i.e., fact versus value, science versus profession. On which side of the debate do you come down? Why? In other words, should the field of Public Administration strive to be art, science, or engineering?
Dwight Waldo and Herbert Simon sought to further the consensus of the direction the field of public administration should seek. Robert Behn uses these arguments and the principles of administration in order to ask the question: should Public Administration should be considered an art, science, or engineering? I argue that Public Administration falls within the realm of engineering, reasons of which I will expand on later.
Herbert Simon, broke down the scientific legitimacy of public administration. Claiming the principles are nothing more than proverbs. Essentially, infallible and untestable. Herbert Simon pg 53 proverbs of administration 1946 “It is not that the propositions expressed by the proverbs are insufficient; it is rather that they prove too much. A scientific theory should tell what is true but also what is false.” He continued to argue that these proverbs shouldn’t be treated as principles but “criteria for describing and diagnosing administrative situations” Simon pg 62 instead of using these proverbs as strict rules for decisions administrators should be using facts and values in making decisions of how to conduct public administration this is due to our failure to know all the facts. Administration is handicaped to truly become efficient and scientific do to our “limited” rationality when making decisions. Individuals are limited by three factors which affect public administration’s ability to make decisions. (Simon)
“the individual is limited by those skills, habits, and reflexes which are no longer in the realm of the conscious.”Simon 64
“the individual is limited by his values and those conceptions of purpose which influence him in making his decisions.”Simon 64
“the individual is limited by the extent of his knowledge of things relevant to his job. This applies both to the basic knowledge required in decision-mak- ing-a bridge designer must know the fun- damentals of mechanics-and to the in-formation that is required to make his decisions appropriate to the given situation.”Simon 65
What he describes by these factors of limited rationality becomes known as “bounded” rationality. Meaning our decisions are limited to our capacity or knowledge. Simon hoped to push public administration to become more scientific, but due to the limits of its principles and rationality he concludes “It may be objected that administration cannot aspire to be a 'science'; that by the nature of its subject it cannot be more than an 'art.' Whether true or false, this objection is irrelevant to the present discussion. The question of how 'exact' the principles of administration can be made is one that only experience can answer. But as to whether they should be logical or illogical there can be no debate. Even an 'art' cannot be founded on proverbs.” Simon 67
Dwight Waldo argues due to public administration’s duty to professional and political bureaucracies, and the decisions administrators must make without democratic process, exposes the inexistence of a politic-administration dichotomy. According to Waldo, public administration is “not the practice of a single discipline, but utilizes many. It is not united by a single theory, and is justified and given direction by a broad social purpose” (Andrew, 2019 Module 4). Therefore, supporting the idea that due to the broad nature and the importance of related “normative and empirical theories” (Andrew, 2019 Module 4) of public administration it should attempt to pursue professionalism. Waldo also argues that the scientific management values of efficiency and effectiveness are misaligned with public administrative values. The purpose of bureaucracy and public administration is to serve the public within its constitutional bounds. Module 3 slide 14 “Scientific management and efficiency is not the core idea of government bureaucracy; service to the public is.” Due to public administration being beholden to government, bureaucracy, and public service, “he suggested that public administration ought to be pursued from a 'professional perspective' Raadschelders 283.
I must agree with Robert Behn, the idea of public administration being solely rooted in science is romantic and appealing. As Behn 1996 pg 121 “all professionals, regardless of their fields, would like to declare that in their work they strictly employ the science of their professions. Indeed, many do make this claim. Yet, the analysis of the real work of any profession reveals a variety of decisions that can only be called judgments.” As Simon demonstrated our bounded rationality prevents us from being perfectly scientific, yet we shouldn’t be discouraged from scientifically evaluating and improving administrative processes. Additionally, we must also recognize the undemocratic decisions we impose on public administration as well as our duty to professional and public bureaucracies, as suggested by Waldo. Therefore, I've concluded that public administration cannot rely on being science or art alone, instead public administration requires expertise in both, as seen in engineering. Principles of public administration in practice cannot be blatantly executed without human sentiment. This sentiment is my basis that public administration falls within the realm of engineering. Behn pg 121 “Good public managers like good engineers have to be both scientists and artists. Effective public managers are both creative and analytical. They can be serious and methodical but also inventive and spontaneous. In our haste to make public management more scientific, we ought not to get rid of the art.”
Stuck on your essay?
