Uncategorized

The organization is made up of methods, materials and men. Therefore personnel administration is a core of organization management.

Importance of Human resource

Even classical thinkers Taylor realised human resource importance but they overemphasised structure and process – simplistically assumed that given the right incentive, technical training, hierarchical supervision, leadership, management and using principles of management would be sufficient. But Human relations schools offered insights into behavioural aspects and the power of informal organisations or groups i.e man responds both as an individual as well as part of a group. i.e individual motivation and collective or group dynamics.

Even though modern market-oriented philosophies (NPM, PC) tend to blame Bureaucracy for Public Sector inefficiency – yet they also acknowledge that ultimately he is the man who is the key to solving the problem and not just money or methods. Funds are valuable only when used by trained experienced and devoted Human resources. Committed Human resources can work even with minimal resources and compelling conditions (even without basic infra).

Human resource is a strategic differentiator among the organisation. The world public sector report treats Human resources as a key variable. In Africa and Latin America, the reports speak about lost decades (post-independence era) where the emphasis is on structural adjustment and transplanting institutions and less importance was given to Human resources – Knowledge, Skill and Attitude.

On the contrary, India could successfully emerge through the transition period since political leadership empowered civil services and they responded by demonstrating commitment and continuity with change. Even though the apex political leadership wanted to wind up ICS and start the Indian development service, deputy PM Patel was more pragmatic and realised the criticality of having civil service. The faith was proved right with Civil service playing an important role in the integration of princely states, they adapted, showed resilience and contributed to nation-building. Even in the current context where admin has become a shared space / multi-actor model civil service continues to be important as ever but in a different manner.

HDR – Human Development Report 2013 pointed out the importance of investing in Human resources leading to exponential returns and triggering a virtual cycle, there is growing consensus worldwide that public sector capacity building should be people-centric not just process-centric. Human resource is the 1st customer. Therefore motivated Human resource leads to a contingent/tipping point leadership/ripple effect. World Bank studies indicate a high correlation between the quality of governance, Human Development and Human resource management policies of the country. As demonstrated by Riggs, just by transplanting structure and functions objectives can’t be achieved. Governance deficit is a creation and a reflection of weak Human Resource management.

Importance of Human resource management

• Attract, train and retain the best talent
• Ensure ideal job fit – Right Person for the Right Job
• HRM + HRD established an organisational climate which enhances productivity, motivation, job satisfaction, promptness, and professionalism and stimulates every employee to achieve his full potential
• Synchronise self and organisational goals
• Achieve work-life balance
• Transform the organisation into learning entities – 360*, 365 days

Human Resource Development

• Sum total of KSA and organisational values of employees – Definition
• Acquisition of capabilities required to do present Job effectively and prepare for failure responsibilities. Therefore HRD helps in
  • Increased sharpen capabilities
  • Develop potential
  • Individual and organisation Potential
  • Organised learning experience
  • Team Work
  • Collaboration and synergy – employees take pride in the organisation and organisations take pride in their employees.
• At the individual level, HRD contributes to Role clarity, goal clarity, Job enrichment, interpersonal trust, confidence and competence
• At the group level – strengths are team behaviour, coordination, multi-disciplinary talent pooling, quality interactions, and symbiosis.
• At the organisational level – better productivity, Industrial relations and transformations.

The paradigm shift from conventional management and Human resource management

The genesis of Public administration as an academic discipline can be traced back to Wilson’s essay ” The study of Administration ” in 1887. Over the next 100-odd years it evolved through several paradigms based on the locus and focus. In an attempt to define its locus and focus it was linked, delinked, and relinked from its mother discipline of Political science and its parallel or alter ego or sister discipline of Management studies. In this process the meaning, scope, nature and significance of Public administration continuously ” evolved, changed and even shifted “ depending on the locus and focus of the subject. Therefore Public administration doesn’t have a unanimous definition or fixed boundaries (scope) or defined orientation (nature).

In this context, F.C.Moser Observed ” Perhaps it is best if Public Administration is not defined. It is more an area of interest rather than a discipline, more an emphasis rather than a separate science. It is necessarily cross-disciplinary. The overlapping and vague boundaries of public administration should be viewed as a resource rather than an irritant “.

Robert T. Golembiewski attempted to explain the evolution of public administration as an academic discipline through the terms ” locus and focus “. According to him, the locus is ” institutional where ” and the focus is ” specialized what “. He divided the period of evolution into 5 paradigms based on the association of public administration with the locus and focus.

• Paradigm 1 – Political Administration Dichotomy [1900 – 1926 ]
• Paradigm 2 – Era of principles of administration [ 1927 – 1937 ]
• Paradigm 3 – Public Administration as Political Science [ 1950 – 1970 ]
• Paradigm 4 – Public Administration as Management [ 1956 – 1970 ]
• Paradigm 5 – Public Administration as Public Administration [ 1970 …]

Nicholas Henry borrowed these five paradigms and came up with a more widely accepted sequence of paradigms based on the elaborate definition of locus and focus. They are

• Paradigm 1 – Political Administration Dichotomy [ 1887/1900 – 1926 ]
• Paradigm 2 – Era of principles of administration [ 1927 – 1937 ]
  • Sub-Paradigm 1 – Era of Challenges [ 1938 – 1950 ]
  • Sub-Paradigm 2 – Response to challenges [ 1950 – 1970 ]
• Paradigm 3 – Public Administration as Political Science [ 1950 – 1970 ]
• Paradigm 4 – Public Administration as Management [ 1956 – 1970 ]
• Paradigm 5 – Public Administration as Public Administration [ 1970 …]
• Paradigm 6 – Public Administration as Governance [ 1980 …]

Paradigm 1 – Political Administration Dichotomy [ 1887/1900 – 1926 ]

This era began when Woodrow Wilson’s seminal essay ” The study of Administration “ was published in political science quarterly in 1887. This essay laid the foundation for a systematic study of public administration. He highlighted the need to study Public administration as a separate discipline and the dichotomy of politics and administration.

He argued that administration and politics are separate. The field of administration is a field of business. It is removed from the hurry and strife of politics… Administration lies outside the proper sphere of politics. Administrative questions are not political questions and Politics is the special province of the statesman and administration that of technical officials.

This ” Wilsonian Dichotomy “ was reinforced and supported by Frank J. Goodnow when he published ” Politics and Administration “. In this context, Goodnow observed,” politics has to do with policies or expression of the will of the state while the administration has to do with the execution of those politics “.

In this era, Public administration received its academic legitimacy when Leonard D. White published his book ” An introduction to the study of Public Administration “. This book is considered the 1st textbook on the subject of Public Administration as a discipline. This book focused on two things

1. Politics administration dichotomy
2. There is a possibility of value-free science which can be found through scientific study of administration with an aim to improve efficiency and economy

Thus his book provided a smooth thematic transition between the Era of political administration dichotomy and the era of principles of administration.

Paradigm 2 – Era of principles of administration [ 1927 – 1937 ]

This era began when William Willoughby wrote the book ” Principles of Administration “ in 1927. This is the 2nd full-fledged textbook on the discipline of Public Administration after L. D. White’s ” An introduction to the study of administration “. This book focused on 4 things

1. Scientific principles of administration existed
2. They can be discovered
3. They can be learnt
4. They can impart efficiency to the administration

During this era, many other scholarly works were published with ‘ finding scientific principles ‘ in mind. They were

• Creative Experience by Mary Parker Follet
• Industrial and General Management by Henry Fayol
• Principles of Organisation by Mooney and Riley
• Papers of Science of Administration by Gullick and Urwick in 1937 marked the zenith or high-noon of this era

Henry Fayol came up with 5 principles of management – Planning, Organizing, Command, Coordination and Control and coined ” POCCC “.

Gullick borrowed and came up with a popular catchphrase ” POSDCoRB “ – Planning, Organization, Staffing, Directing, Coordinating, reporting, Budgeting in his book ” Notes on the theory of Organisation ” jointly edited by Urwick.

Later on, Urwick came up with a list of 29 administrative principles in his book ” Elements of Administration “. Therefore this paradigm was the golden years of ” principles and techniques ” in the evolution of Public Administration.

This paradigm also narrowly focused on the ” efficiency or administration ” part of public administration and ignored the ” public “ aspect of public administration. It was suggested let us take care of the efficiency of administration and public in public administration would be automatically taken care of. Therefore, this stage can be called the stage of orthodoxy.

It was argued, ” Principles are principles and administration is administration “. These principles were viewed as “ready-made aides “ and ” readily applicable tools “ for efficiency in administration. Therefore this era is also called as ” search for universal principles “. However, the idea of universal principles faced multiple challenges in the 1930s and 1940s along the following lines

• Humanistic Challenge
• Behaviourist Challenge
• Broad Basing Challenge

Sub-Paradigm 1 – Era of Challenges [ 1938 – 1950 ]

Humanistic Challenge

The human relation approach to the study of administration challenged the structural theory approach of administration after Hawthorne Experiment conducted by Elton Mayo at the Western electric company in Chicago. The conclusion of the experiment shook the foundation of classic theories and developed into the Human relation movement of the 1930s.

The human relations approach concluded relationship aspect of informal groups and human relations are more important to the efficiency of an organisation than the structural aspect of the organisation.

Behaviouralist Challenge

In 1938 Chester Barnard wrote the book ” The Functions of the executive “. Later on, the theme of this book was further extended by Herbert Simon in his book ” Administrative behaviour “ in 1947. These theories were called behavioural theories.

Behavioural thinkers Chester Barnard and Herbert Simon argued to give more importance to the behavioural aspect of human beings over the structural aspect of organisation for efficiency.

Further, Simon presented a devastating criticism of principles of administration as ” mere slogans, myths and proverbs “. He rejected the two foundations pillars of classical theories

• Politics-administration dichotomy
• Scientific principles of Administration focused solely on efficiency

In this context Simon argued ” Administration should be concerned with the development of pure science of administration ” ( with grounding on psychology ) and ” Administration should deal with a broad range of values and working out a prescription for the public “. Thus suggestions of Simon amounted to ” Swallowing up the whole discipline of Political Science “.

Broad Basing Challenge

Robert Dahl and Simon were of the view the universality aspect of principles would be a mistake unless broad-based experimentation is carried out to test their applicability across various situations.

Robert Dahl rejected the science of administration and sought to give a new dimension to the evolution of Public Administration in a broad-based manner in his essay ” The Science of Public Administration: Three problems “ in 1947. He raised three objections in the present study of Public Administration

1. Exclusion of normative consideration
   • In other words, he was against the exclusions of norms or values in administration i.e he was against the dichotomy
2. Science of administration without human elements like psychology, behavioural and human relations
   • In this context, he argued, “the inescapable fact that science of administration must be a study of certain aspects of human behaviour “. He criticized the machine model of classical theories and suggested ” Principles concerning process or structures for seeking efficiency can not be detached from humanistic or behavioural consideration and therefore administration must study the whole psychological man “
3. Conceptualization of ‘ Universal Principles ‘ from parochial experience
   • Referring to many Sciences of administration he remarked there may be a science of administration for America, German, and France but not a Science of Public Administration. For instance, Henry Fayol’s 14 principles may at best be the Science of French Administration. Therefore for the Universal principle of the science of administration, there needs to be an interdisciplinary approach to the study of public administration, Which was also suggested by Herbert Simon.
   • In this context he quoted ” The study of Public Administration inevitably must become a much more broadly based discipline, resting not on narrowly defined knowledge of techniques and processes, but rather extending to the varying historical, sociological, economic and other conditioning factors “

In this context, Ferrel Heady noted ” Robert Dahl’s priority was to work towards conceptualizing broad-based principles of administration and of administrative behaviour transcending national boundaries “.

As a result of these challenges, Public administration faced an identity crisis. Many questioned the strong management orientation as well as the dichotomy which were the dominant themes of paradigm 2 and paradigm 1 respectively. Therefore these two defining pillars were abandoned in the 1950s by scholars and merged Public Administration with either political science or management until Public administration emerged with its own identity as New Public Administration in the 1970s.

Sub-Paradigm 2 – Response to challenges [ 1947 – 1950 ]

Paradigm 3 – Public Administration as Political Science [ 1950 – 1970 ]

Paradigm 4 – Public Administration as Management [ 1956 – 1970 ]

Paradigm 5 – Public Administration as Public Administration [ 1970 …]

Paradigm 6 – Public Administration as Governance [ 1980 …]

Herbert A. Simon is an American economist, political scientist, sociologist and cognitive psychologist. He was awarded the Nobel prize in Economics in 1978  for his work on organizational decision-making. He was known for his interdisciplinary research across the fields of cognitive science, computer science, public administration, management, and political science. He was also a pioneer of modern-day Artificial Intelligence and Information system. He is best known for his research in decision-making within an organisation and the theories of bounded rationality and satisficing. He considered decision-making as the core of Administration. To him, the administration is nothing but decision-making.

Simon’s criticism of classical theories

Simon was inspired by

• Follett’s ideas on group dynamics in the organization,
• Mayo’s Human relations approach
• Bernard’s Functions of Executive (Simon mentioned Bernard’s name 37 times in his theory)

According to Simon classical theories as mere “proverbs, myths, slogans and pompous inanities “. Because he claimed that classical principles appear to be logical and nicely argued, but when applied in reality they are contradictory to each other. Therefore he remarked, ” When these principles of administration Confront evidence they fail. “

For example, he highlighted the contradiction between the following principles

1. Principle of Span of Control vs Principle of Communication
2. Unity of Command vs Division of work as per the principle of Specialization
   • He argued how can different aspects of a job be supervised by a single superior
3. Concept of Departmentalization based on the 4 P’s
   • Simon says purpose and process are hardly different
   • In fact, people and place can be a purpose in itself

Simon even went to the extent of criticizing classical theories as unscientific and based on rule-of-thumb. He argued anything to be science should be based on observation, empiricism, and inductive analysis rather than being based on casual approach experience and deductive analysis. Moreover, everything in science is provisional and permanently provisional.

Theories of Herbert Simon

• Decision-Making Theory
  • Facts and Value
  • Stages of Decision Making
  • Nature of Decision Making
  • Types of Decision Making
• Modes of Influence

Decision-Making Theory – Facts and Value

According to Simon, every decision (choice) has two components

• Facts
• Values

To explain facts and values he used the means-end paradigm. The factual component is the means and the value component is the end. This means-end process is a never-ending process. The means become the end when the goal is achieved, while the end becomes a means for a new goal and thus this means-end process is a never-ending process.

Simon was interested only in the factual component of decision-making while he avoided the value component of decision-making. He believed the ‘ Science of administration ‘ could be built only over the factual premise and not on the value or ethical premise of decision-making. So he remarked, ” An administrative science, like any science, is concerned purely with factual statements. There is no place for ethical statements in the study of science”.

So many argued his fact-value premise is very similar to the classical politics-administration dichotomy where the administration should only focus on facts or instrumental roles and not on the values or ethics or political questions which are part of politics. But Simon actually challenged dichotomy and observed ” Administration deal in a range of values “. Here the values mean broader philosophical values and constitutional values and not policy values.

Stages in decision making

According to Simon, decision-making is a 3 stage process

• Intelligence – gather intelligence on problematic situations that need a fresh decision or action
• Design – Create multiple alternate courses of action based on gathered intelligence
• Choice – choose the best course of action from among the multiple courses of action
• Feedback stage (was added later)

Nature of Decision making (bounded rationality)

He included the idea of rationality in decision-making. But he rejected the classical concept of absolute(total) rationality in decision-making. Instead, he proposed his concept of bounded rationality.

He argued that absolute rationality(only best) in decision-making is made under the following assumptions.

• The decision-makers know all the alternatives
• He knows the consequence of all the alternatives
• He has the ordered preference among all alternatives

For the above assumption to be a reality. He needs the following four things

• Access to Infinite data
• Capacity to process infinite data
• Capacity to generate all possible alternatives

But in reality, the data and capacity are limited by men, materials and money. Therefore absolute rationality is a myth and what is possible is bounded rationality.

Bounded Rationality

According to bounded rationality, decisions are taken with limitations. He explained bounded rationality with three models of decision-maker

• Economic Man
• Administrative Man
• Social Man

To be continued……..

Previous years Public Administration Questions and answers from Simon’s decision-making theory

2018 – “Herbert Simon’s book Administrative Behavior presents a synthesis of the classical and behavioural approaches to the study of Public Administration:’ Explain. (Administrative Behaviour

Herbert Simon presented his theory of ” bounded rationality “ and ” satisficing model “ in his book ” Administrative Behaviour “. As a behavioural scholar, he took the behavioural approach to achieve the classical goal of E³ – Efficiency, economy and effectiveness in administration. He said classical theories assume human being as ” economic man “ with ” absolute rationality “ takes ” the best “ decision but in reality, he is an “administrative man “ who is limited by information and cognition capacity to analyse the info and takes a decision that is ” good enough “ that is satisfactory(satisficing) in nature. Which he described as bounded rationality.

At the same time, he claimed this good enough decision can be made as good as ” the best ” decision by overcoming the shortcoming of information and analysis by providing the two things

• Information Management system (solves info problem)
• Information processing model and Artificial Intelligence (force multiplier to human cognition and analysis)

Although he criticized principles of administration as proverbs that occur in pairs. In the 2nd chapter of his book ” administrative behaviour,” he identified the problems in principles of administration and provided solutions to make it better. He said administrative efficiency can be increased by

1. Limiting the span of control
2. Specialization of the task group
3. Grouping of worker
4. Establishing members in a hierarchy of authority

Thus his theory of administrative behaviour presents the synthesis of the classical and behavioural approach to the study of Public Administration because he corrected the principles of administration in addition to his behavioural theory.

2013 – Decisions are not made by ” organizations “, but by ” human beings ” behaving as members of organizations. ” How do Bernard and Simon conceptualize the relations between the decisions of the individual employee and the organizational authority?

Simon is a behavioural scholar who rejected the machine and structural model of organisation theory in favour of human, behavioural and psychological aspect of organisation theory. Therefore he defined an organisation as a collection of human beings and not some mechanical construct and decision made by an organisation is nothing but human being behaving as members of the organisation. In classical theory, there was an artificial segregation between organisational authority and individual employees. Simon debunked it as the face behind the organisational authority is nothing but another individual employee.

Bernard introduced the idea of ” Inducement-Contribution “ net balance to align the decisions of the individual employee with the expectations of organisational authority. Simon took this idea to next level by prescribing organisations to be magnanimous and offer more than fair inducement for the given contribution. As for tipping, the scale of inducement-contribution net balance in favour of individual employees will bring them into the ” zone of acceptance ” (similar to Bernard’s zone of indifference). Only when the individual employee and the organisational authority are one the same page decisions of the organisation (read manager-level employee) can be in sync with the decisions of individual employees(esp lower-level employees).

2012 – ” Three features characterize Simon’s original view of bounded rationality: search for alternatives, satisficing and aspiration adaptation. ” Elucidate

Simon proposed that there are four stages in decision-making – Intelligence, design, choice and feedback. Which, the design is the stage where a search for an alternate course of action takes place. Because of certain limitations, these alternate courses of action will be satisficing in nature rather than the optimum and best course of action. He called these limitations bounded rationality.

BOUNDED RATIONALITY: Simon also gave the example of an administrative man(bounded rationality) who unlike an economic man will settle (satisficing) for a course of action that adapts to his aspiration. While an economic man(absolute rationality) settles only for the best course of action suitable for his aspiration. But in reality economic man doesn’t have access to infinite data and the capacity to process this infinite data and to come up with the best course of action. Such situations are hypothetical and are limited by cognitive impediments, external impediments and informational shortages.

2010 – ” Simon’s identifying decision – making as the core field of public administration appears logically acceptable but his positivist underpinning is problematic “. Critically examine the statement.

Simon claimed that there are two components in decision-making – value and fact. So he argued an administrative science or science of decision-making, like pure science, should be concerned only with the facts and not values. This is the positivist approach to creating a value-free science of administration.

Critics like Chris Argyris questioned his positivist approach to have the science of administration validated like pure science although sounds logical, is problematic because public administration always deals with values.

To put this criticism in correct perspective Simon actually challenged dichotomy and observed: ” Administrators must deal in a range of values “. Values here mean broader philosophical and constitutional values. So, in reality, the positivist underpinning is not problematic.

2006- ” Simon’s work has had major implications for the study of public administration and the practice of public administration professionals. ” Comment.

Implications of bounded rationality: In bounded-rationality, Simon proposed the rationality of decision is bounded by limitations like information, analysis and cognition. In legal-rational authority, Weber proposed the rationality of decision are limited by the legality of the decisions i.e rules and regulations that govern the decisions.

Value-Fact Premises: Simon’s quest for value-free administrative science not only gave the muscle and flesh but also the soul to Weber’s bureaucratic model. As Weber also wants his bureaucracy to deal with just the factual aspect of administration and not deal with the value aspect of administration which is a question of the political executive.

Stages of Decision Making: Simon proposed there are three and later four stages in decision making – Intelligence, Design, Choice and Feedback which is also the SOP of the bureaucratic decision-making process – Intelligence is the stage Bureaucrats identify areas of interest or that need government focus (e.g economy), the design is the stage they come up with alternatives(e.g capitalism, socialism, communism), the choice is the stage where political executives decide based on values enshrined in the constitution (e.g socialism) and feedback is the stage bureaucrats gives policy feedback(e.g 1991 economic reforms).

2001 – ” The ‘ decision-making scheme ‘ and ‘ satisfying model ‘ of Herbery A Simon is the major component of administrative theory. Comment

Simon is a behavioural scholar who in his book ” Administrative Behaviour “ wrote about the research he conducted on decision-making in organisations. In his attempt to come up with an administrative theory he claimed decision-making is the heart of administration theory and nothing else is more important than decision-making in an organisation. But unlike decision-making in classical theories where there is an assumption of absolute rationality, his decision-making scheme is based on ” bounded rationality ” i.e decisions are taken with limits in the three stages of decision making

• Intelligence – use of cognition and info in search for situations that need decisions
• Design – of alternate and various decision
• Choice – between various decision

He claimed that the limits are due to impediments to rationality because of info shortage or info overload and cognitive impediments to processing the info available. Therefore the decision-maker whom he called as ” administrative man “ resorts to a good enough satisfactory decision(satisficing model).

2000 – ” Administrative efficiency is enhanced by keeping at a minimum the number of organisational levels through which a matter must pass before it is acted upon ” – (Herbert A. Simon). Comment

Although Simon criticized principles of administration as proverbs that occur in pairs. In the 2nd chapter of his book ” administrative behaviour,” he identified the problems in principles of administration and provided solutions to make it better. One such solution is he said administrative efficiency can be increased by keeping at a minimum the number of organisational levels through which a matter must pass before it is acted upon will increase efficiency because

• Reduce red-tapism
• Because too many cooks spoil the broth i.e too many decision makers will spoil the decisions
• Reduces any potential loss in information(affects the quality of decision) when they are passed through many levels

According to him this can be achieved by delegation and keeping the chain of command short and in Modern day Management by exception, i.e get involved only when there is an exceptional need to involve else just delegate.

1999 – ” The basic question in the relationship between political and permanent executives is the separation of facts and values at the operational level.” Comment

Simon proposed that there are two components in decision-making. – Facts and Values. He aimed to create a science of administration on par with applied science like physics and chemistry. So he approached administration from a positivist perspective and wants the science of administration to be validated like applied science. So he proposed science of administration should focus only on the facts and not values. At the same time, he challenged dichotomy and observed: ” Administration must deal in a range of values “. By this, he meant values like broad constitutional values. But when it comes to operations or execution permanent executives should only focus on facts not the values like emotions, loyalty ..etc, which are the prerogative of political executives.

1995 – ” The study of decision-making is proceeding in so many directions that we can lose sight of the basic administrative process that Barnard and Simon were trying to describe and that so many men have been trying to improve.” Elucidate

To be compiled. please leave your best answer or any other best answer you came across to this question in the comment section. Thank you

1994 – ” As March and Simon point out, there seems to exist a ” Gresham’s Law ” of decision-making.” Explain

According to Gresham’s Law ” Bad money drives out good money “ in economics. When applied to Simon’s decision-making theory, March and Simon point out that ” Bad Info drives out good Info “ and therefore ” Bad analysis drives out good analysis “ and thus ” Bad decisions drive out good decisions “.

Therefor to avoid bad decisions good info is necessary, so Simon proposed an Information management system that filters out only good info from bad info. This good info is passed on to the next stage i.e Information processing systems like Artificial Intelligence which uses the computational power of modern supercomputers and simulation tests will give a “satisficing” result that is good enough.

1993 – ” Though somewhat unwittingly, Herbert Simon and James March have provided, the muscle and the flesh to the Weberian (bureaucratic) skeleton.” Comment.

Weber’s bureaucratic model aims to create a ” legal-rational authority “ which is very similar to ” Bounded-rationality “. In bounded-rationality, Simon proposed the rationality of decisions is bounded by limitations like information, analysis and cognition. In legal-rational authority, Weber proposed the rationality of decision are limited by the legality of the decisions i.e rules and regulations that govern the decisions.

Value-Fact Premises: Simon’s quest for value-free administrative science not only gave the muscle and flesh but also the soul to Weber’s bureaucratic model. As Weber also wants his bureaucracy to deal with just the factual aspect of administration and not deal with the value aspect of administration which is a question of the political executive.

Stages of Decision Making: Simon proposed there are three and later four stages in decision making – Intelligence, Design, Choice and Feedback which is also the SOP of the bureaucratic decision-making process – Intelligence is the stage Bureaucrats identify areas of interest or that need government focus (e.g economy), the design is the stage they come up with alternatives(e.g capitalism, socialism, communism), the choice is the stage where political executives decide based on values enshrined in the constitution (e.g socialism) and feedback is the stage bureaucrats gives policy feedback(e.g 1991 economic reforms).

1992 – Argue for and against Simon’s perspective that the ” decisional science envelopes decisional structure, decisions and their feedback not in an integrated manner but anything other than that. “

The study of decision-making has become a diverse and broad field, with many different theories, models, and perspectives being developed. This can make it difficult to understand the fundamental process of decision-making that Barnard and Simon were trying to describe. Barnard and Simon’s work focused on the administrative process of decision-making, which is the process by which organizations and individuals make decisions. They argued that decision-making is a complex process that involves multiple actors, competing goals, and limited resources. Many other scholars and practitioners have also been working to improve this process, by developing new models, tools, and techniques for making better decisions. However, with so many different approaches and perspectives, it can be challenging to understand the underlying principles and concepts that are common to all of these different approaches.

It’s important to remember that despite the diversity of perspectives, there are some basic concepts and principles that underlie all approaches to decision-making. These include understanding the decision-making process, recognizing the role of uncertainty and risk, identifying and evaluating alternatives, and assessing the consequences of different decisions. Additionally, it’s important to understand the context in which decisions are being made, including the goals, values, and constraints of the organization or individual making the decision.

Furthermore, understanding the different approaches to decision-making can be useful in different contexts. For example, some approaches are more appropriate for highly structured and predictable problems, while others are better suited to complex and uncertain problems. Some approaches are more effective for individual decision-making, while others are better for group decision-making.

In summary, while the field of decision-making is broad and diverse, it is important to keep in mind the basic administrative process that Barnard and Simon described and that many other scholars have been trying to improve. By understanding the basic concepts and principles of decision-making, and by being aware of the different approaches and perspectives that are available, we can make better decisions in a variety of contexts.

1988 – Discuss the Simonian concept of ” Satisfying ” as a bridge between rational and non-rational perspectives on organisation.

According to Simon Study of an organisation is nothing but the study of decisions taken by the organisation. According to classical theories, an Organisation takes a rational perspective while taking a decision because of the assumption that they have perfect information and they performed a perfect analysis of alternatives thus final choice from the existing alternatives is bound to be perfectly rational.

And there is another end of the spectrum where decisions are made based on thumb-rules or certain values like emotion and loyalty. At this end of the spectrum, the organisation take a completely non-rational decision, which he called the non-rational perspective.

But according to Simon, in reality, perfect information, analysis and cognition to zero down on a perfect decision is not available and therefore in reality organisations take a decision that is bounded by limited info, analysis and choice which he calls a ” satisfying ” decision in his ” bounded-rationality ” model. This bounded rationality model is a bridge between absolutely rational and non-rational organisations.

1987 – The first stage (in administrative decision-making) is what I call “Intelligence”, the second represents ” Design ” and the last stage is ” Choice “. Critically examine the Simonian Model of Rational Decision – Making in Administration.

According to Simon Study of an organisation is nothing but the study of decisions taken by the organisation. According to him, there are three stages to decision making

Stages of Decision Making: Simon proposed there are three and later four stages in decision making – Intelligence, Design, Choice and Feedback.

• Intelligence – gather intelligence on problematic situations that need a fresh decision or action
• Design – Create multiple alternate courses of action based on gathered intelligence
• Choice – choose the best course of action from among the multiple courses of action
• Feedback stage (was added later)

The above stages are also similar to the bureaucratic decision-making process

• Intelligence is the stage Bureaucrats identify areas of interest or that need government focus (e.g economy)
• the design is the stage they come up with alternatives(e.g capitalism, socialism, communism)
• the choice is the stage where political executives decide based on values enshrined in the constitution (e.g socialism)
• feedback is the stage in which bureaucrats give policy feedback(e.g 1991 economic reforms).

Frederick W. Taylor came up with Scientific Management principles in his book ” The principles of scientific management “ in 1911. These principles were widely applied across many organisations, and many scholars consider it a scientific management movement. Taylor was chief engineer at Midvale steel Company before he became General Manager of Manufacturing Investment Company. He started his career as an apprentice without any wage and progressed as a labourer, then as a chief engineer, and finally as a manager. This gave Taylor immense experience in the field of industrial engineering and management. He was thoroughly aware of all aspects of industries right from shop flower manufacturing to apex-level management with its intricacies, loopholes, shortcomings, and inefficiencies.

While he was working he was disturbed by the fact that organizations suffered from inefficiency, wastage, and low productivity. For all these shortcomings, he blamed the non-scientific, individualistic, ad-hoc management which he called ” rules of thumb “ instead of ” scientific management “ using scientific methods and principles.

So he came up with many ideas through his writings –

• A piece-rate system – 1895
• Shop management – 1903
• The art of cutting tool – 1906

Finally, he summed up all his efficiency techniques and research works in his book ” The principles of scientific Management “ in 1911. According to him, these principles are universal, replicable, sustainable, and standardized ( which he called ” one best way of doing each and everything in an organization” ). These principles were based on logic, inquiry, analysis, and scientifically discovered with an ultimate aim to improve efficiency, economy, effectiveness, and productivity to meet the demand of rapid industrialization.

Scientific Management Model

Scientific Management has 3 parts

1. Reason for inefficiency – Why organizations are inefficient? – Diagnosis
2. Principles of Scientific Management – What should an organization do? – Prescription
3. Techniques of Scientific Management – How to actually apply these principles? – Description

Taylor’s Scientific Management model is also considered a complete theory as he gave both ” prescription and description ” to management problems.

Reasons for Inefficiency

1. Initiative and Incentive-based Management
   • Earlier managers take all incentives or credit for any success and didn’t take any responsibility for failure instead, they passed on the responsibility to workers. But under scientific management whoever takes the initiative is rewarded with an incentive and also the responsibility is shared between workers and managers.
   • Also, workers don’t want to take any initiative to improve productivity because they didn’t have any incentive to improve productivity. Instead, any increase in productivity results in the layoff of unproductive or surplus workers
2. No Scientific principles in management but only ” Rules of Thumb “
   • Earlier Organisations are run by ” Rules of thumb “ based on ” trial and error ” with ” an individualist “ touch of managers.
   • They didn’t take any initiative to create ” scientific methods “ based on ” logic and reasoning “ that they could “institutionalize “ and pass it on to future managers as ” Institutional memory “ or ” Institutional Best Practice “.
3. Soldiering
   • Soldiering means deliberately restricted output. It can happen in two ways
     1. Non-deliberate – Natural Soldiering
        • Demand Side – Managers lack methods to enhance worker’s productivity
        • Supply Side – Workers lack the ability to increase output
     2. Deliberate – Systematic Soldiering or Second thought Reasoning
        • Company Side – No incentives given to workers for more production
        • Worker Side – Wages were based on no of days worked and any increase in productivity will make workers unemployed

Principles of Scientific Management

Principles of Scientific Management can also be called the thought/philosophy/prescription of Taylor. These principles are collectively called scientific management which prescribes ‘ what an organization should do ‘ to achieve efficiency, economy, and productivity. He wants to replace ” Rules of Thumb “ with ” scientific management “. He gave the following principles which are overlapping with one principle flowing from another.

1. Science, not Rule of Thumb
   1. An organization should find ” One best way of doing work or job ” using ” Time and Motion Study “.
   2. This body of knowledge needs to be discovered and standardized
2. Harmony, not discord – Can be achieved by an equal division of work and responsibility
   1. Harmony and peace between workers or unions and managers is a pre-condition for organizational property and productivity.
   2. He believed the discord is due to viewing wages (workers) and profits (organization) as contradictory goals.
   3. And also unfair and disproportionate sharing of
      1. Rewards of Industrial Productivity – ‘ yet no fair wage ‘
      2. Credit for success on managers and blame for failure on workers – ‘Win-lose solution ‘
   4. In this context, he observed ” The issue should be how to overgrow the size of the pie instead of struggling over sharing a stagnant pie “ to create a ” Win-Win Solution “
   5. By this, he argued by the maximization of wages should be as much as the goal of management as maximizing profits, i.e ” fair-days wage for fair day’s work “
   6. This can be achieved by increasing efficiency and genuine cost-saving instead of wage separation.
3. Cooperation, not individualism
   1. This idea flows from the 1st principle to develop science rather than the ” rule of thumb “.
   2. Management should not depend on a few indispensable individuals, instead, it should be teamwork done by the cooperation of specialists.
   3. So he recommended
      1. Separation of Planning and Execution – ( Vertical division of Work )
      2. Functional Foremanship – One boss for one function or work instead of traditional one boss for one worker – ( Horizontal division of work )
   4. Because of this vertical and horizontal separation, there needs to be cooperation and not individualism
4. Maximum Output, not restricted output using scientific recruitment, training, and wage incentives
   1. Restricted Output due to natural soldiering can be solved by scientific recruitment, training, and development of workers
   2. Restricted output due to systemic soldiering can be solved by ” a piece-rate system “, a system of wage incentives where wages depend on the productivity of workers rather than the days of work
5. Mental Revolution
   1. Many scholars regarded ” Mental revolution ” as a 5th principle even though Taylor only gave 4 principles.
   2. Mental revolution is the theme or philosophy behind Taylorism, without which scientific management doesn’t exist.
   3. Metal revolution is a combination of all principles of scientific management. Piecemeal implementation of scientific principles invites only trouble and discord not harmony and efficiency in the organization
   4. For example without scientific training workers’ productivity can’t be increased even if the piece rate system is employed natural soldiering will restrict the output.

Techniques of Scientific Management

1. Separation of Planning and Execution
   1. Vertical division of Work
   2. This concept later on transformed into line and staff separation and generalist-specialist separation in modern administration
   3. This technique also gave rise to modern-day management principles like Management by Exception. Where management will step in only in the exceptional case of significant deviation from planned outcomes
2. Functional Foreman-ship
   1. Horizontal division of work
   2. One foreman or boss for one function or work instead of traditional one boss for one worker – This principle actually violates ” unity of command ”
   3. Foreman is a supervisor, who stands in between managers and shop floor workers. Managers delegate the supervisor’s roles to the foreman (decentralization).
   4. There are 8 types of functional foremen divided into two categories
      1. Planning foreman
         1. Work and Route Clerk – Decides on every aspect of a job a cost, method, technique, sequence ..etc
         2. Instruction card Clerk – Puts this detail into the instruction card
         3. Time and cost clerk – Records the details of work
         4. Shop disciplinarian – Enforces norms and regulations
      2. Execution foreman
         1. Gang Boss – Gives instruction cards to workers and arranges equipment and assigns jobs
         2. Speed Boss – Ensures the job is done in time and demonstrates how to do them faster
         3. Inspector – Monitors the quality of production
         4. Repair Boss – Responsible for repair, operation, and maintenance [ O &M ]
   5. He also mentioned 9 qualities for good foremanship – education, special or technical knowledge, manual dexterity and strength, tact, energy, grit, honesty, judgment, and good health.
3. Standardization
   • Taylor recommended standardization of everything like
     1. Time Standardization
     2. Cost Standardization
     3. Working-condition Standardization
     4. Standardization of machines, tools, and equipment
     5. Standardized operative procedures
4. Scientific recruitment, placement, and training or Scientific personnel management
   • Taylor’s prescription is to find the ” right man for the right job “
   • Taylor wants the employer to develop the employees to their fullest potential.
5. Scientific Wage payment system
   • He rejected the prevailing time wage system for the absence of incentive for excellence and disincentive for mediocrity.
   • Instead, he proposed a ” differential piece wage system “ where an ‘ extraordinary wage ‘ is given to those who achieve the target and an ‘ ordinary wage ‘ for those who couldn’t achieve the target
   • In modern management studies, such carrot and stick policy is called auto goal congruence i.e the goals of the organisation and workers are in harmony because when the workers strive to achieve their goal, the organizational goal of higher profit is also achieved.
6. Work-Study – Soul of scientific management
   • He recommends four elements of work-study
     1. Time Study – least time
     2. Motion Study – least steps
     3. Fatigue Study – least energy
     4. Method Study – the best method based on the above three

He borrowed many of these techniques from his predecessors like Charles Babbage, Henry Metcalf, and Henry Towne. They were also pioneers in administrative theories who attempted to find principles to run organizations successfully. But it was only Taylor’s Scientific management theory that created momentum towards theory building in organizational management. Therefore he is called as Father of scientific management. But some scholars do question the merit of calling Taylor, Father of scientific management. Yet because of the nature of his principles and techniques, is also called as Father of Industrial Engineering.

Critical evaluation of Taylor’s theory

Despite Taylor’s theory gaining widespread acceptance and many of his ideas and principles being applicable even today, his model faced severe criticism in varies aspects. The critics can be categorized as

• Criticism by neo-classical thinkers
• Criticism by Modern thinkers
• Criticism by Workers and Labour Union
• Criticism by Managers

Criticism by Neo-classical thinkers

The underlining theme of all criticism against classical theories in general and Taylor’s theory in particular is ” it neglected the classical human side of the organisation “.

to be continued…

Thomas Woodrow Wilson was elected as the 28th president of the USA in 1913. He was a professor of political science and also an administrative scholar. He was elected as Governor of New Jersey before he became president.

He published an essay titled ” Study of Administration “ in political science quarterly in 1887. This essay laid the foundation for studying Public Administration systematically as a separate discipline separating it from Political Science. For this reason, he is considered as ” Father of Public Administration “. [ Frank J. Goodnow is called the ” Father of American Public Administration ” ].

In this context, Peter Self noted ” The study of Public Administration developed as an off-shoot of Political Science or Public Law and until recently administration as an academy subject was the very plane step-sister of these older disciplines ”

Prior to this essay, many attempted to study Public Administration like Kautilya’s Arthasasthra, Confucious’s Philosophy, Aristotle’s politics…etc were undertaken. For instance, Arthasasthra was written in 15 volumes and covers every aspect of administration and is no match to a couple of pages of Wilson’s Essay. Even contemporaries of Wilson like Dormon Eaton, Richard Ainley & Frank Goodnow, whose works were more significant than that of Wilson yet It is Wilson who is considered as Father of Public Administration. This is because it was not the ” content “ of the essay but the ” impact “ that it made in studying public administration as a separate discipline. In fact, later scholars agreed it was one of its undisputed contributions of Wilson.

In this context, Nicholas Henry has observed ” The most uncomplicated and unambiguous of Wilson is that he propounded the argument that Public Administration needs to be studied ”

Background

Woodrow Wilson was a professor of Political science when he wrote this essay. The essay was a response to the spoils system of administration practised in America. It is called spoils because the idea is similar to war spoils. When an elected President enters the Office he brings in his own bureaucrats and takes them back when he leaves. This political patronage created widespread corruption, nepotism, and maladministration. Therefore according to Wilson, the time has come to study Public administration as a separate subject.

So Wilson Observed, ” it is getting harder to run a constitution than to frame one “.

Vision of Wilson

Wilson’s Vision of Public Administration can be broadly classified as

• Introductory Idea
  1. Public Administration needs to be studied
• Thematic Idea
  1. Public Administration should be studied scientifically – Science of Administration
  2. Public Administration should be detached from politics – Dichotomy
  3. Public Administration should be less-unbusinesslike – which means more business-like
  4. Public Administration should be comparative – Comparative Public Administration

Public Administration needs to be studied

Political Society moved through three stages

• Period of Absolute Rule
• Period of the struggle for Constitutionalism
• Period of Popular Rule

From absolute Rule to Popular rule, the state transformed from a police state to a welfare state. Subjects to be ruled became citizens to be served. Political science which studies the philosophy of the state, the nature of the state, and the essence of sovereignty are no longer enough to deal with complex administration. Therefore Public administration needs to be studied as a separate discipline.

Public Administration needs to be studied scientifically – Science of Administration

By the science of Administration Wilson meant a systematic and disciplined body of knowledge that improves the efficiency of administration. The scientificness in the administration had two aspects

1. Scientific Administration based on science rather than public opinion
2. Scientific recruitment is based on merit instead of a spoiled system or patronage system.

According to him, the American administration is inefficient while the European administration is efficient because the American administration lacked science in it.

He argued ” public opinion “ is given more importance in America than government plans due to ” popular sovereignty “. He argued administration in a democracy is more difficult than in a monarchy because of the ” multitudinous monarch “. He also argued public opinion gave rise to a ” clumsy nuisance “. However, he was aware of the importance of public opinion. He said public opinion can function as a watchdog but not unnecessary interference.

He also advocated for ” moral intellectual reforms as the goal of civil service reforms “. i.e utilize merit-based recruitment to achieve a moral and intellectual sense of duty towards public efficiency.

Public administration should be detached from Politics – Politico – Administration Dichotomy

Wilson was one of the initial proponents of the dichotomy between politics and administration. In this context, he argued ” The field of administration is the field of business. It is removed from hurry and strife of politics “ because he believed administration becomes the casualty in political conflicts and wanted administration to play just an instrumental role in implementing policies with the efficiency of business organization.

In this context he made a popular observation ” Administration lies outside the sphere of politics, administrative questions are not political questions “. But he was aware of the complete inseparability of politics and administration is neither possible nor preferable. So in his essay, he quoted ” Administration can’t be divorced from its connections with branches of Public Law without being distorted and robbed of its true significance. Those permanent and deep principles of politics are its foundation “.

What he meant was politics and administration are strongly linked yet their focus is different. Public administration has an active part in achieving liberty, equality, justice …etc which are the foundational principles of political science. Complete divorce will make public administration foundationless or baseless. So administration should be kept away from political interference and political patronage, at the same time administration should not lose sight of the values of political theory. In this context, he observed ” Bureaucracy can exist only where the whole service of the state is removed from the common political life of the people, its chiefs as well as its rank and file. Its motives, its objects, its policy, its standards must be bureaucratic “.

So F.W. Riggs commented ” For Wilson not only politics and administration are closely intertwined but administrative actions are hardly conceivable in any sense except that they are the implementation of political parties. Thus Wilson was under no illusion that administrative development to take place in a political vacuum “.

Public administration should be less unbusinesslike

Wilson wanted Public administration should be ” less unbusinesslike “ i.e more business-like qualities of economy, efficiency, and effectiveness should be the concerns of Public Administration.

In this context, he argued, ” administration is business and like a business does not involve itself in the question of politics “.

However, he clarified ” Administration is not business, it is organic life ” meaning the fundamental concern of public and private administration is different. By organic life, he meant public administration has

• Diverse goal
• Dynamic goal
• Humane goal

While in the case of private administration, they have a

• homogeneous goal
• static goal and
• the commercial goal of profit maximization.

Public Administration should be comparative – Comparative Public Administration

Wilson is also considered the founder of comparative public administration as he was the 1st one to emphasize on a comparative study of administration. Later on, comparative public administration became a distinct sub-field of Public Administration in the 1950s and 1960s.

He noted, ” Administration is the most suitable field for comparative learning “. By comparative study, we can know our strengths and weakness vis-a-vis others. Many commentators criticized the comparative study as imitation and administration of other countries are contextual and socio-economic culture-specific and may not be applicable to America.

In this context, he quoted ” Administration stands on the different basis on democracies and other states. Lessons learned from the other countries would have to be filtered through the cultural lens of the borrower “. That is just copying good features leaving bad features of a foreign administration.

Therefore he remarked ” If I see murderous fellow sharpening the knife cleverly, I can borrow his way of sharpening the knife without borrowing his probable intention of committing murder with it ”

Critical Appraisal of Wilson

Wilson’s essay ” The Study of Administration ” in 1887 created significant interest among scholars to study public administration as a separate discipline on scientific lines. Many theories were developed along the lines suggested by Wilson directly or indirectly. However, his essay faced certain criticism on the following lines

• His ideas were naive, elementary and unrefined
• Inconsistency in his ideas
• Vacillating stand or ambivalent about his ideas
• Not to be regarded as the Father of Administration

Naive, elementary and Unrefined Ideas

Richard Stillman a prominent critic of Wilson critiqued that Wilson’s idea was naive and in-cognizable. His essays raised more questions than provided answers and couldn’t amplify on what the study of public administration should entail. For example

• Wilson prescribed administration should be business-like but didn’t elaborate on how to make it business-like.
  • But In Wilson’s defence, later thinkers like Taylor, Gullick, and Urwik gave scientific principles and methods to make Public Administration business-like.

• Wilson’s public opinion should be a watchdog and not allowed to be an administrative nuisance. But how to achieve this is left unsaid.
  • But in Wilson’s defence, it can be said the essay suggested certain essential ideas of Public Administration. Later thinkers came up with more details on specific dimensions. At times, he himself suggested things like scientific recruitment and technical training for public servants to make it merit-based

Moreover, it is unfair to claim he didn’t give any in-depth suggestions. He even recommended a comparative study to make administration more efficient. Like any initial theory of a discipline, his ideas were simple yet precise and practical and not naive or elementary or unrefined.

Inconsistency in Ideas or Lack of focus

Wilson’s essay was criticized because he didn’t have any coherent, consistent plan or idea instead he was moving from one suggestion to another.

Dwight Waldo argued ” In the opening paragraph of essay Wilson says that the objective of the study is to discuss what the government can properly and successfully do and how, But the essay is largely devoted to separability of politics and administration and this is a serious inconsistency “

Richard Stillman also observed ” After the study of Wilson’s essay the reader remains uncertain about his actual substance as Wilson likens administration to business methods, emphasized on instituting civil service reforms, fixing responsibility on the public for the problems of disturbing constitutional authority; this is indeed exasperating for the readers “

In defence of Wilson, we can argue that his core vision is to improve public administration and despite seemingly heterogeneous suggestions, actually, all the suggestions he made are interrelated with the aim to improve administration. The excessive focus on dichotomy was because, at that point in time, the administration suffered from excessive political interference.

On the multiplicity and vagueness of his ideas, he himself noted ” The study of administration is too broad, too general and too vague ”

Ambivalence or Vacillating Stand

One of the strongest points of criticism is his vacillating stand on his suggestions and ideas. His essay was critiqued as full of ideas that are mutually contradictory.

• He criticized public administration as a clumsy nuisance but later he calls it a beneficial and indispensable mechanism of scrutiny of administrative action.
• Similarly, he calls administration a business but later he argued that administration is not business, it is organic life.
• He emphasized the need for administration politics dichotomy but later he said complete divorce is not possible

But on careful analysis, his ideas were not mutually contradictory instead it was a case of ” thoroughness of ideas “. He completely analysed every suggestion he made from all possible perspectives. He gave to pros and cons of every suggestion he made so as to help future thinkers and administrators to weigh their options and strike a balance as per requirements.

Not to be regarded as the father of administration

Although Wilson is widely regarded as the father of public administration, few scholars disagree and argue that his contributions were not enough to be called the father of public administration

In this regard, Paul Van Riper observed that ” Wilson’s essay has no influence on evolution on the study of public administration in the USA and its main focus was only political and administration dichotomy “ he further argued ” Almost Wilson was only one of the founders of administration in America, the difficulty with equal or greater recognition of these scholars lies in the fact that none of them went to become president of USA “

In support of this argument, France recognized the importance of administration even before America. As early as 1812 Charles Jean Bonin published ” Principles d’ Administration Publique ” (Principles of Public Administration). As a systematic study, Viven published two volumes ‘ Etides Administration ‘ (Administrative Studies) in 1859.

But in defence of Wilson, it is true some of Wilson’s contemporaries like Dormon Eaton, Richard Ainley, and Frank Goodnow whose work was significant but none of them gave a comprehensive focus to studying public administration as a dedicated field of knowledge. Their contributions were relatively disjointed and issue-specific. Whereas it was Wilson’s essay that created interest among scholars and momentum towards the study and analysis of public administration as a separate discipline.

Just like the meaning and scope of Public Administration different schools of thought attempted to define the nature of Public Administration. Just like the meaning and scope, the nature of public administration is also not well defined. But nature can be understood through different schools of thought just like the meaning and scope.

1. Narrow and Broad Views
2. Managerial and Integral Views
3. POSDCoRB and Substantive Views
4. Discretionist and Instrumental Views
5. Public Administration as an art and science
6. Public Administration as a discipline and profession
7. Public Administration as a political science
8. Public Administration as a social science
9. Philosophy of Public Administration
10. Public Administration and Private Administration

The narrow and broad views, managerial and integral views and POSDCoRB and Substantive Views are the same as the ones discussed in the meaning and scope of Public Administration.

Discretionist and Instrumental Views

Michael C. Spicer distinguished public administrationist and administrator. He further grouped these two into two different groups.

The discretionist view is widely accepted these days as the nature of modern bureaucracy.

Public Administration as an art as well as a science

Public Administration needs certain skills for the efficient management of state affairs. These skills vary across the countries (USA vs India), region (TN vs J&K), and even among different departments (Defence vs HRD) of a government. Therefore Public administration is an art.

Public administration is a science because it has certain standardized procedures and scientific principles that are applied for the efficient management of state affairs. More importantly, many thinkers claim these principles were derived after rigorous scientific analysis are applicable universally and provide consistent results across the board, a necessary feature to consider Public Administration as science. One such example is Taylor’s Scientific management principles which produced consistent efficiency improvement across countries wherever it was applied.

But from the Positivist school of thought, Public administration cannot be considered science as they don’t follow the standards and rigour of testing applicable to physical science while conceptualizing a theory. Also, the Public Administration principles are not absolute truth and don’t have the universality of physical science ( like physics thermodynamics ).

But Max Weber defended Public Administration as a science because he believed physical science studies objective things objectively while social science studies both objective things and subjective things objectively. Therefore it is both art and science.

The debate was finally settled by the arguments of Karl Popper. He remarked all knowledge is provisional, temporary and capable of refutation at any moment. This has also been voiced by the Royal Society of Science. No principle in the world is final including findings of physical science. All principles are constrained by time, and the accuracy and universality are limited by the tools and techniques used at that time. Theories and principles of Physical science hold good for a longer period of time and are applicable more Universally than social science due to the advanced nature of tools and techniques used for investigation. Thus Public administration is a science in its own right.

Public administration as a discipline as well as a profession

Public Administration as a discipline

A subject is considered a discipline if it contains two elements

1. Corpus of Knowledge
2. This knowledge is being imparted through institutions

Going by these above criteria Public administration is a discipline. Yet some scholars disagree in this regard(more on that later).

Genesis of Public Administration as a discipline

Public administration as a discipline or systematic study started by cameralists ( German and Austrian Professors of Science of Administration ) in Europe during the 17th & 18th centuries. They used to advise kings and bureaucracy on administration. They undertook organized research on the science of Public Administration. They prepared potential candidates for government services. They remained relevant only until the 20^th century because the emphasis on Public Administration shifted to jurisprudence or Law.

Public Administration is an activity as old as a society or the state. Even Pubic Administration as the focus of study (not systematic study like discipline ) is as old as civilization itself. However, as an organized discipline, Public Administration is of recent origin with just 100 odd years of history. According to Woodrow Wilson, this late origin is because Governments all over the world broadly evolved in three stages

1. Absolute Rule or Autocracy
2. Popular Struggle for Constitutionalism
3. Popular Rule or Democracy

With democracy, the need for efficient administration arose. Therefore Woodrow Wilson wrote an Essay ” Study of Administration ” in 1887. This Essay became the genesis for Public Administration as an organized discipline.

In 1900 Frank Goodnow in his work ‘Politics and Administration’, took the dichotomous viewpoint of separating Politics from Administration.

In 1926 L.D White published ” Introduction to the study of public administration “ studying various principles of public administration and promoting further development of public administration in the U.S. A. White defined public administration as ” consisting of all those operations having for their purpose the fulfilment or enforcement of public policy “. He took the narrow view of limiting the study of public administration towards the executive branch. Other scholars like Luther Gullick and Herbert Simon supported his viewpoint.

By 1939 American society for public administration was formed with its quarterly journal, the Public Administration Review.

By 1945 World War II ended followed by a wave of decolonization and the need for the development of administrative systems suited to these colonies. So scholars like F.W. Riggs, Ferrel Heady, and Gabriel A. Almond started comparative public Administration and Development Administration expanding the scope of public administration. Finally, the modern view of public administration is that of government in action.

Critiques of Public Administration as a discipline

Over the years, public administration has developed various theories, principles, methods, tools, and techniques. But most of the principles were borrowed from the sister discipline of management science and the mother discipline of political science. The theories and principles are by-products of administration in private firms. The vocabulary was also borrowed from every other discipline. It was considered as an offshoot of Political Science and Public Law with a significant correlation with the study of Management.

So scholars believed Public administration doesn’t have an exclusive body of knowledge of its own. Caiden observed that Public administration is an underdeveloped discipline and suffers from a lack of approach, methods and principles…etc. In fact, there are theories in Public Administration but there are no general theories of Public Administration.

But in the defence of the above criticism many scholars argued – Every discipline is multidisciplinary i.e every disciple borrows from and donates ideas to other disciplines. Public administration like many other disciplines borrowed ideas from many disciplines but it has a core i.e government in action.

So, Frederickson and Dwight Waldo observed ” The polyglot nature is not restricted to Public Administration. It is the characteristic of all disciplines. Public administration despite its polyglot nature has a staple core – government in action – and derives its identity from its staple core. The periphery of Public Administration may vacillate but the core provides the stability “

Dwight Waldo even remarked that Public Administration is enriched because of its polyglot nature. In due course, Public administration accumulated a corpus of knowledge and many Universities around the world started to impart public administration.

Scope of Public Administration as Discipline

The scope of Public Administration as a Discipline can understand the following 5 dimensions

1. Study of action part of the government – a.k.a Narrow view
   1. Structure
   2. Process – a.k.a Process View
   3. Behaviour
   4. Ecology
2. Study of all organs of the government – legislative, executive, and Judiciary and their interdependence – a.k.a Broad View
3. Study of the core function of an organization – a.k.a Subject matter view
4. Study of the managerial function of Public Administration – a.k.a Managerial View
5. Study of all functions of Public Administration in addition to managerial function – a.k.a Integral View

Public Administration as a profession and activity

A discipline may be regarded as a profession if it has the following elements

1. Corpus of Knowledge
   • This condition is satisfied
2. Prolonged Training and education
   • This condition is also partially satisfied as many generalist administrators are trained in public policy and public administration before induction into service. e.g – LBSNAA for IAS
   • This condition is partially satisfied because a degree in Public Administration is not mandatory for a public administrator in India though, in some countries like Nigeria, and France, it is mandatory for certain posts like welfare officers.
   • PC Hota Committee had recommended teaching Public Administration to civil servants.
3. Social Responsibility
   • From discretionist view, Public administrators exist for the purpose of welfare, a key feature of social responsibility.
   • The instrumental view of Public Administrators as an instrument of the political executives is a minority and not widely accepted. So the condition of social responsibility is satisfied.
4. Code of Conduct
   • Public administration is devoid of a code of conduct because of the lack of a parent body that prescribes and enforces such a code of conduct. So this condition is not satisfied
5. A parent body or an association
   • Public administration also lacks a parent body or association. Therefore this condition is also not satisfied.

Therefore Public administration is not a full-fledged profession from an academic point of view. It is profession-in-making. Yet, Public Administration as an activity existed since time immemorial.

• The efforts taken by the government or Condition to satisfy something as public activities are classified under three heads
  • Activities that impact public
  • Activities performed out of the public exchequer
  • Activities performed to achieve public goals

• Public administration is an activity as old as the concept of state and civilization
  1. Kautilya’s Arthasasthra treatise on Public Administration mentioned about Mauryan administration
  2. Ramayana & Mahabharatha had observations on Public Administration
  3. Aristotle’s Politics had observation of the style of the Greek administration
  4. Machiavelli’s The Prince mentions the conduct of public servants
  5. Sumerian Priests of Mesopotamia(Iraq) practised Public Administration as early as 5000BC to 2000BC
  6. Egyptian followed Sumerian and showed their administration skills in Pyramid Construction
  7. China has had civil service since 206 BC and recruited civil servants through examination since 605 AD
  8. Prussia(Germany) was the 1st country to organize civil service on the basis of merit.
  9. Ain-e-Akbari is a collection of administrative reports of the Mughal Empire during Akbar’s rule written by Abul Fazal

Public Administration as a Political Science as well as Management Science

Between the 1950s and 1970s Public Administration faced an identity crisis and was linked, de-linked and re-linked with either with its mother discipline of Political Science or sister discipline or parallel discipline of Management Studies.

Public Administration as political science

Political science deals with the study of the state which can also include ” State in action “. Therefore many scholars considered Public Administration a subset of Political Science. So Frederick C. Mosher observed Public Administration at best is an area of emphasis or interest within Political Science.

But supporters of Public Administration claimed Political Science theory deals with philosophical aspects of the state. Therefore the study of political science is not enough to deal with the action part of the state. The action part of the state can only be dealt with efficiently by Public Administration. Thereby Political science can’t claim ownership of Public Administration.

Public administration as Management studies

Principles like POSDCoRB were originally developed for Management studies and later repurposed by Public Administration. Therefore Public Administration doesn’t have an identity on its own.

But the scholars of Public Administration claimed, it is true management tools were borrowed from Management studies, but the purpose of these tools is to deliver government goods and services efficiently, achieve good governance and achieve societal equity, while in Management science it is used for maximizing profits only.

Public Administration as a social science

Social science is the scientific study of society and social relationships. Public Administration deals with the action part of the government. The action part of government affects certain aspects of society and social relationships. Thus Public Administration is a part of social science. Because of the government in action is ever-changing, the principles of Public Administration are also evolving. Therefore it is also called a progressive science.

Philosophy of Public Administration

Philosophy of Public Administration is not given its due diligence. The study of the philosophical part of Public Administration is also limited. Graham Wallace observed that in the era of great society, the role of Public Administration is to attempt a good society and to obstruct the coming up of an evil society. The great society refers to contemporary societies that are economically successful. Good society refers to a society that has justice, equality, liberty, peace.. etc. Evil society refers to a society where there is disharmony, violence, exploitation, illiteracy, malnutrition etc. Other scholars like Leonard D. White, Chester Barnard and Donham also came up with the philosophy of Public Administration. But Graham Wallace aptly described the philosophy of Public Administration.